Who's tried the Cabelas Tactical Scopes

threejones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
597
Location
NW Montana
I've decided that my 17hmr needs a little more magnification, but since it's just a plinker, I don't want to through down a whole bunch of $$$ on it. I've been eyeing the Cabelas tactical 17 in a 6x18. The thing is... even though I'm cheap, I have a hard time buying cheap glass (even my 22s are wearing Nikon Monarchs) The 17 is just a truck gun, so it doesn't really need anything special.

If anyone has actually tried one of these things, or knows who makes them, (or where), or any thing about them at all. I'd love some input.

Thanx
Cody
 
IF you're down with fixed power, my Savage .17hmr has a SWFA Super Sniper 6x42. ITs perfect; hits crows out to 200 yards no problem. I've never tried anything past that, but 6x is all you need.

I dont think that more magnification is neccessarily better, especially with rimfires. Even if you wanted to S-T-R-E-T-C-H your .17 out to 400 yards target shooting, 6x is more than enough. The scope runs about $300 with a lifetime warranty. It has a mil-dot reticle, but MOA turrets :rolleyes:. A bunch of guys on snipers hide have them for sale (part of a group buy deal linked with the 10x). For some more jing, you could get the very popular 10x42...

Consider this: Russian Snipers in WWII used fixed 3.5x and 4x scopes to down enemies up to 1,000 meter away! You really don't need an 18x scope on a rimfire...
 
I can't speak for tactical cabalas scope. But I picked up a 17hrm calibrated cabelas scope for a savage 17. It works great for its intended purpose. Its plenty clear enough and holds zero the yard adj is dead on. (Ask the local feral cat population). It was on sale right after xmas last year and I picked it up for 39.95! And I won the gun at a DU banquet! Between the scope and gun I have more $ in ammo. Oh and it gets bounced around on my Kubota rtv driving around the farm.

Gene
 
IF you're down with fixed power, my Savage .17hmr has a SWFA Super Sniper 6x42. ITs perfect; hits crows out to 200 yards no problem. I've never tried anything past that, but 6x is all you need.

I dont think that more magnification is neccessarily better, especially with rimfires. Even if you wanted to S-T-R-E-T-C-H your .17 out to 400 yards target shooting, 6x is more than enough. The scope runs about $300 with a lifetime warranty. It has a mil-dot reticle, but MOA turrets :rolleyes:. A bunch of guys on snipers hide have them for sale (part of a group buy deal linked with the 10x). For some more jing, you could get the very popular 10x42...

Consider this: Russian Snipers in WWII used fixed 3.5x and 4x scopes to down enemies up to 1,000 meter away! You really don't need an 18x scope on a rimfire...
I made the desidion to upgrade my scope power after putting a Monarch 6x18x50 on it for a while while my 22-250 was at the gunsmith. The extra magnification, made for MUCH smaller groups @200. I can mark hits on a gong with the 3x9 all day, but the reticle/power combo doesn't do much to keep groups tight. I thought about just getting another Monarch, but I'm trying to get out of this one on the cheap.

I've got some bad reviews so far on the Cabelas scopes, so they're out. I'm thinking the Mueller eradicator might be the next cheapest glass that will hold up, or maybe I'll just wait to summer when I've got some extra cash and go the Nikon/Leopy route...
 
Ya know, I remember seeing a Nikon Buckmasters 6-18x40mm somewhere... I think nextag.com. Run a google search; you can usually find SOMEONE selling them for cheap. Certian websites will price match, and SOME SITES PRICE MATCH 110%. I like doing business with THOSE websites. Good luck in your search.

-Mega
 
You could try the Burris Timberline 4.4-14 with the ballistic plex reticle for around $200. It's an extremely small scope and takes abuse well. It's parallax adjustment goes down to 10 yards and the ballistic plex reticle easily goes with the 17 HMR trajectory out to 300 yards. When I buy another 17 HMR it will be wearing a Timberline.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top