Shooting a 17HMR at 100 yards at a 1" target dot. I`m wondering if I`m handicapping myself with a 7X maximum magnification scope. Could/should I expect better accuracy and precision by stepping up in magnification? Thanks .
- Thread starter Turkeytider
- Start date
I learned a while ago that shooting on 10x makes no difference to group size than 20x, at least for me as long as I can line up the reticle with something on the paper, especially if the dot covers your aiming point.
Higher magnification also magnifies the movement in your reticle, less magnification means less apparent movement.
Higher magnification also magnifies the movement in your reticle, less magnification means less apparent movement.
For myself it would handicap me. I like min. 20X. I check zero's on a friends 17's with 2X7 scopes. I tell every time you "you need better scopes". I have 20X SWFA SS on mine CZ 17HMR.
With more power you fine tune to a smaller spot, and should be able to shoot better.
With more power you fine tune to a smaller spot, and should be able to shoot better.
Every increase in scope power has improved my shooting for the reason HMRamateur mentions above. Higher magnificaction showed me how much things were wagging around. When I went from 16 to 36X I came straight home and posted "Whats up ...?" Turns out it was my pulse, which I am all in favor of everybody having.
Your mileage may vary, but likely magnification can be an aid in improving.
Your mileage may vary, but likely magnification can be an aid in improving.
Thanks guys, appreciate the input.
I prefer high mag but I think your biggest handicap is 17 hmr.
In what respect? Ammunition variability? The gun/scope will shoot sub-MOA at 100 yards (not every group! ) with a three shot group ( I know, 5 is better but I have limited range time and trying to stretch ammo supply some ). Just wondering if higher magnification would allow for even better performance. Even with the well documented variations in ammunition quality, I enjoy the challenge!
Last edited:
The handicap is the inconsistency of the ammo itself. Unlike .22LR, there is no .17HMR match ammo. With good match ammo, sub-MOA results will be more common with .22LR than with .17HMR -- even if shooting 5 round groups with .22LR, while the 17HMR shoots 3 rounders.
In my own experience, HMR is 2 - 3 MOA. A lot of groups will be 1 - 2 with an occasional sub-MOA. The sub-MOA groups are just luck.
Thanks again folks. Both of my rifles ( Savage 110 in .223 and a Savage 93R17 ) are hunting rifles in all respects and certainly not long range precision target rifles by any means. As such, I`ve always placed more importance on accuracy ( POA vs. POI ) as opposed to precision ( group size ). Both rifles average well under an inch when it comes to accuracy at 100 yards. The .223 is VERY accurate, averaging under .5" POA vs. POI with loads that it likes. I`m sure that if I shot more rounds per group with the 17 HMR I would see a greater spread.
To my original question, I`m just trying to see if there`s a consensus that with increased magnification on the 17 I could expect, on the whole, better precision and accuracy, even taking into consideration all the variables inherent with the 17.
To my original question, I`m just trying to see if there`s a consensus that with increased magnification on the 17 I could expect, on the whole, better precision and accuracy, even taking into consideration all the variables inherent with the 17.
Part of the "will higher magnification help" question is your end goal. One way of looking at the situation is, you can always dial down from a higher magnification, but you can't dial up past your optic's maximum. Of course, budget is usually a primary consideration, as is weight for a field rifle.
I use both my .22s - three-year-old Vudoo and brand-new RimX - in from-the-bench or PRS competitions with paper or steel targets at ranges from 50 to 400+ yards. I have gen-3 Vortex Razors (6-36x56) on both of them.
I find it extremely beneficial to see bullet holes in paper at 100 yards and bullet marks on steel at 400 (mirage permitting on the latter). I shot a mini-Palma/F-class match a couple of weeks ago (100-yard paper targets, usual white rings on big black circles). I could see my bullet holes, even with the very dark, rainy conditions with the 36x magnification. People with lower-powered scopes couldn't.
In high-mirage situations, higher magnification doesn't help.
In PRS, 12-15x is all that is needed but, again, one can dial back from higher-x.
Bottom line, for me is I want all the magnification I can get because I can dial back as needed - but glass quality supersedes high-x.
Fwiw.
I use both my .22s - three-year-old Vudoo and brand-new RimX - in from-the-bench or PRS competitions with paper or steel targets at ranges from 50 to 400+ yards. I have gen-3 Vortex Razors (6-36x56) on both of them.
I find it extremely beneficial to see bullet holes in paper at 100 yards and bullet marks on steel at 400 (mirage permitting on the latter). I shot a mini-Palma/F-class match a couple of weeks ago (100-yard paper targets, usual white rings on big black circles). I could see my bullet holes, even with the very dark, rainy conditions with the 36x magnification. People with lower-powered scopes couldn't.
In high-mirage situations, higher magnification doesn't help.
In PRS, 12-15x is all that is needed but, again, one can dial back from higher-x.
Bottom line, for me is I want all the magnification I can get because I can dial back as needed - but glass quality supersedes high-x.
Fwiw.
More power is better. Even shooting 50 yards at a 1/4” dot with 7x if you can even see the dot you would have no idea if you broke the shot on the left, right, top, bottom, or center of dot. More power will show you more movement, how do you build a more stable position if you don’t know how much movement you have?
Over the years, I've bought far more scopes with at least 20x than I have with less magnification. I did use 16x SS scopes from SWFA for several years after building my 1st Palma rifle (which I equipped with two other barrels - one in 6.5x55, the other a 6 Dasher), and got along pretty well with that scope while shooting 600 & 1000yd any rifle/any sight matches with the 6.5x55 & 6 Dasher barrels. But eventually, I bought several Leupold 6.5-20x50 LR Target scopes, along with a 8-25x50 LRT Leupold. And when I started playing the PRS-type matches, I went with Kahles K624i scopes. Never regretted going with a good quality higher powered variable, as you can always dial back to lower power when the mirage gets too bad.
I never considered lower power scopes when I started shooting precision 22RF rifles; went with an Athlon Cronus 4.5-29x56 as soon as I realized how much of an advantage such a scope provided with really tiny targets.
I never considered lower power scopes when I started shooting precision 22RF rifles; went with an Athlon Cronus 4.5-29x56 as soon as I realized how much of an advantage such a scope provided with really tiny targets.
Someone once told me "You can't hit what you can't see". Get good glass and as much magnification as you can afford. You can always turn it down.
