DuckSouth.com

What do yall think a 3-9x50 scope or a 4-12-40. I like the 50 for more light but I have never looked through a 4-12 before let me know what yall think.

also can i take a old scope off of 270 and put that one on my muzzleloader and it work ok

In my searching for a new scope, I found the tube diameter is what to key in for more light. The objective is simply how big the field of view is when locating the target. Go with a better quality glass over the 50mm if you are concerned with light gathering. I got a Nikon 3x9x40 with their Monarch glass for under $300 and got better light transmission than i did with my Simmons 3x9x44. It wasn't even close, but I know their is a difference in the Simmons versus the Nikon.

The best is the high quality glass with the larger objective, but I would choose the glass over the objective if I had to choose.

I see that bushnell has a 3-9x50 for 130 dollars. It is the banner series and is supposed to be for low light levels. I don't know anything about the banner series. 130 sounds good but I don't want to buy cheap and get a cheap product. I have had a bushnell and liked it.

Warren wrote:I see that bushnell has a 3-9x50 for 130 dollars. It is the banner series and is supposed to be for low light levels. I don't know anything about the banner series. 130 sounds good but I don't want to buy cheap and get a cheap product. I have had a bushnell and liked it.

put a little more with it and get a leupold rifleman or a nikon. you will be glad you did.

Leupold all the way, and if it was me I would get the 50mm

Leupold or a european scope(swarovski, kahles, zeiss. leica)

Go with the 50 mm. The light gather'in is much much beter.

There are several good scopes to choose from. First ask yourself what's your price range. In that price range research what you like and look at every single one of them. I'm with lawdawg, i like leupolds. that's my preference. I also like the lower end zeiss, buddy of mine got one and it's nice. I would also look at the new line of swift scopes. Looked at one the other day that was crystal clear.


Lee's got a 4-12-50mm leoupold on his rifle. It's the chit, and holds a zero like no other.

Go with a 4-12-50. Stay far away from a simmons. I've never seen one worth puttin on a gun. Milage may vary but i've owned 3, ain't got none and not wanting to buy another.

Best for the money is a BURRIS, (great scope, made in the USA), but has a forever warranity and they have been running deal where get 3x9x40 with Etrex or 4-12x40 with bino,
********
as far a 40 or 50 mm, the larger mm is only good for sight picture,
also if your current gun has 40mm scope would be chaeper and easier to get 40 mm again, due to most 50mm will take height rings,
*****
for best low light conditions get a 30mm tube instead of 1" tube (pricey),
***
currntly have 3x9x50mm on my gun and I can see way past legal shooting time just in case that big un showes up at the last minute

for the money........leupold.....leupold......leupold. 3x9x50 gold ring.

i have not missed in 3 years and it got sighted in about 8 years ago.

zeiss conquest 400 bucks great scope

Go with a burris or either a nikon buckmaster best for the money. Also the nikon prostaff getting more for your money. Go ahead a spend the money on a good scope because your gone doesn't do you any good if you can't see the deer through your scope. You have to pay for that last little bit of light.

More than anything, when it comes to optics you get what you pay for.

Bourbon wrote:...I found the tube diameter is what to key in for more light. The objective is simply how big the field of view is when locating the target...

100% incorrect. Tube diameter makes no difference in light transmission. The reason for 30mm tubes is that they originated in europe (metric system) so they don't have 1" tubes. Also it makes the scope more ridged. It does not increase scope's exit pupil diameter, which is the measurement to how much light transmission a scope has. The key to light transmission is lense quality, zoom, and objective size.

The difference in light transmission and field of view b/w a 40mm objective and a 50mm in the exact same scope set at the same zoom is marginal when it comes to a quality scope, and near impossible to tell with the naked eye.

The benefit of having a smaller diameter objective is that it makes your gun more accurate. The higher up the scope's sight line is from the barrel, the more the variation there will be in bullet impact and line of sight. Plus the lower you have your scope the better. It keeps you head closer to the stock, which reduces felt recoil, gives you a steadier hold, and thereby makes you more accurate.

Get a scope with good glass with as little zoom as you NEED. 99% of the time you do not need more than 9x zoom. So a good quality 3-9x40 (burris, Leupold, Nikon, Ziess, etc...) would be your best choice. If you really want more zoom, realize you will be sacrificing light transmission. Though the difference b/w a minimum zoom of 3 and 4 power would probably be no real difference, so having a 4-12x40mm would also be fine.

thanx duramax for the info..

Warren wrote:thanx duramax for the info..

No problem. Spend a little extra cash and get yourself a better scope for as opposed to a $130 bushnell and you won't regret it.

Check ebay for burris scopes such as this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Burris-Fullfield-II-3-9X40mm-Scope-B-Plex-3-9-40-3x9x40_W0QQitemZ290202247146QQihZ019QQcategoryZ31714QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Heck of a deal. They are over $200 in a store and are terrific scopes. It will probably be the scope I get for my next rifle.

Search ebay for other good deals on scopes.