Rifle for Appelseed (.22lr)

[kkp]

I see the Ruger 10/22 is the most popular by far, perhaps followed by the Marlin. I'm tempted to pick one up, but honestly I don't shoot a lot of .22lr so I'm not sure how much use such a gun would get.

A dedicated .22lr upper for my ARs would probably get a lot more use, but those seem to be around $500, when you can even find them. (plus more for accessories like BUIS)

I do see, however, that Big 5 has a Savage '64' Tactical on sale for the low-low price of $165 (regularly $200) this week. Would those rifles work well for Appleseed?

I ask because I'll be bringing my wife to one soon, and I have a couple of friends who have expressed interest as well, but they don't own any rifles at all. (I know some loaners may be available, but if they're any good, at that price it may be worth picking up a couple of the Savage 22s.)

[LCU1670]

My wife and I got the Marlins when they were on sale with a rebate. For appleseed we added a sling and tech sights, check the appleseed websight, there is even a Appleseed Marlin sold now and then that has all this stuff already on it.

[kkp]

Originally Posted by LCU1670

My wife and I got the Marlins when they were on sale with a rebate. For appleseed we added a sling and tech sights, check the appleseed websight, there is even a Appleseed Marlin sold now and then that has all this stuff already on it.

I can't necessarily count on those turning up in the next month to two months, however (which is the timeline we're looking at for the event... either August or Sept). Which is why that Savage is looking interesting NOW. I just don't know how well-suited it is (or not). If there are reasons why it's not very good for Appleseed, then the low cost is irrelevant. If it's nearly ideal, but the Ruler/Marlin is a smidge better, then it might be worth jumping on.

[Ewcmr2]

My son and I both shot Rifleman with a Savage 64.
Savage's are considered very accurite out-of-the-box. The only thing I'll change before doing another Appleseed is the magazine release. It is small/stiff making the timed stages of the AQT a little more difficult.

[as_rocketman]

The Savage 64 will work fine for Appleseed.

There are several models to choose from. The higher-end packages (FXP and FVXP) are already set up for precision shooting. The base models are not, and will benefit heavily from some modification. But it's all stuff you can do on your own.

The biggest issue is whether it comes with sling swivels or studs. The basic 64 F and FSS do not, though the 64 G does. (This is not unique to Savage, the basic Marlins or Rugers don't ship with sling studs either these days...)

If you can't find one that does have sling studs, this is the most important modification you can make. Installing them isn't too hard with a hand drill or drill press and some Loctite. After you've got studs, get some swivels (1-1/4", not 1") and an M1 GI sling. This simple change is more helpful to accurate shooting than all other accessories combined.

Beyond that, you will probably wish to improve the sights. The stock sights on all entry-level .22's are adequate for coneys at 50 meters, but barely adequate for the level of accuracy we'll teach you.

One inexpensive option is to go with a scope package such as the 64 FXP, or mount your own basic scope. You can also find aftermarket iron sights with positive adjustments. We like Tech Sights but I don't know if the Mark II sights will also fit the '64. You'd have to call them to be sure.

Also, if you can get at least one spare magazine. (If you can find them, five magazines is the ideal number, but two will do the job.)

Mind you, you can certainly attend with a bare-bones rifle. But it's easier to learn if you don't have to fight your equipment. Sling, solid adjustable sights, a spare magazine -- that covers the basics.

[kkp]

Do you by chance have a link to where these "tech sights" can be purchased? (edit: nevermind, found 'em, doh!)

And can you by chance tell from this week's Big 5 ad whether the Savage 64 Tactical that's on sale has the parts you're discussing?

FWIW, I ended up jailing a Ruger 10/22 tonight. But I may grab a Savage as well, given that low price, just to compare. I can always sell it if I don't like it, or keep it as a loaner.

Between the 10/22 and the dedicated .22lr upper I have for my AR15, that should cover my wife and I. A loaner for a friend still may be good to have, though, considering how cheap these rifles are.

[Ewcmr2]

Originally Posted by kkp

can you by chance tell from this week's Big 5 ad whether the Savage 64 Tactical that's on sale has the parts you're discussing?

Looks like the 64 tactical DOES have sling studs but is NOT set up for iron sights. If you want the Tech Sights it won't work, if you're going to mount a scope it is set up For that.

[as_rocketman]

You'll want to make the same modifications to the Ruger. Nice thing about the Ruger -- the best thing, really -- is that it has almost as much aftermarket support as AR-15's and old 5.0 Fords...

Yeah, the Savage 64 TR-SR has sling studs already (the little nubs at bottom of the stock) -- three of them, actually, since they also want to give you the option to fit a bipod independently. We don't use bipods at Appleseed, but... who knows.

It also has no iron sights, instead having a Picatinny rail for easy scope mounting. You're probably familiar with these since they're ubiquitous on the AR platform. [ETA: The picture in the Big 5 ad is NOT a 64 TR-SR, but something slightly different... discontinued? The Big 5 rifle has the basic stock with two sling studs, and has basic iron sights but no scope rail. If fitting a rear peep or a scope, you would be mounting to the standard 3/8" dovetail. It also has a "muzzle break" (sic) which is a pointless paperweight / loudener on a .22 LR. The Big 5 rifle may or may not match the picture in the advert.]

The instructors will probably have a loaner rifle or two available -- contact the Shoot Boss ahead of time to check. But it's much better to have at least one of your own .22's to practice with after the class.

My own battery is heavily weighted towards rifles, and yet my humble .22 (Marlin) is the one rifle that gets shot the most. You'll find it a worthy investment. Sure medicine on squirrels, too.

[kkp]

Ok, thanks. I'll swing by a Big 5 at lunch and take a look at the actual rifle to decide, and let my friends know that it might work for them, albeit with a little extra money for modifications. I've emailed the tech sights people to find out if they have a model that will work with the Savage 64 tactical.

Meanwhile, looks like I'll need to drop $69 on the tech sights for my 10/22 (TSR200 looks like the way to go... while I like the dual-range flip sights that work just like my AR of the TSR100, I just don't see much likelihood of much close up work such that I need the larger aperture, so may as well get the elevation adjustment for $10 more). Once it comes out of DROS and I have it in hand, I'll be able to see if I need to add sling studs. That should do it for the 10/22, I believe. (plus a sling, obviously)

I'd love to peg some pesky squirrels but I doubt the local PD, and my neighbors, would be especially pleased me shooting firearms in a residential neighborhood...

[Trgt]

Strongly suggest you use a scope rather than iron sights at Appleseed especially if you are casual/sport shooter. Much more for fun overall use, and removes one area of potential frustration, so you can work on the other excellent material they give you around natural point of aim and sling use for stability.

A lot of the older folks (my age :-) and older w/o perfect vision seemed to struggle with iron sights basics (focus on front sight, align rear sight, then aim) especially against the small targets.

Cut out a one inch square from a colored post it note. Pace off 25 yards, hold up a pencil tip at arms length and aim center square while focusing on tip of pencil, if you want to roughly simulate iron sights shooting for rifleman.

Its cool Appleseed doesn't want you to buy a bunch of stuff, but a basic scope (just leave it at 3x or 4x) makes it MUCH easier to put their material to use and to make rifleman, IMO.

[kkp]

Perhaps. I hope to learn with irons, though, so those skills with translate to the scope and only be improved, rather than be relatively useless with irons. My eyes aren't perfect, but they're still decent. I'm pretty nearsighted, but ok with glasses, and my closeup vision is still intact, although the clock is ticking, I'm sure, at my age.

And finally, I'm not sure I want to drop coin on a scope at the moment, on top of everything else. I'm sure a cheap 3x BSA scope suitable for .22 would be cheap (-ish, then you need a mount, too), but the combined price of everything at once is creeping up. A ~$200 .22lr rifle is starting to get uncomfortably close to $400+ with all the extras needed. ($230 rifle plus tax, dros, etc. is just shy of $300 out the door, add $70 for sights plus unknown for sling studs plus $10-15 for a sling, adding even a $40 sight with included mount and we're definitely over $400)

[kkp]

FWIW, I went and checked out the Savage 64 Tactical today. Color me unimpressed, unfortunately. Bright side, it did indeed already have studs installed, so adding a sling will be easier. And it has a rail (weaver, I think?) to add a scope. Big 5 is offering a discounted Tasco 3x scope along with it (which I thought was pretty bad).

The downside is (a) I really really hate the plastic stock. I know the Marlin has a similar stock, but it just seemed way too BB gun to me and not rifle enough. I'm sure it would punch holes the same as any other .22, but it just felt wrong to me, esp compared to the lovely hardwood on the Ruger 10/22. Also, (b) no sights at all on that 64 tactical model. And (c) I spoke to the people at Tech Sights: The rear sight for the Marlin MXT (MXT200) would work well, they said, but you'd need a gunsmith to install the front sight, as it requires a drilled and tapped hole in the barrel in order to mount. Three strikes and out, for me.

The Marlin 795 I checked out was much nicer... the stock was only a little improved, but everything else about it seemed better than the Savage. But I still liked the Ruger 10/22 better.

The one downside to the Ruger I got, the Ruger 10/22-RB Carbine (model 1103) is I will indeed need to pick up and install swivel studs for it. As soon as I bring it home from DROS I'll see if I can find some good ones, and get to it. And I'll order the Tech Sights.

[as_rocketman]

You'll be happy with the Ruger, don't worry. Sling studs are all about the same. They won't be expensive.

As for irons / scope, since you want to learn with irons, go ahead and don't worry about a scope. I too prefer the TSR200 to the 100 -- the larger peep on the 100 isn't for close range, it's for low-light conditions, by the way -- however adjusting elevation in the rear is very helpful.

If you go with Tech Sights you will also want to get the Tech Sight adjustment tool. The Marlin Tech Sight adjusts OK with fingers and a small screwdriver, but the Ruger is tighter and needs the tool.

The price of good irons is about the same as an entry-level rimfire scope. But you should pick one or the other, and plan to leave it that way forever, unless your sighting system just plain won't work for you.

Scopes are not magic -- lots of people need a scope to see our smaller targets (4 MOA), and if that's you, go ahead and get a scope. But scopes come with tradeoffs. In particular, iron sights are much more forgiving of your head position, whereas with scopes you often have to sacrifice an ideal turkey neck to get good sight alignment. It's very common for scopes to work in prone and standing, but be difficult in the seated position. They just can't do all three well at the same time.

Hope this helps. Sorry I got confused a bit on the Savage 64 Tactical, because it doesn't appear at the Savage corporate website. I wonder if it isn't a California-only compromise model -- the 64 TR-SR has a threaded barrel which makes certain people nervous...

[kkp]

What would you recommend for a halfway decent scope?

I'm willing to go above entry level, perhaps a level up to mid level?

Also, is it possible to do both with the rail, and co-witness? (I'm thinking of the Tech Sight TSR200RL) or I guess that's more of a red dot 1x thing, but I've seen the rails that have a groove so you can see under the scope... Never used one in that config, but it seems interesting.

Oh, and thank you, SO MUCH, for your assistance.

[as_rocketman]

Co-witnessing irons with a scope is impossible, unless you have a true return-to-zero quick-release scope mount (paging Mark LaRue...). It makes sense with a red-dot, and it makes sense for a fighting rifle where if necessary you smash off the optic because it's broken and you've got nothing left to lose. But for a training rifle with magnification, it just plain doesn't work.

See-Through scope mounts are worse than useless, because they encourage you to have a different cheek weld when using different sights. That is anathema to repeatability.

My favorite better-than-entry level scope is the Weaver K4 fixed power -- cheap, simple, light, tough, effective. That goes for rimfire as well as centerfire.

Our students have also had good luck with Bushnell Rimfire and Simmons 22 MAG scopes, despite the too-good-to-be-true pricetags... all that really, really matters is that they have precise and repeatable adjustments. Don't need the Hubble Space Telescope for field shooting.

[kkp]

Good info, thanks.

What about something like this? Nikon ProStaff 2-7x32mm http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-pr...x-reticle.html

Might be just good enough to use on some of my other rifles, too, when I'm nt shooting .22... Maybe?

[as_rocketman]

Should be fine. You can also look into shotgun scopes. High magnification is really not needed. In fact high magnification can even cost you accuracy, by amplifying your apparent unsteadiness or encouraging you to chase your shots on paper.

Scopes are a pain to swap between rifles, though. But if you tried that Nikon on your .22 and then decided you didn't like it there, it would do fine on a practical hunting rifle.

[kkp]

Yeah, I'd normally go for a 3-9x40 for my AR's, but I thought a 2x7 might be a better on a smaller rifle, yet not absurdly small on an AR. I prefer adjustable zooms to fixed, and the higher powers would be handy to have on tap on the bigger boys. No need to go to the higher powers on the little 22s.

Is there a QR mount that I could use to move between an AR Picatinny rail and perhaps an aftermarket Picatinny rail for the 10/22?

[as_rocketman]

There is, but your zero will be different between the rifles. They also aren't cheap. Scope mounts are often overlooked but at least as important as the scope itself.

NCStar makes an inexpensive one but I question its repeatability -- I also don't trust the ring inserts.

Quality units such as LaRue etc. exist, but are well over $100. You might get lucky with the cheaper ones, or you might wind up with another item for the Junk Box (TM).

I wouldn't do it unless I really thought I was going to use the capability often enough to justify the price. My current LTR .22 has Tech Sights. For my next .22 LR, I'm planning on a K4, bolted down forever. However, it's a free country, don't let me tell you what to do.

Simple rifles are good rifles. Simple is accurate. Simple doesn't make mistakes when it counts.



ETA: FWIW, my AR-15 only has a fixed 3x scope, and I can get cold-bore hits at 600 meters. Easy. 2-7x is plenty of scope.

[kkp]

Shooting at 7x (or 9x) isn't the goal. It's handy for checking hits up close, though, and drop back down to 3x or so for normal operation.

[as_rocketman]

Yeah, I understand, used to do that myself. I stopped doing that about ten years ago. Ideally, bring binocs and hand them to a spotter whenever possible. Teamwork gets hits on target way faster. Glassing with your riflescope in between strings only works at the range, and only against paper targets.

At Appleseed we'll go down and check targets frequently. You won't need a spotting scope.

[jthesby]

As you I was very unimpressed with the plastic stock on the Marlin 795, but spend about $100, on a boyd stock. Was a huge improvement, and has nice studs. With the addition of the tech sights, and the dip trigger, it's a heck of a nice little piece. Of course that all adds up and puts the price about the same as the ruger 10/22.

[kkp]

Originally Posted by jthesby

As you I was very unimpressed with the plastic stock on the Marlin 795, but spend about $100, on a boyd stock. Was a huge improvement, and has nice studs. With the addition of the tech sights, and the dip trigger, it's a heck of a nice little piece. Of course that all adds up and puts the price about the same as the ruger 10/22.

Nice stocks! Perhaps I'll upgrade my 10/22 sometime in the future. The Marlin 795 was only $30 cheaper than the Ruger, though, so even adding $10 for studs to the Ruger would still make the Marlin a lot more expensive... Although the stock sure would be impressive!

[kkp]

Hey, rocketman, have you seen the Bravo sights? Curious about your take compared to the Tech sights. They look like an interesting alternative, and there are a couple of advantages, even. Here's the review I found: http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=434091

Bravo sights: http://trueshottechnologies.com/RUGER_1022.html

The cost seems to be within a few bucks of each other.

[as_rocketman]

I have not seen the Bravo sights in person.

Look like they'd work, however it also appears that the windage is not really "click-adjustable" -- instead, the windage appears to be a friction-fit using two opposing screws on either side of the peep. I might be wrong about that. If so, that would be a deal-breaker for me. Good sights are not "Set and Forget," they are repeatable.

If you're very careful and count revolutions on one screw or another, it's probably repeatable "enough." But it will be slower and easier to screw up.

Similarly the front post appears to be a friction fit rather than positively retained, however this is less of an issue since you can count half- or quarter-revolutions without much trouble. Just not quite as positive.

The "circle-in-circle" concept is a valid sight picture. It is, however, unnecessary, and depending on where your head is on the stock you might not get that picture (head forward a little bit == front circle well inside the peep, head back a bit == circle obscured by the peep). It also only works well if the front post is in the center of the front sight. If you've made a large elevation adjustment, putting the front post in the peep center would mean putting the front circle off-center, and that might become confusing. I'll stick to the old trusty standard.

The peep sight is actually almost impossible to misalign with the front post. Its purpose is to position your eye, at which point if you see the front post, you see your point of aim. There have been tests where the front post was deliberately held off-center of the peep, and the effect is surprisingly minor. So there is no performance advantage to their front sight design vs. the traditional "wing" protectors. But there's no disadvantage either, provided you focus on the front post like you're supposed to. Pick what you like on that score.

I can state for certain that the Bravo sights will be a significant improvement over the stock Ruger sights.

[kkp]

Yeah, the lack of click-stops gives me pause, too. Otherwise looks pretty good, but that's a tough one.

The other interesting sight upgrade is the NoDak Spud NDS-26 sight (close to the bottom of the page). Sort of a cross between the Tech Sights (in that it includes click-stops) and the Bravo sights (in that it includes a real picatinny rail for optics). It would cost a few bucks more, because the front sight is separate. For the front, I could either use the Tech Sight front or their own, or even NoDak's front sight, assuming they're all adjustable enough to work together. I think I saw a thread on Rimfire Central discussing mixing and matching but can't find it at the moment. Definitely the most expensive option, but it might be the only one that gives me all I want: the upsides of the tech sights, in a sleeker package, and with a real picatinny rail. (From what I can tell, the "rail" model of the tech sights uses a Weaver rail, and won't fit a real picatinny.) Picatinny just gives me more choice with moving optics around from rifle to rifle.

[as_rocketman]

The NoDak Spud unit is pretty neat.

From experience, most Picatinny and Weaver accessories are interchangeable. I had an old, old AR-15 flattop cut to Weaver dimensions and only ever had problems with one item.

Another option is the Tech Sight for the Ruger rail instead of direct mounting (TSR200RL). This should be a no-brainer to fit Picatinny accessories. Just keep in mind the rail needs both Picatinny grooves and 3/8" dovetail for this option to work.

[kkp]

Originally Posted by as_rocketman

The NoDak Spud unit is pretty neat.

From experience, most Picatinny and Weaver accessories are interchangeable. I had an old, old AR-15 flattop cut to Weaver dimensions and only ever had problems with one item.

Another option is the Tech Sight for the Ruger rail instead of direct mounting (TSR200RL). This should be a no-brainer to fit Picatinny accessories. Just keep in mind the rail needs both Picatinny grooves and 3/8" dovetail for this option to work.

I considered the tech sight rail option, and nearly went ahead with it when I started learning about these various alternatives.

My main objection to the Tech Sights is one I didn't even really realize I had until I saw it pointed out in the Bravo review: I just don't like the way the Tech Sights hang off the back of the receiver. The Bravo (and the NoDak, as it happens) looks like a much more integrated part, rather than something just bolted on top. The picatinny/weaver complications for switching to and from a scope/red dot compound the issue.





At this point, based partially on your feeling that the front and rear sights should all be relatively interchangeable, I'm leaning towards the NoDak rear sights, and the Tech Sights front sight. (I really like the secure manner in which the front tech sight attaches to the OEM dovetail fixture.) Hopefully that will work out well. Plus, then I can mount a scope anytime I want to the NoDak's rail. I probably won't order anything until my 10/22 gets out of jail, but that's my current inclination. Of course, the day is young.

[as_rocketman]

OK, couple of thoughts before you spend all the money...

I do believe the Tech Sights front sight will work with the NoDak Spud rear peep. I say that having never owned the NoDak Spud or measured anything, so we'll just have to see. But there's another issue to think about first.

Thinking about co-witnessing. I'm not sure it's going to work out the way you want. Let me try to explain along with some pictures.

First of all, here's my Marlin LTR. This was a Model 70 before I started modifying it. Now it has Tech Sights, proper sling studs and swivels (came with 1" fixed swivels; they used to make them better than they do now), and a DIProducts trigger guard assembly:



You mentioned the peep sight hanging back over the receiver? Well, mine mounts on the dovetail so I could move it forward, but I don't. That's a feature, not a bug. The closer the peep is to your eye, the more positively it assures your eye's location, which means better sight alignment.

If you do move the peep forward a little bit, it probably won't make that much difference. But there is a reason the Ruger Tech Sights are designed the way they are.

Now let's talk about co-witnessing. I could, for instance, put a red dot on the dovetail, ahead of my peepsight. It'll work OK. But one of two things is going to happen. Either:

1. When I use the red dot, the peep will always be there, blocking some of my sight picture, since I can't fold it down; or

2. The red dot will get mounted slightly above the peep, but to use it I'll need a different cheek weld (or no cheek weld at all).

The first case is called a "full co-witness" since both sets of sights lie aong the same viewing axis. The second is called a "lower third co-witness" since the two viewing axes are offset, typically by about 1/3 the diameter of the optic.

But. Since I'm using Tech Sights, or the NoDak Spud sight, or whatever -- which are fixed -- neither of these choices is particularly wonderful. In the first case you're always going to see both your red dot and the irons, which kind of obviates the point of the red dot. In the second case, you've screwed up your position to use one sight or the other.

Now, the AR-15 guys do this all the time, but they use a rear BUIS that folds out of the way. That works fine and dandy. I used to have a Holosight on my AR-15 and I had it fully co-witnessed with my BUIS, and it was great.

The lower third co-witness is often seen on AR-15's, but it's not good for precision shooting -- it's good enough for your average "Tactical" class where 12-20 MOA of accuracy gets the job done, and most people truly see them as backups, hardly ever use them, and don't care that the irons aren't ideal. But if you are going to use them, this approach won't work on 6 MOA targets or smaller unless you're so good you don't need a cheek weld, and chances are you're not.

When using a scope, however, there is no co-witness. Looking through the scope you will not see your front sight no matter where it is -- it's out of focus. Here's my AR-15 today:



BUIS folded out of the way, I have an uncluttered sight picture through the scope. If the scope goes down, or I just want to use the BUIS for whatever reason, I pop it off and deploy the iron sights, which again are on exactly the same viewing axis:



So I always use exactly the same hold and same cheek weld, no matter what sights I'm using. That makes me accurate in any situation. My AR-15 is not set up for precision shooting, it's definitely on the general purpose side of things, but it's still pretty accurate. I would change a couple things if I intended to shoot it in a service rifle match, that's all.

With respect to what you want to do, the iron sights you're looking at all are fixed. You can mount a scope, but either it'll be on a higher axis -- so you'll need a cheek pad along with the scope, or else give up your cheek weld entirely -- or you'll always have the rear peep right there in front of the eyepiece. I don't think you're going to be happy with either outcome.

What you could do is get a removable peep, and take it off when you put on the scope. That'll work.

Or you could do the AR-15 thing and work out a peep that folds down. If you go this route you may have trouble finding a front sight that reaches high enough. That will also put your sight axis pretty high above the bore, which is bad...

The reason there aren't any folding sight options for .22 LR is because they're trying to keep sights as close to the bore as possible. This is important because of the slow bullet speed compared to a centerfire -- extra-low sight over bore allows a flatter trajectory, and more usable range against typical small targets, than you'd get with higher sights.

So... lots to think about.

On an AR-15 .22 conversion, you'd just put normal AR-15 BUIS and scope on it and be done. But you would have to fight the .22 LR trajectory more than on a "Traditional" .22 as a result.

Personally I just went with irons and called it a day. I've had those Tech Sights on for five years and have nothing to complain about. For the price of a really well thought-out interchangeable mount system, I can buy a new Marlin...

--

Incidentally I'm going through a similar process myself right now. In a couple weeks I'm picking up a Ruger #1, and I've decided to keep it scopeless, but I can't settle for the stock Ruger sights. I've ordered a rear peep from NECG. We'll see how it works out pretty soon.

[kkp]

No, I've realized cowitness on the 10/22 with a red dot is pretty pointless, and it won't work with scope, either, of course.

While its a cool concept, in theory, you've convinced me and I'm not looking at the rail for cowitness. I basically want to be able to mount a real scope on it, and not have to mess with unscrewing sights to do it.

The tech sight vs nodak essentially comes down to wanting:
1) Good iron peep sights with sub-MOA click accuracy/repeatability (both offer this).
2) Good aesthetics (I have to give the edge to the Bravo (which fails for other reasons), followed by the NoDak, and the tech sights last. Aesthetics may not be the best tactical consideration, but I'm the one that has to be happy with my purchase.)
3) A way to swap between irons and scope or red dot as often as I want, as well as mounting compatibility for the scope/red dot with my existing ARs. (Here tech sights fail, while Bravo and NoDak take the lead)

The funky rail the 10/22 comes with, combined with the rail version of the tech sight, comes close, but iffy compatibility with true Picatinny accessories makes me suspicious, and more importantly, the short rail, means having a scope mounted at the same time as the relatively high irons is a sketchy combination, if even possible. Should be no problem to do with the NoDak sights, though, since the iron sights are farther back and built in, and don't need to be removed to get full access to the entire length of the rail (which, btw, is true Picatinny).

Anyway, these point are the lines of thought that are currently putting me in the NoDak camp ahead of the Tech Sights. I'm not 100%, however, and can still be swayed if there's more I haven't fully considered, or not aware of.

[as_rocketman]

Just so we're clear:

To swap from irons (any brand) to a scope or red dot without messing up your cheek weld, you will have to:

1. Mount the scope, AND

2a. Remove the rear peep, OR
2b. Add a cheek riser to clear above the peep, OR
2c. Live with the rear peep cluttering up the sight picture through the scope.

Both 2b. and 2c. assume that the scope has enough eye relief that you can mount the eyepiece ahead of the peep, and still get a good sight picture. It may not. The eyepiece bell may collide with the rear peep at the preferred mounting point.

Just so you know I don't have a dog in this fight. When I built my LTR, Tech Sights was the only game in town. The NoDak Spud unit looks solid -- I don't see anything to criticize about its design.

But you notice, on their website they're mounting red dots, not scopes. Red dots can be mounted far forward without problem. Scopes can't, excepting only scout scopes which are an acquired taste at best.

I also understand the point about aesthetics. Heck, I'm buying a Ruger #1... It's good to like your equipment. Such enjoyment gets you into the bubble and helps you shoot more accurately, so long as it doesn't prevent you from using proper form.

[kkp]

Good points all... And again, I appreciate the benefit of your experience.

I'll have the 10/22 and the scope in hand before I order the sights, so I should be able to play with positioning a bit and see if its feasible before committing to anything.

[as_rocketman]

Sounds good.

I'm curious to see if you can make this work. I know there are ways, but if there's an easy one, so much the better -- lots of my students have tried to swap back and forth on the line with less forgiving gear, and it rarely works out for them.

What happens often is after a student experiences her first Appleseed, the rifle gets rethought. I changed a bunch of things on my rifle after seeing what worked and what didn't, even though I'd had it for 15 years and thought it was totally sorted out. But with luck and a little testing, I think you'll be well prepared.

[Trgt]

> Weaver K4 fixed power -- cheap, simple, light, tough, effective

I have one and love it, have used it on both a 10/22 and a Remington 700 .308 (they are 'bulletproof' to hold up against recoil on almost any caliber - its not a detuned .22lr-only scope). I only changed out to a Nikon P233 with BDC (bullet drop reticle) on my .22LR because I'm lazy and liked that reticle for different distances at the range w/o having adjust the scope for distance :-)

Agree with rocketman on using binoculars or spotting scope instead of playing with rifle scope to see hits at longer distances. But at 25 yards / Appleseed, you'll easily see your hits with the fixed 4x. I MUCH prefer how crisp and bright the Weaver K4 is compared to any variable power scope anywhere near its price.

[Eljay]

Originally Posted by as_rocketman

What happens often is after a student experiences her first Appleseed, the rifle gets rethought. I changed a bunch of things on my rifle after seeing what worked and what didn't, even though I'd had it for 15 years and thought it was totally sorted out. But with luck and a little testing, I think you'll be well prepared.

Just wanted to reinforce this. Plan to do more than one Appleseed.

My personal experience was that I ran my 10/22 with tech sights. My eyesight's a bit marginal on the smallest target so I'd trust NPOA but kind of guess a bit where I was supposed to be shooting and about half the time I'd get a nice little group that was too high or low. So my score would be either about 180 or 220 depending on how that last stage went - nothing in between. A little annoying but didn't hinder the leaning process any - just kept concentrating on getting the group size down. I think that was better than trying to mess with changing optics and rezeroing in the middle of the class.

My wife later did an Appleseed and her vision's worse than mine so I put on a Weaver x4 scope. In dry fire it was obvious that she needed more height in the stock to get a decent cheek weld so we added a larue wrap around pad thingie. I don't remember her scores but she definitely got the fundamentals down and I'm sure I could tune her up to rifleman scores if her interest level was high enough.

I like the 10/22 a little better with tech sights just because it's basically like a little mini M1 Garand trainer.

I later did a longer distance (out to 200 yard) Appleseed with a .223 AR and I didn't want to risk not being able to see the target so I scoped it. I had this pretty big variable power scope but kept it at 5x and it was perfect. Scored 234 at 25m then moved over to the longer ranges and scored 47/50 (using the "hits count" system where it just counts if it's in the black or not - our targets didn't have the entire 3 zone so we couldn't use the traditional method). Ironically enough I think I could have used irons just fine with my new glasses prescription, but I also think the targets were also a little darker than last time.

And the thing is, any of these things work and I could pick up any of these rifles and produce a rifleman score at will... at least with my current glasses. It's just not that critical what kind of sights are on there as long as they're stable and you trust them.

[Packy14]

I am hoping to do the Sept Azusa Appleseed.

I will use my AR-22 (my 10/22 is too tricked out and my barrel has no front sight mounting ability). I have Troy flips on the AR-22, I was thinking I'd run irons but should I use my ACOG instead (I thought that might be like cheating). Thanks!

[as_rocketman]

Nothing cheating about using a scope, ACOG or otherwise. If you need a scope, bring a scope. If you want to shoot irons, bring irons.

Field shooting is all about improving the shooter, and the theoretical accuracy of the rifle doesn't make much difference, so long as it isn't too bad. What matters is whether the rifle lets you use proper technique and learn the fundamentals. As long as you can see the target, either scope or irons will do the job.

[afrancke]

OP, one interesting possibility for a scoped 22 is to duplicate higher power caliber ballistics at shorter ranges for practice doping for wind. To give just one example, a 22LR zeroed at 25 yards will need about 1.5 mils elevation and 1.5 mils/10 mph of wind at 100 yards. From an elevation standpoint, that's like 308 at 300 - 400 yards, but from a wind standpoint it's like a 308 at 650 yards.

If you can shoot that same 22LR to 200 yards, that's 5.9 mils of elevation and 2.8 mils of windage, which is like a 308 at 700 - 750 yds for elevation and 1000 yards for wind.

Bear in mind that the 22LR will be puttering along at airgun speeds at these distances and no doubt tumbling, but still, anything that magnifies the effect of wind will help you practice doping for it when you can't get out to real long range shooting facilities.

If all of the above seems way past where you are going with Appleseed anytime soon then ignore what I'm about to say on scopes (and I have to say that nobody would "recommend" actually shooting 200 yd 22LR for AQT - but I think it would merit a special badge of honor for you some day - it's in the same quasi-spirit of simulating the 500 and 400 yard targets by scaling them down and placing them at much closer distances). If you were ever going to try this, you want a good scope with either 1/4 MOA turrets and MOA reticle or 1/10 mil turrets and mil reticle.

If on the other hand all you want a scope for is magnification, then it matters very little what you get so long as the eye relief and height work out to fit you and your rifle.

And now my opinion on scope for Appleseed "basic": for 22 LR, totally not needed and you will lose some of the zen of the whole thing if you don't opt for peep-sight irons. When you can see precisely where the cross-hairs are pointed and you can see your heart beats disturb them, it may bother you enough to try to muscle the sights around which will defeat a bit of the training of building NPOA and relaxing into it.

What you can't see moving you won't try to adjust and your groups will likely shrink - and that is your first commandment (to shoot small groups). You can work on shooting them quickly, you can work on adjusting sights to move the groups where you want relative to point of aim, but that's all secondary to being able to shoot a small group in the first place.

The most challenging thing about Appleseed isn't the size of or distance to the target, the atmospheric conditions, etc.; it's working against a clock. There is only one stage where you could theoretically have enough time completely break position, stand up, lie back down and get back into position on the rifle between shots; the other three stages will have you wondering where all the time went when ceasefire is called. It will be at that moment that your inner Jedi will have to spring forth and use what the instructors are telling you, exactly, and not try to shoot the thing like you might at a recreational trip solo to the rifle range.

[as_rocketman]

Originally Posted by afrancke

OP, one interesting possibility for a scoped 22 is to duplicate higher power caliber ballistics at shorter ranges for practice doping for wind. To give just one example, a 22LR zeroed at 25 yards will need about 1.5 mils elevation and 1.5 mils/10 mph of wind at 100 yards. From an elevation standpoint, that's like 308 at 300 - 400 yards, but from a wind standpoint it's like a 308 at 650 yards.

Actually, we did just that at the Advanced Appleseed in July at Burro. Worked out well. We're going to do another on October 19-20.

You can use irons for long-distance shooting, too. There's really no need for 1/4 MOA adjustments unless you're shooting off a rest at a precision target. In field shooting, 1 MOA is plenty. I've shot irons at a full kilometer up in Piru.

At the October shoot we are going to do AQTs out to 100 meters. Doing it at 200 wouldn't be any more difficult except most .22 LR ammunition falls apart well before that -- in fact most of us had trouble at 100 meters. However if you can find high-quality SV (Standard Velocity) or high subsonic ammo, .22 LR can be accurate to 400 meters or beyond. Come on out in October to find out more.

[jmbrown]

Thanks for some great info. I already have a 10-22 with tech sights that I've had for a wile but I didn't even know of the other options for iron sights on the 10-22.

I also hadn't heard if Appleseed until joining this forum but am excited to go and shoot one and it looks like exactly the tradition and back to the basics that this county needs!