is x50 too big for mtn rifle..

bearkilr said:
Actually, it has more to do with available light (exit pupil diameter) reaching/covering the entire diameter of the eye's pupil.

Of course quality of coatings,lenses,etc has a lot to with it, but there's a simple test that works with any variable scope regardless of quality or manufacturer; as you turn the zoom up, the image darkens, thanks to the exit pupil's diameter shrinking. So if you have a Schmidt & Bender Zenith 3-12x50, the image is still going to appear darker on 12x than a Leupold VX1 3-9x40 will be at 3x.

It's OK if people want to use a 50mm scope. Not everyone likes a gloss Leupold 1.5-4 in Weaver rings. ;)
Click to expand...

Wellllll.....the Zenith (or any other 3-12x50) still has an exit pupil of 50/12 = 4.2mm at maximum magnification. The Leupold (or other) 3-9x40 with its 40/9 = 4.4mm exit pupil is only a wee bit larger. If I weren't so lazy, I'd be inclined to compare the two at twilight. A Leupold, for all its other benefits (and this isn't even Leupold's best effort), doesn't have the optical quality of a S&B, so I wouldn't be too surprised to find the S&B to be at least the equal if not the superior of the Leupold in low light. Higher magnification also tends to make the most of any given level of brightness so I tend to lean towards the S&B...

But enough of this logical deduction and analysis of hard cold facts...I wanna argue about parallax!!!:)

Edited to add: Almost forgot! The younger shooters in the crowd have more at stake here...at my age (59) my pupils can no longer open wide enough to gain any brightness advantage from an exit pupil larger than about 4mm at most. So as we weaken and shrivel and our ability to carry about heavy rifles diminishes, the incentive for adding weight in the form of larger objectives also begins to disappear as well...:)

Edited again: Ooops! Just noticed you were comparing the S&B at 12x with the Leupold at 3x; I now agree completely. Ignore this whole damned thing!:redface:
 
Last edited:
Swarovski Z3 in 3-9x36 = Best mountain rifle optics compromise imo.

Rugged, light, bright, compact, wide mag range and reasonably priced. And quite handsome to boot...kinda like me.

I also really like the 2-7, 1.75-6 and 2.5-8 options from Leupold. Have a bunch of these in the safe. Bushnell Elite series in 2-7 is a good value as well, as long as eye relief isn't your primary concern.

I do not subscribe to the 30mm tube or 50+ mm objective on a hunting rifle school of thought. I do not like how they handle, nor do I feel that they provide any real noticeable advantage optically for a hunting rifle being used during legal hunting hours. Not to mention how absolutely hideous they look on most rifles, especially a mountain rifle setup lol. The term oxymoron comes to mind.

Just my humble opinion.
 
Have any one used the Leopold VX-2 ultralight with the custom dial system ?
I keep thinking with a good rangefinder that will compensate for angle would be a handy in the mountains most importantly it's simple but don't have much experience with Leopold CDS scopes
 
carverk said:
Have any one used the Leopold VX-2 ultralight with the custom dial system ?
I keep thinking with a good rangefinder that will compensate for angle would be a handy in the mountains most importantly it's simple but don't have much experience with Leopold CDS scopes
Click to expand...
If you have it tailored for your load in the queen charlottes at 0' above sea level in +20 and and gain any decent elevation or say travel to somewhere like Prince George in -10 you'll be missing on any shots far enough to need elevation adjustments. If you hunt in very specific conditions the long range accuracy might be ok but they seem like a gimmick. A different season or location turns it into an useless unmarked turret. A ballistic program/dope card, repeatable scope that is marked appropriately, rangefinder and practice would better IMO. That being said I've take 1 goat, and my father 3 and a sheep with a fixed Lyman 4x, seems to be a decent "mountain" scope.
 
Last edited:
j_06 said:
If you have it tailored for your load in the queen charlottes at 0' above sea level in +20 and and gain any decent elevation or say travel to somewhere like Prince George in -10 you'll be missing on any shots far enough to need elevation adjustments. If you hunt in very specific conditions the long range accuracy might be ok but they seem like a gimmick. A different season or location turns it into an useless unmarked turret. A ballistic program/dope card, repeatable scope, rangefinder and practice would better IMO.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that I'm all over the place in northern BC and northern Alberta temperature changes and elevation or extreme
I think I would rather figure out the pont of aim and work with what range it may mean passing up on a nice animal but better to be safe then sory
So a fix 4 probly work just fine for me
 
Last edited:
SuperCub said:
I wouldn't put a x50 on anything, esp a Mountain Rifle. I don't want the extra weight, but I really don't like the way they look and the higher rings required to mount them.


^^ My point exactly! ^^ ....... I want a scope as low as possible to the comb for better handling.

My 257Roberts MR is currently topped with a FXII 4x. Before that, I used a VXIII 2.5-8.
Click to expand...

How do you like the FXII 4X
 
stubblejumper said:
If I really want more light transmission, I go with a higher end scope, as superior lens coatings increase light transmission, without having to resort to a larger scope that must be mounted higher.
Click to expand...

But try a High end scope with a large objective and see where that takes you.
 
jjohnwm said:
If you don't choose carefully, it takes you to a big heavy scope with a tiny little rifle stuck to the bottom.
Click to expand...

One of my all time favourite scopes is the 1.5-5 Leupold straight tube scope.
I have a stack of them and have literally put them on everything, they have a 25 ? mm front end.
A rifle thus equipped carries well in a gun boot, easy to handle in and out of a vehicle .
I've now sold all my big front end scopes and I don't miss them.... yet..
 
Slamfire said:
The Leupold site lists the VX-3L as a past product -

https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/

http://www.chuckhawks.com/leupold_VX-L.htm
Click to expand...

Well, that kinda sucks.

Oh well, that's the way of it!

I bought one at the request of a friend, a few years back. Says much about the level of trust, as I didn't have the money to spare, bought it on my Visa, and he paid me as soon as I got the scope to him. I was living in Edmonton at the time, and working in Cold Lake.

Have not heard from him in a while, suspect he is doing great though. He wanted the scope for his sheep rifle, as I recall.

Cheers
Trev
 
I have a mix of Leupolds on all my hunting rifles and none of them would have prevented me from taking an ethical shot at first or last light. All have either 32, 36 or 40mm objectives. I have been sure to test whenever I'm hunting and it's just never been an issue.

Patrick
 
SuperCub said:
I wouldn't put a x50 on anything, esp a Mountain Rifle. I don't want the extra weight, but I really don't like the way they look and the higher rings required to mount them.
Click to expand...

Paul's right. Cheek weld and handling are too important to throw away. Even an 8x scope with a 36mm objective gives you a 4.5mm exit pupil which is damned near as much as an adult's eye can make use of. By the time a high quality scope like the 2.5-8x Leupold loses optical clarity it's probably too dark to be taking a long poke at an animal. In any event, turn down the power and you'll get more light. I could condescend to use the 3.5-10x40mm on an open country rifle but for a mountain rifle where you're trying to save ounces, the 2.5-8x would be my choice.
 
If you are willing and able to lug it up a mountain, it's your mountain rifle. I wouldn't choose a 50mm objective scope because of the bulk. If the weight difference between 50mm or 40mm lenses becomes critical, I won't be up to carrying it on the plains, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom