duncan61 wrote:I bought a new Howa in .243 that came with a scope for $700 and it shoots fine out to 200 metres
duncan61 wrote:I bought a new Howa in .243 that came with a scope for $700 and it shoots fine out to 200 metres
duncan61 wrote:I am with you on this.The.222 Ruger I bought new had a silver scope of some sort and it was crap.I fitted a $96 Nighteater and never had a problem again
duncan61 wrote:Its mainly used for head shooting Kangaroos in the day.Its more than up for the job
BRNO_Bigot wrote:Yes, well they are set at 60, which is fair average for most uses.
If you really want a bench shooting scope, something else is really desired.
Not being a willy here, but horses for courses.
RoginaJack wrote:I've just ordered a Nikko Sterling Panamax AO 3-9x50mm with mil dot reticle ($99) for the 22lr Savage. The parallax is adjustable. And Leupold Rifleman 1" high mounts.
Wm.Traynor wrote:BRNO_Bigot wrote:Yes, well they are set at 60, which is fair average for most uses.
If you really want a bench shooting scope, something else is really desired.
Not being a willy here, but horses for courses.
Maybe should have got a fixed four?
AusC wrote:I should add, once you've looked at a few scopes and have a few options post the models here if there's any doubt and someone can confirm for you
sungazer wrote:Change your mind. Its not enough magnification. You will be disappointed and buying another scope within months. There are a lot of comments on here that dont recommended enough magnification. For example Duncan and his 25*52 for shooting at 1000yrds I don't know anybody that uses such a scope they all use 32 times as a minimum a lot of 42 times some at 50, 60 then the expensive at 80. For the 22 a variable 4-16 about there would be my bet. I use bigger.
Plinker wrote:sungazer wrote:Change your mind. Its not enough magnification. You will be disappointed and buying another scope within months. There are a lot of comments on here that dont recommended enough magnification. For example Duncan and his 25*52 for shooting at 1000yrds I don't know anybody that uses such a scope they all use 32 times as a minimum a lot of 42 times some at 50, 60 then the expensive at 80. For the 22 a variable 4-16 about there would be my bet. I use bigger.
For a 22 though? This Nikon is meant to be a 'rimfire' scope
sungazer wrote:Change your mind. Its not enough magnification. You will be disappointed and buying another scope within months. There are a lot of comments on here that dont recommended enough magnification. For example Duncan and his 25*52 for shooting at 1000yrds I don't know anybody that uses such a scope they all use 32 times as a minimum a lot of 42 times some at 50, 60 then the expensive at 80. For the 22 a variable 4-16 about there would be my bet. I use bigger.