I like the idea of having more light gathering ability in a scope used for big game but I see many folks recommending 40mm scopes instead of 50mm scopes. What is the benefit of having a scope capable of fitting in low rings as opposed to one requiring high rings. Please be as specific as you can.

The lower you mount the scope the better your cheek position on the stock.If you have to use high or extra high rings your cheek will barely touch the stock and you will not be in as stable a shooting position.Stability is accuracy.The ideal scope uses higher quality lens coating to transmit more light with smaller lenses.I use a swarovski 3x10x42 and find it as bright or brighter than most 50 mm scopes made by other manufacturers due to superior lens coatings.

Another objection to the high mounted, large objective scope is that it is vulnerable to damage. If the rifle drops, the first thing to make contact is that big scope. The other strike against the big objective is, it's simply not necessary. Regards, Bill.

Gentlemen,

Last year we hunted in Zimbabwe with my friend the late Grandad Gerhard. He is from Austria, and like most of the Europeans, had his scope mounted so high I really did not know how he could shoot it.

We saw an impala run up the side of a hill, Roy stopped the truck and I jumped out and took a quick shot at it and dropped it.

Grandad commented on how quickly I fired at the impala, and while the boys went to get it, we started talking about our two rifles.

Roy, our PH, said he would be happy to shoot mine any time, but Grandad's was an "abomination"!

Grandad was not too impressed with our opinion of his rifle, and he gave us more ammo the next day to make life more miserable for him.

WE saw some impala feeding in the bush, he went out with Roy and Alan to shoot one. I stayed behind by the truck. A few minutes later, I heard a shot, so I took my camera and ran towards them. As I approached, I saw Alan pointing his video camera up a tree, which was in a small river bed they had to shoot across.

I said: "I didn't know impalas can climb trees!"

Alan: "They don't, but Gerhard shot that branch up there"

Me: "What happened to the impala?"
Roy: "The bullet never made it to the impala, it just plowed through that branch up there as you can see."

Me " I suppose that is what happens when you mount your scope so high, ha?"

Roy "Yes, that is what happens, you shoot up the trees!"

The various aspects of being able to quickly pick up the scope image and more stability have been covered.
The other things about the 50mm vs. the 40mm scopes are ones of durability and usefulness.
The big 50's don't hold up nearly as well as the 40 mm scopes on heavy kicking rifles. The other is that the 50mm's additional low light performance is rarely needed. E

Try fitting a 50mm scope in a saddle scabbard.In most cases you need a custom scabbard.

DJM, I think this depends on the barrel taper, etc. Some you can mount and some you can't.

The scope is a Zeiss 3-9x36 Diavari-C in the lowest Conetrol rings they make. I had to radius the elbow of the bolt lever so the bolt would clear the back eyepiece of the scope when I cycle the bolt.
The rifle is a Steyr-Mannlicher"M"Pro that has a MonteCarlo stock. It enables me to get a good cheek seating on the stock to gain proper eye relief in the scope.
It's equal to how I seat my cheek on my shotgun.



PS> Saeed- I use my middle finger for a trigger finger on this rifle. The way the Mannlicher bolts are made- it's very comfortable to lay your index finger across the bolt. It also helps when I'm using the set trigger. I can use just the fingertip of my middle finger.

[ 08-25-2002, 21:31: Message edited by: CaptJack ]

Djm-On which rifles can you mount a 50 or 56 mm objective lensed scope with medium rings?I can just mount a 42mm on my rifes and most others I have seen.

The other reason to not bother with a 50mm scope is exit pupil. That is dividing the objective lens by the magnification. For example 50/9 5.55mm. The human pupil (unless under the influence of a controlled substance) even in low light only expands to about 5.5-6 mm any exit pupil above that is wasted and most people hunt with their variable set between 4 and 8 anyway.

So anything above 40mm is kinda a waste.

[ 08-25-2002, 07:17: Message edited by: Mike Dettorre ]

You can mount a 50mm objective scope with low mounts on a Savage model 110 and 111 with the sporter barrel. Which leads me to my question, if you can use the same ring/mount combo is the 50mm objective as a 40mm does that solve the to high problem? It seems to me it would put the scope in the same position.

El Cab et al,

One thing u should all be aware of is there is no standard for low meduom and high rings. One manufactures low rings are the same height as another manufactures medium rings.

It is a fact that a 50 mm scope must be mounted at least 7mm more above the bore than a 36 mm scope and that assumes inifinite increments in scope rings which there are not. Most likely that 50mm scope will need to be more like 12-14 mm higher.

I used weaver mounts and rings. As I look at it now the rings look more like a medium high rings compared to others.

I like the Leupold 3.5-10x 40mm(adj obj),more than any other variable for Game.

It can be mounted in medium height dual dovetail rings,with most any barrel contour. That keeps things closer to the bore and aids overall durability.

That scope has over 50 MOA of elevation adjustment. When coupled with a flat shooting cartridge,it will easily allow you to get to 1000yds. If coupled with Burris posi-lign dual dovetail rings(my favorite),you can gain an extra 40 MOA of inclination. My pet 257Wby load,zeroed at 300yds(2" high at 100yds) uses less than 18 MOA to get to 1000yds. That is capably covered by this scope.

As far as long range and light gathering,my thoughts likely differ. If a guy is gonna make a long poke,last light of the day,is not the time to be doing it in my opinion. Simply too many variables to contend with,in most circumstances(for me).

The 3.5-10x with elevation turret,is my landslide favorite long range glass,for Game. It is light,tough,offers good brightness and can be mounted low to the bore. I favor those attributes.

With a laser and some serious practice with a great rifle,she'll happily fill the bill. I've yet to be disappointed..............

Nebraska; There's something else to consider when the scope is mounted higher above the bore ( some may consider this an advantage , others not so). The higher the scope is mounted the greater the angle relationship between scope and bore. The greater the angle the farther your point blank range. The drawback being a higher midrange trajectory. In other words; all things equal(bullet cal.,type,vel.,& 100yrd. sight-in)the higher mounted scope will extend your down range zero. If you have a ballistics program, give several different scope to bore measurements and observe the downrange performance differences.-memtb

djm-If sako low mounts will work for a 56mm scope they certainly aren't very low.Do they make high mounts?Why?

Quite simply, if you can't get it done with a 3.5-10 X 42mm scope (Leupold), you're not going to get it done with anything else.

AD

Mr. Dettorre knows his stuff. His concise post is exactly correct, and the reason that virtually no one should bother with 50's. They are a marketing gimmick, pure and simple.

While the reasoning is a bit involved, the "obvious fact" that a 50mm objective should have more light gathering power than a 40mm lens, is simply untrue. Yes, it captures more light-- but this is of no benefit at lower magnifications. Note that I did not say "little benefit", but rather "no benefit". It's an absolute.

50mm objectives do have higher resolving power, but again, the difference is irrelevant at the magnifications used with gun optics. You'd want the 50mm over the 40mm above about 40X. But unless you're in the subset of shooters that uses 40X or more, you won't see the difference.

So, to sum up: 50's cost more. Are heavier. Don't mount as close to the bore. Are less rugged. Don't gather more _useful_ light. Don't resolve detail better. But they do provide a larger profit margin for the makers. Save your money.

Pertinax

[ 08-27-2002, 04:57: Message edited by: pertinax ]

Very interesting!

Allen Day,

Thanks for the packet of info on the D'arcy rifles. Wow! Talk about thorough. I was surprised to see that he didn't work with stainless steel. Regardless, those rifles are truely a perfectly functional work of art.