Anyone have an opinion on the merits/disadvantages of the 40mm objective versus the 50mm? Is the extra weight, need for higher rings worth the extra bit of light transmission? Is there really that much difference in light transmission? Thanks!

The 3-9X40 Conquest has such superb resolution that I am very pleased with mine for all use. Just turn up the magnification to see better in dim light.

On the other hand its only money and if your rifle has a high comb there is nothing wrong with an early XMass present.

I personally would save the extra money and go with the 40mm. The 40mm will give you no problems up to normal shooting hours. But I am one of those cheap guys and don't like to spend my hard earned money. You can ask my wife about that one!

When you are talkiing about good glass such as on the Conquests, Monarchs, etc., the 40mm objective offers ample light transmission for virtually any usage. I just took a nicee boar hog right at dark this evening (was overcast and drizzling as well) using a Nikon 3.3-10x44AO, a scope that allowed to me see detail under some adverse lighting conditions.

Save the $$, just as Jon said, and put it towards some quality rings.

I haven't used the 3-9x50, but my 3-9x40 Conquest is a superb scope and especially for the price. I don't see the value given the substantially higher price of the 3-9x50. If you want/need more low light performance, get the 3-12x56.

LWD

I bought the 50mm mainly for the increased FOV (34'-11' for the 40mm, 37.5-12.9' for the 50mm). The 3x9x50mm is a great scope and is the clearest scope I have (as compared to a $1500.00 V/VM, several Kahles and a Burris Black Diamond) but it does need to be mounted higher and if I had it to do over again I would just get the 3x9x40mm.

Didn't know you shoot wrong handed Bobby

Have a Good One

Reloader