I’m curious. Do you think that having an illuminated Firedot reticle would negate the need for a 50mm objective over a 40mm objective? Wouldn’t almost any quality optics of say a 36-40mm be able to resolve the animal enough in low light to make the shot unless we are talking a fairly long range shot?
IMHO, no, and yes. As mentioned earlier in this thread, using my SWFA 6x42, I could see my "targets" (various darkish objects in the shadows of my yard) but not the reticle. I think that the two problems are separate issues. If anything, a lighted aiming point will make it harder to see the target under very dim light because it will cause your pupil to close a bit. Possibly the larger objective would help overcome that.
The deer I shot moments before legal shooting time ended last year was quite visible at 20 yards or so through the Mark AR Mod 1 1.5-4x20 on my .308 and the green dot, set very low, stood out very well. After the shot, she ran off with the others and stopped about 80 or 90 yards away. At that point, I could see the others well enough that I thought briefly about dropping another one. With my naked eye, the only way I could tell when she flopped over seconds later was by the flash of her white parts. If a 20mm scope let me see that well, I feel pretty certain a 40 would have been even better.
One of the things I often do while waiting for legal shooting time in the morning is checking to make sure I can see my sights. I've always been able to make out my ordinary duplexes in 2-7x33, 4xwhatevers, and 3-9x40s before it was legal to shoot. Until last year, I usually left the woods a bit before the end of legal shooting time for safety's sake, but last year, hunting on private land, I stayed late several times. Again, checking through my scope, I could see well enough to shoot until the final gun, at least in the open field I was watching. A little more light wouldn't have hurt though. If a larger objective helps YOU, go for it.
