Magnification for scope on 22LR rifle

CanuckShooter

CanuckShooter

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
What power scopes do most use on their rimfire rifles lately? I'm looking to scope a few CZ 452's, but it's been a while since I owned a scoped 22LR so I can't really recall what's too little or too much as far as magnification goes.

The rifles will only be used at the range, not for hunting, and I'm looking to keep costs around a few hundred dollars per scope. I do recall owning Banners and Muellers in the past that went up to 18x, or 24x, but even with a 50mm bell, it got really dark, and a bit blurry. The CZ 452's are fairly accurate rifles, so I don't really want them to be limited by a weak scope.

I guess what I mean to ask is... after what scope magnification power do the benefits plateau for a rimfire rifle within a couple hundred yards?

I was looking at a a few that max out at 15x. Would that be enough if I want to plink out to 100yds+? Or is that pushing it?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
A similar question was asked just a few days ago! http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1313490-Magnification-for-22LR-rifle

That said, I've never had a scope with even a small objective be not bright enough for me outdoors under normal light. So I personally don't see the advantage of really big objectives on a .22. For over 100m and small targets, I like something above 12x but not too crazy. Based on your question, I'd say if worry more about better glass and less so about objective diameter and magnification.

You'll be better of with a high quality 12x like a Leupold VX3 than a high magnification scope with crappy glass.
 
Last edited:
Whoa. A $500-$600 scope? I'm no competitive shooter, just a recreational plinker. I don't think I have the skills to justify owning such a nice piece of glass! :redface:

Although, I've never really looked through a nice scope like a Leupold or Nikon before. Might be easier to justify after seeing the difference. I'll have to see if anyone around here has them on display.

Thanks!
 
Lol then you havent looked through a Sightron, Nightforce or Trijicon scope to name a few.
Try a tasco 8-24 then a tasco 10-50, then a Nikon or Votex in the same power. The difference is huge. Same going from a 10-50x tasco for just over $200 and then trying the same power sightin/nightforce. That cost over $1k.
Rule of thumb, buy once cry once!
 
Getting back on topic, there is two camps on how much mag power a rimfire needs.
One group says 18x maybe 24x max. Some say 12x is overkill.
The other group says buy as much power as you can. Buy once cry once.
However it also depends what your doing, bench rest or offhand shooting.
A 2+lb scope on a 7+lb rifle is great for benchrest shooting but I wouldnt want to carry it all day shooting gophers a a section of land.
Thus Leupolds ultralight line of rimfire scopes. Lower mag, better glass, low weight but high cost.
 
I use a 3x9 Bushnell on one of mine, and find it good up to 100 yds, on another I use a 6x24 and use it mainly at the range, on a couple others I have 4 power scopes and they are ok up to 50 yards for my eyes.
 
I've had good results to 50yds with a 32mm rimfire scope but at 100 the parallax was adding to the inherent inaccuracy of cheap ammo.
So I replaced it with a Bushnell AR 3-9x40 scope (under $200) and accuracy improved at 100m. This scope has a parallax adjustment knob.
 
Yep I went with it because of price. Sold my Sightron S3 10-50x
Sorta kicking myself now. Sure the mueller is good but it isnt great.
I would love to see people groupings at 100yds with there sub 12x scopes! I just cant see how people can shoot 1-2moa with a .22 at that distance. Sure with a high power scope. No problem. Shooting flys that land on the target at 100yds was fun and challenging. I cant see how someone with a 9x could see the fly clearly.
 
little_airwolf said:
Yep I went with it because of price. Sold my Sightron S3 10-50x
Sorta kicking myself now. Sure the mueller is good but it isnt great.
I would love to see people groupings at 100yds with there sub 12x scopes! I just cant see how people can shoot 1-2moa with a .22 at that distance. Sure with a high power scope. No problem. Shooting flys that land on the target at 100yds was fun and challenging. I cant see how someone with a 9x could see the fly clearly.
Click to expand...

people (like me) can shoot sub moa with a 223 at 100m
people (like you) cannot shoot flies at 100m with whatever rimfire you can think of. Period!

This one is mine
fly.jpg
 
Having used 3-9 and 4-12 on some rimfires rifles, my two CZ455's currently wear Burris 4.5-14 x42.
Turned down to 4.5 power I popped the head off a grouse at 17 paces.
At 14 power 100 and 200 yards is not out of the question.
The Varmint is currently sighted in at 100 yards which puts it about 3.75 high at 50-60 yards.
Now it is only a matter of time before I determine the drop beyond 100 using the ballistic plex reticle.
According to Sierra, the various stadia below the cross hair should work out to 120, 140, 160, and 180 but will have to work that out on the range.
 
I have $100 for anyone who can shoot 100yds at my place and hit a kids sticker that is the same size as a fly with sub 12x and a .22.

Where is that pic of a keyboard in a gunrest when I need it!
 
22forever said:
I can.
Click to expand...
To be fair, you "did" shoot that fly. Few people and rifles can do it on demand at 100 yards.

Now to the OP, generally speaking if you are shooting only targets at 50 to 100 yards with a .22LR more magnification is better than less. Those who shoot out to 100 yards (even 50 yards) with a 3 - 9X scope surely cannot distinguish very well whether or not the crosshairs are right in the middle of a small bull. There's just not enough magnification to adequately see that well. Those lower magnification scopes are great for hunting, and that's what they're made for. Higher power scopes are much better for target shooting, so why not consider them.
silverfoxdj said:
Bought a Mueller recently it's fantastically clear..

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B004689ZWQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00
Click to expand...
This scope is a reasonable choice for high magnification on a sub $300 budget. I have two of these as well as others that cost much more (Sightrons). To be sure, they aren't in the same league as Leupold or Night Force and similar scopes. They are not meant to be. But they are a good value and serviceable.

Another scope that won't break the bank is the Hawke line of scopes, such as the Varmint 6 - 24X44 or the Vantage 6 - 24X44, which can be had for under $300. These are tough scopes as they are rated for use on spring piston rifles, which have considerably more recoil than any rimfire rifle.

On the other hand, you could follow the wise advice to buy once and cry once: get the best scope you can, one that costs as much or more than the rifle.

In the end, if you are shooting only on the range you should get more magnification, not less. You want to be able to see the targets; you're not hunting game in the field.
 
Like has been said, it depends what you're doing. Target/benchrest shooting, the more magnification the better. If you're in the field all day lugging around the rifle after prairie dogs, then you don't need large magnification. I have a 6-24x50 on my target 22, and a 2-7x32 on my field rifle. I hate carrying around more weight than necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom