Leupold 3x9x40 vs 3x9x50.

[Carlos]

I'm about to order one of these scopes for my rifle, and I'm leaning towards the 50mm. I know it will need mounts, and will be mounted a little higher than a 40mm would.

What other considerations are there? (The larger objective is just $50 more.)

 

[SEC]

I vote save the 50.00. Mount the 40mm low enough to keep a good cheek weld.

 

[Pilchard]

I have not found a reason to justify the extra cash.

 

[Snake]

I'm about to order one of these scopes for my rifle, and I'm leaning towards the 50mm. I know it will need mounts, and will be mounted a little higher than a 40mm would.

What other considerations are there? (The larger objective is just $50 more.)

Get the 50 mm. At low light you be glad you did .

 

[Spurhunter]

I've been told to buy 40mm, mount it low, and spend the money on better glass. I have a couple 50mm, but my last scope I bought was a Zeiss Conquest in 40mm. I have zero regrets.

 

[holstonangler]

I have and hunted with both 40mm and 50mm for years. I still prefer the 40mm. Its lighter to carry, I can't tell any difference in light transmission at first and last light, and the fov at longer ranges doesn't seem to make a difference.

 

[T. J. Mercer]

Expounding on what Snake just posted, in case it was missed or misunderstood.
I use the 50mm, and I promise I get several more minutes of shooting light at the most critical time of the hunt.
Across years of hunting, would you pay a few bucks for an extra 5 minutes of vision?

The larger field of view lets in more light.
I understand the law reads 30 minutes after sunset, but
1) I'm not going to split hairs over 2 or 3 minutes, and
2) sometimes weather or clouds causes your "shooting light" to end 20 minutes after sunset, but a good scope overcomes that adversity.

Extend your hunt.

 

[Snake]

I have and hunted with both 40mm and 50mm for years. I still prefer the 40mm. Its lighter to carry, I can't tell any difference in light transmission at first and last light, and the fov at longer ranges doesn't seem to make a difference.

Using a 40 mm is ok but really ... the 50 mm is heavier ???? Sure but how much a few grains .

 

[Spurhunter]

Using a 40 mm is ok but really ... the 50 mm is heavier ???? Sure but how much a few grains .

I never understood the guys so focused on weight of guns. 3 or 4 pounds? Maybe worth considering. Maybe. 3 or 4 ounces? I don't get.

 

[Snake]

I never understood the guys so focused on weight of guns. 3 or 4 pounds? Maybe worth considering. Maybe. 3 or 4 ounces? I don't get.

Exactly .

 

[fairchaser]

I'd opt for the larger tube 30mm vs 1 inch rather than the objective. You will actually get better light transmission with the larger tube. For me I can't look through a real low scope anyway.

 

[Lost Lake]

I'm pretty shallow sometimes when it comes to looks and aesthetics, so what looks best on the rifle is what I'll go with, as long as performance is there with either choice.

I guess I'd rather it look like I put a scope on the rifle, rather than a rifle under the scope.

 

[square]

As stated earlier in this thread. A higher quality 40 mm gathers light better than a cheaper 50mm

 

[Dennis]

I'm pretty shallow sometimes when it comes to looks and aesthetics, so what looks best on the rifle is what I'll go with, as long as performance is there with either choice.

I guess I'd rather it look like I put a scope on the rifle, rather than a rifle under the scope.

I'm with you. I like the look of a 40mm objective better than a 50mm objective. I also don't like the looks of small objectives like 24mm, but of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

That being said, I wouldn't rule out putting a 50mm scope on a gun if the scope is high end and the price is right. In fact I have a 50mm scope new in the box waiting for a rifle right now. It was good glass at a great close out price.

I bought a ZEISS conquest 1.8-5.5x38 in close out once and it is a great scope. Now I wish I had about 6 more of them!

 

[Tenntrapper]

On most rifles, I don't like the looks of a 50mm objective. I'm currently using a 42mm, and I can see deer at "30 mins after legal sunset" just fine.

 

[wsm]

I have went to 50mm in the last couple of years ,Leupold vx3xi .

 

[TheLBLman]

I'd opt for a tad better glass with either a 42mm or a 44mm objective.
(At least with a 3-9 to 3-12 magnification range)

A higher quality 40 mm gathers light better than a cheaper 50mm

Very true, at least in the 3-9 or 3-12 magnification range.
Don't need 50mm, although I can see some small advantage to 42-44mm.

 

[Jcalder]

I'd rather have a 30mm tube over a 50mm objective.