BGdino

I am presently in the final stages of a scope search for my new Winchester Ultimate Shadow SS in 300 WSM. I have narrowed my scope search down to the following:

Nikon Monarch UCC in 3x9x40mm (matte finish and 1 inch tube)
Nikon Monarch UCC in 3.5x10x50mm (matte finish and 1 inch tube)
Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40mm (matte finish and 1 inch tube)

Use will be in the next several years for the following game:

New Mexico Elk, Barren Ground Caribou (maybe Bear combo too) and hopefully (one day) Kudu.

My question is what are the real benefits from the larger 50mm scope on this gun? I struggle with carrying a such a larger stature scope on the top of my gun and possibly having it get in the way when carrying and inserting into a scabbard? I have also heard that unless you have a 30mm tube you can never realize the true light gathering capabilities of this larger objective. Is there a gain in early morning time or end of day time? I have reviewed each of these several times at Cabelas in Hamburg Pa and they all are bright and crisp.

Second, has anyone had experiences with these scopes against a magnum caliber that have failed? What were the reasons?

Your help will be used in my decision as I feel this information can only come from experiences in the field from real people not the marketing team at the companies where they are manufactured. I am not looking for opinions based on materials in print but real life circumstances from hunters like myself have had on a hunts.

Thanks so much!

BGdino
Elk in '05

bigcountry

For someone who has used a scope alot. You are not going to get huge gains from a 50mm.

You get Wider field of View (don't need it, you should be able to pick up and see a object >10yards and throw the gun and be right on him with anything >20mm. For practice, you can take unloaded gun and watch birds flying around. Look at em and throw your gun up. Are you on em or lost?)

More light, brigher imagaes (now for some night hunters, might be important, for use Elk/Deer day hunters, not really an issue. Especially with the nice index matching coatings they have these days.)

More crisp picture (More bearing surface, sharper the picture, but I bet 90% of hunters couldn't tell the difference. Besides not that important to me. I want my binocs to be crisp and sharp, and my gun scope to be rugged.)

True loss's
Looks very goofy. A 50mm scope on a small rifle just looks silly IMO

Heavier. On ultralight, they go thru alot of pain squeezing out oz's here and there. Then you see someone put a monster scope on.

According to John Barsness, a 50mm scope might not be as rugged as say a 1.5-5. I think he is right due to inertia.

mlaubner

I would like to add that the real benefits from a 50mm lens are gaind with a 30mm tube. The benefit would be light transmission in lower light conditions, ie, early morning and late evening.

Ruddyduck

With good glass there really is little if any gain. In fact the higher mounts needed for a 50mm could actually e a detrement.

bigcountry

Oops, good one Ruddyduck. Forgot that one.

Solitary Man

I've never had any problem hunting up to the very end of legal hours (30 minutes past sunset) with my 3-9x40 Conquest. In fact, on several occassions I've sat in my deerstand 15 to 20 minutes past legal hours and I could still see good enough to make out details. If the glass is good enough, and the Conquest's is, I just don't think a 50mm scope (which I have owned) is needed.

This particular Conquest has been mounted on my .300 Weatherby Sako for the last 3 years now and I've had no problems with it whatsoever. I've probably fired more than 700 rounds through this rifle since I mounted this scope on it, so it's been subjected to a substantial amount of recoil. It's been bounced around pretty good in the scabbard on my ATV too. It's a just a really nice scope in my opinion.

I can't speak for the Nikons. I don't own one.

Superpig

I own a Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10X50mm A/O & an Vari-X III 3.5-10X40mm. I will not purchase another 50mm scope. The must be mounted higher and they weigh more. I have used both on a regular basis over the last few years. The advantage gained with the bigger objective is minimal at best. I cannot see it with my eyes. I know some people claim they can, but I cannot. I have killed several feral hogs with barely any daylight left and I couldn't see them any better with the 50 than I could with the 40. Also the 50 looks bulky and is. Good shooting requires consistent cheek weld with the stock. Most factory rifle stock accomodate 40 mm objectives mounted in low mounts. This will give a consistent ckeek weld to the stock and aid in accurate shooting. My opinion is the forget the 50 and buy a 40 mm objective. I have little experience with Nikon scopes. I have only owned one Buckmaster and it was a 4X40. I have never had any trouble with it. However, it is mounted on a 6MM Remington. I do not think you will go wrong with any of the scopes you mentioned. I would just go with the 40MM objective.

oldelkhunter

A 50mm would not balance right on a lightweight rifle and would not fit correctly in a Scabbard. Your cheek will come off the stock and affect your shooting unless you shoot it extensively and get used to the sight picture. Glass quality is what matters and I['ll give you an example... On the property I hunt in Alabama we have a shooting house that sits across a lake from a greenfield. Deer do not come out into that field until 5-10 minutes at end of shooting light. 2 years ago I spotted a Buck feeding in the field at last light just as I was going to get out of the stand . I could see him as if it were daylight thru my 8x42 Leicas. I put them down and picked up my borrowed rifle which had a 3.5-10x50 leupold on it . I couldn't see half the detail of that deer that the binos showed and it
looked like a grey blob.


I would take the Zeiss Conquest first and there is nothing wrong with the Nikon 40mm scope either except their mounting tube length is a little shorter then the Zeiss.

stubblejumper

Some scopes with 40 or 42 mm scopes are actually brighter than some 50mm scopes because of differences in lenses and lens coatings.

trailer

I have a couple of rifles with the 50mm obj. lens and like using them. I find quite a difference in the field of view between the 40 and the 50. I don’t find the weight to be that much of a factor when you’re talking oz. It all depend on what type of hunting it’s going to be used for.
I personally like the 50mm but I’m not saying that I will not get 40mm scope in the future. Like I said it all depends on the application of the scope. Good Luck in your purchase.