Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
56mm too big? |
Post Reply |
Author | |
dukesbb37
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/22/2009 Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: April/27/2010 at 22:46 |
hey guys, i found a great local deal on a zeiss conquest 3-12x56 and i was going to simply use a regular 3-9x40 but i wanted to ask...
will using the 56mm be BAD in any way? I think eye relief would be better but im not sure... im already going to buy talley lightweight mounts for my Tikka so i assume im going to need the high ones. p.s. i know this is similar to another thread but i didn't want to thread jack another member. |
|
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
sounds good - enjoy. What you get is an optic that will be brighter in low light at higher powers especially at 8x to 10x you would see a big difference.
|
|
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
|
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Depends...better in low light, but heavier and longer, maybe harder to get a good cheek weld. I have different rifles for different kinds of hunting and one has a compact scope and 20" barrel while the other is 24" and a has a 3-15X50. That rig weighs 2 lbs more and isn't as manueverable. But I like for antelope (and other open country) hunting. If I could only have one, it would be the lighter rig for sure.
|
|
Reaction time is a factor...
|
|
bugsNbows
Optics God bowsNbugs Joined: March/10/2008 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 11200 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
A 56mm may seem large, bulky and out of scale on that Tikka rifle. However, do as you like. I do! Good luck.
|
|
If we're not suppose to eat animals...how come they're made of meat?
Anomymous |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Just like many other equipment selections, a 56mm scope is great for some uses, not so great for others. There are always tradeoffs, and you have to decide which tradeoffs are worth it. If your focus is on low light hunting, and you frequently require greater than 8X while hunting in low light, the 56mm scope provides a useful benefit in usable light transmission. All else being equal, larger objectives can provide a marginal improvement in resolution, but it may or may not be noticeable. If you don't want a bulky scope, a 50mm objective may provide a good compromise between good low light performance and reasonable compactness.
If you don't usually use more than around 6X - 7X in your low light hunting, a 56mm objective provides no useful benefit over a 42 - 50mm scope of the same optical quality.
If you value a low mounted scope and less rifle weight and bulk, a high quality 36mm - 42mm scope will do everything you need to do and will still povide good low light performance up to 6X or so.
|
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
3_tens
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
+1 what that man said. If you hunt off an ATV or from horseback the 56MM will be somewhat cumbersome in a scabbard and a little more susceptible to getting knocked around. The 56mm will show its advantages in a bean field situation.
|
|
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again. |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |