What scope do you have on your .17s?

OldSwede said:

The really useful thread that runs through all of these reply posts is: Look through more than one before you buy. Keep these in mind:

1. You get what you pay for, generally.
2. Your eyes are different, and probably better, than mine.
3. $150 scopes are NOT equal to $600. scopes. They may be very close, but they are NOT equal.
4. What is important to me may not be to you. I like mult-coated optics, "click" adjustments and AO, for example. Maybe you couldn't care less.

There are many fine values to be had; make a list of features you like and do your homework. Check your local gunshops and try a few of them, side by side. Buy the very best you can afford. Mount it in Burris Signature Zee rings, so when you want to trade up, it won't be all scarred up. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Old Swede, you write a pretty good post and bring up some very good points! I think it might be worth noting that a .17 rim-fire being recoilless allows us to use lesser priced scopes with good results. There is NEVER anything wrong with quality but I think sometimes the Law of Diminishing Returns comes into play. The $600 scope might be required and absolutely necessary on a military sniper rifle or even for hunting dangerous game in inclimate climates but my guess is that for the relatively modest needs of a .17HMR shooter, one could do as well for a WHOLE lot less. I'm talking about making hits say out to 200 yards on small varmints. A $150 is NOT equal to a $600 scope as you said and I agree with you 100% but I seriously doubt that a $600 scope would give me (or anyone else) a 4x advantage over one of $150. Would it have an edge? Yes, it would. Would that edge make a difference in hits? Perhaps in some cases it possibly might? Enough to warrant a 4x difference in price? For some, I respect the fact that it would but for me, on a .17HMR (or any other rim-fire), I believe that if I couldn't make the hits with the $150, the scope is likely NOT my fault---the fault would lie elsewhere (namely that guy I look at in the mirror every morning)! Good post Swede! ---- Mike

Marlin 917VS
Rifle Basix Trigger
Swift Premier 677M 6-24x50
Burris Zee High Rings on Marlin bases

maytom said:

I also just ordered a new Leupold 6X18X40mm AO VariX-II yesterday. It should be here within a week, and I can't wait to get my gun to the range afterwards to try out my new combo. Lesson learned, get enough scope when shooting the .17!!!

Click to expand...

You picked a good one Maytom, and I agree with your advice on getting enough scope.
I just put one on a new Anschutz.

Mike Pearson said:

Old Swede, you write a pretty good post and bring up some very good points! I think it might be worth noting that a .17 rim-fire being recoilless allows us to use lesser priced scopes with good results. There is NEVER anything wrong with quality but I think sometimes the Law of Diminishing Returns comes into play. The $600 scope might be required and absolutely necessary on a military sniper rifle or even for hunting dangerous game in inclimate climates but my guess is that for the relatively modest needs of a .17HMR shooter, one could do as well for a WHOLE lot less. I'm talking about making hits say out to 200 yards on small varmints. A $150 is NOT equal to a $600 scope as you said and I agree with you 100% but I seriously doubt that a $600 scope would give me (or anyone else) a 4x advantage over one of $150. Would it have an edge? Yes, it would. Would that edge make a difference in hits? Perhaps in some cases it possibly might? Enough to warrant a 4x difference in price? For some, I respect the fact that it would but for me, on a .17HMR (or any other rim-fire), I believe that if I couldn't make the hits with the $150, the scope is likely NOT my fault---the fault would lie elsewhere (namely that guy I look at in the mirror every morning)! Good post Swede! ---- Mike

Click to expand...

The problem one has in comparing scopes is that no one ever counts the costs of misses, and failures to pick up a good shooting sight picture after having put the binoculars down. There is also a potential failure to spot other varmints a cheaper scope (while shooting the current varmint) that would be seen in a scope with better contrast, less flare etc. I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns, but to some extent that also depends on the accuracy of the rifle used. Obviously a $1200 scope on a cheap rifle is a waste, because even on a good day, the rifle can't get the accuracy the scope can see.

If we can allow that a box of .17HMR costs $8 that's .16 a shot. Doesn't sound like much. But if you were on a ranch like I was last week, where you may make literally 500+ shots a day, misses etc. can really add up. If you have a cheap scope that leads to missing 10%, failure to get a sight picture quickly enough for a shot, and contrast failures you are wasting approximately one box a day of ammo. That's $8 per day. If you only shoot once a week in summer that's $80 per year. Project that over the life of a scope, say 10 years, and it can be easily seen that you almost can't spend enough on a good scope. And of course many of us are much more addicted to the sport than that.

Based on my experience hunting with people that have inferior equipment, I really think the miss ratio is greater than 10%. And all the guys on this forum with cheap scopes that brag about the distance of their supposed shots are full of S*%&, because they tend to over estimate distances. These are the cheapskates that are far less likely to have laser range-finders to actually measure their shots.
BTW, I find it very difficult to do serious varmint hunting without a laser range-finder.

So spend what you think is appropriate, but I really think most of you underestimate the worth of a good scope.