I never owned a 50mm objective scope until a couple of years ago (Zeiss Diavari and a Conquest). I always thought they were a little bulky and really did not add anything meaningful (exit pupil) as far as shooting light was concerned, but now I kinda like em. Don't know if it's my older eyes or what. I do a lot of hunting from treestands and tower stands, so toting a few extra ounces is not an issue.

How about you?

Don't have a lot of experience with them but on my fixed 4x and 3-9 class scopes and considering the fact that I normally hunt with mine on 3x or 4x all the time and only crank the power when at the range, I never figured they offered much and they look clunky to my eye unless on a large target type scope.

Difficult to slide those into a saddle scabbard. Can be just as difficult to pull them from a saddle scabbard, too. Something to keep in mind when booking a horseback hunt with an outfitter. I very much dislike seeing those things in hunting camp, for the very reasons just described.

I dislike them intensely. For a rifle which is to see rough use in the field (and any real hunting rifle will)the large objective is too susceptible to damage. If the rifle hits the ground (and it does happen), that objective bell may be the first point of contact. To me, a riflescope objective should be smaller than the width of the stock at that point. Just my opinion, of course. GD

Heavy

Difficult to mount low over bore & in line with eye

Really Heavy

Tough to mount them low enough to establish proper cheek weld.

Compared to a 40mm scope they only offer a small advantage when set on 9X. Anything more or less and the 40mm scope matches it in low light. Assuming equal quality glass. Other than that they only cost more and have a bunch of disadvantages.

If you are seeing better in low light it is probably because you now have a better quality scope. Not because it is bigger.

TO EACH HIS OWN,I like them very much and most of my rifles have 50mms and 2 have 56's.

They look fugly and are cumbersom.

I should add that I hunt beanfields a lot, and the two 50mm scopes are on designated beanfield rifles.

I have carbine type rifles with smaller objectives when I am in the swamp.

The objective gets in the way when I try to use the irons with my See-throughs...

I just use XXX super high see throughs with shims. Problem solved.

Saddle scabbards! Just like Maverick 940 said. Target turrets give the same issues.

Dislike on sporting rifles, people and paper rifles need 'hubbles'

Gunner

I don't like them on sporting weight rifles. I'm not fond of them on varmint rifles. Reasons? Disproportional to the rifle, unnecessarily heavy, unnecessarily bulky and in the way, and I don't get a good cheek weld when I have to use high or extra high rings.

On a tactical rifle with a high comb or adjustable comb so I still get good cheek weld they can be ok.

I haven't spent any time shooting one, but in concept the Leupold VX-L may be the best of both worlds. If you truly need a large objective (few of us do during legal hunting hours in the US) and want a comparatively low mount, they are worth a hard look.

Tom

Gotcha...Thanks!

Did a search....don't know if some of this XXX stuff will go over too well with the missus, well, maybe after a few beers.

1. Affects handling... rifles feel top heavy.

2. Scope too high for good cheekweld (or need to add more crap like a kydex taco, rifle purse, or new high comb stock).

They are hideous and accomplish nothing.

Excess height, bulk, and xtra weight.

I've always found 40mm to be a good compromise and functional.

Do ya'll consider 14.5 oz heavy?

I'd check that Conquest in a 40mm obj. I'm old too, and this past season used a 3-9 40mm ZC for the first time. Made me forget I was getting old. 50mm's are heavy, big, and heavy. And did I mention that they are also heavy? I'm a 40mm or smaller fan all the way.

For me too tall, too wide, too top heavy.
Too many toos.

Every situation is different. I use and like 50mm objectives on several of my rifles. But I have smaller objectives on others for very good reasons.

One cannot really generalize.

dont mind them at all.people complain about mounting height on a 50mm but i'd be willing to bet that most of your 40mm scopes have more than 5mm clearance between the bell and the barrel. you hardly ever see a 40mm mounted really close to the barrel.

i really like a 42-44m scope.

Far as I am concerned; depends on rifle, scope and hunting application. I use scopes from 36-50mm and have one 56mm.
By the way, a 3-9x40 Conquest is heavier than a Swaro Z3 4-12x50.

Too big a bulky for my tastes.

Not all of them. I like to get them down a close as possible.

My Ruger Hawkeye, Leupold Rings, Leupold VX-2.

If you use a scope for hunting on powers greater than 8x, they can get you a brighter picture at times. Other than that, they have all the negatives listed above.

Make your choices......

I have 40's, a 52 and a 50 on my guns. I like them all. My 52 is sitting in Burris Medium Signatures so not sure what all the crying is about.

This thread kind of hits home for me. I have, in the past, tried the huge objective bells for their supposed advantages in low light situations. I have come to the conclution that the benifits (if any) do not offset the negatives a s to weight and balance problems with the bigger scopes.

For the past year I have been searching and replacing ALL of my scopes that have a 40mm or larger bell with those older style scopes of 32-36mm size. They just l;ook and feel right.

I know we all "plan" for that shot that comes in the last 30 seconds of daylight.....but, truthfully, how often has it actually happened? I know that in more than 50 years of hunting I cannot recall a single time that a bigger scope would have helped me, nor a single time that a smaller scope cost me a shot.

The asthetics and balance are more important to me than any imaginary advantage of the larger bells. There is just something "wrong" with a sleek Savage 99 EG.....and a scope the size of a Q-beam strapped on top.

I have one of them, and an advantage is that the image is quicker to pick up for me anyway. A 42 with better glass/coatings does fine in low light my victory HT 42mm objective is better than my Kahles American 50mm but both are very good in low light, another good one is the fixed 6X Meopta with 42 mm objective, for low light I like a #4.

This is enough for me as well.

With 32mm objective lenses and even on older glass -- 1948-1958 models -- I haven't had any problem locating stationary and/or moving big game animals at dawn and dusk and then making the shot, even out beyond 400 yards. And merely from a guide/outfitter standpoint, I'm not a fan of large diameter objective lens rifle scopes. They're heavy, cumbersome, awkward and when hunting on horseback, problematic at best. But, that's simply my opinion and nothing more than that. Nevertheless, small diameter objective lens rifle scopes have proven themselves for decades and decades and I find no fault in them, whatsoever.

as much as I hate to agree with you, I do. My toughest shot in very low light was made with a 56mm ziess V/MV..I really thought my scope saved the day.

Then my buddy that i trust, that also had the buck lined up in his crosshairs said he could have easily taken the shot as well, with his VX2 3-9x40..so much for my superior glass.

Tough to mount low enough for natural cheek weld for me and they don't seem to make a significant difference in low light image quality. I'll stick with my plain jane 3.5-10x40 Leupolds. They haven't let me down yet and provide a nice sharp image, even under challenging light conditions.

I have a couple 50 mm, but mostly 40-42 mm scopes. The Elite 3200 3x9x50 just looks huge on any rifle I've put it on. Optically, it's good, but I can't see much difference with s similar 40 mm scope.
I don't think I'll be buying any more 50 mm.

Yes, when you can put a Leupold 6X36 @ 10oz on the rifle and lose 4.5oz I'd consider it heavy.
IMO, some people WAY over scope their big game rifles.

I don't like anything more than 44, 40-42 is better. The 50 mm is wider than the rifle so bangs into everything. I like scopes mounted low so that everything is automatic, no hunting for an image.

I think that at 50mm they start detract from both the appearance and functionality of a hunting rifle. 40 to 42 mm is big enough to take in as much light as it takes. Any gain beyond that is so marginal as to be barely worth mentioning.

To some degree, IMHO it's as much about marketing as anything else. Bigger is better, rah rah rah, and all that stuff.

Thinking about it, even the forces snipers tend towards 40mm scopes. Quick check, gleaned the following info from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_Timberwolf

I used a 8x56 IOR and a 4 x56 Redfield Illuminator hunting in forests in Maryland for Sika deer, they would allow you to hunt well past legal shooting hours if so inclined. They were mounted on a 7 lb. rifle. so they were top heavy and such but If you need to see dark critters indark palces at or just after sun set they are good. Otherwise I stick to 36 -42 mm objectives in carrying rifles for all the reasons stated.

I have all kind of sizes of scopes with different objective lenses:
1-4x24, 1,5-6x42, 2,5-10x50, 4x32, 4x40, 3-9x36, 3-9x40, 3-9x50, 4-12x50,
3-12x56.
They fill different tasks to me.

Do I need them all. Hmm, probably not, but still want them.

The larger variable scopes have a strong tendency to shift zero when bumped. They also break down from recoil sooner.
That, their weight and lack of significant improvement in performance is why I don't use them. E

yup....also I'm not fond of the appearance and they aften interfere with the rear sight.

I've hunted for 50 years and have not yet run into a need for one....

My .257 Wby Fibermark wears a 50 mm. VX-L. Ugly, but functional, and makes those last minute-of-daylight shots at whitetails across open hayfields a bit easier.

I love big objectives, although I tend to stick to 40mm on my "mountain rifles". North America is actually pretty unique in having hunting curfews and you have to remember in much of the rest of the world, much of the hunting occurs at times outside of hunting hours over there. Probably a majority of hunting in my part of the world is done in low light - we often won't head out the door until late in the day, and there is no doubt the most productive part of the day to hunt is around sun up and down. We also hunt at night under light frequently. That being the case, large objective scopes designed for low light performance are an invaluable tool. The big objective European scopes with coatings optimised for low light performance and illuminated reticles simply kick arse in this environment - they can literally extend the duration of your hunting day by as much as an hour, and it is the best hour of the day. It is very common here to see a $500 rifle with a $2000 scope on top, especially in the hands of professional shooters.

It does produce difficulties, and nobody likes high scope mounts. The ability to get big objectives into low mounts and close to the bore line is one of the biggest advantages of the Blaser R93/8 design. Heavy barrels exacerbate the issue. The argument that large objectives necessarily result in significantly heavier scopes though is nonsense. A 50mm vs 40mm objective and larger bell only adds about an ounce in weight for the same lens material. However, when going up to the larger objectives, frequently the manufacturer will choose a heavier LD lens system, which it makes for a much heavier scope. But you can get very lightweight 50mm objective scopes - the Swarovski Z3 x50 being a great example.

"The larger variable scopes have a strong tendency to shift zero when bumped. They also break down from recoil sooner"

Please explain why, mechanically,this would happen?
Thanks

Heavier scopes have greater momentum under recoil, and so are subject to greater forces under recoil. I dunno that this is a consideration for most hunting rifles, but I wouldn't put a 25 ounce uber-scope on a 458 Lott!

The highest magnification scope I have is 10x, so I don't need a 50mm objective. I also do not like them on big game hunting rifles. If I get a rifle dedicated for long range varmint or target shooting, then I would consider higher magnification and a larger objective. Just don't need them right now. Others do, and there is nothing wrong with that if that is what they want.

A lot of Texans and Californians like them. Pretty much says it all.

Too big, too heavy, too bulky and require higher mounts than required. Tend to overbalance (top heavy) lightweight rifles. Cost too much. Don't provide enough difference to be usefull with in legal hours (0.5 before sunrise till 0.5 hrs after sunset).

Where I live, a 50mm scope is a sure sign of a novice hunter. High, see-through mounts remove all doubt.

I use them. Been hunting a lot of years and have killed lots of deer. They really helped when I was in the early stages of cataracts. Not as much after they were removed. Help in the last few minutes of legal hunting hours here which is 30 minutes after sunset. Some days more than others due to cloud cover, etc. i have killed lots of deer during that time of day. At 67 I am still strong enough to carry the extra weight difference between a 40 and 50. Don't use them if you are worried about what your buddies think but I will continue to use them. miles

Not a writer. As a 76 year Texan, I resent being classed with the Californians, but unfortunately, I understand why.

Not all of us fit the description. My daughters are in the 40-early 50 range. They have good jobs and all married successful business men. Oldest daughter is a partner and CEO of a thriving business in her own right. Likewise for SIL. She and SIL live in the same city as her mom and I do.

Back on topic. Many of their ( and our) close friends either hunt, fish, or golf- or all three. They are basically a group of professional people or successful entrepreneurs. They tend to buy whatever they perceive to be the best. Among their toys, one tends to see lots of alpha rifles and glass, including 50-56 mm items.

SIL excepted. His deer rifle is an ancient 700 in .25-06 with an equally ancient 3-9 Leupold scope. His coyote rifle is a 700 in .17 R with a jap Simmons, straight out of a pawn shop. He melts coyotes with it. He and daughter are more into bird hunting and fly fishing. The rifles are just tools to control vermin on their bird patch, or "ranch" as they call it.

I owned a honking big Swarovski scope over night many years ago. I bought it as a demo at a good price, IIRC, it topped out at somewhere in the 18 range with a 56 mm objective. I took it home, mounted it, weighed the Mauser, removed it and sold it the next day. scope and mounts were under two pounds, but not by much.

20 to 40 mm objectives work just fine for my needs and purposes. Your mileage may vary and that is OK by me.

NOTHING I hunt with gets anything over a 40mm on it. 50mm has too many disadvantages and little to no "advantage" at all. Not needed nor wanted.....

Bingo...............

The most experienced hunter I know has a 56mm S&B on his deer rifle. That scope has probably helped bring down 500 or so deer including some now in the B&C book. I wouldn't be so quick to stereotype someone's hunting prowess based upon something like that. There's a reason those scopes are made and not everyone hunts in the same conditions as you. A western hunter that's back at camp well before last light might think a big scope is a burden, while it might make perfect sense to a southern whitetail hunter that hunts fields where mature bucks are only going to show themselves in the shadows at last light.

Hey I got an idea! Let's request a Magnesium-bodied scope with a 1" objective, fixed at 3X for the campfire members that can't carry a pencil, yet have telescopic vision! It will be a hit! LMMFAO

You have to mount them higher messing with cheek weld.

They are mostly a marketing gimmick when you understand how a scope actually transmits light. Scopes don't "gather" light.

So when you see me carrying my M70 with its Weaver K3, it will be obvious that I'm the reincarnation of Daniel Boone?

Funny how we are so quick to judge others.

Cheek weld means nothing when you have an Adjustable Objective that is adjusted properly.

Agreed, it is a gross generalization and not true 100% of the time. That said, I firmly believe that it is true MOST of the time. JME.....

What??

2muchgun,...I agree...WHAT??

I can't wait to hear what proper eye position which comes from proper cheek weld has to do with the AO....:-)

This is going to be good.

Yeah, I'm all ears myself.

Bet he has see-thru rings too

When you adjust all the parallax out, it doesn't matter where your eye is. If you knew what an AO was for, and how it was used, you wouldn't have to ask such a dumazz question. You were an idiot 6 years ago when I put you on ignore, and you're still an idiot. Come back when you're 12..........

Except for the little fact that poor cheek weld results in difficulty returning one's head to the same position every time.

It doesn't have to be in the same position when parallax is adjusted out, which is the whole point. Get a clue.

Lots of competitive shooters using rifles set up with poor cheek weld, said no one ever.

I have parallax adjustable scopes in a variety of sizes, up to 56mm. I still find it easier to shoot well with a low mounted scope. A high, floating head position does nothing good for the consistency of my hold and therefore the consistency of my shooting.

The really high scope mounting seen on benchrest rifles isn't relevant here. Such rifles are built with stocks that track on the bags during recoil, and the shooters barely touch the rifles compared to how a typical hunting rifle is handled.

Obviously you don't shoot Benchrest Prairie Goat.

Adjustable stocks for check weld solves that issue.

It's ironic that hunters want compact binoculars and oversized scopes. I have neither.

Which is totally phugging different, as the whole point there is minimizing one's influence on the rifle.

Which is exactly what I was getting at. Good cheek weld is an important component of good shooting, and having a scope mounted out in space isn't going to help things.

And that is the whole point of eliminating parallax with an Adjustable Objective, to minimize the effect of an improper cheek weld.

That eliminates the optical effect, but not the physical effect on the hold on the rifle.

Or you could just mount the scope down where it's supposed to be. Most of us don't want the added weight of an adjustable cheekpiece on our NULAs.

At least manufacturers are figuring out that the vast majority of folks are going to mount scopes and not use open sights, and are designing their stocks with higher combs.

Yep.

Haven't seen a lot of Olympic Biathlon shooters competing with Winchester featherweight style stocks lately.

You don't see them with scopes either.

So what? They are still using stocks setup for proper cheek weld.

They are also using peeps sights so that the sight picture is a circle within a circle that the eye naturally aligns. How do handgun shooters with scopes ever hit anything without a proper cheek weld?

Just how big of a bowl of dumbass do you eat every day?

OOOOOOOOOOHHH! BURN! I'm So offended! LMMFAO Go back to Jaggin' off in your socks.

I won't even get into the many reasons why you are wrong and your "reasoning" not worth a $hit, as you are obviously clueless and not worth the effort.

I guess I can get rid of all those adjustable cheek pieces I use, as my scopes already have A/Os and I now know they aren't needed.

What a dumbass..........

Yes, you totally are. Thanks for making my point crystal clear 2muchdumb.

Yeah, there's no sense arguing with a dumbazz, he'll try and bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

I'm putting that particular dumbazz on ignore...

The only thing you have managed to make clear is that you are a moron. Crystal clear.......

Ain't the innanet wonderful? You can learn all kinds of interesting "facts"

Wow........

I'm not totally surprised that people who buy all their scopes packaged in plastic, and can't focus the eyepiece or adjust for parallax, have such strong opinions on what everyone else should be using.

I'm bored with both of you idiots now. Have fun patting each other on the back, ( of your heads).

Every rifle in the hunting field is not a NULA. As I have gotten older I like the 50mm objectives, when I was younger I did not like them. The quality of the scope is paramount in my experience, more so than the objective size.

Wow, I never knew anyone had me on ignore...I'm impressed.

That's a real milestone.

I'm going to go to the range and burn some powder in your honor..:-)

Not you Rembo. 2muchdumb

sorry FC,

carry on then...:-)

I'm still going to the range.....

I'll take that bet. I don't own anything bigger than 40mm and I always check that I can at least slip a business card between the bell and the barrel, although I have compromised a few times and used a dollar bill instead. As low as you can get it without actually touching.

Rule of thumb: Divide the objective size by the max magnification. This is called the exit pupil. If it's more than 7, the extra cost, weight and size of the objective bell is going to waste because that's pretty much the max your eye will let in anyway.

I might go bigger if for some reason I were hunting prarie dogs at dusk, but for big game there is just no point to it.

Always interesting to read various opinions for sure. I stumbled into "stealing" a VX3 LR/SF 4.5-14x50 a couple of years ago, my first 50mm. Instead of the stereoptypical "able to mount 40's lower, proper cheek weld",etc answers, doesn't stock design, high comb, etc have a little bit to do with properly mounting a effectively using a 50mm scope? FWIW my fave right now is a 42mm.

BTW FC...you're calling a lot of experienced folks dumbazzzes.....just sayin'

I've never owned a scope with a 50 mm objective. So I neither like nor dislike them. I especially don't care if others like or dislike them.

I can't help people who don't understand how an AO eliminates Parallax and cancels out the need for a perfect cheek weld.

I was talking about doofusses that live and hunt here where I live, not you or where you live. Had you read my previous post, you would know that I don't care what setup anyone else runs. The doofusses around here put 50mm scopes on their low-rent guns to make an impression on other doofusses. Then they haul them into a swamp where you can't see past 50 yards and shoot at every deer they see. Then it runs on 3 legs to some other doofus who shoots out another leg or guts. Then the doofusses don't bother tracking the deer and it dies in some low spot and stinks up the woods until December.

There are just too many such doofusses in the woods around here. I wish resident hunting licences cost $300. It would thin out some of the doofusses.

Parallax aside, a good cheek weld is helpful to me for consistent rifle handling.

As I pointed out earlier, larger objectives don't necessarily have to had any significant amount of extra weight - yet everybody is parroting off that this is as part of the reason why they don't like larger objectives. The extra aluminium and glass will add about an extra ounce, at most two. What tends to make larger objective scopes heavier is all the other "features" they come with - including superior lenses, but also a lot of things I sincerely doubt the real world utility of.

To put things in perspective, my "default" scope is the Swarovski Z3/AV 4-12x50. It weighs about 1.5 ounces more than their 3-9x42, and just 2/3 ounce more than the Leupold FX-III 6x42! It is more than half an ounce lighter than a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40, and most other 3-9x40s on the market. Big objectives don't have to add much weight, yet they most definitely add time to my hunting day. And I have my 50mm objective mounted just as close to the bore as you can get your 40mm, due to the mounting arrangement. When you are hunting without curfews, like most of the world does, that is an extra 30-60 minutes hunting a day at little or no extra cost in weight, ergonomics or bulk.

If you hunt exclusively in North America, there is probably little reason to go reason to go to a 50mm objective. But there are good reasons why the rest of the world hunts with larger objectives. This also explains some of the "different" mounting systems that you see on rifles made outside of North America - the best example being the mounting system on the Blaser rifles which pushes the mount forward onto the barrel, allowing for a larger objective to be mounted lower to the bore.

BR:

I don't disagree about slob hunters. But I'm not sure increasing the cost of entry is the right solution. (There are a lot of wealthy duffesses )

And as a rule, I don't think taking actions that would decrease the number of hunters would be a good thing.

Sorry to hijack the thread. I'll shut up now.

----------------------------------------------------------

True .
Here in Florida we night hunt hogs and don't walk very far to most stands.
I was admiring my 4x12-50 leupold vx-r last night while hunting ,with a near full moon and very sandy [white] ground I could see the feeder area just fine with no light at 200 yards.
I also use 50's on a couple of Conquest's long range rifles ,not that a 40mm wouldn't work but the 50mm does give better night time resolution on higher power settings.

That's funny! .... I see a lot of newbie shooters here in Canada like them too. I suspect it adds a bit of tacticool to their guns, thus the attraction.

Someone earlier commented that you divide the power (magnification) into the diameter of the Obj in mm to get your exit pupil. I believe they then said anything over 7mm is useless to the human eye, and the scope will be too big and heavy. This is true if both scopes are dialed up to maximum magnification or are fixed power. One place a larger objective is an advantage is you can dial your magnification up to the said ratio that results in a 7mm exit pupil. The larger objectives will allow you to utilize a higher magnification and keep your 7mm exit pupil, thus getting you "closer" to the game animal than a scope with a smaller objective could.

Why do you dislike (or like) a 50mm objective?

Two reasons, one is that the large objective bell sticks out from the profile of the rifle and seems to catch on everything I move past (don't bother arguing the point as I don't care), second is that the larger objective scopes are physically too large for svelte stalking rifles.

And I would just about kill for a quality modern scope with a smaller 38mm ocular, small objective, and a long main tube.

Any comments Mule Deer?

Dislike because they mess with my cheek weld and they are just too big and awkward. Buy better glass in a 40mm and the benefits of a 50mm scope's light transmission are not as significant. I only know of one guy who has a 50mm scope that is top quality and it is the Leupold with the dished out bottom to sit low. The rest are lower end scopes with mediocre glass. Before I would put a 50mm scope on my rifles, I would get a 30mm tube scope instead.

OK, I'll bite. What are the good reasons hunters outside North America use 50 mm objectives, while they're not necessary for North America?

Here was my answer to the blanket "can't mount low enough, cheek weld sucks, etc" statements. Note the high comb, stock design...

[img:left][/img]

Not saying I like it better or worse than a high quality 42-44mm though.

Talley Mediums?

Yes pgoat, the lowest that HCR said would work.

With a 40mm objective, you could run lows.

Yes, and it may wind up wearing a 42mm VX6 before it's over, Not sure if lows would fit that setup or not.

Sakoluvr,

I did not read through all the pages of this thread so this may have already been said but to me, even more than the bulk of a 50mm objective bell on a scope, it's the added weight that drives me crazy. Every large scoped rifle that i've ever handled felt like a top-heavy chunk of plywood when brought to the shoulder.

Big scopes just simply ruin the balance(handling characteristics) of a nice rifle. Even a heavy rifle(if balanced properly)will feel good coming to the shoulder for a shot. Add a large, heavy, bulky scope to that rifle and the balance is ruined.

My riflescopes have objective bells from 33mm to 42mm(max) and weight from 10 to 13oz. Nothing in this range is going to detract from a fine rifle(aesthetically or functionally).

Leftybolt

Comb height determines scope height, not the objective diameter of the scope.

With the bolt action stocks I prefer there is no problem mounting a 50MM with a 5.75 contour. The high comb without dropping the heel keeps the recoil as flat as possible without interfering with the bolt travel and I would mount a 24MM objective at the same height.



Other style rifles require even higher scope mounting but I keep the same relationship between the comb and the scope. The scope on my carbines are at 2.850" over bore but same 2.250" over comb as my bolt guns.



As for saddle carry, I would not let a scabbard drive my choice in hunting optics. Plenty of scabbards out there to carry a 50mm objective.





The real advantage to the larger objective is the larger exit pupil that allows you to see through the scope sooner on a fast shot and keep you in the scope to see your shot at distance.



I find the 50mm necessary for the elusive clay bird hunting we do in low light conditions.

Let's see, shooting toward the horizon (looks that way anyway) at a moving target with a rifle. Very cool.

Thanks.

I did add this disclaimer when I first posted the video in the AR forum.



Some thought it was it was overkill but maybe not so much?

Well, I was thinking along the lines of the disclaimers, and also that you had no doubt accounted for them. You know a lot of people read this forum and some are not so experienced in safe gun handling.

Personally, I don't see the downside of a disclaimer.

Good shooting, by the way.

I think a good low light solution is a 40mm objective with a red dot LED in the center.

Because nobody else hunts/shoots with curfews - it is a bit of a North American oddity. In much of the rest of the world, a lot of hunting actually occurs outside of legal hunting hours in the USA and Canada - even in the middle of the night. This results in very different optics in the rest of the world - not just with respect to larger objectives, but also lens coatings that favour low light performance. It is probably THE major reason why European optics are so different to American, but is frequently overlooked.

I have a 4-16x50mm that's been on a couple of rifles. It works just fine and I have no issues with it. The technical answers have all been given - stock configuration, hunting at night, medical issues. I don't see why people think that they are silly, useless or unnecessary. Whatever works, right? It's a personal choice.

Ths isn't directed at you Sakoluvr, but for some of the others: Why would you call someone down just because they use a 50mm scope? Especially when you don't know the circumstances? There are European hunters that would take issue with a fixed 4 or a small 32/40mm lense. If it feels good, do it.

De gustibus non disputandum.

So a 50 mm "gathers more light" than say, a 42 mm?

Exit pupil:

http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/how_to/guide/binoculars/basic/basic_05.htm

I'm familiar with exit pupil. When it's greater than the size of the pupil, then it's of no further benefit. And a 42 mm objective at 6X gives the same as a 50 mm at 7X.

Yep. Hence my original statement, but I am now starting to like them just the same.

Yeah, there's a LOT of frustration and a couple IPAs mixed into my statement. I just wish there were not as many hunters in my neck of the woods. It seems like EVERYBODY hunts, and all their relatives. In the past, it was not a big deal if I wandered across a property line a little bit during a hunt, and permission was easy to obtain. Today you better watch your back if you wander across a line, and have a good lawyer. And when I ask a landowner for permission to hunt, they either laugh at me or get angry and insist I leave. State land open to public hunting is a friggin' war zone! I hate a lot of what hunting has become in my neighborhood.

I don't have anything against them, it just seems that exit pupil would not be a real reason to buy one vs. a 42 or 40.

I don't care for the 50 mm lens, it's bigger than needed and seems worse about banging the scope into other objects. It is more surface to worry about keeping dry and clean.

Also, I have seen wildlife specials on the public channel and critters seem very curious about the camera lens, I think close up critters are more likely to notice a large scope lens.

I think the correct answer to why larger objectives provide superior low light performance is that they allow you to use magnification to increase twilight factor to improve low light performance whilst maintaining optimal exit pupil.

Twilight factor is not something I'm familiar with, does it really make a difference?

Actually, that sounds more like it's bigger than what you like. You are worried that it might bang into things. You are concerned about it remaining clean and dry. Many hunters in the rest of the world don't see big scopes the same way that you do.

That would go for many of the others who have posted as well.

I have all 40mm and 42mm scopes except for a special purpose 56mm NF that isn't paired with a rifle I'd be likely to tote anywhere but from the truck to the bench... It is kinda nice when you wanna reach out there though.

I don't care for the 50's. There's just no real world need for one on a hunting rifle that I know of. Lens coatings are far more important for getting light delivered to the retina.

That huge lens is a dead giveaway to a wary buck as well... Just too many negatives and no positives... Two thumbs down to the 50mm on a hunting rifle.

Bob

I have a custom Sako .35 Whelen that used to wear a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. The scope gad really long eye relief and could not be fitted in Sako rings far enough forward for proper full field use. I liked everything else about the scope, and then noticed that their 3-9x50 model had a 1" shorter eye relief. Tried one and it fit perfectly.
Most of my elk are killed within a few minutes of legal shooting light and I don't need to lug my rifle very far on my hunts. The 50MM objective seems just slightly brighter than the 40MM to my eyes. I'm really happy with it!