I understand parallax (kind-of?), the parallax is designed for a different range of use for different cartridges, with rimfire/shotgun/muzzleloader scopes designed for use in the approx 30-100+ yd range, and a centerfire scope parallax designed for a farther distance, right?
This "gun tech" specifically referred to the "different type of recoil" between a .17hmr auto and a larger centerfire bolt action. He is recommending me to stay away from the Leupold that I was looking at, and leaning toward a "rimfire" scope (sorry, I don't remember the model/manufacturer, but it was one I'd never heard of). I know better than to use a "cheap" scope on a hard-recoiling rifle (which this isn't), but anything decent should work on a rimfire. Recoil from one firearm to another is still just recoil, it only varies depending on the force/bullet weight/rifle weight, ect...
My point is, I think a scope that would work on a .243 win would work just fine on the .17hmr, as long as it was an appropriate power & reticle type, right?
In my opinion the single biggest difference in scope quality is the lense design/quality, am I correct?