Who has a 50mm Scope?

[Eddie3412]

I'm getting a new 3-9x50 and have heard mixed reviews about the 50mm. The largest scope I have shot threw is a 44mm which I liked very much. I can't imagine it's that much of a diffrence to step up to the 50mm. For guys that use a 50mm, do the higher rings really make that much of a diffrence when shooting?

Thanks
Eddie

[EYESON]

I guess my question is why do you want a 50mm objective? It was explained to me the only advantage is light gathering capability. You gain no field of view, that is why I went with 40mm. As for setting up no different then any other scope. Just make sure you have mounts that are high enough.

[Swamp Monster]

Well, alot depends. The rifle, the scope, the bases, and the rings will all decide if you need high rings. Yes, in most cases, high rings suck. They force you to lift your head off the stock, slow down getting the site picture and since your head is off the stock, increase felt recoil. Plus, they have an adverse affect (more so anyway) on the balance of your rifle. Basically, in a 3-9 power range, the 50mm is a waste opticaly, but manufacturers know that someone will gladly spend the money because they believe they are getting a benefit. If you hunt with the scope set at 8x or 9x, yeah, the 50mm may seem brighter but at any power less than 8x, the human eye won't notice. And contrary to what many believe, most 50mm scopes do not give you a larger field of view.....a scopes objective size is not in relation to the field of view. If you are buying good glass, say a Leupold etc, the 50mm will cost you about $100 more than the same scope in 3-9x40mm and the manufacturer is laughing all the way to the bank. May as well just light that $100 bill on fire! A 50mm objective can be nice if your using high power optics, say a 6x-18x or 8x-24x etc. Todays good glass, in a 3-9x40mm is plenty bright enough to make out game well past/before legal shooting hours...no need for 50mm in such glass. I know people will claim that at 4x they are much brighter but the fact remains that the human eye can only use so much available light.....those that make such claims either have bionic eyes, or they are trying to justify to themselves why they spent the extra money;)

Oh, and quality glass is always brighter than cheap glass.....a Cheap scope with 50mm objective will not necessarily be brighter than good glass with 40mm objective. Glass quality and the quality and number of coatings has far more to do with brightness.

[kingfishcam]

I have a 50mm scope, and a 30mm tube with it. Can't find a nicer setup for low light conditions.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

have a 50mm 4x16 mueller milldot scope and love it. took it to roger at shooters to have it mounted on a 700 bdl 300 win mag. it also has 11 lighted settings and last year i needed that lighted scope to make a good 1 shot 1 kill on a doe out at 222 yards (per laser). no problems with my head and check on the butt stock.:xzicon_sm when that baby whispers something dies everytime.:evilsmile

[qin45]

I am ready to get one

[glockman55]

I have a Leupold vari-x III, 4.5X14X50 on my Rifle, Overkill? Probably but it's nice when I go out West hunting. I have the vari-x I, 3X9X40 on my T/C Encore and the 50mm is brighter.. my 2 cents..

[Yarcher]

I have a had a Bushnell Trophy 3x9x50 on my Browning .30-06 for over 10 years. Works great in low light, and I like to scope all around. I didn't have to use excessively high rings, and it has held it's zero throughout the entire time. Is it brighter than a "higher quality" 40mm? I don't know, since I don't own one. I liked the Bushnell Trophy so much that I put their 1.75x4 Trophy on my muzzleloader, and a 2x6x32 Trophy on my 15" .308 Encore. I don't think that you necessarily gain a great deal using a 50mm over a 40mm, and would recommend that you get your hands on several different sizes and brands and see what looks the best to you. Try stopping into a shop right before dusk and asking to take a couple outside to compare.

Not to go off subject, but for my money, I have found that I don't need to spend a small fortune on a scope, and the ones I have bought have served me well. I have had several friends comment on the clarity and brightness of my scopes, and they were even more impressed with the price. If I had a million dollars, I might be recommending Swarovski, but I have always had to balance price and performance, and I think I have found a happy medium. Good luck!

[Swamp Monster]

I have a Leupold vari-x III, 4.5X14X50 on my Rifle, Overkill? Probably but it's nice when I go out West hunting. I have the vari-x I, 3X9X40 on my T/C Encore and the 50mm is brighter.. my 2 cents..

Um yeah, VXIII @$500 vs VXI @ $200. You think their might be a difference in the quality of the glass? Just a little. The quality difference has far more to do with the brightness than the difference in the objective size. The VXIII 4.5-14x40mm would be brighter than the VXI 3-9x40mm as well.

Plus, 50mm ain't all bad if your going to be using the upper end of 14x scope at all in the field. But for the 3-9x application discussed in the beginning of the thread, the 50mm is not much of a gain.

[Swamp Monster]

Not to go off subject, but for my money, I have found that I don't need to spend a small fortune on a scope, and the ones I have bought have served me well. I have had several friends comment on the clarity and brightness of my scopes, and they were even more impressed with the price. If I had a million dollars, I might be recommending Swarovski, but I have always had to balance price and performance, and I think I have found a happy medium. Good luck!


Those Bushnell Trophies do have nice glass for the price...good clarity and resolution. I had bad luck with one on a slug gun but Bushnell fixed it for free. Have friends with them on other guns with good luck.

[Yarcher]

I agree with Swamp, you are going to get more light through better optics, regardless of size (within reason). I see they no longer offer the Trophy 3x9 in 50mm, just the 40mm. I would not hesitate to buy it in 40mm either. I bet that the difference in light transmission between the two is minimal at best. If I had the cash, I would probably top my guns in Leupold or Burris, but my budget scopes have proved more than adequate. I tossed around a 2x Burris for my Encore pistol before deciding on the Bushnell variable. I read some good reviews, and checked the warranty before making the purchase.

I think it is somewhat like accuracy. Hunters get so hung up on getting a tack-driving, MOA rifle, when most can't even shoot 1 MOA. Most decent scopes will easily allow you to see well past legal shooting hours. If you need light transmission after then, use a flashlight ;), as you should be on your way out. Find a scope that has the features you need, a price you can afford, and will last as long as the rifle. Then go hunt and enjoy yourself, and don't worry if that higher end scope would have somehow allowed you to see clearly for three more minutes. If you buy a decent scope, in the end your eyesight will be the limiting factor, not the quality of your optics.

[glockman55]

Um yeah, VXIII @$500 vs VXI @ $200. You think their might be a difference in the quality of the glass? Just a little. The quality difference has far more to do with the brightness than the difference in the objective size. The VXIII 4.5-14x40mm would be brighter than the VXI 3-9x40mm as well.

Plus, 50mm ain't all bad if your going to be using the upper end of 14x scope at all in the field. But for the 3-9x application discussed in the beginning of the thread, the 50mm is not much of a gain.
I hear ya SM, Just adding my opinion.
Eddie check around for sales, I bought that Leupold VX1 3X9X40 for $149. at Gander a year or so ago.

[Vinzo I]

Taking all of this into consideration and all other things being equal, what are your opinions about say the 4-12x40 vs 4-12x50 both in VXII.
Is the gain at higher magnifications in low light justification for the price difference? Not having any experience with these power or quality of scope, I am wondering how often would I receive the benifits of 50mm over 40mm? Been looking for a place that has basically identical scopes with only the 40/50mm difference so I can compare apples to apples during low light, but haven't found that yet.
Thanks, Keith

[solohunter]

I have a 6x24 x50 mildot on NEF.223 11 pos lighted reticle and it has been pretty nice in low light and at 24 power makes those yotes look as big as a COW:yikes: almost a spotting scope,,,, low light hasent been a problem as i turn it to 6x at dusk

[Sib]

I guess my question is why do you want a 50mm objective? It was explained to me the only advantage is light gathering capability. You gain no field of view, that is why I went with 40mm. As for setting up no different then any other scope. Just make sure you have mounts that are high enough.

That's the case for 1" tubes, but a 30mm tube is roughly 20% larger and can better transmit the light it gathers.

[Dom]

I do a lot of hunting at night for wild boar, and fox, so if that is in your plans get the most glass you can afford. I have several 50 and 56mm 30 mm tube scopes. But just to have a good scope with fine crosshairs you might as well stay home, because when it comes time to shix or get off the pot, you will not see those crosshairs, well, maybe with a full moon and snow you have a chance. Get the heaviest crosshairs ones you can, and even better is an illuminated dot, that is adjustable for brightness. If it's too bright you will not see anything either, it just barely has to light up. It is not at all unusual to spend at least as much, if not more, for the glass as you do on your weapon.

I do have some Leupolds, and had them change out the fine reticles for heavy ones.

On my go to combination outfit, sits a Swarovski 3-12x50, with illuminated dot. And, FWIW, I ain't no millionaire, but if I want to hunt at night I have to have very darn good equipment, Waidmannsheil, Dom.

[webfarmer]

I have Leupold 3.5-10X50 VXIII on most of my rifles and really like the clarity and low light capabilities. My hunting shotgun has a VXII 3-9X40 - what a difference! Not nearly as clear and definitely doesn't offer the same low light capability.

I bought these when I was a gun dealer ~ 13 years ago and sure am glad I did. As I get older, I appreciate every edge I can get as my sight fails me. Every other scope I personally own (Bushnell, Nikon etc.) pales in comparison to those Leupold VXIII's. I find a real difference between the VXII and VXIII IMHO.

Also, I find as you increase in age - swapping out scopes isn't necessarily a high priority as compared to other things. Guess my 2 cent suggestion is buy the better scope because you might not have the chance later. I'm so glad I bought them when I did.

[Ramhunter]

I'm afraid it is a fallacy that 30 mm tubes transmit more light than one inch tubes. The diameter of the objective lens, the lens quality, and the lens coating systems are the determining factors in light transmission. The primary "advantage" of a 30 mm tube is that it permits a somewhat greater amount of windage and elevation adjustment. The following is from the Leupold website:

"The Leupold Answer Guide

Advantages of a 30mm Maintube
Does a 30mm maintube give you more light? The principal advantages of the 30mm tube are added strength and increased adjustment range for windage and elevation. For example, the M8-12X (1" maintube) has a total elevation adjustment of 51 minutes. The Mark-4 M1-10X (30mm maintube) has 90 minutes. The percentage of light passing through a scope is a function of lens coating and optical design, and has nothing to do with tube diameter."

[Enigma]

I have a Swarovski PH scope 30mm tube and 50mm A.O. I can see well 35-40 min to sun up at 500 yards to 50 yards or even closer.But what do you what to spend, mine is 6X24 power it cost me $1800.00.

[HoytRLWinstonGuy]

I have a VXII 3-9-50, a VXI 3-9-40, a Simmons 3-9-50. Nikon 2-7-32, Weaver 3-9-40, ect., ect.
Depends what type of hunting you will be doing and how much you want to spend. Crap 50mm will never be as good as quality 40mm. All things being equal however, If you plan on sitting in a blind, in my experience the 50mm is nice to have because it is brighter and you don't necessarily need high rings depending on the rifle. If you plan on going west and hiking all over the mountains or are in and out of boats, ect., I'd go with the 40mm simply because it will be less obtrusive and not so much in the way. Contrary to popular belief, 50mm is not always 100 bucks more either.

[madmike22]

I have a 3-12x50 barska with the illuminated recticle and love it. I wish i could get it to fit on my shot gun but can only use a 40mm there. I have a 3-9x50 on my .243, and a 4-12x44 on a 223. I love the larger 50mm. I can notice a huge difference even at the lower powers. I only have one gun with the 40mm and its because its the only thing i can mount on my shotgun.