17HMR and Leupold the varmint reticle

goggles_pizzano

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
California North
A question for the CGN brain trust. I'm setting up a 17HMR varmint vaporizer for my dad and we're having a debate over the optic. He's interested in the Leupold varmint hunter reticle but I'm less certain that 17HMR needs it. After all, by the time the HMR begins dropping significantly it's pretty much out of steam. Personally, I'd use a mil reticle and spin the knobs as required, but my dad doesn't want to mess with that. All advice, suggestions and opinions are appreciated.
 
Varmint reticles

If you check the Cabelas catalog, you will find several scopes that are suitable for the 17 HMR and some made specifically for the cartridge.

Personally, I bought a Cabelas "Pine Ridge" 3-9x40 scope made for the Marlin Leverolution .308 rifle when they had them on sale for half price. It has a cross hair, and two dots below the cross hair for aiming points. I also have two Tasco 3-9x40 scopes mounted on .22 rimfires, and they have 4 aiming points on them.

After a bit of experimenting and shooting with the 17 HMR, I found that with the scope set at 6 power, and the cross hair zeroed at 100 yards, the first dot placed bullets very close to the aiming point at 175 yards and the second dot was close at 250 yards. This is well within the size of a Coyote, Woodchuck or larger Varmint, and gives a more precise aiming point for longer range shooting.

I have to take your Dad's view on this one, because, for me, it is more trouble to turn up the scope adjustments and get precise yardages unless you have a laser rangefinder.

The other thing is that the Varmint type reticles are made for certain cartridges, and you can think "outside the box" on a lot of them. You can use scopes designed for big game cartridges with the rimfires. WHO SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE PRECISE YARDAGE DISTANCES BETWEEN DOTS? In this, I mean if you zero a rifle at say 100 yards, and your bullets after a bit of experimental firing happens to land at say 165 yards, 235 yards and maybe 270 yards, instead of the conventional 100, 125, 150, 175, 200 yard distances etc., then why not simply make up a small range scale and tape it to your scope?

It would be convenient if game animals were to stand at perfectly zeroed distances, but they do not. However, with having aiming points at distances that you know where the bullet will hit, then you have a much better chance of connecting with your target. The multiple aiming points give an instant choice of target distances without having to fiddle with scope adjustments, and also have another advantage. If you miss with the first shot, and can see the bullet strike, you can then get a very good idea of how much correction to put on a second shot.

While mil-dot reticles are good, they are an equal distance apart between the dots. The hunting type reticles are varying distances apart, and are more compatable with actual bullet trajectories.
.
 
My hunch is the same, not required. HMRs are such flat shooters that really, with a small amount of practice, even a standard duplex reticle would be fine. That said, I prefer mildot reticles on my varmint guns, but the same amount of practice is required to know your POI at different ranges.

I just sold my last HMR because I felt a little under-gunned for Ontario groundhogs (moved to .223 :) ) BUT, when I had them, I set the zero at 1" over @ 100 yards. Anything AT or just under 100, aim a little low, anything between 125-150, aim right at it. Rarely missed. :) I did look at the BSA sweet 17 because in theory, being able to dial-in you range that easily would be pretty neat. Bad reviews of the quality on that scope would scare anyone who has taken 3 minutes on Google though, so I took a pass.
 
Thanks for the responses. My inclination is to use the 50-150 point blank zero as suggested. But, if the old fella wants a howitzer sight who am I to argue. We'll just test and make the appropriate range card. I do love the testing; I'm nerdy that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom