Author Topic: Which varmint scope?? (Read 882 times)

goose7856 · « **on:** September 12, 2004, 07:19:58 AM »

I am about to buy a .22lr, and want to make it redicously accurate.......its going to be a CZ, just not sure which model..........I think i want to get a high variable scope.........probably no more than 6x on the low end and as high as possible on the high end........i am thinking most likely any scope that is 6x-?? would be about 6x-24x. But maybe there are other options i have over looked...........i like the look of the Eraticator made by Mueller, but the 8.5x is too much (on the low end).

I like the Swift 6-24x50, but the 50mm lens is really unnecessary (unless the high mag scope are only made with 50mm lens??)

I really don't know that much about the high mag scope, but the scope will mostly be for hunting out of my deer stand........so i will have a steady rest, and shots could be a little farther than a lower power scope would be good for (IMO). I would really like to make head shots on squirrels, rabbits, ARMADILLOS (THEY ARE VERY AGGRIVATING WHILE SITTING IN THE DEERSTAND), raccons, oposseums, and anything else. (mainly squirrels and rabbits).

So which scope wousld be the best?? I would really like to stay under $200, probably around $150........maybe a Simmons or Tasco?? If i spend $300 on the gun, I don't want the scope to inhibit the guns performance.........so what do yall think??

7magWoodsman · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2004, 10:32:09 AM »

You are wanting a scope for a 22lr to use for small game, but you are looking at a scopes more suitable for a 22-250 prairie dog slayer or a 1000 yard counter-sniping rifle....Why?

I am not trying to convince you but I killed sacks full of tree rats with a .22 before you were even born, and the ones I didn't kill with open sights I did with a 4x...currently my squirrel rifle wears a 2x-7x 32mm Nikon but more often than not I take my Ruger M.K.II Pistol with a 4 3/4" barrel when I feel like eating a few tree rats.

If I was you I would get a 4x 32mm, 2x-7x 32mm or 3x-9x 40mm Nikon Pro Staff.

I see you live in Louisiana, I have an Aunt in Morgan City and a few cousins outside of Baton Rouge, and another in New Orleans.

Stay Safe.

goose7856 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2004, 11:06:24 AM »

yep Baton Rouge........GO TIGERS (I HOPE WE HAVE A GOOD YEAR AFTER THE CHAMPIONSHIP!! :? )

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2004, 06:22:10 PM »

Aaaargh, will you PLEASE cancel your subscriptions to those magazines. They are ruinging your head.

No scope is gonna make your .22LR rifle more accurate. That's inherent in the rifle barrel and the way it's bedded. How well you can make it shoot depends more on the ammo it likes and how quickly you find its preference.

Unless you're gonna use it ONLY on paper forget such scopes. A good 3-9 with an AO will make the most of all the accuracy it has in it. My Remington 541-T wears a really old Leupold Compact 3-9AO with extended focus range scope. I've shot plenty of sub inch 100 yard 5 shot groups with it. Half inch at 50 yards is no big chore. Six power is plenty to do that.

Don't make the assumption that more scope magnification equals smaller groups. Just ain't so. It's the person pulling that trigger that makes the small groups.

Back in '93 I was doing some playing around at a friend's place with some TC handguns. In one day I shot a 250 yard three shot group of 1.51" using a 14" 7-30 barrel and a Leupold 2X scope. Divide that group size by five and tell me what it could have been at 50 yards with a 2X. Same day I fired half dozen or more MOA groups or less at that 250 yard distance. It isn't the power of the scope, it's the man behind the trigger.

7magWoodsman · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2004, 07:40:37 PM »

Quote from: Graybeard

No scope is gonna make your .22LR rifle more accurate. It isn't the power of the scope, it's the man behind the trigger.

So True.

BruceP · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:23:12 PM »

I'll have to agree with Graybeard also. I have shot more groups than I remember in the .30" to .50" range at 50 yards with the fixed 4X Leupold I used to have on my 541. I also tried some cheaper scopes in the 3x12-4X16 range hoping for smaller groups at the bench. (Several years ago, before I knew better) It just didn't happen. I did end up with a Weaver 2X7 rimfire scope that I get groups just as good as the 4X but no better.
BruceP

coyote 2 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 14, 2004, 06:41:07 AM »

I also have to agree with Graybeard. Scopes do not make a shooter - the person behind the weapon and the weapon being overhauled to the point of being ridiculous. I have KT 15 and have changed everything except the action. Its a shooter at 50 yards. But the scope did nothing until I made all the rest of the changes. I agree if your going to leave the weapon stock - stick with a 4 power scope. That is about the best you can do.
Good luck!

Lolly · « **Reply #7 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:55:14 PM »

I have an Anschutz 1710 D Monte Carlo - nice rifle! I agonized over scopes for a while to suit my needs and I finally settles on the Bushnell Ellite 4200 4-16x. This scope is more suitable for longer range shooting than what the 22LR is designed for. However my reasons are as follows:

1. Most of my short range shooting is in very low light so I needed a exit pupil of at least 5 around an 8x magnification and this does it.

2. I do not like "seeing" the barrel at magnifications less than about 3.5, so a min of 4X was ok for me. Having a 16x max is not an issue since I dont have to use it. I typically shoot the small game betwen 5 and 8x anyway.

3. I needed an AO down to 10 yards and this scope holds these parallax errors the best in this price range-tried lots of other scopes that claim to do this and I did not like them one bit

4. Light transmission (at least 95%) and resolution is great, also has least peripheral distortion. My other scopes are Nikon and Lightforce and even though it does not touch the Lightforce, it is on a par with Nikon that I really like and is has better resolution.

5. Pricewise under $400 it was my answer.

I would have preferred a 3.5-10, but I could not find one in this price range that included ALL of the above...So just because the upper magnification is on the high end does not mean it is wasted. Ther are times when taking the shot at the gopher popping it's head out of the hole for a second 100 yards away at 16x helps me center on the target rapidly.

There are few other reasons that were not that critical for me. The only bothersome isssue was insufficient vertical reticle travel so I used Bushnell's off centered ring inserts which solved that issue.

It's a nice combo.

Lolly

quickdtoo · « **Reply #8 on:** September 14, 2004, 03:04:41 PM »

Quote from: Lolly

The only bothersome isssue was insufficient vertical reticle travel so I used Bushnell's off centered ring inserts which solved that issue.
Lolly

You mean Burris Signature offset inserts, don't you? I wasn't aware that Bushnell made rings. Nice choice in scope, btw, it's one of my favorites! www.theopticzone.com has it for $329, best price I've found.

Lolly · « **Reply #9 on:** September 14, 2004, 04:58:59 PM »

Quickdtoo

You are absolutely correct - It's the Burris Signiture offset inserts and their rings. My mistake...I have been looking at too many scopes.

Love Burris rings, love Bushnells Elite 4200 when I don't feel like blowing too much cash..

goose7856 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 14, 2004, 05:06:00 PM »

Finally a person that will agree with some mid-hihg powered scope for a .22 (or deer rifle, even though u didnt state that)!!! :lol:

I just like the hihg power b/c you have the OPTION to zoom higher, even though it is mostly kept on lower powers, so why does it really matter??

Lolly · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2004, 06:24:58 AM »

There is nothing disadvantageous about having TOO MUCH POWER. It's all a matter of magnification management. Of course, provided the magnificaion RANGE and end points do not impact the optical quality or any other specification that would be detrimental to the shooter or rifle's specific needs. Eg. optics aside, higher magnifications and ranges with larger objective diameters tend be heavier and larger scopes. You do not want to upset balance, weight, bulk etc of the combo - or maybe these issues don't matter anyway. Or, it may be unwise to have a min mag of 4X while hunting dangerous criters in Africa. All you will see here is teeth, smell really bad breath and you will know it was the wrong scope before it's all over.

My Lightforce 5.5-22x with a 56mm objective is one fine scope on my 300 win mag My grouping is under 6 inch diam at 960m (which is NOT a function of the scope, by the way) and I use it for target precision shooting only-the weight would be a serious issue if it's used for foot slogging style hunting. The whole shebang weighs in at 14+ pounds. This scope would not be the best choice for a .22LR despite the unbelievable optics. Although if your 22 jams, you could rapidly detach and use the scope to bash the critter since it weighs about 4lbs and can be used as a hammer.

One last point about the Elite 4200 4-16 : I set up a target at 8 yards, cranked the magnification to 16X and used the AO to PERFECTLY focus the target and reticle. Still as bright as ever. I then moved my head laterally to check parallax error and there was none. This was the WORST case- Retested at further distances and everything just got better. Not too many $300 (or more expensive) scopes do this.