Another Site For Your Research

If eventual resale is a possibility, the Leupold will hold its value better, just based on name recognition. There are also a lot more used Leupolds if you decide to go the used route.

As your new 10/22 is a rimfire rifle, I suggest you also join Rimfire Central. Rimfire central has an extensive set of sub-forums dedicated strictly to the Ruger 10/22 in all of it's configurations. It is obvious the entire site was created by a group of 10/22 owners. Take a look and you will see what I mean. That site is much more active than this site and has a more functional section for buying and selling by members.

I am an active member of Rimfire Central, as well as this Ruger site. I have successfully purchased over half of all of my many scopes and firearms through the Rimfire Central Trading Post, which is what they call their classified ad section. I usually pay 50% to 75% of the new price, when I buy used at that site. No member of Rimfire Central has ever cheated me or misrepresented an item for sale there.

Here is a link to Rimfire Central.
RimfireCentral.com - Rimfire Community!

Here is a link to the Rimfire Central 10/22 Tactical Forum.
Tactical Style 10/22's - RimfireCentral.com Forums

Here is a link to the scopes for sale sub-section of the Trading Post:
Scopes - RimfireCentral.com Forums

PS: Do not confuse the Vari-X 2 with the VX 2. Here is a comment on that from "Shooters Forum":
Vari X-II vs. VX II - Shooters Forum
"Leupold really screwed up with their change as it is confusing and misleading. the Vari-x II is not anywhere near a VX-II. the Vari-X II has friction adjustments and Magnesium Floride coatings. the VX-II's have the MC4 Multi coating and click adjustments."

 

Thanks Slow shot for the tip about rimfire central. I have looked there, but I'm actually not seeing much discussion about the 10/22 take down specifically. I'll look at the regular 10/22 section for ideas. I do agree that the Leupold is probably a better overall investment.

One thing I should point out is that as a Canadian, it's very difficult if not impossible for me to buy anything gun-related from the USA. There are strict laws on both sides of the border that prevent me from doing so.

That said, I do subscribe to Canadiangunnutz.com and have posted lots there. I do watch the classifieds section there for used stuff too, but because the Canadian market is vastly smaller than the US market, used bargains on rimfire scopes are very very rare.

 

Thanks Slow shot for the tip about rimfire central. I have looked there, but I'm actually not seeing much discussion about the 10/22 take down specifically. I'll look at the regular 10/22 section for ideas. I do agree that the Leupold is probably a better overall investment.

One thing I should point out is that as a Canadian, it's very difficult if not impossible for me to buy anything gun-related from the USA. There are strict laws on both sides of the border that prevent me from doing so.

RFC has members from as far away as New Zealand. I am sure many of our members are from Canada. In your profile on that site you would give your country of residence. Just do a WTB in the Trading Post and ID your self as living in Canada.

I just checked and saw a 'Take Down' sub-forum in the 10/22 group of sub-forums on RFC. If it isn't very active, a few posts from you might revive it.

I have to confess, the only 10/22 rifle I have ever owned was an expensive 10/22 clone, the LH Precision 10/22 Mag. I ordered it as a switchbarrel (22WMR & 17HMR). Later, I had it reconfigured to a screw in 22WMR Shilen barrel. Here are pics. First as the switchbarrel:


Here is the same action with the Shilen barrel and a much stiffer stock:


I eventually sold it at a slight loss because it was too heavy for me and too great a rifle to let sit in my safe. The guy who bought it has a Nikon Monarch 8-32X 50 on it. He rests it on the hood of his truck and detonates furry varmints at long range.

 

I have that Leupold on My10/22 LVT. It is a great scope, and extremely accurate.

Haven't seen the Vortex, but it's hard to beat the Leupold.

Let us know...

 

gunphile, I'm afraid you got some bad info on the Vortex Spitfire scope. The only scopes that do not require parallax correction are those with no magnification. The higher the magnification, the more critical parallax becomes. The Spitfire is designed specifically for AR-15s and is factory parallax corrected for 100 yards, which means parallax does not cause significant crosshair drift from 50~250 yards. It is very common to shoot 22s at distances closer than 50 yards so I don't think this is a good match for your 10/22 TD. Besides, 3X is not powerful enough for seeing small targets at a distance and in fact the reticle will cover up "bunny sized" targets. The turrets adjust in .5 MOA clicks.

The Leupold 3~9x rimfire scope was specifically designed for 22 LR rifles. It has an adjustable objective lens (AO) that will correct parallax at virtually any shooting distance from 10 yards to well beyond practical ranges. It is a compact design that will mount much closer to bore line and will easily fit in the TD backpack. Besides, it costs way less than a Spitfire and has a good magnification range for a 22 LR. The industry standard for 22 scopes is 1X per 10 yards so it is well suited for 30 to 90 yards, which is likely well beyond the accuracy range for a 10/22 TD (typically 70 yards max). Leupold turrets adjust in .25 MOA clicks. Nikon also makes a 3~9X rimfire Prostaff scope with an AO. It is NOT a compact model so it won't fit in your TD backpack unless you remove it. Because the Nikon has a larger objective lens, it is much brighter than the above Leupold. I have both and have tested then side-by-side and found the Nikon to be superior in all respects except length.

No doubt, the best match for any 22 rifle is a 2~7X rimfire scope. If used properly .... setting magnification to a "10 yard view" (adjusting magnification to 1x per 10 yards), you will have an effective shooting range from 20 to 70 yards with plenty of magnification to see small targets. This is the optimum shooting distance for all but match grade 22 rifles. You will likely find your 10/22 TD will group at about 4~5" at 70 yards with good ammo .... it's certainly not a match grade rifle.

Nikon makes an excellent 2~7X rimfire scope (P-22) with better optics than the above Leupold. This scope does not have an AO because it is factory parallax corrected for 50 yards and will track perfectly throughout the distance range at the proper magnification. The only downside to this scope is ... it doesn't fit in a TD backpack when mounted on the TD receiver. I have this scope on my TD and have found using good quality Weaver mounts will allow me to remove the scope (range bag has three compartments) and install it in the field with virtually no change in POI. The scope base mounts low enough where the factory iron sights are usable should you decide not to mount the scope.

 

Thanks for the wealth of information and wisdom. I do agree with you that the magnification of a variable power rimfire scope is probably what I'd be happier with in the long run instead of the basic 3x of the Vortex. I'm not going to argue about Vortex's claim that the Spitfire 3x prism scope is parallax-free; I'm only going to indicate that is what they say in their product page, right on their website. Could it be that a prism sight, with its different optical design from a traditional rifle scope, can have 3x magnification and be parallax-free?

Can you tell me specifically what Weaver rings/mounts you're using with your Nikon scope? I'm curious, even though I'd prefer to keep whatever scope/optic I get mounted to the gun. Maybe I can be convinced to take a second look at QD mounts/rings...

I'm quite familiar with the Nikon 3-9X rimfire scope with parallax adjustment that you mentioned. I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Prostaff Rimfire Target EFR. I love that scope and I just so happen to have that one on my Savage Mark II TR:

I agree that Leupold is probably lower quality at a higher price compared to Nikon as a compromise in favor of smaller size and lighter weight, but for my 10/22 T/D, its probably still the best fit for something of decent quailty. Are you still recommending the 3-9X Leupold (what model?) over the the 2-7X 28mm Leupold VX-1 Rimfire?

In the mean time, while I'm still making up my mind and saving $ for my new scope, I pulled the Vortex Strikefire red dot that I normally keep on my Ruger SR22 rifle, went to my local gun shop, bought the $30 low mount for it, and stuck it on my 10/22 T/D last night. Its just a red-dot with no magnification, but its still better than iron sights, at least for now:

 

gunphile, After you get 10 or more posts and promoted to PFC, you will have access to the Forum Library. I posted an article in the Library called "Scope Dope" that I'm sure you will find very informative. Here's a link: http://rugerforum.net/library/61505-scope-dope.html

Vortex's claim of "parallax free" is not what you might think. Yes, when mounted on an AR-15 where "close range" would be 50 yards, parallax is NOT an issue, however there's no way any type of reticle can defy the laws of science. In other words, you WILL experience parallax issues when shooting at distances under 50 yards ... the closer to the target, the more reticle drift you will get. Also keep in mind, the Vortex Spitfire was designed for tactical use where a man sized target is used. So what if you get a few inches of reticle drift ... it will still hit in the kill zone. Shooting small game or smaller targets presents a totally different issue when pin point accuracy counts. If you mount your gun in a gun vise and look through your red dot scope (no magnification), then move your eye left, right, up, and down .... as long as you can see the red dot, it will remain directly on the target no matter what distance .... in other words zero parallax or reticle drift. If you conduct the same experiment with any scope that has magnification, it will fail the test at closer distances and will drift off target ... again the higher the magnification, the more reticle drift you will get. Because 22s are often fired at closer distances, parallax is an important issue.

Until the last few years, Leupold and Burris were the only decent rimfire scopes on the market. Manufactures soon realized there was a market for rimfire scopes that were parallax corrected for 50~60 yards, instead of 100~150 yards for high power rifle scopes. As such, nearly all the scope manufacturers now offer rimfire scopes. Many people think a rimfire scope is a cheapened version of a high power rifle scope that is not as rugged or "recoil proof", which may be true with the cheap Chinese scopes. Turns out, recoil is not an issue with any rimfire rifle but bolt slam is. With 10/22s or any other semi-auto 22 rifle, when the bolt thrusts forward into battery, it creates a considerable shock wave that can demo a cheap Chinese scope. Burris, Leupold, and Nikon all realize this issue and design their rimfire scope to be just as rugged as their centerfire scopes. So ... the real difference in quality rimfire scopes is primarily the distance where parallax is corrected. Of course this doesn't apply to those scopes with an AO because they can be adjusted to be parallax free at virtually any shooting distance. Parallax correction is the very reason why using a non parallax adjustable centerfire scope on a rimfire rifle is a poor idea.

Herein lies the point of my post .... if you are buying a scope for target shooting, an AO with more magnification is the most logical route, however if you plan to hunt with your 10/22, you will find an AO and/or higher magnification is a real pain. By the time you estimate the distance to the critter, set the AO (which is fairly critical), set the magnification, then take aim .... the critter has probably disappeared. So ... for hunting, I would highly recommend a scope without an AO. Mathematically, a 2~7x is by far the best magnification range for a 22 LR used for hunting (it can also be used for target shooting). That's because the practical shooting distance ranges from 20 to 70 yards. Leupolds are parallax corrected for 60 yards whereas Nikons and Burris are corrected for 50 yards. Either one is OK but the 50 yard correction will track better at closer distances. As I mentioned in the first post, most people don't use a rifle scope as it was intended .... 1x per 10 yards (1x per 25 yards for centerfire). By doing this, the target will appear to be the same size at any distance within your scope's usable range, but the most important issue is .... parallax will track with magnification. In other words, a 20 yard shot with the scope set to 2X will be virtually parallax free, however if magnification is increased to just 3x, parallax can make the reticle drift. Parallax will also track at other magnifications ... up to about 7x at 70 yards, providing you follow the 1x per 10 yard concept. Beyond 70 yards, even the best rimfire scope will not track parallax well ... unless it has an AO or side dial.

Granted, when hunting you don't always have time to be screwing with the magnification knob so what you do is to set the magnification on the lowest setting. In case Thumper jumps up at close range, you will be tuned in. If Thumper is spotted at a considerable distance, chances are you will have time to increase magnification without missing the shot opportunity. At a range .... no big deal ... you have lots of time to mess with the scope without losing the shot.

I have owned a Leupold 3~9x rimfire scope (with AO) for several years. It's a great scope for the range but it didn't take me long to figure out it was poorly suited for hunting. I soon moved it from my 22 hunting rifle to one of my 22 target rifles. Last year I bought a Nikon 3~9 EFR (adjustable objective) ProStaff rimfire scope for my new Savage bolt action target rifle. I'm very happy with it .... much brighter than the Leupold and being longer is not an issue on this gun. I liked it so much that I bought a couple more for my other target rifles. My favorite hunting scope for a 22 Rifle is a Nikon 2~7x P-22. This is a very good quality scope ... made to the same standards as the ProStaff centerfire scopes .... except the parallax is corrected for 50 yards instead of 100 yards. I'm not a cheapskate but I do have a hard time putting a $500 scope on a $300 rifle. No doubt, the Nikon P-22 has more accuracy potential than the gun it is mounted on (10/22 TD) and it cost less than $200. Cost is also a key issue when selecting a scope. If the gun is not capable of shooting small groups at distances over 50 yards, it seems kind of silly to invest in a high dollar scope that out performs the gun. It also seems silly to put a cheap Chinese scope on a decent rifle.

I bought a set of Weaver brand Quad-Lock rings for my TD and use the Weaver style base that came with the gun. For some stupid reason, the Weaver rings would not clamp tight enough to the Weaver base, which is the identical size of Weaver brand bases. I found this to be a common problem as reported here on the forum. I ended up grinding a little material from the seat and now they work just fine. I found when I remove and replace the Nikon P-22, it's never off more that a click or two .... usually dead on, providing I tighten the mounting cross screws with about the same tension. If I over tighten the mounting screws, it will change POI more than a few clicks. I considered a "Quick Release" type base and rings but found the base sits too high and obstructs the iron sights.

I bought the 10/22 TD because I thought it was a nifty little rifle .... and it is .... but it has its limitations. Not very accurate compared to my other 22 rifles ... well suited for popping a squirrel or rabbit on a moment's notice with iron sights or a scope but a poor range gun where better accuracy is important. IMO, guess that's why it doesn't warrant an expensive scope.

 

Thanks Lowegan for yet more very useful and interesting info. I appreciate your perspective on this and you've given me some excellent food for thought.

Here in Canada, the Nikon P-22 (now apparently renamed the P-Rimfire) goes for just under $200 (Canadian funds). The Leupold VX-1 2-7x28mm is $300. I too would never put $500 scope on a $400 gun, but I also don't like buying things twice either, because in the long run I think it gets even more expensive.

I'm going to see if I can find a Nikon P-Rimfire in stock somewhere so I can see it and handle it before making my decision. I have handled the Leupold, so I'd like to compare the two if possible.

cheers!

 

gunphile, When I looked at the Leupold VX1 2~7x rimfire scope and the Nikon 2~7 P22 Rimfire scope at the local Cabela's store, I decided to get the Nikon for several reasons ... I like the turret adjustments much better, the "quick focus" system is light years ahead of Leupold's 60 year old design, the scope's optics are much brighter, and the P-22 comes with a BDC reticle. I'm not a big fan of the BDC reticle for hunting purposes because you have to know the distance to the target before it has any value. That said, I have used the BDC reticle at the range and found it tracks exceptionally well using Nikon's Spot On Ballistics program.

I have not tested a Leupold 2~7x .... only looked through one and handled it. No doubt, it is a good scope but in my opinion, the Nikon is better with more value added features and is 2/3 the cost. Either one would more than meet your needs for a 10/22 TD.

Just an added comment .... a good scope will allow you to take advantage of the rifle's accuracy potential. The best scope in the world will not improve accuracy beyond the rifle's capability. You are dealing with a not-so-accurate rifle so most any decent quality rimfire scope will likely outperform the rifle.

 

I have no doubt that the Nikon is likely the better scope. I'm thrilled with my Prostaff Rimfire Target EFR on my Savage MKII TR, and Nikon being an optics company knows how to make great glass. The local Nikon rep tells me that our local Bass Pro Shop will be getting them in soon, so I hope I can see and handle it a bit before committing. Leupold is far more common in the gun shops where I live, since the Canadian distributor is here in Alberta. So the Leupold is much easier to find.

My one hangup I have with the Nikon is the size. It is 11.5" long, and the Leupold is just under 10". That extra 1.5" is what makes the difference between fitting the bag while attached and not. Quick release rings aren't cheap around here, and I'd probably have to mail-order them. Same with the Weaver Quad-lock rings you spoke of, and while probably considerably cheaper than QR rings, nobody has these in stock so I'd have to mail order. Do you recall what height of Weaver Quad-lock rings you have? Are they low, or perhaps Medium?

Just to keep things interesting, I noticed another highly recommended scope that hasn't yet been mentioned - the Weaver RV-7 (849431). Mr. Nutnfancy on Youtube has a thing for Weaver scopes and runs this one on his 10/22 t/d and it doesn't appear to be excessively long on his gun. I don't think he mentions whether or not it fits in the bag though. I like that it is 28mm objective vs 32mm, allowing it to use low rings and it is 0.5" shorter than the Nikon. But again, its more money than the Nikon, approaching the price of the Leupold. What do you (or anyone else) think of the Weaver Classic rimfire scopes, compared to either the Nikon and/or Leupold rimfire scopes?

 

Parallax is Relative

Parallax is a relative issue. In my experience, any decent scope with less than 10X will not have enough parallax error to matter unless you are trying to shoot 1/4" groups at 100 yards.

Tactical rifles are not intended for the kind of super accuracy I get from my BR rifles. A friend once let me shoot one of his tactical rifles at 50 yards with a red dot scope. When the first three shot group I got was 1", I was bummed until he said that was about all I should expect from that rifle.

 

Slowshot, I'm not sure what you mean by "relative". If you mean it's important, I totally agree. If you mean it is not important, I would have to disagree ... especially for 22 LR rifles.

Lets do some math to try to explain how parallax works. Let's assume you have a scope that was factory parallax corrected for 100 yards and let's also assume it is a fixed 4x scope or a variable power set to 4x (any scope, no matter what brand or quality will succumb to the science of optics). At 50 yards, the influence from parallax can cause the crosshairs to drift as much as 1.047" (+or- about .5" to keep it simple). That same scope will also have a potential crosshair drift of +or-.5" @ 200 yards. Now lets double the magnification to 8x .... at 50 yards crosshair drift doubles to +or- 1" .... same for 200 yards. Lets take it a step further and shoot at 25 yards. Again parallax effects doubles and will potentially cause as much as +or-2" crosshair drift, which is also the same for 400 yards. As you can see, parallax has a much more dramatic affect at closer distances .... which is exactly why you don't want to use a centerfire scope on a 22 LR ... unless it has a side dial or AO for parallax correction.

Let's try a rimfire scope that is parallax corrected for 50 yards .... again using 4x as a reference. At 25 yards or 100 yards, there will be a potential +or- .5" crosshair drift, which is the max acceptable. At 8x, it also doubles to +or- 1" at both distances. What does this mean? In essence, if you shoot a scoped 22 rifle at 25 yards (50 yd correction) with the zoom set to 8x, the groups can spread as much a 2" @ 25 yards just from parallax alone ... not to mention ammo or the gun itself. It is very common for 22 LRs to be fired at ranges as close as 20 yards so parallax becomes very important if you want to shoot small groups.

So ... parallax works in "halves" and "doubles", meaning half or double the corrected distance will double parallax error. Likewise, when magnification doubles, so will parallax error. At some point, parallax error is unacceptable ... typically when it can cause a +or- .5" variation in groups size (1" total). You can prove this at a range or by simply looking at an AO ring or side dial on a scope. You will note ... when adjusting the AO (or side dial) from 10 to 100 yards, you have to rotate the ring about a half turn whereas if you adjust from 100 to 200 yards, the ring only moves a tiny amount. Further, if parallax was not an issue, you wouldn't see AO rings or side dials on any scopes. Anything above 9x will generate unacceptable crosshair drift so that's why you see AOs on higher magnification scopes. For 22 LRs where shooting distances are a fraction that of a high power rifle, parallax is even more critical.

You may have noticed I use the words "potential crosshair drift", which means "worst case". If you look through a scope and your eye is directly aligned with the center of the lens and you get no vignetting (dark area around the circumference of the view) you will not get a worst case scenario. Being humans, we aren't all that repeatable in our scope view so unless the gun is being fired at the same distance as factory parallax correction, you will get some crosshair drift. For benchrest shooters where time is not critical, you have the luxury of positioning you eye for a vignetting free view so crosshair drift will likely be minimal. For hunters shooting off hand ... it's a different story because you don't usually have time to get a perfect scope view and may end up with significant crosshair drift. Tactical shooters are typically not all that concerned about shooting tiny groups so they don't care if the holes are a couple inches apart at 50 yards.

The last paragraph is why it is so important to have a scope mounted properly ... especially for hunting or plinking. The test is .... close both eyes; shoulder your rifle, get a good cheek weld, then open your "shooting eye". You should instantly see a clear picture with no vignetting. If eye relief is not set properly (scope too far forward or to far rearward) you will get vignetting on the entire circumference of the view. If the scope is mounted too high or too low, you will get partial vignetting. Any time you see any dark area on the outside of the view, it means your scope is not mounted properly or the stock doesn't fit you. Presence of vignetting always means you will get a parallax error in the form of crosshair drift.

 

I mean relative to the size of the target, the range and the ammunition being used. I do not see any 22 LR rifle that is meant to shoot off hand as any kind of a long range rifle. That mention of 1/4" groups at 100 yards is a bit of in-joke humor. Sorry about that. After 100 yards, I see any 22 LR, other than a competition BR rifle, as too inherently inaccurate and too affected by wind to be of much use for precision shooting.

Again, I was not talking about trying to make tiny groups, when I said relative. An error of .5" is hardly significant if you are shooting at small furry animals at 50 yards. If you can regularly hit a 1" target at 100 yards, shooting off hand with a 10/22 tactical rifle and the best scope money can buy, well, that's a lot better than I have ever seen. When you said, "Tactical shooters are typically not all that concerned about shooting tiny groups so they don't care if the holes are a couple inches apart at 50 yards," that is exactly what I meant.

With the Weaver T-36 pictured above, I was able to shoot flies off targets at 100 yards but that was with the benchrest gear in my pictures, and the pictured $1800 custom 10/22 Mag. That rifle came guaranteed to give 3/4" five shot groups in 17HMR and 1" five shot groups in 22 WMR at 100 yards. It actually did better than that. Still, it was a varmint gun, not a tactical. I would not expect to get such results with a 22 LR tactical 10/22. By contrast, any serious BR 22 LR rifle had better be able to put five shots through a single hole or it is of no use to me.

When I recently bought a Rossi M-92 (357 Mag/38 SP) I mounted a Weaver 4X28 fixed focus Classic Scout scope to it, with a 50 yard parallax setting. That is because I see it as a short range gun with rapid target acquisition.

That being said, I agree with everything you said. I especially agree that simple laws of physics mean no optical equipment can be parallax free at all ranges. As you stated, lesser magnification means less parallax error. So, Vortex can say their 4X scope is parallax free because at any useful range is essentially is. At any useful range, the 4X Weaver on my Rossi, may as well be called parallax free. I don't see myself shooting squirrels at 100 yards with it. That is not its intended use.

 

gunphile, I'm a lot more concerned about scope performance than I am about the gun fitting in the backpack. My TD with the Nikon 2~7x scope mounted will NOT fit in the bag. Ruger designed the bag with three compartments ... the wide one for the stocked receiver and two "half wide" compartments ... one for the scope and one for the barrel. So ... that's how I use it when storing the gun. Most of the time I assemble the rifle at home and transport it in a conventional gun case so the Ruger bag is a low priority. I suppose if I did a lot of camping, the Ruger bag would have more importance.

There's nothing magic about the Chinese made, 10 bucks a set, Weaver Quad-Lock rings ... most any decent quality Weaver style rings will probably work better ... no modification required and they will be very repeatable (scope on, scope off, scope on again). The key is ... buy a decent set of rings and tighten the cross screws to about the same tension each time you mount the scope. It only takes me about 30 seconds to mount my scope and tighten the screws with a quarter. As I mentioned before, worst case I may be off by a couple clicks but usually the scope is dead nuts.

I used medium Weaver rings on my TD and Nikon scope. Keep in mind ... there are no standards for ring height among different manufacturers so one company's "high" may be lower than another company's "medium". Weaver brand rings do have uniform height within their various models but don't bet on other brands being the same height.

Sorry, I'm not much help with the Weaver scope ... never tried one or even looked at one. Although I'm very happy with my Nikon P-22 (an excellent match for my TD), there's nothing wrong with the Lupy you mentioned. It will fit in the bag ... if that's important to you and worth the extra $$$.

 

Slowshot, I think we are singing off the same sheet of music.

I found the 10/22 TD (take down) an interesting little gun. Some people use it for a tactical rifle, some for hunting, other consider it a survival gun, but it's real value is a "plinker". What it's NOT ... is a target rifle .... at least in the factory configuration.

I have a couple friends that also own a 10/22 TD, just like mine. At the range, we found the maximum shooting distance for decent groups is 50~60 yards (with a scope). When trying several different types of ammo, the best groups I could get were with CCI Mini-Mags ... about 3.5" groups at 50 yards from a bench rest. This is still good enough to hit a soda can or a rabbit most of the time. I also own a 10/22 Carbine and a 10/22 Manlicher ... both about the same accuracy as the TD. I built a custom 10/22 with a Green Mountain 20" bull barrel (match grade), a Fajen target stock, and a Nikko-Stirling 3.5~10x scope (with a side dial for parallax correction). This rifle is a "one holer" at 50 yards and will shoot very respectful groups at 100 yards using Wolf Target Match ammo. There's no way this rifle would be good for hunting or even plinking ... it weighs too darn much to be toting around .... but for a bench gun, it sure does shoot well.

I think the point of the conversation is this .... get a scope that is versatile enough to suit your needs and matches the quality and potential accuracy of your rifle. In the OP's case, that would likely be a 2~7x Nikon, Lupy, Burris, or perhaps the Weaver RV-7. I wouldn't waste my time or money on a cheap Chinese scope nor would I spend over $200 on a scope for a TD.

 

Iowegan and Slowshot-good info you posted. Love this forum as it gives the info needed on most aspects of shooting, reloading, and Ruger firearms. That said, around two years ago, I converted my early 90's 10-22 to a look-a-like M1 Carbine by purchasing a stock and set of sights from Brownell's(nice lookin rig IMO and get a lot of rave comments). Not wanting to use the 70's era Bushnell 3/4" scope on it and missing a scoped 10-22, I bought a new stainless 10-22 and mounted the Bushnell scope on it. The scope is still workable, but I wanted a newer one with more clarity, bigger tube, and magnification. I've looked at the Leopold and Nikon scopes that you've talked about Iowegan, considered the Nikon(less dollars for the same bang). At one of my local gun shops(where they cater to a lot of long range big bore shooters, ie they know there scope 'stuff'), the owner was showing me the Vortex Crossfire II, a 1" tubed 2x7 50 yd parallax scope designed for 22 rifles. Was advised all who have gotten them are well pleased and no problems reported. Did some on-line research as far a specs and reviews. No negative reviews read so far. I've typed all this just to ask if you or any other Ruger.com readers have had any experience or information about this scope. I hate buying brand X and wishing later I bought brand Y. Any info would be much appreciated. Thank ye' kindly! Hog Leg Hauler, one of the original river bankers of North Iowa!

 

Hog Leg Hauler, There's a lot of brands of scopes and I haven't tested a Vortex, although they appear to be a good brand. From the manufacturer's specs, the Vortex Crossfire II appears to be a clone of the Nikon P-22 ... except it has a smaller objective lens (32mm versus 42mm for a Nikon P-22). A smaller objective lens means it will probably mount with low rings (which is good), whereas the Nikon requires medium height rings. It also means the Nikon will be brighter .... so there are some pluses and minuses. Length and weight are pretty close. The price on both scopes are pretty much the same .... about $180.

It appears Nikon has renamed their P-22 to just "P", probably because it also has a good application for shotguns and black powder rifles. The "22" likely made customers think it was only for a 22 rifle.

I'm sure the Vortex would work well on your 10/22 ... it's just a matter of comparing features and selecting the one that best matches your needs.

 

Thanks Iowegan-The smaller objective lens (32 vs 42mm) was one of the things I liked about the Vortex. I'm off work today (rain makes mud for a heavy equipment operator), so I might slide over to my area gunshop and check out the Vortex again. I noticed to that Nikon had renamed the the P-22. Bought one of Ruger your single action manuals a few yrs ago and love every square inch of its information. High fives to ya!

 

Iowegan, please take this as a complement... but you really need to write a book. In the meantime I need to simply print out all your posts and put it into a file. Just a wealth of great info.

 

Welcome from Nor-Cal!
This is really a nice place as evidenced by the replies to the OP.

 

vip torture, Thanks for the compliment!! I have written several books but I no longer sell them. Meantime, I have written several short articles and put them in the Forum Library ... several topics to include "Scope Dope", which directly applies to this thread. Here's a link to the Library, just in case you can't find it: http://rugerforum.net/library/ Downloads are free and are in a PDF format (Adobe Reader).

 

Well, I finally got to see, touch and handle a Nikon P-Rimfire (formerly known as the P22) at my local Bass Pro Shop yesterday after work.

Its a really nice scope that oozes quality. Bright, clear glass, nice reticle, nice functional zoom.... but wow - its heavy! I couldn't compare it to the Leupold directly, but checked the weights online and the Nikon is nearly double the weight of the Leupold at 16.1 oz!

I'm not completely decided yet on what I'm going to buy. My 10/22 T/D is going to be a carry gun that I take hiking with me, so the scope weight matters, as does the size. I could probably live with the Nikon, but I'm still thinking Leupold. I'll be sure to post again once I've made up my mind and bought something.

 

gunphile, Something wrong with the Nikon weight ... my P-22 weighs 14 oz with the lens caps. Here's a link for Midway showing the new P-Rimfire @ 13.9 oz. Nikon P-Rimfire Rifle Scope 2-7x 32mm 1/2 MOA Adjustments BDC 150

If size and weight are your priorities, you won't beat the Lupy. Go for it!

 

Update on my quest to scope my 10-22. I did buy and mount a Vortex Crossfire II 2-7x using Burris rings today. Thought the Leupold VX-1 was a little to pricey at $230 for what I needed a scope for, but it is a nice scope and what can you say-It's a Leupold!!!! The Nikon Prostaff rimfire 3-9x was overpowered for my needs, plus had a 40mm objective lenses. The Nikon P-rimfire was a close 2nd, but I didn't care for the BDC reticle with the aiming points. It did have a 32mm objective lenses. The Nikon P was a little more dollar wise ($180) than the Vortex, which was $120, but the reviews and report from my gun shop owner had high marks for the Vortex. Looks good on the Ruger 10-22, plan on giving it a trial run on Saturday. Nikon does list the P-22 at 16.1 oz, the Vortex weighs in at 14.3 oz, wouldn't think the 2 extra oz would make any difference. The Leopold claims a 8.5 oz weight. Any of the scopes in question should give good service and accuracy. As I heard many moons ago, only a handful of shooters can shoot to any guns full potential. Same goes for guitar playing, I know. But we all strive to achieve that goal!!!!

 

Hog Leg Hauler, Looks like you made a good decision based on your needs. As they say on the forums .... PICTURES OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN !!!!

 

So, I pulled the trigger on Saturday and bought the Leupold!

Now....the rings. I bought a lower-profile Leupold weaver rail and mounted it, since the picatinny rail I had on the gun was easily 1/8" higher. Then I picked out two sets of rings - the Weaver low top mount (which most people say are the lowest available), and some Burris Zee low rings.

I tried fitting the Weaver rings first since I think they are lower. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not very impressed with how they are made. It's very difficult to get the top part of the ring around the scope tube without seriously scratching the finish on the scope tube. Then, there is the leveling of the scope, which is also tricky since the screws only go in on one side. And as I look at the tiny piece of metal on the bottom part of the ring that grabs just a small part of the Weaver rail when tightened down, I can't help but wonder - "Is this thing ever going to let go if bumped just right when I'm out hunting?"

I see from these forums that these rings are popular, so clearly many here, including Mr. Iowegan, like them. I do like the slightly lower profile and the lighter weight, but they just don't inspire the confidence that the Burris rings do for strength and quality. Maybe I'm just a bit extra paranoid because I paid the big bucks for the Leupold scope. Am I missing something?

Cheers, and thanks for all the great feedback so far. This is a great forum!

 

gunphile, Weaver "Top Mount" rings are my least favorite. They are the original Weaver design that have been around for a long time ... more than 60 years. They were designed for high power rifles so I don't think you have to worry about the steel top coming loose from the aluminum bottom. I do have a couple rifles with Weaver Top Mounts and they do work. What I don't like about them is what you said about scratching the scope but more importantly ... when you tighten the two screws, the scope has a tendency to roll a little, making the crosshairs off level. It takes a bit of patience to get the scope mounted level but after you do, the rings do a good job.

The Waver Quad-Lock rings have 4 screws per ring and mount much easier, however I don't think they are available in "low" .... only "medium" and "high". By using the factory Weaver base (which is very low) and the "medium" Quad Lock rings, the scope ends up about the same height as when "low" rings are used with a taller aftermarket base.

Good luck with your new Lupy ... I'm sure you will enjoy it.

 

I started my own thread on this then found it already covered here.

My 11112 TD (threaded barrel) just arrived, I haven't even picked it up yet. The last few days I've been trying to figure out what scope/mount I need. It's important that it fits in the Ruger bag so I'll need a quick detachable mount. After reading this thread I decided on the Nikon 3-9X40 (6734) that has the AO. I don't have the rifle yet and I'm not sure what base Ruger provides. Can you suggest a quality mount that would work for me? I'd like to get it ordered soon.

Thanks

 

I would use a DNZ mount.
DNZ Ruger 10/22 Mount 1 Inch Scope Tube FREE S&H 11082, 11083, 11080, 11081, 11084, 11084s, 11080c, 11082c. DNZ Products Riflescope Mounts, Rings & Bases.

 

Nice mount but I need a quick detach type with levers.