Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
REOdickWagon, Clem, Stephanie Pribble, chan priest, Bayoubob
64165 Registered Users
Top Posters
dogcatcher 89609
stxranchman 53437
bill oxner 49015
RKHarm24 44577
rifleman 44404
BOBO the Clown 43973
BMD 40990
SnakeWrangler 38846
Big Orn 37484
txshntr 35357
facebook
Forum Stats
64165 Members
45 Forums
420153 Topics
6112401 Posts

Max Online: 16728 @ 03/25/12 08:51 AM
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#7131157 - 04/03/18 08:56 AM 3.5-10x40 or 50?
JB1316 Online   content
Woodsman

Registered: 01/01/13
Posts: 174
Besides price & a bit of height, is there any reason i should want a smaller objective lens for a scope? Im not a scope expert by any means
& I'm looking at the VX3i and the 50 objective is about $50 more than the 40. For a long term investment like this, the $50 extra isnt going to weigh my decision so before pulling the trigger I just want to see if anyone has any reason to not buy the larger objective. For what its worth, this will go on a 7mm mag.

Top
#7131196 - 04/03/18 09:26 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
DocHorton Offline
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 12/06/10
Posts: 5330
Loc: DFW
I would go with the 50, the only downside is two ounces of weight.

Top
#7131213 - 04/03/18 09:40 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 28473
Loc: Texas
I guess i'd go 40. Its been on here again and again that the 50mm does next to nothing for low light, it will require higher rings and wont be a stream lined.
_________________________
It's hell eatin em live

Top
#7131228 - 04/03/18 09:51 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
Dien Offline
Tracker

Registered: 08/16/12
Posts: 602
Loc: Grand Prairie
For my hunting rig I went with smaller objective even though bigger available.

If not worried about weight or size go bigger.

Top
#7131283 - 04/03/18 10:46 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: redchevy]
FiremanJG Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 26369
Loc: Wolfe City, TX
Originally Posted By: redchevy
I guess i'd go 40. Its been on here again and again that the 50mm does next to nothing for low light, it will require higher rings and wont be a stream lined.


You sure you aren't mixing that up with tube size?
_________________________

800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available

Top
#7131332 - 04/03/18 11:33 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: FiremanJG]
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 28473
Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: redchevy
I guess i'd go 40. Its been on here again and again that the 50mm does next to nothing for low light, it will require higher rings and wont be a stream lined.


You sure you aren't mixing that up with tube size?


Yes I read it on here somewhere, supposedly backed by scientific measurement etc. that 50mm is usually very little if any better than 40 because of other limiting factors be it in the rest of the scope or our eyes.
_________________________
It's hell eatin em live

Top
#7131343 - 04/03/18 11:40 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
gusick Offline
Pro Tracker

Registered: 07/19/13
Posts: 1711
A 50mm tube would be humongous.

Top
#7131357 - 04/03/18 11:58 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: gusick]
FiremanJG Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 26369
Loc: Wolfe City, TX
Originally Posted By: gusick
A 50mm tube would be humongous.


I was talking the difference between 1", 30mm, and 34mm tube. The larger tubes are for turret travel.
_________________________

800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available

Top
#7131358 - 04/03/18 11:59 AM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: redchevy]
FiremanJG Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 26369
Loc: Wolfe City, TX
Originally Posted By: redchevy
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: redchevy
I guess i'd go 40. Its been on here again and again that the 50mm does next to nothing for low light, it will require higher rings and wont be a stream lined.


You sure you aren't mixing that up with tube size?


Yes I read it on here somewhere, supposedly backed by scientific measurement etc. that 50mm is usually very little if any better than 40 because of other limiting factors be it in the rest of the scope or our eyes.


Ok, I don't remember it. So that's basically saying the only real benefit to larger objectives is larger field of view.
_________________________

800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available

Top
#7131370 - 04/03/18 12:09 PM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
RiverRider Offline
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 11/11/07
Posts: 8223
Loc: Wise Co.
I'd say that if you're looking at magnification zoom much beyond 12x or 14x, the 50mm objective can be worth it because it keeps the exit pupil diameter larger. But that's about it, IMO.
_________________________


I'm here to give and receive knowledge, not affirmation or adoration. If you don't like it, mierda dura. Intellectual honesty is not for fragile egos.

Top
#7131403 - 04/03/18 12:51 PM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
wp75169 Online   content
Extreme Tracker

Registered: 10/11/09
Posts: 4915
Loc: Wills Point
Healthy pupil exit 7mm

7 x magnification = objective

So a 6x power with a 42mm objective is max. Go beyond that on magnification and you lose light.

This formula should apply to all scopes.

Now you can decide if I remember that right or just made it up.

Top
#7131431 - 04/03/18 01:22 PM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
gusick Offline
Pro Tracker

Registered: 07/19/13
Posts: 1711
They say the same thing about binoculars. Supposedly, lense coatings on high end glass are good enough now that light transmition is as good with the new 42mm objectives as the old 50s.

Of course the larger objectives have improved too, so they're still a little better, maybe not absolutely necessary anymore.

Top
#7131750 - 04/03/18 07:07 PM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: FiremanJG]
patriot07 Offline
Veteran Tracker

Registered: 11/06/11
Posts: 2560
Loc: Royse City, TX
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: redchevy
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: redchevy
I guess i'd go 40. Its been on here again and again that the 50mm does next to nothing for low light, it will require higher rings and wont be a stream lined.


You sure you aren't mixing that up with tube size?


Yes I read it on here somewhere, supposedly backed by scientific measurement etc. that 50mm is usually very little if any better than 40 because of other limiting factors be it in the rest of the scope or our eyes.


Ok, I don't remember it. So that's basically saying the only real benefit to larger objectives is larger field of view.
I believe this is correct, or at least I think I read where someone on snipers hide (I think koshkin, who is an optics guru) said that it was true, but don't quote me on ilya saying it because it might not have been him. Either way, I've heard this as well - the objective is a big driver for FOV and not as big of a driver for light-gathering as people believe.

But you two probably both know more about scopes than I do - I'm just reiterating what I think I read from a scope guru on SH.

Top
#7131819 - 04/03/18 07:54 PM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
Smokey Bear Offline
Tracker

Registered: 05/11/17
Posts: 785
Loc: Texas
For me it depends on how I will use a rifle. If it's for sitting in a stand and hunting till last light I would go 50mm. More magnification with the same light is significant to me as is a few more minutes of seeing well. The larger FOV you get with 50 mm is also a plus. If it's primarily use will be to carry while hunting on foot where offhand shooting or awkward positions with improvised or no rest and quick handling are a priority, I opt for the smaller objective for the lower mounting height and a more positive cheek weld to gain stability and a bit better balance when mounted. It is give and take either way.
_________________________
Smokey Bear---Lone Star State.

Top
#7131854 - 04/03/18 08:30 PM Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316]
Brother in-law Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 07/08/07
Posts: 28534
Not to get all scientific but it appears to my eye the 50 is better. I think it is actually brighter and let's more light in. Both should get you past legal shooting light.
Also to go against the grain I like the way some 50'S look , cosmetically

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



© 2004-2018 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide