~40mm objectives Vs ~50mm objectives (500 yards and in)?

[Bigeclipse]

I have read all about these scope sizes and debates and just wanted to see what the main consensus is here for medium range shooting (500 yards and in). All else being equal, the 50mm will gather more light, will typically be heavier and will typically keep the scope higher above the bore which means you might need a cheek rest added to your rifle. So do most people here hunt 40mm scopes or 50mm? Ive only ever used 40 and 42mm scopes. Thanks!

 

[Orange Dust]

Depends so much on what the magnification is on the high end. As magnification increases the lenses need to be larger for equal performance. There are some specialty scopes made for extreme low light that don't follow this, and some cheap scopes that don't either, but for the most part it is true. If the glass is decent you don't gain much putting a 50mm objective on a 9x scope. You do on an 18x. 25x and most makers go to a 56.

 

[TRG65]

All of my scopes are 50 or 56 mm (swaro, s&b, NF, PR) that are on hunting or LR guns. I'm a firm believer in having the largest objective to get the most at the beginning or end of the day.

 

[Bigeclipse]

Depends so much on what the magnification is on the high end. As magnification increases the lenses need to be larger for equal performance. There are some specialty scopes made for extreme low light that don't follow this, and some cheap scopes that don't either, but for the most part it is true. If the glass is decent you don't gain much putting a 50mm objective on a 9x scope. You do on an 18x. 25x and most makers go to a 56.

All my scopes are 14x power or less. Don't think id ever want more power for my needs to be honest. Just checking to see if im missing out not getting 50mm objectives.

 

[Orange Dust]

All mine are 50 or 56, but all the scopes on my big game rifles are at least 16x on the top end. They also all have 30-34mm tubes

 

[Orange Dust]

All my scopes are 14x power or less. Don't think id ever want more power for my needs to be honest. Just checking to see if im missing out not getting 50mm objectives.

The high end scopes of 16x or more with large objectives and tubes are absolutely superb in low light. They are heavier, but absolutely superb. Don't ever look through a $3k scope at sundown and you will remain happy.

 

[Varmint Hunter]

The column of light (exit pupil) that reaches your eye should be 7mm or more. Its easy to calculate by dividing the objective lens diameter by the magnification. Example: A scope with a 50mm objective lens that is set on 14x will have an exit pupil of only 3.6mm, far smaller than you would want in marginal light. But .... if you turn the magnification down to about 7x then you will achieve a 7mm exit pupil which provides the maximum light column usable by most eyes.

Now consider a scope with a 42mm objective lens. If you want to achieve the same 7mm light column you can use a magnification of 6x. Is the difference between 6x and 7x make enough difference for you to choose a 50mm scope? Something to consider.

Large objective lens just let you use slightly more magnification than smaller objective lens do.

The above assumes that the same quality glass is used.

 

[Plinker147]

I use to like 40mm-44mm. Now that my eyes are older I really like the 50-56mm. They are clearer just because the more light gathering makes it clearer/easier to see for my eyes. I really don't notice the difference i carrying with the bigger objective. Fitting in scabbards is a little tuffer tho.

 

[Canhunter35]

Depends so much on what the magnification is on the high end. As magnification increases the lenses need to be larger for equal performance. There are some specialty scopes made for extreme low light that don't follow this, and some cheap scopes that don't either, but for the most part it is true. If the glass is decent you don't gain much putting a 50mm objective on a 9x scope. You do on an 18x. 25x and most makers go to a 56.

I agree completely, the only thing I'd add is lens coating really make a difference on low light performance. Ex: My 30yr old vari-x2 3-9x40mm outperforms a 6-24x50mm sightron s3 in low light.
That's one thing about Leupold, they do perform well in low light.
I also agree, don't look through really expensive scopes...ever lol

 

[Orange Dust]

I agree completely, the only thing I'd add is lens coating really make a difference on low light performance. Ex: My 30yr old vari-x2 3-9x40mm outperforms a 6-24x50mm sightron s3 in low light.
That's one thing about Leupold, they do perform well in low light.
I also agree, don't look through really expensive scopes...ever lol

Yes, they would have a tough time selling them if they weren't worth the money. I will say this much about them. When you buy one you will take care of it! Seriously, they are a whole different cat peeking into the shadows.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I have read all about these scope sizes and debates and just wanted to see what the main consensus is here for medium range shooting (500 yards and in). All else being equal, the 50mm will gather more light, will typically be heavier and will typically keep the scope higher above the bore which means you might need a cheek rest added to your rifle. So do most people here hunt 40mm scopes or 50mm? Ive only ever used 40 and 42mm scopes. Thanks!

I have two hunting rifles that I love and are both sporting 3-15x56 VX5HDs. Love the low light performance. One is on a 6mm creedmoor that is a coyote gun. The other is on a 270wsm.

 

[FEENIX]

Mine varies as:
1" - 40, 42, 44, 50
30MM - 42, 50
34MM - 56
35MM - 42

 

[Orange Dust]

I use to like 40mm-44mm. Now that my eyes are older I really like the 50-56mm. They are clearer just because the more light gathering makes it clearer/easier to see for my eyes. I really don't notice the difference i carrying with the bigger objective. Fitting in scabbards is a little tuffer tho.

This is very true. As I have aged my eyes do not see as well in low light as they used to. I also cannot see as well at night. I have found that I can see better with different coatings than younger folks. I have played with all the high end stuff. I can see noticeably better in low light with a K525i than I can with an ATACR F1. The K252i is also superior to the SB and Zeiss. Sure way to start an argument. But, the coatings Kahles uses works better with my eyes that the others. The next guy to come along will give you an entirely different answer. You can quote all the specs in the book and it just doesn't matter. Different people's eyes react differently to different coatings. That's why when you get into the high end stuff there usually is no agreement as to which is best. Step down a tier and compare the Leupold HD's, Razors, and 6500's, etc, and you will find the same thing. The only way to settle it for yourself is to find some buddies who own the ones you are interested in and compare them side by side in different lighting conditions.If you get the opportunity to do this, most likely one will stand out above the others, and it may not be the one you expected. It wasn't for me anyway.

 

[JMB 1911]

I am a big fan of the 50MM the first time I couldn't make out an animal with my naked eye in low light but could see it clearly through the scope convinced me. Nikon & Leuopold both make awesome glass which doesn't break the bank. I was told Nikon doesn't burden there sporting optics with lens development costs as that is all absorbed by there camera division.