Scope for 17 HMR

[OVERLOADDED]

Grandson wanted a 17HMR so I ordered 2 one for each of us! They came as a combo, Savage 93R17 FNSXP, with Bushnell 3x9x40! He was pleased, I plan to replace the 3x9 with a 4x16x40 Bushnell that has a lighted reticle, purchased here from The classified, it is an AO also.
Is this too much scope for the 17 HMR?
Overloaddec

 

[Big Old Boy]

If you want to see what your shooting at not to much at all. I have a 4x 16 on a 22.

 

[OVERLOADDED]

Thank you!
Overloadded

 

[kmoore]

I am guessing the scope the rifles came with said rimfire. Main different when 1 says rimfire scope vs center fire rifle. Parallax for rimfire is zeroed at 50 yd, center fire rifle scopes at 150yd. That's most scopes with a fixed parallax, there maybe some that are different. What's that mean to you. If you want a clear crisp image with a rifle scope at say 25 yds. It might not happen. Lower the power you go the less parallax is noted. Many do not care or know about that. Just pointing it out.
Just read the AO on the big scope, that helps a lot. It might show 50yds min.

 

[OVERLOADDED]

AO 15-300 infinite??. Never even gave a thought about paralax. Thanks for that thought!! Overloadded

 

[Mobuck]

I'm not a fan of 'over scoping' but everyone has their own ideas.
A 150 yard rifle certainly doesn't 'need' 16X to be useful but I suppose if one is trying to hit prairie dog heads at max range or literally knock a fly off the target paper @ 100 yards, there's some need. If it's a range only shooter, maybe no big deal but a huge, heavy scope on a hunting rifle upsets the balance and becomes unwieldy.
Illuminated reticle? Do you plan to shoot pests in the dark? If not, just another something to add unnecessary weight and 'widgetry' to the scope.
Parallax? I'd suggest using a center fire type scope vs a rimfire design. Parallax is only a factor if you fail to center your eye in the objective lens. I'm sure there may be some parallax deviation induced by the variety of odd positions used while hunting but I've never pegged a miss on parallax throwing my POI off.

 

[jgt]

I put at least a 3X9 on my rimfires. I would not hesitate to put more power if I had one available. It is nice to see what is happening. I don't have a lot of centerfire bolt guns, only a couple. I put good scopes on them. When I move up in power or quality, I recycle the scopes to rimfires. I live where I can shoot a lot of small game so it makes for a nice experience. One instance is cleaning turtles out of stock tanks. On the bank they are no problem, but in the water it is headshots only. My eyes ain't what they once were.

 

[contender]

One thing I've found in trying to get the most out of my rimfires,, is to get the finest crosshair or smallest dot available. That way,, at distance,, the crosshair doesn't cover up the tiny spot I want to hit. And I like 1/8" adjustments vs. the 1/4" ones.

 

[mike7mm08]

Run a 5x15 on a target version of the same savage. Works just fine for a bench gun or with any type of solid field rest. Now on my Ruger american 17 I run a 2x7. Really can't do much with more than five power offhand.

 

[Rumrunner]

My American 17 has a 3x9 Tract scope and my Volquartsen has a Weaver 2x10. I just don't do well with much more power, with 12x being the highest I have on any rifle.

The guys I go prairie doggin with all have at least 16 power on their 17's and are very happy with them.

That Bushnell 4x16 should be fine on your Savage. Two of my hunting friends have the model 93's in 17HMR and love them. They are usually quite accurate.

 

[Uncle Howie]

I echo Mobuck’s thoughts on not over-scoping, and Contender’s thoughts on fine crosshairs. Nothing wrong with a 4-16X on a .17HMR though, if you like it.

I do have a 4-16X x 40mm AO scope on my .17HMR (also a Savage 93). It’s probably overkill, but it stays at 4X unless I need to “zoom in” on something.

The first time I used it the field was hunting grey squirrels. Fooling around, I zoomed W-A-Y in on a squirrel’s head. I don’t know what power I stopped at, but his head filled the entire field of view! :P I stopped laughing just long enough for a gentle squeeze, putting the first squirrel of the day in the bag… 8)

Since then, I haven’t bought any variable with a higher power than 9X, and a couple more with 7X at the top end. I have a Ruger M77 Hawkeye in .30-06, and a 77/22 in .22LR, both with very similar 2-7X Leupold scopes (centerfire & rimfire, respectively). They make a wonderful pair of rifles, a deer rifle and an “understudy” for small game.

The 4-16X scope is destined for a .223, for prairie dog duty. Nothing wrong with it on the .17HMR, but it’s more than I “need.” I’m going to replace it with a (cheaper) 3-9X rimfire scope on the .17HMR.

 

[JackpineWillie]

I would keep the scope as close to the bore as possible. I once had a friend bring me a .17 Mach II to sight in. He brought a cheap scope and a set of "see through" mounts that would have multiplied parallax issues. Talked him into taking one of my cheap scopes with some low mounts. That thing would shoot tiny little clover leaves out past 75 yards , but had it been sighted in at fifty yards using the see through mounts, ten yard head shots on squirrels would not be happening.

 

[OVERLOADDED]

Correction! My Savage 93R came with a 3x9 Weaver, duel crosshair. So for now it will stay as bore sited. Most are advertised as combos with Bushnell scopes, a few just read "scope".
Overloadded