40mm or 50mm view scopes ?

[robertcarmel]

Ok here is the story.... I do not have a scope on my new hunting rifle.... I LOVE leopold, but they cost a mint. I REALLY want something that will match the abilities of my gun I have a 7mm mag, and I go places where 300 - 500 yards is not unheard of, so I want to be able to have a scope that can get out that far. I also have EXTREMELY poor eyesight, so optics are essential especially. My eyes are especially bad in low light....

I guess I am looking for the best bang for the buck .....

I like the 50mm since I have used them in the past, and I am thinking higher than a 9x Gimme your thought on things ....

Bob~!

[kingchip]

I think that NIKON has some exceptional optics. They should have something in a 4-15 or 6-18 or something like that. I personally don't hunt in low lite. Our deer management program needs precise ID on a deer before taking it, so I essentially sleep late, and crack the first beer a little early. Saves all the guesswork. That 50mm lens should draw some light, though.

[choctaw]

I second Chip's opinion. I have both Leupold and Nikon and the Nikon draws more light as far as I'm concerned.

I also have a hard time with the low light situations.

[szyd]

50mm will get you more light. As for a cheap scope that will coplament a 7mm I do not know of one. I cant remember exactly what I was told but it is somthing like if you spend $400.00 on rifle you should spend $600.00 on scope and so on. From what you had said I would bite the bullit and go Leupold or Burris. There are way cheaper than Leica or Zeiss.

[FordGuy100]

Originally Posted by szyd

50mm will get you more light. As for a cheap scope that will coplament a 7mm I do not know of one. I cant remember exactly what I was told but it is somthing like if you spend $400.00 on rifle you should spend $600.00 on scope and so on. From what you had said I would bite the bullit and go Leupold or Burris. There are way cheaper than Leica or Zeiss.

That would get expensive quick though LOL

You usually get what you pay for. When I was shopping for my rifle.....I had a budget of $300 for a scope. Came down to a Leupold VX-1 in 4-12x, and a Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x (with the balistic index). They were around the same cost, and for me, the Burris gave me a better image. So thats what I got. Its a 42mm lens so finding those rain caps is kinda a PITA. The only thing I dont like about it is its not made in the USA.....my next scope will probably be a Leupold.

[Dirk]

3 leopold's and 1 nikon here. Nikon seems to be a BIT better in lower light.

[mjkten]

I have several Nikons and a Burris. The Monarch is the better of the Nikons and may be in your price range. All other factors being equal, a 50mm objective will allow more light through, but overall quality of the lenses is probably a little more important. Good luck with your shopping.

[BRS]

Originally Posted by robertcarmel

Ok here is the story.... I do not have a scope on my new hunting rifle.... I LOVE leopold, but they cost a mint. I REALLY want something that will match the abilities of my gun I have a 7mm mag, and I go places where 300 - 500 yards is not unheard of

Find a scope that matches the quality of your eyes. Any quality scope is probably going to match your gun. I don't know about other people, but some lousy scopes just don't work with my eyes, and my eyesight is not that bad.

Sounds like you're in open country, so it's probably right for you, but I live in the mountains and brush. Carrying a 50mm here will find rocks and trees you never saw. I use a 42mm now and the damn thing still hits every rock.

Also, a cheap Leupold is going to hold together a lot better than an expensive cheapie brand. I've had some nice reasonably expensive "other" brands fall apart/explode.

There's nothing wrong with a VX-II Leupold, or one of the other old Leupold lines, or old Nikon lines either. Unlike a lot of other companies, a $300 Leupold is not any less strong than a $1000 Leupold.

[99 7.3]

i have a nikon monarch on my browning 243 wssm. i love it. it is a 44mm objective. i think that power is 4 to 16. i cannot remember off the top of my head though. but for the money i don't think that u can beat a nikon!!

[sea71]

Have both Leupold and Nikon in 50. My opinion is the Leupold in the VXIII series. VXII costs less , but it is less because of the quality of the grind(glass) and light gathering ability. I looked at it like this when I bought mine 7 years ago. I had always had the "other" brands. Always had good luck. Would look thru the "over priced" scopes of my buddies, and soon realized it was a simple case of You get what you pay for. I also liked the fact that once I bought it, that would be the ONLY time i would have to buy it- Lifetime Warranty. No problems thus far, and it has seen numerous rainy sits, lots of truck riding, and woods time. Still workin dead ahead. Now, there are the SUPER high priced units out there-Schwarovsky(Sp?),Zeiss,etc. Great equipmentfor low light hunting too. BUT, I can easily see with my Leupold at times when it is too early to shoot or too late to shoot, so why would I need something that would help me see better when I can already see beyong legal shooting hours? Anyway, good luck with whatever you choose.