Struggling to find a sensible 'scope for a rimmie, any ideas ?

[pat]

Perhaps my requirements are just a bit "far out there" but I don't consider them unreasonable....

 

o Cost not much more than the rifle

o Good glass

o Parallax adjustment

o Useful additional stadia on reticle, and if variable power then first focal plane

o Failing the above, reliable tracking target turrets

 

A scope that matches all of the technical requirements can easily be bought, but sticking an S&B PMII on a rimmie is not my idea of "sensible". Sadly most, if not all, the lower cost offerings appear to fail to tick one or more of the boxes. Maybe they don't need to, maybe I am just being fussy, but I'll try to explain my logic.

 

In order to shoot it, first you have to be able to see it. Cheap glass just washes out in low light, and if you have to resort to a lamp you're at the mercy of whether things will sit in the lamp or not. If the glass is good enough you may not need the lamp. In bright daylight it doesn't make a difference. In low light it can be the difference between a shot, or not. Unfortunately most of the decent glass comes in 'scopes that are devoid of one or more of the other features mentioned, unless you get a high end model, which will cost considerably more than the rifle.

 

Fixed parallax is traditionally set at 100yds. Fine for a C/F but not ideal for a rimmie at 30 yards. Your eyes will be switching back and forth between having the target and the reticle in focus at any one time. There will also be significant parallax error, coupled with typically lower accuracy and your choice of shot placement will be compromised. Adjustable parallax is the logical answer to that problem.

 

The reticle needs to be relatively thick (if you can't see it, it might as well not be there!), and if the 'scope doesn't have reliable, dial-able turrets, it needs to have additional stadia that can be used for accurate hold-over. Mil dots will work. Most BDC / TDS type reticles should work for this purpose. If the 'scope is a variable power then the reticle needs to be in the first focal plane. It never ceases to amaze me that they put stadiametric reticles in the second focal plane so it only works at a given magnification.... what happens when there isn't enough light for that mag ? Mental arithmetic to try to correct for the incorrect mag (and the need to recalibrate the zoom ring since they are rarely accurate). When in the first focal plane you don't need to worry about the stadia, they're always the same relative to the target regardless of mag. Pet hate rant over

 

Whilst ultimately less useful since it takes longer to dial, a 'scope can be forgiven for not having decent stadia if it has a means for adjusting a simple Plex type reticle. A 'scope that does neither is altogether less useful. Since holding over won't be an option, the turrets would get a bit of use so they must be solid and track reliably, so again if their construction is barely more solid than a Cornflake box, they're not worth the material they're made out of.

 

Whilst there are many really good 'scopes that tick many of the boxes, few, if any, seem to tick them all. Things that seem like they may be sensible are items like Zeiss Conquest series (a compromise since it is SFP and would need to be dialled, but at least there is a turret option and parallax is adjustable), one or two of the Signtron SIII series and perhaps something like the Lightstream 4.5-4x44. Zeiss Conquest MC glass isn't quite as good as the Victory FL stuff, but it is still good! The Signtron SIII glass seems to get praise when it is reviewed, but I've yet to have a look at one. Likewise the Lightstream attracts good reviews (but I've only looked through one in daylight). There must be other "worthy candidates", so I'de be grateful for any suggestions which tick all the boxes.

 

Many thanks,

 

Pat.

[Barrelsniffer]

I just use a simmons white tail classic on mine 3.5-10-50 had it on for years and does the job for me..nothing fancy.

 

Mick

[pat]

Ronny,

 

thanks for the suggestion I should have probably mentioned though that I already have an MTC (albeit Viper) which I've taken back off the rifle due to its performance in low light. Whilst it is a good value for money 'scope and great in bright daylight, its glass just cannot keep with the rest of the kit I use. I can spot stuff with the Zeiss binos. I could shoot it with one of my barkier rifles that wear S&B / Swarovski glass, but with the quiet little rimmie I cannot see it. Hence the requirement for good glass. It doesn't need to be Zeiss Victory FL to be useable, the Conquest MC stuff works adequately, but it does need to be a little better than the glass that Optisan use. Perhaps I just have a bad example and they're normally better....

 

 

Mick,

 

I used to have a Simmons on an air rifle I sold to a friend. Never used that in the same way but I think he still has that 'scope so I'll ask if I can have a look in low light. Many thanks for the suggestion

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[sako75]

Hi Pat

 

I have a Sako Finn Fire varmint barreled rifle in a McMillan Sako varmint stock, fitted with a S&B 3-12 x 50.

 

It’s used 99% of the time for urban fox control and the scope is just perfect for my needs, I don’t use a lamp as it gives the game away, where the public are concerned.

 

Properly a bit OTT for most people, but for my needs it just can’t be beaten, I have tried other makes of scope and there’s just no comparison to the S&B for my particular requirements.

 

ATB Bob

[fizzbangwhallop]

I've mounted both of my rimmies... a Finnfire sporter .22 and a cz 452 american 17hmr sporter with inclined Sportsmatch one-piece mounts and Swarovski AV 4-16x50, objective parallax 1" tubes with the BR reticle. (Swarovski's ballistic program will allow you to input the bullet factors to tell you what ranges the crosshairs then relate to).

 

Ok, an upside down christmas tree in the second second focal plane but I tend to stick to 10 or 12 power and just 'learn' the scope in relation to the ammo.

 

On a 'scope is for for life' basis, both 'scopes bought from Macleods, a year apart but only 2 serial nos apart.. excellent low light performance with a fine reticle you can see. I had to use the inclined mount to get the elevation adjustment, certainly for the 17 and just did the same on the 22 when it arrived. Gregor also sent down a 3-12 but that just didn't work for me.

 

However there is a difference between the 2 mounts... I couldn't get the .22 zeroed with the new mount, drove me nuts until I tried the 17's original scope and mount... it worked. And visa-versa, the new 'scope & mount worked on the CZ. Bizarre but down to different dovetail rails and what has to be differences between the 2 supposedly identical mounts.

 

Before the AV's arrived I was using a Swarovski 2.5-9x42 30mm on the rifles, good but a bit heavy on the reticle meaning it obscured rabbits at decent distances. This didn't need inclined mounts and if you've got a varmint barrel the AV/inclined combination won't have enough clearance... I can't get a butler creek between the objectives and the barrels.

 

That's me,

atb

 

FBW

[Alycidon]

Ziess. Buy it once and never look back. If you can find one a German made Diavari C will be ideal. I bought a used one a few months ago for about £450. They stopped making them in Germany around 1994 time, US produced ones are rumoured to not be quite to that same high standard.

Got one one my rimmie and another on a 17 Hornet, size, weight and performance suit the rifles and cartridges perfectly.

 

 

A

[pat]

Oops, double post due to server badness...

[pat]

Bob,

 

It is interesting that you should mention the 3-12x50 PMII because I had been looking at the "not all the features loaded" versions, ie delete the illumination and the double turn elevation turret and the price returns to the land of the "almost sensible" Still a lot of money for a 'scope for a rimmie but I kinda had that in the back of my mind as an "if all else fails and it really isn't possible to find something that ticks ALL the boxes, this will tick all bar the price one". P3 reticle in the first focal plane and the parallax feature and job done

 

FBW,

 

I have a Swarovski PV 4-16x50P with TDS reticle on another rifle which is a fine 'scope and I like it a lot... but... as you mention the reticle is in the second focal plane which means as the light fades and you begin to wind the mag down a bit to let a bit more light through, the stadia are no longer accurate hold over points. Again, this could be "forgiven" if it had target turrets that could be dialled in lower light but it doesn't. Like I said originally, pet hate, why do they stick stadiametric reticles in the second focal plane and then not have target turrets ? Certainly agree that the glass is excellent in low light, and if it was an FFP 'scope it would pretty much tick every box (still not "cheap", but not outrageous for a rimmie either). My "plan" is to find a 'scope that ticks all the boxes and then actually get two, one of which will sub in for the Swaro. If I go with Bob's suggestion my wallet is going to hurt, LOL

 

Alycidon,

 

One certainly cannot argue with the glass or construction quality of Zeiss! The "problem" that I had with Zeiss is that there are few, if any, that tick all the boxes, EVEN IF you ignore the first (price). There are reasonably priced ones (the Duralyt is awesome value for money... none have parallax adjustment though). There are "cheaper" ones, the Conquest series is very friendly to the wallet and still has good glass, and is one potential candidate (see below), its only real "failing" if you can call it that is SFP reticle. Then you look at the Victory series and think "surely, there has to be one here that ticks all the boxes!" but no, there isn't. As soon as you get enough mag for Zeiss to think a parallax adjustment is wise, they then also switch from FFP to SFP. It could be "forgiven" for this since it has target turrets so you can dial, but if you're spending around two grand on a 'scope it is not unreasonable to expect one that is a perfect match to your requirements. Sadly Zeiss themselves do not appear to offer such a model at this time, unless you look to their military division and go for a Hensoldt. But then you might as well just go with Bob's suggestion of a "sensible" PMII. I digress.

 

I did mention that Zeiss Conquest is a potential candidate. Whilst they are SFP some are available with target turrets and so would be an option. With a No. 43 reticle and target turrets you could use holdover in good light and dial in low light. Call that a compromise but still a workable solution. One for for the list of candidates then

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[fizzbangwhallop]

Just looked at my Finnfire in the cupboard to see what power the 'scope is on having been used recently through dusk into a T handled variable cluson lamp and that's set on 10 power which I wouldn't have adjusted down as the light fell.

 

I tend to have all my variables set on 10 and only occasionally wind these down as it gets dark.... the advantage of quality Swarovski and Zeiss glass. As a compromise using old 7mm of light is optimum concept I guess you could set a 50 objective scope to 8 power and leave it there.... but then why have a variable.

 

That's me,

 

atb

 

FBW

[sako75]

Hi Pat at the end of the day no matter what scope you need, it’s going to cost money, but to be totally honest what choice do you really have? It’s either German or Austrian glass, which will not come cheap!

 

I have over the years tried some very good Japanese glass and even Japanese made American branded scopes, but really none can live with the best European made glass, well not for my particular needs anyway.

 

I know a lot of shooters cringe at spending maybe more than the price of the rifle on a quality scope, but if you can’t see you’re target you’re never going to be able to hit it!

 

I have wasted far too much money on buying non-essential shooting gear, it’s almost impossible to waste money on quality glass; buy what you really want and just empty that wallet once!

 

ATB Bob

[pat]

FBW,

 

Whilst it does seem a shame to leave a variable at a given power it is of course an option. If there is something that works well at a given power and it still has enough light at that power to be useful then that may be the answer. It would be a compromise of sorts, something that wouldn't be necessary if it were FFP, but it seems that most 'scopes in the cheap-to-mid-end are SFP, thanks to our American cousins and Leupold. Old habits die hard, and if any proof of that were needed it is interesting to see one of the very few "FAQs" on the Schmidt und Bender website addresses the "the reticle gets bigger when I zoom" question... I don't think that S&B need to persuade anyone of the quality of their kit so the fact that they put that up as an FAQ when any potential buyer already knows they're buying some of the best kit in the world says it all really....

 

Bob,

 

I cannot and will not argue over the fact that if it needs to be the best then it needs to be european glass. It is as far as I am concerned an axiom. If money were no object then all of my rifles would be wearing S&B PMII glass. But you have to admit it is overkill to put a PMII on a 22LR. Much more scope than you need. If S&B did a 3-12x50 with FFP P3 mil dot reticle and parallax adjustment in a non-PMII model then that would be perfect. Sadly they don't. OK, I may be able to ask for a Varmint or Precision Hunter with a different reticle than the ones they list but we're adding more money again. Sadly Zeiss don't do anything "basic" like that either. Nor do Meopta. Or IOR. Or do Kahles. Or Docter. You can get almost what you want, but there's always something "missing". Mostly with "hunting" type european glass the "missing" bit is either a stadiametric reticle or parallax.

 

I have gone through my fair share of glass, making many mistakes along the way. Some have been OK financially because quality glass holds its value... selling on a Swarovski is not normally a recipe for depreciation pain. I have had to accept that my ideas of what makes a 'scope good for a given application have been wrong on many an occasion. Indeed I'll need to sell a Swaro due to it being SFP, but hey, you live and learn.

 

I have had an opportunity to look at one potential option so far and there I'm told that others are inbound More info as and when I have something more objective than just looking with my vintage Mk1 eyeball

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[kent]

Pat,

you might be overcomplicating your needs with a little too much knoledge. No rabbit at 30yds has ever been missed from paralax error. I use a s+Bender 6x42 on my .22 lr Paralax is left as is - i don't miss much! It has had at least 4 or 5 different scopes on in its life both PA and not zoom and fixed. In your criteria this is the wrong scope yet it is maybee the best it has had on it from my experiance.

I hate extra aim points personally i dial in or use the Kentucky meathod, just my choice but that would be the first thing to go if "compromise" was needed. Leupold should offer something to meet with your exact requirements though the better the glass the more you pay and i dont know what "more than the rifle" would come to

[Bounder]

Have you tried any of the Karl Kapsscopes? They are quite reasonably priced for German Glass and they have a decent range of stuff that would suit a rimmie.

[pat]

Kent,

 

I did allude to the fact that I may be asking for too much / the wrong thing in my opening post, although it is ironic indeed that you can get all the features sans-glass in the low end; 60 quid will buy you a 'scope that almost does it all, but it won't work well in low light. The problem with parallax becomes more severe with greater magnification, so admittedly you'll not necessarily have an issue at 30 yards since you could always wind the mag down, but that only works on a variable. Remembering also that it needs to work in low light, it is bad enough trying to work with the lack of light, but the need for the eye to re-focus between the reticle and the image just adds additional grief that one could do without. Whilst I appreciate that there are differences in sunset times across the country, please try hitting a something the size of a 2p coin at 35 yards at 8:45 this evening with *no* additional light source. I did the same two nights ago. I suspect that you should be able to do so, your 'scope is certainly more than capable, but at least you'll see how much (or little) light there is

 

Reticle choice is a case of personal preference. If you prefer to dial then that is fine, although I would hazard a guess that since the 6x42 doesn't normally come with target turrets you'll be on the Kentucky method Try that at 180 yards.... That's not to suggest that it is sensible to shoot something with a 22LR at that distance, only alluding to the fact that it is possible. In verifying drop chart I landed a pair of bullets about an inch apart at that distance last night, using a stadiametric reticle. I find them useful, others may not

 

Leupold do little, if anything, in FFP. Perhaps some tactical type 'scope but as you rightly say, the glass just isn't as good. Regarding the cost of the rifle, that is no secret, LOL, it is a nice little Anschutz 1417ZG, not the dearest and not the cheapest. But if you consider the most expensive LR you'de ever take out in the field, say something like an Anschutz 1712, then most of the European glass that tick all bar the cost box still exceeds the cost of the rifle! Scary stuff

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[garyw]

all this chat your wasting trigger time!

[pat]

Bounder,

 

Many thanks for the suggestion. To be fair it's not a make I was familiar with and it's always nice to see some other options for decent European glass. I've had a look round their offerings and couldn't see one with parallax adjustment, period. Looks like they stick to the lower mag end of the scale where they obviously don't deem it necessary. Still worth considering for a stalking type of application where the target is either further away or bigger (or indeed both!).

 

Gary,

 

Fair point Was supposed to be meeting up with a friend today which would have given opportunity both for trigger time and also glass eval time, but it didn't work out... there's always tomorrow

 

In the meantime it looks like there may be another potential option. Falcon have brought out a FFP 'scope with all the boxes ticked, on paper at least. I had a Menace on loan to try and was surprised at the glass; better than expected but the reticle in that 'scope was just way too fine to be seen in low light. They still offer that reticle in the new 'scope but they also have a thicker Mil Dot version. It's never going to hold its own against high end European glass, but it doesn't cost high end European glass money. Might be a good "better than entry level" option

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[kent]

Kent,

 

I did allude to the fact that I may be asking for too much / the wrong thing in my opening post, although it is ironic indeed that you can get all the features sans-glass in the low end; 60 quid will buy you a 'scope that almost does it all, but it won't work well in low light. The problem with parallax becomes more severe with greater magnification, so admittedly you'll not necessarily have an issue at 30 yards since you could always wind the mag down, but that only works on a variable. Remembering also that it needs to work in low light, it is bad enough trying to work with the lack of light, but the need for the eye to re-focus between the reticle and the image just adds additional grief that one could do without. Whilst I appreciate that there are differences in sunset times across the country, please try hitting a something the size of a 2p coin at 35 yards at 8:45 this evening with *no* additional light source. I did the same two nights ago. I suspect that you should be able to do so, your 'scope is certainly more than capable, but at least you'll see how much (or little) light there is

 

Reticle choice is a case of personal preference. If you prefer to dial then that is fine, although I would hazard a guess that since the 6x42 doesn't normally come with target turrets you'll be on the Kentucky method Try that at 180 yards.... That's not to suggest that it is sensible to shoot something with a 22LR at that distance, only alluding to the fact that it is possible. In verifying drop chart I landed a pair of bullets about an inch apart at that distance last night, using a stadiametric reticle. I find them useful, others may not

 

Leupold do little, if anything, in FFP. Perhaps some tactical type 'scope but as you rightly say, the glass just isn't as good. Regarding the cost of the rifle, that is no secret, LOL, it is a nice little Anschutz 1417ZG, not the dearest and not the cheapest. But if you consider the most expensive LR you'de ever take out in the field, say something like an Anschutz 1712, then most of the European glass that tick all bar the cost box still exceeds the cost of the rifle! Scary stuff

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

 

Pat,

its a .22 lr best used with subs up to around 70-75 yds as such hold over suits me fine. I dont see the humble .22 as a 100yds plus gun, have done it been through the whole dial in thing with the calibre my guns is a real tack driver, i can read the wind pretty good and mine has as i say worn allsorts ontop over the years including scopes with dial in turrets and high mag. However that said .22 lr ammo is notorious for poppers and crackers even with the lapua they show themselves every now and again, due to this and a bad wind or range call, limited killing power etc i leave it as is at its best and dont push it ( its different when using higher powered fragmenting centrefires and proven handloads). Paralax error and focus although linked are not the same thing, the former can be overcome to a great degree by good mounting / hold and under 12 mag (which is more than ample mag) good glass don't go all squiffy on focus unless your real close. Given the choice, which i actually have (spare scopes in cuboard) i feel happy with the 6x42 s+b like i say it has worn a few over the years, light gathering is as good as it gets and if you cant see were the rabbits head is at 100yds in such a scope you need an optician not a different scope IMO. Good luck in your quest

[pat]

Kent,

 

Your choice of a fixed power may have served you well with regard to "inadvertent" stadia. The 6x42 is available with A1, A4, A7 and A8 reticles. Only one of those, the A1, is devoid of additional stadia, so odds on that yours has got some useful features on the reticle, and since it is fixed power, they are constant. The trouble, I find, with holding over based on the target size is that targets vary in size whereas the reticle is constant. If I were shooting with that then I'de find myself using the distance to the thick stadia as an indicator / reference.... you may find yourself doing the same subconsciously... or your mind may work better off the target, none of us are the same and we each have our own personal preferences

 

Agreed that parallax error can be minimised by ensuring that head position is always the same, but I find that is difficult to ensure when you may take one shot prone, then one supported by a tree etc. I'de sooner take that variable out of the equation if I can, ergo the desire for parallax adjustment. Regarding ammo, yes, that is indeed a limiting factor but then we're not talking about extremely long range shots, the 180yd shots were simply to verify the zero... when the 'scope has 1/8 MOA clicks you'll not necessarily see that at 35 or 50 yards! It starts getting real messy around about 115 yards, the drop per yard gets quite large and as you say accurate ranging is critical. Fortunately I don't have a problem with that, range finding binos for spotting make light work of judging distance

 

I doubt that an optician would be able to "fix" the problem of not being able to see a rabbit at 100 yards through the S&B... if you really need more than three dioptres of correction then some kind of laser surgery might be a better bet

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[kent]

Kent,

 

Your choice of a fixed power may have served you well with regard to "inadvertent" stadia. The 6x42 is available with A1, A4, A7 and A8 reticles. Only one of those, the A1, is devoid of additional stadia, so odds on that yours has got some useful features on the reticle, and since it is fixed power, they are constant. The trouble, I find, with holding over based on the target size is that targets vary in size whereas the reticle is constant. If I were shooting with that then I'de find myself using the distance to the thick stadia as an indicator / reference.... you may find yourself doing the same subconsciously... or your mind may work better off the target, none of us are the same and we each have our own personal preferences

 

Agreed that parallax error can be minimised by ensuring that head position is always the same, but I find that is difficult to ensure when you may take one shot prone, then one supported by a tree etc. I'de sooner take that variable out of the equation if I can, ergo the desire for parallax adjustment. Regarding ammo, yes, that is indeed a limiting factor but then we're not talking about extremely long range shots, the 180yd shots were simply to verify the zero... when the 'scope has 1/8 MOA clicks you'll not necessarily see that at 35 or 50 yards! It starts getting real messy around about 115 yards, the drop per yard gets quite large and as you say accurate ranging is critical. Fortunately I don't have a problem with that, range finding binos for spotting make light work of judging distance

 

I doubt that an optician would be able to "fix" the problem of not being able to see a rabbit at 100 yards through the S&B... if you really need more than three dioptres of correction then some kind of laser surgery might be a better bet

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

 

How does 180 verify the zero? I just dont believe in gizmos out rabbiting having three ranges in my head dead on, skim the top of the head or slightly up the ears. You are obviously keen on the fine tecnicalities, they have thier downsides you know. I still read the wind and its changes by looking at the grass downrange so guess i am but a ludite, i suppose a could do with a series of windmeters connected to a pc with an earpiece speaking to me

[pat]

Kent,

 

If you fancy a little plinking session and are interested then try this test. Shoot groups at 30 yard intervals out to 150 or 180 yards. You'll need to hold the rifle steady to less than 1/8 minute, so bipod and bag would be ideal. When you have your targets find the centre of each group. Don't worry about the drop, but notice what is happening to the windage. Even in perfectly calm conditions you'll most likely see a POI shift with distance. This is because the optical and bore axes are not coplanar. Not only do you have vertical interception between the line of sight and line of flight, but horizontal too.

 

There are many sources of error in the real world. Some we cannot control, and some we can. Zero is one that we can, so it seems foolish not to adjust it to the best of our ability. As distances grow, so the margin for error diminishes, ergo it seems sensible to move the error to distances where it is less critical. An error of 1/2 inch at 180 is much more important than an error of 2mm at 35. I'de sooner have it spot on at 180 and 2mm out at 35 than the other way round. This is why I verify zero at long distance. It may be pedantic but hopefully you can see the logic ?

 

Regards gizmos, that really depends on the situation. I don't tend to take the anemometer, barometer, hygrometer, compass, spirit level, GPS or inclinometer with me when out with the 22LR, a set of binos and a rangefinder will suffice. By reducing the errors that I can to the minimum it affords me more margin for error when I'm "measuring" the wind myself

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[Chris-NZ]

 

...

I tend to have all my variables set on 10 ..

FBW

 

 

Well, having played with the little 10x40 3200 Bushnell on the smallbore rifle, I've come to the conclusion it's as much power as you need on a std rimfire and I can live with the obvious parallax under 60yds. The latter really doesn't matter because as long as you make an effort to keep your eye centred in the field of view, the error is minimal. At under 50yds, the aiming error is insignificant on any small game animal.

 

Chris-NZ

[kent]

Kent,

 

If you fancy a little plinking session and are interested then try this test. Shoot groups at 30 yard intervals out to 150 or 180 yards. You'll need to hold the rifle steady to less than 1/8 minute, so bipod and bag would be ideal. When you have your targets find the centre of each group. Don't worry about the drop, but notice what is happening to the windage. Even in perfectly calm conditions you'll most likely see a POI shift with distance. This is because the optical and bore axes are not coplanar. Not only do you have vertical interception between the line of sight and line of flight, but horizontal too.

 

There are many sources of error in the real world. Some we cannot control, and some we can. Zero is one that we can, so it seems foolish not to adjust it to the best of our ability. As distances grow, so the margin for error diminishes, ergo it seems sensible to move the error to distances where it is less critical. An error of 1/2 inch at 180 is much more important than an error of 2mm at 35. I'de sooner have it spot on at 180 and 2mm out at 35 than the other way round. This is why I verify zero at long distance. It may be pedantic but hopefully you can see the logic ?

 

Regards gizmos, that really depends on the situation. I don't tend to take the anemometer, barometer, hygrometer, compass, spirit level, GPS or inclinometer with me when out with the 22LR, a set of binos and a rangefinder will suffice. By reducing the errors that I can to the minimum it affords me more margin for error when I'm "measuring" the wind myself

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

 

Pat, you have your ways and theories obviously. I shall not be shooting any 180yds groups to prove anything with .22 lr, besides anything else ammo variances and minor (v.minor) windages will screw any results up regardlss even if i bolted the gun into a cradle sledge. Quite simply you cannot even descern the 1/2" you suggest. With .22lr i dont even shoot the box or track up and down a plumb bob line at range its simply a waste of time, shoot some groups at your set zero (normally 50yds) some at 25 yds and some at 75 during nil wind conditions and compare -job done! Might i suggest you look at a Nightforce or a Hawke i believe they are very good them hawke scopes are very good

[pat]

Kent,

 

I do have my own ideas on how things work, I don't claim that they're all correct or that others should use them also, but they do at least appear to serve me well. Normal hit:miss ratio is in the region of 29:1, ie I miss one in 30 shots. If I miss more I start looking for reasons why. This is facilitated by attention to detail. I try to do everything to the best of my ability so that the margin for error is as wide as posible.... I see no point in compounding a poor shot with a rifle that isn't zeroed!

 

Regarding 180 yard groups, you are of course free to give that a miss if you so choose. Your point regarding the wind is negated by my previous statement that conditions need to be perfectly calm. Perhaps your permissions don't afford you opportunity to do such testing because they're always windy in which case fair play, but I can quiet often get zero wind readings from my aneomometer where I shoot; it measures to 0.1 MPH. Whilst you won't necessarily see a 1/2 inch shift with the naked eye, a statistical analysis of the group will show, and track, such a movement. I'm not suggesting that you do, just pointing out that it is possible, even if it isn't sensible / necessary.

 

Your suggestiong of a Nighttforce fails to tick two of the boxes; it costs more than the rifle and it (normally) is second focal plane. The Hawke series are good value for money, but ultimately the glass just won't work under low light.

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[kent]

Kent,

 

I do have my own ideas on how things work, I don't claim that they're all correct or that others should use them also, but they do at least appear to serve me well. Normal hit:miss ratio is in the region of 29:1, ie I miss one in 30 shots. If I miss more I start looking for reasons why. This is facilitated by attention to detail. I try to do everything to the best of my ability so that the margin for error is as wide as posible.... I see no point in compounding a poor shot with a rifle that isn't zeroed!

 

Regarding 180 yard groups, you are of course free to give that a miss if you so choose. Your point regarding the wind is negated by my previous statement that conditions need to be perfectly calm. Perhaps your permissions don't afford you opportunity to do such testing because they're always windy in which case fair play, but I can quiet often get zero wind readings from my aneomometer where I shoot; it measures to 0.1 MPH. Whilst you won't necessarily see a 1/2 inch shift with the naked eye, a statistical analysis of the group will show, and track, such a movement. I'm not suggesting that you do, just pointing out that it is possible, even if it isn't sensible / necessary.

 

Your suggestiong of a Nighttforce fails to tick two of the boxes; it costs more than the rifle and it (normally) is second focal plane. The Hawke series are good value for money, but ultimately the glass just won't work under low light.

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

 

 

You take things too serious mate, i was not being serious about the recomendations. I thought there was a little humour in this thread, i appologise it doesn't now seem your intention you are actually quite serious it seems

[Danny]

Hi,

 

I'm new to this forum and find the thread very interesting, I am currently using a MTC viper 10x44 scope on my .22lr, I agree with the comments re it's inadequacy in low light and I wondered how much I should expect to pay for a second hand s&b 6x42 scope?

 

Thanks!

 

Atb,

Danny.