How big an Objective Lens do you need? - Page 2

Anthony Terry · July 28, 2006, 06:56 PM

alot of beginners buy huge objective scopes not realizing that the eye cant use but so much light. and they sacrifice a lower mount to have a big bell. definetly not a good tradoff. if you dont have a good cheek weld on a heavy cal. gun you will end up with a sore cheek

BrianBM · July 28, 2006, 07:21 PM

Anthony, at the moment, I'm just informing myself. I will take no shot beyond 200 yards, unless I have a rest (mechanical, or a well-settled sandbag on a well-placed stump) and a deer that stands still for a silhouette portrait. In that case, I might reach out to 300 - if I'm holding a sight picture well, and I like the picture. As a leg amputee, I'm not climbing trees, or stalking, or going more then a couple of hundred yards from where the horse or ATV drops me off. Neither can I track a wounded animal. More then most hunters, if I do this, I need to set myself up to reliably get that bang/flop.

The best way to deal with a deer's sensitive nose is to be somewhere with some fairly long sight lines, probably farm country or former farm country. That dictates a rifle that's useful out to my 300 yard maximum, and it dictates a scope (so do my eyeballs.)

The K-31 sounds like the ideal poor man's route to an accurate .30 rifle, certainly enough so for the kind of deer hunting I have in mind, and heavy enough that recoil shouldn't be a problem for practice - especially once I've started doing moderate handloads, another new hobby to get into. So ..... right now ...... my thoughts are: a K-31, some Prvi Partizan ammuntion to get started and provide Boxer-primed brass for reloading, one of Darryl's clamp-on mounts, and a scope. A VX-II is the baseline purchase. A good pair of binoculars to monitor my surroundings, orange blaze camo for some idiotproofing, and lots of caution in taking the shot. I can sit quietly for awhile, say, from mid-afternoon to the following dawn. Bang/flop.

I have some experience with cameras. I can see advantages to a large objective that haven't been mentioned in this thread or other threads. F'instance, those yellow Alumina filters that Leopold sells for its' scopes? You can sharpen contrast with a filter that way, but the filter will significantly reduce light reaching the eye, enough to make a difference in marginal lighting. Add the filter to better penetrate haze or dust, or add a grey filter if you're overlooking a lot of snow, or sand. A big enough objective makes the light loss irrelevant. Putting the filter on the scope, as opposed to wearing tinted glasses, means the filter'll be under the lens hood, where it should be to avoid complicating vision with reflections.

The Leopold VX-L would be perfect. It's too expensive to buy if you don't know you need it, but I doubt Leopold can patent the idea of a notched lens. The day it first hit the market, optical engineers at every other scopemaker in the world looked at each other and said "why didn't we think of that? ... it's so OBVIOUS ... now let's do it." Leopold's methods for securing a notched objective group in the lens tube may be proprietary and protectable, but the basic design idea is not. Within a couple of years there will be several different notched-lens scopes on the market, and most of them made with cheap, highly skilled Chinese labor. So, for now, Darryl's mount on a K-31 with a midrange Leopold, VX-II, that I'll purchase used. If I need more then that, I have time to wait.

I'm sure most guys here who hunt will be able to think of times and places where they had to decide to forgo a shot that they'd like to have taken. These are just my notions for how to deal with the problem.

kingudaroad · July 29, 2006, 05:23 PM

Some people just gotta have it now!
http://thefiringline.com/forums/atta...1&d=1152983356

Anthony Terry · July 29, 2006, 05:45 PM

youre on the right track bro. since you will be still hunting, the heavier gun will not affect you. and it will be easier to steady up on shots. id go with a 4x12 40mm. those k-31's have alot of drop on the stock so youll need to get the scope as low as you can. that will make shooting easier and funner. i really dont think youll need a 50mm bell. but if you want one, then go for it. id invest in a set of shooting sticks if you are sitting while hunting. they will help you out alot, especially hunting in feilds and such. i would really look into a modern bolt action firearm myself. maybe a used remington 700 bdl. maybe in 30-06 or 270. youll would like the feel better id say. k-31 are made for killing people. remington 700's are made for hunting. you can find used ones for 300-400 in perfect shape. you would like the way the stock fits your cheek better i bet. but it is your rifle so do what you want. just some suggestions to help out.

Art Eatman · July 29, 2006, 11:34 PM

Repeating myself again--and again--I think that if low light is an issue, quality binoculars are The Deal. I don't like the idea of somebody using a scope to see whether or not I'm a deer.

I've never had a problem seeing a deer in that last light before dark with a 40mm Leupold, or even with a Weaver K4. The binoculars take care of judging the quality of the deer. Most any old scope will let you hit it.

Art

BrianBM · July 30, 2006, 02:29 PM

Art, I'm not disagreeing in the least. My shopping list, as noted, does include a good pair of binoculars. I have no intention of waving a rifle around experimentally and included blaze-orange to minimize the chance of someone else's doing so, and making a mistake.

Anthony Terry · July 30, 2006, 02:37 PM

shewwee! (wipes forhead) thank god!

MeekAndMild · July 30, 2006, 03:18 PM

Art you've got to admit both the Leupold and Weaver would probably have better coatings than a Wally World Special 40mm. All things being equal a 4x Weaver 28mm would probably be easier to see through than el cheapo scopes.

BTW, Art, I think the question is more how many horns the deer has rather than whether or not it is a deer.

buckster · July 30, 2006, 03:48 PM

A scope you might want to check out would be The Sightron 3x9x42 at Midway usa.com for 199.00. The 42 lets in a little more light than a 40. Their 3x10 is good also, but for more $$$.

Art Eatman · July 30, 2006, 07:23 PM

Aw, no argument that a lot of scopes of the El Cheapo variety are, at best, marginal. From comments here over the years, though, dealing with recoil is the biggest problem.

Look: My first '06 scope was a Weaver K2.5. Years later, it was a K4. Later on, I traded into a Leupold Vari-X II, and have mostly stayed with Leupold since around 1970-ish.

I've seen all kinds of scopes show up at hunt camp, and folks seemed to be able to kill their deer. My deal is that I've never had a problem; I guess that's why I don't particularly get excited about it. My father used an old Stith Bear Cub 4X on one '06, and a Weaver K6 on the other. He probably killed more deer than most folks ever see.

Common sense says avoid the El Cheapo stuff, on general principles that you generally get what you pay for. But, if a Rolls Royce type of scope makes for more confidence, go for it!

Y'all might have noticed that there's a lot of stuff that I don't get all worried about.

Art

BrianBM · July 31, 2006, 05:53 PM

I DID notice that, actually.

A dollar for every time you heard this discussion, you'd be rich. The hazard of letting NGs like me in is that you get to hear it again.

Anthony Terry, you make a good point about stock fit, and such, and the probable better suitability of a modern sporting firearm. There's food for thought in that ... OK, maybe go check the auction sites again.

Charles S · July 31, 2006, 07:18 PM

I personally believe lens quality is much more important than objective size. I have seen quality 36 mm objective scopes that are much brighter than cheap 50 mm objective scopes.

Fixed power are generally brighter than variable power scopes.

That being stated I would rather have a quality 4X32 scope (Leupold ect) than any 50 mm objective scope made.

I am a deer hunter, not a deer shooter. I find no joy in sitting in a box stand and trying to shoot deer from as far away as possible. I do find great joy in stalking, hunting in the deep woods and being successful.

I prefer a 40 mm objective on a scope of 3-9, but I really prefer a smaller objective. My current favorite scope is 2.5-8X32 mm objective for general purpose hunting. 1.5-6X32 for hunting in the woods.

Charles

Art Eatman · July 31, 2006, 10:33 PM

Brian, a primary purpose of this forum is to explain WHY a bunch of us Old Farts have the opinions we do. Sometimes the reasons even make sense.

If a New Guy can pick up some help, great!

Art

piercfh · August 1, 2006, 04:19 PM

A suprisingly good low cost scope for late evening shots is a 50mm Tasco Worldclass pluss. Im pretty shure they still carry an over the counter warranty as well. During deer season exspecially in this region alot of nicer bucks are seen right at dusk. Currently I shoot a Kahles 56mm fixed 8 and I love it. The world class pluss I used to shoot is suprisingly close in low light conditions. I reccomend the tasco for the money, and I have compared it with 2 56mm kahles, and a 42mm swarovski. It should surprise you.

BrianBM · August 1, 2006, 06:28 PM

56 mm objective, that's .... big. I think you get a prize for Biggest Deer Hunter's Objective Lens In Thread.

Do you need an adjustable cheek piece to get a nice cheek weld to look through a scope like that?

kingudaroad · August 1, 2006, 09:11 PM

No you need one of these.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...1&d=1152983356

Anthony Terry · August 1, 2006, 10:50 PM

8x56, according to the exit pupil rule, gives you just the right 7mm of light your eye can use. Most peoples eyes can't even take that. Me, Id rather use a 6x42 with med mounts than a 56mm with tall, very tall mounts and have to crane my neck just to get my eye in focus.

Anthony Terry · August 1, 2006, 10:50 PM

8x56, according to the exit pupil rule, gives you just the right 7mm of light your eye can use. Most peoples eyes can't even take that. Me, Id rather use a 6x42 with med mounts than a 56mm with tall, very tall mounts and have to crane my neck just to get my eye in focus.

piercfh · August 2, 2006, 10:19 AM

I dont have any trouble sighting with the 56mm. The rifle is a browning high power with a laminated monte carlo stock. I get a good cheek weld, and the rifle scope combo is extremily easy to shoot. Ive had 4 of my friends kill their first deer with the rifle. Also killed alot of deer running with it. That older kahles is in my opinion the best deer hunting scope I have ever used. When it comes down to a late evening hunts the 56mm is unbeatable.

taylorce1 · August 2, 2006, 04:18 PM

I've gotten into the habit of spending more money on my scopes to get better quaility with a small objective. I like to have my scopes mounted as low to the rifle as possible and most the scopes that I'm using now are under 40mm. I have a couple of dedicated varmint rigs that use the 50mm objectives and they are nice but not for carrying on the stalk. I also found that I usually don't use over a 6 power setting on my scopes so that makes it easy to stay down in the small objectives. Most of my scopes are Leupold VXIII in 1.75-7 and 2.5-8, I'm not saying that Leupolds are the best but their optics are clear and bright even in early morning or late evening IMO.

Charles S · August 2, 2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

ost of my scopes are Leupold VXIII in 1.75-7 and 2.5-8

That is interesting, those are also my two favorite choices.

Charles

BrianBM · August 2, 2006, 07:56 PM

Aaaahhh, one of the new Leopolds. You're the first person I've noted on the Forum to admit to having one. Interesting purchase ... what base and rings do you entrust with that very luxe piece of glass? And (maybe more important) over what ranges are you taking those last-minute-of-light shots?

Anthony Terry · August 2, 2006, 09:08 PM

That VX-L will mount with a Leupold STD base and STD low rings. I like them alot, and have been thinking about getting one for my next varmint rig. I say, if youre going to be using a power more than 8 most of the time, get a 50mm. If you usually keep it set around 3-6 a 40mm is right for you. If you use a power lower than that I wouldnt get more than a 32mm. A 50mm or bigger can come in handy in low light with a long shot, other than that, it's not needed.

Here's a good link to read for picking the right scope. Check it out...
http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/scopes_3.htm

Fian · August 3, 2006, 12:20 PM

I have a 4-12 with a 56mm objective. I mounted it on my Sako using Sako extra low rings. The extra low rings can handle up to a 63mm objective, so I didn't have to go with higher rings. So far, I am pleased, though I can't say I notice a huge difference between that and my smaller objective scopes.

BrianBM · August 3, 2006, 07:07 PM

Anthony, the VX-L series doesn't come with any objective smaller then 50mm.
I doubt there's a reason to do so; smaller lenses don't need the extra manufacturing cost and asembly complications of a notched objective lens group. In that series, it's either 50 or 56 mm.

A question for ANYONE with a big objective, 50mm or up, on their hunting rifle.
Aside from the VX-L series, am I correct that the point of an adjustable cheekpiece, as in sniper rifles, is to get your eye up high enough to see through the scope and still get a nice tight cheek weld?

July 28, 2006, 06:56 PM	#26
Anthony Terry Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2006 Location: Virginia. Posts: 673	alot of beginners buy huge objective scopes not realizing that the eye cant use but so much light. and they sacrifice a lower mount to have a big bell. definetly not a good tradoff. if you dont have a good cheek weld on a heavy cal. gun you will end up with a sore cheek __________________ Anthony...

July 29, 2006, 05:45 PM	#29
Anthony Terry Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2006 Location: Virginia. Posts: 673	brian youre on the right track bro. since you will be still hunting, the heavier gun will not affect you. and it will be easier to steady up on shots. id go with a 4x12 40mm. those k-31's have alot of drop on the stock so youll need to get the scope as low as you can. that will make shooting easier and funner. i really dont think youll need a 50mm bell. but if you want one, then go for it. id invest in a set of shooting sticks if you are sitting while hunting. they will help you out alot, especially hunting in feilds and such. i would really look into a modern bolt action firearm myself. maybe a used remington 700 bdl. maybe in 30-06 or 270. youll would like the feel better id say. k-31 are made for killing people. remington 700's are made for hunting. you can find used ones for 300-400 in perfect shape. you would like the way the stock fits your cheek better i bet. but it is your rifle so do what you want. just some suggestions to help out. __________________ Anthony...

July 30, 2006, 02:37 PM	#32
Anthony Terry Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2006 Location: Virginia. Posts: 673	brian. shewwee! (wipes forhead) thank god! __________________ Anthony...

July 30, 2006, 03:18 PM	#33
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	Art you've got to admit both the Leupold and Weaver would probably have better coatings than a Wally World Special 40mm. All things being equal a 4x Weaver 28mm would probably be easier to see through than el cheapo scopes. BTW, Art, I think the question is more how many horns the deer has rather than whether or not it is a deer. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

July 30, 2006, 03:48 PM	#34
buckster Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2006 Posts: 674	40 or 50 A scope you might want to check out would be The Sightron 3x9x42 at Midway usa.com for 199.00. The 42 lets in a little more light than a 40. Their 3x10 is good also, but for more $$$.

July 28, 2006, 07:21 PM	#27
BrianBM Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2006 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 273	Anthony, at the moment, I'm just informing myself. I will take no shot beyond 200 yards, unless I have a rest (mechanical, or a well-settled sandbag on a well-placed stump) and a deer that stands still for a silhouette portrait. In that case, I might reach out to 300 - if I'm holding a sight picture well, and I like the picture. As a leg amputee, I'm not climbing trees, or stalking, or going more then a couple of hundred yards from where the horse or ATV drops me off. Neither can I track a wounded animal. More then most hunters, if I do this, I need to set myself up to reliably get that bang/flop. The best way to deal with a deer's sensitive nose is to be somewhere with some fairly long sight lines, probably farm country or former farm country. That dictates a rifle that's useful out to my 300 yard maximum, and it dictates a scope (so do my eyeballs.) The K-31 sounds like the ideal poor man's route to an accurate .30 rifle, certainly enough so for the kind of deer hunting I have in mind, and heavy enough that recoil shouldn't be a problem for practice - especially once I've started doing moderate handloads, another new hobby to get into. So ..... right now ...... my thoughts are: a K-31, some Prvi Partizan ammuntion to get started and provide Boxer-primed brass for reloading, one of Darryl's clamp-on mounts, and a scope. A VX-II is the baseline purchase. A good pair of binoculars to monitor my surroundings, orange blaze camo for some idiotproofing, and lots of caution in taking the shot. I can sit quietly for awhile, say, from mid-afternoon to the following dawn. Bang/flop. I have some experience with cameras. I can see advantages to a large objective that haven't been mentioned in this thread or other threads. F'instance, those yellow Alumina filters that Leopold sells for its' scopes? You can sharpen contrast with a filter that way, but the filter will significantly reduce light reaching the eye, enough to make a difference in marginal lighting. Add the filter to better penetrate haze or dust, or add a grey filter if you're overlooking a lot of snow, or sand. A big enough objective makes the light loss irrelevant. Putting the filter on the scope, as opposed to wearing tinted glasses, means the filter'll be under the lens hood, where it should be to avoid complicating vision with reflections. The Leopold VX-L would be perfect. It's too expensive to buy if you don't know you need it, but I doubt Leopold can patent the idea of a notched lens. The day it first hit the market, optical engineers at every other scopemaker in the world looked at each other and said "why didn't we think of that? ... it's so OBVIOUS ... now let's do it." Leopold's methods for securing a notched objective group in the lens tube may be proprietary and protectable, but the basic design idea is not. Within a couple of years there will be several different notched-lens scopes on the market, and most of them made with cheap, highly skilled Chinese labor. So, for now, Darryl's mount on a K-31 with a midrange Leopold, VX-II, that I'll purchase used. If I need more then that, I have time to wait. I'm sure most guys here who hunt will be able to think of times and places where they had to decide to forgo a shot that they'd like to have taken. These are just my notions for how to deal with the problem.

July 29, 2006, 05:23 PM	#28
kingudaroad Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2005 Location: austin Posts: 735	Some people just gotta have it now! http://thefiringline.com/forums/atta...1&d=1152983356

July 29, 2006, 11:34 PM	#30
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Repeating myself again--and again--I think that if low light is an issue, quality binoculars are The Deal. I don't like the idea of somebody using a scope to see whether or not I'm a deer. I've never had a problem seeing a deer in that last light before dark with a 40mm Leupold, or even with a Weaver K4. The binoculars take care of judging the quality of the deer. Most any old scope will let you hit it. Art

July 30, 2006, 02:29 PM	#31
BrianBM Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2006 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 273	Art, I'm not disagreeing in the least. My shopping list, as noted, does include a good pair of binoculars. I have no intention of waving a rifle around experimentally and included blaze-orange to minimize the chance of someone else's doing so, and making a mistake.

July 30, 2006, 07:23 PM	#35
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Aw, no argument that a lot of scopes of the El Cheapo variety are, at best, marginal. From comments here over the years, though, dealing with recoil is the biggest problem. Look: My first '06 scope was a Weaver K2.5. Years later, it was a K4. Later on, I traded into a Leupold Vari-X II, and have mostly stayed with Leupold since around 1970-ish. I've seen all kinds of scopes show up at hunt camp, and folks seemed to be able to kill their deer. My deal is that I've never had a problem; I guess that's why I don't particularly get excited about it. My father used an old Stith Bear Cub 4X on one '06, and a Weaver K6 on the other. He probably killed more deer than most folks ever see. Common sense says avoid the El Cheapo stuff, on general principles that you generally get what you pay for. But, if a Rolls Royce type of scope makes for more confidence, go for it! Y'all might have noticed that there's a lot of stuff that I don't get all worried about. Art

July 31, 2006, 05:53 PM	#36
BrianBM Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2006 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 273	I DID notice that, actually. A dollar for every time you heard this discussion, you'd be rich. The hazard of letting NGs like me in is that you get to hear it again. Anthony Terry, you make a good point about stock fit, and such, and the probable better suitability of a modern sporting firearm. There's food for thought in that ... OK, maybe go check the auction sites again.

July 31, 2006, 07:18 PM	#37
Charles S Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2002 Location: North East Texas Posts: 950	I personally believe lens quality is much more important than objective size. I have seen quality 36 mm objective scopes that are much brighter than cheap 50 mm objective scopes. Fixed power are generally brighter than variable power scopes. That being stated I would rather have a quality 4X32 scope (Leupold ect) than any 50 mm objective scope made. I am a deer hunter, not a deer shooter. I find no joy in sitting in a box stand and trying to shoot deer from as far away as possible. I do find great joy in stalking, hunting in the deep woods and being successful. I prefer a 40 mm objective on a scope of 3-9, but I really prefer a smaller objective. My current favorite scope is 2.5-8X32 mm objective for general purpose hunting. 1.5-6X32 for hunting in the woods. Charles __________________ "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

July 31, 2006, 10:33 PM	#38
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Brian, a primary purpose of this forum is to explain WHY a bunch of us Old Farts have the opinions we do. Sometimes the reasons even make sense. If a New Guy can pick up some help, great! Art

August 1, 2006, 04:19 PM	#39
piercfh Senior Member Join Date: July 27, 2006 Location: Central Alabama Posts: 183	A suprisingly good low cost scope for late evening shots is a 50mm Tasco Worldclass pluss. Im pretty shure they still carry an over the counter warranty as well. During deer season exspecially in this region alot of nicer bucks are seen right at dusk. Currently I shoot a Kahles 56mm fixed 8 and I love it. The world class pluss I used to shoot is suprisingly close in low light conditions. I reccomend the tasco for the money, and I have compared it with 2 56mm kahles, and a 42mm swarovski. It should surprise you.

August 1, 2006, 06:28 PM	#40
BrianBM Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2006 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 273	56 mm objective, that's .... big. I think you get a prize for Biggest Deer Hunter's Objective Lens In Thread. Do you need an adjustable cheek piece to get a nice cheek weld to look through a scope like that?

August 1, 2006, 09:11 PM	#41
kingudaroad Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2005 Location: austin Posts: 735	No you need one of these. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...1&d=1152983356

August 1, 2006, 10:50 PM	#42
Anthony Terry Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2006 Location: Virginia. Posts: 673	8x56, according to the exit pupil rule, gives you just the right 7mm of light your eye can use. Most peoples eyes can't even take that. Me, Id rather use a 6x42 with med mounts than a 56mm with tall, very tall mounts and have to crane my neck just to get my eye in focus. __________________ Anthony...

August 2, 2006, 10:19 AM	#44
piercfh Senior Member Join Date: July 27, 2006 Location: Central Alabama Posts: 183	I dont have any trouble sighting with the 56mm. The rifle is a browning high power with a laminated monte carlo stock. I get a good cheek weld, and the rifle scope combo is extremily easy to shoot. Ive had 4 of my friends kill their first deer with the rifle. Also killed alot of deer running with it. That older kahles is in my opinion the best deer hunting scope I have ever used. When it comes down to a late evening hunts the 56mm is unbeatable.

August 2, 2006, 04:18 PM	#45
taylorce1 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2005 Location: On the Santa Fe Trail Posts: 8,249	I've gotten into the habit of spending more money on my scopes to get better quaility with a small objective. I like to have my scopes mounted as low to the rifle as possible and most the scopes that I'm using now are under 40mm. I have a couple of dedicated varmint rigs that use the 50mm objectives and they are nice but not for carrying on the stalk. I also found that I usually don't use over a 6 power setting on my scopes so that makes it easy to stay down in the small objectives. Most of my scopes are Leupold VXIII in 1.75-7 and 2.5-8, I'm not saying that Leupolds are the best but their optics are clear and bright even in early morning or late evening IMO.

August 2, 2006, 07:56 PM	#47
BrianBM Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2006 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 273	Aaaahhh, one of the new Leopolds. You're the first person I've noted on the Forum to admit to having one. Interesting purchase ... what base and rings do you entrust with that very luxe piece of glass? And (maybe more important) over what ranges are you taking those last-minute-of-light shots?

August 2, 2006, 09:08 PM	#48
Anthony Terry Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2006 Location: Virginia. Posts: 673	That VX-L will mount with a Leupold STD base and STD low rings. I like them alot, and have been thinking about getting one for my next varmint rig. I say, if youre going to be using a power more than 8 most of the time, get a 50mm. If you usually keep it set around 3-6 a 40mm is right for you. If you use a power lower than that I wouldnt get more than a 32mm. A 50mm or bigger can come in handy in low light with a long shot, other than that, it's not needed. Here's a good link to read for picking the right scope. Check it out... http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/scopes_3.htm __________________ Anthony...

August 3, 2006, 12:20 PM	#49
Fian Member Join Date: June 2, 2002 Location: MI Posts: 52	I have a 4-12 with a 56mm objective. I mounted it on my Sako using Sako extra low rings. The extra low rings can handle up to a 63mm objective, so I didn't have to go with higher rings. So far, I am pleased, though I can't say I notice a huge difference between that and my smaller objective scopes.

August 3, 2006, 07:07 PM	#50
BrianBM Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2006 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 273	Anthony, the VX-L series doesn't come with any objective smaller then 50mm. I doubt there's a reason to do so; smaller lenses don't need the extra manufacturing cost and asembly complications of a notched objective lens group. In that series, it's either 50 or 56 mm. A question for ANYONE with a big objective, 50mm or up, on their hunting rifle. Aside from the VX-L series, am I correct that the point of an adjustable cheekpiece, as in sniper rifles, is to get your eye up high enough to see through the scope and still get a nice tight cheek weld?