stubblejumper

The larger 30mm tube does not increase light transmission.It does increase the internal adjustment range of the scope.As for the 50mm scopes,they are not only unnecessary but are heavier and bulkier and require that the scope be mounted higher which can make for a poor cheek position on the stock.

skeeter 7MM

For the 300 wby I think either the 40mm conquest or 42mm Nikon Gold. While I personally have liked every leupold scope I have owned to many questions and hersay about the new VX III has put me personally in a wait and see mode. Someone else eluded to the fact now a days I think better or equal choices can be made when comparing leupold vs brand A. The Conquest is made in the USA and getting rave reviews both in function and CS support from many long time loopy fanatics, so it appears this scope has become the new good quality favorite for scopes, much like the Leupold Vari X III previously held. As far as Nikon all I hear is how clear and bright they are, durabilty shouldn't be an issue if you stick with the 42mm offering for the 300. BTW I believe last fall Outdoor life picked the Nikon Gold as the editor choice, if you put faith in mag reviews.

Take your time and try focusing on a certain object in similar models/power settings to compare. I am sure one will jump out at you and you'll be more than satisfied with your new glass. Just remember to include a good set of rings and mounts for your new scope.

oldelkhunter

This is a real easy answer ..Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44 . It will be as bright if not brighter then the 30mm tube but like Stubble said not have as much w/e adjustment range that is it. Only reason there are any 50mm scopes is because European hunters don't walk the distances we walk when hunting and hunt primarily out of a stand. If it were a strictly stand/whitetail type gun I would use the Nikkon Gold. It weighs 1/2 lb or more then the Zeiss Conquest in same power range plus the hassle of 30mm rings . That Zeiss is all you need.

bigcountry

Stubble, are you sure about your statement? You might want to take a Optical Physics class at you local community college and come back to rethink that statement. Why do you think my telescope I made at home is 18" in diameter.

Quote"The larger 30mm tube does not increase light transmission"

Solitary Man

Stubblejumper is correct.

bigcountry, does that telescope have an 18" eyepiece? Of course not, it's not needed or even desired. It may need an 18" aperture (objective lens or mirror) to gather faint light, but that light is eventually concentrated into a small bundle suitable for viewing. The same thing happens inside a scope. The light that passes through the larger objective lens is concentrated into a smaller bundle that passes through subsequent lenses that are substantially smaller than the objective lens. If the scope is designed properly and no internal structure encroaches into that bundle of light, then all the light that passes through a scope with a 30mm tube can also pass through a scope with a 1" tube, all else being equal, of course.

bigcountry

Just talked to my Engineer here who designs these things for 30 years. Just shook his head and walked away. Not sure what that means. Maybe me. Hey, what can I say, he is a snob from Munich. He did help me design the telescope however.

Your totally right salitary man. But designing that bundle of light is alot easier with a wider hallway chances are doesn't have to be corrected for. Like me sending light into a ELEAF fiber. The Large effective area cuts down on nonlinear effect at lower power.

bigcountry

One resourse he sent me too.

Tube diameter-

Most riflescopes on the market utilize a 1 inch tube,and this is fine for most applications.Some designs use the larger 30mm tube.The advantages to a larger tube are two fold.First,a crisper image,and second a brighter view,which is due to more light being transferred down the larger tube.If you can afford it,the larger tube design should be considered.

bigcountry

Dad Gone, he's schooling me now.

Quote, the larger the lenses (errector), the sharper the image transmitted, the more surface area the lenses (errector) can gather due to dispersion of the light from the objective lenses.

stubblejumper

The size of the objective lens,the amount of lenses, the amount and quality of lens coatings and the exit pupil, all have a great effect on light transmission.The larger 30mm tube increases the adjustment range of the scope and the strength of the scope tube but does not increase light transmission significantly.To complicate things further it should be mentioned that some scopes with 30mm tubes(leupold for example) actually use 1" internal lenses.My background is in engineering and I do have a basic understanding of light transmission.

Solitary Man

Perhaps I should say that I'm not talking about absolutes here. That is, I'm not saying that a smaller erector lens can "absolutely" transmit light as well as a larger one. What I mean to say is that if there is a difference in 30mm vs. 1" scopes, it's not significant enough to matter.

I've owned both and I prefer the less bulky and usually lighter 1" scopes.

Right prior to the time when Zeiss came out with the Conquest, I owned a Swarovski 3-12X50 PH with 30mm tube. It had great optics, but it was just too big, bulky and heavy for me. I didn't like the first plane reticle either. However, I did like the fast focus eyepiece, finger adjustable turret knobs and etched reticle. About that same time, Zeiss comes out with the Conquest. It had all the features I wanted and it came in a smaller, lighter 1" tube. So, I sold the Swarovski and bought my first Conquest and I've been totally satisfied with that decision. At this time I have no desire to ever own another 30mm scope.