How good of a scope do you really need for a .22

A

AL45

New member
I have limited experience with scopes but will certainly admit that the Nikon $150.00 scope I had was considerably better than the $70.00 Simmons scope my son has. That being said, for an afternoon of plinking at tin cans and prairie dogs at no more than 100 yards, is a $300.00 Leupold really necessary on a .22 LR. I'm looking for a little magnification, a clear picture, and a scope that won't rattle apart or lose accuracy under the "brutal" recoil of the mighty .22 LR. Surely there is a decent scope in the under $100.00 range that will work. Any suggestions?
 
200 yards and in, parallax and edge effects are minimal and won't make you miss. If the scope is solid (lifetime warranty does tell you something about an optic) and has clear glass, for your purpose, no you do not need a $300 optic.

I prefer Burris, and they have several optics in the $150 range (Droptines, MSRs, Fullfields) that are excellent quality, forever warranty and are durable. If that is too much, Sightron and Vortex both have similar optics that are in the $110 to $130 range.
 
You won't get any more agreement on this than any other "which scope" question but the scope on my 10/22 was bought at WalMart so long ago that I have no recollection of it's price or even brand. It has performed flawlessly since I bought the gun new, at WalMart, in approximately 1994. It's a 3-9 and that gun routinely shoots groups that I read all the time are not possible for a 10/22.
 
It all depends on how you use it. I like to shoot my 22's beyond 200 yds, so parallax adjustment comes into play for me as does optical quality which has a higher price point, but is worth the difference to me over a $150 scope.
 
I've owned .22lr target guns I used in Team Challenge matches that cost in excess of $1200 and would shoot 1moa frequently with five shots and sometimes with ten shots. I had scopes on those guns that cost over six hundred dollars and worked very, very well. That being said, I could put a hundred-thirty dollar Bushnell Trophy XLT on the gun and get 99% of the results I was getting with the six hundred dollar scopes. The answer is NO, you do not need to put an expensive scope on a rimfire to have it shoot to your satisfaction. At a certain point it becomes snob appeal and not reality......tin cans and such at 100yds does not require an expensive scope. Save your money.
 
It all depends on how you use it. I like to shoot my 22's beyond 200 yds, so parallax adjustment comes into play for me as does optical quality which has a higher price point, but is worth the difference to me over a $150 scope.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I will add that I have not ever been happy with any optic (scope, spotting scope, binoculars, etc) that sells for less than $80, and the ones in the $80-$150 range were fixed power or 1x optics. Once you have used quality, hazing glass and distortion just don't cut it anymore.

We still rib him about it, but a hunting buddy smoked a really nice mushroom at about 200 yards on a prairie dog hunt...he thought it was a prairie dog. He upgraded his scope ($50 to about $200) afterwards and his hit percentage has gone up a LOT.
 
I am one of the guys who like a good fixed 4X scope on a .22 rifle. Fully admitting that I plink and squirrel hunt with them. If I were to go back to trying to shoot itty bitty groups again I would go back to a higher power variable with adjustable objective. For what I do though the 4X is oerfect, and not overly large on a clean bolt action. 22.
 
On most guns I tend to spend 50% to a 100% of the cost of the gun on a scope. .22's have generally been the exception. But as me and my eyes get older I look a lot more at clarity and light transfer, even for my .22's. Cheaper scopes that used to work good for casual target shooting and rabbit hunting are starting to need a better replacement, as I get older.
 
Just because it is .22 I don't think means something needs to be sub-par. I do think it excuses the need for certain features.

I know from personal experience that cost is a limiting step, but even with a .22 with a relatively limited range, I would still buy good glass. There is no substitute for good quality optical components. If the glass is good, the likelihood is that the components controlling that glass will be up to the job too.

A well-though out BDC reticle is probably as much as you'll need, and as pointed out parallax is not really required.

I bought a 3-9 x 50mm for mine and that range of magnification is ample.
 
I have limited experience with scopes but will certainly admit that the Nikon $150.00 scope I had was considerably better than the $70.00 Simmons scope my son has. That being said, for an afternoon of plinking at tin cans and prairie dogs at no more than 100 yards, is a $300.00 Leupold really necessary on a .22 LR. I'm looking for a little magnification, a clear picture, and a scope that won't rattle apart or lose accuracy under the "brutal" recoil of the mighty .22 LR. Surely there is a decent scope in the under $100.00 range that will work. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Too bad no one's bothering to read your post's intent before answering. Most of the answers so far don't address your inquiry. Seems like a lot of the shooters on here think you need really "good" glass to shoot a tin can out to 100 yards :rolleyes:
 
I realize that I left out any context of price in my post....

Yeah, I was dead broke at the time and the ~$135, as I recall, price of the 10/22 was already too much for me. So, that scope, even though I don't remember the price, I would guarantee was under $50, probably $35. I'm pretty sure it's a Tasco but I'd have to look to be sure.

It has killed more hundreds of woodchucks than I can remember. Anywhere from 50-100 a year from ~1993 until the release of the .204Ruger in 2004.
 
I have a fixed 4 power Bushnell I paid 25 bucks for at Walmart about four years ago on my Marlin model 60. It is plenty clear and has never lost zero. I can't attribute any missed shots to the scope. Methinks some people get hung up on high end optics and to them anything else is just junk. Not so. If the scope is clear and holds zero what more do you need? If my 25 dollar Bushnell dies today it was money well spent and I'll just go buy another one just like it. I have a Simmons 44 mag made in the Philippines that has lived on a hot loaded 30-06 for 30 years or so. About three years ago it lost it's nitrogen and fogs up but it has never lost zero and I have taken several deer in low light situations with it. If you have the budget and can afford to spend several hundred bucks on a .22 scope then by all means spend it but it is not necessary to spend that kind of money for a scope that's going to put them in the same holes the high dollar scope is going to put them in.
 
of course it depends on what you use it for but i have to say the nikon prostaff scopes are as nice a scope that i personally need for any 22 i shoot.
 
of course it depends on what you use it for but i have to say the nikon prostaff scopes are as nice a scope that i personally need for any 22 i shoot.
 
I have a $35 Tasco on my CZ 452 Ultra Lux .22 and it is certainly fine for squirrels and such at 100 yards.

With that said, I don't care that much about price in the grand scheme. What you really need is a scope that you can see your intended target well enough at the distance you intend to shoot that will work well on your rifle. What is "well enough" all depends on you.
 
Over the years I've had a few Tasco scopes and none ever failed. That was a long time ago. After that I had fixed 4 Weavers and after that I put a few old Leupold 2-7's on the 22 lever guns. All worked fine, but I got the wife a little Browning lever gun and needed one more scope. I decided I wanted BDC, and the Nikon 3-9 rimfire scope seemed worth a try. My plan was to sight the rifle in at 40 yards and then use a BDC line for use at 80 yards, where the yard corn feeder is. The plan works Ok and I have to admit that I like the scope a lot. Bright and clear, and a good addition to my old tack driving 39A. As far as shooting goes, the new Nikon is a definite step up from the old Leupold 2-7's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top