texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
HeliarcHand, Grant123, Bigchief99, Adam210, Wldlife23
64477 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 90,486
stxranchman 53,890
bill oxner 50,360
RKHarm24 44,577
rifleman 44,415
BMD 41,009
SnakeWrangler 40,181
Big Orn 37,484
txshntr 35,379
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics419,482
Posts6,095,197
Members64,477
Most Online16,728
Mar 25th, 2012
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
3.5-10x40 or 50? #7131157
04/03/18 01:56 PM
04/03/18 01:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 217
J
JB1316 Offline OP
Woodsman
JB1316  Offline OP
Woodsman
J

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 217
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.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131196
04/03/18 02:26 PM
04/03/18 02:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,414
DFW
D
DocHorton Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
DocHorton  Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
D

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,414
DFW
I would go with the 50, the only downside is two ounces of weight.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131213
04/03/18 02:40 PM
04/03/18 02:40 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 28,851
Texas
R
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity
redchevy  Offline
THF Celebrity
R

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 28,851
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
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131228
04/03/18 02:51 PM
04/03/18 02:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 602
Grand Prairie
D
Dien Offline
Tracker
Dien  Offline
Tracker
D

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 602
Grand Prairie
For my hunting rig I went with smaller objective even though bigger available.

If not worried about weight or size go bigger.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: redchevy] #7131283
04/03/18 03:46 PM
04/03/18 03:46 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
F
FiremanJG Online content
THF Celebrity
FiremanJG  Online Content
THF Celebrity
F

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
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
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: FiremanJG] #7131332
04/03/18 04:33 PM
04/03/18 04:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 28,851
Texas
R
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity
redchevy  Offline
THF Celebrity
R

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 28,851
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
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131343
04/03/18 04:40 PM
04/03/18 04:40 PM
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,738
G
gusick Offline
Pro Tracker
gusick  Offline
Pro Tracker
G

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,738
A 50mm tube would be humongous.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: gusick] #7131357
04/03/18 04:58 PM
04/03/18 04:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
F
FiremanJG Online content
THF Celebrity
FiremanJG  Online Content
THF Celebrity
F

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
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
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: redchevy] #7131358
04/03/18 04:59 PM
04/03/18 04:59 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
F
FiremanJG Online content
THF Celebrity
FiremanJG  Online Content
THF Celebrity
F

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
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
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131370
04/03/18 05:09 PM
04/03/18 05:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,228
Wise Co.
R
RiverRider Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
RiverRider  Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
R

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,228
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.
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131403
04/03/18 05:51 PM
04/03/18 05:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,131
Wills Point
W
wp75169 Online content
THF Trophy Hunter
wp75169  Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
W

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,131
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.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131431
04/03/18 06:22 PM
04/03/18 06:22 PM
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,738
G
gusick Offline
Pro Tracker
gusick  Offline
Pro Tracker
G

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,738
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.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: FiremanJG] #7131750
04/04/18 12:07 AM
04/04/18 12:07 AM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,596
Royse City, TX
P
patriot07 Offline
Veteran Tracker
patriot07  Offline
Veteran Tracker
P

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,596
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.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131819
04/04/18 12:54 AM
04/04/18 12:54 AM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 825
Texas
S
Smokey Bear Online content
Tracker
Smokey Bear  Online Content
Tracker
S

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 825
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.
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131854
04/04/18 01:30 AM
04/04/18 01:30 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,748
B
Brother in-law Online content
THF Celebrity
Brother in-law  Online Content
THF Celebrity
B

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,748
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

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131864
04/04/18 01:40 AM
04/04/18 01:40 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 217
J
JB1316 Offline OP
Woodsman
JB1316  Offline OP
Woodsman
J

Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 217
Big thanks to everyone who’s provided feedback here. I really appreciate everyone taking the time.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: Brother in-law] #7131931
04/04/18 02:34 AM
04/04/18 02:34 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
F
FiremanJG Online content
THF Celebrity
FiremanJG  Online Content
THF Celebrity
F

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
Originally Posted By: Brother in-law
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


But they are heavier. How do you deal? peep



800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: Smokey Bear] #7131934
04/04/18 02:37 AM
04/04/18 02:37 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
F
FiremanJG Online content
THF Celebrity
FiremanJG  Online Content
THF Celebrity
F

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
Originally Posted By: Smokey Bear
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.


You need a larger field of view on the weird position rifle, as well as walking at lowest magnification. If you have a cheek weld issue, it can be corrected with a $45 stock pack.



800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131935
04/04/18 02:37 AM
04/04/18 02:37 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,748
B
Brother in-law Online content
THF Celebrity
Brother in-law  Online Content
THF Celebrity
B

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,748
12 ounce curl

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: FiremanJG] #7132019
04/04/18 11:03 AM
04/04/18 11:03 AM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 825
Texas
S
Smokey Bear Online content
Tracker
Smokey Bear  Online Content
Tracker
S

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 825
Texas
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: Smokey Bear
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.


You need a larger field of view on the weird position rifle, as well as walking at lowest magnification. If you have a cheek weld issue, it can be corrected with a $45 stock pack.


The lower magnification I use for offhand makes fov almost a non issue with a good scope. If I need a stock pack it is because I have done a poor job of matching stock and scope to fit me. In a stand with a good rest it's easy enough to work around a less than perfect mount for what you gain with more scope. Shooting offhand I want as close to a fundamentally perfect mount with a well fitted stock as I am capable of.


Smokey Bear---Lone Star State.
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: Smokey Bear] #7132037
04/04/18 11:30 AM
04/04/18 11:30 AM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,596
Royse City, TX
P
patriot07 Offline
Veteran Tracker
patriot07  Offline
Veteran Tracker
P

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,596
Royse City, TX
Originally Posted By: Smokey Bear
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: Smokey Bear
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.


You need a larger field of view on the weird position rifle, as well as walking at lowest magnification. If you have a cheek weld issue, it can be corrected with a $45 stock pack.


The lower magnification I use for offhand makes fov almost a non issue with a good scope. If I need a stock pack it is because I have done a poor job of matching stock and scope to fit me. In a stand with a good rest it's easy enough to work around a less than perfect mount for what you gain with more scope. Shooting offhand I want as close to a fundamentally perfect mount with a well fitted stock as I am capable of.
I think the point is that a stock pack is a cheap way to turn an ok-fitting stock into a good-fitting stock. Nobody is advocating the idea that stock fit isn't important - in fact it's the opposite.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: patriot07] #7132085
04/04/18 12:30 PM
04/04/18 12:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
F
FiremanJG Online content
THF Celebrity
FiremanJG  Online Content
THF Celebrity
F

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,796
Wolfe City, TX
Originally Posted By: patriot07
Originally Posted By: Smokey Bear
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: Smokey Bear
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.


You need a larger field of view on the weird position rifle, as well as walking at lowest magnification. If you have a cheek weld issue, it can be corrected with a $45 stock pack.


The lower magnification I use for offhand makes fov almost a non issue with a good scope. If I need a stock pack it is because I have done a poor job of matching stock and scope to fit me. In a stand with a good rest it's easy enough to work around a less than perfect mount for what you gain with more scope. Shooting offhand I want as close to a fundamentally perfect mount with a well fitted stock as I am capable of.
I think the point is that a stock pack is a cheap way to turn an ok-fitting stock into a good-fitting stock. Nobody is advocating the idea that stock fit isn't important - in fact it's the opposite.


Right.

Smokey Bear, I am in the camp, and teach, a scoped rifle should be set up for to user to gain a sight picture in a scope as fast as they gain a bead on a shotgun. So if your ring height on any scope is too tall for you to get a proper cheek weld, and you cannot go with lower rings, then the comb has to be raised. That's a $250 custom option during a stock build, or it's a $45 add-on part.



800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7132144
04/04/18 01:22 PM
04/04/18 01:22 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Nogalus Prairie  Offline
THF Celebrity
N

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
Do the research and you’ll see the 50mm objective is not the way to go.
The “extra-brightness” factor most often touted is basically a myth. The very slight FOV advantages compared to a 40mm objective don’t even come into play 95% of the time and are so slight as to not really matter the very few times they do come into play. They’re bulky which leads to a cascade of other issues discussed above. They’re a bit heavier.
In short, the problems outweigh the almost non-existent benefits. On a 10x scope the benefits are basically zero.

They were marketed like heck when they first came out with the “benefits” way overblown. Why? To sell more scopes of course. And it worked. Lots of folks replaced perfectly fine 36mm and 40mm scopes with big bells of 50mm and even 56mm. As the years have gone by and folks have realized those great “benefits” weren’t real they have faded in popularity, though they will now always remain in production and have a following among those who still buy into the hype.

Plus, I think they are aesthetically ugly and look like a trombone on most rifles.


2cents


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7132150
04/04/18 01:28 PM
04/04/18 01:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Nogalus Prairie  Offline
THF Celebrity
N

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,246
Corsicana


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7132235
04/04/18 02:49 PM
04/04/18 02:49 PM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 825
Texas
S
Smokey Bear Online content
Tracker
Smokey Bear  Online Content
Tracker
S

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 825
Texas
Nogales, I get more value out of what I see than what I read. In good lighting conditions both work fine for me. In the most adverse lighting conditions such as rain or heavy overcast or deep shadows at the beginning and end of legal light my 50mm Swarovski outperforms my 42mm Swarovski. The better resolution I see in the poorest lighting conditions at higher magnification is the reason I keep a rifle rigged with a large objective. I too am not a fan of the Dolly Parton effect they lend to the rifle.


Smokey Bear---Lone Star State.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread


© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
UBB.threads™ 7.6.2