Author Topic: Scope for a .17 HMR  (Read 1300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Scope for a .17 HMR
« on: January 23, 2005, 03:24:41 AM »
Specifically for a Savage 93R17BVSS.  Target shooting and small varmits mostly during the day but possibly some varmit shooting after dark...
 
I've always been a Leupold guy, but having Greybeard preach Bushnell elite 4200, I'm thinking the 4-16 X 44 might be a very good choice and the optic zone has them listed for $329......
 
The Weaver Grand Slam is another one I'm considering in 4 X 16
 
The Muller 4 X 16 comes in at $199 and I must admit it has caught my eye......but it's the Chinese manufacturing thing that I really don't like.
 
As a general rule, I usually use the price of the gun to determine the price of the optic, and the 4200 would be a tad bit more.........
 
I'd like to give the 4200 a try as I could use several more quality scopes to replace some trashco's that are currently installed on some of my rifles.
 
How about a sanity check......Comments appreciated......
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26942
  • Gender: Male
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2005, 06:05:59 AM »
I think the 16X upper end is a bit more than really needed for the reach of the little rimfire .17. I had a Bushnell 4-12 on my Ruger 77-17 but it proved much less accurate than desired so I move it on down the road. May put same scope on my Savage identical to yours or may go with less power still. I have an old Leupold Compact 3-9AO extended focus range scope here I've used on many rimfires over the years and it may go on it or I might use the Bushnell.

Night time use is not in the cards for me tho so the lesser quality of the old Leupold won't be a concern for me and it is just sitting here unused at this time.

If the Elite 4200 2.5-10 had an AO feature I'd call it absolutely perfect for this use. If they would set the parallax for you at 100 yards it still might be. You just really don't need more power than that. Mueller has a scope in same power range and I believe it has an AO. Leupold used to offer their 3.5-10 with AO but stopped. I really prefer an AO when scopes go over 9x at upper end and won't use one over 10X without it.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline DWARREN123

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2005, 06:34:40 AM »
I believe the 4-16 is a 40AO not 44. With that said I like it. I have 3 17 rimfires, 2 HMR's and 1 Mach2, one of the HMR's and the Mach2 carry 5-15X40 AO Bushnell Legends and one of the 17 HMR's carries a Simmons 6.5-20X44AO. I find these scopes are fine for small game and target shooting.
Just my opinion. :D

Don Warren

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2005, 06:57:12 AM »
Looks like Jon has the 2.5 X 10 and the 4 X 16 priced the same......My thinking is that if the .17 HMR isn't what I'm looking for and needs to find a new home then the 4 X 16 would be a good fit for a center fire varmit rifle in .17 Remington, medium to large .22 caliber, or .25/06.........
 
I've got a few Tasco's that I'm going to replace, and could put one of them on to move the rifle if the need should arise.
 
With the high marks given to the Elite 4200 series, and being American made as well, plus 30% or so cheaper than a Vari-X III, I have to try one.......
 
An aquaintance assures me the .17 hummer will drop a yote at 200 yards with the 20 grain CCI......I'm not so sure myself that it is capable of doing this under less than perfect conditions.  However, with the City encroaching into the country side, and the low report coupled with the lowered chance of ricochet the time has come for me to give the hummer a try..........While I'm trying it, I might as well try one of Greybeards beloved Elite 4200's.........
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline reyn 61

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2005, 08:32:55 PM »
I have a Bushnell 4200 4-16-40 on my HM2. Its a great scope. I have a scopechief 6-20-40 on my HMR. You wont be dissapointed with a 4200.

Offline Mauser

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 253
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2005, 11:07:31 PM »
I recently put a Burris Fullfield II 3x9 on my 17 HMR (also a Savage 93) and I think it is just a great scope for the money.  The optics seemed just as clear and bright as the Leupold VXII and it seems to have more "high end" features.  The Burris was clearly superior to the VXI.  It costs around $100 less than the VXII.  Being a Leupold guy for years I was surprised by this.  I just ordered another one for my muzzleloader from the Optic Zone.

I think the Optic Zone will sell you one for $189.00 plus shipping.

Offline Zachary

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3713
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2005, 04:24:29 AM »
The important thing to remember is just make sure that whatever scope you buy has a parallax that starts at 50 yards or maybe even less.  That way you can shoot at 50 yard targets because most scopes are 100 yard parallax scopes.  AO scopes usually allow you the ability to parallax as close as 10 yards.

Another point is that on the .17HMR, I don't mind using much higher magnification than I would normally use on big game hunting.  Why?  Well, most of my shooting with the 17HMR will be plinking at targets at about 100 yards, and those little holes are really small, so using a 12x or even 16x is fine with me because that way I can see the groups without needed to look through a spotting scope after each shot or so.

Now, if you will be using the gun for mostly small game hunting, like squirrels, etc., then you certainly don't need a 16x, but then again, with magnification ranges like 4x-16x, why not get such a scope that can do just about everything (although it might be kinda long and heavy for you.)?

Zachary

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2005, 01:19:46 PM »
Your thinking a lot like me Zachary.......I ordered a Bushnell 4200 elite in a 4 X 16 X 40 from Jon at the optic zone.....should be in later in the week.  I just hope it lives up to Greybeards hype.........I'm sure it will.......

I think the next one might be Burris......Black Diamond......Just so I can settle the Leupold, Bushnell, Burris argument at least in my own mind......

If I'm not mistaken Zachary, you currently own all of the above?  Now which one in a 3X9, 4X12 or 4X16 by say 40 to 44 mm do you think is the best?  Also, which one is the best value for the money?
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline Zachary

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3713
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2005, 03:55:45 PM »
Yes, I do own all three makes - Elite 4200, Burris Black Diamond, and Leupold Vari-X III (not the newer VX-III).

I can't list all the scopes I own because the post would be too long. :)   However, I can say, and I'm sure people that some people will disagree with me, but I think that the Elite 4200 4x-16x-40mm (I also own the 50mm version), is the best value and power ranged scope.  Why?  Well, everyone knows that I just love the Elite 4200s - they are excellent and also have rainguard - which really works.  Then, as for the 4x-16x magnification range, it covers ALL of your basis.  Think about it - 4x is great for close quarters on big game, like elk from even 50 yards away, and 16x is great for either those really long shots at big game (if you are a proven long range ethical shooter) or at any distance at smaller game and even varmints, or heck, even target shooting.

Now, as for the objective bells, I think that the 40mm is really all you need and is probably the best value.  However, I personally like 50mm objectives.  Why?  Well, people will tell you that they are huge, add weight, and really aren't helpful unless you are hunting in really low light conditions.  Well, that's true, but there are other reasons why I like them.  For one, with the greater objective size, the light that is being transmitted is also greater - like from say, 4mm to 6mm.  What's the big deal?  Well, the more mm, the easier it is to not worry about eye alignment - especially at higher powers.  Still, others will say, and they are correct, that with 50, or even 44mm objectives, you need higher rings and have to raise your line of sight.  Yes, that's true, but to me that's more of a personal preference because that doesn't bother me, at least for my type of hunting.

If I had to hunt elk in the timber, then a 2x-7x-36mm would be plenty, but that's not what I hunt.  I hunt mostly in a tower blind so I don't mind if my gun is 7 feet long and weighs as much as a boat. :)

So, what is the best value?  It really all depends, but I do like the Elite 4200 4x-16x-40mm in that department.  But I don't mind paying the extra money to get the 50mm version.  So what do I do?  I bought both.  In fact,  I think I own 2 or 3 in the 40mm version and 1 in the 50mm version.  One thing is for sure - I bought all of them from the optic zone.

As for the Burris Black Diamond - I don't like them.  Yes, they are good, and I own the 4x-16x-50mm with 30mm tube, and the 3x-12x-50mm but the optics on the Elite 4200 are better.

Now, if you want to ask me what is the best value of the 3x-9x-40mm range, then I would have to say the Nikon Monarch.  I own SEVERAL of them, and even the 50mm versions as well (although they are 3.5x-10x, but that's close enough).  The Monarch 3x-9x-40mm is just as good as the Elite 4200 2.5x-10x-40mm, but the Monarch is significantly less expensive.

In the under $200 category, the best value is probably the Elite 3200 3x-9x-40mm and Nikon Buckmaster 3x-9x040mm.

Zachary

Offline poncaguy

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2751
  • Gender: Male
17 hmr scope
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2005, 05:19:11 AM »
I have a Nikon 4X Prostaff on my 17 HMR Savage, all the power I need for most of my shooting, 100 yards or less. Small and lite scope , just right for my Savage 93 R17 F. :P

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2005, 02:53:11 PM »
I got the Bushnell elite 4200 4 X 16 X 40Yesterday via UPS from Jon at the optic zone.   Great job of packaging!  

I got the scope mounted tonight.  I'm very impressed with the fit and finish of the 4200.  The AO is very smooth, the zoom is equally as smooth and It's down right a handsome looking scope.

I've gotten home late the last 2 nights and haven't had a chance to view the optics outdoors yet.

A winter weather watch is in effect high expected at 37 degrees tommorrow, but I'm hoping to get to the range anyway.........

I can tell it is a very well made piece of equipment........

More on this tomorrow hopefully!
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline quickdtoo

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (149)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43301
  • Gender: Male
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2005, 03:13:10 PM »
Quote from: victorcharlie
Mueller:  How much would the price of your product increase if it were assembled in the USA?
 
How much margin is in your product?
 
When it is at least assembled in the USA I'll think about giving it a serious look.  Until then......I'm looking closer to home.........
 
convince me that I'm thinking incorrectly and I'll buy one tommorrow......


And the Japan built Bushnell is closer to home? :P
"Always do right, this will gratify some and astonish the rest" -  Mark Twain

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
Scope for a .17 HMR
« Reply #12 on: January 29, 2005, 04:33:32 AM »
I was trying to let this die....Forgive me Greybeard......but sense you asked.........I worked 18 months in China some 10 years ago or so.  I was subcontracted to the China National petroleum company and maintained equipment at different locations around China.  I worked 9 weeks on and 3 weeks off.  The company I worked for produced nothing in China and was one of the few that actually brought dollars back into the United States.  I lived with the Chinese people and have nothing against them.  I speak some Chinese, but not using the language have lost most of it.  They were great, very polite, and treated me great.  At the time, I had spent 30% of my adult life in asia, not just China.......Trust me, there is a huge difference between China and Japan.  
 
First, the chinese for the most part, are not motivated by money as government run companies pay everyone the same and most of the people are told where they will live and work.  Because of this, there is no concern about the quality of work produced.   Joint venture companies are a little better, but 60 years of work ethics are not changed over night.  Every overseas company that does business in China is a joint venture, not a wholly owned company.
 
Second, foreign companies are taxed at a very high rate, and that tax money goes to finance their militay, as the defense budget in china gets the lions share of the budget.  I choose not to fiance the Chinese military or the new Chinese space program.
 
Third, the Chinese currency called the  Rem &B by most expatriates, is not allowed to float against the world currency market, and is fixed in value giving the Chinese an unfair competive advantage.
 
Forth, It's a communist government that would like to see communism spread around the world.  They have recently signed agreements with Cuba undermining american interest 90 miles offshore of the coast of florida.  They are currently operating the Panama Canal.
 
Human rights issues in china are another concern and people are jailed because they said something the government didn't like.  I worked with 10 techs at each site, and each would speak freely with me one on one but all were afraid to have a collective discussion.  Having a short wave radio, a tech would come in a listen but if someone else came in the room they would both leave.   They were scared to death the party would find out.
 
Japan, on the other hand, produces the only American made trucks.  Toyota,  manufactures trucks in Decatur Alabama, and builds engines in Winchester Tennessee.  nissan Assembles trucks in smyrna Tennessee and has several plants producing parts around the region.  These Japanese companies employ a lot of people in Tennessee and Alabama.  Yes, there are profits going to these companies, but they bring good wages to locals.  
 
Does Japan trade fairly?  More so than most.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that while the consumer benefits by low prices for goods produced in China, it comes at the expense of American labor and those dollars that are going back to China are financing counter American interest around the world.

I realize that things have changed some over the last several years, but it's still a Communist country.  Hopefully, someone will let us know how the business and polical climate has changed over the years.

Sorry Greybeard.......delete this post if you must........These are observations from someone who has genuine knowledge of China......
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater