Optics for 50-100 yards sub $100 range

[L4D]

Im looking to get a scope for my M4 colt rimfire. Right now i have a 1x red dot which i don't particularly like. Im not sure since ive never looked through a decent scope in my life but im thinking something with maginifaction would make it easier for me to sight in @ 50-100 yards.

I dont know this from that right now, as i am soaking all this information up slowly by perusing forums and online retailers.

So if anyone could point me in the direction of what type of brand and the maginification im looking for for under $100 that would be cool.

thanks.


was considering this. http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell...2-rimfire.html

[Justintoxicated]

http://www.opticsplanet.net/yukon-sightmark-4x32-rifles-scope-sm13013.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/yukon-sight-mark-1-5-5x-30-tactical-rifle-scope-sm13015.html

[Enter_the_Dragon]

L4D

I currently have this scope on my Colt M4 Ops. It's a pretty darn good scope for the price I paid. 50-100 yds range not a problem once you dialed in your scope.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leapers-5th-gen-6x32-mini-size-a-o-range-estimating-mil-dot-sidewheel-red-green-illum.html

[zman]

IMHO, for $29 more, you are better off with this quality branded scope. There's a discount coupon floating around the Sale section too.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/nikon-riflescope-prostaff-3-9x40.html

[Sheepdog1968]

Within the last six months, either Shotgun News or Guns and Ammo did a big review on inexpensive scopes. If you google them, you should be able to find the article.

[L4D]

don't really want to drop more than $100 for a scope for this rifle.

wondering about this one.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/barska-huntnaster-pro-rifle-scopes-3-12x50-ir.html

Do you guys think a 50mm is overkill?

[Justintoxicated]

cant finds the review if anyone finds it please post. I would probably opt for the Nikon as well. Although my sigfhtmark 4x is ok (its on my GSG5 but I think the 1.5-5x would be a little nicer) there is some paralax. I'm not sure if the nikon budget scopes are any good, but the price is right.

IMO though I would save a little more and get something that you will be happy with longer.

How much magnification do you need at 100 yards? I can hit a 5" target with no magnification and my eotech.

I found th is thread searching for that review.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2888688

They seem to say sightmark is better than barska in general

[scc1909]

Something to keep in mind is that scopes designed for centerfire rifles generally have a no-parallax range of 100 yards, while those designed for .22's use a no-parallax range of 50 yards. Only out near 100 yards will the centerfire scopes give a better image. I recently put a 4x 32mm scope from WW (about $50) on my .22 and am amazed at how good it is. A bigger objective is nice for low light conditions and for long-range shooting, but it's not needed for normal day time shooting.

[L4D]

cant decide between these two. i an illuminated reticle all that?

http://www.opticsplanet.net/barska-4x32-ir-plinker-22-riflescope-ac10037.html

http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-3-9x32-rimfire.html

[scc1909]

Based on my experience, I recommend the fixed 4x scope.

The 3-9x scope has two issues that detract from its usefulness on a .22. First, for plinking and general shooting in the 50-100 yard range, you can see perfectly clearly with 4x. As you go beyond about 4x the field of view narrows down so much that you can actually have trouble finding a small target. I had this issue when I got a chance to try my brother's 3-9x in the upper magnification numbers at close range. Mind you, they are great for hunting deer and yotes out beyond 150 yards, but not very useful for targets closer in.

Second, the light gathering properties of a scope are proportional to the area of the objective lens (not its diameter), and inversely proportional to the magnification. That's why scopes intended for long range shooting with centerfire rifles typically have large objectives...50mm or even 60mm. The scope needs that much light gathering potential to properly illuminate the image at the higher magnification settings. Otherwise the image can appear dim, as if you are shooting at twilight, and at twilight the image can be too dim to be useful.

IMO, magnification beyond 4x on a scope intended for shooting at 50 yards is pure marketing hype, especially with a small 32mm objective. It's like putting a big carburetor on a small engine. It may look impressive, but you won't be happy with the result. YMMV...

[Justintoxicated]

Based on my experience, I recommend the fixed 4x scope.

Second, the light gathering properties of a scope are proportional to the area of the objective lens (not its diameter), and inversely proportional to the magnification.

What other property would affect the area of the objective lense though?

[scc1909]

What other property would affect the area of the objective lense though?

No property other than the diameter affects the area of a plane circle (the area of an objective lens in this example). What I was saying was that the growth in area is not proportional to the growth in lens diameter, in the mathematical sense. The area of a circle actually grows disproportionally to the diameter as the diameter increases. To illustrate the concept, let's consider two scopes, identical other than their objective lens diameter.

Scope A has a 30mm objective lens.
Scope B has a 60mm objective lens.

The diameter of Scope B is (60-30)/30x100 = 100% greater than the diameter of Scope A.

The area of Scope A is (pi x r^2): 3.14159x(15x15) = 3.14159x225 = 707 sq mm.

The area of Scope B is 3.14159x(30x30) = 3.14159x900 = 2827 sq mm.

Using the first equation above, the area has grown (2827-707)/707x100 = 300%.

And since the light gathering potential of a scope is proportional to its area, a 60mm scope gathers 300% more light than a 30mm scope, even though its diameter has increased only 100%.

Hope that helps...

[maxicon]

For a magnified scope under $100, it's really a gamble, no matter what you pick. Nothing's going to be great in that price range, and quality will be iffy.

First, pick your magnification range. Then, pick a brand that has good customer support. Not a good warranty, but good actual support, like fast and friendly turnaround at a reasonable cost if it does fail (many Chinese brands fail at this). It cost me about $25 to get my Mueller replaced under warranty, but they were very fast and helpful.

Generally, fixed-mag scopes have better optical quality than variables at the same price point, but I really like the flexibility of a variable, even on a .22.

To read up on the popular deals on .22 scopes, go to the optics forum at rimfirecentral - these folks are very into inexpensive scopes, and the ATK Intensity scopes are popular right now (4-12x for well under $100 at Sportsman's Guide or NatchezSS, rumored to be the popular old Simmons 44Mag line re-branded):

http://rimfirecentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=32

If you don't mind buying used (riskier with cheap scopes than with good scopes), lots of good deals show up at the RFC for-sale forums:

http://rimfirecentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=227

Personally, I'd pony up a little more and buy either a Weaver V3 (low mag, small, light, very good glass for the money) or a Mueller APV (bigger, higher mag, not as good glass, but decent for the money), but if you have to keep it under $100, I'd go by the RFC recommendations.

[L4D]

im actually over there as well. but the forums move slower, lots of good past information though.

I actually ordered the Bushnell 3-9x32 built for rimfire from Opticsplanet. I should have waited though because midway put them on sale the very next day. I would have saved 10 bucks but oh well. Everyone seemed to like the Bushnell as a cheap inexpensive rimfire scope.