Which of these inexpensive scopes for an inaccurate .22?

[RG1911]

I recently bought an old Erma EM-1 .22 (looks like an M1 Carbine) that came with a small, underpowered scope. With Remington high velocity ammo, it runs around 3MOA at 100 yards. Match ammo will bring it to about 2MOA. In other words, it's not my match .5MOA 10/22 with its Leupold 8-25 scope.

I want to replace the Erma's scope with something usable but inexpensive, and came up with four possibilities (two of which are marketed as airgun scopes). Does anyone have experience with any of these, or recommendations for a scope in the same price bracket? (I admit I like the magnification offered by the BSA 3-12x 44mm airgun scope.)

I'm a bit twitchy about BSA after one of their red dot sights self-destructed after 20 rounds from a real M1 Carbine. Perhaps their optical scopes last longer.

I have ordered a set of 1-inch rings that fit the carbine's dovetail.

Thank you,
Richard

BSA Airgun Rifle Scope 3-9x 40mm Adjustable Objective Duplex Reticle
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/430...ProductFinding

BSA Airgun Rifle Scope 3-12x 44mm Adjustable Objective Target Turrets Duplex Reticle
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/409...ProductFinding

BSA Sweet 22 Rimfire Rifle Scope 3-9x 40mm Side Focus Duplex Reticle
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/214...ProductFinding

Bushnell AR Optics Rimfire Rifle Scope 2-7x 32mm Side Focus Drop Zone-22 Rimfire BDC Reticle
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/415...ProductFinding

[winelover]

Out of the 4 choices, I would opt for the Bushnell with it's lifetime warranty. Have no experience with BSA, nor do I want any.
Do not discount the Weaver 2X7 rimfire. I have an older model and like it for it's price point.

Winelover

[nagantguy]

I've been very happy with BSA rim fire scopes, the sweet .22 series are as nice as scopes I've owned at twice the price, that is my experience, have 3 2 on .22s and one on my brothers .17, zero problems.

[SeabeeMan]

I have 3 Simmons 22 Mag scopes of various 22s and air rifles, and they work great for me. Under $60 on Amazon.

[Silverboolit]

Centerpoint from WalMart. I have one on one of my springers. If it dies, just return it. Easy as pi.

[35remington]

I somewhat question the awkward ergonomics of putting a rather large scope on a small rifle, especially with the low comb of a carbine type stock.

Always have.

[triggerhappy243]

simmons or tasco. you are more handi-capped with the rifle/action than the quality of the scope.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I somewhat question the awkward ergonomics of putting a rather large scope on a small rifle, especially with the low comb of a carbine type stock.

Always have.

This is a good point. I know the theory: inaccuracy caused by the rifle and inaccuracy caused by the scope are cumulative. But if the carbine limits you to shooting rabbits at forty or fifty yards away, you might as well have something fast on aim, and suitable for a moving target.

[LtFrankDrebbin]

I somewhat question the awkward ergonomics of putting a rather large scope on a small rifle, especially with the low comb of a carbine type stock.

Always have.

Yep took the thoughts right out of my head with better wording. Kind of ending up with that brilliant description of having "mud flaps on a framing hammer"

If the gun is not intended for serious target competition then a good quality fixed 4 power is hard to beat. I've not long fitted a 2-7x33 on my .22LR and could not be happier with it. In the field it lives on 4x the variable side is just a range time bonus.

[RG1911]

Well, I have a 2-7 Weaver. It only has two problems: the crosshairs are thicker than I prefer and, at 7X, the target at 100 yards is blurry. So it's pretty much useless to me. Any scope I get will have to have adjustable parallax.

If I want to test ammo to find what the rifle likes, I need something better than 4X at 100 yards. (Why 100? Because at the range, we presently can shoot at 25 yards or at 100 yards; nothing in-between. Long boring story of county politics.) I can dial a 3-12 down to 4X, but I can't dial a fixed 4X up to 12X.

Richard

[NoZombies]

The BSA sweet 22 scope has done fairly well for me on several rifles.

[LtFrankDrebbin]

Well, I have a 2-7 Weaver. It only has two problems: the crosshairs are thicker than I prefer and, at 7X, the target at 100 yards is blurry. So it's pretty much useless to me. Any scope I get will have to have adjustable parallax.

If I want to test ammo to find what the rifle likes, I need something better than 4X at 100 yards. (Why 100? Because at the range, we presently can shoot at 25 yards or at 100 yards; nothing in-between. Long boring story of county politics.) I can dial a 3-12 down to 4X, but I can't dial a fixed 4X up to 12X.

Richard

All too true about the ability to dial the variable up or down in power, it does have it's merits as does a parallax adjustable.
I have also found the 2-7x33 scope of mine does darken a little at 7x but that is a common trait of variable scopes it there upper power settings.

I did buy a BSA Contender 4-16x44 AO for my 17HMR once. That scope was short lived in that roll. Scope did not fail! I just found it having too many bells and whistles to be practical. Cross hair was rather thick and coarse, image would darken above 9 power as would eye relief be more critical. In the field settings never seemed set where you needed then at the critical second.
Reverted back to a simpler 3-9x40 and basically set "n" forget at 6 power.

End of the day it is your gun that needs so satisfy your requirements. Ain't the search for that next bit of kit fun!

[35remington]

If the rifle is inaccurate, a 4X scope won't be the limitation, but rather the rifle. I can shoot inch groups at 100 with a 4X scope on a capable rifle.

Meaningful accuracy evaluation can still be had. I do just that myself with 4X's on several of my 22's. That power is quite handy for general plinking and small game use and the scope isn't big enough to be mistaken for a moon observing device. If you don't like a 4, find a parallax adjustable 2-7X or a 50 yard parallax set .22 scope with a 33mm objective. 40 is getting largish for the tiny carbine.

The point being....why overwhelm a small rifle a big scope? Nothing is gained by going large except unhandiness. The rifle is still the accuracy drag no matter the power of the scope. Given the low comb of the carbine stock, as low as possible with the mounts is none too low. If I could glue the scope to the receiver sans mounts that would be the best cheek weld of all. Anything else fails to acknowledge the gun was never stocked for a scope.

[shooter2]

I wonder why you would even bother. Shoot it as it is...

[snowwolfe]

For just a few more $$$ take a look at a Nikon 3x9 rimfire scope. Selling on Amazon for $129.99 as I type this. I just bought two and they are super clear. The scope also has a quick focus adjustment so you can dial it in fast.

[Forrest r]

For the $$$$ you plan on spending you'd be better off looking for an older tasco/bushnell (made in japan) or lyman, weaver or bausch & lomb scope. They have excellent glass along with low profiles and quality crosshairs that don't look like telephone poles.

A weaver 8x with a 32mm adjustable ao (50ft to 1000yds) and standard crosshairs that will put any of the scopes you mentioned above to shame.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/WEAVER-K8-RI...item2edfe5e70e

A rare lyman 4x with a post and horizontal crosshairs. The horizontal crosshairs are for bullet drop and these scopes have excellent glass in them.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lyman-All-Am...item27fd0204bd

A rare weaver 10x with 32mm ao and range finding crosshairs.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NICE-Weaver-...item4ae826a09f

I use this same scope on a old 513-s (sporter/not 513-t target rifle). They have excellent quality glass and tapering crosshairs and go from 2.5 to 8x.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BAUSCH-LOMB-...item2a4efc63ea

The b&l balvars can be found for little $$$ if you take your time and look around.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/vintage-baus...item19fe81f23f

When it comes to little $$$ it pays to look at the older scopes, they have excellent value and are always overlooked. I'll put this old bushnell 4-12x40 with a ao & bdc that's made in japan I bought for $50 up against anything you posted above. I've used it on anything from 30-06's to this setup, a tc with a 22lr bbl for standing silhouettes.

[IMG][/IMG]

A lyman all american 20x I bought for $125 and use it on a cz lux 22lr for silhouettes.

[IMG][/IMG]

A anschutz full stock (squirrel rifle) that has a $70 weaver 3x post reticle scope mounted on it. I do also have a 3x dot reticle that I picked up for $50 that I use on it also.

[IMG][/IMG]

The remington 513-s with the b&l balvar 2.5-8x36 scope mounted on it. I bought that scope @ a gunshow in ca for $40. What a beautiful combo!!!

[IMG][/IMG]

Anyway, don't be afraid to look at the older quality glass, those old scopes will easily put the new ones to shame. Don't worry about scope fit/cheek weld/yada yada yada, get what you want. The main things are:
If you can't see it, you can't hit it.
Aim small, hit small.