bladeracer wrote:Shootermick wrote:I’ve got a Leupold 4-12x40 tri moa on my 243. It’s a pretty good scope and suits the 243 well. My thoughts would be that it would be fine on a .22 as it’s not a big bulky scope.
I’d probably opt for a duplex reticle over the tri moa on a rimfire though, simple and you probably won’t need the extra hash marks for the .22 distances you might be shooting.
Does it focus back to .22LR distances though, say 25m or less?
Oldbloke wrote:Yes on a 22 rf.
bladeracer wrote:disco stu wrote:I'm just wondering why Oldbloke wouldn't want adjustable paralax? Seems like the sort of thing that can only help, and easy to have it and not use it etc
If it's an AO (adjustable objective) that really is a pain in the arse, very awkward to adjust while sighting, side-focus is very easy.
When I'm walking, or otherwise looking at potential close shots, I have the scope magnification wound right down, so I wind the parallax back to 50m or so, if I'm settled in and looking at longer shots, I wind the magnification up and set the parallax so it's focused on the potential target area.
Parallax is less important at closer distances, and critical at longer ones.
disco stu wrote:bladeracer wrote:disco stu wrote:I'm just wondering why Oldbloke wouldn't want adjustable paralax? Seems like the sort of thing that can only help, and easy to have it and not use it etc
If it's an AO (adjustable objective) that really is a pain in the arse, very awkward to adjust while sighting, side-focus is very easy.
When I'm walking, or otherwise looking at potential close shots, I have the scope magnification wound right down, so I wind the parallax back to 50m or so, if I'm settled in and looking at longer shots, I wind the magnification up and set the parallax so it's focused on the potential target area.
Parallax is less important at closer distances, and critical at longer ones.
That's what I do also. Parallax and adjustable objective are the same thing-aren't they?
bladeracer wrote:Oldbloke wrote:Yes on a 22 rf.
WMR would be okay, but I wouldn't want a .22LR set at 100m for hunting.
Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:Oldbloke wrote:Yes on a 22 rf.
WMR would be okay, but I wouldn't want a .22LR set at 100m for hunting.
But when I set the parallex at say 50 meters long distance is out of focus. (Side parallex) PITA. Only for hunting.
No1_49er wrote:Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:Oldbloke wrote:Yes on a 22 rf.
WMR would be okay, but I wouldn't want a .22LR set at 100m for hunting.
But when I set the parallex at say 50 meters long distance is out of focus. (Side parallex) PITA. Only for hunting.
First, you need to set the parallax to your desired range. Best done on a (bench)rest of some kind so that the rifle remains stationary. Move your eye position relative to the ocular lens and ensure that the reticle remains static on the target. If it doesn't, the parallax will need a tweak until it does. The indication marks on the objective lens, or the "focus" knob if it's on the side, are a guide i.e. they are not always exact.
Then, if the focus (the true focus - not the "so-called" side "focus) is no good you need to adjust the ocular lens i.e. the one nearest your eye.
Be aware that the so-called focus knob, when they are mounted on the side of the tube near the elevation/windage turrets, is actually the parallax adjustment.
Focus is ALWAYS done with the ocular lens.
Billy wrote:So decided on the T1X and have a bushnell Engage 6×25×50 1/8". Any advice on this set-up would be appreciated. Haven't shot it yet as my bipods haven't arrived yet.
Cheers
No1_49er wrote:Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:Oldbloke wrote:Yes on a 22 rf.
WMR would be okay, but I wouldn't want a .22LR set at 100m for hunting.
But when I set the parallex at say 50 meters long distance is out of focus. (Side parallex) PITA. Only for hunting.
First, you need to set the parallax to your desired range. Best done on a (bench)rest of some kind so that the rifle remains stationary. Move your eye position relative to the ocular lens and ensure that the reticle remains static on the target. If it doesn't, the parallax will need a tweak until it does. The indication marks on the objective lens, or the "focus" knob if it's on the side, are a guide i.e. they are not always exact.
Then, if the focus (the true focus - not the "so-called" side "focus) is no good you need to adjust the ocular lens i.e. the one nearest your eye.
Be aware that the so-called focus knob, when they are mounted on the side of the tube near the elevation/windage turrets, is actually the parallax adjustment.
Focus is ALWAYS done with the ocular lens.
Billy wrote:So decided on the T1X and have a bushnell Engage 6×25×50 1/8". Any advice on this set-up would be appreciated. Haven't shot it yet as my bipods haven't arrived yet.
Cheers
Murph77 wrote:I put a Meopta Optica6 2.5-15 x 44 on my .22. 2.5 is good for close range but the zoom to 15x is awesome for shooting paper! And paralax adjustment to 10yards.
I had a Niko Stirling 4-12 on it before but that was just crap! Set paralax at 100. Useless for the .22. Haha
niteowl wrote:
OOPs I tell a lie, it now has a 100mm thermal for greater optical magnification
Die Judicii wrote:Actually, this has made me think that I should sell some of mine.
I just don't seem to use this caliber anymore.