Scope height & Comparison

**ImAfossil** · July 6th, 2012, 01:04 PM

Always learning. The .17HMR that I had really taught me a lesson. It was a neat little shooter, but I almost never gave it a chance to perform. With a wide variety of mounts and scopes, would you believe I put a 32mm, 3x9 Banner or Bummer something or another, with hi-mounts on it. Sighted in at 125 yards, I rarely hit a chuck with it. I was missing at 25 yards---I corrected that and it performed just fine, but it was a real eyeopener. Now let's move on to my .204 (some pics below).

The .204 H&R is a single shot. My first choice of scope was a 4 X 16 50mm, low mounts. I have two 50mm variables. Neither would mount up due to barrel and focus adjustment clearance or hammer cocking room. Damn it, I have to go to medium mounts---No way with my .17HMR experiences and Hi-mounts. The scope rail that comes with the gun is just fine. I don't believe drilling and tapping gets me in a better position with the bases.

Drag out a 40mm which is currently on the .204. An old dog Bushnell that goes back at least 30years, but it is a snapshot of me. It has always been a favorite of mine. The old tried and true 'get that scope as close to barrel as possible' really works. One of my .270s you can barely get a match book cover under the focus adjustment in the front of the scope.

Pictures: The foscus adjustment is 1/8 inch off the barrel of my .204. The measurement from bore center to crosshair center is 1 9/16 inches. The scope is pulled way back for hammer and cocking clearance and being a non recoiler, my eyebrows are safe from a hit. The rail (comes with gun) with Weaver Lo-Mounts and rings.

Now the Hornady ballistic calculator is a good tool, but I get a variation of 3 inches low at 25 yards when sighted in at 200 against almost 2 inches low by the Hornady calculator. It matters not to me, the point is : no matter the caliber or firearm test it at different yardage. How the hell did I miss at that range, may disappear from your vocabulary. That lil' 17 taught me a HUGE lesson.

Comments, opinions, suggestions are always welcome. I can always justify my ramblings that way.
fossil

**ImAfossil** · July 7th, 2012, 09:57 AM

I had to search my picture archive to show you HOW NOT to do it.

The picture shows my .17HMR with the Bummer / Banner 3X9, 32MM with HI-MOUNTS. Compare that to my 1/8 inch barrel clearance in my 1st post above .204 and LO-Mounts.

I had to take STUPID pills to get into this situation. Maybe I ODd on STUPID.

I knew better. Maybe my justification was ; this .17 has limited performance.

That is plain BS. I screwed up royally. With the scope mounted that high, your projectile gives weird results at different yardage.

I never fire tested it at, say 20 yards----I bet it shot 6 inches low (a guess). The facts are I had a ton of misses with the way I set the .17 up. NOTE: I never blamed the .17. It printed great at 125 yards. The misses were part me and the idiot set up I talked myself into.

I got the chuck---I was really lucky or the chuck was within my zero, sighted in at 125 yards---I don't remember.

Somebody who is more technical can explain WHY !

An EMBARRASSED or just friggin' dumb fossil

**renalp** · July 7th, 2012, 03:58 PM

Yeah, that scope's too high, but no need to be so hard on yourself!

**A-5** · July 7th, 2012, 11:52 PM

Personally hate the old weaver mounts. I like the burris z rings.

**ImAfossil** · July 8th, 2012, 10:26 AM

A-5---I agree that there are much better mounts and rings.

These old Weaver LOs, just a slip with a screw driver, OUCH ! !. A nice gouge in a new gun. I even had that happen with electrical tape over the screw driver blade. For now I will leave the Wearver mounts alone.

If and when I go to my 25X Unertyl, you will see a pretty, functional mount system on my Single Shot H&R .204 Ruger.

If fits all of the criteria: Close to the barrel, hammer clearance etc. I have to find the dogeared manual for all of the adjustments on the scope. I may put on backwards or upside down wiithout that manual.

I am a sensitive individual. An example, 'did you see that old nitwit running around with a Unertyl on a single shot'. Man he should up his MEDS'. MY silent answer, "Youngins' I will not shoot this chuck in the head, I will put one up his nostril or in his ear"---TAKE THAT ! ! !

Shhhhhhhh ! ! ! Don't let my wife Shirley know. That rig and its got some years on it, cost 3X the retail of my H&R .204.

Bill Murray 2nd from CaddyShack (aka) fossil

**timbrfrmr25** · July 8th, 2012, 11:46 AM

fossil> obviously your set up has to fit. I find when i miss, which is extremely rare, (roles eyes) its because i have let my self get rusty or lazy! When i'm having a streak of bad luck, i go to the range and reinforce the fundamentals! After all they are the key to all good shooting.

Here are some recent pics just for fun. All with marlin 17hmr and bsa sweet 17 in medium rings ( I think ) First pic is 72 yds standing. Second was taken a few weeks ago during one of my streaks, finally connected just under the ear at 190 yds!! The third is my current longest with the 17, 255 yds!!

**ImAfossil** · July 8th, 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by timbrfrmr25

fossil> obviously your set up has to fit. I find when i miss, which is extremely rare, (roles eyes) its because i have let my self get rusty or lazy! When i'm having a streak of bad luck, i go to the range and reinforce the fundamentals! After all they are the key to all good shooting.

Here are some recent pics just for fun. All with marlin 17hmr and bsa sweet 17 in medium rings ( I think ) First pic is 72 yds standing. Second was taken a few weeks ago during one of my streaks, finally connected just under the ear at 190 yds!! The third is my current longest with the 17, 255 yds!!

TIMBRFRMR25
As a retired HS Basketball Coach you hit a key word 'FUNDAMENTALS'. I personally believe the scope set up was wrong, really wrong for my .17HMR. I agree other factors were creeping into the mix. I started thinking toooooo much. I started out as a young trigger YANKER, some of that came back and just a break down of basic fundamentals. Trying to stay out of the panic zone, probably made it worse. I dropped the ball on a lot of things.

My starting point is the variables. Normally I start with the scope. Which one, what mounts etc to get that variable under control. I never measured it, but looking at it from center bore to center crosshairs it has to be 3 inches. Maybe more. It resembles a V2 rocket. In your pics look how close your scope is to the barrel (nice pics by the way).

I target shoot quite a bit, but with the .17 I never ran it through, 'where does it hit at 25, 50, 75, 100, 125 etc'. FUNDAMENTALS. It was not the cost of ammo ($10 for 50). When I changed scopes and mounts, I ran the .17 through it's paces. Included was a return to basic fundamentals. That .17 was a shooter---Hated to see it go---But the wife's rule, "one comes in, one goes out'.

I have 250 + rounds through my .204. When that pill is running 50 to 250 yards, I say to that chuck, SEE YA ! ! ! I have 2 misses at approx 325. Put hairs a tad over the back. Impact a tad over the back. I will get a do over on those two some day. I know where they live.
fossil

**timbrfrmr25** · July 8th, 2012, 05:44 PM

fossil, I do not have a good answer to where does it hit at 25, 50, etc. because i usually shoot at 100 yds or further. I can tell you however, that from field experience there must not be a truely significant impact shift between 0 and 100. I say this because i have never had to dial elevation or change from a chest/neck hold to kill any chuck between these ranges. All misses at these ranges would be lack of steadiness on my part (usually standing) or bad wind calls.