Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
1,7-10x42 VS 2-12x50 |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Renico
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/08/2013 Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/23/2013 at 14:29 |
About to order the new Meostar R2 for my all-round rifle in caliber 270Win.
Cant decide if it should be the 1,7-10x42 or the 2-12x50 model. Should be used in daylight, twilight, and seldom in night. Both illumiated reticle 4. Which one would you choose of the two models and why? |
|
SVT_Tactical
MODERATOR Chief Sackscratch Joined: December/17/2009 Location: NorthCackalacky Status: Offline Points: 31233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I like the smaller objective of the 1.7-10 to keep the scope lowest possible without effecting check weld.
|
|
"Most folks are about as happy as they make their minds up to be" - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Cheekweld with a 50mm objective vs 42mm objective has never been an issue for me… however, lowlight performance is noticeably better with 50mm objective (in apples to apples comparison).
|
|
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
|
Robster80
Optics Journeyman Joined: November/02/2012 Location: MS Status: Offline Points: 430 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
id go with the 50mm. where r u ordering from? i dont see em listed anywhere
|
|
Renico
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/08/2013 Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
From my local hunting shop here in Denmark. Should be out in start of 2014 here.
|
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I tend to prefer scopes maxing out at 10X and 42-44 max size reticles for several reasons:
1. I don't like my scope's objective bell to be wider than my rifle's forend, if at all possible. I slide my rifles in and out of a scabbard on my ATV, and it tends to hang up on the cloth liner inside if parts of the scope or other accessories are wider than the rifle. 2. 10X is more than enough magnification for anywhere I ever hunt -- if we're talking about a big game hunting rifle, so I'd rather not spend extra for capabilities I don't benefit much from. 3. All else being equal, I prefer my scopes to be as light and compact as possible, unless I pay a significant penalty in optical performance in exchange. In this case, you don't compromise any optical performance with a 1.7-10X42. 4. I have several high end 2.5-10X42s and a Swaro Z6 1.7-10X42. I also have a few high end 50mm scopes. All of the 42's are already superb low light performers that allow me to shoot way beyond legal hunting hours as-is, so the slight low light performance benefits of the larger 50mm objective isn't significant enough for me to warrant the increased cost and scope width. 5. I like my scopes to be mounted as low as possible, though on some setups 50mm doesn't pose a height problem for me. It's really when the objective gets to 56mm and beyond that it becomes a cheek weld issue for me. Still, all else being equal, I prefer my scopes to be closer to the barreled action, if for no other reason than the rifle fits in double rifle cases and my ATV scabbard better. 6. 12X doesn't give me enough additional detail over 10X for me to consider it a real "advantage" in field conditions, on big game sized animals, and at typical shooting distances I'm likely to encounter. So, I'd rather not spend the extra $ for a heavier, bulkier scope if I don't have to. I don't mind 50mm scopes, though that is my self imposed objective diameter limit for the reasons stated above. Either will work very well. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
ccoker
Optics Master Joined: February/13/2008 Location: Austin, TX Status: Offline Points: 2041 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ted,
If you were forced to only have one hunting rig for Texas, which scope would you keep? |
|
www.TacticalGunReview.com
Pro Staff - Silencer Shop http://tacticalgunreview.com |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Man, that's a tough question, Charles. Just as I'm not a "1 rifle" kinda guy, I can't imagine being forced to only have one scope.
I'd have to pick my Swaro Z6i 1.7-10X42 with lit circle dot. It very slightly edges out my Leica ER 2.5-10X42 in my mind, only because of it's awesome illumination system, and I love the Swaro's lit circle dot reticle. I like the longer main tube and lighter weight (and lighter price tag) of the Leica better, though. Optically, it's a wash between those two. That's for all around hunting. If it's strictly for deer hunting in a thick woods type environment, I'd likely go with the Kahles CL 2-7X36 with #4 reticle. To my mind, it's the perfect scope for a light, carbine length deer rifle. The only reason it doesn't come in first place for me is because the 1.7/2.5 - 10X scopes offer more reach with essentially the same FOV on the low end, so they're more versatile. Then again, I also love my S&B 1.5-6X42 w/ #9 Flashdot, and depending on my mood, it might come in first on any given day. What it lacks in upper end reach, it makes up for in pure optical bliss, and I love its reticle. It's illumination system is right there with the Swaro for kickassedness. I hate to relegate it to 2nd or 3rd place because it's so good, but, I would reluctantly have to still give the nod to the above scopes just based on versatility vs. size. Don't want to take the thread off-topic, but I'd be interested in your take on that, brother. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Skylar McMahon
Optics Jedi Knight Capt. BlowHard Joined: April/05/2011 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 6082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That is the truth. Like Ted, I also prefer the 1.7-10X42. Anything over ten power would be over-kill for where I hunt. That is more than enough magnification for my eyes. I also like the improved FOV with less mag, now that can be argued with the 2-12, but actively hunting hogs and other vaiours varmints, the 1.7-10 is quite exceptional. I also account for cosmetics as well. While I have several rifles that look great with 50mm objectives, but 42 & 44mm are proven low light exhibiters.
|
|
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am fine with 50mm objective scopes on hunting rifles.
I would take the extra 2x on the top end of the magnification over the lost .3x on the bottom end. 2x is plenty low and wide. |
|
-Matt
|
|
coyote95
Optics Master Joined: January/24/2009 Location: michigan Status: Offline Points: 1196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Looking forward to checking out the 1.7-10x42 Hope they kept the weight down.
|
|
"Life is like riding a bicycle . To keep balance you must keep moving" Albert Einstein
|
|
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 |