44MM OR 50MM SCOPE ?

C

coonman

New member
I NEED A GOOD SCOPE 4-16 X 50 FOR DPMS 243 CAL. Question.... big price jump on scopes that are 50mm or bigger. is it worth it ? they say you can see better in low light conditions with the bigger bell. thanks. coonman
 
The low-light ability is mainly based on dividing the objective diameter by the magnification. That give you an exit diameter for the image. (Quality of glass also factors in, but it would be close to the same from the same line of scopes)
So, for low light, you want to crank the power down as far as possible and get the biggest objective you can.
At 16X and a 50mm objective, your exit image would only be 50/16 or 3.125 mm.
Your pupil (depending on your age, eye condition and how much light exposure it has been recently exposed to) will range from 2 to 9mm.
Refer to this: http://www.sizes.com/people/pupil_size.htm

So, at 16X a typical 70 year old wouldn't gain anything from going to a bigger objective, but if you're 20, you would want to reduce the power to 6X and get the 8.33mm image, or increse the objective lens to 128 mm (that's not an option for a rifle scope, just an example). /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It's all trade-offs. I look at it this way: if it's that dark, I'm not going to spot something 500 yards away to begin with, so I'm not going to need 16X to hit what I can see. I'm satisfied with a 50mm objective.
 
If you do a lot of low light hunting, I would go with the 50. You might also want to consider a 30 mm tube. I own two 50 objective scopes by the same manufacturer. One is a 1" tube and the other is a 30 mm tube. On a moonlit night the 30 tube is much noticably brighter.
 
I have hunted on full moons for hogs quite a bit and I can tell you from my experiences the quality of the glass has more to do with it than objective size.What Evil Lurker said is correct but I would rather buy a 44mm of higher quality than a 50mm of lesser quality. The 1 inch vs.30mm has no bearing on light gathering only on range of adjustment by the way.
 
I'm in the 60+ year range and the millett 4-16x56 i picked up does work very well for me and my eyes. It has a 30mm tube and that seems to help with the light, again, thats with my eyes. No i probably don't need the 56 objective, but thats what it came with. As stated above, it's going to come down to your age and eye sight as to what works best for you. I do have to say that it is heavier than my other scopes to pack around all day. blue
 
Coonman, yes i would, this one is the 30733 which i think is last years model, that number isn't in their current line up. All i can say is i have trouble finding something i can see through at say 300yd and out past that, this one works great for my eyes which are poor at best. It is a bit heavier than other scopes, but i can live with that.

I would suggest trying one before buying if you can, go to their website, and see where the nearest dealer is to you and try one. Swfa has that model for $199.99. blue
 
No not at all, i'm saying that most scopes i look through don't work past about 300yd for me. This scope does, that is why i don't mind it being a little heavy to pack around.

I guess that a good example is burris, they make good glass, but i simply can't use one. Between the way my glasses are ground, and the way their lens are ground, it just doesn't work for me. And that sucks, because i have a friend that is a burris dealer. The millett works, try one and see. blue
 
Back
Top