I have a just purchased a mint Remington BDL .17 REM and a Sako Quad - with only the .17HMR barrel.

I have certain scopes in mind. However, despite their qualities, the Leupold scopes, espec VXIII, are beyond my budget. When last looked @ the Leupold range, the max magnification in the VX III series was 4.5-14 x40 - that may have changed now.

Does anyone have experience with the premium Cabela Guide etc scopes?

Probably looking at Bushnell Elite 3200 and 4200 series for both rifles, perhaps Sigthron IIs.

What different magnifications do you suggest for each of the rifles.

Thanks.

quote:

What different magnifications do you suggest for each of the rifles.

What will you use them for?

The .17 Rem. could be used for tiny varmints like "gophers" at several hundred yards, which would make a scope of very high magnification a good choice. Or, you could intend for it to be a walking varminter, subject to jumpshooting a fleet-footed varmint, in which case something with a bottom end of 2 or 3X would be more appropriate.

The same can be said to some degree of the .17 HMR. Typically, targets within the ~150 yard range of the HMR wouldn't require more than about 9X, so a compact 3-9 scope might be the ticket.

There's no one scope that's right for a given gun -- there are scopes that are right for a given gun's use. So tell us a little more about what you intend to do with your guns and folks can make a little more informed comment.

Robert Cudlipp: On your 17 HMR Rifle I heartily recommend "lots" of scope power!
I have had a Weaver straight 15 power scope on my 17 HMR Rifle in the past but it now wears a Weaver 4 to 16 power variable. I have shot my friends 17 HMR's that have had every scope range on them from 1.5x5 Leupolds to 8.5x25 Leupolds. Several I have shot in the field used Zeiss variables of higher powers (3x9 and up)! My good friend Dan just mounted a 6x18 Leupold on his 17 HMR Rifle! Good choice this I believe.
I definitely think the 17 HMR earns a variable scope with 12 power at the top end being minimum!
Best of luck with that choice!
Now to the 17 Remington - as we have corresponded about in the past I have a 3x9 Zeiss variable on one of my 17 Remingtons. A 4x12 Leupold variable on another and my heavy barrel 17 Remington uses a Leupold 6.5x20 variable!
Again a varibale is my recommendation and a 4x12 is about minimum in my opinion here as well.
Best of luck in your search and with your choice - I hope you get a good buy on your scopes!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Thanks for the feedback.

Generally, it appears that most would favour a variable scope with + 12 magnification.
The only problem is that these high magnification scopes, certainly Leupolds are very price with high magnification.

The prospect of a quality 3-9 x42, 4-12 x42 etc has some appeal. The Optic Zone are continuing their long running special on the 3-9 40 Conquest. I have one on my .22LR ,and they are a very classy scope. Lovely clear, pure light.

Also have a Sightron II 4 -12 x42.

Both would seem OK for what I intend shooting.

Do not intend rabbit head shots at 150 metres, if did , x9 would not give enough magnification.

May put a x12 or more powerful on the Remington .17 given its longer killing distance.

Any views?

Thanks.

Robert, bite the bullet. Buy a 4.5-14 scope and SHARE it between both of the rifles. It takes all of about 5 shots to zero a rifle after the scope has been moved, and even if it takes you longer, you end up with a decent scope on both rifles.

I have a Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24X40 with a target dot on my CZ .17 centerfire. It is outstanding for that cartridge as you can see the bullets hit close up since the recoil is negligible. I got it last year for around 379.99 shipped. Don't know what they are going for now, but I believe it is a better value than the Leupold VX-III. I have BandL or Bushnell Elites 3200 and 4200s on all my varmint rifles. They are outstanding for the money and track well too.

quote:

Originally posted by jb747:
Robert, bite the bullet. Buy a 4.5-14 scope and SHARE it between both of the rifles. It takes all of about 5 shots to zero a rifle after the scope has been moved, and even if it takes you longer, you end up with a decent scope on both rifles.

Now that's just about the dumbest and most dangerous suggestion I've ever heard of. What if someone's wife should read it? I can hear it now: "Fred! You don't need a scope for every rifle! You can just use one and move it around to the rifle you're wanting to shoot at the time. It says so right here. This smart fellow from Australia said so, so it must be true."

jb747, please delete your post before it causes trouble! Besides that, it's a lousy and impractical suggestion, wives not withstanding.

I've just got my self a 4.5-14x40 Mueller APV for my Marlin 917VS and am very happy with it the optics are excellent for the money these can be found on the internet and they will send to Australia I think the Elites would be excellent as well I'd go for that on the 17 Rem
I do not plan on chaging loads in my 17 HMR so repeatability on a scope is not a big concern once it is sighted in I don't touch it and given the limited amount of components here in Oz for 17's I don't think it will be an issue on your Remington FWIW the Mueller cost $180 (oz) landed on the door step it was cheaper than a NikkoStirling Nighteater and the optics are not far behind a VariX111 I compared it against

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Cudlipp:
I have a just purchased a mint Remington BDL .17 REM and a Sako Quad - with only the .17HMR barrel.

I have certain scopes in mind. However, despite their qualities, the Leupold scopes, espec VXIII, are beyond my budget. When last looked @ the Leupold range, the max magnification in the VX III series was 4.5-14 x40 - that may have changed now.

Does anyone have experience with the premium Cabela Guide etc scopes?

Probably looking at Bushnell Elite 3200 and 4200 series for both rifles, perhaps Sigthron IIs.

What different magnifications do you suggest for each of the rifles.

Thanks.

I am not familiar with Mueller scopes.

That said, I thought that they were top end scopes.

Was the price AU$180.00 or AU1,800.00?

$180 they are a BARGAIN the story is they use Japanese lenses German coatings and they are assembled in China they are very nice to look through the APV is there bottom end scope some of the there better scopes must be incredible
here is a link www.muelleroptics.com

Does anyone else know anything about these scopes?

At the price, they seem too good to believe.

Robert.....seems many of the posters on this thread must either hunt off a benchrest at their local range, or carry one around with them in the field. Hunting shots in the field, without a rest, are very hard to make, without a very steady rest. "Specially when using 12, 18, or 20 power scopes. I too have a .17 Remington. Mine's a classic. I also have a sporter-weight Anchutz 17 HMR. I went a different route when scoping these two rifles. I bided my time, and watched eBay, until I was able to bid on, and win two Denver Redfield 2x7 variables, with fine dot reticules. They cost pennies on the dollar compared to what two new Leupolds would cost. And for walk-about varmint hunting, no finer glass is needed, or desired. Grant.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree.
Whilst I am by no means a great shot, I would find it impossible, others would apparently not, free stand shooting and trying to keep a x12 mag on a rabbit @ 100 metres. Would really think would have a better chance with iron sights!
If I had the $ , despite John's very practical advice, would probably purchase a Meopstar 4-12 x40 ? and move between rifles. They are obviously a lovely scope.

However, I think I will opt for Bushnell 4 - 16 x 40 Multi X Matte for both rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Originally posted by jb747:
Robert, bite the bullet. Buy a 4.5-14 scope and SHARE it between both of the rifles. It takes all of about 5 shots to zero a rifle after the scope has been moved, and even if it takes you longer, you end up with a decent scope on both rifles.

Now that's just about the dumbest and most dangerous suggestion I've ever heard of. What if someone's wife should read it? I can hear it now: "Fred! You don't need a scope for every rifle! You can just use one and move it around to the rifle you're wanting to shoot at the time. It says so right here. This smart fellow from Australia said so, so it must be true."

jb747, please delete your post before it causes trouble! Besides that, it's a lousy and impractical suggestion, wives not withstanding.

Just got to find the right wife mate. Mine has bought more shooting gear than I have lately.

I don't think my suggestion is totally impractical. In fact I do it to a degree myself, as all of my rifles use Leupold QRW bases, and I move scopes around pretty regularly. But, in Robert's case, I don't think he's going to be shooting all of these rifles at once, so it makes living with one decent scope a bit more practical...until he gets to buy more of course.

Guys, John and I exchange emails on a regular basis.
He is well aware of the fact that, regrettably, my wife has a totally negative attitude to all shooting related matters.