56Nomad, I have an issue with selecting an inferior scope just so it will fit in the factory backpack ... but I guess that isn't my problem.

The Ruger 10/22 Take Down does come with a Weaver style scope base, however the slots may not be spaced properly for a scope with such a short body. In other words, you would be wise to buy the multi-slot rail mount. You will need a set of rings for a 1" tube ... but not the 1" high rings in your post .... those are for an AR-15 so you can see over the front sight. You will need a set of "Medium" height, 1" rings .... UTG also makes them ... about 10 bucks.

 

I just bought this very scope to use on my Ruger 10/22 50th Anniversary Model, this actually is a nice little scope with many desirable features. I converted my 10/22 with a ATI I Tac rifle stock. The stock Ruger scope base's will work just fine with the UTG 3-9x32 Bug Buster CQB scope plus this scope comes with a set of detachable scope rings!! No need to buy the extra UTC Picatinny rail or the rings that you have listed. This scope comes already set up with a nice set of scope rings and the Ruger 10/22 scope base that comes with the Ruger 10/22 work just fine!!! There is a section here in the optics forum that covers this very setup for a Ruger 10/22 Take Down Model not Break Down!!! The UTG Bug Buster is one of the scopes mentioned that will fit in the 10/22 Take Down bag. I was looking for a 10/22 TD Model but there are some questions about the scope's holding their zero based on how tight the barrel nut is adjusted so there isn't barrel movement. This is the very reason I went with a Ruger 10/22 Tactical ATI I Tac model. Ruger actually sells this model but they are really hard to find at the LGS's this is why I made mine. Just a few words for thought I can still fold my stock down on my rifle and not affect the zero and still have a compact pkg!!! There is really nothing inferior about the UTG Bug Buster scope it has the Mil Dot reticle and has nice clear optics.

 

gqucool, Thanks for your post .... I'm glad to hear a Ruger supplied scope base will work, however I still think a multi-slot UTG base will provide more options for eye relief. If the Bug-Buster had a longer tube where it could be moved back and forth, it wouldn't be an issue.

I don't want to start some sort of brand war or bash UGT BugBuster scopes .... I just want to apply some common sense to the situation.

Let's start with the very purpose of a 10/22 Take Down .... it is NOT a match grade rifle intended for precision target shooting .... rather it was designed to be a field grade plinker and a small game hunting rifle. Like most field grade 22 LR rifles in this class, it's primary range is from 20 to 60 yards ... maybe 70 yards tops. Yes, it can shoot much farther but the ballistic characteristics of a 22 LR cartridge place a lot of limits on downrange accuracy. These include bullet drop and wind drift that are products of a slow bullet with a poor ballistic coefficient. So much for the rifle and ammo.

Variable power scopes were designed to allow the shooter to get an "X - yards" view at any distance within the scope's usable range. For a 22 LR, the usable scope range coincides with the limitations for ammo accuracy. In other words, the useable scope range for a field grade 22 LR rifle is from 20 to 70 yards. The optimum "naked eye view" distance for a 22 LR rifle is 10 yards so each X-magnification is a multiple of 10. This means ... if a target is at 40 yards, the scope should be set on 4X so the view will be the same size as a naked eye view at 10 yards. If the scope's zoom ring is adjusted as recommended, the size of the target will stay the same from the minimum to the maximum magnification .... or from 2x to 7x (20 to 70 yards). If a rifle is upgraded with a match grade barrel and shoots match grade ammo, the magnification of the scope can be increased accordingly. One VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE .... the mechanics of a rifle and the ammunition used in it will determine the ultimate accuracy potential or limitations. A decent scope will merely capitalize on the gun's accuracy potential, however the best scope in the world will not make a rifle any more accurate than its mechanical and ammo limitations.

Adjustable objective lenses and side dials will adjust the scope for a parallax free view ... assuming you take the time to use them properly. Parallax simply means the scope is adjusted where the cross hairs do not drift off the target when you move your eye in relation to the position of the scope. If parallax is not adjusted properly, the scope may drift as much as a couple inches in the worst case scenario .... which is using the highest magnification at the closest shooting distance (ie: 9x at 20 yards). If the scopes zoom is used properly (1x for each 10 yards) parallax will track quite well from the lowest magnification to the highest without the need for an adjustable objective lens or side dial. If you use a 10/22 for hunting small game, chances are you won't have time to be "knob dickin'" with the side dial and zoom before the critter runs away. For "multi-range" plinking, it's a pain to adjust the side dial each time .... and if you don't .... likely you will miss the target. In all but bench rest shooting, a side dial is usually more of a hindrance than a help.

As a matter of priority, it seems each gun owner determines what he or she thinks is the most important features for a scope. First and foremost ... you have to be honest with yourself and not "what if?" every possible scenario. No one scope can possibly meet every possible want or need. You have to be realistic, practical, and finally .... you have to get some education on optics, match your scope to your rifle, and be considerate of cost.

My priorities for a scope for my 10/22 TD were: Magnification must be 2 ~ 7X. Anything more or less powerful will defeat the purpose of "same size target" within the rifle's usable range. A decent 2~7X scope does NOT need an AO or side dial because parallax will track quite well when the zoom is set for the distance (ie 2x at 20 yards through 7x at 70 yards).

The reticle must be visible in field and target range conditions. The best universal reticle is a "dual=X" type, which has heavy dark lines on the outside and finer lines in the center. Mil dot reticles are great for snipers or long range target shooters but the dots just disappear in field conditions. Further, if you really want to use mil-dots the way they were designed to be used, they are just too busy for hunting .... by the time you figure out your holdover, Thumper the rabbit is long gone. Mil-dots excel with long range high power rifles but have minimal application for 22 LRs. If you want range estimation, a bullet drop compensator reticle will work much easier and faster.

The optical quality should be very good. I realize ... to get superb optics, you have to spend a lot of money but you can get very bright and clear optics in modestly priced scopes. The size of the objective lens helps determine light transfer through the scope ... along with the optical quality and coatings on the internal lenses.

I refuse to buy a scope that is not ruggedly designed. Granted, a 10/22 is not a high recoil rifle but the G-forces developed when the bolt slams home have been known to demo cheap scopes. The things that give you fits in a cheaper scope are .... the front internal erector tube swivel is nothing more than a rubber "O" ring, whereas in a better quality scope, the front swivel is a polymer ball joint. Rubber "O" rings die of old age or can die in just one day's storage in a car's trunk on a hot day. Of course good turret adjustments and a responsive turret spring are a must to maintain a proper zero.

Cost is important .... I think it would be silly to put a big bucks scope on a field grade rifle ... just as I think it is silly to put a cheap Chinese scope on a perfectly good 10/22. For me, $200 seemed to be affordable yet high enough quality to match the quality of my 10/22 TD. Cost is obviously very debatable .... but just one important thing ... in optics, you never get something for nothing. If an inexpensive scope is loaded with features, high quality won't be one of them.

Length and weight are also issues. You don't want some humongous scope that makes your field grade rifle look like a bear riding a tricycle. I think "sized right" is a good way to state it. As noted in the OP's post, it seems like his priority is size ... so the scoped receiver will fit in the sub-standard Ruger back pack. If that is his priority, then other priorities that favor function may suffer. For the money, a BugBuster is an adequate scope but there are others that are much higher quality yet don't break the bank. One such scope is a Nikon P-Rimfire 2~7X .... however it won't fit in the Ruger bag. Again, I don't want this to turn into a scope war ... just want to list some whys and wherefores. There's a lot more info on scopes in an article I posted in the Forum Library, titled "Scope Dope". Here's a link: http://rugerforum.net/library/61505-scope-dope.html

 

...............Length and weight are also issues. You don't want some humongous scope that makes your field grade rifle look like a bear riding a tricycle. I think "sized right" is a good way to state it. As noted in the OP's post, it seems like his priority is size ... so the scoped receiver will fit in the sub-standard Ruger back pack. If that is his priority, then other priorities that favor function may suffer. For the money, a BugBuster is an adequate scope but there are others that are much higher quality yet don't break the bank. One such scope is a Nikon P-Rimfire 2~7X .... however it won't fit in the Ruger bag. Again, I don't want this to turn into a scope war ... just want to list some whys and wherefores. There's a lot more info on scopes in an article I posted in the Forum Library, titled "Scope Dope". Here's a link: http://rugerforum.net/library/61505-scope-dope.html

Iowegan,

Thanks for your very detailed reply. It was very helpful to a gun novice who is tying to get the best bang for my buck. My dad brought back a Mauser
Patrone 22 Long Rifle after he serving in WWII which I've used for the past 45 years to plink with..... I'm looking forward to picking up this Ruger from the dealer in 10 days now that I've put money on it.

I appreciate your thoughts on the Nikon P-Rimfire 2~7X and that looks like it will be my choice of scopes. Here is a nice video that shows it will fit in the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQvxq7jc6ko

Here is another review of the Nikon scope......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AB...XjGl8CDilDBGfTAMeIZh868Bf4XnevkVpKKHryRrnOH9BHaj7bKhYnpmpf_xVZIT1sVO2AGuuwPTE0g

 

My UTG Bug buster does have a side knob but this is for the lighted reticle red/green feature. It does have a AO on the end bell. Personally I don't see myself using the lighted reticle feature but might be nice to have in low light situations. I was originally going to get a 10/22 TD, but later decided to make my own ATI I Tac model 10/22. I could have chosen a 2-7x32 scope but most of the one's mentioned are $180.00 + money I don't have just for a occasional shooing my .22 scenario. Now the UTG low profile rail mount might help if you need to move the scope back farther for eye relief. But no need for the UTG scope mounts that the OP has listed. Actually the UTC quick detach mounts that came with my scope worked out quite nice to the point I see no need to replace them. I haven't gone out yet to shoot my rifle/scope yet but did take the time to bore sight it in using my laser bore sight that I bought at Cabela's. I will say that for a $97.00 scope this scope is loaded with many features and has very clear optics 3-9x32 in such a compact pkg. I do like the medium width crosshairs with Mil-Dot reticle helps my aging eyes would I buy another one yes! So now I hope this helps out the OP's ?'s So is a cheap Chinese scope a UTG Bug Buster 3-9x32?? Well in my estimation one hell of a buy with all of the feature's it has!!!

 

56Nomad, I know Nikons are more expensive but I've found their quality is exceptionally good. In fact I have a 3~9X Leupold and a 3~9X Nikon ... both are 22 Rimfire scopes, both have an adjustable objective. The Nikon is much brighter and mechanically better yet the Leupold cost more than twice as much. I have two of the 2~7x P-22 Rimfires (Nikon dropped the P-22 designator but the scope is still the same) ... one is on my 10/22 TD, the other is on a 22 LR Henry lever action rifle. For the cost of the scopes and the cost of the rifles, I think it is an excellent quality match.

I've never owned a Bug Buster but I did check one out at a LGS. Not bad for the $$$ but I decided I wanted better optical and mechanical quality and I'm willing to spend more bucks. After owning a Nikon P-22 since 2012, I decided to get another and I'm not a bit sorry. I had cataract surgery and afterwards I found it very difficult to shoot my 22 rifles with iron sights so I have been on a quest to scope them. I do have one cheap Chinese scope on an old Remington Mod 511 bolt action ... some day I will replace it ... most likely with another 2~7X Nikon Rimfire.

BTW, I must have my Nikon mounted a bit farther forward on my 10/22 TD because it will not fit in the Ruger bag when mounted on the receiver. Easy solution ... I bought a set of quick disconnect rings and just remove the scope and store it in the center compartment of the Ruger backpack. It goes together in seconds and holds zero exceptionally well. My goal was not to sacrifice quality just so it would fit in the silly case.