Side focus or ballistic reticle

[4535jacks]

The sling broke on my .17hmr and damaged the stock, scope and mod. I therefore need to replace the hawke sport 4-16x50 IR AO on my rifle but have two options.

I find the AO fiddly and so I am looking at a side focus model instead but the one in my budget (less than £200) is not IR and is a 44mm objective not a 50mm. The other option I am looking at is a hawke scope with .17hmr reticle rather than a 1/2 mil dot.

I am looking at the following two scopes:

Hawke Vantage 4-16x44 SF with half mil dot reticle - £180
Hawke Vantage 4-16x50 IR AO with .17HMR reticle - £153

Out of these two, am I more likely to get more value out of a .17hmr reticle or a side focus model? Which feature should my decision be based on, the reticle or the method of parallax correction?

Are there any other SF or .17hmr reticle scopes in my budget as my research has not shown any other than hawkes?

As ever, thanks in advance,

Gary

 

[pj1]

i have the vantage 3-12 x 44 sf on my .177 air rifle and it is more than good enough. I also have the vantage 4-12 x 40 ao with .22wmr reticle on my .22 air rifle. only went with the 22 wmr reticle as it tied up better with the trajectory of my air rifle.

I would personally look for the hawke endurance 5-15 x 50 sf with half mil dot reticle. i have one on my hornet and it is clearly a better scope but for the same money. Think that hawke have just discontinued it but there should still be a few around

 

[Southern]

If you are shooting at 75 yards and beyond, is the parallax adjustment really making that much difference?
Do you not have time to adjust the objective lense PA?

Bushnell makes several models of scopes with side focus PA and .17 HMR turrets, and AO with .17 HMR reticle marked to 350 yards.

 

[4535jacks]

I find using an AO fiddly and reading the range off means losing aim. I have looked at the Bushnell models but thik that either the Hawke Endurance SF 5-15x50 or 6-18x50 are the way to go.

I will hopefully buy tomorrow!

 

[pj1]

the half mil dot reticle on the endurance is lovely and fine and at hmr ranges it will be brilliant. i also went for the side focus as i have an add on nv unit and side focus is so much easier to use with that. At 150 yards on 10x mag i use the first half mil dot for hold over with my 22 hornet so i doubt you will use to many of the mil dots but they are there if needed

 

[rabbit]

have a look at the falcon m18 4 -18 x 44 SFP b20 ret at uttings £205 delivered

 

[EDCM]

I have a vortex diamond back 4-14x40 BDC, It has a fixed paralax of 100 yds.

I have only had to dial back the mag for shots under 40 ydsa couple of times, I use the recticle most of the time with the hashes marking at approx 150 and 200 yds on full mag.

Eddie

 

[4535jacks]

I have had a look at the Falcon scope and it seems to get good reviews with it being compared to a Leupold III. However I decided to go for the Hawke Endurance SF 8-18x50 with 1/2 mil dot IR as it is £50 cheaper and it is a 1" tube which all of my scopes and mounts are so they can be interchanged. Once I can afford a swaro or zeiss on my stalking rifle then I may upgraded some of my other scopes to 30mm.

Thanks for all the advice.

 

[pj1]

A 30 mm tube will only give you more turret adjustment. I really don't get the letting more light through argument as the sight picture has to focus down to a point several times on it's way through as scope and even if the blurb says you get 1 or 2 % more light I'm not convinced a human eye could tell the difference anyway

 

[flying felix]

Unless the scopes are FFP there's not much point in going for a mil dot reticle. I prefer the mil dot myself as it's what I was trained on, but never understood the Yanks fascination with it on a SFP scope. :?:

 

[EDCM]

If you are using the scope just for HMR ranges. I cannot see the need for FFP as you should be able to do everything from the ballistic reticle except for v long shots at corvids where you may have to dial.

 

[ChesterP]

Buy a good used scope, fixed mag, or small zoom range with BDC. 40 or 44 obj is plenty enough with decent glass. £200 will buy a good one. Avoid burning money on a new Hawke. The Falcon may be a little more, but having owned both, it is far better than any Hawke I've owned. It is heavy though. You can often pick up a good used Leupy with BDC for a little more than you're aiming to spend and it'll outlast any cheaper hawke and be a better all round bet, plus you'll always be able to sell it for what you paid for it.

 

[jthyttin]

If you are using the scope just for HMR ranges. I cannot see the need for FFP as you should be able to do everything from the ballistic reticle except for v long shots at corvids where you may have to dial.

SFP Ballistic Reticle would be correct at only the specified magnification.

FFP half mildot is IMHO best for holdovers, just put your dope on rear flip cap or wherever comfortable. Enough holdover points but not cluttered. Ballistic reticles are never accurate for YOUR ammo in YOUR conditions so need the dope anyway, and not very intuitive to change calibers.

If reticle and clicks are matched, is easier to switch between holdover and dialing.

 

[EDCM]

SFP Ballistic Reticle would be correct at only the specified magnification.

FFP half mildot is IMHO best for holdovers, just put your dope on rear flip cap or wherever comfortable. Enough holdover points but not cluttered. Ballistic reticles are never accurate for YOUR ammo in YOUR conditions so need the dope anyway, and not very intuitive to change calibers.

If reticle and clicks are matched, is easier to switch between holdover and dialing.

All above true.. in the real world if using the HMR as the OP stated, using a scope say at 12x how often do you not use it at full power (normally true for the recticle)?

As in the example below my vortex diamondback 4-12 power I rarely take it off of 12 power when shooting rabbits or crows.



also the point blank on the HMR is almost effective to its max killing range.

Eddie