Whos running LPVO on their 22lr and what are you running? Likes? dislikes?

DaveMachine said:
What's the deal with the mags? Modified 10/22 that don't fit in a 10/22? They go to their normal capacity?
Click to expand...
Dlask Tuff 22 magazines have a lug that fit in the Tuff 22 because of a mag well cut out slot.

This prevents the lugged Tuff 22 mags from fitting into Chargers and standard 10/22s.

Adding permanent lugs to 10/22 mags make them impossible to use in Chargers and 10/22s.

All the magazines in the photo will not insert into a Charger or 10/22 mag well.

The RCMP have ordered 10/22 owners to modify their mags so modifying mags is legal.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And F*CK the RCMP Lab E bureaucrat Liberal toadies.
 
Have had, still have one new in box, Leopold Mark 4HD 1-4.5×24 on a variety of .223 and .22’s. Very light weight and very clear optics.
My .02
 
I had a Firefield 1-6x24 on a TC/R22. It sounds kind of downmarket for this conversation, but they do go on sale regularly on Amazon or Bass Pro in the $160 range. The optical quality is not bad at all and it comes with it's own mount. Feels very tacticool with a horseshoe reticle. I had no issues whatsoever with it, especially for a short range 22 toy.
 
27951.jpg
I am running a Vortex Viper PST 1-6 on my takedown 10/22. I really enjoy the optic on the rifle. It is primarily for small game hunting and fits this role well. With the illumination makes it very useful on quick moving targets in the feild. Additionally when time allows the magnification makes accurate shots very easy.

Overall for my needs I think a LPVO on my .22 is great.
 
morp said:
Nothing better in the price range I’m sure. I have one on a 5.56 and it’s been great. Edge to edge clarity with sharp red dot in centre. Reticle very similar to primary arms nova fibre.

For the price (shipping included) can’t go wrong.
Click to expand...
Where did you buy from?
 
I prefer MVPO's over the LPVO's i have tried. Hawke in particular an insane FOV. I have a couple (and a couple spare for sale). Very capable without a lot of the LPVO downsides.
 
Last edited:
jparent said:
I prefer MVPO's over the LPVO's i have tried. Hawke in particular an insane FOV. I have a couple (and a couple spare for sale). Very capable without a lot of the LPVO downsides.
Click to expand...
Well in my case I never shoot over 200 metres and usually within 100 so an LPVO seems to fit the bill for me. I'm assuming the mag power is the only difference?
 
I like LPVOs on .22LRs. Particularly the 10/22.

Works great for anything from 20 up to 200yds on steel for me.

A downside is if you are trying to see your group size with 22lr at 100yds lets say, that will be challenging without a spotting scope or going out and walking it. But for steel and fast paced shooting, they are awesome. Bear in mind as well that without adjustable parallax, the typical fixed setting will be either 50yds or 100yds.
 
ScottB said:
Well in my case I never shoot over 200 metres and usually within 100 so an LPVO seems to fit the bill for me. I'm assuming the mag power is the only difference?
Click to expand...
LPVO’s often sacrifice many things to get that “true 1x” including Light transmission, Eyebox at higher magnification, Image quality (chromatic aberration among others ) and parallax. If you are shooting steel and tin cans, depending on the optic and price, it may not be an issue. If you are trying to shoot groups or hunt it may absolutely become an issue. Use case dictates optic choice.
 
45C said:
1-8x 24 Riton
Works well for me
Click to expand...

That’s probably heavier than the whole rifle ey? 😉

I generally prefer a 2-7 or a 3-9 on a .22. Tend to be lighter, brighter and less bulky. A smaller 1” tube lpvo can also be nice.
I find most LPVOs to be too heavy and bulky, particularly on a .22.

But each to their own. If it works, it works.
 
Canadiankeeper said:
Whos running LPVO on their 22lr and what are you running? Likes? dislikes?

Well because I can, im going to swap out a 3x9 basic scope from one of my 10/22's. Looking for a fun plinker, steel and gophers will be its targets. 100 yards and under.

Id like to keep it under 1000 for the optic lol
Click to expand...

I run a Millett DMS-1 (1-4x24) on my 10/22. I like it, use it for hunting, and as you know with gopher shooting, sometimes you are right in close so the 1x option is useful. I also target shoot out to 100m with it as well. It was about 300CAD back when I bought it.
 
Genuine question, why is it so important for LPVOs to start at 1x that go to 4,6,8,10x when many of these LPVOs don't even have a true 1x? Lots have "fisheye", etc at 1x and typically have a 24mm objective lens.

There are optics that start at a slightly larger magnification like 1.2/1.5/1.7/2x and will have larger objective lens anywhere from about 32m - 50mm. Either can have a 1" tube, or 30/34mm so you're not necessarily saving weight just because your LPVO starts at 1x.

I often hear that LPVOs that are 1-8x or higher are considered "compromised optics". That the "sweet spot" is 1-6x, at least up until now, maybe technology has improved and 1-10x24mm isn't "compromised" anymore, IDK.

The reason I bring this up is I got rid of my Vortex Venom 1-6x24mm for a Hawke Endurance 30 FD 1.7-10x44mm which is only 1oz heavier, and 3" longer.

I believe I'm gaining more with the Hawke and I'm not even comparing glass clarity. I'd rather "sacrifice" the "flat" 1x of the Venom in order to get all the other goodies (e.g. massive eyebox/exit pupil, more zoomies, longer eye relief) that the Hawke delivers.

I've actually got another (used) scope on the way that fits this train of thought. It's a Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32mm with a 1" tube. Again, I don't think I'm losing out on much by it not having a flat 1x...

I'm not looking to argue or necessarily convince anyone to think like me. I'm curious to hear the flip side. To play devil's advocate, the only reasons I could think of are if you truly need 1x because of super tight close quarters engagement, smallest possible footprint, and vibes/aesthetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom