Jackson Bowner

I have just purchased an T/C Omega 50 cal. to replace my Pedersoli 72 cal dbl Kodiak. Just had Lasik corrective eye surgery and the trade off for now having 20/20 at a distance is that the surgery has changed my reading prescription. Cutting to the chase here....I can't see the end of my damn barrel anymore (hahaha) and need to have a ML that has a scope. I want to do this up right the first time and put a very good scope on it. I know there are many good scopes to consider, and I have narrowed it down to the Zeiss Conquest. However, I would be very interested in all your comments and suggestion about the 3-9x40 versus the 3-9x50. Do you think the 3-9x50 will appreciable increase the amount of light during low light conditions?? Low light is a major consideration and a scenario that is likely to occur. Would there be any problems mounting the 3-9x50 (or for that matter the 3-9x40) in terms of eye relief or any other limitations? Also I am interested in suggestions on scope mounts and rings. Is the Warne Maxima quick release worth considering? I have been floundering with these questions for a while now and am going to base my decisions on what the group thinks. Thanks to all of you for reading this and especially those that have provided input!

stubblejumper

I would go with the 3x9x40 because it is bright enough for hunting during legal big game hunting hours and the 50mm lens requires that the scope be mounted higher which makes it more difficult to obtain the proper cheek position on the stock.

oldelkhunter

You will not want a 50mm Conquest after looking at a 40mm Conquest in dim light. Extremely bright scope. They put the 50mm out there for the guys who are not convinced a 40mm is not bright enough. Not enough difference to warrant the change ie high rings and the cheek weld as STubble pointed out.

MOTurkeyTamer

Get the Conquest 3-9x40, it is a great scope and you will NOT be disappointed! And yes, the Warne Maxima quick release mounts are excellent as are the Leupold QR bases and rings. I prefer the Leupolds because they are a little more streamlined and better looking IMO. Good luck w/ the new Omega, it is a super gun!

RedAllison

Ditto what these guys said... The 50s are STRICTLY offered in lower powered scopes solely for marketing purposes. Rather than fight the trend, they are saying "what the heck, lets not argue with them just give em what they ask for". Even if what they ask for is a waste of money and time. The human eye has a maximum dialation of around 4.5mm. (Dont wanna make ya mad, but the older you get the less that number becomes!)

A scope has a pupil just like a human eye. You can get its measurement by dividing the scopes objective measurement, in this case 40, by the power, lets use 9. That equates to around 4.33mm. For govt work lets call that close enough too 4.5mm. (Sound like a familiar number?) The Conquest series will transmit over 95% of the light it gathers and 95% of 4.5mm is a shade over 4mm. Still above the optimum pupil measurement of 4mm. Now if you are wondering, the same numbers when run on a 3x9x50 yield a pupil measurement of 5.2mm. That is larger than the human eye can accept. In other words its wasted money and light. Remember also, get to much light on your eye and what happens? Yep your pupil begins to close up/decrease in size which will then effect your lowlight vision capability.

Some may say, "Gimme the bigger one" but thats not really doing anything for them. All it does is make the scope larger, heavier and places the scope higher off the gun which interferes with the proper "line of sight too line of bore" relationship. Now remember also, you can only put so much light through a one inch hole. Thats why most of the premier 12+ power 56mm European scopes have 30mm tubes. Sure they allow for greater crosshair movement (internal clicks) but they also allow more light to be passed through them (no duh Red you say! but look at how many 50+ mm scopes are being offered on 1" tubes. Its strictly marketing for those things!) So its a combination of "hittin the numbers" along with also properly transfering the light that is recieved.

The 44mm on a 1" tube was chosen by Zeiss and Nikon for a reason. It allows one to reach that "magical 4" number I showed you while also retaining a lower profile like a more standard 40mm. They only recently went too 50s for simple marketing reasons!

Have a good one and enjoy that great scope,
RA

ps
Oh yeah, as for the Warnes, personally I think they are THE best detachable setup in the business. I have had one on a muzzleloader of mine (as much for ease of cleaning than removing for legal reasons when going out of state) for nearly 15 years without so much as a single incident from them!

Jackson Bowner

Thanks Red for that analysis and assessment...and thanks Stubble, Elk and Turkey. As a result of all your input, this morning I went to our local sporting goods store and bought the 3-9x40. Anddddd, they had a 20% off sale going on through the end of the month, so I got it cheaper than anyplace else online I have looked. I think it was around $390, so can't wait to get everything rigged up and start shooting! Happy Holidays to all.

skeeter 7MM

Excellent choice I have the same scope on my inline and am extremely pleased. I have been thinking about detachable rings myself but haven't made a decision between the Leupold QR's and the Warne, have heard positive things from owners of each. Leupold is the most popular I assume based mostly on availablity/brand name but in all honesty the best return to POI has seems to come from those using the Warnes.

RedAllison

Skeet I can vouch for the Warnes for sure. Mine are the small based variety and have been on a Wolverine that I bought over 10 years ago (I also have a fixed Warne smallbase in stainless that have been on a Custom Shop 700 280 since I got the gun in 98. They have held a VXIII 4.5X14X50 since day one without so much as a blink) Icould remove the scope for hunting in a nearby state that didnt allow them. But I quickly learned that they NEVER lost zero after I removed the scope each time I cleaned the gun. I literally have removed the scope 100s of times and have never had so much as one glitch. The biggest pain with the Warnes is the intial installation on the scope. Those vertical split rings are a PAIN to install, but WELL worth it if you ask me.

Now as for the "QRW" setup, Just last month I put a set on a new Savage smokeless. I used Weaver Grand Slam bases (steel) but the rings are the QRW variety Leupolds. I obviously havent had to remove the scope as I havent had to clean it yet (did I mention I LOVE this gun?) but I can say that the zero hasnt budged.

As for the "QR" Leupold setup, my brother has had a set on a Steyr of his for over a decade and it has given him 0 problems as well.

skeeter 7MM

Thanks Red for the feedback on the detachable rings. Most I have talked to or info heard was the Leupolds would have 1/2' - 1" POI shift. Frankly this kind of got me thinking and thus I stuck with my leupold DD rings. Equally never had a problem with them on a number of rifles with holding zero's but their are times where I could see it being an benefit to remove the scope on BP/Sub Inline. At the end of the season it is moot since I completely tear down my rem 700 MLS and then verify zero in the spring.

Yes that Savage is one sweet shooter...maybe next year have to wait and see.

Solitary Man

Sorry, but I just couldn't let this thread lie here without correcting and clarifying some things in Red's post.

Actually, the human eye dilates to an average maximum of 7mm with the maximum attained at about age 30. As we get older, that number does decrease as he said.

The pupil in the human eye is a physical structure. Scopes do not have pupils. There is what's called the "exit pupil" which describes the image that's projected to a particular point in space behind the scope. Your eye must be positioned at that exact spot in order for you to see the full field-of-view with maximum resolution. The size of this image is calculated by dividing the objective diameter by the power of magnification. Two scopes, say 3-9x40, but with different light transmission qualities due to different lens quality and coatings, will have the same exit pupil size when both are set to the same magnification.

Notwithstanding the effect lens quality and coatings have on light transmission, the larger the exit pupil the brighter the image up to the point where the exit pupil exceeds the size of our own pupil. It is not necessarily true that the extra light provided by a 50mm objective will be wasted. When a typical variable scope with such an objective is set at it's highest power setting, the extra light is mostly usable.

This is a common misconception. Light doesn't just pass through a hole when it goes through a scope. It's systematically managed by various lenses. When light passes through the objective lens it's bent and concentrated into a smaller bundle. As long as the scope is designed properly and no physical structure inside it encroaches into this bundle of light, then all the light that can be transmitted through a 30mm scope can also be transmitted through a 1" scope. In fact, some 30mm scopes actually utilize internal lenses that are the same size as those that are incorporated into 1" scopes.

European manufacturers adopted a standard scope tube size that's a nice round metric number, 30mm. We adopted a nice round Imperial number, 1 inch. There's no more to it than that.

Larger scope tubes do have a couple of advantages. They're a little more rigid and they offer greater windage and elevation adjustment travel as was stated.

Sorry, just needed to correct some things. BTW, a good scope with a 40mm objective is all that's needed for any big game hunting I can think of in the U.S., so I agree totally with Red on that. My Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 is my favorite. With it I could hunt past legal shooting hours if I wanted to (I don't). Anyway, I'm out of here for a few days. Happy New Year.