22 scopes.....

Go back and look at the list of scopes that the OP listed.
Click to expand...
The OP's scopes are irrelevant. You said that parallax doesn't matter for "99.9% of .22lr shooting" and I'm saying it does. And no, you don't need a 24x to see it. Like I've said, it makes a significant difference at 7x-9x when shooting at 50yds with a scope that's set parallax-free at 100-150yds. I'm not talking about hundredths of an inch that's only important to top end benchrest shooters or your silly .1%-ers. I'm talking about enough difference to miss a squirrel's head at 50yds. Like I said, one more time, "There is a reason why rimfire scopes are set parallax free at 50-60yds and that 99% of target scopes have an adjustable objective. Because it IS an issue and it increases exponentially with magnification."

Of the OP's scopes, they should all be fine but I would expect to see some parallax issues with the 3-9x when set at magnifications 5x and higher at ranges of ~50yds. I've never had issues with fixed power or variable scopes of 4x and less.

PS, it's moot, not mute.
 
Yes, because a half inch is insignificant. :rolleyes:

Yes, I've been on RFC a time or two and have read the writings of MGT. No, I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. You cannot even properly test loads with a potential parallax error of a half inch. Might be fine if you're just farting around and blasting beer cans as you drink their contents but your statement of "moot for 99.9% of .22LR shooting" is 100% bogus.
 
Might be fine if you're just farting around and blasting beer cans
Click to expand...

Gee, from everything I've seen in the last 30 years blasting cans combined with hunting is 99.9% of rimfire shooting. Ya want to shoot bug holes in paper than parallax can be an issue but many rimfires sold today aren't capable of bug holes, most aren't sold to shoot bug holes, most shooters aren't capable of bug holes, most games we play don't require bug holes and most rimfires don't require a scope capable of bug holes. Ya gotta remember that a VAST, VAST majority of rimfire ammo is bulk and hunting grade not target grade. Mostly used for plinkin and blasting Bugs Bunny. Thus the 99.9%.

LK
 
I'm not talking about "bugholes", whatever that means. You're talking as if it only makes a difference if you're a competitive benchrest shooter. I'm telling you that it makes a difference if all you're doing is testing the various loads to see which shoots the most accurately from your rifle. I can tell you right now that it will make a difference to 'most' shooters and that 'most' is a hell of a lot more than 0.1%. Maybe YOUR shooting falls within that mythical 99.9% but for the rest of us, it matters. I'm sure there's more than 0.1% of those on RFC would heartily disagree with your sentiments, both on parallax and the number of shooters it matters to. I reckon perception is everything and it's obvious in which direction yours is skewed.
 
It matters to me. I like shooting bug holes. Just ordered a new scope for my new .22. I didn't even consider a set parallax scope.

Edit: I'm not a bench rest shooter but I like to make bugholes in PD heads.
 
I'm not talking about "bugholes", whatever that means. You're talking as if it only makes a difference if you're a competitive benchrest shooter. I'm telling you that it makes a difference if all you're doing is testing the various loads to see which shoots the most accurately from your rifle. I can tell you right now that it will make a difference to 'most' shooters and that 'most' is a hell of a lot more than 0.1%. Maybe YOUR shooting falls within that mythical 99.9% but for the rest of us, it matters. I'm sure there's more than 0.1% of those on RFC would heartily disagree with your sentiments, both on parallax and the number of shooters it matters to. I reckon perception is everything and it's obvious in which direction yours is skewed.
Click to expand...

I'll guarantee that a majority of regular RFC members won't agree with my assessment but then again I include most of the regular RFC members in the .1% not the majority. Most of them are just as concerned, if not more so, with shooting paper than anything else. Doesn't make them bad, it's just what they do. A good many of them wouldn't look at any scope that isn't AO yet if you go into hunting circles you will find thta most think AO is unneeded and general unwanted. Because within reason parallax issues are a non starter in the field. Don't get me wrong, there is a time and a place for using a rimfire specific scope and there is also a time for AO. Chucknbach brought up a case where he prefers AO and if works for him great. Same with you if you prefer rimfire scopes. But in the day's of "we were to stupid to know centerfire scopes wouldn't work on rimfires" we killed game, paper, impromptu targets and tested ammo just fine. As a mater of fact I and many others still do. Then again we were just as likely to be doing all that and much more at 75 or 100 yards not at 25. I'm not saying that a rimfire scope may not be prefered in many if not most cases but don't even begin to tell me that centerfire scopes won't get the job done just fine. That's been debunked by a half a century of shooting.

LK
 
Last edited:
I went through the parallax arguments last year with my Savage Mark II .22LR rifle. At that time I did some experimenting with three inexpensive scopes. Two of them are factory set for parallax free at 100 yards. One is a Bushnell Banner 3x-9x 40 rifle scope, and the other is a Tasco Pronghorn 2.5x 32 rifle scope. They previously have set on top of various deer guns. Both of them are minute-of-squirrel accurate on a rimfire rifle out to 75 yards.

However, the Tasco Pronghorn 2.5x deer scope will not allow consistent groups better than 3/4" at 25 yards. But Bushnell Banner scope will group with holes touching at 25 yards, but only when set on 3x to 4x. Otherwise, I cannot manage to get the sight picture to settle in, due to the parallax problem.

On the other hand, I have a third scope which has proved very consistent on my Savage. It is a shotgun scope which is set for parallax-free at 50 yards. (I think it's a Bushnell, but it's out in the safe and I don't want to run out there right now.) Although it is only 2.5x magnification, I can routinely manage five-shot groups of less than 1/2" (and often holes-touching) at 25 yards, and quarter-sized groups at 50 yards.

Here's what I discovered. I could actually see the difference between the 50 yard and the 100 yard parallax-free scopes by moving my head slightly one way oranother while looking through these scopes at a 25 yard or 50 yard target. By squeezing off shots while my head was ever-so-slightly out of position, I found that my points of impact with the 100-parallax scopes were off as much as 1 1/2" at 50 yards, and as much as an inch at 25 yards. That may be okay for squirrel shots (or maybe not), but it is definitely NOT good enough for scoring points on a bullseye target.

My vote is for a scope with a parallax-free setting of 50 yards. I believe it will take one variable off the table in the search for accuracy. I don't believe there is a great enough price difference between a 50-parallax scope and a 100-parallax scope. With careful shopping, there may be no price difference at all. But I could be wrong about that, as I tend to buy scopes on the lower end, pricewise. Some of the high-end scopes may have significant price differences.

Good luck.
 
I checked that 50-yard parallax free scope I have on my Savage Mark II .22 rimfire rifle. It is a Simmons ProSport shotgun scope. The newer versions were sold under the "ProDiamond" name.
 
I can tell you right now that it will make a difference to 'most' shooters and that 'most' is a hell of a lot more than 0.1%.
Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, it matters to me. I like to remove every variable possible when searching for optimum accuracy (I'm a subscriber to the late Col. Townsend Whelen's oft-quoted adage "Only accurate rifles are interesting") and accuracy with a rifle is important to me whether I'm head-shooting fox squirrels, aiming at the ten ring or taking the "B" out of a Pabst Blue Ribbon can.

I do have one opinion many won't agree with: I much prefer using a compact scope on a .22 sporter rifle. I think a big, bulky scope on a petite sporter rifle detracts from its inherently good handling properties and is aesthetically incompatible.
 
Last edited:
A lot of back and forth grumping going on here. Like I said earlier, if I was going to buy new scopes for my 22 rifles, I'd go with the rimfire parallax versions. But I have centerfire rifle scopes on all of them and have had them on the rifles for decades, and I do just fine with the squirrels and targets. For a time I had an honest to goodness bull barrel 22 target rifle and I swapped out the competition iron sights and put a centerfire scope on it. I shot tiny little groups with it until I got bored and sold it. Too heavy for squirrel hunting and I got tired of punching paper. All this time parallax is not and has not been a significant problem for me, particularly if you hold and shoot the rifle in exactly the same way each time, which minimizes the parallax error. All that said, if I was going to shoot competition with a 22, for sure I'd get a scope suited for that.
 
I was gonna mirror what 603Country said. If you are gonna buy a scope for a .22lr than it only makes sense to buy a rimfire specific one. But dang with some of the post on the net these days I wondered how we managed to hit a dang thing back in the days before AO and rimfire specific scopes.

The OP asked about specific scopes that he already owned and using them on a .22. I can tell you that if I have a centerfire scope in the magnification range, size and style I want it will go on a .22lr long before I send more coin on a rimfire specific one. Case in point.......... I bought a 2-7x Redfield to put on a Savage 110 build but low and behold it was too short to use with my 2 piece bases. So while I was wanting to buy a 2-7x rimfire Weaver I decided to just use the Redfield on my homebrew 10/22 and bought a 3-9x for the Savage. Problem solved, any misses I've had were my fault and it doesn't keep me from shooting 1/2" @ 50 yard groups with hunting grade ammo.

LK
 
The scope doesn't know whether it's on a .50 BMG or a .22 short. If you can see the target, who gives a hoo hah whether it's a special "rimfire" scope or not? I can't see how it would make any difference unless you're using a reticle with hash marks designed for a specific load. Even then, you could improvise a bit and figure out what the correct holdover would be.
 
Scope parallax ONLY matters if the shooter doesn't center his eye on the center axis of the lenses. But, IF he does that, everything WILL be perfectly aligned at all ranges.
 
"The scope doesn't know whether it's on a .50 BMG or a .22 short. If you can see the target, who gives a hoo hah whether it's a special "rimfire" scope or not? I can't see how it would make any difference"

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean there isn't a very real usable difference between rimfire scopes and centerfire scopes. The parallax is set at different distances for the two types. Use what you like if it works for you, but there is a very real difference between rimfire, shotgun and centerfire scopes.

(I own some high-dollar AO scopes, but I'm ignoring AO in this post.)

Leupold sets the parallax for 60 yards on its rimfire scopes.

Leupold sets the parallax for 75 yards on shotgun scopes.

Leupold sets the parallax for 150 yards on centerfire scopes (the last time I checked.)
 
Especially for hours of target shooting because you can have the crosshairs and the target in focus at the same time. The side benefit (!) is that having both in focus means you don't have to worry about parallax affecting your accuracy.
 
"Just because you don't understand..". Wow! What a ridiculous and insulting thing to say. Your statement on parallax distances was most likely understood (and already known) by most folks reading this thread. And I stand by everything I said about doing just fine with centerfire scopes on my rimfires. The only reason, and let me say it again, the ONLY reason I'd buy rimfire scopes for my 22 rifles is to take advantage of the bullet drop lines that some of the manufacturers offer. That's something that I'd really like for the rare 100 yard varmint shots in the front pasture with the 22, a problem that I've solved by buying that 223. As for parallax problems, that big problem that seems to matter so much to you isn't such a big problem for me. Yes, a potential problem exists. A good shooter understands how to minimize it, if not eliminate it. But....maybe we just don't understand....
 
I understand that I don't have problems bouncing a golf ball at 100 feet or 100 yards. Good enough for me. It seems that several others don't have a problem with similar shots. There's something to be said by numbers on paper, but the proof is in the pudding and we've put it on the table.
 
"I can't see how it would make any difference"

First you say you can't see how it would make any difference and I responded with some facts.

Then you cop an attitude and agree that it does make a difference.

"Yes, a potential problem exists. A good shooter understands how to minimize it, if not eliminate it."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top