PDA

View Full Version : Scope Question..


CK_32
June 18, 2009, 10:07 PM
Hey ok so iv been looking at getting a Leopold 2-10x scope.
For hunting and recreation target shooting in the back woods..

But i have been looking at getting the 50mm over the 40mm..
I understand that its better to get more light and what ever...

Buttt.... I was wondering if getting a 50mm over a 40mm is really
worth the extra like $200. And what does the extra light actually
really do.. im not a blind man i have near perfect vision so
i really dont think that light is going to make that huge of a deal
but then again this is why im asking you guys who know.

So do i really need the 50mm over the 40mm for 100 yards+ shots
or will the 40mm do just fine and the 50mm just nice to have.. or will it
reall make a huge difference and worth the extra $$$..

-CK

LHB1
June 18, 2009, 10:45 PM
IMO, NO, stick with the 40 mm size scope, even if they cost the same. The 50 mm scope is bigger, heavier, and requires higher scope mounts which detracts from quick rifle handling. Keeping the scope lower and lighter aids me in gun fit and quick eye line up with scope. The extra light gathering, if any, applies only for a very brief time each day and is just not worth these disadvantages for me. A good 40mm scope has always gotten the job done for me during legal hunting times.

CK_32
June 18, 2009, 11:41 PM
Ok thank you.. i think you just saved me about $200
i would have just blown on something i regreted getting.

Yea cause i also noticed in hunting videos they seem to use
the 40mm or smaller so its less of a lense that shows from the bush.
But i was told the 50mm was better for light but kinda
just hit me about.. well light can only help so much and 40mm
have just enough visability so idk how much better you need.

But thanks again for the info. If anyone else has anything
to put in or disagree please post up. The more info the better.

sholling
June 19, 2009, 12:23 AM
Stick with 40mm. It sits a lot lower giving you a better cheekweld.

What leupy is in 2-10x40? That's just not a normal Leupold power range.

And I'd really consider a few other scopes. Leupolds are over priced for what you get. I'd look at a Bushnell Elite 4200 in 3-9x40 (http://swfa.com/Bushnell-3-9x40-Elite-4200-Rifle-Scope-P6910.aspx), or 2.5-10x40 (http://swfa.com/Bushnell-25-10x40-Elite-4200-Rifle-Scope-P245.aspx). Also the Burris Signature Select 3-10x40 (http://swfa.com/Burris-3-10x40-Signature-Select-Rifle-Scope-P2898.aspx). Those will all run with a Leupold VX3.

If you can live with the BDC reticle (it's for hunting not targets) then the real bargain is the Nikon Team Primos (http://swfa.com/Nikon-3-9x40-Team-Primos-Riflescope-P8132.aspx).

Objective diameter is less important than the quality of the glass and the quality and type of coatings. But even with the extra light gathering of a 50mm objective of the same quality it might buy you another 15-20 minutes of hunting. If memory serves California cuts off hunting 30 minutes after official sunset.

CK_32
June 19, 2009, 12:34 AM
Yea i meant the 2.5-10x

Haha yea ill check those out. iv just been told Leopold were some
of the best for the mid range scopes. Haha what would i do with
out you sholl? lol you give me like half my info.

Thanks patna :)

But yea ill probably stick with the Mil-dot cause ill be target shooting
more than i will be hunting. I just love the feel of shooting and getting
away and just feeling the scope and relaxing and just getting
in my own worry free world more than for the sport of killing anything.

fisherman66
June 19, 2009, 04:21 PM
another 40mm recommendation

Heck, I prefer the 36mm, 33mm and 20mm objectives for hunting.

A 6x36 or 2.5-8x36 is one heck of a open range scope.

A 2-7x33 is a great multi-purpose topper.

A 2.5x20 is the perfect woods glass.

sholling
June 19, 2009, 06:09 PM
What's your budget?

skydiver3346
June 19, 2009, 08:35 PM
I'd go with the 40 to 42mm objective scope.

However; if you really want to gather more light in your scope, ( get a 30mm diameter scope). More expensive but in the long run, well worth the investment. I just picked up two of them off Ebay recently for a great price and the light gathering ability is phenomenal.

CK_32
June 22, 2009, 04:01 PM
My budg. is looking around $200-$300..
Maybe $400 if its ganna make a HUGE WORLD OF DIFFERENCE..
But not looking to blow too much on the scope.

But maint from the $200-$300 range.

Brian Pfleuger
June 22, 2009, 04:15 PM
On a Luepold it won't make enough difference to be worth $200. The 40mm Luepold is better than most 50mm off brands.

sholling
June 22, 2009, 08:24 PM
I'd look at the Bushnell 4200 in 3-9x40 for $299. If you must have mil-dot then I'd consider a Mueller Tac II but to be honest I haven't used one. Chuck Hawks rates it as a 4-star scope which is the same class as the 4200, but I suspect that the 4200 will be slightly sharper. My experience with Mueller's scopes has been mixed. I'd lean toward the 4200.

Here's a bit of light reading on scopes:
http://www.6mmbr.com/optics.html

Chuck Hawks ratings:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/recommended_riflescopes.htm

Chuck hawks advice on scope power:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/scope_magnification_rifle_caliber.htm

CK_32
June 23, 2009, 01:42 AM
ok yea ill check those out.
Yea i wanna have a mil dot for sure.
So the 4200 with mil dot should be the one i should check out?

sholling
June 23, 2009, 11:23 AM
The $300 3-9x40 4200 does not come with a mil-dot reticle. It's a hunting scope not a sniping scope. Quite frankly I doubt 10% of civilians with mil-dot scopes ever use them for range finding or even know how. You're either going to have to spend more for a scope with a mil-dot reticle or take a step down in quality, or take a chance on the Mueller. I haven't used it so I can't say one way or another about how it is.

If you don't mind a step down then most of the 3-star scopes listed are pretty good. They won't have quite the same sharpness (Resolution) or light gathering as the 4-star scopes but the 3-star Nikons, Weavers, Burris, and Bushnell aren't bad. But I'm not fond of the Simmons or the 3-star Muellers. Also keep in mind that most hunting scopes are going to limit you to about 500yds. That's as far as I can't shoot and 200yds father than I'd take a shot at an animal. Assuming you can find a range that lets shoot farther than that then you need more elevation adjustment than any scope that I've named is capable of.

This article while a bit outside what you are looking for (high power target scopes) it is is very educational and the lessons apply to your choice.
Choosing a High-Magnification Scope (http://www.6mmbr.com/optics.html)

CK_32
June 23, 2009, 01:00 PM
Yea i just want to get mil dot cause my cousin gets out of the service
in a couple of months and is a top shooter out there and he wants to
teach me how to shoot the right way and use mid dot and range finding
and all that and turrets. So im ganna need the. i thought it was like an
extra $25 to get mildot put on a scope?

But i just need a mil dot scope. For around $300 and is a good quality scope
and has turrets. But i know you can buy turrets for windage after you buy
the scope. And im mainy going to be target shooting around 300+. But
i dont want a fixed 10x or 12x scope. not that big of a fan of fixed
magnafication scopes.

CK_32
June 24, 2009, 12:29 PM
Well he actually wants me to get the modern range finding..
but i cant afford it so mid dot is best.

Te Anau
June 25, 2009, 10:28 AM
I can't locate it right now,but I just read an article several weeks ago about the advantages of a 40/42mm scope over a 50mm.It helped me decide on my 2.5-10X42 Tasco target/varmint scope that I just received.Time will tell,but Tasco is now owned by Bushnell & this scope is pretty dang nice.:)

CK_32
June 26, 2009, 01:09 PM
And how much did that set you back?
$$ wise..

Te Anau
June 26, 2009, 03:04 PM
Heres where I purchased it.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/tasco-25-10x42-targetvarmint.html

And here is the article that gave me faith enough to take a chance even though its a different power scope.

http://www.gunblast.com/Tasco_Mildot.htm

:)

James R. Burke
July 3, 2009, 09:37 PM
Yup one more for the 40mm. Unless your in low light 99% of the time you dont need the 50mm had them both. Plus mounted correct the 40mm will keep your head down in the stock with out rising up.

TEDDY
July 8, 2009, 02:23 PM
whats with the several hundred yd stuff??? I am a little puzzled. most hunters seem to stay in the under 300 yds and many under 200yds.my hnting can be from 50 to 200 yd max and I would not shoot beyond that.I have several scopes and only one worth $200.the rest are in the $ 13 to $50. range.they work for me.I buy from CDNNsports.com.fantastic prices.

.284
July 9, 2009, 06:27 PM
Go to Chuckhawks.com there is a section on optics, specifically, objective lense size and light transmission. Check out the review of the Burris Signature Select scopes. I searched and searched for a scope for my 280 Rem. Here's what I found out. First, the signature select line is still produced in the USA (I like that). Burris uses a quad seal for waterproofing which is supposed to be better than an O-ring. They use dual springs where most use a single, They offer a lifetime warranty. Finally, 50mm objective lenses aren't going to give the human eye a noticeable difference in the amount of light transmitted. As someone else stated in this thread, a 50mm sits just too high on your gun for me. I went with the Burris (as if you didn't already figure that out) 3-10x40mm ballistic plex $395.00 Opticsbestbuy.com. Also, if this is to be a permanent mount check out Leupold bases with their PRW rings. Good luck Jeff.