3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

Okay quick question. What are the benifits of getting a 3x9x50 scope. I'm getting a new rifle and I am looking to get the burris fullfield II or the nikon monarch, I just don't know what size to get it in. Can somebody please help me. Difference in price leads me to the think that the 3x9x50 would be much better.

Most places that I hunt in VA are highly wooded areas. In PA and GA where I will be doing some hunting next year, I'm just not sure yet. Thought this info. would help

RE: 3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

You may get a little more field of view and that’s pretty well it. I have two scope with the 50 mm lens and I don’t really see any benefit over the 40 or 42 mm . The 50 mm will be a little heavier and will have to be mounted higher. I used to think the 50 mm were better but from personal experience found the 40 mm will do just fine for a hunting rifle...

RE: 3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

40mm sits lower, snags less brush, and has a smaller lens to worry about scratching.

50mm gathers a little more light with more FOV

unless you use your rifle for hunting coon, possum, etc at night go 40mm

RE: 3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

I have scopes with 40, 44, 50, and 56mm objectives. The 56mm is too large, period. The 50mm scopes that I have are target models and would not really be suited for hunting applications anyway. I have 5 Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 scopes and love them. I also have 4 Leupold VariX II 3-9x40 scopes that are on my guns that I carry the most. They don't collect as much light as the Conquest 44mm, but I have had them all for several years and have had no problems killing deer or hogs using them.

So to answer the question, I would not spend the extra money for a 50mm.

As a side note, I have never owned a Nikon, but I would go with it over a Burris. I have owned several Burris scopes and have hated them all. For me, if I didn't keep my eye in the exact middle of the lens, it would "black out" and usually at the worst most inopportune times.

RE: 3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

The same scope comparing a 40mm to a 50mm might give you one more power setting in the same light. In other words, if at dusk you can see something in the 40mm scope at 5 power, you should be able to see it in the 50mm at 6 power. Roughly said. And for that small gain, you really have to weigh out the difference in price, between the two, and see if it is worth it to you.

Also, I own 4 Nikon Scopes. 2 of them are 15 years old and work perfectly. I think they are about the best value going.

RE: 3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

I agree 100% with trailer. I use to feel the same way about 50mms thought to be better butno longer have a biggame rifle that wears a 50mm scope:eek:. So40mm if only on the option to mount it lower for a better cheek weld, as the gains in light gathering and FOV are very small for most big game hunting situations.

Good Luck

RE: 3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

50mm versus 40mm is about the same as having $10 versus $9.50 in your pocket. Not a huge difference.

RE: 3x9x40 vs. 3x9x50
 

Thanks a lot guys for the information that was very informitive. Love this forum,,,