My favorite keepsake is a Springfield 87A that was my step-great-grandfather’s. Passed down from my mother to me probably sixty years ago. It doesn’t get out anymore, I’m afraid of anything happening to it.

My favorite shooter is a Remington 514 from the late 40’s. It came in with a pile of barn guns to a shop I worked at. I cleaned and lubes the other five or six and Walt, my late boss gave one to me as a bonus.

It’s a PITA being a single shot but fun. If the wood and bluing wasn’t so nice I’d probably have the barrel threaded for a can but I just can’t ruin it

Kimber Sporter bolt action, one of the last made. NF SHV 4-14x glass.




For me it's not just how a rifle looks & feels, there's a heavy emphasis on how it shoots. And how it shoots well beyond the "zero range" of the sight/optics, in field conditions. 5 rounds at 172 yards with RWS Special. IIRC winds from the left, with POA near the 9 o'clock hole. Either an 8" or 10" plate.




5 rounds at 243 yards with Lapua Center X. IIRC winds were from the right, and POA was slightly off plate to the right. IIRC, I held 2 MOA above the plate bottom on this 12" steel.

Showoff...

Damn, that is some nice shootin' right there though!

quote:

Originally posted by pace40:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
I picked up one of these earlier this week...

Do you have to plug it in at night to get it to glow like that?

Yea, I think the SWFA scopes are a steal at their price point. Less money for scope, more money for ammo. I guess which one depends on what you plan on shooting.

Honestly, other that plinking with my Ruger 10/22 Deluxe Sporter, which only has open sights w/ a Williams Firesight in the rear, and a Umarex HK 416 I bought for my son, I don't have a ton of experience w/ .22LR Rifles. I'll likely be shooting my new 'glow rifle' from a bench almost exclusively, primarily at 50 yds, and out to 75 yds regularly I'd expect, but I'm sure I'll stretch it out to out 100 yds (or further?) once in a while just for fun, perhaps just to see how accurate I can be at that range.

Regarding magnification, I was all set to get the 10x SWFA, with my only question being Side Focus vs Rear Focus for the Parallax adjustment, and leaning towards Side Focus, in part because I believe it would be more easily adjusted/fine tuned, and also because it's visually more appealing to me as well. The input from 'usncorpsman' suggesting the 10x was right in line with my initial thinking, but then I saw that both you and 'sigfreund' were using higher magnification scopes for basically the same use case as mine, so if you don't mind, a few of questions for you re: the 10x vs 20x SWFA as I noticed you put a 20x on both the Tikka T1x and the CZ 457:

- Why the change? Did you feel you were under-scoped w/ the 10x on your Ruger Precision?
- Are you pleased w/ the increase to 20x and does it provide the improvement(s) you were looking for? Any downsides you've noticed?
- How does the light transmission compare between the 10x and the 20X? It's my understanding that the light transmission drops off a bit (noticeably?) when comparing the 10x & 12x vs. the 16x & 20x scopes from SWFA.
- Any opinion and/or experience with the rear vs side focus Parallax Adjustment?

Thanks in advance for any input/guidance you can provide.

quote:

Why the change? Did you feel you were under-scoped w/ the 10x on your Ruger Precision?

Yes. 20x is better than 10x for these 70+ year old eyes and I can easily see scoring on 50yd. targets. 10x was OK to shoot with, but sometimes difficult to see impact clearly. (again, old eyes)

quote:

- Are you pleased w/ the increase to 20x and does it provide the improvement(s) you were looking for? Any downsides you've noticed?

No downside. I'm very happy with increased magnification. Much easier to target @ 50 yds. for standard benchrest. Added benefit is than when stretching the distance (100yds.- 200yds.), you can pick up the projectile flight and make immediate corrections for misses. I couldn't see it with 10x.

quote:

How does the light transmission compare between the 10x and the 20X? It's my understanding that the light transmission drops off a bit (noticeably?) when comparing the 10x & 12x vs. the 16x & 20x scopes from SWFA.

I haven't noticed that much difference but then again, I don't shoot in low light. No experience with 12x or 16x.

quote:

Any opinion and/or experience with the rear vs side focus Parallax Adjustment?

No experience with side adjustment. I'm a right-handed shooter but shoot with both eyes open. I felt the side focus turret might get in the way. I also don't shoot multi-distance competition, so quick parallax adjustment is not necessary. If I did shoot those styles, I would have to rethink that.

quote:

Thanks in advance for any input/guidance you can provide.

You're welcome. Hope this helps.

Couple of afterthoughts.

- I still shoot 10x on my Bergara and it's fine. I just have to wait to pull the targets to be able to see score clearly.

- If you're really undecided about magnification, you might look at variable power optics. SWFA is a little limited in that department though. And I just plain don't like them.

quote:

Originally posted by pace40:

quote:

Originally posted by Mutiny:
My daughter shoots one of these.

Beautiful rifle. Is she with a team?

Yes- she is in high school and has a junior rifle team.

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:
Like you I have multiple .22 rifles from Anschutz to Weatherby and if I had to pick a favorite it might be the CZ 452 Full Stock. It's not the best rifle I have or the most accurate but it's well made and more accurate than I am, which is good enough. And it just feels perfectly balanced for me, makes me smile every time I bring it up to my shoulder.

absolutely gorgeous

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
I'll likely be shooting my new 'glow rifle' from a bench almost exclusively, primarily at 50 yds

It doesn't take much of a scope to shoot in such manner. 10x magnification is similar to shooting a non-magnified optic at 5 yards. 20x magnification is like shooting at 2.5 yards. Up to a certain point, higher magnification tends to promote increased accuracy on small targets. However, accuracy also depends on the rifle/sights/ammo/shooter system. If the rifle/ammo/shooter system is capable of "X" accuracy at 50 yards, there's no guarantee that increased magnification will improve the accuracy by a significant percentage.

Higher magnification may allow the shooter to spot his own impacts on target. This immediate feedback is one of the most important parts of improving marksmanship. In simple terms -- break the shot, see how the reticle moved from POA, see the POI. This is why spatter targets work well. It's why many folks shoot at white-painted steel. It's a bit more difficult on paper, especially after a number of shots have landed on one aiming point. Consider limiting the number of rounds on a given aim point on paper -- definitely consider dot drills, which can be a limited as one shot per dot.

I do not primarily shoot groups at paper targets. For me, paper targets are a good way to confirm the optic is properly zeroed, and then it's off to longer distances on steel. My highest magnification on current 22s is 14x, and I've shot them out to 300-ish yards in training and around 400 yards in competition. I am also moving between targets, and I can honestly state from steel/precision/PRS competition that 15x is just about the max you want when switching among targets. At higher magnification, one loses the targets due to tunnel vision. My first scope on a precision 6.5CM bolt action was NF 3.5-15x, and it worked pretty well on IPSC plates to 1100 yards. That's roughly the equivalent of bare-eyed at 73 yards. Granted, an IPSC is way larger than a 1" paster, but at 1100 yards it's visually the equivalent target size of a .8" wide and 1.3" tall plate at 50 yards.

Whatever way you go (brand, magnification, fixed vs. variable) emphasize glass clarity over magnification. A 10x that's clear as a bell allows you discern targets quite well. A muddy 20x scope isn't worth much, regardless of price.

My thoughts about scopes.

The reason I like a high magnification for precision shooting is that it helps me avoid aiming errors. I have two Tikka rifles with 2-10× Leupold scopes and every time I’m shooting for groups at 100 yards I’m reminded why I prefer higher magnifications for that purpose. I can still shoot very satisfactory groups with proper targets, but I’m just not as confident that I’m aiming at exactly the same place with every shot. But if we’re not obsessed with group results, lower magnifications work fine. I have some 4 inch steel plates and have no trouble hitting them with those rifles from 200 yards; 10× is fine for the purpose.

I wasn’t familiar with scopes having the rear parallax (focus) adjustment until mention here led me to go to the SWFA site. Although I don’t have any experience with that type, in some ways, I believe, using that method would be similar to using my ancient Redfield and Leupold scopes that have adjustable objective (AO) front lenses for the purpose. After I started shooting my precision 22LR rifles a lot, the inconvenience of that method of adjusting the parallax was what prompted me to replace them with scopes having side focus (and for other reasons as well).

I have many other scopes with side focus adjustment, so being familiar with that method was one (secondary) reason for the switch, but the main problem I had with the AO method was having to get off the scope and not being able to see the effects of turning the ring while watching the target. With the side focus, I’m watching the target and can easily fine tune the setting based on the image. I usually dial the focus at the highest magnification and then change the magnification to what I want. The rear focus might be as easy to adjust as the side focus, but I would have to experiment to be sure.

And being able to quickly and easily adjust the focus/parallax is important for the drills I have that use small targets placed at random distances from the shooting position. That would be much less important with fixed targets at known distances; in fact it would be easy enough to mark the focus knob for different distances (assuming the factory marks aren’t exact—as they seldom are).

As a last comment about scope quality, I have high tier scopes on my precision 22LR rifles, mainly because I could, but I’ll be the first to admit that equally good results can be achieved with scopes costing much, much less—as pace40 and many YouTubers regularly demonstrate. The advantages that top end scopes have are almost all relevant to long range shooting with continuous elevation adjustments and under difficult shooting conditions including seeing through hundreds of yards of murky air.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
- Are you pleased w/ the increase to 20x and does it provide the improvement(s) you were looking for? Any downsides you've noticed?

As noted in previous posts, higher magnifications allow much better feedback on bullet POI -- especially on paper. As for aiming....

First of all, a 10/22 is at best a 1 MOA rifle at 50 yards. AKA consistent 1/2" 5-round groups. Sure, if you futz with ammo long enough, you'll find a load the sometimes does better. That once in a blue moon refrigerator trophy target might be 1/4", the ones before and after it might be 3/8", 1/2", 5/8", maybe even 1". It's all about consistency -- rifles/ammo can throw rounds in as easily as they can through them out.

Let's say you can aim with 1/8" accuracy at 10x on a high-contrast target. Go to 20x and your aiming accuracy should decrease to 1/16". Meaning a 1/16" improvement in aiming, meaning that your group size should decrease (all other things equal) by 1/16". That may or may not be noticeable, especially if group sizes are varying by 1/8" to 1/2" from one to the next.

But again, the higher 20x scope will provide immediate feedback on bullet POI. That itself is a primary benefit for higher magnification.

****
On to a dot drill example. 2" pasters shot at 200 yards with my .308 Win bolt action. Prone with rear squeeze bag. This was done awhile ago, with the scope being a Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x F1 -- a decent scope at the time, but not in the league of more modern scopes with low-dispersion glass. These are 1 MOA targets for the entire black, 1/2 MOA for the inner black. Definitely not high-contrast precision targets. Visually, 15x on a 2" paster at 200 yards is akin to 4x on a 1/2" paster at 50 yards. Note that there are 2 impacts on one paster on the top row, cuz I aimed at the wrong target. Definitely an issue of seeing bullet holes at 200 yards with 15x. Oh yeah, and the recoil from a 308 is maybe 15 times that of a .22lr.



My primary rifle instructors (Rifles Only of Texas) have stated that high magnification can become a crutch. If the fundamentals are in place, the rounds will impact where aimed.

Oops, I made a mistake in my above post. Honestly, right after going through oral surgery isn't the best time to compose a post. I'm quite sore, but elected not to take the opioids for pain. Anyway....

I should have stated that 15x on a 2" paster at 200 yards is visually the same as 15x on a 1/2" paster at 50 yards.
A 2" paster at 50 yards would be visually the same at 4x.

Sorry about that. Back to being a couch potato. Tylenol and Advil do only so much, but I just don't like the stuff that makes me loopy.

I’ve got several 22 rifles, but they’re not high-end by any means, 10-22’s, a couple Marlins, an H&R and while I’ve had a standard Henry, a Goldenboy but my favorite Henry is the “Evil Roy” edition. It sports a silver finish, 16” barrel, big loop lever.

A tough decision but it would either be the 10/22 M1 carbine edition or the CZ full stock. I have several other 22s but these 2 are just cool.

Here's mine. Have not shot it since the 80's. In the 70's shot it in NRA Outdoor Prone. And dabbled in position for grins and giggles. Prone it shot Xring all day long with a good lot of Tenex

quote:

Originally posted by Hamden106:
Here's mine.

Oooooooooo, she's pretty!

I had in the 2000s (don't ask about the past tense) a CZ452 military trainer, like this.



For those wanting to get their kids into the sport, I recommend its "Mini-Me," the youth-sized version.

I just picked up a Henry Mare’s leg yesterday in .22.

I have not shot it yet. It’s been cleaned and ready to go.

I picked up a.357 Mare’s leg at the same time.

I have the same rifle. It's still available as the CZ 457 Lux.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I had in the 2000s (don't ask about the past tense) a CZ452 military trainer, like this.



For those wanting to get their kids into the sport, I recommend its "Mini-Me," the youth-sized version.

My favorite is a 1958 Browning SA-22 from Belgium. It is an absolute gem of a rifle.