Best Optics for 10/22?
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Joined
·
670 Posts
I use everything from a 36X target dot Weaver to a red dot no magnification. Depends on the use, doesn't it? A good Simmons 3.5-10X are inexpensive and work well on 10/22s or you can step up in magnification and try Mueller scopes.
If money is no object any number of Leopolds will do.
If money is no object any number of Leopolds will do.
Joined
·
64 Posts
I'm using 3-9 variable low cost on all my 22's, but I'm happy with golf ball sized groups at 25 yds, haven;t down 50-70 yet, but it should do baseball and softball sized, which is good enough for me
I have two scopes I use on my 10/22s...
One is way too heavy at 20oz...it's a 4-12x40mm AO/EFR/TT-1/8 moa... it lacks magnification for shooting small at 100 yards...4x is too much magnification for shooting small at 5 yards...but with EFR the 4x is tolerable at 10 yards but still annoyingly high magnification to me...I like having it available for bench rest shooting...and I have it set very close to the same eye level as my smaller scope so when they get swapped out the cheek rest is still very good...additionally...the eye relief on the big scope at 12x is less than the small scope at full power...and my cheek rest ramps up...so the combined eye-relief and eye level changes are compensated for...
Anything over 40mm objective will require and awkwardly high mount to clear the barrel...making setting the cheek rest to the correct height for proper use a lot more difficult...
The other scope is a Leupold VX-1 2-7x28mm rimfire which is parallax free at 60 yards... no AO...it is the ideal size/weight for a 10/22 that is used primarily for off hand shooting and hunting...
The 7x is good enough at 50-60 yards especially given that is the parallax free distance...the 2x is really sweet at point blank range even w/o any parallax adjustment...it is not good for shooting small at 100 yards...you need a match grade barrel and quality ammo to shoot small at 100yards with a 10/22 anyway...if you are shooting at 1 gallon milk jugs with a factory barrel and cheap bulk ammo the 7x w/o the AO is fine...
The IDEAL scope IMO for the 10/22 for the average shooter doing mostly off hand and hunting and only trying to shoot small at 75 yards or less is a 3-9x33mm AO/EFR scope with low profile finger turrets and 1/4 moa adjustments...
The Leupold is available with fine duplex which I love for shooting small...
Weaver makes the RV-9 which is a 3-9x32mm AO/EFR and costs a lot less than the Leupold equivalent...people say the Weaver is just as good if not better...
If money were no object...I would want the Leupold VX-2 3-9x32mm AO/EFR with fine duplex for mine...
Both are only 10oz in weight...and you can mount them as low as any smaller scope...
I considered getting the Weaver...possibly I should have...decided to got with the Leupold 2-7 for less money...and slightly less weight...I like it...a lot...
There is a lot of interesting "stuff" in this thread...
http://rugerforum.net/optics/59538-low_lower_lowest.html?
people assume...incorrectly...that I am advocating one thing or another...not so...the exception being the importance of the correct height/style cheek rest for you...
The things to note in this thread are the outcomes of using particular rail/ring mounting combos with regard to what will be adequate height to clear the barrel and what will NOT prior to selecting rings...the generic charts and references to "low, med, high" rings are nearly worthless imo...five different style rings all called "low" will not be the same height...the various rails are different heights too...
Prior to selecting a scope SIZE and STYLE and FEATURES...make sure you go to school at the NSSF on youtube with master sniper school instructor Ryan Cleckner...take into account how you will use the gun and at what distances and how small of a target you will be satisfied with...pay particular attention to the method he teaches for setting up your cheek rest...an awesome scope without a proper cheek rest is not as good as a lesser scope with perfect cheek rest...the cheek rest for the factory gun is for the factory sights...which are set at approximately 1/2" above the center of the bore...odds are you will get a scope with an eye level of approximately 1-7/16" above the center of the bore...makes it very difficult to use the scope correctly...
One more thing...the factory rail on the 10/22 is UNDER SIZED on the width for Weaver Brand, Weaver style rings...I highly recommend getting a better one...the cheap Weaver brand tip off rails are very nice for under $10 and fit perfectly with low cost Weaver and low cost Leupold Rifleman aluminum rings which are both ideal imo for the average 1022...
http://rugerforum.net/optics/59538-low_lower_lowest.html?
people assume...incorrectly...that I am advocating one thing or another...not so...the exception being the importance of the correct height/style cheek rest for you...
The things to note in this thread are the outcomes of using particular rail/ring mounting combos with regard to what will be adequate height to clear the barrel and what will NOT prior to selecting rings...the generic charts and references to "low, med, high" rings are nearly worthless imo...five different style rings all called "low" will not be the same height...the various rails are different heights too...
Prior to selecting a scope SIZE and STYLE and FEATURES...make sure you go to school at the NSSF on youtube with master sniper school instructor Ryan Cleckner...take into account how you will use the gun and at what distances and how small of a target you will be satisfied with...pay particular attention to the method he teaches for setting up your cheek rest...an awesome scope without a proper cheek rest is not as good as a lesser scope with perfect cheek rest...the cheek rest for the factory gun is for the factory sights...which are set at approximately 1/2" above the center of the bore...odds are you will get a scope with an eye level of approximately 1-7/16" above the center of the bore...makes it very difficult to use the scope correctly...
One more thing...the factory rail on the 10/22 is UNDER SIZED on the width for Weaver Brand, Weaver style rings...I highly recommend getting a better one...the cheap Weaver brand tip off rails are very nice for under $10 and fit perfectly with low cost Weaver and low cost Leupold Rifleman aluminum rings which are both ideal imo for the average 1022...
I got 2 Simmons on 2 of my 10-22's and a BSA on the third. For 50 bucks can't go wrong. Get plenty of nice groups at 50 and 100 yards and at 71 I don't have the steadiest hands in the world or the best eyes. Can't justify the logic of putting a scope that costs twice as much as the rifle when you can get good results with glass much cheaper.
I like variable power optics. Even more on rimfire, where there's not much shock to the scope. The power is up to the shooter and what he/she wants/needs. IMO 3x should be minimum magnification. I can use 3x magnification indoors, with targets at 10 feet. I would suggest 3-9x, 3-12x, or 3-15x
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
Frebitz, what do use your 10/22 for mostly? Plinking, target shooting, hunting, varmit control., etc?
A red-dot sight makes for faster target aquisition but less "pin-point" accuracy than is achievable with a magnified optic (scope).
I have both and use them for different purposes. Clarification of usage might help.
A red-dot sight makes for faster target aquisition but less "pin-point" accuracy than is achievable with a magnified optic (scope).
I have both and use them for different purposes. Clarification of usage might help.
Joined
·
18,273 Posts
Frebitz, I think ZommyGun covered most of the technical aspects quite well so I will try to cover some of the practical aspects.
I own a lot of different 22 rifles and gaggle of scopes from a $30 Simmons to a $550 Leupold. My guns are married up with scopes that match their intended use, the rifle's accuracy potential, and the cost of the gun. I think it's silly to put a cheap scope on a match grade bench rest rifle just as it is silly to put an expensive scope on a cheap rifle.
Most scope manufacturers make "rimfire" scopes that are parallax corrected for 50 yards, versus 100~150 yards for high power rifle scopes. So .... I would start by selecting a rimfire scope.
Magnification can be a great advantage but can also be a severe disadvantage. Most people tend to buy scopes with too much magnification. This results in a more narrow field of view, making it harder to spot game or even a target. Over magnification also adds distortion, it makes eye relief critical, and it amplifies "wiggle", making it very difficult to hold the cross hairs on target. The standard for a 22 rifle is 1X per 10 yards so a 4X would be about perfect for 40 yard shots, however it can easily be used for closer or further shots ... all depending on the shooter's abilities. Considering the optimum shooting distance for a 22 LR is from 25 to 75 yards, the best match for a general purpose scope would be a 2~7X. This would provide the optimum magnification for 20~70 yards and can easily be stretched to 100 yards. A 3~9X will also work well (30~90 yards).
Factory 10/22s are not the most accurate guns in the world nor are they the most expensive. As such, I suggest a medium grade scope ... in the $75~$100 price range. This price range seems to match the rifle's quality and probably exceeds a 10/22's accuracy potential. Scopes in this price range are made in China but they have good quality optics, are reasonably rugged, and will hold zero quite well. Don't expect premium grade optical or mechanical quality though ... for that you will spend $150 or more ... way more if you go with a Leupold or other top-of-the-line brand.
Last is the objective lens (front lens). Larger lenses capture more light but they are also heavier and require higher mounts. The general rule is to use the lowest mounts possible that will allow the objective lens bell to clear the barrel. A 30mm objective lens is good for a 22 ... certainly no more than 40mm unless it is a bench rest rifle.
So in summary, get a rimfire scope, try to match magnification with your expected shooting distances. Look for a 30mm~40mm objective lens. With scopes, price usually dictates quality so let your wallet be your guide. Here's a short document I wrote that may help explain some of the ins and outs of scopes. It is in the Forum Library, titled "Scope Dope", however you need at least 10 posts to get Library access. http://rugerforum.net/library/61505-scope-dope.html
I own a lot of different 22 rifles and gaggle of scopes from a $30 Simmons to a $550 Leupold. My guns are married up with scopes that match their intended use, the rifle's accuracy potential, and the cost of the gun. I think it's silly to put a cheap scope on a match grade bench rest rifle just as it is silly to put an expensive scope on a cheap rifle.
Most scope manufacturers make "rimfire" scopes that are parallax corrected for 50 yards, versus 100~150 yards for high power rifle scopes. So .... I would start by selecting a rimfire scope.
Magnification can be a great advantage but can also be a severe disadvantage. Most people tend to buy scopes with too much magnification. This results in a more narrow field of view, making it harder to spot game or even a target. Over magnification also adds distortion, it makes eye relief critical, and it amplifies "wiggle", making it very difficult to hold the cross hairs on target. The standard for a 22 rifle is 1X per 10 yards so a 4X would be about perfect for 40 yard shots, however it can easily be used for closer or further shots ... all depending on the shooter's abilities. Considering the optimum shooting distance for a 22 LR is from 25 to 75 yards, the best match for a general purpose scope would be a 2~7X. This would provide the optimum magnification for 20~70 yards and can easily be stretched to 100 yards. A 3~9X will also work well (30~90 yards).
Factory 10/22s are not the most accurate guns in the world nor are they the most expensive. As such, I suggest a medium grade scope ... in the $75~$100 price range. This price range seems to match the rifle's quality and probably exceeds a 10/22's accuracy potential. Scopes in this price range are made in China but they have good quality optics, are reasonably rugged, and will hold zero quite well. Don't expect premium grade optical or mechanical quality though ... for that you will spend $150 or more ... way more if you go with a Leupold or other top-of-the-line brand.
Last is the objective lens (front lens). Larger lenses capture more light but they are also heavier and require higher mounts. The general rule is to use the lowest mounts possible that will allow the objective lens bell to clear the barrel. A 30mm objective lens is good for a 22 ... certainly no more than 40mm unless it is a bench rest rifle.
So in summary, get a rimfire scope, try to match magnification with your expected shooting distances. Look for a 30mm~40mm objective lens. With scopes, price usually dictates quality so let your wallet be your guide. Here's a short document I wrote that may help explain some of the ins and outs of scopes. It is in the Forum Library, titled "Scope Dope", however you need at least 10 posts to get Library access. http://rugerforum.net/library/61505-scope-dope.html
Joined
·
670 Posts
That presumes use of the factory carbine stock of course. The Weaver rail is the T09. Available almost anywhere they have rings for around $10 in blue & silver.
Joined
·
852 Posts
IMHO, too many shooter put too large a scope on their rifles and it's usually mounted far too high.
Even when the stock is cut to accommodate a high line of sight optic, it's still less than optimum as the higher line of sight over the bore centerline has an impact on the angle of departure. That is doubly true on a .22LR that is by definition zeroed at fairly close ranges of 25, 50 or 100 yards, and already has a very rainbow like trajectory.
In terms of magnification, and objective sizes more is often not better. For example, a 10/22 is a light handy carbine - until you saddle it with a large 40mm or 50mm objective variable scope. It then becomes top heavy and it's got way more magnification than it needs.
In addition, large magnification does not equate to sharp resolution unless the quality of the lenses is quite high. For example, there are many low end scopes with 20x, 24x or 36x magnification in 44mm or 50mm objective lenses and all of them will get fuzzy and lose resolution at the higher magnifications and they will also not have adequate light except possibly under bright sunlight conditions.
The reasons for that are pretty clear - no pun intended. Ideally you want an exit pupil no smaller than about 4 for low light/cloudy day conditions (and 5 is better). The exit pupil is found by dividing the objective lens by the magnification, so a 20x scope with a 44 mm objective will have an exit pupil of only 2.2, and that's about the size of your pupil in bright high noon sunlight on a cloudless summer day. Realistically, you 20x variable scope with a 44mm objective than is limited to about 10x on the average day before the image quality goes south in terms of both brightness and resolution.
Worse, large objectives are harder to make with the required precision, so an inexpensive scope with low quality optics and a large objective lens still won't deliver high resolution even in good light. You'll note distortion out at the edges of the field of view, and worst case in a really low quality scope, the center of the scope will have some distortion as well.
Also, cheap scopes have lower quality lens coatings with greater internal reflection and greater light loss. Variables also add 2 or 3 more lenses (depending on the design) and lose even more light to internal reflection than a fixed power scope. In addition, inexpensive variables tend to have alignment issues and the zero will often wander around as the magnification is changed.
Inexpensive scopes also tend to have single piece lenses that suffer from chromatic aberration, while higher quality scopes will use either achromatic lenses made from a doublet of two types of glass, or will be made from an extra low dispersion glass (ED). Chromatic aberration is essentially an issue of different wavelengths of light coming to different focal points, meaning the image will be fuzzy and lack a sharp focus as the wavelengths cannot converge at the same point. Achromatic and ED lenses correct for this and allow a sharp focus, which equates directly to better resolution.
Finally, an inexpensive scope will not normally have consistent and repeatable adjustments. There will often be back lash in the screws, so an adjustment won't show any effect for the first few clicks, and then it will continue to move over the course of a few shots until it rests on the same face again, meaning you usually overshoot the adjustment you wanted. It's also not uncommon to find they are not properly aligned with the crosshair, so that each adjustment has both a horizontal and vertical component. It's livable if you never adjust the sights for windage or elevation - assuming the scope will hold a zero - but establishing that zero is never enjoyable.
So... all things being considered, you are better off buying a lower magnification optic with better quality lenses that will allow less light loss, sharper focus and better resolution. You'll see .22 caliber holes at 100 yards with a quality 2-7x, 3-9x or fixed power 6x scope easier and with far greater sharpness that you will with a cheap 4-16x or 6.5-20x scope.
I have either Leupold 3-9x33mm or Leupold 2-7x33 scopes on all my .22LRs - with the exception of an Anschutz that has a fixed power Leupold M8 12x40mm scope.
At 9x a 33 mm scope has a 3.67mm exit pupil, and at 7x the exit pupil is 4.71 - nearly ideal even in low light conditions. The optical quality is very good with sharp resolution from edge to edge, the optics are well aligned with no change in zero as the power is changed and the adjustments are back lash free, consistent and repeatable.
Consequently the light weight and smaller footprint of those scopes, combined with decent quality optics and rock solid adjustments means everything it brings to the rifle is actually usable, instead of just marketing hype. And, since it's a 33mm scope, on low rings and a standard Weaver rail it tends to be low and close to the barrel, minimizing problems establishing a consistent cheek weld.
I should add here that I don't own a .22 rifle zeroed at less than 100 yards and I normally shoot at 100-200 yards with them.
Again, all you need is enough magnification to see the target, you don't need over kill on a field rifle, and you don't want to put yourself in the position of trading resolution and image brightness for excessive magnification.
Now if you plan on bench rest shooting at paper targets, then more magnification is a benefit to more accurately see and bi-sect the X-ring - but again I'd go for quality and I'd choose a fixed power scope of moderate 12x or 16x magnification over a 24x or 36x scope, especially if I ever planned on shooting it prone rather than off a bench. With my 12x40mm M8, the exit pupil is still 3.3, so while it's not a low light scope it still delivers good image resolution and brightness even on all but the darkest over cast days. More power would mostly be a detriment to the real world shooting I do with it.
On a standard 10/22 carbine, I feel a quality variable in the 2-7 range is ideal. It offers enough magnification to see targets out to the effective range of the carbine, the low end of the range offers the wide field of view needed to see and acquire short range and/or moving targets, and it's not overly large in size for the proportions of the carbine.
Here's my 10/22 with a Leupold VX1 2-7x33 on low millet rings and a Weaver T0-9 base. It's as large and as high as I'd go on a 10/22 carbine.
Even when the stock is cut to accommodate a high line of sight optic, it's still less than optimum as the higher line of sight over the bore centerline has an impact on the angle of departure. That is doubly true on a .22LR that is by definition zeroed at fairly close ranges of 25, 50 or 100 yards, and already has a very rainbow like trajectory.
In terms of magnification, and objective sizes more is often not better. For example, a 10/22 is a light handy carbine - until you saddle it with a large 40mm or 50mm objective variable scope. It then becomes top heavy and it's got way more magnification than it needs.
In addition, large magnification does not equate to sharp resolution unless the quality of the lenses is quite high. For example, there are many low end scopes with 20x, 24x or 36x magnification in 44mm or 50mm objective lenses and all of them will get fuzzy and lose resolution at the higher magnifications and they will also not have adequate light except possibly under bright sunlight conditions.
The reasons for that are pretty clear - no pun intended. Ideally you want an exit pupil no smaller than about 4 for low light/cloudy day conditions (and 5 is better). The exit pupil is found by dividing the objective lens by the magnification, so a 20x scope with a 44 mm objective will have an exit pupil of only 2.2, and that's about the size of your pupil in bright high noon sunlight on a cloudless summer day. Realistically, you 20x variable scope with a 44mm objective than is limited to about 10x on the average day before the image quality goes south in terms of both brightness and resolution.
Worse, large objectives are harder to make with the required precision, so an inexpensive scope with low quality optics and a large objective lens still won't deliver high resolution even in good light. You'll note distortion out at the edges of the field of view, and worst case in a really low quality scope, the center of the scope will have some distortion as well.
Also, cheap scopes have lower quality lens coatings with greater internal reflection and greater light loss. Variables also add 2 or 3 more lenses (depending on the design) and lose even more light to internal reflection than a fixed power scope. In addition, inexpensive variables tend to have alignment issues and the zero will often wander around as the magnification is changed.
Inexpensive scopes also tend to have single piece lenses that suffer from chromatic aberration, while higher quality scopes will use either achromatic lenses made from a doublet of two types of glass, or will be made from an extra low dispersion glass (ED). Chromatic aberration is essentially an issue of different wavelengths of light coming to different focal points, meaning the image will be fuzzy and lack a sharp focus as the wavelengths cannot converge at the same point. Achromatic and ED lenses correct for this and allow a sharp focus, which equates directly to better resolution.
Finally, an inexpensive scope will not normally have consistent and repeatable adjustments. There will often be back lash in the screws, so an adjustment won't show any effect for the first few clicks, and then it will continue to move over the course of a few shots until it rests on the same face again, meaning you usually overshoot the adjustment you wanted. It's also not uncommon to find they are not properly aligned with the crosshair, so that each adjustment has both a horizontal and vertical component. It's livable if you never adjust the sights for windage or elevation - assuming the scope will hold a zero - but establishing that zero is never enjoyable.
So... all things being considered, you are better off buying a lower magnification optic with better quality lenses that will allow less light loss, sharper focus and better resolution. You'll see .22 caliber holes at 100 yards with a quality 2-7x, 3-9x or fixed power 6x scope easier and with far greater sharpness that you will with a cheap 4-16x or 6.5-20x scope.
I have either Leupold 3-9x33mm or Leupold 2-7x33 scopes on all my .22LRs - with the exception of an Anschutz that has a fixed power Leupold M8 12x40mm scope.
At 9x a 33 mm scope has a 3.67mm exit pupil, and at 7x the exit pupil is 4.71 - nearly ideal even in low light conditions. The optical quality is very good with sharp resolution from edge to edge, the optics are well aligned with no change in zero as the power is changed and the adjustments are back lash free, consistent and repeatable.
Consequently the light weight and smaller footprint of those scopes, combined with decent quality optics and rock solid adjustments means everything it brings to the rifle is actually usable, instead of just marketing hype. And, since it's a 33mm scope, on low rings and a standard Weaver rail it tends to be low and close to the barrel, minimizing problems establishing a consistent cheek weld.
I should add here that I don't own a .22 rifle zeroed at less than 100 yards and I normally shoot at 100-200 yards with them.
Again, all you need is enough magnification to see the target, you don't need over kill on a field rifle, and you don't want to put yourself in the position of trading resolution and image brightness for excessive magnification.
Now if you plan on bench rest shooting at paper targets, then more magnification is a benefit to more accurately see and bi-sect the X-ring - but again I'd go for quality and I'd choose a fixed power scope of moderate 12x or 16x magnification over a 24x or 36x scope, especially if I ever planned on shooting it prone rather than off a bench. With my 12x40mm M8, the exit pupil is still 3.3, so while it's not a low light scope it still delivers good image resolution and brightness even on all but the darkest over cast days. More power would mostly be a detriment to the real world shooting I do with it.
On a standard 10/22 carbine, I feel a quality variable in the 2-7 range is ideal. It offers enough magnification to see targets out to the effective range of the carbine, the low end of the range offers the wide field of view needed to see and acquire short range and/or moving targets, and it's not overly large in size for the proportions of the carbine.
Here's my 10/22 with a Leupold VX1 2-7x33 on low millet rings and a Weaver T0-9 base. It's as large and as high as I'd go on a 10/22 carbine.
Joined
·
445 Posts
Everyone above pretty much covered all the topics.
I myself won't spend too much on an optic relative to the cost of the firearm.
I have a TD model with a Bushnell TRS-25 Red Dot ($85) for quick short range target acquisition and it works great.
I have a carbine model with TacSol light weight barrel and mounted a fixed power 4x33 Nikon Prostaff scope ($80) and I love it. Nice quality optics for great price.
I almost went with the Redfield Revenge 2-7 power similar to above but then found the Nikon at that great price. The Redfield was around $130-$150 I think and it's a great quality optic as well.
If you decide on a 2-7 power scope go with either the Redfield or the Nikon. They are both pretty much equal in quality. I would choose the one thats at a better price at that moment.
Nikon ProStaff 4x32 Rimfire Scope
![]()
I myself won't spend too much on an optic relative to the cost of the firearm.
I have a TD model with a Bushnell TRS-25 Red Dot ($85) for quick short range target acquisition and it works great.
I have a carbine model with TacSol light weight barrel and mounted a fixed power 4x33 Nikon Prostaff scope ($80) and I love it. Nice quality optics for great price.
I almost went with the Redfield Revenge 2-7 power similar to above but then found the Nikon at that great price. The Redfield was around $130-$150 I think and it's a great quality optic as well.
If you decide on a 2-7 power scope go with either the Redfield or the Nikon. They are both pretty much equal in quality. I would choose the one thats at a better price at that moment.
Nikon ProStaff 4x32 Rimfire Scope
Joined
·
445 Posts
This scope was absolute first choice's for a while but I couldn't grab a good enough deal on ebay. They kept getting bidded to high.IMHO, too many shooter put too large a scope on their rifles and it's usually mounted far too high.
Even when the stock is cut to accommodate a high line of sight optic, it's still less than optimum as the higher line of sight over the bore centerline has an impact on the angle of departure. That is doubly true on a .22LR that is by definition zeroed at fairly close ranges of 25, 50 or 100 yards, and already has a very rainbow like trajectory.
In terms of magnification, and objective sizes more is often not better. For example, a 10/22 is a light handy carbine - until you saddle it with a large 40mm or 50mm objective variable scope. It then becomes top heavy and it's got way more magnification than it needs.
In addition, large magnification does not equate to sharp resolution unless the quality of the lenses is quite high. For example, there are many low end scopes with 20x, 24x or 36x magnification in 44mm or 50mm objective lenses and all of them will get fuzzy and lose resolution at the higher magnifications and they will also not have adequate light except possibly under bright sunlight conditions.
The reasons for that are pretty clear - no pun intended. Ideally you want an exit pupil no smaller than about 4 for low light/cloudy day conditions (and 5 is better). The exit pupil is found by dividing the objective lens by the magnification, so a 20x scope with a 44 mm objective will have an exit pupil of only 2.2, and that's about the size of your pupil in bright high noon sunlight on a cloudless summer day. Realistically, you 20x variable scope with a 44mm objective than is limited to about 10x on the average day before the image quality goes south in terms of both brightness and resolution.
Worse, large objectives are harder to make with the required precision, so an inexpensive scope with low quality optics and a large objective lens still won't deliver high resolution even in good light. You'll note distortion out at the edges of the field of view, and worst case in a really low quality scope, the center of the scope will have some distortion as well.
Also, cheap scopes have lower quality lens coatings with greater internal reflection and greater light loss. Variables also add 2 or 3 more lenses (depending on the design) and lose even more light to internal reflection than a fixed power scope. In addition, inexpensive variables tend to have alignment issues and the zero will often wander around as the magnification is changed.
Inexpensive scopes also tend to have single piece lenses that suffer from chromatic aberration, while higher quality scopes will use either achromatic lenses made from a doublet of two types of glass, or will be made from an extra low dispersion glass (ED). Chromatic aberration is essentially an issue of different wavelengths of light coming to different focal points, meaning the image will be fuzzy and lack a sharp focus as the wavelengths cannot converge at the same point. Achromatic and ED lenses correct for this and allow a sharp focus, which equates directly to better resolution.
Finally, an inexpensive scope will not normally have consistent and repeatable adjustments. There will often be back lash in the screws, so an adjustment won't show any effect for the first few clicks, and then it will continue to move over the course of a few shots until it rests on the same face again, meaning you usually overshoot the adjustment you wanted. It's also not uncommon to find they are not properly aligned with the crosshair, so that each adjustment has both a horizontal and vertical component. It's livable if you never adjust the sights for windage or elevation - assuming the scope will hold a zero - but establishing that zero is never enjoyable.
So... all things being considered, you are better off buying a lower magnification optic with better quality lenses that will allow less light loss, sharper focus and better resolution. You'll see .22 caliber holes at 100 yards with a quality 2-7x, 3-9x or fixed power 6x scope easier and with far greater sharpness that you will with a cheap 4-16x or 6.5-20x scope.
I have either Leupold 3-9x33mm or Leupold 2-7x33 scopes on all my .22LRs - with the exception of an Anschutz that has a fixed power Leupold M8 12x40mm scope.
At 9x a 33 mm scope has a 3.67mm exit pupil, and at 7x the exit pupil is 4.71 - nearly ideal even in low light conditions. The optical quality is very good with sharp resolution from edge to edge, the optics are well aligned with no change in zero as the power is changed and the adjustments are back lash free, consistent and repeatable.
Consequently the light weight and smaller footprint of those scopes, combined with decent quality optics and rock solid adjustments means everything it brings to the rifle is actually usable, instead of just marketing hype. And, since it's a 33mm scope, on low rings and a standard Weaver rail it tends to be low and close to the barrel, minimizing problems establishing a consistent cheek weld.
I should add here that I don't own a .22 rifle zeroed at less than 100 yards and I normally shoot at 100-200 yards with them.
Again, all you need is enough magnification to see the target, you don't need over kill on a field rifle, and you don't want to put yourself in the position of trading resolution and image brightness for excessive magnification.
Now if you plan on bench rest shooting at paper targets, then more magnification is a benefit to more accurately see and bi-sect the X-ring - but again I'd go for quality and I'd choose a fixed power scope of moderate 12x or 16x magnification over a 24x or 36x scope, especially if I ever planned on shooting it prone rather than off a bench. With my 12x40mm M8, the exit pupil is still 3.3, so while it's not a low light scope it still delivers good image resolution and brightness even on all but the darkest over cast days. More power would mostly be a detriment to the real world shooting I do with it.
On a standard 10/22 carbine, I feel a quality variable in the 2-7 range is ideal. It offers enough magnification to see targets out to the effective range of the carbine, the low end of the range offers the wide field of view needed to see and acquire short range and/or moving targets, and it's not overly large in size for the proportions of the carbine.
Here's my 10/22 with a Leupold VX1 2-7x33 on low millet rings and a Weaver T0-9 base. It's as large and as high as I'd go on a 10/22 carbine.
Joined
·
18,273 Posts
Model 52, I agree with most of your post, however there are some issues ... You don't see pupil size in rifle or pistol scope specs. Why? The formula you stated (objective lens diameter divided by magnification) is only used for binoculars, spotting scopes, telescopes, etc where your eye is almost touching the eye piece (20~30mm eye relief). Eye relief in most rifle scopes is usually in the 2.5~3.5" range, whereas mid-eye relief scopes (Scout scopes) are usually 6~10". Pistol scopes (long eye relief) can be a couple feet. As eye relief is extended, pupil size gets proportionally larger so pupil size is a moot point for any rifle scope.
As mentioned, keeping the scope as close to bore line as possible is very important. Cheek weld and eye-to-scope alignment will be optimum as will trajectory tracking. There are things going on inside the scope that are even more important. All lenses have better sharpness, less distortion, less vignetting, and better depth of field (parallax) when the light path is through the center of the lens. If the scope is mounted too high (think see-through rings for worst case) or crooked, the inside tube must be adjusted with the turret screws to compensate for the difference in bore line and sight line. The inside tube also has lens elements so by keeping the inside tube as close to center as possible, the light path will be in the center of the lens elements. This is especially important for Ruger 10/22s because the barrel points down a little in respect to the scope base where it is not unusual to find zero when the turret screws are near their limit. In other words, the inside tube is not even close to center so the light path will be at the edges of the lenses. By mechanically centering the reticule first then using a laser bore sighter, you can shim the scope where it is as close to optical center as possible when tightened down in the mounts. A well centered inside tube will give you the optimum overall optical qualities. There's a lot more info in the link I posted above for "Scope Dope".
The comments you made about "cheap scopes" are true, however even cheap Chinese scopes have improved considerably in the past several years .... to a point where it is hard for the human eye to detect a dramatic difference. Yes, sharpness is probably the most obvious but ... you're not using a rifle scope for a camera lens so if the view isn't just perfect ... no big deal .... as long as you can see well enough to punch holes in the target. There is a huge difference in optical and mechanical quality between a $30 scope and a $100 scope with the same features but just a subtle difference between a $100 and a $300 scope or a $300 versus $1000. The cost versus quality is logarithmic ... not linear. Look at Leupolds, Zeiss, or Swaroski ... you can easily drop a couple grand.
If I had deep pockets, I would have a top-of-the-line scope on every rifle I own. Unfortunately, my pockets aren't that deep so I try to match scope quality to gun quality. A scope for a "plinker grade" rifle doesn't have to be an expensive Nikon or Leupold ... a less expensive scope is good enough for most people, especially if it is mounted properly to take best advantage of optics.
I've never seen a turret screw with backlash. When you turn a turret screw tighter, it will force the inside tube to move ... no exceptions. The problem with many scopes ... yes, even some more expensive models is ... the leaf spring that pushes the inside tube against the tips of the turret screws. When you back off the turret screw, the leaf spring may not be strong enough to keep the inside tube pressed against the turret screws or the round inside tube will bind on the screw tips. Simple fix ... just give the top and side turret screws a light wrap with a plastic screwdriver handle. This will allow the inside tube to seat properly on the turret screw tips. If you follow "best practices" when zeroing a scope, this effect should never happen. By intentionally setting the turret screws out a half turn, as you walk in zero, you should only be turning the screws tighter, which will eliminate this effect.
As mentioned, keeping the scope as close to bore line as possible is very important. Cheek weld and eye-to-scope alignment will be optimum as will trajectory tracking. There are things going on inside the scope that are even more important. All lenses have better sharpness, less distortion, less vignetting, and better depth of field (parallax) when the light path is through the center of the lens. If the scope is mounted too high (think see-through rings for worst case) or crooked, the inside tube must be adjusted with the turret screws to compensate for the difference in bore line and sight line. The inside tube also has lens elements so by keeping the inside tube as close to center as possible, the light path will be in the center of the lens elements. This is especially important for Ruger 10/22s because the barrel points down a little in respect to the scope base where it is not unusual to find zero when the turret screws are near their limit. In other words, the inside tube is not even close to center so the light path will be at the edges of the lenses. By mechanically centering the reticule first then using a laser bore sighter, you can shim the scope where it is as close to optical center as possible when tightened down in the mounts. A well centered inside tube will give you the optimum overall optical qualities. There's a lot more info in the link I posted above for "Scope Dope".
The comments you made about "cheap scopes" are true, however even cheap Chinese scopes have improved considerably in the past several years .... to a point where it is hard for the human eye to detect a dramatic difference. Yes, sharpness is probably the most obvious but ... you're not using a rifle scope for a camera lens so if the view isn't just perfect ... no big deal .... as long as you can see well enough to punch holes in the target. There is a huge difference in optical and mechanical quality between a $30 scope and a $100 scope with the same features but just a subtle difference between a $100 and a $300 scope or a $300 versus $1000. The cost versus quality is logarithmic ... not linear. Look at Leupolds, Zeiss, or Swaroski ... you can easily drop a couple grand.
If I had deep pockets, I would have a top-of-the-line scope on every rifle I own. Unfortunately, my pockets aren't that deep so I try to match scope quality to gun quality. A scope for a "plinker grade" rifle doesn't have to be an expensive Nikon or Leupold ... a less expensive scope is good enough for most people, especially if it is mounted properly to take best advantage of optics.
Joined
·
852 Posts
Iowegian,
See this post:http://rugerforum.net/optics/81109-leupold-eye-relief-2.html#post1048140
----
As for back lash in telescope screws, it's extremely common and will be seen in terms of making adjustments in one direction and then seeing the movement continue over the course of the next few shots until the mechanism settles against the original face of the thread.
As a macro example of this, when preparing M1 or M14 sights for competition, we used to mill a portion of the boss off the rear sight pinion to create room for a spring that would consistently press the sight base against the same thread face. Without that, there would be a click or two of slack in one direction before the screw turned enough for the opposite face to start moving the sight base. The parts and tolerances are smaller in a rifle scope, but the same limiting factors exist.
The solution is very precise machining and some form of tensioning device to load the system in one direction to keep the mechanism agains the same thread face at all times. Cheap scope don't have the former and may not have the latter.
----
I agree optics have generally gotten better at any given price point. However I still see significant differences between $100 scopes and $350 scopes. For example, shooting today at 100 yards in partly sunny skies, I could see .22LR holes appear in the black with a VX2 3-9x40 and see the thin white lines inside the bull on an A23 at that same distance, and I could see a 36 gr .22LR bullet dropping onto a 5" steel plate at 150 yards. I can't see any of those things in a $100 3-9x40 scope, especially on a partly cloudy day.
See this post:http://rugerforum.net/optics/81109-leupold-eye-relief-2.html#post1048140
----
As for back lash in telescope screws, it's extremely common and will be seen in terms of making adjustments in one direction and then seeing the movement continue over the course of the next few shots until the mechanism settles against the original face of the thread.
As a macro example of this, when preparing M1 or M14 sights for competition, we used to mill a portion of the boss off the rear sight pinion to create room for a spring that would consistently press the sight base against the same thread face. Without that, there would be a click or two of slack in one direction before the screw turned enough for the opposite face to start moving the sight base. The parts and tolerances are smaller in a rifle scope, but the same limiting factors exist.
The solution is very precise machining and some form of tensioning device to load the system in one direction to keep the mechanism agains the same thread face at all times. Cheap scope don't have the former and may not have the latter.
----
I agree optics have generally gotten better at any given price point. However I still see significant differences between $100 scopes and $350 scopes. For example, shooting today at 100 yards in partly sunny skies, I could see .22LR holes appear in the black with a VX2 3-9x40 and see the thin white lines inside the bull on an A23 at that same distance, and I could see a 36 gr .22LR bullet dropping onto a 5" steel plate at 150 yards. I can't see any of those things in a $100 3-9x40 scope, especially on a partly cloudy day.
Joined
·
18,273 Posts
Model 52, I addressed the "back lash" issue in detail in my "Scope Dope" article posted in the Forum Library. See: http://rugerforum.net/library/61505-scope-dope.html Like any mechanical devise, there's a right way and a wrong way to make adjustments and most people tend to do it the wrong way. Back lash is called "hysteresis" and is a product of friction between the end of the turret screw and the inner tube of the scope.
All scopes are equipped with leaf spring located at 225 deg that pushes the inner tube against the tips of the turret screws. As you unscrew a turret screw, the screw obviously moves but the inner tube may not. This causes a gap between the tip of the turret screw and inner tube. When you fire a round, recoil will "twang" the inner tube and cause it to seat on the turret screws. This is bad because you will get a false indication of POI versus POA. The way to prevent hysteresis is to laser bore sight the rifle where the cross hairs are dead on the laser dot, then unscrew both turret screws about a half turn and tap them with a screwdriver handle to make the inner tube seat directly against the tips of the turret screws. When you fire the rifle, POI will be a couple inches high and right. As you "walk in" POI, both turret screws will be turned tighter, which will force the inner tube to move without any hysteresis. Most people start with the scope bore sighted for "zero" so it is very likely you will have to turn one or both turret screws looser to adjust zero. Any time you turn the screw looser, it increases the odds of hysteresis, more so with cheap scopes.
I have dissected many scopes to see how the manufacturer designed the internal tube, turret screws, front pivot, and leaf springs. With Chinese made scopes, the turret screws have a small tip mating with a round tube, a weaker leaf spring, and a rubber "O" ring for a front pivot ... definitely a candidate for hysteresis. Higher quality European or US made scopes either have a right angle bracket on the inner tube or have a very wide flat tip on the ends of the turret screws plus they have much stronger leaf springs and a metal front pivot. This reduces the chance for hysteresis and makes the turret very repeatable. The true test for repeatability is to start with the scope zeroed at a given distance then turn the top turret screw down 12 clicks, right turret screw left 12 clicks, then turn the top turret screw up 12 clicks and right turret screw right 12 clicks. If the inner tube tracked properly, POI should be exactly the same as before the test. Even cheap Chinese scopes are repeatable if you give the turret screws a healthy smack with a screwdriver handle.
No argument ... a $350 scope will definitely have better optical and mechanical quality than a $100 scope ..... but .... do you really need it? Case in point ... I have a $160 Chinese made Niko Stirling Night Eater; 3~10X; 44mm on a couple of my 22 target rifles. I also have a Leupold 3.5~10x; VX-3; 50mm on a 223 Rem Mod 700 that I bought on sale for $550. I did a side-by-side test with both scopes. The Leupold is definitely brighter, has better contrast, and focus is sharper, especially on the edges. The Leupold is parallax corrected for 100 yds (no side dial or AO ring). The Niko Stirling does have a side dial, which makes it much more suitable for a 22 where shooting distances are usually well under 100 yards. The Leupold is great for long distance varmint hunting where optical quality is important. Which one is best? No doubt, the Leupold wins as far as optical and mechanical quality, however the Niko Stirling is a much better selection for a 22 LR, primarily due to the adjustable parallax side dial. Granted, at 100 yards I can barely see the 22 cal holes with the Niko Stirling whereas with the Leupold, the holes are much clearer. Does this matter? Actually it doesn't matter to me because I still get a very good view of the bullseye and have no trouble placing the cross hairs in perfect position. Besides, I use a spotting scope for anything beyond 50 yards no matter what scope I use. I guess my point is ... do you really think a $550 Leupold is 3.5 times better than the $160 Niko Stirling? The answer is a resounding NO. IMO, the purpose of a rifle scope is to see the target well enough to hit it reliably .... not to count holes or see the bullet travel down range.
Further ... I bought two Nikon 2~7x; 32mm, P-22 scopes that I mounted on a couple 22 lever rifles. These scopes were $170 each at Cabela's and are the same as a Nikon Pro-Staff except they have target turrets and are parallax corrected for 50 yards. When I compare the Nikon P-22 to my Leupold VX-3 (both set for 7x), the Leupold is considerably brighter but I could not detect any notable difference in sharpness. They are an excellent selection for a 22 LR rifle where normal shooting distances are 25 to 75 yards. Again .... 3 times the price does not make the scope 3 times better. IMO, application is more important than the slight optical quality advantage found in more expensive scopes.
Last, I have a cheap $39 Simmons rimfire 4X mounted on a plane-Jane 10/22. It's a real piece of junk but I don't have a problem keeping the holes in the bullseye at 50+ yards. I seriously doubt this rifle would group any tighter with a $500 scope.
All scopes are equipped with leaf spring located at 225 deg that pushes the inner tube against the tips of the turret screws. As you unscrew a turret screw, the screw obviously moves but the inner tube may not. This causes a gap between the tip of the turret screw and inner tube. When you fire a round, recoil will "twang" the inner tube and cause it to seat on the turret screws. This is bad because you will get a false indication of POI versus POA. The way to prevent hysteresis is to laser bore sight the rifle where the cross hairs are dead on the laser dot, then unscrew both turret screws about a half turn and tap them with a screwdriver handle to make the inner tube seat directly against the tips of the turret screws. When you fire the rifle, POI will be a couple inches high and right. As you "walk in" POI, both turret screws will be turned tighter, which will force the inner tube to move without any hysteresis. Most people start with the scope bore sighted for "zero" so it is very likely you will have to turn one or both turret screws looser to adjust zero. Any time you turn the screw looser, it increases the odds of hysteresis, more so with cheap scopes.
I have dissected many scopes to see how the manufacturer designed the internal tube, turret screws, front pivot, and leaf springs. With Chinese made scopes, the turret screws have a small tip mating with a round tube, a weaker leaf spring, and a rubber "O" ring for a front pivot ... definitely a candidate for hysteresis. Higher quality European or US made scopes either have a right angle bracket on the inner tube or have a very wide flat tip on the ends of the turret screws plus they have much stronger leaf springs and a metal front pivot. This reduces the chance for hysteresis and makes the turret very repeatable. The true test for repeatability is to start with the scope zeroed at a given distance then turn the top turret screw down 12 clicks, right turret screw left 12 clicks, then turn the top turret screw up 12 clicks and right turret screw right 12 clicks. If the inner tube tracked properly, POI should be exactly the same as before the test. Even cheap Chinese scopes are repeatable if you give the turret screws a healthy smack with a screwdriver handle.
No argument ... a $350 scope will definitely have better optical and mechanical quality than a $100 scope ..... but .... do you really need it? Case in point ... I have a $160 Chinese made Niko Stirling Night Eater; 3~10X; 44mm on a couple of my 22 target rifles. I also have a Leupold 3.5~10x; VX-3; 50mm on a 223 Rem Mod 700 that I bought on sale for $550. I did a side-by-side test with both scopes. The Leupold is definitely brighter, has better contrast, and focus is sharper, especially on the edges. The Leupold is parallax corrected for 100 yds (no side dial or AO ring). The Niko Stirling does have a side dial, which makes it much more suitable for a 22 where shooting distances are usually well under 100 yards. The Leupold is great for long distance varmint hunting where optical quality is important. Which one is best? No doubt, the Leupold wins as far as optical and mechanical quality, however the Niko Stirling is a much better selection for a 22 LR, primarily due to the adjustable parallax side dial. Granted, at 100 yards I can barely see the 22 cal holes with the Niko Stirling whereas with the Leupold, the holes are much clearer. Does this matter? Actually it doesn't matter to me because I still get a very good view of the bullseye and have no trouble placing the cross hairs in perfect position. Besides, I use a spotting scope for anything beyond 50 yards no matter what scope I use. I guess my point is ... do you really think a $550 Leupold is 3.5 times better than the $160 Niko Stirling? The answer is a resounding NO. IMO, the purpose of a rifle scope is to see the target well enough to hit it reliably .... not to count holes or see the bullet travel down range.
Further ... I bought two Nikon 2~7x; 32mm, P-22 scopes that I mounted on a couple 22 lever rifles. These scopes were $170 each at Cabela's and are the same as a Nikon Pro-Staff except they have target turrets and are parallax corrected for 50 yards. When I compare the Nikon P-22 to my Leupold VX-3 (both set for 7x), the Leupold is considerably brighter but I could not detect any notable difference in sharpness. They are an excellent selection for a 22 LR rifle where normal shooting distances are 25 to 75 yards. Again .... 3 times the price does not make the scope 3 times better. IMO, application is more important than the slight optical quality advantage found in more expensive scopes.
Last, I have a cheap $39 Simmons rimfire 4X mounted on a plane-Jane 10/22. It's a real piece of junk but I don't have a problem keeping the holes in the bullseye at 50+ yards. I seriously doubt this rifle would group any tighter with a $500 scope.
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Join the discussion
