If you want to shoot at a distance, you need good glass. Quality of glass is more important than high magnification. Getting both will set you back a bit, but getting not good enough is a complete waste of money and you'll be frustrated at your lack of success.
If you haven't already done so, download a few ballistic calculator apps and see what velocity you can expect for the weight of bullet you're using to see how much drop adjustment you'll need. When you are shopping for a scope, know how much vertical adjustment each one has. With zero MOA mounts and a scope that zeroes midway, you'll only have half that for compensation. You might need a 20 or 30 MOA mount. A 20 MOA mount with 70 MOA of vertical travel in the turrets will stretch it out a long way.
Whatever you decide between MOA or MIL, the turret adjustment and reticle should be the same. MOA reticle and 1/4"/100 yard turrets are close but still a mismatch. At 100 yards it's close enough, at 1,300 yards it's a dealbreaker and falls into the complete waste of money category. If you want to use the rifle for hunting, you have to have adjustable magnification so you still have a wide field of view when that buck breaks out 50 yards away. I just put a 6-24 on a rifle I'll never hunt with. I took it off a .308 I'd like to use hunting. Even at 6x, I lose a lot in field of view. I'll use a 3x9 for that.
As to whether it's a waste to spend a few bucks on such a "cheap" rifle, is it accurate? I've seen incredible accuracy from inexpensive rifles. We call those bargains, not cheap. I own two that are close to 1/2" at 100 yards that I bought for $625 combined. They aren't pretty (actually one is) but targets, deer and woodchucks aren't known for their aesthetic taste in firearms design.
If you reload, you might even find your 2" at 100 yards with random factory ammo gun shoots lights out with a load tailored to that rifle.
