Scope Help!!! 40mm. or 50mm.?
- Thread starter ducklogic
- Start date
sandgapsniper
New member
Well, as I heard someone else say in another thread on here, I'm probably the least qualified person here to answer this, but here goes. It really depends quite a bit on the maximum range you think you will be shooting. If you think you will be shooting long range I would definately go with the 40mm. It can me mounted lower in relation to the barrel which means that your scope is actually closer to your zero. This is hard for a novice like myself to explain, but you really have 2 zeroes, your line of sight in the scope and your bullet have to cross (zero), this puts the bullet above your line of sight for a time, it then crosses it again on the way down, so really you have 2 zeroes. The close the scope it to the barrel, the less time the bullet spends above your line of sight. Somebody explain this better.
Chupathingy
New member
Quote:
Well, as I heard someone else say in another thread on here, I'm probably the least qualified person here to answer this, but here goes. It really depends quite a bit on the maximum range you think you will be shooting. If you think you will be shooting long range I would definately go with the 40mm. It can me mounted lower in relation to the barrel which means that your scope is actually closer to your zero. This is hard for a novice like myself to explain, but you really have 2 zeroes, your line of sight in the scope and your bullet have to cross (zero), this puts the bullet above your line of sight for a time, it then crosses it again on the way down, so really you have 2 zeroes. The close the scope it to the barrel, the less time the bullet spends above your line of sight. Somebody explain this better.
Nope, that really wasn't that bad. No further explanation needed IMO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
P.S. there will be a difference in light gathering ability as well. Typically the larger the objective the greater the light gathering ability will be.
Well, as I heard someone else say in another thread on here, I'm probably the least qualified person here to answer this, but here goes. It really depends quite a bit on the maximum range you think you will be shooting. If you think you will be shooting long range I would definately go with the 40mm. It can me mounted lower in relation to the barrel which means that your scope is actually closer to your zero. This is hard for a novice like myself to explain, but you really have 2 zeroes, your line of sight in the scope and your bullet have to cross (zero), this puts the bullet above your line of sight for a time, it then crosses it again on the way down, so really you have 2 zeroes. The close the scope it to the barrel, the less time the bullet spends above your line of sight. Somebody explain this better.
Nope, that really wasn't that bad. No further explanation needed IMO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
P.S. there will be a difference in light gathering ability as well. Typically the larger the objective the greater the light gathering ability will be.
Last edited:
PlainsRedneckOK
New member
Generally, a 40mm will be all anyone really needs. If I were trying to choose between these two scopes I would check 3 main things: how far are your average shots in Missouri(this will help you to determine what power range you need), the brightness/clearness/crispness of the two(the one that's brighter/clearer/crisper overall is obviously better), and the weight of the scopes(depending on how many sets you average a day the weight of your scope alone is going to be crucial to how tired your arms and even your back feel by the end of the day). It's a close one with these two. Good luck in finding one that fits you best and that you like!
coyotekillerNE
New member
I would go with Bushnell because in the Leupold Rifleman, the difference in brightness will not be noticed. I believe the Bushnell has better light transmission than the Rifleman, therefore, by using the rifleman, you would just be raising the scope, thus decreasing sight alignment, for no good reason. If I were you, I would consider a 3-9X40 in the Bushnell 3200 rather than the 4-12. On a calling rifle, a 4-12 is not needed. Save a little money for other projects. Another negative with the Rifleman is that the adjustments are 1/2 in. adjustment rather than 1/4 in. The rifleman also has friction adjustments rather than click adjustments. I have a 3-9X40 rifleman on my 7mag, and trust me, sighting in is a real pain sometimes because of these two factors. IMO 1/2 in adjustments is way too coarse, because at longer ranges it is near impossible to find a precise adjustment, you end up having to settle for a happy medium.
Bozdogkiller
New member
Off the suject But where can i get a 42mm sun shade?
sandgapsniper
New member
Quote:
Nope, that really wasn't that bad. No further explanation needed IMO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
P.S. there will be a difference in light gathering ability as well. Typically the larger the objective the greater the light gathering ability will be.
Actually, this may not be exactly right, it depends on the power of the scope also. To figure out the amount of light that is transmitted you divide the objective diameter by the power, the higher the number the more light that passed through.
Nope, that really wasn't that bad. No further explanation needed IMO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
P.S. there will be a difference in light gathering ability as well. Typically the larger the objective the greater the light gathering ability will be.
Actually, this may not be exactly right, it depends on the power of the scope also. To figure out the amount of light that is transmitted you divide the objective diameter by the power, the higher the number the more light that passed through.
Chupathingy
New member
Quote:
Quote:
Nope, that really wasn't that bad. No further explanation needed IMO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
P.S. there will be a difference in light gathering ability as well. Typically the larger the objective the greater the light gathering ability will be.
Actually, this may not be exactly right, it depends on the power of the scope also. To figure out the amount of light that is transmitted you divide the objective diameter by the power, the higher the number the more light that passed through.
Note the key word Typically? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Quote:
Nope, that really wasn't that bad. No further explanation needed IMO. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
P.S. there will be a difference in light gathering ability as well. Typically the larger the objective the greater the light gathering ability will be.
Actually, this may not be exactly right, it depends on the power of the scope also. To figure out the amount of light that is transmitted you divide the objective diameter by the power, the higher the number the more light that passed through.
Note the key word Typically? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Quote:
...you really have 2 zeroes, your line of sight in the scope and your bullet have to cross (zero), this puts the bullet above your line of sight for a time, it then crosses it again on the way down, so really you have 2 zeroes. The close the scope it to the barrel, the less time the bullet spends above your line of sight. Somebody explain this better.
Excellent way to describe the "two zeros" or the difference between the bullet path aligned in the barrel below the scope, and the line of sight your eye sees through the scope above the barrel. On most rifles these lines are from 1 inch to 1.5 inches apart, with some high mounts especially on AR’s up to 2 inches or so.
However, the distance you sight in the rifle determines how far above or below the line of eyesight that the bullet travels, not the objective lens size of the scope, nor how high it is mounted (with normal mounts anyway). I.e. If you sight in the rifle for 75 yards, any modern rifle would never get above the line of sight between the muzzle and 75 yards, but would start an inch to 1 1/2 inch low and rise all the way to the point of impact, where the two lines intersect. Where those lines intersect is the distance at which your rifle is sighted in. As you indicated, with rifles sighted in at 100 yards and farther that happens at two distances: one close as the bullet rises through the line of sight and the other farther away where it falls to intersect the line again. 30-06 big game rifles are often sighted to be on at 25 yards, 3 inches high at 100 yards, and right on again at 260 yards (approximately).
The difference in bullet flight path between a 40mm and a 50mm scope would be tiny on the same rifle. If they fit in the same mounts, there is no difference: the bell for the objective lens is bigger but the center of the tube is in the same place. If you have to use higher mounts to make the larger 50mm bell clear the barrel, it might be as little as 5mm higher, or 3/16 of an inch. That’s not enough to make much difference, and how you sight it in adjusts for the difference.
What makes a much bigger difference to me is how tight and low I can get my face on the stock. I don't shoot as well with my head lifted to see through a high mounted scope, and I prefer smaller scopes that I can mount low.
For most use, I'd go with the 40mm. I have a 50mm, a 40 and a 32mm and I’m getting rid of the 50. The only time I'd go for a 50 mm would be if I planned on doing a lot of sitting and night shooting without a light, and I can do that pretty well even with the little 32mm objective. 50mm gathers more light, but not enough more to make much difference to human eyes except in super high magnification. For stand sitting, a 50 mm is OK. For a walk around and hunt rifle and impromptu calling stands, go for the smaller one. Some extreme long range scopes are 50 mm also, along with high magnification.
For predator and varmint hunting, I don't like my bullet to ever be far above or below the line of sight. The animal targets are small, and sometimes I am shooting through a small hole in brush and want the bullet exactly on my line of sight to go through the hole where I’m looking. Yet I don’t want too much drop out to 150 so I sight my .243 in to be 1 inch high at 100 yards, hoping it will always be within an inch of my line of sight out to 150 yards and especially on the close and medium shots.
...you really have 2 zeroes, your line of sight in the scope and your bullet have to cross (zero), this puts the bullet above your line of sight for a time, it then crosses it again on the way down, so really you have 2 zeroes. The close the scope it to the barrel, the less time the bullet spends above your line of sight. Somebody explain this better.
Excellent way to describe the "two zeros" or the difference between the bullet path aligned in the barrel below the scope, and the line of sight your eye sees through the scope above the barrel. On most rifles these lines are from 1 inch to 1.5 inches apart, with some high mounts especially on AR’s up to 2 inches or so.
However, the distance you sight in the rifle determines how far above or below the line of eyesight that the bullet travels, not the objective lens size of the scope, nor how high it is mounted (with normal mounts anyway). I.e. If you sight in the rifle for 75 yards, any modern rifle would never get above the line of sight between the muzzle and 75 yards, but would start an inch to 1 1/2 inch low and rise all the way to the point of impact, where the two lines intersect. Where those lines intersect is the distance at which your rifle is sighted in. As you indicated, with rifles sighted in at 100 yards and farther that happens at two distances: one close as the bullet rises through the line of sight and the other farther away where it falls to intersect the line again. 30-06 big game rifles are often sighted to be on at 25 yards, 3 inches high at 100 yards, and right on again at 260 yards (approximately).
The difference in bullet flight path between a 40mm and a 50mm scope would be tiny on the same rifle. If they fit in the same mounts, there is no difference: the bell for the objective lens is bigger but the center of the tube is in the same place. If you have to use higher mounts to make the larger 50mm bell clear the barrel, it might be as little as 5mm higher, or 3/16 of an inch. That’s not enough to make much difference, and how you sight it in adjusts for the difference.
What makes a much bigger difference to me is how tight and low I can get my face on the stock. I don't shoot as well with my head lifted to see through a high mounted scope, and I prefer smaller scopes that I can mount low.
For most use, I'd go with the 40mm. I have a 50mm, a 40 and a 32mm and I’m getting rid of the 50. The only time I'd go for a 50 mm would be if I planned on doing a lot of sitting and night shooting without a light, and I can do that pretty well even with the little 32mm objective. 50mm gathers more light, but not enough more to make much difference to human eyes except in super high magnification. For stand sitting, a 50 mm is OK. For a walk around and hunt rifle and impromptu calling stands, go for the smaller one. Some extreme long range scopes are 50 mm also, along with high magnification.
For predator and varmint hunting, I don't like my bullet to ever be far above or below the line of sight. The animal targets are small, and sometimes I am shooting through a small hole in brush and want the bullet exactly on my line of sight to go through the hole where I’m looking. Yet I don’t want too much drop out to 150 so I sight my .243 in to be 1 inch high at 100 yards, hoping it will always be within an inch of my line of sight out to 150 yards and especially on the close and medium shots.
Last edited:
im actually in the same predicament this guy is in. I yote hunt here in iowa and most of the shots I take are anywhere from 100-300 yards most of the time running shots since we run hounds. I might do a little bit of calling but, anyways I was recommended a Burris scope, but I was considering a 3x9x40 while my buddy says to bump it up to 3x9x50. This will go on my new RRA PP that I just bought a few days ago. Very excited to get it out to shoot! If I could get any suggestions on scopes that would be great.
Chupathingy
New member
How about we go ahead and put a lock on any and all threads originating from the previous decade?
Chupa
Chupa
coyote_reaper
New member
I'll second that motion. I wasn't here when it went around the first time but I can use a search button so if I need it I'll find it.