I'm looking for a good rimfire scope for a good squirrel gun. (Good is relative to my modest means - no Coopers, Swarovski's, etc.)

I want to mount this on a Remington Model 5 (by Zastava, aka Charles Daly). I'm not into large, gimmicky scopes, don't need to view the rings of Saturn. etc. I want something trim that won't require high rings and won't overwhelm the rifle.

There really aren't many choices that suit my tastes when I review the field, and one of the Leupold VX-1s seems likely to get the nod.

Would anyone care to comment on these scopes, alternative scopes, scoping the Model 5 or anything else useful?

Where does eye-relief come into the decision? So often it is discussed in terms of needing plenty so you don't "crawl the stock" and get whacked in the eye in recoil, but I wonder if the opposite applies in this case. Being this is a relatively compact rifle with a very short mounting area, is there an issue of having too much eye-relief and having to hold your head awkwardly back on the stock?

TIA!

I've got a Leupold FX-II 4x33 gloss, pretty much in new condition I'd sell. Spent a year on my Ruger 22/77, only seen a couple trips to the range. Perfect for your squirrel gun. PM me if you're interested.

I've got a 4x28 on my daughter's CZ. It's a great little scope and looks perfect on that rifle.

I had a couple of the 2x7 rimfires on my kimber and on my 39a. I didn't like them. Eye box was to picky for me. I put a Nikon prostaff 4x on the 39 and a vx 11 2x7 with dots on the kimber. I like these really well. I probably should have put a vx 1 on the Kimber and saved the hundred bucks. Both of these scopes fit the rifles very well. I like to shoot clay targets at very long range with my kimber that's why the dots.

Sir Springer,

I appreciate the offer, but I'm not biting. The FX II is longer, heavier, wider at the eye-box and doesn't specify a short parallax setting. It's probably a fine choice for varmints, but maybe not for squirrels in the woods?

Thanks for the offer, though.


Boatammo,

Do you think the Fixed power FX-1 would be any less "picky"? I take it you mean the image was kind of hard to pick up without adjusting your head position? I wonder if that is a result of the long eye-relief?

Agreed, I've got the Nikon 4x on a Marlin Model 60 and the VXI 7-2 on a 77-22. Have the same opinion on the Leupold rimfires I've owned in the past.

I have two Vari-X 2-7X28 Rimfire specials, and like them a lot. Never noticed any problem with eye box. I also have two current model Weaver 2.5-7X28 Classic Rimfire scopes. I like them a lot also, and they only cost about $130.00

Enough people like the Leupold rimfire scopes for Leupold to have been making them a long time. I apologize in advance if I'm getting too far away from the original question but I think a lot of the differences in opinions on scopes are caused by the differences in people's vision.

When I was a kid I squirrel hunted with a Weaver B4 and thought it was fine. The last time I looked through one it didn't look so good but time makes a difference.

I had 20-20 vision until my early forties. I now wear corrective lenses and can still get a three shot MOA group at 100 yards (with a centerfire) using an older M8 4x 28mm Leupold but I've really got to concentrate and use a bigger aiming point. My eyes get tired. It's gotten a lot easier for me in the past few years to use more magnification and/or a little bigger objective and ocular lens.

I don't think this is just an age difference though. People have different vision at all ages.

43Shooter, Your comments are perfectly useful to me. I think I'm out of the mainstream because I have so little scope experience even though I shoot a lot. My shooting is mostly High Power competition and vintage mislurp rifle matches, all with iron sights.

You had some general agreement with Boatammo's comments, but I'm not sure exactly what he meant or what you were agreeing with. Did you find the Leupold "picky" too?

I know some scoped rifles come up and the reticle and target are right there, others I have to sort of search around to find the image. Is that "picky"? I thought the problem was probably less when there was a wider image from a larger objective lens. But one of the questions I'm hanging on is whether a long eye-relief scope makes a compact rifle harder to sight. "Picky"? It does seem like the Leupold rimfire scopes have relatively long eye-relief for the type.

I want something trim and sleek on my woods rifle, and I doubt that I need more than 4X for reaching the top of a hardwood tree. Also, I'm at a point where seeing a foreign name on a luxury item diminishes my enjoyment of it. I can overcome that if a Nikon or Weaver, for instance, are really better choices. But if everything else is equal, the little extra for a Luepold is buying the satisfaction of seeing an American product every time I pick it up. (On my Serbian rifle! Ha!)

I don't know for sure but to me that means the target image isn't right there when you bring the rifle up to firing position. You end up having to move your face on the comb of the stock to get the right spot weld or target image.

For my scoped rifles, a 77-22, 10-22 and Marlin Model 60 the Leupold rimfire scopes are too short to give me eye relief that's comfortable and quick. The VXI and NIkon Prostaff rimfire work better for me The larger ocular lens and the 32 and 33mm objectives seem brighter and they are still mounted relatively low.

This doesn't mean the Leupold rimfire wouldn't be the right scope for you on the Remington Model 5. If there's any way you can compare scopes and how they would fit on your rifle before buying you should. Might as well get what works best from the start.

Most all of Leupold's centerfire scopes can have the parallax changed to some shorter distance for use on rimfire rifles. I've got several VX-II 39x's and two fixed FX-II 4x's readjusted by Leupold to 50 yards for use on my rimfire rifles.
These centerfire scopes so adjusted have great fields of view, equally great eye relief, along with large eye boxes.