I need a scope for my RPR in .22.  I plan on trying to get this out to at 300 yards.  Depending on how that goes I plan to just try and push it as far as I can.  I'm looking for a scope with maximum magnification of between 16 and 20x.  Will a Vortex Diamondback be good enough glass for that?  The skies around here can be pretty overcast at times and sometimes I need to shoot near the end of usable daylight.  I was also thinking about a PA GLx 4-16x scope.  Any other suggestions in the 400-600 price range?

ETA:  I want a parallax adjustment down to about 10 yards, MRAD, and FFP.

I'm using a Bushnell Engage 4-16 on my CZ527 and get to 300 no prob.
I chose the Bushnell because of weight, side focus, mag range, cost, etc.

This is what I did w/ ~50yo ammo, on my first range trip.

Nice shooting.  How much did that scope set you back?

Not much. I think it was <$300, with rings, w/ an optics planet coupon.
I can't justify spending ungodly amounts on a 22 so this was perfect. Same goes w/ weight. 20oz was the max I was willing to compromise.

Try the SWFA fixed 12X. It has a 30mm tube, is built like a tank and will focus down to 10m. You can reach 300 yds easily with it.  I have a 10x on a KIDD .22 and it is a tack driver. It will run you $300.






50yds 10rds


50yds 20rds

I just went through this whole market survey, opinions and selection process.  It was a LOT of work.

Link to thread

I ended up with an ATHLON Midas TAC.  I am happy with that choice (no buyer's remorse), given the price range.



It would be interesting to sell all my scopes, purchase a NightForce ATACR 4-20X50mm F1 ($3000 MSRP) and use it on all my rifles.

Thanks for all the good info.  Are the Strike Eagles made in the Philippines or China?  For some reason I thought the strike eagle was the budget brand for Vortex.

How much did that Athlon run you?  I'll be reading through that thread, but what are the cliff's notes on why you went that route.

What do people think about the mid tier Vortex optics?  In looking up the strike eagle it looks like it is very very hit or miss on quality control.

At 3k, you could buy the 7-35 ATACR…. If you spend 3k on a 4-20, you didn’t shop around.

And for under 3k, the Razor GenIII would be a better buy imo. I have the 7-35 ATACR and just received in my second Geniii last week. Zero regrets on that decision.

How does this scope compare to the Viper PST or HST line?  At $800 these are pretty close in price.  What's another $100-200 for a better scope in this price range.

What Rob said.

If you wish to save just a little bit, the Vortex Venom is close to the SE, but doesn’t have the illumination or as much internal travel.

Me personally, I wouldn’t go below the Venom line if I could afford it. I think the Venom is a bit more sensitive for the eye box compared to the SE, but they are very close otherwise. As far as clarity/resolution, either is capable of making out 1/4” dots at 100yds.

If you’re not planning on competitions and don’t need the ebr-7c reticle or extremely close parallax, I’d consider looking at the PST II sales that EuroOptics is running. They are in the SE price range.

$3k is MSRP

LOL!  

There is a TON of quantitative information on many scopes from many different brands in that thread.  It took about a month to compile but only a day to decide based upon the information collected.  

In short, the Athlon Midas Tac scored as well or better than any other scope except the 7-35 which got one more point (11 vs 10).  

In "bang for the buck" (performance/price), the Nightforce wasn't even close.  The Athlon was 6X better than the NightForce.

I'm sorry for you that you don't like the thread.

I set my selection criteria.

Collected info on a BUNCH of scopes.

Scored all the scopes relative to the performance criteria.  A key criteria was the ability to focus at close distances for rimfire use (10 yards is typical).  

Scores were used to rank them (who wins, who loses).

"Bang for the buck" was calculated (performance divided by price).

Re-ranked based on "bang for the buck" values.

Midas TAC got a score of 10 and ranked #2 only to the Nightforce 7-35X56mm.

Midas TAC cost me $502, so in the "bang for the buck" calculation, it overwhelmed that Nightforce ($3.6k MSRP) by about 6X.  

There are many excellent scopes in that thread, all are suitable for rimfire at close distances.

Gotcha. MSRP just isn’t the best way to price out scopes when MAP is always lower. When setting a budget/looking for items in your price range, MAP is closer to what street price will be. In sub 800-1000$ scopes the price might not vary greatly between the two (MSRP/MAP), but it’s 6-700$+ when looking at higher end scopes (2k+).



There’s some quantitative data, which I’m sure many will find useful. The one item I would caution against was the qualitative data that really can’t be measured. You assigned specific values for the type of glass used. 1 for reg, 3 for HD and 6 for ED iirc. While that’s a decent idea, that’s not how optical quality really works. A scope could have ED glass but have an image that falls below HD glass. While there’s merit to the classification, it’s really more of a marketing ploy at this point. Ppl just jump at “HD” or “ED glass”. You can toss Schott glass into that same category. The glass type is only 1 aspect of the overall equation.

Some ppl prefer a certain pop to an image, a level of contrast, resolution, feel of turrets, ease of focus, depth of field, that they may give more value to. The Midas Tac 6-24 may be 6 times better in bang for the buck compared to the NF 7-35 for you and what you place as a priority, but others may have different things they value a bit more. If someone wasn’t looking for 10yd parallax, they likely would have jumped over the 6-24 Midas Tac and went to the 5-25 Midas Tac, which by reports I’ve seen has better turrets as well as a better image due to the design.

I guess what I’m saying is, the table is great for ppl to review/reference for specifications, but that’s really all you can do with it; compare the specifications. Getting into a points system to determine which is best doesn’t tell the whole story. What may matter the most to some requires more info and likely first hand use or unbiased reviews, especially on optical/glass quality.

The thing is, it is a spreadsheet and you can adjust the selection criteria and weighting factors to suit your personal needs.  I varied them a lot to make sure I was reaching a sound conclusion.  I made sure I understood what was driving some scores up and others down.  

The optical quality comparisons are absolutely unapproachable for the general consumer.  Most reviewers haven't a clue, either.  I remember wanting the scope specs to include characteristics such as resolution (line pairs per millimeter), contrast ratios,...  all that jazz.  It just isn't out there that I can find.

What I most dislike is the haze covering the entire image in a cheap optic.

A lot of that may be less important, too, when the scope is for rimfire.  In my back yard at 10 - 15 yards or at the range at 25, 50, 100, 200, even 300 yards,...

I will say this, I've used the Midas TAC at 600 and 1,000 yards and it was fine, including optical quality.  It was not quite as good as my Leupold but it was good enough for rimfire use.

A lot of people are running Arken scopes at the NRL22 matches we shoot. They seem like a lot of value for the price. The RPR and Arken combo is very popular. The turrets track accurately and they have a reliable zero stop.

I was running a diamond back tactical on my CZ. Got a Vortex Gen II viper PST 5 X 25. Night and day difference at distances over 100 yrds. Glass and turrets are very good. I think that I paid $649 for it.

Rob what do you think of the Venom and Strike Eagle overall?  Sounds like you like them and your recommendations are obviously well regarded...

I just got a CZ 457 Varmint Precision Chassis and am trading the factory chassis to a member here for the KRG Bravo stock when it comes in.  I plan on using it in my gun club's rimfire matches so naturally I am looking at optics for it.  I was considering a Viper 6-24 PST Gen 1, Sightron S-TAC 3-16, or a Sig Tango4 4-16.  Would you recommend the Venom or Strike Eagle over any of those?  My only requirement is the scope be FFP.  Normally I like christmas tree reticles since I prefer holdovers to dialing, but in this case I don't really need one for the .22, just FFP is enough.

Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25x is what you seek.

I think the Venom and Strike Eagle are great scopes, and the glass is excellent for the money. As soon as they make a version that doesn’t say “Made in China” on the bottom, I’ll buy a couple. Even if it costs another $100.

I don’t even like my Chinese food if it’s not made in America.

MAP and msrp are the same with NF.

I don’t recall NF having MSRP listed on their site, so you may be correct.

But, I’ve never paid the list price for any of my NF optics. They are constantly on a “sale” at several locations, so there is a bit of a difference still.

If you can live with 20 or 25 yard min parallax, a used Vortex Viper PST Gen II 3-15 or 5-25 is a great option.

I have the 3-15 on my CZ. Great glass for the money.

Guys, we are discussing "long range" .22LR scopes.  This is 300 yards or less.  You don't need 1000 yard glass.

The Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25x is plenty good at those distances.

Heck, I only shoot to 250, but my Vortex Diamondback 6-24x50 is still quite clear and crisp.  FFP tree reticle works well.  Turret tracking is good at those distances.  Side focus can go down to 10 yards.  Just looking at objects 300+ yards away, it does start losing detail beyond 300, though.

No need to get spendy at .22LR distances.  And, if you are competing, the price helps you put more money into the rifle.

Price isn't all about power.  It's also about elevation travel, resolution, repeatability of the turrets, etc.  The 7-35x ATACR is perfectly at home on my rimfire.  There's no way I'd trade it for an inferior Vortex.

I just picked up a Vortex Viper PST Gen 25X25 for 700 nice glass and turrets for the price
Vortex is offering 50% for vets for the holiday

Glass quality  LR .22 would be second to accurate repeatable tracking
Your going to be dialing up and down just as much if not more than a long range center fire.a zero stop isn’t mandatory but is going to most likely be on any good scope.    
Look at a 300 yard shot using center x using my current weather.  
Attached File


A cheap scope isn’t going to hold up in the long run with reliable tracking.   Best budget options that are not Chinese will probably be a PST gen2 or a Meopta Optika 6.  I have both and I think I’d buy another Optika 6 over the PST.

On the plus side any scope with consistent tracking will have more than adequate glass so no need to worry.   If your targets are of smaller scale then you need to have a good optic.