Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Interesting read on 40 MM and 50MM scopes by Chuck Hawks

II. We DON'T Want the Brightest Scope

We might think we do, we might say we do, but we really don't want the brightest scopes. The rules of optic do not change just because we call a telescope a riflescope. To get the brightest, clearest scope possible we need huge objective lenses, for it is the objective lens that ultimately controls resolution and potential light transmission. You might think there would be a market for 60mm or 70mm hunting scopes, but it appears that there isn't. Yet, doubling the size of an objective lens quadruples its light gathering ability.

Even a 50mm objective transmits 55% or so more light than a 40mm objective. Who but the most brainless of us could not want a technically superior objective like that? Most of us don't, and for good reasons.

You will get better strength, lower cost, less weight, less parallax, and greater depth of field with the 40mm objective. Human eyes are not the best on the planet; much technical light transmission cannot be detected, much less used, by the human eye. Most of us do not want our scopes mounted as far away from the barrel as possible. Necessarily, larger objectives prohibit close scope to bore mounting. Human eyes quickly lose the ability to distinguish color as the light fades; the human eye's deficiencies pretty much negate the theoretical advantages of large objective lenses.

Who can say that, under hunting conditions, they can hold a 12X scope steady enough in the off-hand position to be usable? How about with a 20 mph crosswind? I have not been able to. We may think we want the brightest scope in the barn, but human eyes do not have the ability to use much more than a 5mm exit pupil. Just like binoculars, which are a pair of telescopes mounted together, reasonably large objectives and low magnifications give us the best images. We rarely seek 60mm or 70mm objective binoculars, either, though recoil resistance and rifle mounting are no longer factors in our choice.

We do not want the brightest and clearest, really, because what mathematics can document our eyes simply cannot take advantage of. Brightest and clearest becomes meaningless because our eyes simply cannot take advantage of the theoretical advantage.

I'll finish on "bright and clear" by quoting Scott Powers, who has discussed sniper scopes in detail:

"Objective size. What is reasonable, usable, or just plain hoaky? I will offer my opinion; one I am sure will garnish some argument. I do not believe there is any use for anything larger than 40mm, or 42mm at the most. In a good quality scope, one in fact going to be used for sniping, competition, or collecting, a large objective bell is only a hindrance, no matter what the current hype."

"Consider first the major disadvantage to a 50mm or larger bell. These large objectives force the shooter's head up so high that, on an unmodified stock, he can get no reasonable or repeatable cheek weld. Think of firing an AR15A2 with a scope. You just about have to use your chin on top of the stock to see through the scope. Until you mount a high-rise cheek piece, you will never be consistent. This is not acceptable on a sniper rifle or, for that matter, any firearm used for hunting."

"Your best accuracy is going to be found by mounting the scope as low as possible to the axis of the bore. Why start off on the wrong foot by building in an inherent disability into your weapon system? For more clarity, you say? HA! This is where the industry really loses me. Many companies offer very large objectives claiming that they will transmit more light, be brighter, and cause less eyestrain. All of this may be true, but your eye can only accept so much light. About four to seven millimeters at the exit pupil. A good quality scope with a smaller objective is already capable of this, so why pay for something you cannot actually use? Also, consider that most of these 50mm (and larger) designs came about to assist European hunters who shoot at night. If you are not a poacher, why would you need whatever extra light gathering ability these behemoths might offer? If you are a police officer, chances are that the situation you are in is going to be well lighted by klieg lights, idiotic reporters, or ambient street light. You may even have night vision of one sort or another, depending upon your department's policy."

"If you are a civilian, and a hunter, there are many scopes on the market that offer excellent low-light clarity with less than 40mm lenses. This is another advantage to low power. The lower the power, the more light is transmitted. A small 1.5-5x 32mm will transmit more light than a 10x 50mm. So the question begs: Why spend all your money on objective size, when quality of glass is far more important?"

Recently I held my Swarovski offhand on 25X still enough to verify a deer was a doe and not a buck in the brush 155 yards away.



I want the brightest and clearest in a manageable size and weight. That's why my scope has a 52mm objective.



I have proven beyond a doubt that my 52mm Swaro is better than 40mm scopes in low light many times. This is not hype but fact for those who have looked though them from the porch.



Perhaps this writer has never used a Weatherby.



Apparently this writer has never heard of hunting pigs or varmint at night.



I'm thinking this guys does his testing with his computer keyboard. Just ask JJHack why he had one of his clients turn up his scope to maximum magnification setting when it was too dark to see the animals without good glass. I have shown folks who come by my house what happens when you have a high magnification scope set at a higher setting in low light. This is certainly a case when more is better.

The brightest hunter want the best compromise he can get. Sometimes that means a large objective high magnification scope on his rifle.

Not this again! I'm going to stay out of this one and just watch.

I don't believe I've ever read anything that Chuck Hawks wrote that I found interesting..........

Do people pay Chuck Hawks to write this stupid stuff?

I agree with alot of it however mounting the freaking scope on top of the barrel is not the be all end all and its not more accurate. for me I don't like a scope super low, maybe I have a fat face who knows. I normally prefer a medium ring height. it should come down more to rifle fit vs jambing the scope on top of the barrel. The other is will someone explain how you get more parralax error with a larger objective??

Does anyone make a 70mm objective? I think I need one; bigger is better, right?

That makes two of us.....

add me to the list

Not sure how he funds his operation.

I get the sense he's writing to write, regardless of the fact that he doesn't have that much to say, nor is he adding to the body of knowledge based on experience or expertise.

DF

Lots of BS in that article, I don't even know where to begin so I won't.

The guys arguments read like Dianne Feinstein's arguments against guns, he seems to think he's the arbitrator of what people need.

Zeiss/Hensoldt make 72mm for those with a lot of money.

Now its 3 of us!

Makes four of us. He partners with Randy Wakeman if that helps those who are familiar with the "knowledge base"...

Oh schaaattttttt............are you serious?

Nothing would make me consider a scope bigger than 44mm. Even that looks and works poorly. I guess I don't need to compensate.

Swampman700,



Why would you keep a scope that works poorly?



What does a scope compensate for?

Just my opinion but I believe a larger objective lense is better - if using the same quality glass. I'll take a 32mm Leupold, Ziess, Swaro, etc. over a 50mm Tasco, Simmons, etc.

timbo762



While watching have you learned anything?