Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why do you dislike (or like) a 50mm objective?

I never owned a 50mm objective scope until a couple of years ago (Zeiss Diavari and a Conquest). I always thought they were a little bulky and really did not add anything meaningful (exit pupil) as far as shooting light was concerned, but now I kinda like em. Don't know if it's my older eyes or what. I do a lot of hunting from treestands and tower stands, so toting a few extra ounces is not an issue.

How about you?

Don't have a lot of experience with them but on my fixed 4x and 3-9 class scopes and considering the fact that I normally hunt with mine on 3x or 4x all the time and only crank the power when at the range, I never figured they offered much and they look clunky to my eye unless on a large target type scope.

Difficult to slide those into a saddle scabbard. Can be just as difficult to pull them from a saddle scabbard, too. Something to keep in mind when booking a horseback hunt with an outfitter. I very much dislike seeing those things in hunting camp, for the very reasons just described.

I dislike them intensely. For a rifle which is to see rough use in the field (and any real hunting rifle will)the large objective is too susceptible to damage. If the rifle hits the ground (and it does happen), that objective bell may be the first point of contact. To me, a riflescope objective should be smaller than the width of the stock at that point. Just my opinion, of course. GD

Heavy

Difficult to mount low over bore & in line with eye

Really Heavy

Tough to mount them low enough to establish proper cheek weld.

Compared to a 40mm scope they only offer a small advantage when set on 9X. Anything more or less and the 40mm scope matches it in low light. Assuming equal quality glass. Other than that they only cost more and have a bunch of disadvantages.

If you are seeing better in low light it is probably because you now have a better quality scope. Not because it is bigger.

TO EACH HIS OWN,I like them very much and most of my rifles have 50mms and 2 have 56's.

They look fugly and are cumbersom.

I should add that I hunt beanfields a lot, and the two 50mm scopes are on designated beanfield rifles.

I have carbine type rifles with smaller objectives when I am in the swamp.

The objective gets in the way when I try to use the irons with my See-throughs...

I just use XXX super high see throughs with shims. Problem solved.

Saddle scabbards! Just like Maverick 940 said. Target turrets give the same issues.

Dislike on sporting rifles, people and paper rifles need 'hubbles'

Gunner

I don't like them on sporting weight rifles. I'm not fond of them on varmint rifles. Reasons? Disproportional to the rifle, unnecessarily heavy, unnecessarily bulky and in the way, and I don't get a good cheek weld when I have to use high or extra high rings.

On a tactical rifle with a high comb or adjustable comb so I still get good cheek weld they can be ok.

I haven't spent any time shooting one, but in concept the Leupold VX-L may be the best of both worlds. If you truly need a large objective (few of us do during legal hunting hours in the US) and want a comparatively low mount, they are worth a hard look.

Tom

Gotcha...Thanks!

Did a search....don't know if some of this XXX stuff will go over too well with the missus, well, maybe after a few beers.

1. Affects handling... rifles feel top heavy.

2. Scope too high for good cheekweld (or need to add more crap like a kydex taco, rifle purse, or new high comb stock).

They are hideous and accomplish nothing.

Excess height, bulk, and xtra weight.

I've always found 40mm to be a good compromise and functional.

Do ya'll consider 14.5 oz heavy?