Is this a good choice for a .22 ?

[Ironbar]

Actually it started off with your "semi-quote" stating that a scope on a .22 rifle is useless. I'm assuming since you "semi-quoted" it that you believe it. Hence the silliness.

 

[U201492]

Yeah. Hitting mouse sized targets under 50 yards is accurate enough for me.

My 12 year old can shoot cigarette butts off a log at 30 yards with irons within 3 shots. Wish I had his eyes!

I read somewhere once- I've forgotten where- but your eyes can see the best at the age of 10. Maybe it was one of my astronomy books. I doubt I could hit a mouse sized (2" ?) target at 50 yards would be pretty much wishfull thinking at my age. I do believe a 12 year old can do that consistently- and frankly this kind of shooting freaks me out!! Shooting an aspirin out of the air with a 22 - YouTube There's guy's in England who have used air rifles for such trick shots. I can't do it- not anymore. When I got out of the Army 30 years ago, I could cover my rear sight and using my left eye shoot a pop can at 30 yards. If I took off my glasses now I can successfully identify a computer monitor at 10 feet 80% of the time...

A few posts back I complained how I hated "Buckhorns" and I've played with the idea of a replacement ramp and it goes something like this: 1)Make a ramp the same size as the .22LR sights, then use the small aperture the Army/Marine's use on the M16/M4 rifles. 2)If I remember correctly (I could be wrong on this) that small sight is designed to do the initial sight in at 25 yards. 3)If the ramp was sized for the rifle as originally designed, and the "Buckhorns" replaced with a rear peep sight using this sized hole I am thinking this would work. I've sketched it out a few times, did a few measurements at least on paper it should work.

 

[U201492]

Don't forget, shooting beyond 300 yards accurately requires a team of two people, not just a scope. I think you might be taking the posters question too literally.

Beyond 300 yards an extra person is nice this is true. You can compensate a bit by range flags every 50 yards, a large spotting scope, etc.

 

[teflon6string]

A few years ago I was shooting a Marlin 60 with peep sights at an Appleseed event. At some point we were instructed to switch rifles with a neighbor. My neighbor's rifle had a scope, and even though our target was only 25 yards away (reduced in size to simulate 400 yards), I was amazed at how much better my 60-year old eyes could see the target.

After I returned home I immediately bought a scope, and I have no regrets.

I liked my peep sights, and I still have a set on a .30-.30, but they cost as much as my Nikon rimfire scope.

I have to agree Bacchus. I chuckle and shake my head when I see "absolutes" posted anywhere, opinions about which weapons "should only be used with iron sights."

To be fair, I can't deny that some guns look really bad with optics on them. I recall swallowing a little of my own vomit when I saw a nice lever gun pimped out with synthetic "tactical" rails and a bunch of stuff stuck on it. Made me think of 20" spinner rims on a '65 Mustang or a home-made hood scoop on a Jaguar XKE.

But then there's the issue of needing glasses with stronger bifocal adds every year since '95. Luckily, I can still use iron sights on most guns, but some are just a LOT easier to shoot accurately with a peep, a scope or a red dot.

In my humble opinion, do what makes a weapon work best for you, perhaps reserving serious permanent modifications for non-classics that won't lose intrinsic collector value.