Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why has everyone gone ape over larger, i.e. 50mm, objective lens on scopes?

Agree completely; good post. I have long wondered why I have gotten by with relatively small scopes for much of the hunting I do. Over the years it dawned on me that,even here in New England I hunt large tracts of forest,mountain, clearcuts and swamps wher you usually do not see another person,or only infrequently. I move alot, prefering that to stand hunting.

In the west,ther's a lot of spot and staulk; a lot of climbing,etc. I don't need a huge scope.

But in central Canada,deer hunting, there is a ggod deal of hunting from fixed locations over large fields in the dawn/dusk scenario.Something larger,with more magnification and better optics, makes more sense.

I like to hunt on my feet too but it's not as productive in the thick ga pines. I hunt my own land so when I want to walk, I do but its typically mid day and I carry my sons little 250 with a 2.5x8 leuply, cranked down to 2.5. most of the time though, I am high in a box stand with my youngest son looking through the binocular for his benefit. I did get to shoot once this year and any ole scope would have worked. still, there are those time in the early morning or late in the evening, in those last fading minutes where I could clearly see a deer in my good binocular and the very best scopes I have still have a hard time keeping up. some of my very best opportunities come very early in the morning so why not have the best scope you want or can afford? to each is own, for different reasons! I have a good friend who spends thousands of dollars annually to hunt and will not spend a penny on a rifle or scope, its simply more than he can stand but he lavishes his wife with jewerly that she really does not want. he hunts with an old rem and moderate scope and begged to borrow my supergrade in 338wm for a $10k grizzly hunt. I told him no!

257Bob, you know, it's kind of interesting though, it isn't unusual for guys to show up for expensive hunts, all decked with fancy bells and whistles, to be less well prepared overall than guys who come with soft, worn, perhaps faded camo clothing, and their old beat-up, out-of-date rifles. I'm always surprised at how poorly some people who can afford nice things actually use them. Of course, there is no direct correlation there, but obviously, as with happiness, money and great equipment are no replacement for time spent honing skills - even if the equipment is less than top shelf.

Absolutely true!

cole,
Put me down as a guy who has not gone ape over large 50mm lense scopes, I no longer own even one.
The larger area collects more drizzle, more dust, and is prone to banging into things.
I use a 2.5-8x36 with B&C reticle for hunting in open areas. bought my first scope of this size back in 1977 with a duplex and it was my primary hunting scope until I replaced it with the VXIII B&C.
For woods hunting mine is a conquest 3-9x40.

Hmm.

Some people must be more sensitive to things sticking out than I am. I just looked to be sure and the 10 mm difference between a 40 and 50 mm objective is about 2/3 the the thickness of a finger. I've hunted some tight brush before on the wet side of WA state but nothing that would preclude my using my 50 mm scoped rifle.

My best field test of the difference between scopes was when I shot an elk with 5 minutes of legal light left. He was standing in dried swamp grass and the ground fog was just coming up.

I put a round through his lungs and knew he was hit but didn't want him to get back into the thick reprod beyond the swamp. I'll admit I was a tad excited and my next shot wasn't all that impressive. I had taken a tumble on a slash pile the day before and had knocked the scope fairly hard on a log. It didn't seem damaged at the time and as it turns out it wasn't. I was still concerned about the elk though so I switched rifles with my wife just to be sure. She was carrying my Sako with a 3x9x40 Leupold on top and when I swung up on him I couldn't get a sight picture. The view was dim and hazy. I switched back to my .300 Winchester with the 3.5x10x50 and I could see him fine.....and he fell before I wasted another shot at him.

Side by side, field conditions, legal hunting hours. Big difference. If I'd been hunting with the Sako and it's scope I couldn't have taken that bull.

I've lugged both rifles around swamps, up in the mountains and every kind of terrain inbetween and never really noticed much difference in weight...altough the Sako is a wood stock and the Winchester is composite. If I had to do it again I'd still go with the bigger scope for the hunting I do the most of.

I won't have a scope less than a 44 diameter.I have 4 of them 4-50mm and 4-56mm and I like the 50 and 56 more than the 44's.DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS,LIVE WITH IT.

Legal light where I hunt is 1/2 hour before sunrise or 1/2 hour after sundown, that has always been enough light for my 36 mm objective, they are great little scopes.

I'm buying a 50mm scope just to find out what all the fuss is about.........

I'm with StrayDog,generally...big scopes drive me nuts.But I guess they are required fare where deer are the size of barn rats.

what is this thread about again?

What vintages were the 3-9x40 and 3.5-10x50 Leupolds in that last light elk killing scenario? Were you comparing a Vari-X II to a VX-III?

Don't forget about the elk being nearly the same color as the surrounding grass in dim light with light fog. That elk weighed 285 lb. skinned and hanging with the legs and head cut off. Not a small target but difficult to pick out nonetheless.

Where I hunt them elk are only in the open for a few minutes in the morning and a few right before the end of legal shooting hours so having that extra clarity in low light can be the difference between tag soup and backstraps. Not that you can't find and shoot them in the timber as well but about half of my rifle bulls were shot in the first or last 15 minutes of the day while standing in a swamp or wet meadow.

I don't mind if people pass on those chances over the look they don't like or a couple of ounces of extra weight on the rifle...it's just more for me to shoot at later...:)