Hunting Washington Forum

Equipment & Gear => Scopes and Optics => Topic started by: westsidebuckslayer on February 10, 2010, 10:39:07 PM

Title: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: westsidebuckslayer on February 10, 2010, 10:39:07 PM: 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?
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: high country on February 10, 2010, 10:43:34 PM: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: Deep Forks on February 10, 2010, 11:29:44 PM: 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 :dunno: 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 :) :)
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: Intruder on February 11, 2010, 09:08:05 AM: Buy 40 or 42. Spend though dough on better glass.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: Wacenturion on February 11, 2010, 09:36:30 AM: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: elk311 on February 11, 2010, 01:45:43 PM: Quote from: Intruder on February 11, 2010, 09:08:05 AM
Spend though dough on better glass.

:yeah: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: MtnMuley on February 11, 2010, 01:48:17 PM: Quote from: elk311 on February 11, 2010, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: Intruder on February 11, 2010, 09:08:05 AM
Spend though dough on better glass.

:yeah:x2
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: tlbradford on February 11, 2010, 02:14:47 PM: Quote from: Deep Forks on February 10, 2010, 11:29:44 PM

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 :dunno: 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.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=728)

I agree on spending money on better glass rather than bigger glass. :tup:
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: jackelope on February 11, 2010, 02:54:37 PM: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: westsidebuckslayer on February 11, 2010, 10:07:44 PM: 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 :hello:
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: high country on February 12, 2010, 08:21:23 AM: 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
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: fishnate on February 24, 2010, 08:50:22 PM: 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 :twocents:
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: KimberRich on March 04, 2010, 12:31:39 PM: 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. :twocents:
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: Sneaky on March 05, 2010, 09:21:26 AM: 50mm also helps acquire moving targets and gathers a lot more light. But in the end its personal preference
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: C-Money on March 05, 2010, 10:04:14 AM: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: fishnate on March 06, 2010, 09:32:03 AM: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: KillerMiller on March 06, 2010, 09:35:59 AM: Quote from: fishnate on March 06, 2010, 09:32:03 AM
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
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: Sporting_Man on May 20, 2010, 01:32:00 PM: 42mm is the maximum I would go with for all the reasons stated above. Check SIGHTRON Big Sky models. I love mine.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: carpsniperg2 on May 20, 2010, 01:33:56 PM: depends on the gun and what i am using it on.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: bobcat on May 20, 2010, 01:36:15 PM: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on May 20, 2010, 02:02:39 PM: 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.
Title: Re: 40mm or 50mm?
Post by: addicted on May 22, 2010, 07:53:20 AM: 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"