What is a good option for a 22?

[Buck1950]

B22 pic

Not knowing your price range, but a good starter is the Savage B22 FV. Base rifle starts about $340 from ON websites. This is a 'heavy barrel (Varmint)' bolt action in Synthetic stock. Very 'ergo' stock w-pistol-grip, NO Iron sights but base mounts attached (I & many others have found they aren't loc-tited to the recvr and work loose!!). With 'medium priced ammo like CCI-SV, SK+, or Eley Sport I can get 1/2->3/4" groups at 50 yds. with a good scope (12 or 16X). Low price point if you have several 'up and comers', and relatively light weight.

Just wanted to add a pic - nothin' fancy but working around 1/2" much of the time, with CCI-SV or SK+. With a Bushnell 6-18x50 Engage Deploy w-MOA 'tree'. Coming soon - Covenant-4 FFP-SF 6-24x50 w-MOA 'tree'. *BigBraz - Medium Rings - NOT High!

[/url][/IMG]

 

[LolaPP]

I never said that dovetails don't work. Only that they're an inferior system and, at this point with the technology we have, they don't need to be used. I have a 452, 455, and 457. All of which have optics that work and were installed properly.

Inferior for the application how though? A good integral ringmount is a clean and minimalist solution for lots of .22 applications. For a dedicated varmint or NRL rifle, pic has some serious advantages, but for a field or general purpose rifle, so does 11mm dovetail. Apart from a fall down a cliff or comabt use, I'm not sure what's inferior about dovetail.

The availability, the limited sizes

Utter nonsense. I can order, right now, tonight, any 11mm ring height in 1" and 30mm in a variety of finishes and manufactures, from dealers in Canada. If I go outside Canada, the options are nearly limitless and could be at my door within a week.

the weaker system.

Also utter nonsense. You know Talley, right? Their bases and rings interface with an 11mm dovetail. Those are mounts that are widely acknowledged to be among the strongest on the planet, and regularly used on heavy recoiling magnum centerfires. The weak part of that system isn't the 11mm dovetail interface, it's the four 6/48 screws into the receiver.

These Talley 30mm rings came off a .375 H&H.

 

[LolaPP]

avoid cheap rings, just as anyone should avoid cheap weaver style rings.

Annnnnd there you go, I think. I suspect the dislike of .22 rails whether 3/8 or 11mm comes from using the most common rings available, which it to say cheap aluminum ones with a stamped steel clamp. Even the steel Burris .22 rings are a big step up from those.

 

[LolaPP]

Looking for something that is accurate (not benchrest by any means, but something you could say hit a squirrel with every time at 50ish yards)

Savage Mk II... based off the Anschutz 64, designed and made in Canada. Inexpensive and accurate.

At the $500 to $750 range where most CZ rimfires fall, there's tons of choice. "Don't like the feel" is a bit vague, there's so many options in that price bracket.

or like the need for high rings to get a scope to fit.

Grind your bolt handle down. It's a fun afternoon project. You can reblue if you like, but they look great left in the white.

 

[Got Juice?]

I have many rimfires, and there is nothing weak about the dovetail for mounting optics. Even when mounting a Sightron SVSS w a 60mm objective lense 10-50x60 There is no issue with maintaining zero even on a rifle that sees a few bumps here and there in the truck, ATV etc whilst working fields of gophers.

Mind you I went with Recknagle Rings, which are not a cheap date, but the only rings that would mount said scope to the rifle and clear the barrel and obj lense

 

[LolaPP]

No one said they were superior.

I'll go there and say they're superior for some applications.

For a field / hunting rifle, I'd much rather have 11mm ringmounts than a rail and ring setup. In the context of that, dovetail is definitely superior. One piece, usually fewer screws to torque and worry about, the ones you have to worry about are all visible and easily checked, they're still easily detachable and remountable while retaining zero-ish, and often lighter and often "trimmer" than rail & rings. Then there's the esthetic difference too. Some rifles it's a war crime to put a rail on. Even Weaver/Pic bases and rings can look horrible on lots of rifles. Jesus, the only basic difference is the recoil slot on weaver/pic, otherwise they're identical systems. If you need a recoil lug, there's 11mm mounts that have that. If you're shooting rimfire, you don't.

 

[LolaPP]

I have many rimfires, and there is nothing weak about the dovetail for mounting optics. Even when mounting a Sightron SVSS w a 60mm objective lense 10-50x60 There is no issue with maintaining zero even on a rifle that sees a few bumps here and there in the truck, ATV etc whilst working fields of gophers.

Mind you I went with Recknagle Rings, which are not a cheap date, but the only rings that would mount said scope to the rifle and clear the barrel and obj lense

Yup. Great example. I've never had an issue with mounting even 30mm tube 60mm objective scopes with dovetail. One of those rifles has spent months at a time in a Jeep with a bunch of other hunting gear bouncing down gravel roads and being hauled in and out and otherwise having an active life. Not even the slightest hint of a sign of an issue.

 

[Hunter22]

To the OP , all the above is excellent advice from people in the know of things . If price is your concern , then go for a Zastava z5 for about 300 cad if you can locate one , all wood and steel with open sights and excellent blueing too . Invest in a decent scope and shoot tacks all day long . In my opinion these are the true sleepers of the rim fire world . Btw I have them in 22lr and the 22mag version too . Cheers

 

[grauhanen]

I never said that dovetails don't work. Only that they're an inferior system and, at this point with the technology we have, they don't need to be used. I have a 452, 455, and 457. All of which have optics that work and were installed properly.

No, you didn't say that dovetails don't work. When it's obviously not true, it would be quite foolish to say that.

You did say they were "archaic," and "junk" because of the limited sizes and availability of dovetail rings and because they are allegedly a "weaker system" and are "substandard," an "inferior system". As others have observed, they are more than up to the job. It's not necessary to insist on weaver style rings and bases to very reliably mount a scope, just as it's not necessary to have a V8 engine to have a fast car.

 

[Rod B]

Savage Mk II... based off the Anschutz 64, designed and made in Canada. Inexpensive and accurate.

The Savage is a decent rifle but it is far different than an Anschutz 64 series.

 

[sillymike]

Funny how different we all are.
- Some people wish all rifles came with Weaver base... Personally, I kind of (really) dislike them.
- Yes, they do the job... but I do not find them esthetically pleasing. If I'm going to spend god $ for a rifle, I sure want it to look good (to my eyes)

 

[emerson]

Funny how different we all are.
- Some people wish all rifles came with Weaver base... Personally, I kind of (really) dislike them.
- Yes, they do the job... but I do not find them esthetically pleasing. If I'm going to spend god $ for a rifle, I sure want it to look good (to my eyes)

Not only that, I find my taste changes over time, especially if I get deep into a specific shooting activity. I’m shooting a 22 in a chassis a lot right now, but part of me wants a Ruger #1 or Baikal double in a boomer cartridge. 375 didn’t fully scratch that itch.

 

[.22LRGUY]

Savage Mk II... based off the Anschutz 64, designed and made in Canada. Inexpensive and accurate.

The Savage is a decent rifle but it is far different than an Anschutz 64 series.

I read that too, and it got me wondering how long it had been since I owned/shot a Mk II. I didn't remember it being close to a 64 action, which I have more recent experience with. It could be the magazines being referred to, as there are similarities..and (apparently) it doesn't take much to modify a Mk II mag to work in an Anschutz. I've yet to try it, but bookmarked (home PC) a link showing what's req.

Not only that, I find my taste changes over time, especially if I get deep into a specific shooting activity. I’m shooting a 22 in a chassis a lot right now, but part of me wants a Ruger #1 or Baikal double in a boomer cartridge. 375 didn’t fully scratch that itch.

I'm just over a half-century old, and this has been the story of my life in the last few years. Work hard/save hard to get a bucket list gun...only to find I liked the idea of it more than gun itself. You lose a little $ each time, so I'm more honest with myself than ever before. I still get totally revved-up about the idea of getting a new gun, but 99% of the time, talk myself "off the ledge". lol In fact, at the end of last year...I was seriously considering a Ruger Falling block (#3?) in a very obscure caliber, but almost a decade ago...I couldn't live without a Robinson Arms, XCR-L. lol That gun spent about a year in my possession, before realizing black guns aren't my thing.

Short story long-OP, don't overthink the process...jump in with the best gun/scope you can afford, and let the fun begin. You'll replace the first gun you get, or add others to it. Either way, you'll get to shoot/own lots of options and decide what's best for you. Except tube mags. Avoid guns with those. lol (personal preference)

 

[sillymike]

I'm just over a half-century old, and this has been the story of my life in the last few years.
...
Lol in fact, at the end of last year...i was seriously considering a ruger falling block (#3?) in a very obscure caliber, but almost a decade ago...
...
Except tube mags. Avoid guns with those. Lol (personal preference)

From a similar vintage guy... Obscure #3... The only thing I can think of is the 30-40 Krag And in a #3, I'm sure you could load to 308 performance, except that it extracts better.
- I beg to differ on the tube magazines... Doesn't every one need at least one lever and one Browning Auto-22

 

[stuckon308]

No, you didn't say that dovetails don't work. When it's obviously not true, it would be quite foolish to say that.

You did say they were "archaic," and "junk" because of the limited sizes and availability of dovetail rings and because they are allegedly a "weaker system" and are "substandard," an "inferior system". As others have observed, they are more than up to the job. It's not necessary to insist on weaver style rings and bases to very reliably mount a scope, just as it's not necessary to have a V8 engine to have a fast car.

I stand by my comments. There's no need for dovetails. But if you think they're great, then good for you. People love the rotary engine too.

 

[sillymike]

Early 90s RX7 with a twin-turbo 1.3 rotary engine... What's not to love?

 

[LolaPP]

i read that too, and it got me wondering how long it had been since i owned/shot a mk ii. I didn't remember it being close to a 64 action

??? They're practically identical. The tubular receiver's design, bolt construction, attachment of the trigger and mag well, etc etc. Apart from the handle and firing pin, the bolts are nearly identical. It's no coincidence that the Mk II came out after the 64 action. I thought the design lineage of the Mk II was well known...

 

[grauhanen]

I stand by my comments. There's no need for dovetails. But if you think they're great, then good for you. People love the rotary engine too.

Fair enough. A mind made up is always unalterable. Unlike you, however, I won't make uninformed claims about either system for mounting optics on a .22 rimfire.

 

[LolaPP]

I stand by my comments.

Which, apart from expressing a personal preference, were shown to be objectively wrong.

 

[Rod B]

??? They're practically identical. The tubular receiver's design, bolt construction, attachment of the trigger and mag well, etc etc. Apart from the handle and firing pin, the bolts are nearly identical. It's no coincidence that the Mk II came out after the 64 action. I thought the design lineage of the Mk II was well known...

If one was to use your description then most of the popular bolt action .22's are almost identical.