is x50 too big for mtn rifle..

hawk-i said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's the exact problem...... on many rifles you cant use them in the same rings.....

But just an FYI, the tube size is the same....... if you mount a 1" tube in 3-9x40 then decide to go with a 3-9x50 for some reason, your crosshairs are still centred in the same position as only the body is in the rings and not the objective bell.... providing you can mount the 50 in the same rings........

In essence, you would not have changed where the "body" of your scope sits in the rings and there would be no adjustment necessary other than the regular sighting in anew scope routine.....
 
bearkilr said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

I will post a pic of my .223 scout when I can....... I have a 2-7x32 on it and I can barely fit 3 dollar bills under it......

Back in the day, I also had a Rem 700 SPS and a redfield with a 50mm ...... it needed high rings and had a thin profile.....
 
Superbrad said:
That's the exact problem...... on many rifles you cant use them in the same rings.....

But just an FYI, the tube size is the same....... if you mount a 1" tube in 3-9x40 then decide to go with a 3-9x50 for some reason, your crosshairs are still centred in the same position as only the body is in the rings and not the objective bell.... providing you can mount the 50 in the same rings........

In essence, you would not have changed where the "body" of your scope sits in the rings and there would be no adjustment necessary other than the regular sighting in anew scope routine.....
Click to expand...

Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying....the scope would only have to be mounted 5mm higher to have the bell the same distance off the barrel. The cheek weld in this case will be .19685 on an inch higher only (no extra addition)....not a lot of difference. :)
 
hawk-i said:
Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying....the scope would only have to be mounted 5mm higher to have the bell the same distance off the barrel. The cheek weld in this case will be .19685 on an inch higher only (no extra addition)....not a lot of difference. :)
Click to expand...

So what rings provide exactiy .1968 whatever more clearance?...you either have to go up a ring size or your don't........ when you do, what is the actual difference....... it's not the same as the scope bell.....
 
Superbrad said:
I will post a pic of my .223 scout when I can....... I have a 2-7x32 on it and I can barely fit 3 dollar bills under it......

Back in the day, I also had a Rem 700 SPS and a redfield with a 50mm ...... it needed high rings and had a thin profile.....
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, my point is simply that getting the proper cheek weld, FOV, full eye box picture, etc. doesn't necessarily mean the scope objective bell has to be as close to the barrel as possible. It depends on the mounts, receiver, barrel, stock, type of scope, shooters neck length, cheek "obesity", etc.

So back to mountain rifles and 50mm scopes. Yes, they will be slightly heavier than their 40mm counterparts, but that's about all.
 
Superbrad said:
So what rings provide exactiy .1968 whatever more clearance?...you either have to go up a ring size or your don't........ when you do, what is the actual difference....... it's not the same as the scope bell.....
Click to expand...

Come on now, what was the exact height of the 40 mm off the barrel???? the exact difference will be that + .19865, minus the height the 40 was off the barrel....geezzz

The cheek weld in the end might end up to be slightly less than 5mm difference....or maybe slightly more :)
 
hawk-i said:
Come on now, what was the exact height of the 40 mm off the barrel???? the exact difference will be that + .19865, minus the height the 40 was off the barrel....geezzz

The cheek weld in the end might end up to be slightly less than 5mm difference....or maybe slightly more :)
Click to expand...

That equation only works given that you can use the same rings....... if you have a 50mm that fits the same rings as a 40mm...... fill your boots.....hell, if you have taken game with a 50mm then good for you....

This thread is about what we all see as ideal........but I bet we have done all that with less than someone else's opinion...
 
Last edited:
Superbrad said:
That equation only works given that you can use the same rings....... if you have a 50mm that fits the same rings as a 40mm...... fill your boots.....hell, if you have taken gne with a 50mm then box for you....

This thread is about what we all see as ideal........
Click to expand...

Superbrad, you were the one saying you have to add the sum of the two(5mm plus the ring height), I said it has to be 5mm higher only....how's the scotch tasting tonight?
 
hawk-i said:
Superbrad, you were the one saying you have to add the sum of the two(5mm plus the ring height), I said it has to be 5mm higher only....how's the scotch tasting tonight?
Click to expand...

Scotchy scotch scotch... I despise the stuff........ when something is described as "rich in peaty flavour" I will always be lost......

Anyways, it's simple math....... a one inch tube will afford the same center as a 40mm tube, a 50mm tube or even a 32mm tube...... as long as the scope's main tube is the same size..... one inch..... the rest is dependant on whether there is room for the objective size based on rail size and length, barrelr profile etc....
 
bearkilr said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

I think it has gone past that as CGN threads tend to do....... lol...... no "mountain hunter" in their right mind is tossing a scope with a 50mm objective on their rifle......

and, if young age to ask if it's suitable...... well, I will let you fill in the rest... :)
 
Superbrad said:
I think it has gone past that as CGN threads tend to do....... lol...... no "mountain hunter" in their right mind is tossing a scope with a 50mm objective on their rifle......

and, if young age to ask if it's suitable...... well, I will let you fill in the rest... :)
Click to expand...

No, I agree, it's not the best choice. Funny how lightweight mountain and heavyweight big bore rifle users always get berated for using large scopes. I guess they're only allowed on beanfield rifles from tree stands. ;)
 
I live in the Coastal mountain range of Northern BC, seeing an average weight rifle with a larger 50mm objective lens is not at all an uncommon sight when hunting high....some of the locals must be out of their minds! OR maybe, they just missed the CGN's memo. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom