doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com .22 Lr Scope choice

An $1800 Kimber provides no advantage over a $100 Marlin either for squirrels or rabbits.

And who needs a Parker when a 311 will do the job?

Just as $18 a box .22 ammo provides no advantage over $.79 per box Remchester "Wildstingers". Pure crap and nonsense. And most importantly, damn poor advice, from a few intentionally maverick "experts". JL :p

It's the rifle Halvey old boy, it can either shoot, or not, and no glass in the world will save it.

When I was a deer stalker back in England, many years ago, we felt the scope should cost the same as the rifle. Because of all the rain, fog, damp, and if you spent a small fortune on a guided hunt anywhere in the world, you should not worry about your scope. Which is why I have Pecars on my big game rifles.
I went on my first and last fly-in moose hunt 20 years ago, one of the group, not thinking, brought his 30-06 rifle with $100.00 scope into the heated tent and it fogged up, ending his hunt right there. No open sights on his gun.
I do not see the worth of cheap scopes on a 22 either, just my opinion; the Leopold 2-7x33 is the one for me on my two 22's. Just my 2c worth,
Mike

For serious target, or walk 'bout.
For small game, plinking, or cull the rifle goes-up to my place almost every weekend.
If it rains, it stays in the van safe and dry. So then, I'll try again the next/another day.

This is a bit OT, but I have been having BIG fun fooling with some .22 RF's w/iron sights just seeing how well I could still see [shoot]. The answer has proved to be better than I would have imagined to be honest about it.
__________

Guy's [and Ladies],

For plinking, head shots at Mr. Cottontail on the ground during a pause or Mr. Bushytail or a 'barking shot' inside 50 yards, you don't NEED a scope! Perhaps you need glasses or a better Rx than the current one that is five years old, but for the pot? Gimme a break, who are we shining on here?

A lot of us would like to have another go-round with iron sights but eyes no longer focus together on target, front and rear sights.

No kidding Lowell. That's not what I said. Read my posts carefully.

So do you have your next pot of s**t to stir up yet?

Oh...I got one, but you can have it: My 1987 era 311 is just as good as all those old smelly Foxes, Parkers and Merkels.
:rolleyes:

well i see lowell is still denigrating people by calling them "boy". i guess we should start calling him ignorant old git since once again he fails to grasp what is actually being said. near as i can tell no one made any claim that optics increase the accuracy of the rifle. a gun's accuracy is what it is. what the sights do is allow the shooter to take advantage of that accuracy to varying degrees. better sights = better precision. i halved the group size of one of my mini-14's by doing nothing but changing the front and rear sights to those which allowed greater precision. inviolately, by the same token, better scopes allow the shooter to take greater advantage of the guns accuracy. personally i LIKE having crosshairs and target in focus at the same time and having parallax properly set. and i'd bet all his tiny group needle eye shooting refers to what the gun did off a bench which of course proves near nothing what the shooter himself is capable of.

and Halvey, to stir that pot you'd probably more have to compare the 311 to lowells brit doubles which he seems to mostly use this board to brag about.

roger

unless lowell thinks things like "old boy" makes him sound British. i work with a LOT of British people here and probably interact with more in a day than he does in a month and you know what? none of them talk like that. i think somebody needs to lay off the old movies.