Was I Misled?

I

insurgus

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
On the rifle side, I was sold a .17HMR and figured out pretty fast that the stock was touching the barrel right at the end. Had to do a bunch of work sanding it down so it would float free. Groupings have since returned to normal @100yrd.

I bought a redfield scope, 4-12x40 and all was well. Really liked the magnification as this is just a paper puncher at 200 yards. The guys at the store recommended it and said it would shoot great, however it turned out to be damaged.

Soooo they took it back, gave me a credit and then suggested some leupold glass. What I was sold is a Mark AR 4-12x40 mil dot.

The top turret says ".223/5.56mm 55gr 1 Click = 1/2 MOA"

Question I have here is, does it MATTER that it's designed for an AR? I understand it's a bit overkill glass for the 17. They were really suggesting this because it had both adjustable turrets and parallax adjustment.

The runner up was a VX-II 3-9x40mm with a wide duplex reticle at $200 cheaper. I ultimately made the choice based on the guy there saying the adjustable turrets and parallax adjustment were excellent features.

It really is a nice piece of glass. I'm just curious if I got my pants pulled down on this, or if it was a sound recommendation. I'm a bit skeptical after being sold a busted scope, and a dodgy gun that required work.
 
Last edited:
There is no doubt you have a fine scope but personally I would save a scope like that for a high end precision centerfire. You are only reaching out to 200 yds so all of the features just are not needed. The 17 while accurate is not a precision round requiring that type of glass.

Your first choice was a good one. Too bad the scope was damaged. IMHO a 3X9 X40 bushnell 3200 series or similar would be the perfect choice.
 
insurgus said:
The top turret says ".223/5.56mm 55gr 1 Click = 1/2 MOA"

Question I have here is, does it MATTER that it's designed for an AR?
Click to expand...

Designed for an AR does not matter.

But, what I don't like about using this scope is that the adjustments are 1/2" MOA instead of the usual 1/4" MOA.

The Mil-Dot is calibrated for the trajectory of the .223/5.56mm 55gr cartridge and probably won't match the trajectory of the .17HMR. If you don't use the Mil-Dot, then no big deal.

~~~

The forearm touching the barrel is common on many .17HMR rifles.

Bad scopes happen, I wouldn't blame the retailer, it sounds as though they gave you store credit without a hassle.

Not knowing what info was passed between you and the seller, I'm not willing to say that you were lied to.
 
Thanks for the reply’s so far. I actually went in to get a 2.5” sunshade put on the thing and we noticed the damage. They were really good about giving a credit, and we looked at about 4 options for scopes. I was really gunning for the VX-II 3-9x40mm but the guy I was talking to there was saying the AR style scope was better value having MOA turrets and parallax adjustment.

Just thought I’d run it past guys here. It’s not so much about the $200 as it was a concern that this scope and its features were not even remotely a close fit for the gun. If it’s just a case of it being a little overkill for the rifle, I won’t kick up any dirt over the money spent. However if it was just an over buy because the guys misrepresented the features of the scope being more beneficial to this rifle, I may box it and try to swap it for a VX-II.

Hope that makes sense.
 
I do like the parallax adjustment, especially on the smaller targets at longer distances.

Personally, I would shop for a scope that has the feature.
 
I think you were misled, but I can't tell whether the seller misled you wilfully or they sincerely but wrongly believed the advice they gave you was all good. And you may have contributed somewhat to misleading yourself. The second scope you bought has features specific to a gun and cartridge you don't have and those features are a component of the price you paid. They probably don't negatively affect the scope's performance on your .17HMR, but I think some of your money is probably going to waste in that scope.
 
and the Tooner, pretty much nailed it. You did not however get a bad scope and it will serve you very well on that rifle. The $200 was not wasted as you will likely be able to recover it on resale when the time comes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom