Rimfire trainer optic and accuracy suggestions?

#1
What are some of the better optic suggestions for a rimfire trainer? How important is it to have parallax adjustment under 50yd or down to 25y? Are there any other concerns you would have with a rimfire optic that are not usually mentioned with centerfires? Are there any problems or concerns running the identical optic on your rimfire trainer as your centerfire rifle?

From a training standpoint where is the tipping point of diminishing returns from a accuracy and expense standpoint? Will 1/2" at 50yd be good enough or do you want closer to 1/4"? How far do you chase the accuracy potential of the ammo/rifle combo before calling it good and get to shooting? Will ~1-1.5moa at 100yd be enough to see a training benefit?
 

jbell

Gunny Sergeant
#2
Not to be an ass but it all depends on what your "training" for...

I use a rimfire to refine the mechanics of shooting, not for familiarization with my centerfire rifles. If I want to work on shooting my AIAT at distance I will shoot my AT at distance. For me the 22lr is to practice the proper fundamentals of shooting with no recoil so if I am being honest with myself and paying attention I should be able to identify errors in technique b/c of the little to no recoil while actually sending rounds down range. Think of it as slightly more enhanced dryfire. I can see if I don't brake a shot clean b/c there is little to no recoil same as dryfire but I also get confirmation with rounds on target. It is also a good way to develop wind reading techniques (identifying direction and velocity) and practice them with instant feedback. None of these things require a specific style of rifle or scope, meaning they don't have to be a copy of your CF rifle.

However this is not to say that if you have the means you should avoid setting your rimfire up as close as you can to your centerfire. I have owned several set up as an exact match and always enjoyed them, but never felt like I gained any real "training" advantage by doing so. The only place that I think you can actually benefit is by running the same scope or at very least the same reticle if you actually use your reticle to range, measure POI shifts, hold off, or what not. This is an excellent way to become more proficient with actually using your reticle.

My point to all this is IMO a rimfire is most useful for practicing fundamentals and identifying areas of weakness. Not to mention it is a hell of a lot of fun and you don't have to reload when you get home ;)
 
#3
+1

whAt jbell said. .22LR is very unforgiving if you don't nail down your fundamentals. It's also very unforgiving in the wind. Beyond 200 yards it feels a lot like shooting a .308 at 8-1,000 yards.

... and its a lot of fun ...




 
#4
strow;n6828524 From a training standpoint where is the tipping point of diminishing returns from a accuracy and expense standpoint? Will 1/2" at 50yd be good enough or do you want closer to 1/4"? How far do you chase the accuracy potential of the ammo/rifle combo before calling it good and get to shooting?[/QUOTE said:
This seems to be the rabbit hole many of us have gone down. I've been through a bunch of rimfires, and it's taken a lot of time and money to get to the point that I know when I miss it's because of me, not the rifle or ammo. Just depends how deep you're willing to go......You pay for consistency in rimfire.
 
#5
Well said by jbell. If I want to practice I use my comp gun. If I need to practice technique and develop stamina I use my comp gun and dry fire in the back yard on reduced targets.

I set up a 22lr trainer and it does not give me the training I need. It is a combination of having a shower with a raincoat on, and a complete waste of time/money.
 
#6
All depends on how much $$$ you're willing to spend. Rimfire accuracy is very addicting and rewarding. For me a 200 yard range is a lot easier and closer to find than a 600 - 1000 yard range.
 
#7
What are some of the better optic suggestions for a rimfire trainer? How important is it to have parallax adjustment under 50yd or down to 25y? Are there any other concerns you would have with a rimfire optic that are not usually mentioned with centerfires? Are there any problems or concerns running the identical optic on your rimfire trainer as your centerfire rifle?

From a training standpoint where is the tipping point of diminishing returns from a accuracy and expense standpoint? Will 1/2" at 50yd be good enough or do you want closer to 1/4"? How far do you chase the accuracy potential of the ammo/rifle combo before calling it good and get to shooting? Will ~1-1.5moa at 100yd be enough to see a training benefit?
Seeing the target in focus at 25Y is ideal, I've always been picky about having from 10Y to 25Y minimum focus, but that doesn't mean you can't see the target with 50Y minimum parallax, it'll just be blurry and out of focus and you'll find yourself dialing down as low as you can to clear the image up as much as possible. Let's just say it's annoying not being able to focus close, like at all the other distances below 50Y.

If you can afford it, sure, put the same scope on your rimfire as your centerfire. I do on my expensive fimfire. Like most everyone I have cheap scopes on other rifles but I stay with FFP mil/mil with similar reticles to my expensive scopes. Though even my expensive scopes have close focus as do my inexpensive Athlon scopes. Most of my air rifles, the 22's except my Fortner, and some of my centerfires have these sub $400 Athlon scopes on them and for the most part I don't need anything more on them. Furthermore I've done a fair amount of winning using them.

Ammo selection can make a huge difference with 22's. I've seen cheap 22's shoot acceptably with good ammo and expensive 22's shoot poorly with crappy ammo. It's much more likely you'll get a nice 22 shooting 1/4" at 50 vs a cheap 22 doing the same, with good ammo. 1/2" is plenty good for most 22 match shooting, maybe not benchrest but for tactical style you'd be fine. Of course a 1/4" rifle will have a advantage on certain stages where you can make use of it. It's often only a few points between 1st, 2cnd, or 3rd, so there's that bitter factoid that is another reason people spend a lot of money on 22's.

My biathlon action 1827F 22rf isn't much like my centerfire bolt rifle but it's what I use for my 22 match rifle, because I literally love that rifle for what it is and how awesome it performs. I actually have a trainer for it, lol, a Steyr LGB1 PCP air rifle biathlon which was designed to be similar in function and ergo's. I train with it at closer distances in my yard and at times has paid off. So the deal is getting trigger time and sorting out things like stage timing and finding more solid positions off of props which helps come match time.

I'm ruined because my first firearm was a Anschutz 22 bolt action when I was 12 years old, so even though I've owned lot's of different 22's, few have measured up to Anschutz and it sure is hard to go backwards.







 
#8
My first 22RF 'trainer' was a CLE match grade 22RF AR SR upper, purchased back in the late 1990s while I was still in the hunt for leg points towards the Distinguished Rifleman Badge - and it helped both my offhand & slow prone scores quite a bit. Didn't use it for the rapids, as the almost complete lack of recoil just screwed with my normal shot cadence.

At this point, I'm not really sure how much the jelrod-converted 40X repeaters have helped with the scores I shoot with CF rifles, and to be completely honest, I don't really care. Am just having too much fun shooting the 22RF rifles to worry about it. I've always been a 22RF nut, so the string of repeaters I've built on custom actions with custom bbls in custom stocks has more or less been the norm for someone with my affliction...lol I do know that the lack of recoil in a 22RF rifle that weighs over 13lbs does not mask any mistakes I make when breaking a shot, and so I'm sure that all the shooting I've been doing with these rifles can't have helped but to have a positive effect on my rifle shooting in general.

Back to the OP's scope question - I've got Athlon Ares 4.5-27x50 scopes as well as their Cronus 4.5-29x56 models. The original, pre-BTR Cronus APLR reticle is - as far as I can tell - identical to the APLR3 of the Ares, so there's a good thing when it comes to practicing with a scope that's got the same reticle as your CF match rifle's scope. And both the Ares & Cronus have parallax focus down to 25yds, so either works real well on a 22RF at close range.
 
#9
Thank you all for the replies!!!

I will give the Athlon scopes a look. My understanding is the NF SHV line also focuses closer.

My primary goals for the 22lr are improving shooting fundamentals, practicing rapid position set-up, and improved wind reading. It sounds like those are all doable with the 22lr builds. I do understand that the carryover isn't perfect to the CF's.

Flatland1, what types of groups are you getting with the CLE upper? How often do you clean it and how? What type of ammo do you run through it?

Thank you all again!!!
 
#10
I’m running a NF SHV F1 on my .22 trainer and like it a lot however it has 5 mils of travel on elevation and it takes a lot of cranking past 200 yards. Other than that I very much like the SHV scope. Same reticle as my Atacr so it works well as a trainer. I’ve got a Cronus coming and am thinking about putting that on my trainer because it has 10 mils of travel per rev.
As far as using a .22 for a trainer, my .22 has a Manners stock and the weight is comparable to my CF rifles so practicing shooting from different positions works pretty well for me. I practice sitting shooting from a tripod, kneeling from a tripod and shooting from different barricades and I believe that it gives me better feedback than dry fire. Plus, big plus to me, is I can practice in my driveway where it’s not possible with a CF. Suppressed the neighbors have no idea I’m shooting. Like Flatland said, shooting.22 is a lot of fun and addictive. With the new .22 custom rifles coming to market, it’s turned into a sport all its own.
 
#11
strow - I sold that first CLE 22RF upper - which was on an A2 upper complete with their match grade rear sight - to a good friend who was also in the hunt for leg points, and who has also legged-out since. AFAIK, he's still got it, and it's still shooting as good as ever. I got to missing it over the intervening years, and having done a couple of the jelrod-converted 40X repeaters, decided it'd be fun to build another AR22 on the CLE parts. So I bought another of their stainless Douglas bbls & modified M261 conversion unit and put one together on an Aero Precision slick-side M4 upper w/o FA. Also used one of their 15" quad-rail handguards, and an X15 lower that I installed a RRA 2-stage NM trigger in. I put a Weaver 20 MOA sloped rail/riser on the flattop upper, then mounted a Sightron SIII 6-24x50 on it.

Since I've gotten all wound-up on the 40X/XB & Vudoo V22 bolt repeaters, I haven't shot the CLE AR22 much at all lately. IIRC, the last time I took it to my range, I had a custom repeater built on a Stiller 2500XR/Krieger bbl & a jelrod-converted 40X to test at 200yds, and had just brought the CLE along for kicks. I shot a couple of stings on steel with the bolt repeaters, then tried some SK Std+ in the CLE. I had the left-overs from several lots of Std+ along, and just randomly grabbed a box, loaded 10rds up and shot them. Was very surprised to see the AR22 shoot a group at 200 that was a little better than either of the bolt rifles had done with SK Rifle Match or Lapua Center-X. Since the Std+ were all 'orphan' lots that I'd had for several months, and I was sure there was no way of ever finding anymore of the lot I shot, I didn't even bother to write that lot # down. And I haven't shot the CLE AR22 since... I usually wipe the bore of the Douglas SS bbl with a couple of patches wet with home-mixed Ed's Red (same solvent I use in all my 22s) after each range session - doesn't seem to make much difference in the way it shoots the next time: IOW, it doesn't take more than a couple of shots for the bore to 'settle' after cleaning. I clean the bbl breechface & conversion boltface with the same stuff on an old toothbrush, wipe the fouling off, and put 'er back together.

I've got a Fenix TK16 weapon light mounted on the other side of the handguard - that's what the cord & switch are all about.
 

Attachments

#12
Kansas, what action are you using? Would you do anything different for a 2nd build? Besides the glass.

Flatland1, that is interesting how the CLE and SK+ hung so well with the boltguns! I am looking real hard at having JP or CLE build me an upper. It sounds like those two are about the best out there. The CLE runs a bit more but would probably shoot a bit better. Have you ever had a feeding or function issue with the CLE? Any ammo is will not run?

What G1 BC are you using in your ballistic apps? And where did you find the BC? Bryan Litz has a few mentioned in one of his lattest books. Or are you just backing into the numbers?
 
#13
I’m using the Stiller 2500 repeater action in a Manners T4 A stock and Krieger barrel. Flatland 1 built it and I talked him out of it. I really like the rifle and will keep it short of financial crisis but it would be nice to be able to use the larger mags like the Vudoo uses. But... the nice thing about the Stiller is it uses standard Savage mags which are cheap and easy to get so it’s kind of a trade off. Rifle shoots better than I can.
I’d definitely go with a scope that is 10 mil per rev turret and parallax adjusts down to 25 yards.
 

Attachments

#14
Personally, I think it's more important to get the ergos of your .22 trainer as close as reasonable to your cf match than it is for your trainer to be really accurate. I agree with Jbell in that it's pretty much enhanced dry-fire, great for checking your fundamentals and practicing barricades and awkward positions. To me, it kind of defeats the purpose of a .22 trainer to have to use expensive match ammo so I found the cheap ammo that groups best in my mkII (CCI minimags @ around 1.25" @ 100 yards) and scaled my targets accordingly. Since we normally shoot our cf rifles that group 0.5 moa at 2.5 moa targets off barricades, I shoot my .22 at a 3"x4" diamond I pulled off a prize table. Honestly, as a pure trainer, I think having a .223 barrel and bolt you can just swap onto your match rig is the better way to go and is what I have in the works. This of course totally overlooks how fun it is to shoot a .22 out to 200 and 300 yards just for the fun of it, haha.
 
#15
Personally, I think it's more important to get the ergos of your .22 trainer as close as reasonable to your cf match than it is for your trainer to be really accurate. I agree with Jbell in that it's pretty much enhanced dry-fire, great for checking your fundamentals and practicing barricades and awkward positions. To me, it kind of defeats the purpose of a .22 trainer to have to use expensive match ammo so I found the cheap ammo that groups best in my mkII (CCI minimags @ around 1.25" @ 100 yards) and scaled my targets accordingly. Since we normally shoot our cf rifles that group 0.5 moa at 2.5 moa targets off barricades, I shoot my .22 at a 3"x4" diamond I pulled off a prize table. Honestly, as a pure trainer, I think having a .223 barrel and bolt you can just swap onto your match rig is the better way to go and is what I have in the works. This of course totally overlooks how fun it is to shoot a .22 out to 200 and 300 yards just for the fun of it, haha.
Your point about ammo is spot on; why "save" money with a cheap trainer that is the same as your match rifle, then spend money on ammo that actually groups the same as your match rifle.
 
#16
Keep the input coming!

dgheriani, you make a good argument for ergos or a system very similar to youf CF rifle and target sizes.

In general what size and distance (min and max) are most of the rimfire and NRL targets?
 

jbell

Gunny Sergeant
#17
Not to disagree about what ammo quality to use or even rifle accuracy, just giving info on my theories:

I am big on mental training and positive reinforcement. I believe that practice does NOT make perfect, only perfect practice makes perfect (not to say I am even close to perfect, just supporting my theory). So with that said if you are shooting a rifle, ammo, or combination of both with the intention of becoming a better shooter (in any discipline) that is not capable of shooting inside your hold (meaning less accurate than you are) or one that throws flyers (and by flyer I mean something that cant be contributed to human error including a bad wind call) then your training is not nearly as quality as it could/should be. In addition to that it also allows you to start accepting bad shots as "normal". You become subconsciously desensitized to them and will stop assessing why the round did not impact where expected. It is the same thing as developing incorrect form in any sport, if you preform an action incorrectly repeatedly that incorrect action becomes normal.

So for me I do everything in my power to eliminate the margin of error from the equipment. That way I know where to look if there is an accuracy problem, as opposed to possibly overlooking a bad habit that may be in the early developmental stages. It is much easier to correct something before you repeat it hundreds of times. The most important thing to remember is that we are human and no matter how well practiced we are at something it is very easy for us to develop a small flaw in procedure even after years and years of training. The flaws can either be physical or mental, and if you want to stay sharp you must be constantly assessing your performance. But if your equipment isn't capable of the level performance your are then you have no metric to assess by.

I am probably completely full of $h!t but this is what I believe...
 

jbell

Gunny Sergeant
#18
A few more thoughts if you don't mind:

I know everyone is on a budget, I am by no means well off and definitely have a budget! But I do prioritize my budget. Meaning I would rather shoot 50 rounds of Eley Match @ $15 per box out of a very accurate rifle than I would 150-200 rounds of something that isn't accurate or consistent. Only because I know I will get more benefit out of having 100% accurate feedback for every round. Now that is not to say that you have to be shooting a $3000 or more rifle with $15-$20 per box ammo to get good quality training, you most certainly do not! I have owned a few factory rifles that were very accurate and consistent shooting CCI Standard Velocity and they could take you a long way in the pursuit of accuracy. But if we are being honest with ourselves any factory built rifle (meaning something in the sub $800 range, not a custom barreled CZ455 or similar) shooting mid grade ammo is only going to be about a 3/4 MOA rifle at 50 yards and maybe a 1 MOA rifle at 100. Just to clarify on that last sentence by 3/4 MOA rifle I mean an average over a large amount of rounds not 2 or 3 cherry picked groups (average out your whole range session, several range sessions, or at least 50 rounds). But even to say that you were lucky enough to find a combo that is a 1/2 MOA rifle, which is going to be very rare, you are going to be limiting your training (assessment and feedback) to 1/2 MOA. IMO most anyone can become a 1/2 MOA shooter fairly quickly (like a year or so, probably faster if your training properly) at 50 yards (the standard for rimfire mainly due to enviromentals) from a supported position such as shooting off a bench or prone with a bipod.

This is why I think if you want to get the most out of your training then you must be shooting a system that is more accurate than you are. With that being said I don't want to be shooting a 1/2 MOA rifle. But again this is just me and I am only saying this as food for thought. I welcome other beliefs, ideas, or theories it is always a good subject matter for quality discussion.
 

goosed

Sergeant of the Hide
#19
A few more thoughts if you don't mind:

I know everyone is on a budget, I am by no means well off and definitely have a budget! But I do prioritize my budget. Meaning I would rather shoot 50 rounds of Eley Match @ $15 per box out of a very accurate rifle than I would 150-200 rounds of something that isn't accurate or consistent. Only because I know I will get more benefit out of having 100% accurate feedback for every round. Now that is not to say that you have to be shooting a $3000 or more rifle with $15-$20 per box ammo to get good quality training, you most certainly do not! I have owned a few factory rifles that were very accurate and consistent shooting CCI Standard Velocity and they could take you a long way in the pursuit of accuracy. But if we are being honest with ourselves any factory built rifle (meaning something in the sub $800 range, not a custom barreled CZ455 or similar) shooting mid grade ammo is only going to be about a 3/4 MOA rifle at 50 yards and maybe a 1 MOA rifle at 100. Just to clarify on that last sentence by 3/4 MOA rifle I mean an average over a large amount of rounds not 2 or 3 cherry picked groups (average out your whole range session, several range sessions, or at least 50 rounds). But even to say that you were lucky enough to find a combo that is a 1/2 MOA rifle, which is going to be very rare, you are going to be limiting your training (assessment and feedback) to 1/2 MOA. IMO most anyone can become a 1/2 MOA shooter fairly quickly (like a year or so, probably faster if your training properly) at 50 yards (the standard for rimfire mainly due to enviromentals) from a supported position such as shooting off a bench or prone with a bipod.

This is why I think if you want to get the most out of your training then you must be shooting a system that is more accurate than you are. With that being said I don't want to be shooting a 1/2 MOA rifle. But again this is just me and I am only saying this as food for thought. I welcome other beliefs, ideas, or theories it is always a good subject matter for quality discussion.
For me it depends...

Only shooting from the bench or prone, pure accuracy is king. Chasing specific ammo, lot #'s or even hand loading ammo when needed are worth while pursuits.

Change up to positional, standing, weak side or flimsy barricade training and practical accuracy is all that's really necessary.

It's a balancing act. More accuracy is never bad, but shooting in odd positions and gathering feed back from watching reticle jump during recoil are what's important to me from position. Any trade off necessary to actually shoot positions far outweighs any time spent chasing pure accuracy.
 
#20
jbell, thank you again for the input!

I honestly have my clipboard and pencil beside me and am taking notes. All jokes aside it is amazing the information we have at our fingertips...if we just look and ask. Yes you have to separate the wheat from the chaff but you sure can get up to speed quick if you know where to look. Thank you all!

You make some excellent points about training, sport psychology, and legitimate statistics vs "my 22lr shoots dimes with no drop out to 200yd...every time...almost...sometimes."

Just to verify I'm tracking. If your primary purpose is to improve "prone" and supported positions where almost zero wobble can be obtained you will be best served with a system capable of 1/4moa or better accuracy. And that is NOT going to be cheap to build or feed. For field and barricade positions with a tight(er) time constraints, then 1/2 to 3/4 moa would probably be good enough for most new shooters. For offhand practice a 1 moa rifle would be more than enough for most. Build a system better than you are (or plan to be) to increase the reliability and validity of the training feedback.

So the best use of a 1/2 to 3/4 moa trainer would probably be in offhand, field, barricade, mouse trap, non-dominant side, shooting sticks, vehicle, movers, or awkward positions with tight time constraints. Am I kind of headed in the right direction?
 
Last edited:

jbell

Gunny Sergeant
#22
Goosed & strow, yes! I agree 100% and follow the logic of not shooting my best ammo when my hold is well over 1 MOA (like unsupported shooting). I always have a few boxes of CCI SV or similar ammo for shooting offhand or some other position that my hold is large. To note when I do change ammo to do some unsupported shooting I will still shoot several rounds supported with the lesser accurate ammo supported for 2 reasons, 1 to confirm zero or my corrected hold and 2 to season the bore so I know what the accuracy is to be expected then I go about my business. I actually really enjoy switching ammo with a very accurate rifle because normally the first 5-7 rounds will be screamers and then you will see it open up for 5-10 more rounds before it finally settles back into how t is going to shoot. I am not sure why this occurs but it does almost every time, especially going from Eley Match or Tenex to Lapua Center X or Midas or the other way around. I see it when going to SV but not as extreme. I have shot a lot of 5 or 6 round groups at 50 yards that measure in the double digits CTC (0.0XX") when doing this, but it is definitely not repeatable so it doesn't count for anything IMO other than the novelty of doing it.

After thinking about all of this for a bit I suppose I should state what I expect out of my rimfire / ammo. I have been fortunate to own some very nice and accurate rifles, so I have been spoiled a bit by their capabilities. For me to be satisfied I want consistent sub 1/2 MOA (in good conditions when I am shooting well, not all that easy of a combination to get). To put into perspective I have an Anschutz 1827B (my current project) that will shoot in the very low 0.300's to mid 0.200's 80% of the time, but occasionally I see flyers (bad flyers! like 0.050"-0.100" out in random directions). Plenty of people would consider this level of accuracy to be plenty acceptable and may not even see the loss if they were not shooting quality ammo. This is with a factory barrel that has had a LOT of rounds threw it. The rifle was a competitive Biathlon team rifle in a past life, so it was shot a lot and saw plenty of bad weather. The bore was starting to look bad, excessive frosting at 6 o'clock as high round count rimfires get and some small pits out at the muzzle. But I knew the rifle before it really lost its edge and also wasn't confident when assessing why rounds were not impacting where I wanted. So it is now getting a new barrel and a new stock. I had to save 8 months to be able to "afford" the work but it is completely justified in my mind. Keep an eye on the 6X5 thread come spring if you want to see how this Anschutz project of mine turns out. I hope to get the activity level back up on that thread, the 6X5 is a hell of a test for shooter and equipment! It was hot a few years ago.

But knowing what is possible keeps me wanting more! Its really a problem...HA! Happy New Year guys, I wish you an accurate 2018
 
#23
When building a rimfire trainer, closely replicating your centerfire is one way of doing things. Usually those who do this is cause the centerfire is their main competition gun and the rimfire is simply being used to train cheaply. Accuracy isn’t really the most important thing here. For those that want to compete against themselves or others in matches, throw replicating your centerfire out the window and build something capable of winning! A rifle capable of winning should be able to shoot 1/4” or better at 50 yards with the ammo It likes. What action should you use? I can achieve this accuracy with just using a cz 455 but there are pros and cons here. You can step up to a Anschutz 64 action which removes some of the cons but at a higher price. A 64 I built for a gentleman out in Utah won the match out of the 39 shooters scoring a 716 (possibly the highest score recorded). A 54 Repeater or a full custom can be used but the gain you will see is minimal and the cost is much higher. Not all customs are equal unfortunately.
 
#24
When building a rimfire trainer, closely replicating your centerfire is one way of doing things. Usually those who do this is cause the centerfire is their main competition gun and the rimfire is simply being used to train cheaply. Accuracy isn’t really the most important thing here. For those that want to compete against themselves or others in matches, throw replicating your centerfire out the window and build something capable of winning! A rifle capable of winning should be able to shoot 1/4” or better at 50 yards with the ammo It likes. What action should you use? I can achieve this accuracy with just using a cz 455 but there are pros and cons here. You can step up to a Anschutz 64 action which removes some of the cons but at a higher price. A 64 I built for a gentleman out in Utah won the match out of the 39 shooters scoring a 716 (possibly the highest score recorded). A 54 Repeater or a full custom can be used but the gain you will see is minimal and the cost is much higher. Not all customs are equal unfortunately.
Well said, agree 100%. Know what your primary purpose for the .22 is and proceed from there.
 
#25
Having looked at some of the 6x5 data the Anschutz and CZ's are well represented. I would assume that higher end Eley, RWS, or Lapua are the ammo of choice? I also notice that there are only 1 or 2 10/22's listed and they shot well enough.

If consistent groups of 1/2" at 50yd (6x5) is the goal what are some of the simplest and most reliable options for under say $1000 (no optic)? What will most CZ 455 shoot with a factory barrel? What about a CLE, Acc Speaks, or JP dedicated upper with a good barrel?

 
#26
For under a grand for a bolt gun the only choice you have IS Cz. My first .22 target rifle was a Cz 455 Varmint trainer in a Manners stock. It shot good and there’s plenty of upgrades for them out there but, as a trainer, it was too light to replicate my centerfire rifle. They shoot well enough to have been competitive in our local PRS style club matches but aren’t really a full size rifle.
 

jbell

Gunny Sergeant
#27
For under a grand for a bolt gun the only choice you have IS Cz. My first .22 target rifle was a Cz 455 Varmint trainer in a Manners stock. It shot good and there’s plenty of upgrades for them out there but, as a trainer, it was too light to replicate my centerfire rifle. They shoot well enough to have been competitive in our local PRS style club matches but aren’t really a full size rifle.
agreed
 
#28
For under a grand for a bolt gun the only choice you have IS Cz. My first .22 target rifle was a Cz 455 Varmint trainer in a Manners stock. It shot good and there’s plenty of upgrades for them out there but, as a trainer, it was too light to replicate my centerfire rifle. They shoot well enough to have been competitive in our local PRS style club matches but aren’t really a full size rifle.
Or look around a little bit for a used 64 MPR. Rebarreled CZ probably shoots just as well, but the combination of anschutz accuracy out of the box and a 5098 trigger is hard to beat. It also feels like a real rifle
 

goosed

Sergeant of the Hide
#29
Annie 64's are usually a bit more refined than CZ and can be picked up used for under $1k on auction sites without much effort. The CZ VPT has the manners stock, which in my opinion is the best stock offered on a CZ for $850-950.

If $1k is a hard upper limit though, with accuracy as the goal I would personally skip the annie and CZ VPT. Picking the CZ tacticool model instead which should run $450-550. Then add a Lilja barrel for $450. Bed it yourself and your right around $1k with a rifle that should easily meet and exceed your stated accuracy requirement.

All excellent options, really just comes down to personal preference in the end.
 
#30
I just had this conversation today with a friend from church. He wants a plinker that will be accurate enough to not constantly wonder whether he missed because of the ammo, the rifle or him. He's shot my Annies, Coopers, Sako's etc... but wants to keep the spend level down.. I told him I felt a CZ would give him exactly what he's looking for. It may or may not hang with other rifles, but for the cost, it's a great value. Now, I just need to school him on a decent scope and finding ammo the rifle likes, and then buying enough to not have to worry about it for a while...
 

jbell

Gunny Sergeant
#31
I just had this conversation today with a friend from church. He wants a plinker that will be accurate enough to not constantly wonder whether he missed because of the ammo, the rifle or him. He's shot my Annies, Coopers, Sako's etc... but wants to keep the spend level down.. I told him I felt a CZ would give him exactly what he's looking for. It may or may not hang with other rifles, but for the cost, it's a great value. Now, I just need to school him on a decent scope and finding ammo the rifle likes, and then buying enough to not have to worry about it for a while...
Keep an eye on that new Tikka T1X...
 
#32
Jbell or others that know a bit about the new Tikka T1X. What are the advantages of it over the CZ's? Any idea if it will take the same triggers as the T3X?
 
#34
OK - I made my opinions quite unambiguous early in this thread (and I stick with them for training purposes) but I have spent time (and a tiny amount of money) working on my CZ trainer after the last, disappointing competition we ran.

Since December I have installed a 20 MOA scope rail, put a Badger rail unit on the forend to take an Atlas bipod and a single point sling, worked the trigger again (snipped a coil on the spring), and tried different ammo.

The results were instantaneous. The groups have shrunk to single holes at 50m and the 100m Prone Sling serial was a joy for 10 shots. Off a tripod same.

The weak link is optics and if we were to go hard core on the match front, the NXS is history and a March 40x will go in its place.

But for cross training, this rifle feels nothing like a centrefire. And first round pop with the CZ is annoying - always a high shot.
 
#35
Hairy Biker, what is the weak link with the NXS? It does not focus down enough? What does the March offer? I am honestly curious.

Feel is a very personal thing I know. I assume the barrel contour and length is quite a bit different than your comp gun? If they were similar I would assume the feel would be much less pronounced?

What can are you running? I have a Silencerco Sparrow and Dead Air Mask. The Mask seems to have less first round pop.

What is your go-to ammo?


 
#36
The NXS is second focal plane, heavy, MOA and most importantly, the optics are not up to what I want from it (resolution on target, ability to see key features/bullet holes). Switch to my March and those issues go away. The NXS does offer 100 MOA adjustment so that should cover off the 200m target with ease now the 20 MOA rail is in.

The rifle is lighter due to barrel contour. Stock is different - would love to run this in an AI stock.

We can not use cans. The elevation is from the length of cold air (apparently) in the barrel. Goes away after the first shot and the group settles in. The other theory is a tight forcing cone due to lead/other build up that gets pushed out on first shot but I am not game to clean just yet.

Tested four types of ammo and the recommended SK Match (orange box) cut a one hole group at 50m. 1033fps MV and approve 30 MOA drop at 200 according to iSnipe.
 

SethJ

Sergeant of the Hide
#37
I must be the poorest person in here, because I cant fathom putting a nightforce scope on any 22 rimfire?

Someone said put the same thing as whats on your centerfire! OMG lol,....wtf. A Schmidt and Bender Pmii on my .22 LOL
 
#38
I can not add to the already great info that has been provided. I have had expensive scopes on my 22 trainers and more budget friendly ones. What I have found that works for me is the Muller 8-32 tactical scope with 1/8th moa adjustments and parallax down to 10 yards. These work great between 10-150 yards and really help with fundamentals. Super fine reticle and no spotting scope needed. I think its a very good value for what you get.
 
#39
jbell has some really good points to consider. Shooting is a very mental and psychological discipline and here is a funny anecdote to consider:

20 years ago a "friend" of mine sucked me into shooting Palma (.308 with iron sights at 800, 900 and 1,000 yards prone no bipod ... just a sling). I did ok but was frustrated that for some reason I was not doing as well as the High Masters after two seasons ... go figure. So I determined that I needed better equipment even though the .308 I was shooting would shoot 1/2"-3/4" 5-shot groups at 200 yards all day long (off a bench with a scope ... but not with me laying prone in shooting jacket and sling).

Along the way I met some wonderful people like Boots Obermeyer of Obermeyer barrels. I discussed this with him. He smiled and said: "I get it. You have to have absolute confidence in your equipment but in my experience its the loose wing-nut at at the end of the butt plate that causes most of the issues." He told me of an experience going to Camp Perry to shoot the national matches that really opened his eyes to this phenomenon. He had done everything he could to prepare, to have a perfect gun with perfect ammo. He turned the necks, reamed flash-holes, powder weighed to a kernel and then he sorted his loaded ammo by weight on a rifle that he spent a year personally tuning. He got to the line and shot a perfect score at 600 yards.

When he got back to his truck he said he looked down at his ammo box and almost threw up. In his haste to get to the line he had grabbed the wrong box of ammo and shot the match with his practice loads - mixed brass, unweighed charges, cheaper bullets. Yet he still shot a perfect score because for all he knew at the time he had the perfect setup. The gun would hold 1/2-3/4 MOA with the practice ammo which was good enough. He really didn't need the 1/8 - 1/4 MOA ammo because he was shooting at a 2 MOA 10 ring. But the idea in his mind that he had a 1/8-1/4 MOA shooting system was BIG MEDICINE and gave him the confidence he needed to fully concentrate on the biggest variable - himself and doping the wind.

Moral of the story: figure out what the minimum performance you need out of your equipment is and convince yourself that it can do that. If you are worried about it, then upgrade or test till you are satisfied as jbell says that it can shoot as good or better than you ... then go out and spend time tuning the loose wing-nut at the end of the butt plate.

So what did I do for LR .22? I grabbed my Sako Finfire Range out of mothballs and tested a bunch of ammo off a bench at various distances. I found that ammo that shot well at 100 did not necessarily shoot well at 200 yards. Along the way I found that it likes Eley. Eley Tenex holds 1/2" of elevation at 200 yards, Eley Match holds 1" elevation and Eley Edge holds 1.25" ... I even chronographed them. (BTW Eley Tenex had a 3 fps ES ... impressive).

So FOR ME, I believe that Eley edge @ $10/box will work just fine as the targets at 200 and beyond tend to be in the 2 MOA (4") range and doping the wind is harder than holding 1" of elevation.

That being said when I miss I sometimes hear this little voice in the back of my head that says ... "You know if you had used Tenex or purchased a Voodoo that wouldn't have happened ... "
 
Last edited:
#40
I must be the poorest person in here, because I cant fathom putting a nightforce scope on any 22 rimfire?

Someone said put the same thing as whats on your centerfire! OMG lol,....wtf. A Schmidt and Bender Pmii on my .22 LOL
If you have it, use it. By the way the NXS is performing, I will soon have to go through the terrible decision to sell mine because they are no longer up to what I want from them. Sad.