Need a new scope :(

[MJMcMahon]

Hi all -

I got a great little plinker for my birthday: a Savage 93R17 (the BVSS model with the gray laminate stock and the stainless barrel and action). I'd already decided on it and picked up a BSA 'Sweet 17' 3-12x40 scope for it. Unfortunately, when I took it to the range, the BSA kept jumping zero.

Obviously, I'm now looking for a replacement. I'd like to stay under $200 for the new optic (the Sweet 17 was ~$100 and I'm getting a bonus sooner than expected). OpticsPlanet lists the following as their suggestions under $200:

Nikon ProStaff 4x32 RimFire classic 6305
Barska 6-24x44 SWAT Extreme Tactical AC10366
Barska 8-32x50 IR AO Excavator w/ adjustable objective AC10558
ATN AMT Professional 5x33L Illuminated reticle DEMO
Bushnell Banner 6-18x50 w/ A/O matte 716185
BSA Optics Contender Target Hunting 8-32x50mm CT832X50TS

I'm leaning towards the Barskas - the 6-24x44 would probably be sufficient although I don't know how accurate the .17 is at 200+ yards so 32x might come into play if I can play out further with it. Illuminated reticle isn't a big deal for me...after all, I'm hunting paper with it, at least for the moment.

Not having experienced the return policy at Sportsman's Warehouse, I don't know what to expect there - whether they'll give me credit or my cash back. Anyone give any recommendations on their stock items, just in case?? Even better, can anyone speak to their return policy and (if possible) give some ideas on good places to shop for optics in the Seattle area??

Thanks in advance!

Mike

 

[nipprdog]

define 'jumping zero'

could be something other than the scope.

was it windy? 17s don't like wind.

have you only been to the range once? how many rounds did through the barrel? most barrels need a little time to 'settle in' my savage 17 needed about one hundred rounds before it 'settled in' and bot consistent.

what ammo did you shoot? did you try different brands?

 

[hksw]

Having had my share of experiences with Chinese made scopes I have sworn off of them for at least ten years.

Having had a bad experience with the Sweet 17 right off the bat, I'm curious to know why you would still consider them? (i.e., Barska and BSA)

 

[sam700]

I tend to stay away from the super high magnification scopes unless they are at the higher end as the less expensive ones never seem to be that good optically. Also, if you plan to change elevation and windage settings frequently when shooting at different distances some scopes will be somewhat inconsistent. My vote would be for the Bushnell. Just enough magnification to see those small holes. I don’t know anything about the Barskas, but I’ve been pretty happy with my 4-12 Bushnell.

 

[MJMcMahon]

define 'jumping zero'

simple: I had it practically zeroed in, made the final adjustment, switched to a new target and the rounds were landing 6-8 inches high.

could be something other than the scope.

was it windy? 17s don't like wind.

not really windy...what little wind there was came from behind me, if memory serves.

have you only been to the range once? how many rounds did through the barrel? most barrels need a little time to 'settle in' my savage 17 needed about one hundred rounds before it 'settled in' and bot consistent.

two range trips so far - once on an indoor range (25yds) where I got it set into where I figured would be zeroed at 100 (about 2" above bullseye at 25 yards). That trip I expended ~35 rounds. Total on the second trip was ~125 rounds.

what ammo did you shoot? did you try different brands?

The first trip was Hornady .17 Varmint Express. The second was a mix of the rest of the Hornady (65 rounds) and 50 rounds of Federal VShok.

Having had a bad experience with the Sweet 17 right off the bat, I'm curious to know why you would still consider them? (i.e., Barska and BSA)

It sounds like you're saying the Sweet 17 and the Barska's are made by the same manufacturer. Am I misunderstanding you? Or are you saying they're all Chinese???

The list of scopes above are basically driven by my budget. I've had a lot of people say that they'd rather not shoot than shoot anything but Leupold, unfortunately I'm not in a position to afford one and having a rifle I can't shoot (no iron sights) doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Smokey Joe]

Stay Away from B S A

Just bo't myself a new 'scope today, to replace a BSA which had developed "wandering zero." With it, I'd shoot a 2-shot bughole--In some part of the target. Next I'd get another 2-shot bughole--somewhere ELSE on the target.

This BSA was sent me by the factory, in replacement for another BSA 'scope whose zero wandered.

I'm throught with BSA. And I'll tell my story to anyone who asks about what 'scope to get. Two out of two is two too many, for me.

BSA used to stand for Birmingham Small Arms, a British concern that made rifles. Perfectly good rifles, I imagine. And at one time the name was associated with motorcycles.

Now the name belongs to some company that, IMHO, is only interested in putting out low-priced pieces of optical **** for those on a tight budget who don't know any better.

The gunsmith who installed my new 'scope told me that, to him, BSA stands for "Been Screwed Again." His words, not mine.

FWIW, I went ahead and sprang for a made-in-USA-and-guaranteed-forever Leupold. I spent a LOT more than I had planned on. But, as the gunsmith who installed and bore-sighted my new 'scope remarked, "In optics, you very much get what you pay for."

Bottom line: Of your choices, DO NOT buy the BSA. You'll be sorry. IMHO.

 

[.41Dave]

One way to look at it:
Magnification costs money
Larger objective lenses cost money
Variable magnification costs money (except for 3-9x, which due to popularity and economy of scale is often cheaper than even fixed power given equal quality in other respects)
Repeatablility/consistency of adjustments costs money
Illuminated reticles cost money
Fancy reticles cost money
Adjustable objectives cost money
Warranties cost money
Name/brand recognition costs money
Marketing hype like ultra/mega/tactical/ninja/sniper/special forces/extreme blahblahblah costs money
Clear, bright, distortion free lenses cost money

For any given price, you can only get so much. You need to decide what mix of quality, features, and useless gimmicks you want to pay for. Quality is (or should be) simple, but what differentiates a useful feature from a worthless and expensive gimmick is sometimes a little less clear.

For what it's worth, IMHO at the $200 or less price point, the following items are worthless gimmicks:
Illuminated reticles
Adjustable objectives
50mm or larger objective lenses
Magnification above 3-9x variable or 6x (maybe 10x) fixed
Marketing hype (worthless at ANY price point)

After wasting a fair amount of money on gimmicks and junk, I have learned that high quality lenses and consistent adjustments are far more important to the ultimate goal of seeing and hitting your target than anything else. A dim, blurred and distorted target image at 18x is often harder to hit than a clear, bright, sharp target image at 6x. At dusk, a good scope with a 40mm objective is going to be brighter than a mediocre scope with a 50mm objective.

Of the scopes you listed, my choice would be the Nikon Prostaff. If you can stretch your budget just a few dollars, however, you should be able to still find one of the the old model Nikon Monarch scopes out there for about $220 or so, which would be vastly superior to any of the choices you listed. If you cannot find one of the old model Monarchs, another good choice would be the Burris Fullfield II which you can find for about $170 if you shop around. The Burris also would be much better than any of the scopes you mentioned.