40mm or 50mm?

[westsidebuckslayer]

I'm going to buy a new scope for my 7mm and i have a 40mm on it now but it broke i was wouldering if i should get another 40mm or is it worth extra $100 for the 50mm what do you thing?

[high country]

 spend the extra 100 bux on a better scope, more bullets or bills. big scopes are not necessarily good scopes, they add weight bulk and height. if you are planning on late night shooting or mega long distance there is a use, but on a game gun, not so much.

[Deep Forks]

  I have both but perfer the 40mm because I like using lower profile rings.  With my 50mm scopes I have to use medium or high profile rings and it raises the scope up on the gun and I don't seem to get good cheek weld, it's probably just me and my fat face    The difference in light isn't that big a factor to me.  I would focus on power, say 4x12 or 4.5x14 something with some magnification for the 7mm I'm persuming mag.  Good luck      

[Intruder]

Buy 40 or 42.  Spend though dough on better glass.

[Wacenturion]

Used medium Game Reaper bases and rings (one piece) on my Browning .325 wsm for the Nikon Monarch 4x16x50 scope.  Fits very nicely, and the difference in price was only $50 more than the 42 or 44mm, whatever the next size below it.   I bought that scope based on comparisons over several weeks to just about everything in a general price range of $400-$650.  I could see the difference between the 50 and smaller monach as well.  For me and this particular gun, this was my scope of choice.  I think it's going to depend on you, your gun and how it suits you, both on how it looks on the gun and vision wise for your particular eyesight. 

[elk311]

Spend though dough on better glass.

can't go wrong with that quote. Diopter size is your call (bulk, weight, fit, use) all factors that are individualized however, better glass is always the best choice when all is said and done.

[MtnMuley]

Spend though dough on better glass.

 :yeah:x2

[tlbradford]

  I have both but perfer the 40mm because I like using lower profile rings.  With my 50mm scopes I have to use medium or high profile rings and it raises the scope up on the gun and I don't seem to get good cheek weld, it's probably just me and my fat face    The difference in light isn't that big a factor to me.  I would focus on power, say 4x12 or 4.5x14 something with some magnification for the 7mm I'm persuming mag.  Good luck      

Build up your cheek weld with an old mouse pad and the camo wrap tape.  I had to do this on my .204 that has a 50mm and high rings for clearance.  You can also throw on a stock bag with your dope charts if you are really serious about long range shooting.



I agree on spending money on better glass rather than bigger glass.   

[jackelope]

better glass trumps bigger glass here too.
98% of the time there's not much need for a 50mm objective lense on a big game rifle. Spend the money on a higher quality scope so your 7mag doesn't break the next one you get.

[westsidebuckslayer]

thanks guys for the info it helps alot i wasnt sure but i think ill just go with the 40 and spend the extra on a better quality 

[high country]

that c note could get turrets installed or a reticle. elevation turret on something like a conquest 3x9 or vx3 should make any gun fairly repeatable out to 7hun or more

[fishnate]

I would spend the money on better glass and get 50. I like the 50 for the bigger field of view. But thats just my 

[KimberRich]

50 sits to high and weighs more so I only use them on my long range/bench type guns.  Like everyone is saying, I would spend that extra $100 on getting a better scope with a 40mm bell. 

[Sneaky]

50mm also helps acquire moving targets and gathers a lot more light. But in the end its personal preference

[C-Money]

I like the 40, as said before, I want my scope to sit as low as possible on my rifle. Buy better quality glass and I think you will be a happy shooter.

[fishnate]

When it comes down to it you just cant go wrong with a leupold 40 or 50 or whatever, all will be a good purchase.

[KillerMiller]

When it comes down to it you just cant go wrong with a leupold 40 or 50 or whatever, all will be a good purchase.

x2

[Sporting_Man]

42mm is the maximum I would go with for all the reasons stated above. Check SIGHTRON Big Sky models. I love mine.

[carpsniperg2]

depends on the gun and what i am using it on.

[bobcat]

It does depend on the gun, and the stock, but for most rifles I wouldn't go above 40mm, or possibly up to 42 as Sporting Man suggests. With a 50 you will usually have to mount the scope so high that to see through it, you will have to raise your cheek above the stock, and that won't help your shooting any.

[wildmanoutdoors]

As far as a 50 goes I just sold my VX-L. Even though it sat on a low mount it was just too dam big for my Lightweight BLR 300wsm. Its my brush gun and the scope just was bulky, caught on everything and I was too darn worried about hurting that 700 dollar scope. Plus i carried it in my hands most of the time and it made it top heavy and would add too much side to side strain on my arm as well the added weight.

However, if I had east side gun or was into long range with a bolt gun it would have been fine i suppose. But its a west side brush gun for deer only as I bow hunt for Elk.

So it really does matter what your intended purpose is for the gun. But for me, Im looking at a light weight 32 to 36 and spending the money on quality glass.

[addicted]

yes the larger diameters allow more light to pass through but since a majority of the optics companies use the darn duplex or some other thin reticle, in a true very low light situation(like hunting off the moon) you cant pick up the crosshairs even though you can make out every stump, rock and critter in the feild.  it is really irritating.  i bought my wife a 3-9x50 nikon BDC for pig and fox hunting at night here in germany and she can see everything but the crosshairs.  Hence the #4 reticle is also known as the "German #4 reticle"