Scope for B22 fv ss?

[Skipp]

Looking for some advice for a scope to put on the B22 fv ss that I am planning to buy. I plan on using the rifle for small game hunting out to about 75 yds (50 for squirrels), and casual plinking out to perhaps 150 yds. I've been looking at reviews and have (sort of) come up with some possibilities:
Leupold vx1 Freedom Rimfire
Leupold vx2 Rimfire EFR
Leupold vx3 3.5-10
Nikon Prostaff Rimfire 3-9x40 BDC 150
Simmons 511039 3-9x32

Does anyone have any experience with any of these?
Any other scopes to look into?

Any and all advice/suggestions will be greatly welcomed and appreciated.

Skipp

[J.Baker]

A good 3-9x or 4-12x should be more than enough scope for those distances assuming you aren't wanting to shoot smaller benchrest bullseye targets at distances past 50 yards.

I'm not a huge fan of Leupold these days as their more wallet friendly products just seem to fall short of what else is out there from other companies for the same money. Their glass is still good, but their turrets/adjustments in recent years have earned them a reputation for not being very reliable or repeatable. This isn't so much a problem if you're a "zero it and leave it" kind of guy, but with shooting different distances you will probably want to dial in each distance so I would recommend looking at brands with a more reliable tracking system.

Of those listed I would lean towards the Nikon, but I would suggest spending the $20 more for the 4-12x40mm version.

Other options I would suggest looking at are the:
- Athlon Neos 4-12x40 w/BDC 22 rimfire reticle
- Bushnell Prime 4-12x40 Multi-Turret (BDC turret caps)
- Burris Droptine 22LR 3-9x40 w/Ballistic Plex reticle

[Skipp]

A good 3-9x or 4-12x should be more than enough scope for those distances assuming you aren't wanting to shoot smaller benchrest bullseye targets at distances past 50 yards.

I'm not a huge fan of Leupold these days as their more wallet friendly products just seem to fall short of what else is out there from other companies for the same money. Their glass is still good, but their turrets/adjustments in recent years have earned them a reputation for not being very reliable or repeatable. This isn't so much a problem if you're a "zero it and leave it" kind of guy, but with shooting different distances you will probably want to dial in each distance so I would recommend looking at brands with a more reliable tracking system.

Of those listed I would lean towards the Nikon, but I would suggest spending the $20 more for the 4-12x40mm version.

Other options I would suggest looking at are the:
- Athlon Neos 4-12x40 w/BDC 22 rimfire reticle
- Bushnell Prime 4-12x40 Multi-Turret (BDC turret caps)
- Burris Droptine 22LR 3-9x40 w/Ballistic Plex reticle

Thank you. I will research your recommendations. I appreciate your assistance.

[Robinhood]

Jim, I see at least one Athlon has earned your respect.

[Skipp]

Has anyone had experience with the Vortex Crossfire II ? I've been reading some good reviews about it. Been seeing some good reviews on the Bushnell Prime 4-12x40 Multi turret scope . Also be seeing good reviews about the Burris Droptine 3-9 with the ballistic plex reticle. Anyone have experience with any of these scopes? Hoping to order the B22 and scope within a week or two. Also, with the Picaninny rail, what mounts would you recommend? Sorry about all these questions, but I thought I would ask those more experienced than myself. Thank you in advance for all your help.

Skip

[J.Baker]

Jim, I see at least one Athlon has earned your respect.

Never been an Athlon Optics hater, just very skeptical of new brands and product lines - especially when everyone starts drooling over them and bragging them up with no long-term data yet. I like to sit back and let everyone else be the guinea pig, and then after a couple years if whatever it is lives up to the hype and proves to be a good quality product I'll accept it and spend my hard-earned money on it if it's something that fits my needs.

Case and point, my 6x47 Lapua is wearing an Ares ETR 4.5-30x56.

6337

Only complaint I have about it (and it's an odd one for a high-power scope) is that it almost has too much eye relief. I had to slide it a good bit forward in the rings to get a full sight picture at 30x. The one and only time I would benefit from a rail that extends out over the nut and the included rail with the ARC Nucleus is standard action length.

[yobuck]

By and large, the difference between a rim fire scope and a standard model say Leupold, is that the factory parralex setting is set for a closer distance on the rim fire model scope than it is on the other.
Certainly there could be other differences such as the reticle also on some models, but internally, that’s the only difference.
You can send any Leupold or Redfield scope you currently own back to them for a parralex setting change for $15.
Or you can order and buy direct from them any Leupold or Redfield model with the parralex set at any distance you prefer.
Again, the cost would be $15 for the change from standard.
Parralex is a shooter issue primarily, not a scope issue.
Meaning that if you buy any conventional scope, like say a 3x9 or a 4x12 variable or a fixed power model with no parralex setting adjustment, the factory setting for parralex will be at somewhere around 100 yds.
So does that mean there wont be the potential for parralex issues at 300 yds?
Not at all, not only could there be, but there will be issues if the shooter isn’t aware of the importance of proper cheek placement on the stock for each shot.
Some of the variances in group sizes we get could in fact be parralex issues and not gun or load issues, due to a slightly different cheek position from shot to shot.
So with that said, how important is it to buy a so called rim fire scope for a rim fire rifle?
We have a scope with a 50 yd setting, and a squirrel in a tree at say 75 yds, What now Elmo? Lol

[Skipp]

With a rimfire scope parallax set at 50 yds, how much parallax variation would there be @ 25 yds? 2 75yds? I have been considering 3 scopes for my B22 fv ss : one has side adjustment for parallax and the other 2 have no adjustment. I prefer the reticles on the 2 w/o adjustment. I will be using this 22 for squirrel hunting out to about 60 yds and other small game hunting out to about 100 yds. Also, some informal target shooting maybe out to 125-150 yds. Would not being able to adjust the parallax for the different distances cause much difficulties at those ranges?

[J.Baker]

If the scopes are 10x or lower on the high end of the magnification range, not having parallax adjustment isn't a big issue. Parallax becomes more of a problem at higher magnifications which is why you rarely see it offered on lower-power scopes (i.e 2-7x, 3-9x, 2.5-10x, etc.)

In my recent review of the B17 FV-SR (you can read it here (https://www.savageshooters.com/content.php?521-Savage-Arms-B17-FV-SR-Overwatch-in-17-HMR)), I had mounted a Minox ZA-5 2-10x centerfire scope on the rifle which has a fixed parallax at 100 yards. Shooting at 50 yards the small bullseye targets I was shooting at were a bit fuzzy (out of focus) and moving my head around the reticle would move on target maybe 1/4". I was still able to shoot good groups without a problem.

Moving out to 100 yards the parallax and focus issues disappeared as would be expected since that's the distance it's setup for.

At 200 yards the fuzziness was back, but not as quite as bad as it was at 50 yards (which in itself wasn't that bad). Reticle movement was about the same in terms of MOA (1/4 MOA or 1/2" at this distance). Was a little harder to pinpoint how much movement there was at 200 given the greater distance and only having 10x on the top end.

While not the perfect optic for that rifle I would have no problem hunting or target shooting with that combo anytime/ anywhere. An adjustable parallax would have made shooting at 50 and 200 yards a little easier and possibly could have helped get some slightly smaller groups, but there's no guarantee there.

Also, don't discount Adjustable Objective scopes. Side-focus has been the hot trend the last 15 years or so, but personally I'm still partial to an AO for a couple of reasons. First, an AO gives you a larger diameter adjustment knob which means you can more easily make finer adjustments for parallax. Second, on a side-focus the moving lens is in the erector making it more susceptible to recoil - something the early Leupold side-focus scopes had known problems with (and some other brands as well).

Unfortunately most every scope maker today has caved in to the market demand for side-focus and finding quality AO scopes is getting harder and harder. Only benefit the side-focus has over an AO is that it's easier to reach and read the setting from the shooting position.

One other thing to consider is that parallax adjustment is simply changing the distance between two lenses in the scope. For this to work properly, and any parallax adjustment to NOT have an affect on your scope's zero, the two lenses have to be installed perfectly parallel to one another. On cheaper scopes it's quite common to find one of the lenses is tilted every so slightly and causes the POI to change when adjusting the parallax. For this reason, when shopping for lower cost scopes (basically anything under $200 for me) I avoid those with an AO or side-focus. The change in POI from a fixed parallax not matching the distance I'm shooting I can see and measure with my eye before taking a shot. The POI movement caused by a tipped lens I cannot see until after the trigger is pulled.

[celltech]

For the money it's hard to beat the Nikon's. I have several of the 3-9 and 4-12s and all have been excellent. And I still prefer Talley 1 piece rings to a pic rail setup.

[Skipp]

Decided to go with the Nikon Prostaff Rimfire II.