Does the 3-9X50 offer definite advantages?

[Guyon]

Well, I think I'm about to upgrade to a Leupold or Nikon scope on my main hunting rifle--a Remington 700 in .308. Right now, I have a 3-9X40 Tasco World Class on the rifle. I haven't been entirely disatisfied with it; I even took an 8-point on Saturday with the rifle.

However, I would like better clarity, truer adjustments, and a more consistent zero. I figure Leupold or Nikon will do the trick.

My hunting buddy and his father both use 3-9X50 scopes and claim that they let in considerably more light for hunting around dusk. My question is: Does 10 mm on the objective lense make that big of a difference? Price wise, you can get a 3-9X40 much more reasonably.

Opinions?

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Had a Leupold 3x9x50 at one time----was a PITA to mount and general handling sucked----big honkin scope gettin in the way all the time-----since it had to be mounted so high---I could never get the proper cheek weld etc.....


I'll NEVER own another.


You didn't say how much you wanted to spend--------better glass and coatings negates the need for the crutch of a larger objective------------I'll put my 36mm Zeiss against any Leupold 50mm----and be able to shoot until last light.

Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 for $399-------enough said.

 

[Snorkel Bob]

ya dont mess with the 50MM. If ya want something nice without breaking the bank then look at the Nikon Monarch line, very good glass for the money.
The bigger objective usueally means more light, but if you get quality glass then you can get bright without the big lens

 

[dakotasin]

in the u.s., 50 mm objectives aren't necessary. a quality scope w/ a 40 mm objective is all you need for legal hunting hours.

50 mm's are heavy, awkward, and expensive and add little to nothing to the functionality of your gun.

also, leupold is revamping their vx-3 line, so if you were inclined to go w/ a vx-3, i'd wait until the new line makes it to market. if not, the vx-2 is a very good scope at a good price.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

hmmm, well I'll just throw my two cents into this, what the heck. 50mm does gather a lot more light... but how much more light, you ask? While only 10mm seems like a small amount, remember that light gathering is a result of the area or the objective lens, and is thus proportional to the square of the objective diameter. So a 50mm lens should be about 56% brighter than a 40mm, assuming equal quality glass. Now, while it's true that a good (e.g. zeiss, swarovski, etc.) 40mm scope will appear brighter than a cheaper (leupold VariX-II, Tasco, etc) 50mm scope, a top quality 50mm lens will offer MUCH better low light performance than any 40mm lens, no question about it. 50mm objectives also offer better resolution than 40mm objectives, assuming equal quality glass. It comes down to this:

50mm objective: better optical performance in every catagory imaginable.

40mm objective: sacrifices optical performance for compactness and lightweight.

Of course, a 56mm lens will gather more light and resolve even better than a 50mm, and the trend goes on and on... the question becomes a which point does the scope's size get to large to be practical? I can't answer that question for you, but for what it's worth, I put a 50mm scope on my HS Precision and used the lowest 30mm rings I could get, and the objective still clears the barrel, and I get a perfect cheek weld every time.

Hope this helps.

 

[dakotasin]

3-9x40 has, what, 13 mm down to 4.5 (or thereabouts) of exit diameter? and the 3-9x50 has 17 (or so) down to 5.5 mm? the question, then, is how much light can your eye utilize?

i'll agree w/ the resolution argument, but i don't think the eye can utilize all the extra light afforded by a 50...

 

[Mannlicher]

I have been using a Pentax Lightseeker 2 X 8 on my 7 x 57 Ackley Imp., and I swear by it. This is one darn nice mid priced scope. The Objective is 36mm in diameter, and I have never felt any need for a 50mm.

 

[Pat S]

Several years ago I was itching to buy the new 3X9X50mm Leupold scope to replace my older 3X9X40mm VXII. At the local gun store I looked through both a new 40mm and the 50mm in good ambient light and couldn't tell a difference. The salesmen stated that the Burris 1.5X6X26mm Signature Series was an optical equivalent to either of the Leupolds, even with the tiny objective lens. I looked through all 3 and couldn't tell a difference in the store under normal lighting conditions. I later returned to the store and asked if I could try something different, a test. I went down in their basement with all 3 scopes set on 3X and with only a small sliver of light entering the room from a far corner behind me. I sat there for 10-15 minutes to let my eyes adjust to the darkened room and let my pupils enlarge to their maximum. For another 5-10 minutes I went back and forth between the scopes trying to determine which was better under the low light conditions-----the bottom line is I could tell no difference between any of these scopes set on 3X! Then I turned the Burris down to 1.5X and the room lit up. This scope is so superior to either of the 3X9s when turned down to a low power that it has to be seen to be believed! Seeing is believing. I now have one of these in a matte finish with a heavy plex on my 300 Win. mag which I use for elk hunting. For hunting in timber with shots out to a max. of 300-400 yds. I can't think of a better scope.

Pat S.

 

[DougCxx]

-Seems like I remember that your pupil diameter is 6.5mm around the age of 20, and drops down to 4.5mm by around age 40.
~

 

[Sharpshooter223]

Well I'm hoping to not get flamed here but I love my 50 mm scopes. The first 50mm I bought was a bausch & lomb elite 4000 4-16x50 and I love it way more than any of my other scopes. My bausch & lomb 6-24x40 is an awesome scope too but it isn't as good as the 50mm during early morning or dusk. The only problems i've had with the large objectives... I've had to buy higher rings so that it would fit on the gun without touching the barrel and also they are a pain in the @$$ to get in the safe. Just throwing in my 2.

 

[Sharpshooter223]

Oh and also I bought a 3-9x40 and a 3-9x50 for a couple of my .22's. The 3-9x50 was obviously better than the 40. The scopes were both BSA "deerhunter" scopes. I must add this before anyone goes out and gets either of these though. They are about as clear as my redfield very clear scopes but I wouldn't put them on anything but a .22 because I've seen many reviews about them messing up on higher recoiling rifles.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

the question, then, is how much light can your eye utilize?

In total darkness, the human eye can dilate to just under 8mm. Past 8mm, a bigger exit pupil won't gather any more light (since your eye can't use it), but will allow you a little more leeway with head position.

Naturally if you are in conditions other than total darkness, your eyes will dilate even less.