3x9x40 vs 3.5x10x50

If the quality of the glass is identical the 50 will get you a few minutes more at first and last light. In my experience most brands that offer a typical 3x9x40 and a 3.5x10x50 the 50 is better glass so it might be more than a few minutes. In good light it is difficult to tell any difference.
My buddy has a couple of 50s and I dont. I really cannot see a difference.
 
If the quality of the glass is identical the 50 will get you a few minutes more at first and last light. In my experience most brands that offer a typical 3x9x40 and a 3.5x10x50 the 50 is better glass so it might be more than a few minutes. In good light it is difficult to tell any difference.
My buddy has a couple of 50s and I dont. I really cannot see a difference.
Like he said. 50mm lets in more light and companies that make a 3.5-10, the glass is generally better quality overall. Would be helpful to know what two scopes you're actually comparing.
 
Like others have said above, the 50 definitely allows more of available light in. We are allowed to shoot critters under spotlight here and a 50mm for night shooting is the cats meow.
 
If you are referring to Leupold it's as mentioned regarding light gathering capability plus coatings efficacy between the VX2 and Vx3i.
 
On the flop side the 40mm will sit lower to the rifle.
 
I'm not really sure the 40mm vs 50mm will show any real difference for the majority of situations. For some reason I do like the max of 10x vs 9x. That said, I'd rather have better glass with less magnification than more mag and lower quality glass.
 
If you hunt in a place that you can shoot in real low light and you think that is a game changer go with 50mm. If you are worried about extra weight go with 40mm, In good light, the difference is not worth the weight and extra height in only a 10X scope. Higher magnification scopes need a bigger objective, but 10X is not considered high.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,112
Messages
1,947,526
Members
35,033
Latest member
Leejones
Back
Top