Rifle Scopes Best low to mid-priced FFP Scope for 22 rifle

[blue_ridge]

I know the title sounds like an invitation for a Ford vs. Chevy opinion poll. No, I only want to hear from people who have compared 2 or more scopes apples to apples. The choices for low to mid-priced FFP scopes is at an all time high. I’ve been reading through multiple discussions and there seems to be a lot of love for certain Athlon, Vortex and Bushnell scopes.

PLEASE OFFER YOUR EXPERIENCE COMPARING ANY TWO (or more) FFP SCOPES, which meet the following criteria:

1. Priced or can readily be found used for less than $1500.
2. FFP MRAD with any Christmas Tree style reticle
3. Max power no less than 24X
4. Zero Stop (at least for elevation)

Please advise WHICH 2 or more scopes you have compared and which were the best scopes you’ve used, for consistent tracking, easy to use eye box, FOV, quality turrets, glass, company warranty and support and most of all, dollar for dollar performance. This scope will be used primarily on a 22, at small targets inside of 300 yards.

A few scopes which meet the criteria:
Vortex PST II 5-25
Bushnell XRS II 4.5-30
Athlon Ares ETR 4.5-30
Athlon Cronus BTR 4.5-29
Burris XTR2 5-25
Burris XTR2 8-40
Sig Tango4 6-24
US Optics TS-25x 5-25
Sightron SIII 6-24
Vortex Diamondback 6-24
Bushnell Forge 4.5-27
Athlon Midas Tac 6-24
Athlon Midas Tac 5-25
Athlon Argos BTR 6-24
Athlon Argos BTR 8-34
Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25
Crimson Trace3 5-25
Brownells MPO 5-25

 

[rhsc]

I have a Sightron SIII 6-24x50 and while I think it's a great scope, it's probably not going to be ideal for you. The parallax only adjusts down to 40 yards or so, and the turrets are 5 Mils per turn, so you might get lost on the rotations when shooting longer distances. Sightron doesn't offer it with a tree reticle in Mils, and finally, it doesn't have a zero stop.

You didn't list it among your choices, but you might want to consider a used Burris XTR III 5.5-30x56. I was really impressed with the one I spent some time looking through. First, the image quality is outstanding, and likely better than anything else you are considering. The parallax adjusts down to 20 yards, it has a wide field of view, and otherwise meets all your specs. I've seen lightly used examples being offered in the PX here for less than $1,500.00. The XTR III really should be on your radar.

<edit> corrected the low-end magnification on the Burris.

 

[NewsShooter]

That is an easy one with that list, Cronus with the floating dot reticle, The Ares ETR is a close second, look to see if any of the current cameraland deals work for you.

 

[steve123]

I like the Midas TAC 6-24 as best bang for the buck. It doesn't have illume though. For some reason?? they got the optical prescription down really well in this particular scope! I like the IQ and ease of viewing more in this scope than the Ares BTR. I like the .2 mil tree reticle in the Ares more and this reticle mops up the reticles in most FFP scopes, including the Cronus BTR's reticle. If you look at the mil reticle offerings of the super expensive scopes you'll see most have .2 mil reticle offerings that are popular for a reason in PRS and NRL.

The Cronus is without a doubt to me the best scope in your list and at $1150 on sale right now, it's #1, as far as the $2000 retail scopes go.
I had the ETR, and even though I liked the turrets better on it I didn't think the glass had the pop that the Cronus had.

The Argos BTR G2 is a decent scope for sure but it's a step down from the TAC in quality, but it has illume, I'd personally buy the one in the first paragraph.

I like the Strike Eagle except for the turrets and reticle. People report the glass is only okay but I thought it had nice glass. I'm not a Vortex fan but if it had an all .2 mil reticle and turrets that lined up better, as well as being distinct, it'd overtake the Midas TAC for my wants.

In the past I thought the BXTR2 had dismal glass but these are supposed to track well and are durable.
I like the XRS2, glass was better than the XTR2 to me.
Vortex D, uh... nope.
Not much travel in the PST 2

The others I have no experience with.

 

[Rob01]

For used to $1500 you should just get a Razor II.

 

[Glassaholic]

I’d have to agree with rhsc, the XTR III 5.5-30x56 punches above its class and offers one of the best values used as it can be had for under $1500 pretty consistently here on the hide. I like it even better than the 3.3-18 with the SCR2 reticle and I really liked that scope but wanted illumination. I bought the 5.5-30 specifically for rimfire use and think it will do exceedingly well in that area. It will take me a bit to get a full review up but I am very impressed so far. It checks all the boxes in your list, has best in class FOV and resolution is best I’ve seen at this price point.
For your criteria the only scope I can compare is the PST II 5-25x50, this scope typically runs about half the price of the XTR III. For the price I think the PST II represents one of the best values but doesn’t compare to the XTR III. If you can only afford $800 then I have no reservations recommending the PST II, but if your budget allows up to $1500 then do yourself a favor and pick up an XTR III 5.5-30, you won’t regret it.
Leupold just came out with the PR2 reticle for their 5-25 at an amazing price but the XTR III crushes it in FOV and close focus.

 

[Burdy]

Meopta Optika 6 5-30 or 4.5-27?

 

[ta6ppc]

Meopta Optika 6 5-30 or 4.5-27?

My next optic

 

[blue_ridge]

Some helpful comments about the Burris XTR3 5.5-30, Athlon Midas Tac, Athlon Cronus and PST II 5-25. One comment was in favor of the Bushnell XRS 2 over the Burris XTR 2. I wonder what the difference is between the XTR 2 and XTR 3 and how they compare to the Bushnell XRS 2.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Argos BTR (with 25 MOA rail) runs out of elevation before 300yds on my Annie.

 

[Glassaholic]

I wonder what the difference is between the XTR 2 and XTR 3 and how they compare to the Bushnell XRS 2.

Completely new design between XTR II and XTR III - Different tube, different erector, different glass, different turrets, different reticle and the fact that Burris designed, machines and assembles right in Greeley Colorado (parts sourced elsewhere but everything put together in USA which is important to some). Bushnell XRS II uses what they call their Prime ED glass, I don't think Burris has a fancy name for their glass they just call it "Premium", but based on the price the glass is probably close in quality - keep in mind with optics the general rule is "you get what you pay for", there is a reason the Vortex Diamondback 6-24x50 costs 5x less than a Vortex AMG 6-24x50, and for rifle scopes along with optics comes mechanics and generally with more expensive optics you get better (more reliable mechanics) though some sub $1k scopes offer very impressive mechanics.

One thing I would say is the Burris XTR III has greater FOV than the Bushnell XRS II, Bushnell makes up for it with 4.5x on the bottom end, but higher erector magnification isn't always a good thing because with greater magnification and shorter scope design you have other issues to overcome like shallower DOF and more finicky parallax - two areas where the XTR III does very well. That being said, the XRS II from Bushnell is a very solid scope that has performed well since it came out.

Again, take a look at the reticles and find one that you feel will fit your style of shooting very well.

 

[makaug]

One thing to keep in mind is that the XRS II is listed as having a 75 yard minimum parallax. The first thing I do when consider .22 LR scopes is DQ anything with a min parallax higher than 25 yards.

 

[NewsShooter]

Some helpful comments about the Burris XTR3 5.5-30, Athlon Midas Tac, Athlon Cronus and PST II 5-25. One comment was in favor of the Bushnell XRS 2 over the Burris XTR 2. I wonder what the difference is between the XTR 2 and XTR 3 and how they compare to the Bushnell XRS 2.

I had an XTRII, sent it in for repair as the glass quality wasn't great, they told me it was within spec. Turrets were great, I liked the reticle, glass was not good. I sold it. Haven't had an XRS or PST II, but the 3.5-21 DMR I had was far better than the Burris. Midas Tac and Cronus, I have both, are better than the Burris MKII glass.

 

[Rob01]

The first thing I do when consider .22 LR scopes is DQ anything with a min parallax higher than 25 yards.

That would be a mistake. Maybe if it's 50+ min but something like the 4.5-27x Razor with a 32 yard parallax can work very well at 25 yards and even inside that. I wouldn't write off a 30-35 yard parallax especially with a higher powered scope.

 

[Glassaholic]

I had an XTRII, sent it in for repair as the glass quality wasn't great, they told me it was within spec. Turrets were great, I liked the reticle, glass was not good. I sold it. Haven't had an XRS or PST II, but the 3.5-21 DMR I had was far better than the Burris. Midas Tac and Cronus, I have both, are better than the Burris MKII glass.

I had a first gen XTR II 4-20 and had a very similar experience to you, glass was really wonky, very fatiguing on my eyes after only a short time, could not get a clear sight picture unless my eye was perfectly centered. But then in 2018 I decided to give the XTR II another try after I had heard they "fixed" the issues so I bought another 4-20 and lo and behold, they did fix it, this one was much better and much easier to get behind, glass was very much on par with the Bushnell ET DMR II 3.5-21x50. In fact, I consider these scopes to be practically twins, yes Bushnell boasts greater magnification, but even at 4x the XTR II has greater FOV than the Bushy does at 3.5x, I'll take greater FOV over magnification almost any day. The Bushnell also only focuses to 75 yards which is an issue for a DMR style rifle IMO and even moreso for rimfire. So while I would agree with your assessment for first generation XTR II's, it is not the case for second generation, at least, not in my experience.

 

[makaug]

That would be a mistake. Maybe if it's 50+ min but something like the 4.5-27x Razor with a 32 yard parallax can work very well at 25 yards and even inside that. I wouldn't write off a 30-35 yard parallax especially with a higher powered scope.

If this were 5 years ago I would agree with you. But now there are so many great options for scopes that have a close parallax that there isn't usually a compelling reason to sacrifice on it.

But point taken that 25 yards is a bit of a fuzzy requirement, something with a 32 yard parallax is going to be close enough to parallax free @ 25 yards that it may be worth considering.

 

[fdkay]

For use on a .22, you need to consider minimum parallax distance.
Some of those have a minimum focus distance of 50 and even 75 yards.
The Sightmark 5-30 Pinnacle is worthy of consideration, it will focus down to 30 yards.
I would consider it before any Chinese made scope.

 

[blue_ridge]

Good point on the Bushnell parallax. 75 yds is unworkable for me on a 22.

 

[blue_ridge]

Also very interested in Burris now, given the praise here and them bringing some of the work back into the USA.

 

[makaug]

The XTR III is a great scope, I really like my 3.8-18x50. The best deal out there for a scope of similar optical quality (but less FOV) is the Cronus BTR at cameralandny for $1144. I'd take a serious look at the Cronus before the sale ends.

 

[koshkin]

Of the options originally listed, Athlon Cronus 4.5-29x56 is probably the best one and the most expensive one.

If you can swing the price, it is hard to go wrong with the Cronus or Delta Stryker or Tract Toric UHD or Vortex Razor Gen2 that often dips into the same price range.

ILya

 

[Cotay]

For use on a .22, you need to consider minimum parallax distance.
Some of those have a minimum focus distance of 50 and even 75 yards.
The Sightmark 5-30 Pinnacle is worthy of consideration, it will focus down to 30 yards.
I would consider it before any Chinese made scope.

I have a Pinnacle 5-30x (paid $799) and a 3-18x (ended up paying about $450) that I bought new. I just ordered a second NIB 3-18x for $799. Highly underrated scopes since people associate the brand with PRC junk. But the Pinnacle is a steal for a LOW-made optic if you look hard enough. Minimum parallax on the 3-18x is also 30 yards like the 5-30x.

 

[blue_ridge]

Would a new Burris XTR iii 5.5-30x56 w/SCR reticle with one scratch on it for $1150 be a good deal?

 

[makaug]

Sounds like a good deal as long as that's the reticle you want and you don't mind the scratch. The SCR2 (tree) reticle gets a lot more love around here, but which is better for you depends on your usage and preferences.

 

[1911Shootist]

Add the Vortex Strike Eagle to your list. Great scope for the money. Much better glass than the Diamondback - almost PST gen 2 quality, with excellent turrets, tons of light gathering, and more elevation than just about anything on the market.

 

[Glassaholic]

Would a new Burris XTR iii 5.5-30x56 w/SCR reticle with one scratch on it for $1150 be a good deal?

Unless the scratch is major that would be a smokin' deal

 

[blue_ridge]

Unless the scratch is major that would be a smokin' deal

Good because I snagged it for $1149. I also saw on the Burris specs the parallax adjusts down to 20 yards.

 

[Sevenmilsright]

It would be pretty tough to beat a used gen 2 razor. I have no issue focusing mine at 25 yards and rarely shoot a 22 closer that.

 

[supercorndogs]

IMO, The XTRIII is a step up from the Cronus. I see the 3.6-18 MK5 getting passed around sub 1500 also. It is a pretty sweet scope too. The Tango 6 is also very nice. If you are kicking around the Razor, Cronus and XTRIII, the Tango 6 and MK5 deserve a look too.

I wish Burris would have put a reticle with thicker lines in its 3.3-18 XTRIII. Same with the Tango 6 on their 3-18. IMO most of the endusers buying that mag range want to be able to see the reticle at the bottom power, more than they need a center dot that doesn't cover a fly at 100y.

 

[blue_ridge]

IMO, The XTRIII is a step up from the Cronus. I see the 3.6-18 MK5 getting passed around sub 1500 also. It is a pretty sweet scope too. The Tango 6 is also very nice. If you are kicking around the Razor, Cronus and XTRIII, the Tango 6 and MK5 deserve a look too.

I wish Burris would have put a reticle with thicker lines in its 3.3-18 XTRIII. Same with the Tango 6 on their 3-18. IMO most of the endusers buying that mag range want to be able to see the reticle at the bottom power, more than they need a center dot that doesn't cover a fly at 100y.

yes, the reticle looks like the only negative on the Burris XTR iii. I have a Bushnell XRS H59 to compare it to. Will come back here with a report.

 

[supercorndogs]

I wouldn't call it a negative. It does what it was designed to do quite well.

 

[Glassaholic]

I wish Burris would have put a reticle with thicker lines in its 3.3-18 XTRIII.

I feel the SCR2 in the 5.5-30x56 is very usable (I can still make out the hash marks at 5.5 but I would say they are usable at 7x), but I agree with you that in the 3.3-18x50 it was very thin and practically unusable at lower magnifications. FYI, rumor has it that the illuminated SCR2 will be thicker (in order to be illuminated your relationship between focal length, objective size and reticle thickness matters). Burris can't bring out illumination in these models quick enough.

 

[Glassaholic]

Good because I snagged it for $1149. I also saw on the Burris specs the parallax adjusts down to 20 yards.

Then you got a fantastic deal for an excellent scope. I will say this, take your time to setup the diopter properly as I think this is one of the areas that some shooters do not do appropriately and end up thinking their scope is a poor performer. Please share your thoughts after you receive the scope.

 

[makaug]

I feel the SCR2 in the 5.5-30x56 is very usable (I can still make out the hash marks at 5.5 but I would say they are usable at 7x), but I agree with you that in the 3.3-18x50 it was very thin and practically unusable at lower magnifications. FYI, rumor has it that the illuminated SCR2 will be thicker (in order to be illuminated your relationship between focal length, objective size and reticle thickness matters). Burris can't bring out illumination in these models quick enough.

Agreed, I went with the SCR reticle on the 3.3-18x50 for that very reason. When they come out with an illuminated SCR2, I'll consider "upgrading".

 

[Redfisher60]

Then you got a fantastic deal for an excellent scope. I will say this, take your time to setup the diopter properly as I think this is one of the areas that some shooters do not do appropriately and end up thinking their scope is a poor performer. Please share your thoughts after you receive the scope.

For the last year and a half I've been shooting an NX8 4-32 (on my 22LR rig), with a Mil-C ret. I just started shooting a new set-up with a Burris XTRIII with a SCR2 reticle, I like having .2 hash marks which the standard SCR (non 2) reticle does not have.

 

[supercorndogs]

I feel the SCR2 in the 5.5-30x56 is very usable (I can still make out the hash marks at 5.5 but I would say they are usable at 7x), but I agree with you that in the 3.3-18x50 it was very thin and practically unusable at lower magnifications. FYI, rumor has it that the illuminated SCR2 will be thicker (in order to be illuminated your relationship between focal length, objective size and reticle thickness matters). Burris can't bring out illumination in these models quick enough.

My 5.5-30 has the SCR reticle. I bought because i thought it was little heavier than the SCR2. I don't have any complaints. I think I like dialing wind better so I can quarter the target better. I feel like a thicker line draws my eye to the center better. I don't mind the .2s, but i don't have any trouble halfiing the half mil mark. I like the SCR, TMR, and G2B and G2H. Mostly I guess what I like most depends on what i do with the rifle. The G3 is a good ruler too. Probably tied for my second favorite with all the others.