pharaoh2

I'm kind of in a hurry, and admitidly didn't take the time to read the reply's above me, so I don't know if this has been said but... You don't really need a 50mm objective. On comparable models, they may give a slightly wider feild of view, and in extreme low light conditions, offer more light.( But this is minor. I just took my weaver K-3 outside at night, with the straight 1" objective, I still could see everything but my crosshair!) The problem is you could still see your target with the same model in a 40mm, but with a standard duplex or similar reticle, it will be hard to see. During the day, when you will be out hunting 90% of the time, with only a few minutes at dawn and dusk as the exception, your eyes are already seeing what they can. Remember, your pupils will only accept so much light, so that 50mm doesn't help at all then. What it does do is give you a sore neck. By this, I mean that you will be required to use a higher ring to clear that massive bell. By doing this, you will be forced to keep your head higher up on the stock than it is designed. The new shadows by Winchester have no monte carlo or check piece. Therefore, you will be craning your neck. The situation is further compounded by the exagerated recoil of the magnum cartridge. And the likleyhood of getting an idiot mark when the scope comes back and bites you is increased as well. By sticking with the 40mm, your head will be in just about the perfect position for the stock of your rifle. If you do decide you need extra low light visability, get a Bushnell Elite with either the Fire-fly reticle, or their standard 3-2-1, low light reticle. For a higher end scope, chose either a Swaravski or Kahles scope with the 4-A or similar crosshair. These are used often in europe where night hunting is permited, and they do work great. Hope this helps you decide.

wnogood

As stated above the difference is in light gathering capability. Here is the real deal...every scope has a "sweet spot" where it gathers the most light available at the objective lens. For instance, a 40mm lens may gather the most light at say, 4x magnification. You may have noticed that as you crank the power down on your scope at dusk, it gets brighter and then as you get near the lowest magnification it starts to get dark again. Now, in comparison, a 50mm lens may have a sweet spot of say 6x magnification. Obviously it is much better if the scope has a 30mm tube so that it can actually get that available light to the pupil of your eye. The zeiss 56mm scopes that I use actually have a sweet spot around 7-8x magnification. Now that we have talked about what they do for you ,you ask...so what? Because the really big boys only seem to show up in the food plots at the very last trace of light. I actually use a set of pentax 10 x 50 binoculars to spot a deer in the field at dark ( it seems a bit easier on the eyes and actually is brighter to use both eyes) and once I spot the deer in the binoc's, I can be sure that I will also be able to see it through the scope. The 2 best deer I have taken have been this way. Hope this helps...

MarkIIVT

OK BG, my .02.

I think at higher magnification, say above 12x, it make a lot of difference. The light transmission is more critical at magnification. Now, on the 3-9x, I do not think it makes one wit of difference, ie no gain going 50mm over 40mm, or even 30mm objective. The scope on the .44 Mag is a 2x burris, and MAN clear as a bell!

The trade off it the higher scope rings (and trying to find 'em), and weight, big time. My favorite rig for deer hunting in W. Kansas is a .308 win Ruger in VT hence the name, with a Springfield Armory 30mm 4-16 with 50 mm OBJ. IT weighs in at over 13.5 pounds! Heavy, but the hunting done in the area allows it. And, the gain I have is in the twilight times of dawn and dusk, it is clear which is worth carrying those extra pounds over relatively flat ground. I have lost the Springfield once due to recoil on a .308 and it was guarnteed to take a 50 BMG recoil! (Yeah, they did fix it.) I was thinking for weight issues of going to a Bushnell 6-18 Trophy as a second scope in an extra set of ruger rings, and just swap them out.

If you are going for an elk hunting rig and climbing mountains (which is different from the hunting I do), I would go lightweight. The 40mm will do fine for the 3-9x. I would even try to find a 3-9 compact, those are great for lightweight and clear good optics. BUY GOOD GLASS!!!

And, get the right tool for the job you are going to do. I would check the weight of the 3 you looked at and check if Ziess, Swaro, Nikon, or Bushnell Elite have a compact. OR, buy a solid cheaper scope (with good glass), and another good scope with an extra set of scope rings, and swap them out for the need, and....it makes a good backup, and....you can buy more toys!

herman

I have the buckmaster mill dot scopes on my 270wsm and 300wsm,haven't had a problem with either yet and have shot a good many loads in them.Have a monarch in 4x12 but like the buckmaster better.

Stalker6

I have looked hard for some technical information that would show that a 50mm is superior to a 40mm and have found nothing. You may have an ever so slight increase in brightness that the human eye could never detect, but I doubt it. The 50mm just ends up being heavier, bulkier, and more expensive.

liquidorange

i have a leupold 3.5 x 10x 50mm and my brother has a 40mm. both are vari x iii. and i can tell you there is a difference. you may not notice it much at the counter of the store but after 2 weeks of hunting in africa with my brother when i looked through my brothers scope during the hunt from time to time the 40mm seemed like a toy is the only way i could explain it. not any less brighter or clear but kinda restricted in view. i would say look at both but it will be a tough desicion because what ever you buy you will always wonder about the other size scope. i have to use high rings on my model 70 -338 win mag but dont find the fit off at all. maybe because its a big gun. my buddy put a 50mm on his ruger 270 and it does look out of place and a little goofy.

aunsaber

I talked with a Leupold representative a couple of years ago and he said if the glass is good the big scopes will make little differance over a 40mm.

He also said the main reason they make the big scopes is because people think they need them.

What few 50's I have bought have been low end scopes and there was a deffinant differance in brightness.
The better scopes that I own are one 32mm and the rest 40mm and they are plenty good for my old eyes.

skeeter 7MM

If your comparing apples to apples, meaning the same scope model using the same lens coatings your looking at a 2% gain with a 50mm scope in light gathering capability. Most will never notice this in a 1/2hour before/1/2 after hunting scenerio. I think the most important thing to consider is balance and how a scope may or may not effect your head position for shooting the rifle. In an ultralight situation it would be counter productive IMHO to mount a 50 bell on top. On a shorter rifle it looks down right stupid and balance is severely effected in most cases, I once mounted a 50mm on my buddies 7600 pump, it was unbalanced and looked absolutely aweful. He often canted the rifle and it seemed to me it was down right awkward for him to acquire and use the rifle, in this case what he may have gained in light he gave up in function - not something I would really want to do with my biggame hunting rifle (s). If mounting a 50 mm causes you to pull your cheek off the stock or comb of the stock then it won't be helping. A way to find out is pull the rifle up with your eyes closed, when shouldered open as if you were going to acquire a target and fire, if you have to move you head up or down IMO it is not mounted correctly for your comfortable shooting position.

stubblejumper

Very true indeed.