Objective sizes

[ajvigs]

I am very curious as the the practicality/usefulness in relation to objective sizes.

If one was to compare a 40mm to a 42/44mm to a 50mm, what would the differences in size equate to in the field or at the range?

Also, if the scope is purely going to be on a hard hunting rig, wouldnt the smaller objective fit it better?

 

[SJB358]

AV, I tend to stick around the 40-45mm OBJ's. No other reason is I like to keep my scopes as low as possible. I also don't particularly like the OBJ's sticking out alot past the rifle, since I tend to lay them down alot while glassing. The 50's tend to rest on the objective bell and I think a misstep or something dropped would damage it faster than a smaller OBJ.

Saying that, the Zeiss's and Swaro's are tough optics and seem "smaller" to me that other 50mm's, so in reality, if it works on the rifle, I would run it. For rifles like my 264 or other similar Sporter's, the 50's look fine, to me.

 

[DrMike]

As Scotty stated, I tend to stick with 40-44 mm objectives. I have one 50mm objective scope (Zeiss Victory HD); I haven't even mounted it at this point. I like to mount my scopes low, which dictates smaller objectives.

 

[FOTIS]

I hate 50mm scope sits too high for me.....

 

[Guest]

Bottom line for me is eye position. I've found getting a scope to sit comfortably for my head/eye position can happen in low, medium, or high rings as long as I'm using it with the right style of stock. For example, on my Weatherbys I have a 44 in mediun rings and a 50 in high rings. Both are comfortable to use. I am, comparatively at the edge of my comfort zone with medium rings over the straight stock of my Remington 700. Another issue can be the scopes design, as I have a 44mm Conquest on my 300'bee, and it fits fine. But the 42mm Pentax (Burris clone) I had ob my 270'bee was almost touching the barrel with the ocular, and had to be positiined slightly forward of ideal for my eyes to get clearance.

I used to dislike 50mm objectives, but have found them useful and usable in certain circumstances.

 

[Vince]

I used to dislike 50mm objectives, but have found them useful and usable in certain
circumstances.

Me too.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Here is what a 50 mm Kahles objective scope (3.5-10x50) mounted in TPS medium rings looks like. This set up is 1/8 inch lower than Leupold high rings would be. This setup works and has a good cheek weld into the stock because the stock comb is fairly high. This setup leaves about 4 mm between the scope objective and the barrel of the rifle. It does not feel that much different than a Zeiss 44 mm setup.

 

[SJB358]

Your set up's are the ones that sorta changed my opinion on the 50mm stuff Charlie. They look well proportioned the way they are set up.

 

[Oldtrader3]

They are pretty well proportioned. Scotty, I don't like shooting a high mounted scope with poor cheek weld better than anyone else. The Europeans often shoot 56mm and even 70mm diameter objectives but they shoot head up and do not use cheek weld as much as we do, I have set my maximum diameter objective at 50mm and on my custom rifles with high combs they fit with good cheek weld.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I think 44mm is my max...I've always thought it was a good "happy medium"...ever since the old Simmons "44 mag" scopes...I think I bought one the first year they made them (mid 80's maybe), put it on a 25-06.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have a couple of 44 mm scopes, most notably the Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44. They are among the most useful of scopes on most rifles!

 

[sask boy]

I personally keep the objectives on the scopes I use under 44mm. I just like a lower profile set up on my rifles.

Blessings,
Dan

 

[Dr. Vette]

I prefer the Zeiss Conquest with a 44, but they have not made them in 4.5-14x44 with target turrets in a while. I recently obtained a very nice used one, though. Otherwise to get turrets on a 44mm objective you have to send them to Zeiss or Kenton Industries to have them retrofitted.

The 4.5-14x50 is quite common and I have that on my Sendero.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Did you use the TPS rings for that 50mm scope, Patrick?

 

[nvbroncrider]

44 is the biggest I will go. I think by jumping up to 50 you just add weight. Then you still have an excellent cheek weld.

 

[BK]

I have a Leupold VX3 and a couple of Vortex Viper PSTs with 50mm objective lenses, and while I generally don't like much bigger than 42-45mm objectives, the 50s are mounted on a Ruger varmint rifle, a Remington varmint rifle, and a Winchester Sendero-style rifle, not exactly svelt mountain rifles. Overall, size-wise, a VX3 3.5-10x40 or FX3 6x42 is perfect. Conquests are harder for me to get set up because of the bulky eyepieces, and the combination of me being a horrible stock crawler and a 6'6" genetic freak.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Try using Warne or TPS rings. The mediums rings are half way between Leupold's medium and high rings. These work perfectly for 50mm objectives. I have two 50mm objective scopes and I have them mounted on higher comb rifle and these rings give me excellent cheek weld and eye alignment.

 

[truck driver]

I like to keep mine as low as possible and have a variety of of scopes from 22 to 44, my favorite is 42 they just seem to line better for me with my high cheek bones.

 

[Kodiak]

+ 1, t d!


jim

 

[Oldtrader3]

My four Conquests are all 32 to 44mm and fit low rings. A few years ago, I wanted some Kahles and Swarovski scopes and ended up with two 50mm objectives. They are not my favorite size but I have made do with them so that I can take advantage of their terrific optical properties. Now with the new German made Conquest HD5's meet my needs I probably will not buy another 50mm objective scope.