OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rimfire / Airgun
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Please Help Narrow These Down...New for Remmie 597
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Please Help Narrow These Down...New for Remmie 597

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Please Help Narrow These Down...New for Remmie 597
    Posted: May/13/2009 at 11:27
Hey guys! This'll be my first post in the forums here, but I've been lurking around for a good while. Great stuff.

When I first bought my Remington 597, I went scopeless for a few weeks, then bought a horrible, awful, terrible Centerpoint 3-9x50 that happened to be on sale for $30. At first it wasn't so bad, but after several trigger upgrades and several thousand rounds, the scope is starting to show its age. I have to re-center it every outing, the adjustments are hardly what I'd call repeatable (I'd be down 1 or 2 MOA, so I'd adjust it accordingly, only to have it overshoot by a good 1.5 MOA, so then I'd have to dial it back down, and so on). All in all, it's unreliable, and I can't trust it to be on target beyond a couple dozen rounds.

Now, I've got a dove-tail -> Weaver rail adapter and Burris Z rings, so those aren't the problem. I'm at the point now where I'm done farting around with a bad scope.

I do 90% paper shooting at a range (25% @ 25yd, 50% @ 50yd, and 25% @ 100yd), and 10% woods. So, with my wide range of target distances, I've pretty much made a 3-9x with AO the bare minimum. I'd prefer a ballistic reticle (mil-dot or the like, but it's not a necessity). My budget is ~$200 (but I'd be willing to fudge it up to $250 for the right scope with a decent warranty).

Here's what I've found so far that I feel will fit my bill. (In order of favor as of right now)

1) Burris Timberline 4.5-14x32  -- Worried that 32mm is too dark for the woods.
2) Weaver RV9 3-9x32 -- Biggest downer is the lack of a MilDot reticle
3) Mueller APV 4.5-14x40  -- Again no MilDot
4) Sightron S1 3-9x40 -- No AO
5) Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40 -- No AO
6) Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x42 -- Perfect fit, but cheapest I've found is $300

Any help would be awesome! I'm looking at buying sometime in the next week, so keep me posted with suggestions and comments.

Thanks!

~Psycho

Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 12:47
I'm also considering the Simmons AETEC 4-14x44 w/ AO & MilDot, but I'm skeptical of the quality of the scope (it seems to be the most expensive scope that Simmons offers at ~$200).

I do have a Simmons 3.5-10x50 WTC sitting on my Tikka .25-06, where it's been and held its zero for about 5 years now. So I've had good personal experience with Simmons, but I've heard horror stories.

There are just way too many options. Whacko

I'm thinking it'll be a couple weeks before I order the scope, so I've got some time to get some feedback from you guys. 

Thanks again!
Back to Top
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 9042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tahqua Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 12:54
I would get the Weaver, out of those mentioned. It has fine glass and an AO.
I have a mil-dot on a magnum springer and that reticle doesn't do a whole lot at your ranges. The AO does help for precise shooting from 10-100 yards, though.
 
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:02
Thanks tahqua. You don't think that the 32mm objective is too dark?
Back to Top
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 9042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tahqua Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:04
I think it is fine for low light if you don't dial it up past 6x.
Welcome to O.T., BTW
 
Doug
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:14
Thanks again. Last two questions. :)

1) Do you think I'll need anything higher than a 3-9x for poking holes at 100yd?

2) Anything that WASN'T on my list above that you'd possibly recommend? (~$150-250 range)
Back to Top
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 9042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tahqua Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:24

9x is fine for 100 yards.

I don't think you can go wrong with the Burris 3-9x40. But I would get the rimfire version. http://www.swfa.com/pc-14133-203-burris-3-9x40-fullfield-ii-rifle-scope.aspx
Also, do you have the T version 597 with the heavier barrel?
Back to Top
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23679
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kickboxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:28

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Good glass, very reliable, durable, repeatable, great warranty. 

Swift 4.5-14x44 Premier Rifle Scope

  Send this page to a friend
Specifications
Weight (oz): 21.5


Mil-Dot

Length (in): 14.1
Eye Relief (in): 3.2
Field of View @ 100yds (ft): 25.5 - 8.5
MOA: 1/4

Order Here
Stock # Price Quantity  
SRP687M $214.95 < id=Quantity size=3 value=1 name=Quantity>

Contact us Monday to Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm CST at:

1-972-SCOPE-IT (726-7348)

 


Edited by Kickboxer - May/13/2009 at 13:28
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:40
No, I've got the stainless version with synthetic stock. A heavier barrel is definitely an option down the line, so I don't want to limit myself power-wise on the scope just yet. That's a great deal with the two scopes, but I'm thinking the lack of an AO might be a deal breaker.

Kickboxer, that scope weighs a third of my rifle. Smile It looks pretty good, though.
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:49
Well, I found this deal:
http://www.swfa.com/pc-14136-203-burris-45-14x42-fullfield-ii-rifle-scope.aspx

It's almost exactly what I'm looking for, seeing as I've been considering an upgrade on my .25-06, and the Burris 4.5-14x was my #1 choice for that. The missing AO on the 3-9x is still killing me, though.
Back to Top
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 23679
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kickboxer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 13:55
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living
Back to Top
sholling View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: May/24/2008
Location: Hemet CA
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sholling Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 15:28
The Weaver RV9 is a very good little scope and I'd also consider a Weaver V16 4-16x42.
NRA, SAF, & CRPA life member
Member Madison Society & Revolutionary War Veteran Association (Project Appleseed)

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. ;)
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 16:20
Sholling, isn't that 4-16x a little too big for a little gun like a .22? My only worry is that it'll make the gun unwieldy in the field. Do you have one, or have you walked around with one?
Back to Top
sholling View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: May/24/2008
Location: Hemet CA
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sholling Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/13/2009 at 16:37
Good question. I'd say the V16 pushing the limits but only you'll know if it's too much for your rifle. I just tossed it out as a possibility since you were looking at 4.5-14x40 scopes. It's a lot better scope than an APV (both are).

One of my Ruger 10/22s (18" inch barrel) with a RV9


One of my 10/22s (18.5" barrel) with a V24, about the same physical size as a V16.


I've also played around with a Simmons ProHunter in 6-24x44 on another 10/22 (19" barrel). It's really-really long and so I light that I have no faith in how it will hold up but it works pretty good so far.

NRA, SAF, & CRPA life member
Member Madison Society & Revolutionary War Veteran Association (Project Appleseed)

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. ;)
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/20/2009 at 11:40
Hey guys! Alright, I'm thinking I'm going to jump in with that Burris Timberline 4.5-14x32. SWFA has is for $200, which looks to be a fair price.

I've got one reservation still about the scope. In looking at the Burris website ( http://www.burrisoptics.com/timberline.html ) it mentions having the scopes being used with magnum rifles (hence the eye relief).

**** Is there anything WRONG with using a "magnum" scope on a .22 (I'm thinking lifespan, here...)? ****
Back to Top
sholling View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: May/24/2008
Location: Hemet CA
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sholling Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/20/2009 at 11:47
The Timberline should work fine, I've just never liked the way that they look.
NRA, SAF, & CRPA life member
Member Madison Society & Revolutionary War Veteran Association (Project Appleseed)

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. ;)
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/20/2009 at 11:52
How's that, sholling? 
Back to Top
sholling View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: May/24/2008
Location: Hemet CA
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sholling Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/20/2009 at 12:01
The short front tube always looked awkward to me. It's just a personal taste thing. But functionally it should be a good scope.


NRA, SAF, & CRPA life member
Member Madison Society & Revolutionary War Veteran Association (Project Appleseed)

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. ;)
Back to Top
PsychoCemia View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: May/13/2009
Location: Clemson, SC
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PsychoCemia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/21/2009 at 08:21
I'll agree that it looks a little awkward, but I'm hoping it'll look less so when mounted. In any case, it won't look more awkward than this dinky monster I've got sitting on the gun right now.

I went ahead and bought the Burris Timberline from SWFA and it's already shipped. Big Grin I also got some low profile Zee Rings. I'm hoping that because I've got an adapter rail (Dovetail->Weaver) on my rifle that there'll be enough clearance for the 32mm. There should be, though. The rail is a good 1/2" above the dovetail.
Back to Top
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jonbravado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/26/2009 at 12:37
good looking sticks, sholling.  22's are so much fun to shoot.
 
I am going to go home today and rattle off a few rounds.
 
Psycho, let us know how it works for you.  And Old Def Leppard STILL rocks the house.
 
J
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 1.441 seconds.