I was getting tired to constantly moving my Cronus 4.5-29 between my DTA and my RimX so I got a new dedicated scope. I heavily hesitated between a new 2020 HDMR 2 H59 3.5-21 and a Athlon Midas Tac 5-25x56. The HDMR II was 200$ more but I do feel like the turrets are better and will track true (I need roughly 20 mils to go to 400 yards without hold overs which should be achievable with my RimX 30 moa base). The midas tac is probably a little bit more blurry at max res and I’d rather buy from LOW than buy a chinesium optic. But the Athlon does focus down to 25 yards or less and the HDMR II can only do 50 but I don’t really compete so it’s not a huge downside. Not a huge fan of the H59 but it has a center dot and 0.2 mil grad for windage so it’ll work but I’d never pay extra for anything Horus.
How much optic is too mich for .22?
- Thread starter Vengeful1
- Start date
I have a Burris XTR3 5.5-30 SCR2 and just plain love it. Good mag range, will go down to 20 yards, and has a wide FOV. If you watch the PX you can find em for 1300-1400 which is just unbeatable as far as I am concerned.
I’ve used an older HDMR w/TMR2 on mine for over a year. The Tremor and H59 reticles do make it easier for the quick holdovers needed for match use and I’ve found that if we have short stages, I can dial the power down and it reduces issues with parallax enough to get the job done.
For .22 field comps. It’s not ideal, but I’m working one getting something else more suited to that application soon.
this might be a bit much for just a 22lr but if you could you know you would use it .
Hubble Space Telescope
I just don't think they make rings that would fit it . lol but if you could somehow use it you know you would want to at least try it .
Hubble Space Telescope
I just don't think they make rings that would fit it . lol but if you could somehow use it you know you would want to at least try it .
Last edited:
I have an Athlon Argos BTR 2...
#muchregrets
Seriously though, shot my first NRL22x match.. scope made it damn near impossible to spot some of the little targets.. I was initially worried with staying in base class for NRL22 but wish I would have skipped base class and just went to open.
My 63 year old eyes fatigue easily and 'decent' glass doesn't cut it anymore as my eye will start blurring out after shooting 4 or 5
five shot groups.
I initially went with an Athlon Ares ETR 4.5-30 and really like the scope, it went on my AR .223 varmint rifle and I bought another for my Tikka .223 varmint.
I shoot 100-200yds rimfire matches and the Trijicon eliminated the need for a spotting scope. When trying to shoot bug hole groups at 50yds I like having a microscope sometimes and the Trijicon comfortably focuses at 25yds.
The Trijicon is on the larger side, rifle as it sit's is about 15.5lbs.
Correct. The thing I notice now is there are a lot of cheaper scopes that are much better quality than they used to be. I have a Hawke that is about $300 scope and while they all might not be as good as mine it's amazing.
Newbie here. I’m getting started in PRS Rimfire and assembling my first equipment package. I’ve read a lot of optics review and love this thread. I have a great list of recommended optics at each price point. What I am still wondering about is the point at which diminishing returns make product improvements largely unnoticeable for PRS Rimfire competitions in normal weather conditions. My goal is to be fairly competitive with a budget setup built around a CZ. My kids may shoot even more competitively in their age group with the same rifle/scope.
The wisdom I have gathered from the thread above is "Get the best that your budget will allow." Others have set specific price points for diminishing returns.
I’m currently leaning toward the Athlon Cronus BTR Gen II UHD 4.5-29x56mm at $1.3k but wondering if that is overkill, or if a higher end optic would be substantially more enjoyable/effective.
I’d welcome opinions.
The wisdom I have gathered from the thread above is "Get the best that your budget will allow." Others have set specific price points for diminishing returns.
- Some say $3k (Vortex Razor HD Gen III 6-36x56mm) is that limit and every dollar invested until that point produces noticeable gains.
- Others including Pursuit of Accuracy recommend $1.6k (TORIC UHD 4.5-30X56 34MM MRAD ELR) being the sweet spot.
- C_Does has a strong recommendations for the $800 range (Bushnell Match Pro ED 5-30x56mm).
- Many claim a $600 Athlon Optics Midas TAC GEN2 HD 5-30x56 34mm outshoots their abilities.
I’m currently leaning toward the Athlon Cronus BTR Gen II UHD 4.5-29x56mm at $1.3k but wondering if that is overkill, or if a higher end optic would be substantially more enjoyable/effective.
I’d welcome opinions.
Here's a rhetorical question: What are your getting in return for each dollar spent?
Answer: Durability. Repeatability. And above all: Optical quality (OQ).
One can expect very usable durability and tracking repeatability at any price point above $850-1000. And the reality is that, in good lighting conditions, only an experienced eye is going to notice an OQ difference between a $1500 scope and a $2500 scope.
I've participated in any number of side-be-side comparisons of scopes ranging from ~$1200 to over $4000. The high-end optics differentiate themselves in "bad light" - very dim or very high contrast, and at maximum magnification. In one comparison, multiple guys looked down a 550-yard range through a $4000 ZCO 5-27x56 and a $3000 gen-3 Vortex Razor 6-36x56. Everyone agreed: the ZCO was slightly better - but no one thought it was $1000 worth of better.
------
My most oft-cited example: At my favorite match venue, one of the lanes has round steel plates on a little berm in the shadow of a tree line about 800 yards out across an open, shallow "valley" (which mitigates mirage). Only the berm and targets are in the shade. By afternoon, dark gray plates against a dark brown berm in that high-contrast environment are really hard to see. With my old gen-2 Vortex Razor 4.5-27x56 scope, I could not see those plates - only the yellow paint stripe on the fire hose from which they were/are suspended. With my ZCO 5-27x56, I can see the plates fairly well. With one of my gen-3 Razors, I can make out the plate but not quite as well as with the ZCO.
And that's at centerfire ranges 300-1100 yards. The vast majority of rimfire PRS targets are inside 200 yards; the furthest I've ever shot in one of those competitions is 415 yards. You just don't need top optical quality at such short range. Certainly, it's nice to have. But is it necessary? No.
------
Here's another thing I learned from experience: a high-magnification scope with .2-mil reticle subtensions can bite you at short rimfire ranges. I shot a really fun match in Virginia where targets were spread in deep shaded woods 75ish yards out. I had to zoom out to 10x or so on my gen-3 Razor to find the targets quickly in the dark cluttered background. Even with illumination turned on, I could not differentiate the .2-mil marks. And I needed to.
After that, the ZCO 5-27x56, with its thicker reticle, came off my main centerfire rifle and went on the Vudoo. The 6-36x56 Razor is on the centerfire.
-------
So, my $.02 based on my own experience is that a $1500-2000ish optic with roughly 5-25x zoom range and a reticle you like is your best bet / return on investment. Higher magnification will almost never be useful in competition but is often useful for spotting hits on targets on range days - at the possible penalty of reticle subtensions being unreadable at low magnification.
Good luck.
Answer: Durability. Repeatability. And above all: Optical quality (OQ).
One can expect very usable durability and tracking repeatability at any price point above $850-1000. And the reality is that, in good lighting conditions, only an experienced eye is going to notice an OQ difference between a $1500 scope and a $2500 scope.
I've participated in any number of side-be-side comparisons of scopes ranging from ~$1200 to over $4000. The high-end optics differentiate themselves in "bad light" - very dim or very high contrast, and at maximum magnification. In one comparison, multiple guys looked down a 550-yard range through a $4000 ZCO 5-27x56 and a $3000 gen-3 Vortex Razor 6-36x56. Everyone agreed: the ZCO was slightly better - but no one thought it was $1000 worth of better.
------
My most oft-cited example: At my favorite match venue, one of the lanes has round steel plates on a little berm in the shadow of a tree line about 800 yards out across an open, shallow "valley" (which mitigates mirage). Only the berm and targets are in the shade. By afternoon, dark gray plates against a dark brown berm in that high-contrast environment are really hard to see. With my old gen-2 Vortex Razor 4.5-27x56 scope, I could not see those plates - only the yellow paint stripe on the fire hose from which they were/are suspended. With my ZCO 5-27x56, I can see the plates fairly well. With one of my gen-3 Razors, I can make out the plate but not quite as well as with the ZCO.
And that's at centerfire ranges 300-1100 yards. The vast majority of rimfire PRS targets are inside 200 yards; the furthest I've ever shot in one of those competitions is 415 yards. You just don't need top optical quality at such short range. Certainly, it's nice to have. But is it necessary? No.
------
Here's another thing I learned from experience: a high-magnification scope with .2-mil reticle subtensions can bite you at short rimfire ranges. I shot a really fun match in Virginia where targets were spread in deep shaded woods 75ish yards out. I had to zoom out to 10x or so on my gen-3 Razor to find the targets quickly in the dark cluttered background. Even with illumination turned on, I could not differentiate the .2-mil marks. And I needed to.
After that, the ZCO 5-27x56, with its thicker reticle, came off my main centerfire rifle and went on the Vudoo. The 6-36x56 Razor is on the centerfire.
-------
So, my $.02 based on my own experience is that a $1500-2000ish optic with roughly 5-25x zoom range and a reticle you like is your best bet / return on investment. Higher magnification will almost never be useful in competition but is often useful for spotting hits on targets on range days - at the possible penalty of reticle subtensions being unreadable at low magnification.
Good luck.
Similar threads
