When a Scope Overwhelms a Hunting Rifle Aesthetically....

dak47

dak47

CGN frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Summerwood/Bridge City TX & Okanagan BC
So I have a maple stocked, octagon barrel bolt rifle showing up inn under two weeks. I do like the lines on it for some odd reason, so vodka and impulse win again. ;)

So that comes to the optics end, i want to purchase my rings at the same time and although it is a 7mm RM - I don't know if I can fathom the look of high rings and a 50mm objective lens sitting on a rifle that looks like that. What do you all think that a 50mm buys you for time at dusk or dawn over a 40mm scope?

I have a VXL sitting on my synthetic stock ugly knockabout rifle but never thought it truly made that much more of a difference at twilight..... Will more than likely stay within the 3i series and would still like to take full advantage of the 7's reach out and touch them trajectory.

Yes, I know it is a very odd rig but :runaway:

Dirk

View attachment 150498
 
I've never cared for big scopes on rifles. a 3-9x40 is as large as I'll go on any gun I expect to walk with as I find that makes the rifle clunky and heavy enough. My prefrence is Leupold 2.5-8x34's for field guns. ive got a couple 3-9x40 vortex on 22's and a JRC. I think a 50 will get you a bit more clarity at dusk, but you know you're pushing it when that matters IMO.
 
For a hunting rifle I usually don't like to go bigger than a 40mm objective as IMHO it just isn't necessary and becomes rather cumbersome to pack around unless it is a real dedicated long range shooter. A 3-9x40 or 2.5-10x40 with a good reticle would work great on your 7 mag.
 
I wouldn’t go with a 50mm, I’ve never felt it really added much (other than taller rings).
If it were me with that browning, I would likely go with a VX3 3.5-10x40 B&C. I guess the other question is black or silver finish?

I don’t really care for silver scopes, but there’s no black on that rifle and a black scope will really stand out IMO.
 
GMC403 said:
I wouldn’t go with a 50mm, I’ve never felt it really added much (other than taller rings).
If it were me with that browning, I would likely go with a VX3 3.5-10x40 B&C. I guess the other question is black or silver finish?

I don’t really care for silver scopes, but there’s no black on that rifle and a black scope will really stand out IMO.
Click to expand...

This.......

Plus, it looks like you are looking for a "vintageesque" rig with that octagon barrel..... look for a gloss scope and gloss rings.....
 
I had a 2.5-16x42 on a hunting rifle for a while and it was just too big of a scope for a walking around rifle. I swapped it out for a 3-9x40 and am much more content. Sounds like I you need a gloss vxII and rings to match.
 
Comparing equal scopes. Bushnell legend ultra hd 3-9x50 vs 3-9x40 I gain nothing with the 50 for night shooting. I do prefer the 50 on a heavier rifle. Both allow me to see past legal shooting light. My 300 mags wear one of each
 
Pretty hard to beet the old traditional Leupold VX III 2.5x8-36

Terdy-six numero hazz bin a favorite starting point number of mine furr years.
Even ending is pretty sweet too.
 
Thanks to All,

Especially for confirming what I was thinking!! Gloss black was my first choice but the choices are EE or maybe the VX2 option although I did not see that listed.... I have a silver Leupy on my Kimber and after my initial horror about my choice it does seem to work well with the combo.

Choices are good!!

Dirk
 
I have a 6.5X55 Tikka T3 SS Laminated and I ended up putting a 4.5X14X50 Ziess on it. There's no doubt that the scope overwhelms the rifle and if I had to do it over again I would have definitely chose the 40mm instead of the 50mm to cut down on the size of the optic. I chose that scope because the rifle is so darn accurate that I wanted to maximize it for long range use.

The other posters are right - you will probably not notice any appreciable difference between the two objective sizes as far as light gathering (you still only have a 1 inch tube for light transmission) but the slimmer profile will feel better for carrying it in the field and it will look more pleasing.
 
Last edited:
I have a 3x9x50 on my 7mm RM and its to big for hunting with. I bought it set up that way, and haven't changed it yet. For target shooting at 300 yards its fine , but for carrying around in the bush its more than you need.
 
I prefer the larger eyebox and longer eye relief of a larger objective/smaller magnification on heavier recoiling rifles. A 40mm lens with a 9x or less usually fits the bill. Or a 50mm and up to 14x is good if you don't mind the size.
 
propliner said:
I prefer the larger eyebox and longer eye relief of a larger objective/smaller magnification on heavier recoiling rifles. A 40mm lens with a 9x or less usually fits the bill. Or a 50mm and up to 14x is good if you don't mind the size.
Click to expand...
So do I just feels better overall to me
 
The 6x36 Leupold is still my favourite.

hbkzkU9.jpg
 
I understand the aesthetics of wanting a leaner looking scope, I like the looks as well. For me, with my hunting days in the field being limited, I want to be able to make the most out of every hour of every day. The guns I prefer have a bolt throw that enables me to mount a 50mm objective, so I make use of that real estate as I like the light gathering of all my larger scopes. I just bought my first Swarovski to cut down on the weight, I see no downside to a larger scope with higher magnification; I have had to let a few moose go with an old 3-9x40 as I could not identify if it was a true 2 spike from 150 yards as those bulls stayed close to the trees.
 
Identifying a 'true' spike bull is a challange at ANY distance,scope or no scope ....I saw what I THOUGHT was legal spike bull antlers ,only to walk up and much to my surprise it had a very small 1'' point on one side of the forks that made it ILLEGAL. I Certainly wouldn't take a chance at a bull 100 yards away In the Willows.
 
The light-gathering ability of an optic is a function of exit pupil, i.e., objective lens diameter divided by magnification. Typically, the human eye has a maximum pupil diameter of 5mm to 7mm, which defines the limit to which increasing the exit pupil will increase the image brightness of the optic.

Compare, for example, 40mm and 50mm objective lenses. A 40mm objective will give you maximum usable exit pupil at up to somewhere between 5.7x (40/7) and 8x (40/5). A 50mm objective will do the same somewhere between 7.1x and 10x. What this means is that for a typical 3-9x scope, you are only likely to notice a difference at the higher end of the magnification range.

For a typical hunting rifle, I would pick 40-42mm as the maximum objective diameter to save weight and bulk and to mount the scope as low as possible.
 
Zedbra said:
I understand the aesthetics of wanting a leaner looking scope, I like the looks as well. For me, with my hunting days in the field being limited, I want to be able to make the most out of every hour of every day. The guns I prefer have a bolt throw that enables me to mount a 50mm objective, so I make use of that real estate as I like the light gathering of all my larger scopes. I just bought my first Swarovski to cut down on the weight, I see no downside to a larger scope with higher magnification; I have had to let a few moose go with an old 3-9x40 as I could not identify if it was a true 2 spike from 150 yards as those bulls stayed close to the trees.
Click to expand...

Invest in binoculars
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom