is x50 too big for mtn rifle..

[bearkilr]

There's not much use talking about legal shooting times to
an Aussie, since he might not have heard of the concept. If he has, he might just think of it as a curiousity that doesn't apply to him. You could probably have a discussion about the merits of different spotlights though, or the effects of
Different levels of moonlight on game. 'Bout then, some
Of The 50s and 56s start making a bit more sense.

Oh man, now we have to start over......

 

[hawk-i]

Guys a Leupold VX2, 3-9x40 weighs 11.2 ounces....the same in x50 weighs 13.3 ounces. I seriously doubt 2.1 ounces will throw off the handling of the rifle much or the outcome of a mountain hunt.

Yes lighter is nicer but come on, 2.1 oz....geeezzz!

 

[SuperCub]

Guys a Leupold VX2, 3-9x40 weighs 11.2 ounces....the same in x50 weighs 13.3 ounces. I seriously doubt 2.1 ounces will throw off the handling of the rifle much or the outcome of a mountain hunt.

Yes lighter is nicer but come on, 2.1 oz....geeezzz!

You're right, but the biggest issue is the high rings and cheek weld or lack thereof.

 

[Superbrad]

You're right, but the biggest issue is the high rings and cheek weld or lack thereof.

But you could add one of those fuggly arse cheek pads to the franks rifle too...... you clearly are t using your imagination today!

 

[pete dobinson]

I've always gone with leupolds, I think they are great scopes with the best warranty. That said, I went with a Swarovski Z3 3-10x42 on my Kimber MA. The scope weighs 12.7 oz. It is a good scope for low light. Its a brighter scope than my leupolds, if that means anything.

 

[carverk]

I do have a Leopold Target fix x10 on a 22 for longer rang practice I damage in a motorcycle accident bent the hell out of bell Leopold replace it right away
Then I put it on 308 and broke the fine crossers and Leopold replaced it a second time no questions asked
I will continue to use Leopold

 

[hawk-i]

You're right, but the biggest issue is the high rings and cheek weld or lack thereof.

The center of the x50 optic would be exactly .19685 inches higher than the x40....again, not much of a difference!

Best to go down to your reloading bench, pull out the calipers and see how little of a difference that is.

 

[hoytcanon]

The center of the x50 optic would be exactly .19685 inches higher than the x40....again, not much of a difference!

Best to go down to your reloading bench, pull out the calipers and see how little of a difference that is.

Sounds like a little... feels like alot... IMO... don't personally like 50mm scopes... and try selling one... a 10%-20% hit over list price compared to an equivalent 40mm scope... also IME.

 

[Superbrad]

The center of the x50 optic would be exactly .19685 inches higher than the x40....again, not much of a difference!

Best to go down to your reloading bench, pull out the calipers and see how little of a difference that is.

That only takes into account the 5mm higher you have to mount the scope vs a 40mm....... not the difference in height between the ring set required, which can actually be pretty extreme depending on many factors.....

 

[wilbar]

Wow,

Whelan Lad has put pics and videos of his hunting under the hunting forum(check them out!)... The Australian Alps... Beautiful, steep, and even snowy at times. He hikes high and his shot opportunities are often 3-400yds. Here's a great example http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...3-days-Backpacking-in-Paradise?highlight=stag

There's a big difference between asking about replacing a scope that weighs 13.3oz with one that only weighs 9.3oz in the original post and the suggested scopes the weigh from 15-20oz.

"I would go with any of the 1-6x24 out there. Meopta R2(17.64oz), Leupold VX6(13.4oz), Swarovski Z6(15.5oz) etc. They are all small footprint and light, the 6x magnification is plenty for longer shot."

Those scopes all weigh more than the scope the OP is thinking might be too heavy. The leupy is only a tiny bit heavier but going heavier to have less magnification is opposite the logic of his question.


If you're worried about low power and accurate distance shooting remember the old military guideline was 1x for every 100yds. I read an article about low mag and accuracy then even did my own test. Summary and pics here http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ion-and-accuracy?highlight=magnification+myth

A vx2 2-7x33 is only 10.4oz with the CDS ballistic turret system for those long pokes at big Stags ;-)

Willy

 

[pete dobinson]

I do have a Leopold Target fix x10 on a 22 for longer rang practice I damage in a motorcycle accident bent the hell out of bell Leopold replace it right away
Then I put it on 308 and broke the fine crossers and Leopold replaced it a second time no questions asked
I will continue to use Leopold

A friend of mine just sent his leupold scope to korth, to see if they could fix it. It was slightly bent. He also wanted them to install a ballistic turret. The scope he sent in was a 1980's erra scope. Within 2-3 weeks he got a brand new scope with the ballistic turret. They charged him 83 bucks for the turret. You can't ask for better than that.

 

[Superbrad]

Wow,

Whelan Lad has put pics and videos of his hunting under the hunting forum... The Australian Alps... Beautiful steep and even snowy at times. There's a big difference between asking about 2 scopes that both weigh under 13oz. in the original post and the half a dozen suggested scopes the weigh from 18-24oz.

If you're worried about low power and accurate distance shooting remember the old military guideline was 1x for every 100yds.

The funny thing with weight on a rifle is it isn't all about how much actual weight you are talking about....... it's where and how that weight sits too......

 

[jjohnwm]

The center of the x50 optic would be exactly .19685 inches higher than the x40....again, not much of a difference!

Best to go down to your reloading bench, pull out the calipers and see how little of a difference that is.

Don't need to. If you had a perfect cheek weld with the 3-9x40mm scope, and then switched to the 3.5-10x50mm, and were fortunate enough to find a set of rings that only raised it the absolute minimum extra height to maintain the same barrel clearance...that 5mm difference would be sufficient to completely black out the image if you held the same cheek weld at maximum magnification. You've gone from seeing a perfectly centered round field of view to seeing nothing. Moving your head/eye/cheek 5mm higher above the cheekpiece of the stock is major.

This is assuming a maximum pupil diameter of 5mm. A shooter of, say, 20 years of age, could probably achieve a pupil dilation of maybe 7mm, so he could see a little halfmoon crescent at the bottom of the image. Very effective for shooting in low light.

But, hey, at least it will maximize parallax error, which always seems to make some folks happy.

 

[bearkilr]

So all scopes should be mounted as close to the barrel as possible? Good luck doing that with that 24mm mountain scope.

Or it could have something to do with drop at heel, drop at comb, cast on or cast off of the various stocks.

You may find that a 50mm fits just perfect. Believe it or not, I have such a rifle.

 

[carverk]

Anybody Try micro sights would be cool to get rid of the scope all together and just use peep sight

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wOJYYwytD8g

The Sinclair/AOS MicroSight is a revolutionary solution to a problem that’s plagued riflemen since the beginning of rifle shooting itself: how to see both the target and the front sight clearly at the same time. A legitimate “game changer” doesn’t come along very often in the precision shooting world these days, so when we heard the MicroSight called one, we were, frankly, pretty skeptical. Then we tried it—and couldn’t believe the difference it made in sight picture and group size. The MicroSight uses “phased zone plate” technology in two tiny, internal lenses to produce two distinct focal points, so you see both the front sight AND the target perfectly clear, crisp, and in focus at the same time. You get a dramatically enhanced sight picture for more precise aiming and faster target acquisition that leads to superior accuracy and smaller groups. It gives iron sight target shooters, hunters, and military/law enforcement marksmen an amazing capability previously available only with a scope, red dot, or holographic sight.

Invented by David Crandall, an engineer at Idaho National Laboratory, a competitive shooter and U.S. Palma Team member, the MicroSight is actually a small add-on device that adds essentially no weight (OK, a few grams) or bulk to your rifle. It screws between the sight body and the rear aperture on adjustable rear sights from Centra, Gehmann, RPA, Warner, PNW, Anschutz, and similar models that have a 9.5mm x 1 thread pitch and require a rear-to-front radius of approximately 33" (84cm). For best results, use with 1.5mm or larger aperture setting.


Sinclair, Issue:5B, Page:217
SINCLAIR INTERNATIONAL - AOS MICROSIGHT
SINCLAIR INTERNATIONAL
Made in the U.S.A.
100% Satisfaction. Lifetime Returns.
SaleSINCLAIR/ AOS MICROSIGHT
749-013-144WS
AOS Microsight
Mfr Part: 1000201
$49.99 $139.99
Add to Cart
In Stock
DETAILS
Q&A (24)
REVIEWS (7)
3.4Add to Favorites Add to Wish List
close
ITEM DETAILS
Made in the USA

 

[hawk-i]

That only takes into account the 5mm higher you have to mount the scope vs a 40mm....... not the difference in height between the ring set required, which can actually be pretty extreme depending on many factors.....

If the bell is the same distance off the barrel the difference is 5mm, you don't add the sum of the two.

 

[hawk-i]

Don't need to. If you had a perfect cheek weld with the 3-9x40mm scope, and then switched to the 3.5-10x50mm, and were fortunate enough to find a set of rings that only raised it the absolute minimum extra height to maintain the same barrel clearance...that 5mm difference would be sufficient to completely black out the image if you held the same cheek weld at maximum magnification. You've gone from seeing a perfectly centered round field of view to seeing nothing. Moving your head/eye/cheek 5mm higher above the cheekpiece of the stock is major.

This is assuming a maximum pupil diameter of 5mm. A shooter of, say, 20 years of age, could probably achieve a pupil dilation of maybe 7mm, so he could see a little halfmoon crescent at the bottom of the image. Very effective for shooting in low light.

But, hey, at least it will maximize parallax error, which always seems to make some folks happy.

Splitting hairs....are we talking a light cheek weld or a tight cheek weld. I'm pretty sure we are all capable of adjusting our cheek weld by 4/5ths of a quarter of an inch. I know I am

 

[Superbrad]

If the bell is the same distance off the barrel the difference is 5mm, you don't add the sum of the two.

Incorrect......if you have to switch ring sizes to accommodate, the difference is no longer about how wide the bell is, it is about how much higher the rings are....... mounted in equal height rings, with a one inch tube, a 32mm and s 50mm will be pointed in the same place...


There are other factors to consider including rail length and thickness if you are using one and barrel contour.......

 

[hawk-i]

Incorrect......if you have to switch ring sizes to accommodate, the difference is no longer about how wide the bell is, it is about how much higher the rings are....... mounted in equal height rings, with a one inch tube, a 32mm and s 50mm will be pointed in the same place...


There are other factors to consider including rail length and thickness if you are using one and barrel contour.......

Superbrad, if the two scopes are mounted in the same height rings the center of the scopes will be at the same height (the cheek weld will be the same)....you must raise the mount 5mm for the bell to clear the barrel, that is the only difference.

The ring size is the same, only the height of the ring must be 5mm higher.

 

[bearkilr]

There are other factors to consider including rail length and thickness if you are using one and barrel contour.......

Well, if you have a picatinny rail and a bull barrel on a mountain rifle, I'd think objective size is the least of your worries.