# 3-9x40 or 3x9-50



## spy231 (Feb 22, 2006)

I need help guys. I just bought a new Encore and I need to put a scope on it. I am looking at the Nikon Buckmaster (Please do not make this a Nikon vs Burris vas Leupold thread) in either the 3-9x40 or 3-9x50. The 50 mm scope is a little over $100 more. Finances are an issue, so my question is do I get the 40 mm or spend the extra money on the 50 mm? let me also say that I hunt in Tx,Wi,Wy. So I will have some open land and some land with lots of cover. Thanks for any advice.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

The 40mm objective will do just fine, and you can use lower rings.

huntin1


----------



## alsatian (Dec 9, 2005)

Get the 40 MM. You are more likely to achieve a natural alignment of your eye with the scope when pressing your cheek against the butt of your rifle than with the 50 MM scope that places this line-of-sight substantially higher.

Relative to the brightness issue. You don't need the extra brightness the 50 MM offers. Where I hunt deer legal shooting light extends from 30 minutes before sun-up to 30 minutes after sun-down. What I find in practice is that when it gets too dark for me to identify targets with my naked eye my 3.5-10x 40 mm Leupold VariX-III is plenty bright to show both the target and the crosshairs on the target. Thus, I have to stop hunting because of end of legal light before the 40 mm objective fails anyway, what good would the extra brightness of the 50 mm do for me? Can you hunt in the moonlight in your hunting grounds? If so, the 50 mm may be an advantage. If your shooting hours are confined as mine are, I just don't see the 50 mm being an improvement.

My argument is two-fold (1) you don't need the 50 mm and (2) the 50 mm is actually worse than the 40 mm from point of view of natural shooting alignment using the cheekpiece of your rifle stock.


----------

