[andy]

17 than a scoped 22 unit has. Game is mostly taken in thick woods, at dusk or dawn, POOR vision with iron sights, trying to see thru weeds, hit walking game, etc. The 17 can't take contact with a blade of grass, probably not even a raindrop.

 

[andy]

It AINT just the $150 rifle, it's another $50 for the scope, $100 for the RIDICULOUS priced ammo, spare mags, case, sling, piss poor trigger, no luminous sights, different handling, etc. Pointless. waste of time and money, like I said.

 

[mrostov]

$50 for a scope? For a .22? You haven't been to Walmart lately I take it.....

$100 for ammo? Dude, you're kind of perpetually behind the times. Midway has .17 HMR for $6.99 per box of 50 rounds. So, for 50 rounds to sight in and plink a bit, plus another 150 rounds for carry into the field is only 4 boxes is only $27.98 plus shipping.

http://www.midwayusa.com/rewriteabrowse/6/10012/653***7547***

Trigger's good, single shot so no mags, homemade scabard, etc. All in all, an excellent weapon for pot hunting.

You've never backpacked in the high country, hence your ignorance is astounding.

Ballistics for the 20gr XTP load for the .17HMR

Notice how at 100 yards the 20gr bullet is still moving faster than a 32gr .22LR Stinger is at the muzzle.

http://17hmr.net/

 

[brass hammer]

17 than a scoped 22 unit has. Game is mostly taken in thick woods, at dusk or dawn, POOR vision with iron sights, trying to see thru weeds, hit walking game, etc. The 17 can't take contact with a blade of grass, probably not even a raindrop.

have you been huntin' grasshoppers/bugs again with that stolen/hot daisy
B-B GUN stashed near your septic tank, Hmmmmm....i wonder?

 

[Magnum88C]

You have to understand Mrostov, to someone who doesn't have a job, that IS a lot of money. :dgrin:

Also notice that, once again, he has to compare an iron-sighted .17 to his scoped "unit" to make his "unit" look good.

 

[Dorobuta]

17 than a scoped 22 unit has. Game is mostly taken in thick woods, at dusk or dawn, POOR vision with iron sights, trying to see thru weeds, hit walking game, etc. The 17 can't take contact with a blade of grass, probably not even a raindrop.

Be specific on the type of game you are talking about, because this is not a true blanket statement, and anyone that hunts can easily refute this. Also, iron sights have and still do take a lot of game every year. Maybe you have poor vision or don't know how to use iron sights very well.

You also know nothing about the round, the rifles, or scopes. This shows in a great many of your posts. You're way behind the times on guns and gear.

 

[BigEd]

Don't know exactly what .17 firearm Tardious Maximus is talking about.
But from actually owning and shooting an early .17HMR rifle. My observations
Boringly quick to zero and flat shooting out to at least 100yds.
Ammunition performance varied. Once shot a feral critter with SPEER ammo. Went for the chest vs. the head due to all the tales of its explosive impact. Critter jumped into the air spun and ran around the corner before dying maybe covered 6ft. Pissed me off greatly. I try to put down any critters humanly as possible.
I understand SPEER made changes but it soured me on that particular loading of theirs.
Hornady load I had no experience with.
what Tardious Maximus said about the trigger is partly true but drop in replacements existed and the later ones had the accutrigger.
Plus Ruger rimfires have their rendition of the accutrigger and theirs CZ with a very excellent set trigger system.
Tardious Maximus again way behind the times.

 

[Dorobuta]

17 than a scoped 22 unit has. Game is mostly taken in thick woods, at dusk or dawn, POOR vision with iron sights, trying to see thru weeds, hit walking game, etc. The 17 can't take contact with a blade of grass, probably not even a raindrop.

why is it, you keep the scope on the gun you like, but always remove the scope from the one you don't like? It's obvious that you do this, it also makes your argument look, well, stupid.

If you are supposedly comparing the .22 to the .17, then the guns should be similarly equipped. Otherwise you're comparing, in this case, a scope to iron sights. I would hope that optics outperform iron sights, that is their reason for existing. You really have trouble making coherent arguments.

 

[Dorobuta]

17 than a scoped 22 unit has. Game is mostly taken in thick woods, at dusk or dawn, POOR vision with iron sights, trying to see thru weeds, hit walking game, etc. The 17 can't take contact with a blade of grass, probably not even a raindrop.

I don't think I own a single scope that cost less then $150.00, and many that cost closer to $500-600

Buy once, cry once. Never go cheap on optics. It is not unusual for the optics to cost more than the gun they are mounted on. Go to a range or check out some of the hunting forums, even though they won't let you post for long. If you'd stop acting like a small child, you might get to participate on more boards, and you might learn a thing to two.

 

[Dorobuta]

17 than a scoped 22 unit has. Game is mostly taken in thick woods, at dusk or dawn, POOR vision with iron sights, trying to see thru weeds, hit walking game, etc. The 17 can't take contact with a blade of grass, probably not even a raindrop.

Last time I checked, a scope doesn't let you see through weeds either. Plus, what prevents anyone from putting a scope on the 17? Other than your twisted wishes, that is.

Iron sights don't hinder you from hitting walking game - where did you pull that BS out of?

Maybe you should learn to use iron sights before you comment on them.