17HMR Scope?

[fat cat]

Thinking about up grade for my Ruger 77/17HMR , Leupold 3x9x33EFR or the VX-2 4x12AO which one would you guys go with?

[218bee]

I have both, but the VX-II not VX-2. I don't think you could go wrong with either one. The 3-9 might be a little harder to get the proper eye relief because it is shorter and the eye relief is shorter. If you want to shoot closer than 25 yards then the 3-9 would be the ticket, since it will focus closer.

[Chickenthief]

Lets face it the 17HMR is for small stuff and with a 4x scope small things get pretty hard to see at 150yds.

So i'd go for the 3-9x scope.
But thats just me and my old crappy eyes;-)

[ken158]

Go with the most power you can get - the 17 HMR is a good cartridge and you need to be able to see well to take advantage of the accuracy. I grabbed a Nikon 6-18 SF dot on sale at Midway I believe and like the power option and dot reticle for pinpoint shooting.

[Ackman]

The HMR has no muzzle rise so you can zoom in and not worry about losing the view. You'll be using it on small targets so put some glass on that gun. My 22Mags originally had 4-12's until switching to 4-16's.....I won't be going back to less power. Get something that goes to at least 16X and you won't regret it.

[SS427]

Between those two I would take the higher power. I have the same rifle...mine is the laminate grey target model...and I use a 4.5-14x scope on it. With the range of the 17 HMR, I've never found a need for more power, although going up to 16x wouldn't hurt. I put a 5-20x on it one time and took it off as I never dialed it up close to max magnification.

[steve b.]

I use either a 4-14 or a 6-20. I just worked with a NXS 5-22 and it was about perfect in terms of power range. Better glass, more power = more accurate reach.

When I shoot critters, I tend to aim for a spot on the animal rather than just the center or the head. At 100 yards, you won't see a particular spot on the animal without enough glass or without quality glass. As goofy as it sounds, the phrase; "Aim small, miss small" is very true.

I find that when the squirrels are feeding in fields which are light brown like their fur, you'll never see them unless they move without good glass. I'm amazed how some fields will look empty, but when you look into it through your scope, you will see squirrels sitting motionless, staring right back at you. The adults are not dumb, and they know that running about will bring unwanted attention.

Some say that binoculars are used for spotting, but on any squirrel hunt, you will lose half of the squirrels you see with a pair of binos as you switch back to your rifle for the shot. Either you can't find them or they have moved during the transition.

I do a lot of hunting in alfalfa fields, and squirrels can vanish and appear again like ghosts. Prairie dogs are a bit easier in that they stick out more in their terrain, but I find that ground squirrels need high-quality glass.

If you are hunting California ground squirrels, and looking for them in piles of wood, fallen trees, or mounds of junk and concrete which seem to be on every farm that I hunt on, you'll never see them past 100 yards without good glass. You won't be able to pick them out.

s

[glennlasher]

I guess I'm a bit different. I don't use my HMRs at the range much, I pretty much just use them shooting at furry little rodents or feathery vermin.
I use one of the Burris 3-9 Fullfield IIs with the Ballistic Plex reticle, which just happens to coincide with the 17VM's trajectory almost exactly out to 250 yards, which is just about 75 yards past it's primetime killing range. (it's within 1"+/- out to 250, with the original lots of ammo).

I REALLY like that combination, and when prairie doggin' in that clean SD air, there's no downside to the "lack of scope power". It's just plenty for my needs.
I will concede that when it was new, I had a lot more scope on it, just to find out how well (or not) it would shoot, but I quickly switched when I found it would shoot better than a lot of centerfires, within it's limitations.

[fat cat]

Thanks guys! I'll be going down to the gun shop this week.

[Old Hawkeye]

Find it odd that no one making recommendations on what scope to put on a rimfire has mentioned parallax. All the scopes mentioned are either parallax factory set at 150 yards or have AOs that will only go down to 50 yards. Most of these scopes will be so out of focus at ranges under 50 yards that you will be lucky to discern your target. If all you care about is shooting over 100 yards then they will suffice. If, however, you want to shoot targets or varmints at closer ranges, when they present themselves, it would behove you to get a scope with a parallax setting (50 to 60 yards) for rimfire ranges or one with an AO that will go down to 10 to 25 yards or you will be at quite a disadvantage at closer ranges. A rimfire scope with a 60 yard parallax setting will work fine at 10 yards & 150 yards, but a scope with a 150 yard parallax setting will be a total blur at yardages much under 50 yards at it's higher magnifications. The 3-9x or 6-18x Leupold EFR (extended focus range)AO or similar rimfire type scope of another brand would better serve a 17 HMR than a true centerfire scope. Parallax & focus are a much more critical issues at close range & should be considered when shooting a rimfire. I'd go with the Leupy EFR. I've got one on my 22 WMR & couldn't be happier. Just my two cents.