40mms or 50mm scope question

[jimmyt]

Thinking of putting a new scope on my rifle. What's better 40 or 50mm?  I would be like to shoot up to 600 yards and target shoot farther. Just looking for opinions. Thanks

[WA hunter14]

50mm is best for better light collection and field of view, definatley my preference.

[C-Money]

Quality glass in a 40mm in what I like...But I'm also not a 600 yard shooter.

[Karl Blanchard]

50

[Bob33]

I hunt deer and elk with a compact 33mm. I can see well enough to shoot in light as dim as I consider ethical.

[Bean Counter]

I wouldn't be opposed to a 50, but with decent glass you can come close to the amount of light you can gather in a 50mm with a 40mm. I get a little leery of 50mm as I hope nobody is using them to glass with 

[kentrek]

I'd get a 44 mm objective with a 30 mm tube

[Buzz2401]

I don't like the weight or the look associated with the 50mm scopes but they are gonna be better at light transmission scope for scope.

[jackelope]

I wouldn't be opposed to a 50, but with decent glass you can come close to the amount of light you can gather in a 50mm with a 40mm. I get a little leery of 50mm as I hope nobody is using them to glass with 

Just curious what makes you think someone is more apt to glass with their rifle with a 50mm objective lens over a 40?

I want my scope as low as possible to the rifle. 50's are better with light transmission but will inherently sit higher than a 40mm will, which will force you to lift your face off the cheek weld which causes an unstable sight picture. Ideally a 50mm with a raised cheek weld, but we're not talking sniper rifles here.

[bobcat]

I agree with Jackelope. It depends on the rifle. On my rifles I use 40mm scopes. A 50mm would sit too high. But on some rifles they will be fine, mainly depends on the stock. I don't want to lift my head up off the stock to see through the scope.

[JoeE]

I prefer a 40mm. I've used 50 and didn't like how high they sit or how bulky they are. Like Bob I also have a 33mm compact ultralight scope that I don't have a problem shooting with.

[beaslayer6]

I 40mm on everything but one 50mm low vx-3 and the margin is so little its not worth the weight to me. 3mins  more hunting light. That's after shot light anyways. 200 bucks not worth it.

[Bean Counter]

I wouldn't be opposed to a 50, but with decent glass you can come close to the amount of light you can gather in a 50mm with a 40mm. I get a little leery of 50mm as I hope nobody is using them to glass with 

Just curious what makes you think someone is more apt to glass with their rifle with a 50mm objective lens over a 40?

I want my scope as low as possible to the rifle. 50's are better with light transmission but will inherently sit higher than a 40mm will, which will force you to lift your face off the cheek weld which causes an unstable sight picture. Ideally a 50mm with a raised cheek weld, but we're not talking sniper rifles here.

50mm will have a wider field of view. For some who don't have their glass investment priorities in order I can see this leading to glassing from the scope. I hunted with a buddy that had a 50mm scope and he looked bewildered when I was like "umm, err.." when we were hunting the open plains of New Mexico and he had no binos, no spotter, and no rangefinder  I had all three plus a cheaper pair of binos and fortunately I think he was seeing the light by the end of the trip, no pun intended.

For years that was my biggest surprise/disappointment in a hunting partner until another guy shot two deer and expected me to tag one   

[starbailey]

I prefer 40mm over the 50s. I didn't like the extra bulk and weight of the bigger scope. Thinking back, I can only think of 1 occasion where I could have used a little more light gathering ability on a blacktail buck in timber. That buck died just the same.

[Bob33]

I wouldn't be opposed to a 50, but with decent glass you can come close to the amount of light you can gather in a 50mm with a 40mm. I get a little leery of 50mm as I hope nobody is using them to glass with 

Just curious what makes you think someone is more apt to glass with their rifle with a 50mm objective lens over a 40?

I want my scope as low as possible to the rifle. 50's are better with light transmission but will inherently sit higher than a 40mm will, which will force you to lift your face off the cheek weld which causes an unstable sight picture. Ideally a 50mm with a raised cheek weld, but we're not talking sniper rifles here.

50mm will have a wider field of view. For some who don't have their glass investment priorities in order I can see this leading to glassing from the scope. I hunted with a buddy that had a 50mm scope and he looked bewildered when I was like "umm, err.." when we were hunting the open plains of New Mexico and he had no binos, no spotter, and no rangefinder  I had all three plus a cheaper pair of binos and fortunately I think he was seeing the light by the end of the trip, no pun intended.

For years that was my biggest surprise/disappointment in a hunting partner until another guy shot two deer and expected me to tag one   

I'll take Leupold's word that it doesn't.

"Something else to remember is that contrary to common belief, a larger objective lens does not increase the field of view of a riflescope. It only increases the amount of light entering the scope, and, in the case of scopes using slightly less capable components, it will increase the “sweet spot” at the optical center of the lens, making images appear sharper and more crisp in the center of the field of view."

[b23]

"Something else to remember is that contrary to common belief, a larger objective lens does not increase the field of view of a riflescope. It only increases the amount of light entering the scope, and, in the case of scopes using slightly less capable components, it will increase the “sweet spot” at the optical center of the lens, making images appear sharper and more crisp in the center of the field of view."

This is correct, objective size has nothing to do with FOV.  It's a common mistake that is often made, most likely, because at a glance it's just so darn easy to assume bigger objective means greater FOV, but it doesn't work that way.

Where a 50 shows its benefit is when you are using the upper ends of the magnification range, at that point the bigger 50's or even 56's show their advantage but if you typically don't use the higher end of the magnification range, their is no advantage to a 50 over a 40, with everything else being equal.

As for 30mm versus 1 inch tube, in all honesty, it's a lot of marketing and really the biggest thing a 30mm offers over a 1in. is more vertical adjustment but if you don't plan on dialing up for extended range shots, and lets be honest here, I don't know anyone that dials for elevation using a scope with caps and no external adjustments so what's the point of all these 30mm scopes with caps.

To the OP, before I decided on going with a 40 or a 50 I would first decide on what is the $$$ amount I wanted to spend, then I would try and get the very best glass/optics I could get for the $$$ cap I set for myself.  I'm sure others will have a differing opinion but for me, optic quality trumps everything else.

[jimmyt]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

[Bofire]

I have several leupold 3.5X10 VariX111 and VX111 scopes. one of them is 50 all the rest 40, I cant see any difference. the 50 does sit higher tho.
Carl

[JDHasty]

Larger objectives does not equal increased FOV in binoculars, rifle scopes or spotting scopes. 

I have both and am thinking of going to a Swaro 3-9x36 on one rifle just to make the whole thing lighter and more compact and this is the rifle I hunt most of my big game with. 

[Westside88]

I have a varix 3  3.5-10 in both 40 and 50. While I really like the 50 which I have mounted on a .338 win mag A-bolt, I have no complaints about the 40.  I've been dreaming of a Kimber Mountain Rifle, which if I am ever able to get one will have the 40mm mounted on it since it's a little lighter. I agree with what others have said, the quality of the glass is a bigger factor

[WoodlandShooter]

I have a 32, and two 50's...

other than magnification, it's not that much of a difference.

don't worry about the size, worry about the quality of the glass...

[b23]

Recently bought a CZ 527 Varmint in 17 Hornet and was somewhat indecisive on 40 or 50 and 30mm or 1 in. tube dia.  I had a NF 3-15x50 that I'd recently taken off a different gun and mocked it up on that CZ 527.  Yeah, it looked pretty ridiculous sitting on the little 527 and even with the scope so low it was nearly touching, I would have had to use a cheek pad in order to still get a good cheek weld because that 50 couldn't be mounted low enough, without touching the barrel.  Had a cheap old Bushnell 3-9x40 that'd been sitting in the corner for years and proceeded to mock it up next.  Mounted it, shouldered it up and ahhhhh much better.  I've had my eye on the Conquest HD5's for awhile and figured the 527 in 17 Hornet would be a good match for the 3-15x42.  Been waiting for over two weeks to get the dam thing, hopefully today Mr UPS will surprise me.