texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
TraeMartin, Beatixre, MooseSteed, Trappernewt, casyoo
71987 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 110,788
bill oxner 91,416
SnakeWrangler 65,413
stxranchman 60,296
Gravytrain 46,950
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,461
Stub 43,764
Forum Statistics
Forums46
Topics536,986
Posts9,719,146
Members86,987
Most Online25,604
Feb 12th, 2024
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
3.5-10x40 or 50? #7131157 04/03/18 01:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 478
J
JB1316 Offline OP
Bird Dog
OP Offline
Bird Dog
J
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 478
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
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,841
D
DocHorton Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
D
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,841
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
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
R
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
R
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
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
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 603
D
Dien Offline
Tracker
Offline
Tracker
D
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 603
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
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
J.G. Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
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?


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: J.G.] #7131332 04/03/18 04:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
R
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
R
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
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
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,234
G
gusick Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
G
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,234
A 50mm tube would be humongous.

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: gusick] #7131357 04/03/18 04:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
J.G. Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
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.


[Linked Image]
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
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
J.G. Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
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.


[Linked Image]
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
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,501
R
RiverRider Online Confused
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Confused
THF Trophy Hunter
R
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,501
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.


[Linked Image]

"Arguing with you always makes me thirsty."

-Augustus McRae
Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: JB1316] #7131403 04/03/18 05:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,158
W
wp75169 Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
W
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,158
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
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,234
G
gusick Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
G
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,234
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: J.G.] #7131750 04/04/18 12:07 AM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,538
P
patriot07 Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
P
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,538
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
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,156
S
Smokey Bear Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
S
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,156
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
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 35,089
B
Brother in-law Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
B
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 35,089
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
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 478
J
JB1316 Offline OP
Bird Dog
OP Offline
Bird Dog
J
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 478
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
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
J.G. Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
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


[Linked Image]
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
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
J.G. Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
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.


[Linked Image]
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
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 35,089
B
Brother in-law Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
B
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 35,089
12 ounce curl

Re: 3.5-10x40 or 50? [Re: J.G.] #7132019 04/04/18 11:03 AM
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,156
S
Smokey Bear Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
S
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,156
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
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,538
P
patriot07 Online Content
Extreme Tracker
Online Content
Extreme Tracker
P
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,538
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
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
J.G. Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 41,082
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.


[Linked Image]
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
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
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
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091


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
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,156
S
Smokey Bear Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
S
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,156
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

© 2004-2024 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3