Looking at buying a new Leupold vx3, was wondering if the 50mm is worth the extra money?!

Unless you are doing night hunting you probably wont know. I beginning to wonder if it matters at all on the mm. I have some pretty small 32mm scopes that I kill with at night. Most spot light shots max out at 200 yards

"I beginning to wonder if it matters at all on the mm."

I'm sure glad someone else said this instead of me...I agree!!

I went from a Bushnell Banner 40mm to a Burris 50mm. The picture quality was way better with the Burris. But that could be due to the fact that the Burris is a much higher quality scope than the Bushnell rather than 40mm vs. 50 mm. So it's not an accurate experiment. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges. The better way to find out would be to compare the same scope but in different objective sizes.

So to answer your question: I don't know, which doesn't help you at all.

One important factor is the fact that you can get away with lower rings on the 40mm objective which will place the scope closer to the barrel. And that's good.

it's really not all that complicated.

Assuming the scopes are the same make and model, the size of the objective will make a HUGE difference.

Using Pi*R^2 for surface area, a 50mm scope has a 56.25% greater surface area to let light in than an 40mm (over "half again as much")

What that means is that the scope will be able to gather MUCH more light under precisely the same conditions.

That being said, a 50mm bsa scope will not be even CLOSE to as good as a 40mm zeiss. The reason for this is something called light TRANSMISSION. The BSA will still capture more light than the zeiss, but it will not transmit as much of this light back to your eye, so it will not be close to the image produced by the much smaller ziess.

My recommendation: buy the best glass you can. If you can't afford an 800 dollar scope, buy a smaller objective (32mm) high quality scope. You will get MUCH better image clarity, light transmission, and durability than you would from a cheap 50mm.

I would suggest not buying anything cheaper than a bushnell 3200 elite or comparable

X2 what BePrepared says. Also, light transmission is a function of glass quality as well as lens coatings. You can buy scopes with coated, fully coated, multicoated and fully multicoated lenses. You can get some fully multicoated scopes for under $200.

Well, I am looking at leupold vx3, 3.5x10 40mm w/cdl or the 50mm without?!
Thanks, I would never go "cheap" but I only want to spend what I have to.

if you're looking in THAT price range, look at the 3.5-10x50mm Zeiss conquest. Better glass than the leupold

If you're set on the vx3, go with the 50 if you ever intend to hunt at night or very late evening (dusk)... if not, the 40 will do nicely

I prefer the scope to be mounted with low or medium rings. Most 50mm require high or super high rings. My current scope on my primary is a 4-16x50, I prefer the 40mm but could not pass up the deal on the scope I have now on it. Same model scope side by side even in low light I have tried it with some nikons and leupolds and did not notice the significant difference some people claim. To each their own, everyone has an opinion.

This is from Cabelas website...
Cabela's Field Guide to Riflescopes



So with a scope set at 10x, a 40mm objective will give you a 4mm exit pupil, a 50mm objective will give you a 5mm exit pupil. To get the maximum amount of light to your eye at the highest power use the 50mm.

Lower power, say a 4x32, would give an exit pupil of 8mm, almost reaching the maximum the eye can accept at 5-9mm at dusk and dawn. 4x40 = 10mm, 4x50mm = 12+mm, more than the maximum of 9mm doesn't really help that much.

Still with the larger objective you will be able to utilize a higher power and not exceed 9mm (all the eye will accept). 32mm/9=3.5X, 40mm/9=3.6X, 50mm/9=5.5X Hope that helps.

Each gunstock is different.

I test the suitability of sights by shouldering the rifle with my eyes closed and putting my cheek to the stock as if I were about to shoot...

Then I open my eyes and see what the sights or the scope looks like.

I recently bought a new rifle and mounted a Leupold 3-9x50 scope on it. The scope required medium height rings in order to clear the barrel.

When I did the test above and opened my eyes, I ended up looking at the bottom arc of the eyepiece, and found that I had to crane my neck and lose my weld to the stock in order to use the scope.

Guess who will be buying a scope with a 40mm objective lens and a set of low rings for his new rifle?

Thus endeth the lesson.

If the scope is too high you can put a cheek pad on the stock, I've got 2 now & it really helps fine tune eye placement.

40 vs. 50

Here's my take-

I was trying to decide between the 40 & 50mm as well. I am due a new scope and my wife's rifle was also in need.

I narrowed her down to a Redfield 4x12x40 ($229) and a Luppy VX-II 4x12x50 with LRD ($480). The VX-II cost a couple hunder more so it was tempting to go with the Redfield, but I went with the Luppy w/ the 50mm objective to see what the extra 10mm would get me.

I got it in last week and decided to see how it compared at dark to the Luppy (don't laugh) 3x9x40 Rifleman with LRD it was replacing (I wanted it on my AR & she wanted more magnifacation)

At dark I could see no difference. I tried, I really wanted to see a difference, but it just wasn't there.
MAYBE a smidgen right at too dark to see, but if so I couldn't see the cross hairs anyways. To it's credit the rifleman is really clear for what little it cost.

I mounted the VX-II on her rifle and maybe out of a deer stand we'll see a difference.
I mounted the 3x9x40 on my AR & now I need an extended charging handle- ergg always something....

Today, with what I saw with the 50mm VX-II, I ordered a VX-3 4.5x14x40mm with the CDS for my new rifle.
The new VX-3's are supposed to have some sort of draw in more light features vs the older VX-III's, so I'm betting the 40mm in it will be as good as I'll need.

I got it from Opticsplanet for $527.49 shipped, which is a great price IMHO. The same scope at cabelas cost $550 before tax & shipping. The nice lady taking the order took another 5% off the standard price of $549 since I am a repeat customer.


Good luck in your choice, I kinda went with both, but chose the 40mm for my newest edition.

[quote=DaveC]If the scope is too high you can put a cheek pad on the stock, I've got 2 now & it really helps fine tune eye placement.

40 vs. 50

Here's my take-

I was trying to decide between the 40 & 50mm as well. I am due a new scope and my wife's rifle was also in need.

I narrowed her down to a Redfield 4x14x40 ($229) and a Luppy VX-II 4x12x50 with LRD ($480). The VX-II cost a couple hunder more so it was tempting to go with the Redfield, but I vent with the Luppy w/ the 50mm objective to see what the extra 10mm would get me.

I got it in last week and decided to see how it compared at dark to the Luppy (don't laugh) 3x9x40 Rifleman with LRD it was replacing (I wanted it on my AR & she wanted more magnifacation)

At dark I could see no difference. I tried, I really wanted to see a difference, but it just wasn't there.
MAYBE a smidgen right at too dark to see, but if so I couldn't see the cross hairs anyways. To it's credit the rifleman is really clear for what little it cost.

Several years back, I sat on my back porch and compared a Leupold 3x9x40 with a 3x9x50 and waited for darkness. At absolute plumb dark, the 50 held an edge at 9 power but none at the lower magnifications. IMHO, I don't think the difference is worth it. The cheek weld is better with the smaller objective as you can mount your scope closer to the barrel axis. AND, Old Betsy just flat looks and balances better with a scope mounted on the rifle instead of looking like a rifle mounted on some ponderous scope.

^^^^many feel that the leupolds are so highly overpriced. I would nearly garantee you could take a $400 nikon monarch or bushnell 4200 and be significantly be blown away at the clarity and brightness provided but the other manufactures. I was amazed how much less light my leupold vx I 4-12 compared to a 3-9 prostaff. Then my burris 3-9 that outshines the prostaff.

More times than not, you should just spend the extra 50-100 you spend upgrading from a 40mm to 50mm and just buy a higher end scope. Like so many say zeiss 40mm >>>> BSA 100mm

I did a side by side comparison looking at deer at dawn last fall with a 3.5-10x40 and same in 50 - both Leupolds. I really could not tell much difference. I bought the 50mm a few years ago telling myself that I would get another 5 minutes of hunting (within legal limits of course), but I'm not sure it gathers enough light to judge antlers under difficult conditions. I do have a pair of Zeiss 7x50 binocs and you can damn near see in the dark with them.

I will never own another 50mm scope, I will not get one any bigger then 44 and prefer 40.

You might see a little increase in light IF glass is the same quailty, lens coatings the same and zoom is the same...IF you haven't already reached your eyes' thresh hold for light...

most mid to upper level scopes are already at that exit pupil thresh hold and your eyes light ability is already topped, then your paying for clarity and contrast.. and MOA adjustment.

Also the Luppy VX3 is a great scope but not near worth the money it cost new.

the VX3 is price pointed against the Ziess conquest... and the Luppy is not close.

IMO the best bang for your buck is the Vortex Viper Series.

i wouldn't trade my zeiss scope for anything on the market other than another Zeiss, or a USO...

IMHO a 32mm zeiss is better than a 40mm vx3

go to the EE and look at the listing below.

http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/u...LOW#Post1460584

those are by FAR the best deals i've ever seen on zeiss scopes. He has the exact scope that i have on my hunting gun for 375 less than it sells for at the store down the road from my house

You would be MUCH better off with this than with any VX3 on the market...

I own 4 Vari XIII's and the only 50mm objective I have is because I got it in a trade; its not worth the extra money and then you have to go with extra high rings which will probably make you not have your cheek seated properly on the stock.