Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

rifle scope - 40mm or 50mm?

Paul in Idaho

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
850
Location
Southwest Idaho
My next major hunting purchase probably will be a Leupold riflescope. I have been using an off-brand 50mm AO scope for the past 15 years. Its optical clarity is fine, but I have had increasing doubts about its reticle stability.

I bought the 50mm with the understanding that larger objective = brighter image. Is that still correct, or can a 40mm be just as bright in poor lighting with the better lens coatings and quality available now?

The 50mm is more expensive more, and heavier, than the 40mm version. I don't plan on buying an AO model again.

Which diameter would you choose, and why?
 
It depends on what power you plan on shooting at. The exit pupil is the size of the objective divided by the magnification power. I.e. a 10x bino with a 40mm objective = exit pupil of 4 mm. Your eye can only utilize a maximum of 7mm.

I do most of my shooting at 6x, with a 36mm objective = 6mm exit pupil. Plenty for me. If you plan on doing a lot of shooting at higher magnification, you may want the 50. If you mostly use 4-6x for your shooting, you're wasting your money.

Keep in mind, 7mm exit pupil is the maximum your eye can use. As you age, this can get considerably less.
 
It's all in how the lense is coated. If you're going with a Leupold you'll be fine. I never really saw the need to drag around extra weight if not absolutely necessary. And, you'll probably need to go with higher mounts as well.
 
Last edited:
The 50mm should allow more light in during low light hunting, but I don't think that is worth lugging the bigger scope around all day and having to use the higher mounts, which I really dislike for whatever reason Probably mostly aesthetic. I have really only used Leupold, but have shot Nikon and Vortex on occassion. I think the VX-2 is probably one of the best values in scopes today or the VX-3 if you can spend a bit more.
 
40 MM. It's the largest objective I want on a hunting rifle and I've never had a problem finding a target during hunting hours with a 40 MM Leupold.
 
50mm will usually give a wider FOV at the same magnification as a 40mm and a clearer image at higher magnifications as well. Brightness differences at moderate magnifications are minimal and unless you are hunting in a state that allows big game hunting without the approximate 20 min before and after sunrise/sunset any brightness gain is no advantage. If you are planning on staying under 12X do not even consider a 50mm. JMO
 
I agree with others on here. Glass and coatings will have more to do with apparent brightness than objective will. I hunted a few years with Leupold VX-II's an the newer VX-2's. I had one situation that limited me to waiting until about 5 minutes after legal shooting light to be comfortable taking a shot on an elk in MT with a 3-9x40 VX-II. It was cloudy, 25 minutes before sunrise, and I was deep in a steep draw. It took an extra few minutes before I could make out enough of the outline of an Elk against the hill behind it to be comfortable taking a shot. One 5 minute delay in 10 years of hunting with that scope isn't in my mind enough to be worth the extra weight and higher mounts of going to a 50mm Objective unless you are going to have 12x+ magnification. If you look at it with leupold. The VX-2 3-9x50 is the same MSRP as the 2.5-8x36 in the VX-3 Line. For the same money. I'd get the VX-3 and drop to 8x magnification while getting better glass, better coatings, and better low light performance.
 
I've got both the VX 2 & the VX3 in MKotur's post. Absolutely agree. My VX2 hasn't ever failed me excpet when it was heavily overcast and I couldn't get a detailed view of a whitetail at 150 yards. I should have just trusted Rat Fink and shot it because by the time it was light enough to see, I had screwed up the shot so bad I missed - twice.

I'm very happy with both, and like the slim lines of the 2.5x8 a lot more than the 3x9.
 
I use a 5-20 x 50mm for varmint hunting where long shots are possible. I would not use that scope when I have to go up and down mountains due to the size and weight.
 
A 40mm objective with a 30 or 34 mm tube will transmit more usable light than a 50mm objective on a 1" tube.
 
The 50mm should allow more light in during low light hunting, but I don't think that is worth lugging the bigger scope around all day and having to use the higher mounts, which I really dislike for whatever reason Probably mostly aesthetic.

In my stable I have one 50mm Leupold, and I agree 100% with nrpate. It is a great scope performance wise as are all of my Leupolds.
 
The 50mm objective is going to require taller rings to mount the scope, if you like to get a good solid cheek-weld to the stock the taller rings make that harder to do. Also, if you use a scabbard on a saddle or some of the backpacks, that bigger bell on the end of the scope interferes a little more. At the same time, I know a lot of guys who really like their 50mm scopes.
 
I have 2 leupold 6.5 -20 Vari x 3's one with a 40 mm and the other is a 50 mm AO and I can't tell the difference in field of view just my 2 cents worth..good luck with your choice
 
1_pointer;2416822 Quote: Originally Posted by danr55 View Post A 40mm objective with a 30 or 34 mm tube will transmit more usable light than a 50mm objective on a 1" tube. Any link/source to the actual physics showing that to be the case? said:
Any link/source to the actual physics showing that to be the case?


The larger tubes give the benefit of more adjustment for your turrets. You cannot get enough adjustment from a 1" tube to use it for something like F-class or other long range shooting where you are dialing in the drop and wind.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
114,009
Messages
2,041,030
Members
36,429
Latest member
Dusky
Back
Top