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.

.

Very much agree.

I agree as well, but are you saying that a Zeiss Victory 2.5-10x42 with a 4.2mm exit pupil will be equally as bright at 10x as a Zeiss Victory 2.5-10x50 at 10x, with the 50mm having a 5 mm exit pupil as opposed to a 4.2mm exit pupil?

Cub, no that's not what I'm agreeing on. In your example (apples to apples) the 50mm will be brighter especially at dusk and dawn. What I'm agreeing with in the previous post is, the importance of good glass and coatings.

Not trying to be argumentative.

I talked with Leupold before I bought a 6.5-20x40 LR. They repeatedly said that
there is no discernible difference between 40mm and 50mm at any distance, any time, dusk or dawn, or any power.

AC, cannot say as to the Zeiss, but a few weeks back a friend and I spent the late afternoon and evening at the local range with a 3.5-10x50mm Kahles,a 2.5-10x42 Swaro PH,and a 2.5-10x42 S&B Summit,doing the usual peering 200 yards or so away, right until dark.

This was all pretty nice hardware,and all were excellent as you would expect,but there was no advantage at all to the 50mm scope. What you could have shot with one, you could have shot with the other.

Maybe it is just me but I think that I can see better in the low afternoon light turning to dusk with my old eyes and the 50mm. Not as much in low morning light. Seems with fading light my eyes do not adjust as fast and the 50mm helps. It does not totally eliminate the problem, just helps. miles

BobinNH

I can believe that if your peering through all 3 at lower to mid power range, but at the highest power (in this case 10x) I cant imagine there not being a slight advantage to the the bigger 50 in very low light. I recently sold a 50mm Zeiss that was a very LARGE scope, but the Swaro and Kahles in 50mm are so very sleek that you are not really dealing with that oversized scope issue. The Kahles CL you have is within a .5oz the same weight as a Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest, and is even shorter by over .5" in overall length. The Swaro Z3 in 4-12x50 is also .75 oz lighter than the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. So a lot of guys think big 50mm when in some cases with the high end brands that is not the case at all.

The 50mm's can use more magnification with the same exit pupil size. That means you can see farther with the larger scope when the light gets really bad.
This is something I've seen time and again. A couple of guys compare a couple of different scopes trying to see the differences in the field. How do they test ? Everybody tests at the same range and, sometimes at least, the same magnification. Their results are very close.
But take two scopes, one a 40mm, and the other a 50mm, and set them on the highest possible magnification that doesn't make the image go black and the the guy with the 50mm scope can use more magnification. Since during low light the biggest change from daylight is limited range, this is where you get the benefits of a 50mm.
All that said, I'm not a fan of the 50mm scopes. Too many tradeoffs and drawbacks for me with too little practical gain. E

E, what do you think will work out for the better.

A 40mm with Xtended Twilight Lens System or a VX 50 mm without it?

For the most part I'm a 40mm objective guy. Having said that, I have got a few scopes with 50mm objectives in identical power ranges, and there is a definite difference when the light does down and the power goes up.
The old "legal light" argument doesn't hold up everywhere, since there are plenty of places where there is no such thing as quitting time. There are also varmint animals that can be hunted at night where big game can't.
I picked up a VXL in 3.5-10 x 50 with illuminated B&C reticle for a trip down to Argentina, and also for a future leopard hunt. If there was some huge disadvantage to the bigger bell in the daytime, I never noticed it.
Oh, about that question that nobody ever asked? Well I asked it.

JohnMoses,



Your are correct.

DMB,

A fifty with better glass is better than a forty with better glass. So.......why not buy wht you want if it's a fifty or a forty?

+1

AC: We played with the power ring quite a bit,and ran them all clear up and down while doing this.....what I'm saying is they were all very good;and the funny thing is the darker it got, the BETTER all three got.There were very subtle differences between them, but all were really superb.

That Kahles is a hell of a nice scope.

One curious characteristic of the Kahles is that running it from 6 to 10 power it had to be refocused between these two power settings. I would not want any of these scopes on a real "mountain"rifle,but none are really that heavy and objectionable at all.

I saw a Z3 Swaro yesterday for the first time in Cabela's,and the glass in those things has a lot of "WOW" factor......


But always remember I have 60 year old eyes now and maybe one scope will show "better" for someone else.


With todays coatings, I honestly believe the quality of glass and coatings makes more difference than objective diameter;and you really have to compare scopes of the exact same make and model to see if there is a difference.

That's kind of a complicated question SU. The Extended Twilight System uses their Diamond Coat 2 Coatings which offers alot more abrasion reisistance.
I, personally, really want the DC2 coatings. If there is a big difference between the ETS, and the older MC4 coatings on my 6X42's, I haven't noticed it yet.
The other thing is the tradeoffs between the problems associated with a 50mm scope and the smaller ones. I've never needed more than a 6X42, so anything larger is not useful to me. I suspect that even a 4X33 FXII would work well enough for my uses. E

The only place the extra magnification coupled with as large an exit pupil will make a difference is if it's dark enough for the smaller scope to go black while the larger one is still working. This is often after legal shooting hours. E

Is the Diamond Coat 2 harder because of the following?

Having fun, JW ? Those comments weren't made about the DC2 coatings. More important, that post was made a long time ago. The errors there in were discovered and corrected by me.
Just couple of details you conveniently ignored. E

That is a fact , and at the current pricing they are a steal! You are truly getting a +$1,000 glass/scope for near half price. I am going to a buddys house that has a 1000 yard personal range this week to wring out the Multizero at some long distances, it'll be intersting.

AC, yes they are a good buy...

the 2.5-10x42 zeiss will take you way past legal conditions and works well under moonlight

I won't own a 50mm scope,because I don't like having to mount them that high.I also don't like a 50mm scope fits in a scabbard for horseback hunts.

I see alot of used "x50" scopes for sale here. I suspect that a lot of these sellers are younger, new shooters that like the way they look and the new scope is purchased with that in mind. They soon find that they are better of with a smaller, lower positioned scope of better quality.

.

SuperCub,

Do you happen to know the mounting height difference between a 40mm scope and a 50mm scope in fractions of an inch?

I am real curious.

I agree with Alaska Cub. The difference is in the exit pupil. This has a direct affect on twilight performance.
The Zeiss website has a brief read on this in their little online optics school. http://www.zeiss.com/C1256BCF0020BE5F?

The larger the objective lense is the larger the exit pupil. If the exit on the 40mm is larger than your eye pupil then the even larger exit pupil will not add much but on the higher powers it will allow more light to reach your eye and make it apppear brighter.

Here is the math on 20 power.
40mm / 20 power = 2mm
50mm / 20 power = 2.5mm
In very low lighting that .5mm is noticable. Could make a 10 minute of usable daylight difference. That's when it counts the most.
Turn the power down and it gets less important as they are bigger than your own pupil.
40/9=4.44mm
50/9=5.55mm

This is why on the lower powers most will say it makes no difference. The extra light can't be used by your eye though I will say it is more comfortable to use a scope with a very large exit pupil.

I don't know. I don't use either for hunting rifles. All my scopes are either 2x7, 2.5x8 or straight tube.

.

SC and Ringman,
I just went through the mounting height deal with a couple of recent scope installs. The difference between a medium ring height and a high ring height in a Leupold ring is .770" to .900" or .130 if memory serves me correctly. On some rifles a set of low rings may work with a 40MM scope. Not sure what the low ring height differnece is but am guessing at another .130" or so. The O.D. difference is around .400" (10MM)making it roughly .200" in increased ring height depending on the brand of scope. I have found that going from a low to a medium or a medium to a high will get a guy from 40MM to 50MM in scope objective size on the same rifle. Hope this is what you were looking for.

Dave