.

Scope recommendation for new 10/22 anniversary

Fisher of MenFisher of Men Member Posts: 8 ✭✭
edited September 2014 in Ask the Experts
I just bought the 10/22 design of the year 50 anniversary model with picatinny rail. Will use mostl for range out to 100 yds. Any suggestions for a scope and proper rings in the $100 dollar range? I know there are a lot of choices. Thanks.

Comments

  • charliemeyer007charliemeyer007 Member Posts: 7,348 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'd shop for a used scope/rings in that price range. You will get a higher quality glass that way.
  • rufe-snowrufe-snow Member Posts: 18,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    With optics you get what you pay for. Most all the inexpensive ones are Chinese imports. Personally I have had problems with them. The only saving grace, was that I bought it through Amazon. I sent it back to them. And they refunded my money, no questions asked.

    You might consider going over your budget a bit, and getting either a Burris or a Nikon. I bought both through Optics Planet, and felt they were much better quality. Even though they might also have been made in China the lenses and quality control, are held to a much higher standard, IMHO.
  • TfloggerTflogger Member Posts: 3,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    +1 on Nikon, spend $130 or so on the scope .
  • rongrong Member Posts: 8,459
    edited November -1
    Most of our beloved scope lenses are made overseas.
  • reload999reload999 Member Posts: 3,164 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    on my 10/22 I mounted a Weaver 2.5-7x scope on Talley mounts w/ integral rings. mounts attach directly to the receiver...didn't use the rail that came with the rifle. Added cost of about $200 to the $200 rifle, but I'm happy with the setup. Got 5-shot groups of 1" @ 100 yards the first time out.
  • beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 13,137
    edited November -1
    As mentioned above, Burris and Nikon are the two you should look at for good performance in (somewhat) lesser priced scopes. I don't think you'll find either one new in your price range, but both offer lifetime warranties so if you can locate a suitable used one, that should be fine.

    If you can't, and just to tweak this a bit, at the recommendation of another poster responding to this type of question a few years back, I got a Simmons "22 magnum" scope for my own 10-22 as a "cheapie", and I am fairly pleased with it.

    Brightness isn't as good as the more expensive scopes, but its certainly adequate, and overall image quality is fine. This is a *lot* better than the lower end narrow tube rimfire scopes.

    Scope is purpose built for rimfires with short parallax, decent duplex reticle, and good click adjustment. I've found mine to hold zero fine, and with no sense of irony intended, its probably the best of the cheapies for rimfire.

    IIRC scope comes with rings. These run about $50 now (I paid less a few years back), though you can often find them on sale for $40. I've had it on my 10-22 for years, and never felt like I needed to upgrade it.

    Edit, responding to below
    quote:Leupold VXIII 2.5x8. Sweet. Cost more than the rifle. When I worked for and outfitter, he told me spend, $250 on a rifle, $250 on a scope, and $500 on binoculars. (This in 1968) Impossible for a collage student. But he was right. Don't go cheep with optics. JMHO
    I fundamentally agree that good optics cost good money. The problem here is that I don't think you can get ANYTHING with the word "Leupold" on it inside the OP's budget of $100, even used. Entry level Leupold rimfire scope is $230 new.

    Entry level 4x32 Nikon Prostaff can be had for $110 new, and that's probably a reasonable option for something with good optical quality, and close enough to the budget. The rimfire Nikon 3-9x40 runs about $150 (or a bit less when on sale).

    Still, in my opinion, you don't "have to" spend $200+ to get something acceptable for a .22 rimfire. EG, not everyone is shooting matches, shooting at dusk, nor trying to hit squirrels in the pupil. The quality of some (not all) of the lower end stuff on the market really *is* better today than 30+ years ago, and it isn't fair to write it all off as "junk" anymore. If you're just plinking or shooting targets *informally* (IE not in competition), I think a cheaper scope can be perfectly fine.
  • 62fuelie62fuelie Member Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I was lucky in that I had a Leupold 2-7X from another rifle on the shelf. I put it on and would not consider taking it off. It is compact, has excellent optics and just looks right. Granted a new one would cost more than the rifle, but look around there are used ones out there.
  • GeriGeri Member Posts: 1,721 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Leupold VXIII 2.5x8. Sweet. Cost more than the rifle. When I worked for and outfitter, he told me spend, $250 on a rifle, $250 on a scope, and $500 on binoculars. (This in 1968) Impossible for a collage student. But he was right. Don't go cheep with optics. JMHO
  • kimikimi Member Posts: 44,619 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think I'd go with a Leopold.
    What's next?
Sign In or Register to comment.