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."