Too much glass for a .22?

[Appalachian]

Weaver 46x48 (x2)
Mueller 40x (x2)
Sightron 45x
March 8-80x
all on 22’s shot at 50 yards

 

[Luisyamaha]

I installed the Minox. It went easy enough, but looks (and feels) heavy and bulky. If it ends up staying on the CZ, I'll have to do some re-arranging in the safe, as the turrets are much higher than those on the Leupold and they are crowding their neighbors.
I'll try to go to the range tomorrow and see how it works out.

Thanks for all the opinions/advice.

Luisyamaha

 

[Subrosa]

Just bought a Meopta 5-30x56 for my .22 build. I plan to shoot between 50-200yds

 

[Luisyamaha]

I shot the CZ with the Minox today. It will take some getting used to, but I think I did at least as well as with the Leupold, probably better. It was drizzling most of the time, and it rained hard for a little while when I was done shooting but before I went to retrieve the target. Target got all wet and couldn't get accurate measurements of the groups.
Next visit to the range will tell all. I may need some kind of cheek riser, as this scope sits higher on the rifle. We'll see. But I have high hopes.

Luisyamaha

 

[shootrj2003]

I run a Vortex 6-24x50 30 mm on my Bergara I use it at 50ft. Indoor but if I decide to shoot at 200-300 yds ,elevation is all there

 

[22turborimfire]

Just picked up a March 36-55 EP Zoom with the LR reticle figured I'd give it a try. If it's to much magnification for flags I'll replace it on my 600 yard gun with the March variable. Looking forward to trying out the LR reticle. Appears to be a great idea.
JW

 

[ebb]

Not sure that here is any such thing as too much glass for a 22. I also at one time thought that too much could happen, but now a days it seems that the more the merrier.

 

[Luisyamaha]

Shot the CZ again with the Minox 30X. My average for 9, 5-shot groups was .650". With the same ELEY ammo I'd done .365"- ish before with the Leupold 18X.
Maybe it will take more time to get used to it, but it seems sharp and clear, I really don't understand how i could come worse than before, although the wet target I couldn't measure seemed better, but groups don't lie.
It will just take some more shooting to establish a trend, and then decide whether to go back to the Leupold. But, I still have high hopes, and I can see the holes in the target much better.

The story continues....

Luisyamaha

 

[Luisyamaha]

Tried the Minox again, this time at 100 yards. Somewhat dissapointing. I seemed to have trouble adjusting the parallax for 100 yards and adjusting the W&E to hit the bull's eye. It was also cold (for me) at the range. About 50 degrees with a slight breeze (5- 6 mph?) from straight ahead. Eventually left with a 1.7" 15 shot group. Will give it one more try at 50 yards, and if doesn't get below .5" @50 yards, I'll put back the Leupold. At some point I was getting two vertical crosshairs. Very close together, but definitely two. Never experienced that before. What am I doing wrong? The parallax or the ocular (?) lens adjustment?
Is this my fault, or is there something wrong with the scope? Help!

Luisyamaha

 

[CharlieNC]

Tried the Minox again, this time at 100 yards. Somewhat dissapointing. I seemed to have trouble adjusting the parallax for 100 yards and adjusting the W&E to hit the bull's eye. It was also cold (for me) at the range. About 50 degrees with a slight breeze (5- 6 mph?) from straight ahead. Eventually left with a 1.7" 15 shot group. Will give it one more try at 50 yards, and if doesn't get below .5" @50 yards, I'll put back the Leupold. At some point I was getting two vertical crosshairs. Very close together, but definitely two. Never experienced that before. What am I doing wrong? The parallax or the ocular (?) lens adjustment?
Is this my fault, or is there something wrong with the scope? Help!

Luisyamaha

The directions to adjust the ocular until the reticle is sharp and clear against a blank black does not work very well. Using that as a starting point and focusing on a standard target, alternately adjust the parallax and ocular until the reticle is sharp and you see the best detail on the target.

 

[Luisyamaha]

Thanks Charlie, I'll give that a try.

Luisyamaha

 

[Slowshot]

My CZ-455 has presently a Leupold 6-18X40mm scope. I've had a Minox 6-30X 56mm around for a few years (bought it on impulse, never mounted on anything) which I'm thinking of putting on the CZ. Mostly I shoot it on the 50 yard range, although occasionally I shoot it at 100.
Any thoughts? Too much X? Too big, heavy, or tall? On the pro side I'll be able to see the bullet holes better...

What say you?

Luisyamaha

My CZ 452 (22 LR) has a Nikon 4.5-18X40 Prostaff-5. My CZ 457 (22 WMR) has a Nikon 6-18X40 Buckmaster. Neither of these is ever too much or too little scope. I regularly turn them down to locate the target and then turn them all the way up for shooting. I see bullet holes form at 50 yards with these scopes. I am surprised to read that your Leupold does not give you the same. I shot with that exact same Leupold scope on my Ruger No. 1V (220 Swift) out to 200 yards with great success. I have posted shot targets where I achieved 1/3 MOA, 100 yard results with that Leupold and that rifle.

All that being said, I cannot see how that Minox would improve your 50-100 yard results over what you get with a max of 18X.The Minox really is made for long range benchrest style shooting. Stick to the Leupold. Sell the Minox. That is my 2 cents worth.

 

[ohlongarmisle]

My CZ-455 has presently a Leupold 6-18X40mm scope. I've had a Minox 6-30X 56mm around for a few years (bought it on impulse, never mounted on anything) which I'm thinking of putting on the CZ. Mostly I shoot it on the 50 yard range, although occasionally I shoot it at 100.
Any thoughts? Too much X? Too big, heavy, or tall? On the pro side I'll be able to see the bullet holes better...

What say you?

Luisyamaha

I like lots of scope on my 22's generally 16x to 20x variables, makes for precision shooting at eyeballs and brain sockets on intended targets.

 

[ohlongarmisle]

Yes, I think 42x-45x is a good top end compromise power. Tough to find but I love the March LR reticle. It places the crosshair intersection in the top third of the scope picture, leaving the bottom 2/3rds for viewing flags better. For BR, I'm not sure there has ever been a better reticle.

View attachment 1479347

Had the center dot been floating not attached to crosshairs it would be 100% perfect.
Floating dot is the fastest reticle made for target acquisition.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Had the center dot been floating not attached to crosshairs it would be 100% perfect.
Floating dot is the fastest reticle made for target acquisition.

I think reticle choice is mostly a personal preference thing. I prefer a clean, uncluttered reticle for my type of shooting and I like a 3/32 dot with fine crosshairs. I also like my old 12-42 NF BR with the floating dot NP2DD reticle. But I think I'd like it even more if the intersection point were more like the March LR, where it's in the top 1/3rd of the scope rather than in the middle. It simply adds field of view at the bottom, where my flags are.

 

[USMCDOC]

I think reticle choice is mostly a personal preference thing. I prefer a clean, uncluttered reticle for my type of shooting and I like a 3/32 dot with fine crosshairs. I also like my old 12-42 NF BR with the floating dot NP2DD reticle. But I think I'd like it even more if the intersection point were more like the March LR, where it's in the top 1/3rd of the scope rather than in the middle. It simply adds field of view at the bottom, where my flags are.

i have heard it said.. that winners never look through the scope in Rimfire BR.. In Rimfire F-Class you don't get the luxury of all those flags to look at and they are never in line with the rifle.. i look at the flags with my non aiming eye and check them against the mirage that i see in the scope..

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

i have heard it said.. that winners never look through the scope in Rimfire BR.. In Rimfire F-Class you don't get the luxury of all those flags to look at and they are never in line with the rifle.. i look at the flags with my non aiming eye and check them against the mirage that i see in the scope..

Shooting heads up is a technique that has its time and its place but for me, it's not all of the time. I do use it at times when conditions are really switchy and it won't hold long at all. I find something that works on the sighter and my hold off for it, then raise up and wait for it to show while shooting for record. It can work but I don't think it's a precise, overall. It's just that it beats not seeing a switch, where shooting heads up gives me a better view of my flags as well as the ones around my lane, that tell me what's coming before it gets there. Just my 2 cents. I don't think rf or cf changes that a lot but obviously, you can see them better at the closer 50 yards as opposed to 100-300 in short range centerfire. It's those far (last 2-3) flags that I want in the scope most. Otherwise, I won't be able to see the subtle angle changes the conditions might give out there with my naked eye. As long as you can see them, have at it. If not, they're of little use. Lol!

 

[Liven The Dream]

CZ 457 .22 one with Sightron 8x32x56 PLR, one Sightron 4x20x50 very nice at 50-100 Dot Shooting
I think the PLR is Better.
4x20x50 Doubles as a switch Barrel 17HRM area cleaner.

 

[Luisyamaha]

In my over 40 years of shooting, anytime I put a higher powered scope, my scores improved.
That's why I'm somewhat disappointed.
In any case I'm going shooting tomorrow again and going back to 50 yards for the time being. Also taking another .22LR which is a known quantity, just to determine if it's me or the scope. All in good fun, the Leupold is waiting patiently for me to regret having exchanged it. If I do good with the Minox tomorrow, further testing awaits, if I do poorly, but still well with the second rifle the Leupold comes back.
Wish me luck!

Luisyamaha

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

In my over 40 years of shooting, anytime I put a higher powered scope, my scores improved.
That's why I'm somewhat disappointed.
In any case I'm going shooting tomorrow again and going back to 50 yards for the time being. Also taking another .22LR which is a known quantity, just to determine if it's me or the scope. All in good fun, the Leupold is waiting patiently for me to regret having exchanged it. If I do good with the Minox tomorrow, further testing awaits, if I do poorly, but still well with the second rifle the Leupold comes back.
Wish me luck!

Luisyamaha

We have to keep things in perspective here. You said that as you have increased magnification that your scores have improved and I don't doubt you a bit. Your OP says that you are going from an 18x scope to a 30x variable scope. Neither are at the top end of magnification for br where flags are almost imperative for consistently good scores. Bottom line, you're not yet to a level of magnification where FOV is a seerious concern but you HAVE very much been at the low end where I would very much expect you to improve by going up in magnification. Are you using wind flags yet?

My point was/is based solely around flags and being able to see them in your scope. Still, it's pretty amazing, the scores shot by 6x shooters where that's the max magnification allowed in their class. Many will come right out and state, they can see all of their flags at 6x."

Your situation is different. Yes, I suggest more quality magnification but limit it to where you can still see the last couple of flags in the bottom of your scope, at the distance you plan to compete or shoot. In this day and age, we aren't very limited as to the amount of magnification available to us but that magnification comes with a price that's not on the price tag.

Again, are you using flags? If not, they will absolutely help your scores if your rifle/ammo and tune are capable of shooting better than the conditions without them. This is the biggestr factor to who wins and who loses in BR but if you don't plan on using flags, get ya an 80x March so you can see your misses well. Lol!