Rimfire Scope choice.

4xforfun

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
1,538
Location
Walhalla, ND
Well, I just got home from buying a new Stainless Savage 93 in 17 HMR. They had a package deal with scope for $379.00. Well I spent about 6 seconds with the gun and couldn't get that GINORMAS *** Barska off fast enough. I looked at the scope box when I put it back..$44.99. I guess the "you get what you pay for in optics" still rings true!! lightbulb I feel bad taking it back..some (other) poor schlep is going to end up with this junk!! Maybe I'll just toss it!!

Anyway, I decided I am going to spend some more $$, and decided that I want an AO. I have narrowed down my choices to the cheapest AO scopes from several mfrs. Here are my choices:

Nikon Prostaff 5 2.5-10 x40. $229.00
Vortex Dimondback HP1 2-8 x 32 $249.00
Cabellas Outfitter 1" 3-10 x ?? $149.00 Not 100% sure this an AO model
Leupold VX2 CDS 3-9 x 40 $349.00

These are at Cabellas and I have a couple hubdred bucks built up on my card.

Which would you pick, or another choice maybe.

Thanks,
Tod
 
First off, what distance you plan on shooting the hmr? IS it going to be used for targets, hunting , or both? I agree with you 100% that whatever route you choose, an AO is a must, or at least it would be for me. In budget scopes for the rimfires alot of folks at RFC like the Mueller's. You might want to look at those. For me, of those you have listed it would be the Nikon or Vortex,

Good luck on your choice.

Kevin
 
Did you try the Barska or just throwing it under the bus because its a Barska? Just curious?
Being a 17HMR I wouldn't spend more then 250.00 on glass but that's just me. I've been running a cheap BSA 4-12x40 for over 5 years on mine.
Budget I have today, I'd go with a Nikon, Vortex or Bushnell MOA, MIL or BDC Scope.
 
Kevin,

As far as distance, it may get shot at 5 yards or 200 plus. I love stretching things out!! So, IMO, an AO scope is a must!

ZEN,

Yep, the scope was on the gun. Last night I was in my shop and I decided to try and shoot some sighters at 20 yards and then back up to the wall (45 yards) to test some different ammo. There was NOTHING I could do to be able to even see the 1/2 inch black dot on white paper. All I saw was a fuzzy black fuzz ball. When I moved my head around to check the paralex the image would distort so bad I litteraly laughed out loud!! I knew a non AO scope would have paralex at 20 yards, but the image quality was beyond belief!! I checked the image at 45 yards and it was the same.

I realize that I live a life of Nightforce and Leupold's, but I do have one very low end scope on an old 22...3/4 inch tube 4x, and I have ZERO complaints about that scope at all. This one...WOW!!!
 
Nikon's PROSTAFF 5 2.5-10 would be a great choice. I use a
PROSTAFF 4-12 BDc on my Alexander Arm's .17 HMR. Let's me zoom in for clear and accurate shot's. I also utilize the BDC reticle for shot's longer then 100 yards. Another nice option but slightly more $ is the
PROSTAFF 5 3.5-14 which can be had with a Mildot,Nikoplex or BDC reticle.

What ever you choose I hope you will post some pics and a range report.
 
I would get a little more power. But that's my preference. I have a 3.5-14 prostaff 5 on my 10/22 and couldn't be happier with it for the price.
 
Well, after being told one thing, and driving 110 miles only to find out something else I was a little on the warm side. BUT, it all worked out in the end...just spent about 75 bucks more than I wanted to spend. I had called ahead to make sure that they had the Nikon PS-5 in 2.5 - 8 and that it did indeed have the AO (he said it did). I find out when I get to the store that the AO was only available in the 3.5-14 and up models. Oh well, I was already there, so I pulled the trigger (pun intended) on the 3.5-14 BDC. I also picked up some more test ammo, and now had 6 different types to try. Distance is 45 yards.

Thanks for the help,
Tod

Here is a couple of pics:
 

Attachments

  • 20160320_144906.jpg
    20160320_144906.jpg
    153.5 KB · Views: 62
  • 20160320_144937.jpg
    20160320_144937.jpg
    156.7 KB · Views: 90
  • 20160320_145638.jpg
    20160320_145638.jpg
    95.3 KB · Views: 76
Warning! This thread is more than 9 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