Thread: What scope are you running on your .22?

Weaver 40/44 varmint so 6-24x44 AO more than enough for club target shooting

Leupold 6x42 mk4.

It's not a "scope" by definition but it is my optic- Eotech 512 on my CMMG 22 upper. Hares to 120m no sweat! No tunnel vision and you can track the target easily. There is also a sentimental thing about using no magnification and hitting em the same lol

VX 3 3.5 to 10 with premier mil dot reticule lots of fun out to 160 with subs

My 22s get my centre fire hand me downs

I haven't used my .22 much in recent years but have just got a Leapers 3-12x44 compact for it. I chose this so I could have similar scope configurations on my centerfire, .22RF and airgun.

Thoughts on what we need in a .22 scope.

The role of the .22LR has been eroded from both ends.
Around town, small block hunting is now better done with a PCP airgun.
Open country, rabbits and hares beyond about 40m would be better with a .17HMR.
The subsonic .22LR with silencer is still best for short range shooting like spotlighting, specially for possums. And for target shooting, although again if you've got the money the PCP can do that too.

Requirements for a .22 scope
Parallax and close focus from 10-20m *****
Magnification 4-12x *****
Accuracy ****
Low to bore line ****
Optical quality ***
Hold zero ***
Low light ***
Ruggedness ***
Waterproofness ***
Dialability **

Why ?
The distinctive feature of hunting with a .22LR is the variety of close distances, so parallax and the capability to get image and crosshair in the same focus are specially important. This is one reason that fixed 4x work reasonably well. Leupold's special rimfire scopes have parallax set at a close distance like 70m ((as does the VX1 2-7).
The close ranges also mean that one is often holding over while the bullet rises to the sight line, so a low mounted scope will miminise this. A semi with inbuilt dovetail would have an advantage over the bolt action and specially the high throw CZ and Norinco copies. 32 mm is therefore better than 40 or 50mm and 25mm tube better than 30mm.
Targets are usually 2-3cm dia and at 50m that's quite small so good but not extreme accuracy is needed. A moderate mag like 12x is quite helpful for longer shots. There's not much need for very low powers like 3x because, with the small target sizes, there isn't much snap shooting with a .22LR.
A .22LR isn't used much in thick forest under canopy so high light gathering isn't as essential as for bush hunting deer. When spotlighting or indoor target shooting, there is usually enough light for a 32mm objective.
Because the .22 is mostly used on short expeditions near the car and ammo is cheap for resighting in, the highly prized abillities to hold zero and continue functioning through knocks, recoil, wetness and so on, although worthwhile, aren't so essential as they are for deer hunting in the mountains.
Out to the practical limits for hunting accuracy (50m), the trajectory is good enough that the shooter can hold over or under, but of course holdover hashes and mildots are a waste of space unless it's first focal plane.
Long range .22 target shooting would need dialing but for hunting it isn't often required.

There is a tendency to put any old scope on a .22 which seems to be a bit back-to-front to me. Targets are smaller and often quite challenging. I want something decent on my rimfire.

I've got a Nikon 3-9x rimfire. Perfect.

For how often I use my 22 in comparison to my larger guns it does warrant having something half decent, especially since it's often used in low light.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

Burris C4 on my CZ 452 and Burris Fullfield 2 on my Remington 597.
Have a Nikon Monarch 3 siting lonely at home which I may move to the CZ though.

Which Burris full field?

Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Bagheera

Out to the practical limits for hunting accuracy (50m), the trajectory is good enough that the shooter can hold over or under, but of course holdover hashes and mildots are a waste of space unless it's first focal plane.
Long range .22 target shooting would need dialing but for hunting it isn't often required.

That range is way too small. I'm happy with shots out to 100m or more with my 22's. I tend to hunt on 4x and the mildots are then quite useful. Sight in at whatever distance you desire, I use 75m, then shoot at other distances and see where the business bit lands and take a note relative to the reticle. There you have a very quick and dirty in your eyepiece dropchart.

Weaver 2-7x28 on my CZ452. Brilliant little scope.

mine wear anything from 4x40 Tascos on a couple of semiautos which i use out to 75yds ish but not much these days . . . out to 200-300yds on steel targets i use 6.5-20 Leupolds on light and heavy barrelled Quads - longest kill on Hares 208yds

my mate uses a tactical Bushnell on his CZ varmint - longest kill on a varmint 280yds

some great shooting to be had with a .22 from cheap as chips to big boys toys prices . . . as shooters we've never had it so good

I have a diverse range of optics on .22's
From cheep bushnel t25 red dots, aimpoint h1,fixed 4x lepolds(fantastic value second hand), trijicon 1-4,Leopold rimfire target scope (my favorite),bushnel 10x , and a z3.

As I shoot more with .22 than centerfire and in often poor light I feel it's worth using good optics if you can justify the expense.

Have used the army's trick of a ringbinder reinforcing sticker to deal with parallax on some and some have had them adjusted. Of course some where made for .22 or are adjustable so not a issue for those.

Some of my friends make fun of a .22 with a scope on it that cost more than the rifle even if they do the same for there centerfires, for me it's a pride of ownership thing as well as I think in most cases the optic is the most important part of the package, followed by ammo and then how fancy the rifle is.
I cringe at friends with $800 rifles who only spend $50 on the cheapest scope they can find if they consider it a long term thing.

If I was in a tight budget a jw15 with a second hand fixed 4x of good quality would probably be my choice-it's what I used from 10-22years old and the setup is still going strong in daily use by my uncle over a decade later.

Wow I wrote a novel, I really am procrastinating from what I should be doing

Originally Posted by gadgetman

That range is way too small. I'm happy with shots out to 100m or more with my 22's. I tend to hunt on 4x and the mildots are then quite useful. Sight in at whatever distance you desire, I use 75m, then shoot at other distances and see where the business bit lands and take a note relative to the reticle. There you have a very quick and dirty in your eyepiece dropchart.

That's good shooting. I couldn't hit a rabbit past 50m.

What I meant was that for that 50 to 100m range a 17HMR would be better (have to admit I haven't used one myself but those that have say so...)
So, I was purely talking about using subsonic ammo which I reckon is the forte of the .22LR now.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

That range is way too small. I'm happy with shots out to 100m or more with my 22's. I tend to hunt on 4x and the mildots are then quite useful. Sight in at whatever distance you desire, I use 75m, then shoot at other distances and see where the business bit lands and take a note relative to the reticle. There you have a very quick and dirty in your eyepiece dropchart.

Hey gadgetman, what .22LR ammo are you using at 100 metres?