dkurnik

All,

I understand that you get better visibility in low light with a 50mm scope vs a 40mm.

Are there any other advantages besides that?

Besides price is there a downside? (weight, bulk, fralilty ect...?)

And finally is it worth it?


Thanks,

--David

Howler

If you don't mind having your scope set up higher off of your rifle, which you have to do with the 50mm scope, which makes it hard for some guys to "naturally" see through the scope. In other words, when you aim, you may have to hold your cheek up off of the cheek pad some to see down the scope. The 50 mm are usually heavier, and don't seem to fit in gun cases as well neither.
Is the 50 mm worth it. Not in my opnion. It is better to have fully multi coated lenses first. Unless your night hunting, some states allow predator hunting at night, the 40mm is all you need.IMO

muley69

Clarity, low light sensitivity, good range of magnification, all wrapped up in an affordable, durable, and lightweight package. That is a pretty tough order for the manaufactures to fill. To me, lowlight collection capabilities are the single must important aspect of optics. I think the 50mm is a better choice. Most times, we have but a few opportunities in our lives at the "big one" and usually it's at dusk or dawn, you need a scope the tilts the scales in your favor.

stubblejumper

The 50mm scopes must be mounted too high and don't fit most saddle scabbards.I won't use a 50mm scope for those reasons.Instead I use a 3x10x42mm swarovski that is as bright as my partners 3.5x10x50 mmvarixiii but is smaller,lighter and can be mounted in lower rings.

handloader1

The only 42mm + objective I would use would be for a heavy barrel varmint rifle. Good luck.

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

dkurnik

Thank you for your comments. I have a Vari XIII 3.5 x 10 40mm on it's way at this very moment.

--David