40mms or 50mm scope question

[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.