Post by: jimmyt on June 24, 2016, 08:58:50 PM
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 24, 2016, 09:01:13 PM
Post by: C-Money on June 24, 2016, 09:28:21 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 24, 2016, 09:30:55 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 24, 2016, 09:47:06 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on June 24, 2016, 09:57:45 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 24, 2016, 10:04:45 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on June 24, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 25, 2016, 08:45:54 AM
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 :bdid:
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.
Post by: bobcat on June 25, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Post by: JoeE on June 25, 2016, 09:49:31 AM
Post by: beaslayer6 on June 25, 2016, 12:37:31 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on June 25, 2016, 02:21:06 PM
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 :bdid:
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 :bash: 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 :yike: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: starbailey on June 25, 2016, 03:19:21 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 25, 2016, 04:29:35 PM
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 :bdid:
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 :bash: 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 :yike: :bash: :bash: :bash:
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."
Post by: b23 on June 25, 2016, 07:57:39 PM
"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.
Post by: jimmyt on June 25, 2016, 11:25:50 PM
Post by: Bofire on June 27, 2016, 09:17:09 AM
Carl
Post by: JDHasty on June 27, 2016, 11:18:53 AM
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.
Post by: Westside88 on June 27, 2016, 11:44:35 AM
Post by: WoodlandShooter on June 28, 2016, 09:22:52 AM
other than magnification, it's not that much of a difference.
don't worry about the size, worry about the quality of the glass...
Post by: b23 on June 28, 2016, 10:14:51 AM