50mm vs 40mm rifle scopes

[showtimebc]

for all you guys out there bought a 50mm over a 40mm lens on your rifle, is the extra clarity and light through your lens make a conisiderable difference for the extra mass your packin around vs the 40mm?

basically, why did you go with the 50mm over the 40mm. same for the guys with the 40mm over the 50mm. just wanna get some thoughts on what you guys were thinking and why you bought what you did.

i'm looking at buying a v3 4.5-14 power scope. it comes in 40mm and 50mm. at this point im leaning towards the 50mm for extra clarity when on 14x power.

[Jagermeister]

The larger will have a little more light gathering capabilities, but, depending on the height of the scope mounts, may be impinging on the barrel. The large would be more suitable for shooting F-class with the appropiate magnifying power or perhaps that thinhorn sheep hunt at the top of the world mountain range.

[RayHill]

More light light gathering capabilities, impinging on the barrel at low power. on low mounted 40mm this happens too.

[Hunt'n Guide]

I'd stick with the 40 mm if I were in the market for a new scope.

[brianjloeb]

bought am 50mm once and sold it again. then had 44mm AO scopes and sold them recently and replaced all with 3-9x40mm light weight 13oz ziess conquest scopes and couldnt be more pleased.. dont need the extra mass. my 40mm ziess see better then most average 50mm's anyways

[Brett]

More light gathering, so better low light visibility. It may be the glass but my 50mm(Ziess) is far better at this than any 40 I've looked through.

Larger field of view ( can see a little more side to side up and down.

impinging or touching the barrel can be an issue with any scope.
an extra 10mm divided by 2 because it's round is 5mm (.200") so you need to raise the scope maybe 4mm (.160") it's a non issue.

If you can afford it and your not buying a cheaper scope with 50 over a good 40, why not do it? if your cheeping out however just to get the 50 I don't think its worth it.

[Brett]

, impinging on the barrel at low power. on low mounted 40mm this happens too.

at low power??

[Bow Walker]

Depends on your cheek weld to the stock. How high up is your eye? Do you want to be leaning in or do you like a natural position? What size are your mounts - low, medium, or high?

Todd Bartell recommended medium mounts and a 40mm objective when I was in the market for a new scope for my .270....He was right on the money. His opinion was (and I presume, still is) that there was no difference in the light gathering capabilities of the 50mm over the 40mm. Or, on the other hand, that the differences were virtually undetectable by the human eye.

I went with his suggestion(s) and am very happy with the results. The gun/scope fits and feels perfect when I raise it to sight on a target.

[Alone in the wildernes]

I have a VX-L 3.5 x 10 x 56 on my 300 and a VX-L 3.5 x 10 x 50 on my 260 they are both great.

[The Hermit]

...
Todd Bartell recommended medium mounts and a 40mm objective when I was in the market for a new scope for my .270....He was right on the money. His opinion was (and I presume, still is) that there was no difference in the light gathering capabilities of the 50mm over the 40mm. Or, on the other hand, that the differences were virtually undetectable by the human eye.

I've heard that too but it was qualified by age of shooter... younger shootes can apparently see and use the difference but once you turn 35 or something like that the average eye has deteriorated to the point that the extra light is imperceptible? I have no idea as to the veracity of this though.

[CanuckShooter]

for all you guys out there bought a 50mm over a 40mm lens on your rifle, is the extra clarity and light through your lens make a conisiderable difference for the extra mass your packin around vs the 40mm?

basically, why did you go with the 50mm over the 40mm. same for the guys with the 40mm over the 50mm. just wanna get some thoughts on what you guys were thinking and why you bought what you did.

i'm looking at buying a v3 4.5-14 power scope. it comes in 40mm and 50mm. at this point im leaning towards the 50mm for extra clarity when on 14x power.


I have a VXIII 4.5x14x40 & it's pretty fuzzy around the edges @14power if the light is low....also have a 4.5x14x44 Zeiss Conquest...no issues....either scope I think you could shoot well past legal shooting light.....it's down to a personal choice between 40/50 bigger cannot hurt, too small can. imo

[Bow Walker]

Veracity verified, Bill.

[showtimebc]

I have a VXIII 4.5x14x40 & it's pretty fuzzy around the edges @14power if the light is low....also have a 4.5x14x44 Zeiss Conquest...no issues....either scope I think you could shoot well past legal shooting light.....it's down to a personal choice between 40/50 bigger cannot hurt, too small can. imo


at 14x power on the 40mm, it seemed a tad fuzzy for myself. on 14x power with the 50mm lens, it seemed more crisp vs the 40mm. the height difference between the 2 i can't see to be much of an issue, other than a bit getting use to with the 50mm. but i guess i wont know till i shoot a 50mm lens.

[tinhorse]

if weight doesn't matter go with the 50. I have one on my 7mm mag because that rifle is really heavy anyways. i went with a lighter 44mm on my 300 wsm because i wanted a lighter pack rifle, also why i chose the wsm over the win mag. Personally i see a difference between the 40 and 50. 50 is brighter for sure.

[eastkoot]

It's not the size of the objective lense but the quality of the lense coatings and glass. That being said, you may need a 50mm, probably an 800 MM V***** scope to even compare to a Ziess,Leica or Swaro 40mm.. Anyone ever hear of a Vortec or Leupold microscope or camera lense??? It's the quality of the glass and coatings..

[brianjloeb]

cannot afford swaro, like leica, and own 3 Ziess... all 40mm because thats all i could afford, two black and one stainless. and they will be the only scopes i ever use unless i win the lottery then i will by one swaro and still use ziess. wanna bye one and replace the leupold on my muzzle loader..
all base model conquest 3-9x40 but their light bullet proof and clear as any..

[cmfic1]

I've had a couple 50's...got rid of them.

Proper cheek weld is of greater importance to me, than the minute gains you'll get in a 50mm Obj. lens.

the only way I'd run with a 50mm+ lens is if it were a LR cart with adjustable stock.

[wolverine]

I put a VXIII CDS with a 50mm objective on my .270 recently. Since I'm in my 50's now and the eyesight isn't quite what it used to be I went for all the light gathering capability that I could. I don't think you are going to notice a drastic difference or maybe not any at all unless you have the 40mm right beside it to look through to make the comparison. Still, I beleive that the 50mm will gather more light even if only marginally so. It's not that much more expensive than the 40 and mounting it was a piece of cake. As long as I do my part it does it's part and the bullet imprints where I want it to. Great scope.

[BCBRAD]

The scope does not 'Gather light' it transmits it. A clean coated lens in 40mm is about all you can use in a big game hunting rifle. A human eye in excellent condition can receive 7mm of light, max and then down to about 2mm before things go dark.
So a 40mm for max light transmission would be set at 5-6X, if set at 10X,(as in a 3.5x10 scope) exit pupil would be 4mm, about enough for an average middle aged eye.
Big objective lens just get in the way and is more prone to damage than the smaller ones.
A Leupold 6x36mm is probably one of the best all choices one can make for most all hunting conditions.

[cmfic1]

Good post Brad

[wolverine]

You may be right Brad. I'm just saying I'm happy with mine.

[showtimebc]

after comparing the two scopes at low light, there was no difference I could tell. So might aswell save $100 and 3 ounces of weight and go with the 40mm. now the only question is if I go with the normal duplex reticle or the B&C one.

[coach]

after comparing the two scopes at low light, there was no difference I could tell. So might aswell save $100 and 3 ounces of weight and go with the 40mm. now the only question is if I go with the normal duplex reticle or the B&C one.

I agree with you on the negligible difference between the 40mm and 50mm in low light. I have one of each in Redfield Revolution 3-9 scopes and prefer the smaller size and lighter weight of my 3-9x40.

I also have a vx3 3-10x40 with the B&C. I like this reticle much more than the standard duplex on my Redfield scopes. Just my 2 cents..

[todbartell]

B&C reticle is fantastic, I'd go that route over a duplex

good choice with the 40mm

[Singleshotneeded]

A 40mm is probably the best compromise between light transmission and compactness in the shooting world. Just get decent optics and you'll be happy!