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

It's hard for a "know it all" like me to learn anything, but I do find it very entertaining. Simple pleasures for simple minds I guess.

Chuck Hawks and Wrongman belong together. It's just natural..

Ringman, with all due respect, I know Timbo 762 very well and for many years. He has more knowledge about things optical in his little finger than 9 out of 10 of those who freely opine.

I have listened to him, learned, and have yet - thousands of dollars in optical equipment experience - to find him wrong or short of experience related knowledge in binoculars, cameras, spotting 'scopes, or riflescopes.

I count him a great optical resource and am personally much obliged to him.

BTW - that's now at least 5 of us that have no use for the Chuck Hawks version of Diane Feinstein.

RogerCox,



Timbo762 responded in the light hearted manner in which I intended my post. I have no idea who here is an expert or a novice. Or someone like me who just likes to play with optics and is getting sort of and education in what I want and like.

Take a look at my post comparing a 7X35 against an 8X40.

I think the 40mm objective is too big ...

I have several 40mm scopes, one 42mm, several 50mm, and one 52mm. I try to fit the scope to the gun. I think my swaro 52mm is the brightest and clearest with the Kahles and Zeiss close behind. I have good quality glass on all my main hunting rifles now so I dont pick a gun for the glass now, I pick a gun best suited for the situation. Good glass is the a must for me now!!!

Chuck Hawks is a certified goober. If he wrote it, it's not worth talking about....PERIOD.

Terry

my thoughts exactly. another "internet" expert with little experience. He ignores a lot of optical science in a simple discussion of how big the objective is. Goober may be too kind.

Ringman:

I have read many of your posts and truly understand that you like to play with optics and learn. Your posts are often interesting.

All optical devices are a set of compromises within the laws of physics. Some of those sets may fit your needs or desire to learn better than others and that is true with most inanimate objects.

I'd hope to be the last person to criticise your product ownership selections based on your experience with them or your efforts to test them for the uses you intend for them.

My response to you was "light hearted" - well, at least as light hearted as I perceived your response to Timbo to be.

My intent was to provide credential for the man that he is too polite to provide. He certainly knows the value of both objective and subjective opinions in specific cases.

And I believe I did provide that credential, without casting any stone at any particular person or poster.

Please tell me this was a tongue-in-cheek statement. No matter the level of your expertise you can always learn something new...especially with the optics world. It seems optics are beginning to mirror the path of computers and "smart" cell phones; by the time you get it home a "newer", "better" optic is either released or set to be released in the next 6 months.

Well he is a legend in his own mind. It snowed pretty heavy here in CT and its clear right now, Around Mid Night if its still clear and the Moon is out, I will be able to see well enough to shoot a white tail deer with a leupold 6 x 42mm. And there would be no doubts about it with one of the Zeiss's with any of the 42mm up to that big 70 mm job they make that costs about as much as some used cars. Never mind the weight. Its not the point, the thing with good glass is simple being able to see well enough to make a shot that you can with some of the lesser stuff on that once in a live time elk hunt. I been thinking about going to Illuminated reticule in a 1.7-10x42 mm Swarovski myself. My 58 year old eyes are not what they use to be. The reason they make this stuff is because it works and people buy it, and they would not buy it if it didn't work. Yea its hair splitting at the top end lots of money for little gain, but who is to say? Chuck Hawk being the last word on this, not likely.

Add me to that list as well. And that blisteringly stupid and obnoxiously smug jackass Wakeman that writes articles on his website is even worse than Hawks. And now I think you have to be a paying member to read their bull@@@t. I wonder sometimes who on earth is stupid enough to pay to read that drivel?

I really miss Wakeman.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to him?

Looks like he hasn't been online in about a year. Best part is that under occupation he listed "firearms expert" .

Of course that, like much of what I say, was tongue-in-cheek and I freely admit to like "cracking wise" when ever the opportunity presents itself. I do find much of what I read here entertaining, especially when the arguments get so heated over trivial things. I'm not an optical engineer, but I did spend 35 years selling a variety of optics and have looked through a lot of glass. If I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't say anything. I know the difference between opinions and facts, and while everyone has opinions, not all have facts. Any way, I am just here to have fun.

Who's this "WE" he is referring too? He got a turd in his pocket feeding him this line of bullshit?

A 3.5-10 x40 gathers less light on low power than a 3.5-10x50 on the same power... Definitely proven, on paper, varmints, and pigs after dark.

Maybe he likes sticking objectives up his ass and he can't yet fit the 50mm so it's useless to him... Try more lube chuck.

I am no expert, cannot shoot for chit, don't know nothing about nothing, but I do hunt, reload, and shoot.

there are several I better not mention by name and one still posts on the fire.... four flushers. I think its a mental thing, everybody has got to have something and some folks settle on wearing fake medals and talking about stuff they never did.

Not directed at you timbo, but I personally trust reports from people who use stuff in the field, actual hunting use, etc. Not so much from people who run lab tests or stare at glass in a store, or in broad daylight, etc.

JG, what a novel concept...!

I like it...

DF

You know JG, I was always amazed at how many people bought things on my recommendation alone. Most were happy with their purchase, but I was still amazed. A person should always buy what they want regardless of what others say if they really want to learn for themselves. I always bought a lot, but nobody sold me anything and I rarely make a purchase based on someone's recommendation alone. I'm one of those guys that has to "see for himself" and use it, so I bought a lot of stuff that didn't work out for me but at least I knew for sure. Also, when I was "in the business", I was fortunate to have access to products for "testing" and use without purchase. Back in the day, I did get out in the field for "real world" results. Even so, what's good for me might not be good for you regardless of quality, price or reputation. You'll only know for sure after you've used an item yourself. It's cost me a small fortune to learn what I've learned, but I wouldn't have it any other way.