edumacate me on scopes

[nostatic]

Are there good primers out there to learn the basics? I know this is a slippery slope, as scope optics are in the same wheelhouse as camera lenses. I'm not looking for Mercedes, but just something serviceable and fun for both the 10/22 and Mini 14. Well, a different one for each but you get the idea...

From my first sniffing around, seems the .22 doesn't need much magnification due to lack of range and something like a non-zoom 4x is fine. The boy likes red-dot but I'm not sure he knows why. Then again he's used more simulated scopes on the computer than I ever will...

[Mr.Puff]

http://www.millettsights.com/controller.php/cat09/trs

I have the TRS-1. It's a great scope . They make a fixed 10x.

[masraum]

This is a great model, but probably a bit too "Mercedes"

[legion]

Two of my rifles have Simmons scopes. The one that came on my Savage 93R is very nice. The one that I bought for my 10/22 is a POS. I have a Barska scope on my AR15, but I put in on over the winter and still don't know if it's any good.

[HardDrive]

I have had 2 Burris scopes, one currently on my .30-06. Very pleased. Current is 4-9x
Fullfield II with ballistic retical. Excellent value.

[MT930]

Quality center fire rifle should have quality scope = Leupold, Nikon, Swarovski, Zeiss. $300 & Up +

Ruger 10/22 not so much = Bushnell,Simmons, BSA, Burris.
I have a Burris 3X9 On my 10/22 $80 Tops.

[emcon5]

http://www.swfa.com/c-252-simmons-whitetail-classic-rifle-scopes.aspx

I have the 6.5-20, but for a Mini 14, that may be too much magnification. That 2X 10 would be a good choice, and it is a good price.

For the 10-22, fixed 4X is fine.

SWFA is also a good place to buy your scope.

You may also find something good on SWFA's sample list: http://www.samplelist.com/

Tom

[Jeff Higgins]

I don't think there is any facet of rifle shooting that is generally more misunderstood than the scope sight. I firmly believe that most shooters today have lost sight of its primary function - it is an aiming device. Most folks today seem to treat them as a viewing device. There is a world of difference in philosophy and function.

The manifestation of this misunderstanding is found in the ever increasing magnification many feel is necessary in their scope sights. In other words, most rifles today are vastly "over-scoped", carrying far more glass than necessary. This works well enough at the range, where the rifle is fired from a rest with all the time in the world to find the target in the scope, line it up, and fire. In the field, however, the reduced field of view necessary in a high magnification scope can be a real liability. It can be damn hard to actually find the target in the scope.

The "optical triangle" is familiar to most riflemen. Essentially, is consists of magnification, field of view, and eye relief. Any increase in one leg of the triangle necessitates a decrease in one, or both, of the others. Since eye relief on standard rifle scopes must fall within a finite range due to mounting and safety considerations (avoiding "scope eye" wherein harder kicking rifles drill the scope into one's brow), we are left with two variables that can be changed that impact one another. Magnification and field of view. More of one means less of the other.

You have probably guessed by now that I'm an advocate of lower power scopes. In addition to providing a greater field of view, they tend to be smaller and lighter than the higher powered models. They add less weight and bulk to the rifle. They upset the balance point of the rifle far less. They are simply less obtrusive. They are secondary to the rifle, serving only to aim said rifle.

With the larger, more powerful scopes, I'm always left with the impression that the rifle serves as a pretty big, awkward, heavy handle with which to carry around a nice piece of optical viewing equipment. The scope takes over from the rifle. Folks are easily fooled by these nice pieces of optical equipment, assuming because they can see better, they can shoot better. Well, I'm here to tell you, that just ain't so.

Anyway, more to the point, I don't think you can go wrong with a fixed 4x on any .22. The Mini-14 should be happy with a variable 2x-7x, 3x-9x, or at the most a 4x-12x. Look for one advertised as a "compact"; the Mini-14 is a very small rifle. A big scope will really be awkward on one.

I'm a Leupold man through and through. They are on the spendy end, but their quality and warranty are second to none. They are truly a "lifetime" purchase; in anything ever goes wrong, they fix or replace it no questions asked, with no hassles whatsoever. If they are a little more than you would like to spend, my choice in a "budget" scope is Weaver. I've had Tasco, Bushnell, and other scopes in that price range, and have been most impressed with the Weavers. They are a great value for the money.

[aigel]

Read this for a primer, should answer all your questions:
http://www.opticsplanet.net/how-to-choose-riflescope.html

I would start the kid on iron sights on both rifles, 10-22 and the mini14. I actually would not put a scope on the mini at all. Maybe a red dot for the mini - but see below.

Shooting with open sights is an important marksmanship skill. Pistols usually have open sights, so do many muzzleloaders and classic rifles. You want your kid to be able to pick any rifle up and shoot it, even if it is just for fun at camp or at the range. Also, the lining up of sights and target will transfer very well should you choose to start archery with a compound bow!

The red dot scope is a fun aiming device but I would reserve it for quick shot acquisition shooting, for example on a handgun, close in hunting rifle or a battle rifle. I do not think it does a whole lot more than a good set of ghost ring (peep) sights though and the ghost ring sites never run out of batteries! Look for XS ghost ring sights for the mini, if you don't like the stock iron sights.

If you buy a scope, make sure it is water proof and nitrogen filled. That way it won't fog up in the field. Lower magnification will give you better light output. I recommend a fixed mag anywhere from 2-4X for the 10-22 (after you are done with iron sights). I like the Bushnell line of scopes - you will want their top end stuff - Bushnell Elite. They are made in Japan. Can't beat them bang for the buck IMHO.

Hope this helps. Have fun!

George

[SLO-BOB]

You need to decide what you will use the scope for. What are you doing with the Mini-14? We could name names all day, but what really matters is what are you doing with the rifle? Low light? Long range? Woods? Do you need rapid target acquisition or do you have all day. Game or targets? Lots and lots of variables and yes - it's a slippery slope but really nothing that will break the bank. Any old thing will work on the 10/22 - even a Tasco.

Many I know spend more on the scope than the rifle and like Jeff said, appropriate optics - not mounting the Hubble to a rifle.

[on2wheels52]

The topic has been covered nicely above. A $50-$100 scope is quite servicable. A $500 scope is not five times as good. I might mention to NOT use a rifle-mounted scope in place of binoculars.
Jim

[vash]

4 power max for the 10/22. for both of your rifles, i would get a very low power red dot sight. less than 4 power. neither rifle will recoil past the scope field of view. you will see the impact thru the optics. very cool. oh, am a leupold man, with all my hunting rigs. they have gotten crazy expensive.

tactical scopes dont need that much money backing. my bro has a GREAT red dot. lemme find out which one it is.

[911boost]

There are some good points here, Jeff's advice is spot on.

I have a Mueller Tactical on one of my rifles. Check them out, it was reasonable, and has proven very sturdy and reliable. I had read about them, and figured it was worth a shot.

With that being said, my long range 22-250 will have a Leupold on it.

[charleskieffner]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I don't think there is any facet of rifle shooting that is generally more misunderstood than the scope sight. I firmly believe that most shooters today have lost sight of its primary function - it is an aiming device. Most folks today seem to treat them as a viewing device. There is a world of difference in philosophy and function.

The manifestation of this misunderstanding is found in the ever increasing magnification many feel is necessary in their scope sights. In other words, most rifles today are vastly "over-scoped", carrying far more glass than necessary. This works well enough at the range, where the rifle is fired from a rest with all the time in the world to find the target in the scope, line it up, and fire. In the field, however, the reduced field of view necessary in a high magnification scope can be a real liability. It can be damn hard to actually find the target in the scope.

The "optical triangle" is familiar to most riflemen. Essentially, is consists of magnification, field of view, and eye relief. Any increase in one leg of the triangle necessitates a decrease in one, or both, of the others. Since eye relief on standard rifle scopes must fall within a finite range due to mounting and safety considerations (avoiding "scope eye" wherein harder kicking rifles drill the scope into one's brow), we are left with two variables that can be changed that impact one another. Magnification and field of view. More of one means less of the other.

You have probably guessed by now that I'm an advocate of lower power scopes. In addition to providing a greater field of view, they tend to be smaller and lighter than the higher powered models. They add less weight and bulk to the rifle. They upset the balance point of the rifle far less. They are simply less obtrusive. They are secondary to the rifle, serving only to aim said rifle.

With the larger, more powerful scopes, I'm always left with the impression that the rifle serves as a pretty big, awkward, heavy handle with which to carry around a nice piece of optical viewing equipment. The scope takes over from the rifle. Folks are easily fooled by these nice pieces of optical equipment, assuming because they can see better, they can shoot better. Well, I'm here to tell you, that just ain't so.

Anyway, more to the point, I don't think you can go wrong with a fixed 4x on any .22. The Mini-14 should be happy with a variable 2x-7x, 3x-9x, or at the most a 4x-12x. Look for one advertised as a "compact"; the Mini-14 is a very small rifle. A big scope will really be awkward on one.

I'm a Leupold man through and through. They are on the spendy end, but their quality and warranty are second to none. They are truly a "lifetime" purchase; in anything ever goes wrong, they fix or replace it no questions asked, with no hassles whatsoever. If they are a little more than you would like to spend, my choice in a "budget" scope is Weaver. I've had Tasco, Bushnell, and other scopes in that price range, and have been most impressed with the Weavers. They are a great value for the money.

bushnell 4x on 10/22's if yer kids using it. why? cheap and pretty idiot proof. as higgy said im a leupold man myself. best bang fer buck and UNREAL WARRANTY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE!

traded my buddy a leupold 6x fixed that i had hammered the snot out of over 25 years of use for a red dot i wanted to try on my K22/45 stainless bull ruger. the 6x was kind of blurry to me. he took it and sent it back to leupold and they asked him simply "what finish would you like on yer new juan?" "matte black/stainless/gloss black?" he asked for matte and they shipped it to him free of charge. no fuss no muss.

bushnells worked perfect for kids. easy 1/4 MOA comeups 1/4" = 1-click windage or elevation. they are waterproof and they is CHEAP! wally world is where i got mine. too simple and sooner or later you'll be replacing juan when you or him fall down and go boom on some slippery rock and the rifle goes tumbling. even though no juan wants to admit it, everyjuan falls down and always the rifle and scope take the brunt of the embarassment.

low power on the mini cuz its a .223 round and you aint shooting past 500yds (if that) effectively ever. if you went 3 x9 its kind of going to look big as higgy said. compact is where its at. small and light.

my suggestion is dump the bucks on a "return to ZERO" scope mt. ie. you can place it on and off and always retain yer zero. these are spendy because of tight ass machining tolerances but they are the nicest due to ability of retaining zero and keeping zero is a pain in the ass at best on rifles that are used alot and banged around thru lifes lil bumpy roads.

remember and higgy will attest to this im sure. wooden stocks swell and yer ZERO CHANGES. synthetic stock and a "return to zero" scope mt, stainless, and your gonna have a fine weapon you can be proud of and it will do what you want time and time again.

i use my weapons. ie. they are bounced to hell on a quad, on a horse, on a dirt bike, in a jeep, on my back and they get beat up.............alot. but my zero dont change and i have never missed a shot due to a click situation or my scope or mts failing.

learn yer weapon............know your weapon........make love to yer weapon........know yer come-ups.............know your ammo..............cherish yer magazines and never ever drop them............AND CLEAN THE DAMN THING EVERYTIME YOU SHOOT IT NO MATTER WHAT AND IT WILL OUTLIVE YOU IN SPADES!

when ya buy a cleaning kit..........buy kleenbore.com's field kit. everythang ya need and they even come in camo if kalifornia allows that???? LOL!

[azasadny]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I don't think there is any facet of rifle shooting that is generally more misunderstood than the scope sight. I firmly believe that most shooters today have lost sight of its primary function - it is an aiming device. Most folks today seem to treat them as a viewing device. There is a world of difference in philosophy and function.

The manifestation of this misunderstanding is found in the ever increasing magnification many feel is necessary in their scope sights. In other words, most rifles today are vastly "over-scoped", carrying far more glass than necessary. This works well enough at the range, where the rifle is fired from a rest with all the time in the world to find the target in the scope, line it up, and fire. In the field, however, the reduced field of view necessary in a high magnification scope can be a real liability. It can be damn hard to actually find the target in the scope.

The "optical triangle" is familiar to most riflemen. Essentially, is consists of magnification, field of view, and eye relief. Any increase in one leg of the triangle necessitates a decrease in one, or both, of the others. Since eye relief on standard rifle scopes must fall within a finite range due to mounting and safety considerations (avoiding "scope eye" wherein harder kicking rifles drill the scope into one's brow), we are left with two variables that can be changed that impact one another. Magnification and field of view. More of one means less of the other.

You have probably guessed by now that I'm an advocate of lower power scopes. In addition to providing a greater field of view, they tend to be smaller and lighter than the higher powered models. They add less weight and bulk to the rifle. They upset the balance point of the rifle far less. They are simply less obtrusive. They are secondary to the rifle, serving only to aim said rifle.

With the larger, more powerful scopes, I'm always left with the impression that the rifle serves as a pretty big, awkward, heavy handle with which to carry around a nice piece of optical viewing equipment. The scope takes over from the rifle. Folks are easily fooled by these nice pieces of optical equipment, assuming because they can see better, they can shoot better. Well, I'm here to tell you, that just ain't so.

Anyway, more to the point, I don't think you can go wrong with a fixed 4x on any .22. The Mini-14 should be happy with a variable 2x-7x, 3x-9x, or at the most a 4x-12x. Look for one advertised as a "compact"; the Mini-14 is a very small rifle. A big scope will really be awkward on one.

I'm a Leupold man through and through. They are on the spendy end, but their quality and warranty are second to none. They are truly a "lifetime" purchase; in anything ever goes wrong, they fix or replace it no questions asked, with no hassles whatsoever. If they are a little more than you would like to spend, my choice in a "budget" scope is Weaver. I've had Tasco, Bushnell, and other scopes in that price range, and have been most impressed with the Weavers. They are a great value for the money.

Jeff,
You need to write a book. I would definitely buy it since you have a lot of knowledge in this area that many of us would like to learn about! Thanks!

[John Rogers]

If you can, try to go to an outdoor range like the South Bay Rod and Gun Club in Delzura (near San Diego) and see what people are using. I would also visit as many shops as possible to see what they sell since the ones in my area tend to not sell any really junk stuff. If you are in the LA area, visit the Bass Pro Shops store near I10 and I15 as they sell all of them. On out 10/22 I have a red dot 2x scope and our grandson loves it. On my G22 I have a fixed 6x power scope I bought at the Delmar gun show last year for $30 and it works fine. On my black rifle I have a Cabelas Alaskan 2x-12x 30mm adjustable scope and it is fantastic. So as previously noted, read as mauch as you can, talk to as many people as you can and then fit it in with your budget. Oh yeah, a "scope mount kit" is really well worth the $$$$.

[id10t]

Just got a Simmons White Tail Classic 6.5-20x w/ 50mm objective for $99 from Midway. Normal price is close to 300, but they are closing them out.

I'd check over on rimfirecentral.com - esp. for the 10/22.

[mattdavis11]

Jeff nailed it, again. 3x9 Leupold Vari X III here. The .22 pellet gun has a Zeiss 6x just for the hell of it.

[tabs]

Unertle, Night Force and Schmidt Bender
also qualify for the high end...

To each its application for its need.