Good scope on the 22 or on the 308?

[Rustle in the Bushes]

Trying to pick which rifle gets the good scope. Both are 2-7x but one is a $200 vortex diamondback and the other is a Minox Za5 for $500 and better quality optic.



Do I give the good glass to the one that I shoot the most(CZ 452 in 22lr) or the one that I plan to hunt with?(accurized m1a 18.5"bbl)

I had originally planned to give the good scope to the hunting rifle because of the low light advantage. Second guessing it now 'cause I spend 60% time with the 22 atleast.

 

[Carlsbad]

Truthfully, you don't have much of a choice. The diamondback has fixed parallax at 100 yds and if you're shooing closer, which you likely will be with the 22, then the scope is pretty much useless as the fixed parallax with give significant errors with check weld. Sure, you'll be plenty close enough to hit the shoulder of a deer up close but if you want to try to shoot dime size groups at 25 yds you'll be very disappointed. I tried it with my Bushnell 10x40 ET1040 which is a great scope at 100 yds or more but you can't shoot accurately up close.

If I were you, and you still can, I would return the diamondback and pick up the simmons pro target. It is made by bushnell and has the same side focus/parallax adjustment that your minox has. I put one on my 10/22 and am shooting nice small groups at 25 yds.

--Jerry

 

[Mezzanine]

I would recommend you look at Mueller optics for your .22. I have them on my .22s and .17 hummer and i love them. Value is 2nd to none, extremely high quality for the money, made in the USA and you wont find an owner of one that isnt satisfied. Go for the nice optics on the hunting rifle, would hate to have an empty freezer because of a lousy scope...

 

[L_Killkenny]

The diamondback has fixed parallax at 100 yds and if you're shooing closer, which you likely will be with the 22, then the scope is pretty much useless as the fixed parallax with give significant errors with check weld.

Significant is obviously subjective but worthless is taking it too far. For decades rimfire shooters were pretty well stuck with centerfire scopes if they wanted 1" tubes and decent glass. Critters died just fine. The amount of potential parallax is less than most realise and actual parallax is even less. Basically, if your check weld habits are bad enough to have parallax issues with a scope below 10x you're a pretty bad shot anyway.

I know nothing about the Minox scope and the OP didn't specify which one he has. But from what I saw they are not AO either.

Now if either of the scopes is AO than I say put it on the one that see less action in the field. AO sucks for hunting and is not needed in the least outside of prairie dog towns, maybe.

 

[sholling]

I would put the better scope on the 308 and for now 'get by' with the Vortex on the 22. I do prefer using fixed focus rimfire scope on a hunting/plinking 22LR. On the other hand for target shooting I like using a centerfire scope with an adjustable objective or side focus for the level of target shooting that CZ is capable of. Weaver and Sightron both make excellent rimfire scopes that retail from $120-150 and Nikon's Prostaff 3-9x40 Rimfire w/BDC are a decent sub-$200 choices. With the level of accuracy that CZ is capable of with target ammo you may want a more powerful scope. The Vortex will do for now but I'd start saving.

 

[603Country]

L Kilkenny spoke well for me, in that I've used centerfire scopes on 22's for a bazillion years - shooting squirrels and whatever - and didn't know that they were supposedly worthless for that application. Heck, I even won a 100 yard rimfire shoot with my 39A and a 4 power Weaver. Must've been pure luck (probably it was weak competition, but I still have the trophy).

Years back, if you wanted to put a scope on a 22, you pretty much had to use a centerfire scope, or one of those 3/4 inch tube bits of junk.

As for the OP, I'd put the best scope on the centerfire rifle and I'd go get the Nikon 22-specific scope with the BDC for the 22. I like the idea of BDC on a 22LR for those 75 and 100 yard shots.

 

[Carlsbad]

Worthless might be an exaggeration. Sorry I don't check in to reply very often.

Sure they are good enough to shoot a squirrel but if you're shooting targets and trying to go sub MOA, you need adjustable parallax. I took my Remington 700 with a scope with fixed parallax to a 25 yd range to sight it in and couldn't get groups smaller than 1/2" and I considered that "horrible". With my accurized 10-22 with parallax adjustment I hardly ever shot two shots whose holes don't touch at the same range.

For shooting varmints or even deer, you can live with that error and that is why hunting scopes have always had fixed parallax. But for pushing the limits of the gun, you don't want your cheek weld to be the most important variable.

--Jerry

PS the results mentioned above with the 10-22 are with the Simmons pro Target that I recommended above. Still $100 on ebay.

 

[603Country]

Some years ago I was prowling pawn shops with an old buddy of mine. He was looking for whatever, while I was just along for the coffee. Well, at one place he and the owner got to digging around in the back of a monster gun safe and they were handing rifles to me to "put em somewhere for now", and one of the rifles was a grimy and dust covered Remington 513T target 22, with a high dollar peep sight and about the most beautiful wood stock I've ever seen. Lord knows what that setup cost when new, and what the owner competed in. I asked the pawn shop guy if he'd take $100 for it and he sold it to me. Well it had what I think was a 28 inch very heavy bull barrel. I was gonna make it into my ultimate squirrel gun. Turns out it was too heavy to lug around squirrel hunting, but for target shooting it was amazing. I had it drilled and tapped and put a rather cheap Tasco on it. I think it was a 4-12. At 50 yards, with its favorite 22LR ammo, it would endlessly put the bullets into one ragged hole. Back then I didn't know parallax from antrax, but I had no problem shooting really tiny groups. I finally got bored with it and sold it at a gun show. It was amazing, but I had no real use for it once the possible squirrel hunting use was out. Point is that parallax gave me no problem at all. Maybe it was because the made-for-competition stock had such a good cheek support and I could keep a perfect spot weld.

If I was going to compete with a 22LR, you can bet I'd have an adjustable objective scope, but for just about anybody else and any other use, I just honestly don't see an issue with parallax. Yes, it exists. Can't argue with that, but for the non-competition folks I just don't think it needs much consideration. That's just my opinion and it's worth every penny ya'll paid for it.