For Those Wondering "How Much Magnification Do I Need on my Rimfire for 50 Yards?"

Cameron SS said:
I did the 50 yard rim fire challenge with a Bushnell AR 3-12 power set on 12 power. I had my 32x Sightron in the case just in case i needed it, but I didn't. Once i got settled in with the supports, found the right ammo, my Savage Mark 2 had no trouble performing, and 12 power was plenty to see the centre of what i was aiming at, and show if i was steady or not.

TO me, accurate shooting isn't so much about being able to see the fibres of paper in the 10x. Its about seeing the target well enough to know what center looks like, and knowing if you are steady. A good clear 4x scope can be enough to see your target properly, as long as your reticle doesn't obscure the target, but at 50 yards or more 4 power might not be able to show you how steady your hold is.

Personally I don't think magnification on its own matters much in your system, but works together with a variety of other factors to give you the right information so that your skill can take over and get the job done.

Like Grelmar said, clarity matters at least as much as magnification, but then reticle pattern, parallax adjust, etc also play a roll.

I think some of these guys using 24x + magnification on their rimfires are using those scopes because its what they have, not what they need. Most of the .22lr bench rest shooters I meet also shoot br or F class in larger calibres at longer distances, and just swap the equipment.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Chum, except for your statement that clarity is critical, your conclusions are wrong. Hunters/Plinkers who occasionally shoot at paper from a bench with their low-power scopes, are often unduly impressed with their results... since they compare it to their off-hand results... 1/2" to 1" groups are in no way impressive... try shooting in the ones and twos. An actual bench shooter with a rifle designed to punch tiny groups through paper, who is experienced with optics will tell you the following for shooting tight groups;

1. Trigger
2. Magnification
3. Ammo
4. Barrel
5. Platform

Depending on how bad any of the above are, the order might change marginally, but the above is typical. All else being equal, you can't compete at 12X with a person of equal ability at 24X... magnification is much more important than you are inferring.

If you are shooting casually, put on your best optic and then work on technique... but if you really want ultra tight groups, start with a good trigger and then a high quality, high magnification optic.
 
I can see the arguments from both camps.... I am no bench competition shooter, so to me, a guy that needs to shoot minute of squirrel head at a max of 50 yards, a 2-7 is fine.......

I have played around with some nice setups at the range and definitely see the advantage of fine crosshairs and high magnifications if chasing down thousandths of an inch is your thing....
 
grelmar said:
This works for me, but I'm more worried about shooting gophers than paper.

Get past 7x or 8x, and it becomes a paper shooter. In the field, it gets easy to become "scope lost" with higher magnification - you spend too much time waggling your rifle around trying to get the target into the glass.

If you're looking at target shooting on paper, then go big. But remember, magnification isn't everything. A 7x Leupold will give you a clearer picture than a 32x NCStar piece of crap. Optics quality is as important, often more important, than optics magnification.
Click to expand...

^man after my own heart... :)
 
On my Anschutz BR-50, I use a Sightron SIII 8X32X56. At 50 yards, I am usually up to 24X
And I get tiny groups ( when I do my part ).

Gilbert
 
I tried a 2.5x20mm at one point and put ten well inside an inch at 50 m. I was surprised that magnification mattered that little.

That said, I prefer between 16x and 20x when shooting offhand at 50 m. It's a balancing act between seeing the target clearly and having the crosshairs dance around too much.

Sitting on a bench at 32X means never having to pull the target to check groups. It is kind of fun holding on the centre of the first hole and watching them all plunk together. But after awhile found I knew the limits of the rifle's accuracy and it was more fun in 3P.
 
Last edited:
I've recently bought a Savage MK II FV, primarily to use as a plinker. I tried a 3-9 x 40 Weaver but wanted better glass, finer cross hairs and an adjustable objective. As a test I took a Vortex Viper XBR 2.5-10 x 44 off one of my crossbows. It was a fun afternoon shooting my steel target at 10x. I put the XBR back on the crossbow, pulled the Crossfire II 4-12 x 40 AO off my 25-06 & put on the 22, another afternoon of fun shooting steel targets, much easier to see target with the adjustable objective, less eye strain. Bought another Crossfire II, a 4-12 x 50 AO to put back on the 25-06.
 
I think a lot depends on your eyes in the first place . I am at the age where , depending on the the brightness of the sun , iron sights at times look a little fuzzy at 50 . So I move to 40 and I can see the 1/2 " dot in a shoot and see target . If it is overcast the target "usually " isn't a problem . That being said , I bought a .22 mag with an old weaver fixed 4X scope on it and once again I had problems past 50 (i think I was sighting in @ 75 yards ) . I see 3 camps usually when this question comes up . First one says you don't need more than a 4X . The next says 3x7 or 3x9 and the 3rd says basically , get the best scope in a price you can afford with a min. of 3x9 or higher . I basically asked the same questions and looked around at all the brands I could find with what I wanted . I finally settled on a Nikon 4x12 x40 , which works for me (SO FAR) . There are articles on the internet that include scopes in different price ranges with different features . Just type in something like top 10 rim fire scopes and check around to see which are available near you ,so you can actually look thru them . It's amazing how some more expensive models may not work for you . Example . I needed eye relief , so that cuts out some brands or models and I didn't want a front parallax adjustment for the one I put on my .22 mag ,because I didn't want to be adjusting focus on a moving target . Some may not agree but , I know it wasn't for me. Oh and I know some scopes with turrets have plastic guts in them (not saying who ) where others don't . Just another thing I didn't like . Forgot 1 BIGGY . If you spend a few bucks on a scope , I'd be asking about their warranty as some companies " May" offer a lifetime warranty , but may also be a pain to get either service or in some cases a replacement in the case your scope can't be fixed . So far I haven't needed to send one back ( I have at least 4 different brands) , but I do know of people who have .
 
Last edited:
I think a lot depends on your eyes in the first place . I am at the age where , depending on the the brightness of the sun , iron sights at times look a little fuzzy at 50 . So I move to 40 and I can see the 1/2 " dot in a shoot and see target . If it is overcast the target "usually " isn't a problem . That being said , I bought a .22 mag with an old weaver fixed 4X scope on it and once again I had problems past 50 (i think I was sighting in @ 75 yards ) . I see 3 camps usually when this question comes up . First one says you don't need more than a 4X . The next says 3x7 or 3x9 and the 3rd says basically , get the best scope in a price you can afford with a min. of 3x9 or higher . I basically asked the same questions and looked around at all the brands I could find with what I wanted . I finally settled on a Nikon 4x12 x40 , which works for me (SO FAR) . There are articles on the internet that include scopes in different price ranges with different features . Just type in something like top 10 rim fire scopes and check around to see which are available near you ,so you can actually look thru them . It's amazing how some more expensive models may not work for you . Example . needed eye relief , so that cuts out some brands or models and I didn't want a front parallax adjustment for the one I put on my .22 mag ,because I didn't want to be adjusting focus on a moving target . Some may not agree but , I know it wasn't for me. Oh and I know some scopes with turrets have plastic guts in them (not saying who ) where others don't . Just another thing I didn't like . And don't forget warranties if you spend a bit of money on a scope .
 
shms said:
I need a scope for a new savage Mark 2 . I am considering a Bushnell 4-12 x40 with AO . Main use will be punching paper at 50. Anyone have experience with this scope?
Click to expand...

I have the bushnell AR 3-12x40 AO on my mark 2 tr and I love love love it. There is a conversion chart available on line so you can us the .223 bullet drop marks for .22LR. I have used it out to 200m and it is an excellent scope, over built for a 22, and will easily migrate to a .223 if you have one.
 
I think it dependent on what you plan to use it for. For me ; gophers 6+, plinking 12, paper off bench 24-32. It is very easy to see there is so much difference in the small spot you can aim between 4 and 24. Can't hit 1/4 when all you see is 1 inch. Codo's to those that can use peep target sights!
 
metalbender said:
Bushy Trophy XLT in 4-12 is pretty good, have one and like it.
Click to expand...

Have had one mounted on my gopher slayin' 452 Varmint for the last couple of seasons, with the DOA600 reticle. Pretty much ideal for a cheaper scope! Haven't had to readjust the crosshairs one click since initial zero.

To be fair though, if I was to use this rifle for critters only and not also as a paper puncher, I'd probably be better off and slightly happier with a 3-9 power.
 
Magnification isn't a need, and "good enough" or "works for" me, isn't a standard.
Magnification is a want, and I want as much as I can get.

My TRR-SR has a Bushnell 6500 4.5-30x50, and for my wants, it's not enough.
I sold my 10-50x60 today, never tried it on the Savage. Would have been perfect.
 
For shooting from the bench at 50 yards and trying for smallish groups (the point of this thread I think), I just ordered a silver Weaver T36 for what seems to be a very good price. It should arrive in a week.

To refresh memories, the smallest green circle shown on the following target is 0.300" in diameter. The target in the image is the USBR 50 target ("Green Monster" is, I believe, it's affectionate nickname).



I've always thought that it's helpful to see the approximately half-inch circles I use on the targets I usually shoot. You can't really do that with low power scopes.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom