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

As I pointed out earlier, larger objectives don't necessarily have to had any significant amount of extra weight - yet everybody is parroting off that this is as part of the reason why they don't like larger objectives. The extra aluminium and glass will add about an extra ounce, at most two. What tends to make larger objective scopes heavier is all the other "features" they come with - including superior lenses, but also a lot of things I sincerely doubt the real world utility of.

To put things in perspective, my "default" scope is the Swarovski Z3/AV 4-12x50. It weighs about 1.5 ounces more than their 3-9x42, and just 2/3 ounce more than the Leupold FX-III 6x42! It is more than half an ounce lighter than a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40, and most other 3-9x40s on the market. Big objectives don't have to add much weight, yet they most definitely add time to my hunting day. And I have my 50mm objective mounted just as close to the bore as you can get your 40mm, due to the mounting arrangement. When you are hunting without curfews, like most of the world does, that is an extra 30-60 minutes hunting a day at little or no extra cost in weight, ergonomics or bulk.

If you hunt exclusively in North America, there is probably little reason to go reason to go to a 50mm objective. But there are good reasons why the rest of the world hunts with larger objectives. This also explains some of the "different" mounting systems that you see on rifles made outside of North America - the best example being the mounting system on the Blaser rifles which pushes the mount forward onto the barrel, allowing for a larger objective to be mounted lower to the bore.

BR:

I don't disagree about slob hunters. But I'm not sure increasing the cost of entry is the right solution. (There are a lot of wealthy duffesses )

And as a rule, I don't think taking actions that would decrease the number of hunters would be a good thing.

Sorry to hijack the thread. I'll shut up now.

----------------------------------------------------------

True .
Here in Florida we night hunt hogs and don't walk very far to most stands.
I was admiring my 4x12-50 leupold vx-r last night while hunting ,with a near full moon and very sandy [white] ground I could see the feeder area just fine with no light at 200 yards.
I also use 50's on a couple of Conquest's long range rifles ,not that a 40mm wouldn't work but the 50mm does give better night time resolution on higher power settings.

That's funny! .... I see a lot of newbie shooters here in Canada like them too. I suspect it adds a bit of tacticool to their guns, thus the attraction.

Someone earlier commented that you divide the power (magnification) into the diameter of the Obj in mm to get your exit pupil. I believe they then said anything over 7mm is useless to the human eye, and the scope will be too big and heavy. This is true if both scopes are dialed up to maximum magnification or are fixed power. One place a larger objective is an advantage is you can dial your magnification up to the said ratio that results in a 7mm exit pupil. The larger objectives will allow you to utilize a higher magnification and keep your 7mm exit pupil, thus getting you "closer" to the game animal than a scope with a smaller objective could.

Why do you dislike (or like) a 50mm objective?

Two reasons, one is that the large objective bell sticks out from the profile of the rifle and seems to catch on everything I move past (don't bother arguing the point as I don't care), second is that the larger objective scopes are physically too large for svelte stalking rifles.

And I would just about kill for a quality modern scope with a smaller 38mm ocular, small objective, and a long main tube.

Any comments Mule Deer?

Dislike because they mess with my cheek weld and they are just too big and awkward. Buy better glass in a 40mm and the benefits of a 50mm scope's light transmission are not as significant. I only know of one guy who has a 50mm scope that is top quality and it is the Leupold with the dished out bottom to sit low. The rest are lower end scopes with mediocre glass. Before I would put a 50mm scope on my rifles, I would get a 30mm tube scope instead.

OK, I'll bite. What are the good reasons hunters outside North America use 50 mm objectives, while they're not necessary for North America?

Here was my answer to the blanket "can't mount low enough, cheek weld sucks, etc" statements. Note the high comb, stock design...

[img:left][/img]

Not saying I like it better or worse than a high quality 42-44mm though.

Talley Mediums?

Yes pgoat, the lowest that HCR said would work.

With a 40mm objective, you could run lows.

Yes, and it may wind up wearing a 42mm VX6 before it's over, Not sure if lows would fit that setup or not.

Sakoluvr,

I did not read through all the pages of this thread so this may have already been said but to me, even more than the bulk of a 50mm objective bell on a scope, it's the added weight that drives me crazy. Every large scoped rifle that i've ever handled felt like a top-heavy chunk of plywood when brought to the shoulder.

Big scopes just simply ruin the balance(handling characteristics) of a nice rifle. Even a heavy rifle(if balanced properly)will feel good coming to the shoulder for a shot. Add a large, heavy, bulky scope to that rifle and the balance is ruined.

My riflescopes have objective bells from 33mm to 42mm(max) and weight from 10 to 13oz. Nothing in this range is going to detract from a fine rifle(aesthetically or functionally).

Leftybolt

Comb height determines scope height, not the objective diameter of the scope.

With the bolt action stocks I prefer there is no problem mounting a 50MM with a 5.75 contour. The high comb without dropping the heel keeps the recoil as flat as possible without interfering with the bolt travel and I would mount a 24MM objective at the same height.



Other style rifles require even higher scope mounting but I keep the same relationship between the comb and the scope. The scope on my carbines are at 2.850" over bore but same 2.250" over comb as my bolt guns.



As for saddle carry, I would not let a scabbard drive my choice in hunting optics. Plenty of scabbards out there to carry a 50mm objective.





The real advantage to the larger objective is the larger exit pupil that allows you to see through the scope sooner on a fast shot and keep you in the scope to see your shot at distance.



I find the 50mm necessary for the elusive clay bird hunting we do in low light conditions.

Let's see, shooting toward the horizon (looks that way anyway) at a moving target with a rifle. Very cool.

Thanks.

I did add this disclaimer when I first posted the video in the AR forum.



Some thought it was it was overkill but maybe not so much?

Well, I was thinking along the lines of the disclaimers, and also that you had no doubt accounted for them. You know a lot of people read this forum and some are not so experienced in safe gun handling.

Personally, I don't see the downside of a disclaimer.

Good shooting, by the way.

I think a good low light solution is a 40mm objective with a red dot LED in the center.