Are 50mm scopes worth it?

It depends on the quality of the optics. What scopes
are you looking at ?

A 40mm scope does exactly the same thing at 8X as a 50mm scope does at 10X. Above 9X or below about 6X or so they are equal. If you really need 5 more minutes of shooting time and plan on using the scope between 7X to 9X then they are a slight advantage. Assuming equal quality glass

There is more difference between quality scopes than 10mm of glass makes. A good quality 40mm scope will let you see well past legal shooting time, and longer than a lesser quality 50mm scope.

Do you like high rings and mounts? Trouble clearing with bolt lift? I have not really noticed that big of a difference between 40mm and 50mm other than mounting issues. It's there, but more trouble getting that little bit more.

Nope not even close for all the reasons cited above plus needless weight.

I notice a lot of used 50mm scopes for sale. Says something to me.

I want my scopes as low to the bore as possible.

EVERYBODY who knows ANYTHING knows 50mm suck. That's why they are selling, and every major scope manufactuer offers them, and even bigger 56mm are gaining popularity. Those big main tubes of 34mm offer nothing either. We all should be using 1" or even smaller tubes. Nobody's strong enough to carry a rifle that weighs an extra 10oz.

Of the dozens of hunting scopes I use, the largest is 44mm. I have never had to pass a shot due to not having enough objective. I shot a boar in near total darkness a couple years ago with a mere 32mm Nikon. I may have been able to see him a little clearer with bigger glass but the end result was the same, sausage!

I have several and for my deer hunting which includes food plots in deep woods, they work for me.

My elk rifle, on the other hand, has a 40 mm objective..

I use to feel the same way and I still like my 36mm scopes but my 50mm 3-10 Kahles Helia CL on 3X is a lot brighter in low light than my 2-7X36 Kahles Helia CL on 2X.

IMHO you just have to weigh the small amount of low light ability gained against the added size and weight. For folks with an exact limit of legal daylight I doubt the 50mm will help much. Our regulations just say until dark, which is rather dependent on one's perspective.

The answer of course is "it depends"

It's kind of arguing with a democrat about gun control when discussing bigger objective scopes around here. There's a lot of misinformation and flat out bull propagated to try and make points. Stuff like "A 40mm scope does exactly the same thing at 8X as a 50mm scope does at 10X." for example. Others cite weight as a major factor then will go on to rave about a 17 oz. scope with a 40mm objective & condemn a 50mm leupold that weighs 14 ozs. There's the claim that they require high rings (most don't on normal sporters) and the inference that they somehow will interfere with bolt cycling. How that happens when the scope sits higher is beyond me.

Everything's a tradeoff. Sometimes they're "better" for the purpose and sometimes they're not, it just depends upon what you want.

In general I like something smaller,but one of the nicest hunks of glass I have owned was a Kahles 3.5-10X50 CL.As I recall it mounted on medium rings on a Classic FW 243 and was very nice around dark-thrity.Easy viewing after some other stuff had quit.

I'd still like something smaller in a BG scope but for stand hunting whitetails it seemed like a good tool to me.Brilliant optics.

NO

Like the extra weight is not related to the ginormous size……(Hint: it ain't simply about the weight; Leupold understood that making huge and mounting low meant something to some people when they 'mooned out' the lower portion of some objective lenses.)

Not to me on a rifle used for hunting. Too big and bulky.

This is just another rediculous arguement. Like which is better 30-06 or 270. One gun isn't perfect for everything any more than one scope is perfect for every situation.

I have used everything from 1.5x fixed to 25x variables and up to 50mm obj, they all have a place. Small compact scopes won't do what the big heavy ones will. Big heavy guns are nobodys favorite to carry in the mountains.

When calling coyotes at night I could even see using a 56mm.

The largest objective in my inventory is 36mm and the smallest is 32mm, which are both Leupold VX-3 scopes.

The only scope that I found to be lacking at dawn and dusk in the deep woods was a Leupold Vari-XII, 2-7X, 28mm.

I don't know, but think that the human eye cannot process the benefits of a 50mm objective lens. I think I read somewhere, years ago that it was actually a bit over or under 40mm???

I only own one. A Bushnell 4200 2.5-10x50. It's very long and heavy.

It's on my "Barn Rifle". I don't carry it very far.It goes from my truck to a derelict barn that I use as a deer stand where I overlook pasture. Most of the shots at deer come right at sunset where I appreciate the 50mm objective.

I can't imagine having a 50mm on any other kind of rifle. I see them as a specialized application kind of affair.

Dan

I've never been a big fan of large objectives on hunting scopes but I got a great deal on a Conquest from Cameraland 3-9x50 with the Z600 reticle and have to say it really is a nicer picture than my old favorite 3-9x40 with what I think is the same glass.

The disadvantages of the bigger objectives have been discussed a little here but they have been around for a long time so they aren't show stoppers. I wouldn't put one on a lightweight mountain rifle but a standard weight long range thumper or varmint rifle would seem a good fit.

In general the cost difference doesn't seem warranted for most scopes, with the busy reticles there does seem to be some benefit.

I have several in both 40 and 50 in the same brand and quality. If I had to do it again I would stick with the 40s. In particular my 40 and 50 mm Swaros don't seem to handle much different on the same rifle which currntly is model 700 xcr ii. Never had the lueys on the same rifle so I cant say.

I have a few 50's, but like 40's better.

Seems with high end glass, it doesn't make as much difference. I have a Bushnell 6500 2.5-16x40. At high power in dim light, it tends to run out of gas. I can drop the power a bit and it's good to go. It makes me wonder if a 2.5-16x50 may not be better in dim light. I've not had the chance to compare 40 vs. 50 mm in that series. Would like a report if someone has.

DF

I guess I am in the minority. I prefer a 50mm. My favorite is my Kahles kx 3-10x50. The difference for light gathering is small indeed, but so is the weight difference. A 40mm on low mounts is just too low for me. If I go up to medium mounts, then I can usually fit a 50mm or a zeiss 44mm.

This is the most telling post of this whole thread. Now here is what I know. When I started getting cataracts, but before they were bad enough to operate on, a 50mm over a 40mm gave me approx. fifteen minutes more at the end of the day. That would depend some on cloud conditions and other variables. It did not help in the low light of morning when the light was increasing instead of decreasing, as much, but did help some. Since surgery, I can tell very little difference, but there is probably a little. A persons own eyes will tell him more about what is needed that any internet thread. miles

Which 50 mm is the best bang for the buck?
As far as twilight time?

If the 4200 50 4-16X is as bright bright as the 4-16X40 it might be the best. My 4200 just about matches my z5 which has a 52mm objective.

There have been some really close answers and a lot of personal opinions stated above.
The value of one over the other is up to the person using said scope.
A 50 mm objective will allow more usable light to reach the eye simply due to the larger exit pupil available on any given power of magnification. To put it another way, the pupil of your eye opens and closes in diameter due to the amount of light reaching the eye. The range is something like 4mm to 8mm in diameter.
When you have two identical scopes, say a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40 and a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x50 both set at 10x, the exit pupil on the ocular end (the end you're looking into) is 4 on the 40mm objective and 5 on the 50mm objective. Thus the reason what milespatton experienced with his scopes and eye condition.
The bottom line, as some have stated, if you're hunting in heavy timber or other places that stay 'darker' later, or, hunting in heavy cloud cover, you might find that a 50mm objective will be 'brighter' (more light reaching your eye). On the other hand, if you are hunting out of a box blind on a power line or up on a mountain looking across a valley, you may find the 40mm to work just find.

It all boils down to what each individual is used to, likes and where they use it. It also depends on each individuals eye condition/age.

And there you have it Rich. I'll have to admit I'm surprised a 4200 could hang with a Swaro, but the eyes don't lie. You know I'm a big fan of the top of the line Elites and I think they are one of the most underrated scopes on the market and not just because of their glass quality. I have found them ( I owned 6 of them at one time) to be very reliable, solid adjustments and excellent zero retention.

I like Elites, too. I don't have any 3200's, just 4200's and a 6500.

I have a number of scopes, including Leupolds, Zeiss, Kahles, Swaro's, etc.

For the buck, Elites are hard to beat.

DF