Help me decide between two scopes & parallax

It is worth noting that both the EFR and the Rimfire II Nikon scopes have 1/4" adjustments at 50 yards. That's not desirable for target work. It'll do if minute of pop can is all you're after.
 
ShaneN. said:
As far as rings, I see a lot of people buring the burris zee rings. It seems like there is a few different versions though, some appear to be all steel and some don't. Are these decent for the money?
Click to expand...

Im a real fan of the signiture zee rings with the inserts. If you end up needing more elevation than your scope has you can use the offset inserts to give you more MOA
 
I have both of those scopes. Prostaff rimfire on my Ruger 10-22 and the Prostaff EFR target on my Mark II BSEV as that is strictly a paper puncher. The EFR is an awesome scope if you are ever going to be shooting at 25 yards. Both are excellent scopes though. I would highly recommend either one.
 
If it is strictly a target gun get parallax adjustment. If it is for hunting doesn't really matter. On all my rimfire rifle they all wear non rimfire spacific scopes and no troubles hitting the pests out in the feild
 
ShaneN. said:
Interesting, that's good to hear. It's just going to be for plinking and a bit of target shooting. I can't imagine shooting it out past 100 yards much anyways.

I'm pretty set on the EFR now. It's a few more bucks but I also paid a few extra for the target version of the 10/22 knowing it's going to probably get used the most and stay with me forever.

As far as rings, I see a lot of people buring the burris zee rings. It seems like there is a few different versions though, some appear to be all steel and some don't. Are these decent for the money?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've got Burris zee rings on my marlin, no complaints. Not sure if they're steel or alloy.

I haven't tried shooting proper groups at 100yrds but I consistently hit my steel 8" target, at 50yrds I'm shooting .75" groups with bulk ammo. I really like the EFR, would buy another for sure.
 
I've got the EFR on a CZ 455 American with Warne 7.3 high rings. I don't think you'll clear the barrel with the medium height, it'll be close.
Nice scope, I don't mind the .5 moa clicks.
You might find the AO irritating if you switch ranges a lot, it's meant for casual target use, plinking isn't what it does best.
 
Chilly807 said:
I've got the EFR on a CZ 455 American with Warne 7.3 high rings. I don't think you'll clear the barrel with the medium height, it'll be close.
Nice scope, I don't mind the .5 moa clicks.
You might find the AO irritating if you switch ranges a lot, it's meant for casual target use, plinking isn't what it does best.
Click to expand...

How could it be any worse than the fixed though? Wouldn't the AO adjusted to 50 yards be how the fixed one would look all the time?
 
Not at close range. I have an old Bushnell 1.5-4.5 Scopechief fixed focus (good scope in its day) that is crystal clear up to almost point blank range. The AO scopes I have (Leupold and Nikon) are somewhat fuzzy at ranges significantly different from what they're set for. The biggest advantage to an AO or EFR scope is the ability to eliminate parallax, not clarity of view, although that is improved at very close ranges too.
My Leupold is sharp as a razor at 50 when it's set for that range, but gets fuzzy at 20 and 100 unless you adjust it for those ranges. Nikon is the same.
If I didn't do a lot of target work I wouldn't bother with an AO scope.
 
Last edited:
Chilly807 said:
Not at close range. I have an old Bushnell 1.5-4.5 Scopechief fixed focus (good scope in its day) that is crystal clear up to almost point blank range. The AO scopes I have (Leupold and Nikon) are somewhat fuzzy at ranges significantly different from what they're set for. The biggest advantage to an AO or EFR scope is the ability to eliminate parallax, not clarity of view, although that is improved at very close ranges too.
My Leupold is sharp as a razor at 50 when it's set for that range, but gets fuzzy at 20 and 100 unless you adjust it for those ranges. Nikon is the same.
If I didn't do a lot of target work I wouldn't bother with an AO scope.
Click to expand...
But isn't the whole point in me picking the ao to be able to adjust to less than 50? I'd assume one adjusted to less when shooting at less would be better than a fixed parallax? Now I don't know which to buy. Lol
 
The advantage to an AO or EFR scope isn't really clarity of focus at close ranges. The ability to eliminate parallax at any range you'll conceivably shoot at is where those types of scopes are worth their weight in gold.
For the everyday shooter that isn't concerned with pin point accuracy, parallax isn't an issue. To a precision target shooter it's a huge deal.
I shoot some F-class rimfire matches where the 10 ring is actually a pin head sized dot. If I move my head and the cross hairs move off the dot (non AO scope), that's a problem since I can't tell where the rifle is actually aimed.
Here are a couple of recommended reading threads about parallax and AO/EFR scopes, the second one is particularly good at illustrating the effects of parallax.

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1951780

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=364832

Incidentally, a non AO scope can be adjusted to be parallax free at one particular distance, but it's a PIA to do it repeatedly. I've done it as an experiment, and it really works.

Short version, unless you're really serious about accuracy (OCD in my case..lol) don't worry too much about AO or EFR. But.. do some more research before you make your decision. It's a nice feature, but can be an irritation under some conditions.

I have two decent 22 scopes, a Leupold and the Nikon Target, both have EFR. I seldom use that rifle in the field so it isn't an issue at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom