Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 40mm vs 50mm? same scope. will I notice the difference?

It only cost an extra $20 to go up to the 50mm objective.
Is it worth it?

I think so, others will disagree. Probably all the usual suspects on both sides. miles

I didn't notice much of a difference in two Leupold 3-10 powers. The 50mm does seem to help more when going above 10-12 powers. What helped out most was going to a thicker reticle, such as a #4 or whatever they call it. Heavy duplex was to thick but the three thick bars and one thin seems just right.

Quality of glass makes a bigger difference than quantity. Get a good quality scope. You can make a cheap gun shoot but you can't make a cheap scope clearer.

Also, a 50mm on inch tube is pretty big. If you have a trim rifle it looks out of balance to me. But if you have a heavy rifle than it would be fine.

Nope and especially during legal shooting hours in most all states.

Night shooting yeah maybe but during the day no thx..

Dober

Nope not IMHO.

I'm with Mark and Bob....no.

If I may offer a somewhat contrarian view..For the first 60 or so years of my hunting life, I, like many others, took a dim view of "big bell" scopes. I was in my mid thirties [and had killed a passel of ungulates] before I ever saw a "box" stand. I own [or have owned] scopes from Kollmorgan, Redfield, Weaver [I atill like the old steel tube microtracks], leopold, Baush and Lomb and who knows what others. I currently am shooting rifles with FXII 4X, VXIII 8.5X32, FXIII 6X42, B and L 4200's [yes, mine do say B+L] Zeiss 3X9X40, Nikon Monarch 3X9, Zeiss 4.5X14X44 with a 800 yd ballistic reticle and a Zeiss 4.5X14X50 with a #4 reticle. For stand hunting in northwest OK..I really like the big bell Zeiss...Is it really brighter? perhaps a bit more crisp? Beats me, but I can tell you, I like it best by far..would I put it on my little mannlicher .350 rem mag. not hardly, would I put it on mt my 9.3X62 for the limpopo bushveldt, not hardly, would I put it on the little .25WSSM that I carry in the rimrock country hunting coyotes..not hardly. But I'm gonna keep it on the .308 that I use when I'm looking down on that black, cedar flat bedding canyon and I know that if a shooter comes out it will be at the last minute of legal shooting light.

Correction, I just read my post...the VXIIIis obviously a VXIII 2.5X8...

Depends on the quality of the scope

I prefer 40's because they mount lower which is what I'm used to and most comfortable with, just a personal choice.

If I lose a shot due to darkness because I had 10MM less scope objective, I'm probably hunting past legal shooting time anyway.

Nothing wrong with the larger objectives and I see where they may be of benefit peering into shadows, but I would put more faith in the quality of the glass than a larger objective in that situation.

JM

I have both 40's and 50's. All are Leupold's either VX-II or VX-III, so they are of comparable quality glass. As other's mentioned, it is only in lower light conditions that there is a noticeable difference. If you are comfortable with the scope being mounted a touch higher, then it is my opinion worth the $20.
I have 50's on my latest "go to" rifles, but wouldn't be handicapped if I grabbed one of the rifles with 40's.

On high powered scopes it does make a difference especially if it is not high quality glass. In low power scopes 12x and under I have never really seen the difference in light transmission although I am sure it is there.

The biggest difference to me is how big the GD 50mm obj. scopes are. They have to be mounted high to clear the barrel and it screws with my shooting position. That right there is reason for me to not use them. I do have one scope with a 50mm objective and I bought it because the rifle it is on has a pretty high cheek piece and the height of the 50mm scope on that rifle fits me while the 40mm was to low. I know I could have mounted the 40mm scope in high rings but it just looked ridiculous.

If one has a high end scope in 40mm and compares it with a low end 50mm then the 40 should be better. If one has 2 high scopes in 40mm and 50mm the 50mm will be better at first and last legal light. The farther the distance or looking into shadows the more likely hood that the 50mm will benfit the user

Alamosa,

Although it has already been mentioned, the 50 does sit higher. For me that is a plus. I did make the stock fit me and the scope. I like the additional light "gathering" ability of the larger glass.

Also the trajectory of the higher setting scope is equivlent to about fifty feet per second additional velocity. Before anyone says I don't know what I am talking about run the billistics on your computer or go to the range and prove it to yourself. I did that before I checked the computer ballistics.

Alamosa, it depends on what you're going to do with it. Are you going to target shoot and hunt from a fixed stand, or get out amongst 'em and hunt on foot? You will notice the most difference between a 40mm and a 50mm scope if you still hunt or spot and stalk. A 40mm is far less bulky and clunky to carry and bangs into stuff less.

Rather than the miniscule low light difference, the dividing line appears to me to fall between those who hunt rough ground on foot and those who hunt more from stands. I will lean with Dober, BobinNH, JG and ilk who opt for the 40mm. I have hunted with both, and got rid of my 50mm. In fact, I replaced the 50mm with a 32mm because I REALLY like LOW mounted scopes and stocks because they fit my body and eye and personal shooting style.

For my main big game rifle I have a 40 mm and it is a smidge on the big side. It does not mount low enough on any stock I have tried to give me instant, perfect sight alignment.

Our mileage does vary. It is wonderful to live in an age with such good choices!

Ringman, just think of how many hundreds of feet per second it would increase your velocity equivalent if you mounted the scope six inches above the bore! Or 12 inches high! For me, such rainbow trajectories give me too many mid range problems but I'd not begrudge a man his preferences in a rifle.

Apparently you didn't run the numbers with your rifle or computer. With a higher mounted scope sighter in at 200 the point of impact is closer to the line of sight at both 100 and 300 yards.

As far as bumping into things: I ran a 28" barrel with a muzzle brake on it for a few years. I remember only one time when a 24" barrel would have cleared what my telephone pole didn't. If you bump into something with 5MM larger radius you would have tit it with something 5MM smaller radius.

50 fps makes even less difference than the current 40MM vs. 50 MM objective comparison, in most hunting situations.

Carry on...

99% of the time I see no need nor desire the larger scope. But in a given set of circumstances I have seen first hand where it makes a difference to have that brighter picture the 50 delivers, especially at the higher mag powers under less than favorable lighting conditions.

Dusk PDog shooting maybe - but why ?

I quit using 50's on anything but my high magnification scopes used for LR pdogs / target shooting

The exit pupil size, and the quality of the glass/coating will be what you see. If you want more light, buy better glass/coatings.