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

I'd check that Conquest in a 40mm obj. I'm old too, and this past season used a 3-9 40mm ZC for the first time. Made me forget I was getting old. 50mm's are heavy, big, and heavy. And did I mention that they are also heavy? I'm a 40mm or smaller fan all the way.

For me too tall, too wide, too top heavy.
Too many toos.

Every situation is different. I use and like 50mm objectives on several of my rifles. But I have smaller objectives on others for very good reasons.

One cannot really generalize.

dont mind them at all.people complain about mounting height on a 50mm but i'd be willing to bet that most of your 40mm scopes have more than 5mm clearance between the bell and the barrel. you hardly ever see a 40mm mounted really close to the barrel.

i really like a 42-44m scope.

Far as I am concerned; depends on rifle, scope and hunting application. I use scopes from 36-50mm and have one 56mm.
By the way, a 3-9x40 Conquest is heavier than a Swaro Z3 4-12x50.

Too big a bulky for my tastes.

Not all of them. I like to get them down a close as possible.

My Ruger Hawkeye, Leupold Rings, Leupold VX-2.

If you use a scope for hunting on powers greater than 8x, they can get you a brighter picture at times. Other than that, they have all the negatives listed above.

Make your choices......

I have 40's, a 52 and a 50 on my guns. I like them all. My 52 is sitting in Burris Medium Signatures so not sure what all the crying is about.

This thread kind of hits home for me. I have, in the past, tried the huge objective bells for their supposed advantages in low light situations. I have come to the conclution that the benifits (if any) do not offset the negatives a s to weight and balance problems with the bigger scopes.

For the past year I have been searching and replacing ALL of my scopes that have a 40mm or larger bell with those older style scopes of 32-36mm size. They just l;ook and feel right.

I know we all "plan" for that shot that comes in the last 30 seconds of daylight.....but, truthfully, how often has it actually happened? I know that in more than 50 years of hunting I cannot recall a single time that a bigger scope would have helped me, nor a single time that a smaller scope cost me a shot.

The asthetics and balance are more important to me than any imaginary advantage of the larger bells. There is just something "wrong" with a sleek Savage 99 EG.....and a scope the size of a Q-beam strapped on top.

I have one of them, and an advantage is that the image is quicker to pick up for me anyway. A 42 with better glass/coatings does fine in low light my victory HT 42mm objective is better than my Kahles American 50mm but both are very good in low light, another good one is the fixed 6X Meopta with 42 mm objective, for low light I like a #4.

This is enough for me as well.

With 32mm objective lenses and even on older glass -- 1948-1958 models -- I haven't had any problem locating stationary and/or moving big game animals at dawn and dusk and then making the shot, even out beyond 400 yards. And merely from a guide/outfitter standpoint, I'm not a fan of large diameter objective lens rifle scopes. They're heavy, cumbersome, awkward and when hunting on horseback, problematic at best. But, that's simply my opinion and nothing more than that. Nevertheless, small diameter objective lens rifle scopes have proven themselves for decades and decades and I find no fault in them, whatsoever.

as much as I hate to agree with you, I do. My toughest shot in very low light was made with a 56mm ziess V/MV..I really thought my scope saved the day.

Then my buddy that i trust, that also had the buck lined up in his crosshairs said he could have easily taken the shot as well, with his VX2 3-9x40..so much for my superior glass.

Tough to mount low enough for natural cheek weld for me and they don't seem to make a significant difference in low light image quality. I'll stick with my plain jane 3.5-10x40 Leupolds. They haven't let me down yet and provide a nice sharp image, even under challenging light conditions.

I have a couple 50 mm, but mostly 40-42 mm scopes. The Elite 3200 3x9x50 just looks huge on any rifle I've put it on. Optically, it's good, but I can't see much difference with s similar 40 mm scope.
I don't think I'll be buying any more 50 mm.

Yes, when you can put a Leupold 6X36 @ 10oz on the rifle and lose 4.5oz I'd consider it heavy.
IMO, some people WAY over scope their big game rifles.

I don't like anything more than 44, 40-42 is better. The 50 mm is wider than the rifle so bangs into everything. I like scopes mounted low so that everything is automatic, no hunting for an image.

I think that at 50mm they start detract from both the appearance and functionality of a hunting rifle. 40 to 42 mm is big enough to take in as much light as it takes. Any gain beyond that is so marginal as to be barely worth mentioning.

To some degree, IMHO it's as much about marketing as anything else. Bigger is better, rah rah rah, and all that stuff.

Thinking about it, even the forces snipers tend towards 40mm scopes. Quick check, gleaned the following info from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_Timberwolf

I used a 8x56 IOR and a 4 x56 Redfield Illuminator hunting in forests in Maryland for Sika deer, they would allow you to hunt well past legal shooting hours if so inclined. They were mounted on a 7 lb. rifle. so they were top heavy and such but If you need to see dark critters indark palces at or just after sun set they are good. Otherwise I stick to 36 -42 mm objectives in carrying rifles for all the reasons stated.