22 rimfire scopes - parallax

[packrat]

I've got a crappy old Bushnell Buckhorn 3.5-10x40 on my Anschutz XIV 22LR. Love the gun, hate the scope, and it's time to upgrade.

 

One thing I am fussy about is parallax. I remember checking it on this scope before and thinking, wow this is rubbish, but seriously, I'd forgotten HOW rubbish. When I rest the rifle, lined up on a point 30 metres away, look through the scope and move my eye around, the crosshairs move wildly around the aim point. I mean, an inch or more either side, at the target. How I ever manage to hit anything with it is anyone's guess. It's maybe not the scope's fault -- possibly it's just not designed for use at 30m. But regardless, it has to go.

 

Since most of my shots with this rifle are taken in the 30-60 metre range I need a scope that has zero parallax at these ranges.

 

Can anyone recommend something? I'm not that bothered about fixed vs zoom, if fixed would like about 6x or maybe 8x. Perfectly happy with second hand. Would prefer dialable parallax because I'd be afraid of getting something fixed at 100m and finding it's rubbish at say 40.

 

Budget ~£300.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[packrat]

Sorry to answer my own question and all that but what does the panel think of this Hawke Sidewinder? I've already got a Hawke Eclipse 4-16x50 on my 17 HMR and it's "adequate" but (a) does anyone know if there is a qualitative difference between the Eclipse and the Sidewinder ranges? and (b ) I've not been overly impressed with the build quality; yes you get what you pay for but for example the switch for the green and red reticles has the colours the wrong way round (duh). Not a showstopper but an indication perhaps of attention to detail. And if that's the visible manifestation of poor QC, I wonder what else is shoddy on the inside.

[packrat]

Sorry double post

[sonic]

I've got a 3-9 x 50 air max a 4-16 x 44 map 8 and a 6-24 x 44 varmint sf first two on .22rf and last on .243 ok not everyone's choice but for the money they're ok. there's no illumination so one less thing to go wrong. the air max ones are fixed at 40yds for parallax the other two are front and side focus.

I can't say on the eclipse not ever had hold of one. out of the three they are priced in order listed the air max http://www.deben.com/hawke-airmax-ev-riflescopes/hawke-airmax-ev-3-9x50-ao.html but mines the older fixed one its on a 1022 and is good for the price does the job for day and lamping. they don't do the map 8 now but it was on my 243 until I got the varmint sf of the three this is the best easy parallax adjustment considering the price I think it's good value and £100 less than the eclipse http://www.deben.com/hawke-varmint-side-focus-riflescopes/hawke-varmint-sf-6-24x44.html

The first two have map reticule and the SF is 1/2 mil dot. for the rimfire the map or SR reticules one you've got your ranges sorted use the free software from Hawke (if you haven't already) confirm real world then they work quite well.

In that price range I'd recommend anyone of them the varmint SF is my favorite. Hope this helps

[kent]

PA scopes on a rim fire? Good idea for target but in the field you really wont be able to set up the parallax correctly by moving your head around before each shot etc. As you are thinking a fixed 6x or 8x (both great choices for bunny bashing) you wont need or be able to focus in from high mag levels either ( which is touch and go for removing parallax anyway due to light levels).

I must have had at least half a dozen scopes on my own RF, my favourite by far is on it now a 6x42 S+Bender 1" tube Hungarian. Set up perfectly in its mounts for fit and eye relief, in a stock that has also been tailored to me it works perfect. Its not quite as clear close up as some of the air gun intended scopes that I have used but if you miss a bunny at 8 yds you have more problems than the scope you chose. At 50-100 were most of my rabbits are actually shot its clear as a bell and looking directly through the scope centre I have no issue with parallax error. So I can very much recommend it. I think the parallax is maybe set at around 100 m on this scope?

RF scopes need to be fiddle free and reliable in the field under all light conditions, not constantly loosing a click or two and tough enough to be jostled around in a vehicle and the ever changing weather of the UK. The scope mentioned can be easily found second hand for your budget as many stalkers start their careers with one then think they will shoot more and better with a variable. Of course that new expensive 3-12 variable spends most of its following life between 6-8 X LOL

If you must have the best parallax adjustable scope on a RF I should look at the Leupold EFR range (extended focal range) two models are available both variable 33mm and 44mm objective I think? Or the Burris R/A 8-32 variable ( I think this was discontinued around a decade ago )

[Matone]

I have a Burris 4-12 x32 compact on my Hmr,works well and makes a tidy little rig.

[packrat]

Cheers Matone and sonic, great info. That Hawke software is cool.

 

kent I think the key is: "looking directly through the scope centre I have no issue with parallax error." By definition parallax error is caused by NOT looking dead centre, or rather, looking from more that one place. How do you guarantee you're looking straight through the middle of the scope? There's usually a couple of mm either side and up/down where the sight picture is still perfect and this is where the parallax error can be significant.

 

If I move my eye backwards or forwards until I get the black ring, which I can then centre around the perimeter, I know I am looking dead centre, but that is not how a scope is intended to be used and it is fiddly especially in the heat of a rabbit-battlefield. Sounds like your gun is a perfect fit and setup for you so perhaps that's how you centre your eye but I am not that good; there is a real likelihood I'm off centre, and I can't stand that lack of precision.

 

I'm not suggesting that I spend ages before each shot bobbing my head around checking for parallax... more that I want to know for certain that when I have focussed the scope in at the distance I am about to take the shot, that there is no parallax error. The Hawke Eclipse I mentioned, for all its sins has a side wheel which makes focus snap in an out very precisely, and once focussed, there is essentially zero movement due to parallax. I have complete confidence in this so I don't have to worry about whether my head is dead centre to the axis of the scope; it doesn't matter.

 

I'd really love to look through your scope to see if the problem exists other than in my imagination! It's perfectly possible that this Bushnell is just a horrendous example of parallax error that has unfairly prejudiced me against all other non-PA scopes. Even if true though, the damage is done and until I can convince myself otherwise, it's PA for me even on a rimfire I've been looking at the Vortex range some of which get amazing reviews and are very tempting (not least on account of the lifetime no-questions-asked warranty) but they are more expensive than the Hawke equivalent so I'd have to compromise on features.

 

1. Vortex Viper 4-12x40 (£300)

2. Hawke Sidewinder TAC 4.5-14x42 IR (£300)

 

Or one of these for the HMR and move my current Hawke from that to the 22:

 

 

3. Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 IR (£540)

4. Hawke Sidewinder 30 SF 6-24x56 (£300)

 

One of those Leupolds you mention also maybe a possibility, looking into them now.

 

Anyway I'm rambling... thanks for your input, much appreciated.

 

[sonic]

I have my rifles setup to fit me I altered the stock on my Brno added padding on others. Thing is most stocks are a compromise put on med high mounts you don't get good cheek weld. personally I'd get some masking tape and sheets of foam card or similar and add to the comb height till it fits. once you know what you need you can get comb raisers from gun shops evil bay etc. add a stock bag or cover and stop worrying about parallax. consistent gun mount will be more use than a PA scope.

I have the focus ring set on 50 yds on my rimfire I never change it and I think if you asked how many have PA scopes but just set and forget you'd find it's most of them

[packrat]

Do you not find it annoyingly blurry at 25m and 100m?

 

Each to their own I suppose but I can't use a tool that introduces an error. Shooting for me (even at rabbits) is about eliminating as many variables as possible, and that includes parallax. I'm not that good of a shot so I need all the help I can get

[sonic]

to be honest at 6 or 8 times no I don't have that problem on higher mag yes. Which is why I like the Varmint SF on the .243. I found the front focus such a pain to use I didn't bother.

[Matone]

I leave the Burris PA set at 100yds and it seems fine to me at closer range,blurry perhaps but still accurate.

Did have a Hawke 3-10x44 Reflex on the rifle previously and it proved reliable enough.

[DaveK]

For what its worth try a Simmons Whitetail Classic. I've used them on a variety of rifles from .22 rimfire to .22CF and they've performed well every time. WELL within your budget.

 

Alternatively a 2nd hand Meopta? A wee bit more and you could get a 2nd hand Zeiss Duralyt. But why spend your hardearned? On a .22 rimmy you'd get good results from some airgun scopes. BSA Contender, Tasco World Class are just a couple I've had that worked well.

[gaz6br]

Got a nice 3-9x50 luepold like bran new had it on a 17hmr for a few week, but sold the rifle i didnt like it.

[SlimySquirrel]

I have used the Nikon Prostaff BDC 3-9X40 on my Rimfires for a while now.

 

Love the BDC for the Rimfire as it can be custom set to your Zero and your Round.

 

The Reticle is nice and small and the glass is really clear and sharp at the edges... All in all hard to beat for the price..only thing is that it is set to 50yd parallax so you may want to look through it first but I have had no issues with the 3 that I have had and they all do a very good job.

[kent]

Packrat,

your welcome to look through it but it heck of a drive from that London ! What can I say? I can put SK subs through the same hole at 50 yds with it and don't experience bad shots due to parallax.

Smaller objectives and lower magnification level help mitigate parallax, also proper ground glass over plastic. if you used to a gun that fits then you should be able to mount it with your eyes shut and be pretty close to perfect with your eye position. It should never create a miss or a wounding if you do the other bit right

 

Front parallax rings are easy to adjust from a shooting position BTW. Get a coaster (used to fasten a multiplier reel on a beach rod) connect to the round knurled adjustment ring of the scope and tighten then using the knob you can adjust parallax with the thumb of your forward hand. This is useful when using a high mag scope at long range but naff all use shooting bunnies on the lamp or walking the hedges and rough grass fields.

 

Hawke software tells you a lot less than shooting the thing a lot at the end of the day you still have to make your own call on the wind strength its value and range. I would rather shoot with a simple single aim point on my scope, I would personally not even run the program the time is better spent out there practising

[packrat]

Thanks everyone for your input, all much appreciated. I ended up with a Hawke Sidewinder TAC 4.5-14x42 IR.

 

First impressions are that despite the fit and finish not being that great (about the same as my other Hawke which was 2/3 the price), overall it's a hell of a scope for the money. I've not been out proper with it yet but zeroing was hassle-free, and the sight picture and optic quality is WAY ahead of the Bushnell it replaces. If they have cut corners with the plasticky knobs then that's fine by me as the glass matters far more and that seems excellent. Focus with my beloved side parallax control is bang-on and very smooth. I'll report any further impressions soon as I can get out and use it for real.

 

One thing made me do a massive face-palm and that was the legend on the turrets. Can you spot the glaring idiocy?

 

 

 

[kent]

You see its designed by marketing people, did you really expect they know what MOA actually is and means? how many clicks per MOA at 175 yds do you think?