40mm vs 50mm Scopes

[Southern Elk]

Which scope do you prefer and why? I usually go with 40mm, but I think part of the reason is that I like the slimmer look better. I know a lot of people like 50mm for low light conditions, but I honestly have never noticed much of a difference.

 

[belly-deep]

40mm or even smaller on most of my guns. I can still see through a 40 when legal light begins and ends here in MT, so what's the point of going bigger?

 

[1100RemingtonMan]

40mm or less and only 1 inch tube scopes for me. I see no need for 30mm tube or a 50mm objective.
But that's just Me, Buy what you like. I don't want the weight or size plane and simple.

 

[belshawelk]

I have both. I can absolutely see a difference. On a nice crisp bright day and evening, maybe not as much difference. But here in Oregon when its rainy and nasty it makes a difference. I have compared two identical scopes side by side. I wont buy another hunting scope unless its a 50mm. While it is bigger I think its worth it.

 

[Don Fischer]

40mm or even smaller on most of my guns. I can still see through a 40 when legal light begins and ends here in MT, so what's the point of going bigger?

Absolutely true! I live in Oregon!

 

[N2TRKYS]

I have both 40mm and 50mm. I prefer the sight picture and crispness of the 50mm over the 40mm.

 

[Addicting]

If I am concerned with weight the 40. When I don’t care the 50. I have both and one more that is a 44. Buy what floats your boat.

 

[el unit]

Something to maybe consider is if you'll be stuffing this rifle/scope in a gun scabbard on a saddle.

 

[Southern Elk]

Something to maybe consider is if you'll be stuffing this rifle/scope in a gun scabbard on a saddle.

I hadn’t thought of that and I hope it goes in the scabbard this fall.

I currently have one 50 and the rest are 40s. The 40s have never disappointed.

 

[WildWill]

I have both 40mm and 50mm. I prefer the sight picture and crispness of the 50mm over the 40mm.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Washington Hunter]

50mm scopes have to be mounted too high, so that I'd have to raise my head off the stock in order to get the full view. That's not good for good shooting. So for that reason I've always used 40mm scopes. With a special stock that's adjustable, or made for a scope that's mounted higher, then I wouldn't mind having a 50mm scope. But all my rifles have 40's.

 

[sbhooper]

I have and like both. I have gone to 30mm tubes, also. That being said, I don't think that it would be the deciding factor on buying a scope. If a 1-inch, 40mm has the stuff that I need, then it will go on the rifle. It just seems to me that the 30mm/50 is a bit clearer, but maybe that is just my view of it. Use whichever you feel fills your needs the best.

 

[std7mag]

I have three 40mm scopes (2 Redfield Revenge, 1 Vortex Diamondback).
One 42mm scope (Vortex Crossfire II).
Two 50mm Scopes (1 Vortex Crossfire II, 1 Sightron STAC).

Most of my scopes are 4-12 power, the 50mm being the exceptions, and have 1"tubes, the STAC being 3mm.

Except for the Diamondback, i like all my scopes, but for different reasons.
The Redfields have ranging built into the scopes. Optics clarity is ok. Better than the Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons i've previously owned. Eye relief is good.
The Crossfire II in 42mm has better optics. Great eye relief.
The Diamondack optics to me are not as good as the CrossfireII, and eyerelief is close. Also flares out quicker.
The 50mm Crossfire II is 6-18 power, not good in the field here in central PA. Also has an adjustable objective, again i don't like this for a hunting scope. Hence it is relagated to my wifes Savage 110FP for target duty.

The Sightron STAC 4-20X50 is a 30mm tube with side adjust paralax. I'm kinda torn on this as a hunting scope.
Optics is best of all the scopes i have. Although it is twice as expensive as any of my other scopes.
Eye relief is very good. And the reticle is very fine with a center dot. Some people complain of losing the reticle, while i have not had this problem.
With my Bell& Carlson stock, EGW base, and Vortex low rings, sight picture not an issue.

So from a practical hunting perspective i'd recommend the 42mm objectives. You get decent optics, good field of view. W

 

[Curvebow]

For hunting, a 40 mm is usually fine for me. However, higher power target scopes that are 40 or 44 mm are not large enough. I can see the image darken when my Leupold VX2 6-18 is turned up. Plus, my 100 yard target at home is in a woods lane with a lot of spruce. Definitely can use 50 mm.

But, again, for most of my hunting the 40 mm (or even 36 mm) is fine.

 

[AggieOutlaw]

All things being equal, the 50mm will collect more light, have higher resolution, and a larger exit pupil.

The tube diameter has no real effect on image brightness. 30-40 mm tubes have grown in popularity due to the long range shooting crowd because there is more range for reticle adjustment.

40mm objectives are fine for quality 9x scopes. 36mm objectives are fine for 7x scopes. I'm sure a 28mm would be more than fine for a 4x scope. Objective size matters but it depends on the focal length or magnification too.

If a 1 in tube and 40mm objective works fine for you then all the better. They are generally less expensive and always lighter.

If you're going above 12x magnification, you really need a larger objective, especially in low light...my opinion.

 

[noharleyyet]

Yep, Leupold upping the bell mm with it's VX5 (42mm) & 6 lineup (44mm)...makes sense. I use to think 50's were an imperative for TX whitetail but now have only a single hubble in the armory. My go-to is a 4x12x40 VXR.

...son in law picked up a 3i 6.5x20x50 LR from Pat last year....was a little skeptical but it is very fine glass (great tracking and brightness) atop a manbun Savage MSR 10....sweet combo. I like the aesthetics of a 36 to 44mm bell better than the 50 to 56's.