Print Page | Close Window

Is a 56mm scope worth it?

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=16277
Printed Date: March/28/2024 at 20:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is a 56mm scope worth it?
Posted By: TerryC
Subject: Is a 56mm scope worth it?
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 15:04
Loco Ok, the gears are turning and smoke is slowly seaping out my ears.
 
I'm in the market for a specialty scope. It's going on a long range "bean field" type rifle to shoot deer at medium/long range.
 
The delima is which size scope to buy. I've got the brand and model picked out but they make it with a 50mm and 56mm objective. Of coarse the 50mm is the one I want because it's not as bulky but, this is a specialty rig desined for one purpose and I'm not going to be carrying it around much. I think I can learn to like a 56mm scope IF there much benifit to it. So there is my question. Is the 56mm scope that much brighter than a 50mm? And, is the extra bulk worth the extra light transmission?
 
Thanks,
Terry



Replies:
Posted By: Ed Connelly
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 15:08
I don't know.  But if I had a beanfield rifle that I was going to use while sitting and not climbing mountains, I would get one.  What the heck.  If weight is not an issue, and if high mounts is not a concern, I'm sure a real fabulous 56mm scope would probably be very bright.  You can just use another rifle when you are running around mountaintops.  

-------------
Be sure to visit,

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=50 - THE ED SHOW

Ju Cucarachas!!!


Posted By: TerryC
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 15:10
Forgive the terrible grammer Ying Yang


Posted By: hunter12345
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 15:16
Your talking about a 2oz weight difference with a 50mm and 56mm objective.The 56mm scopes I have were indeed brighter than the 50mm scopes.You just have to remember you need extra high rings for the 56mm.I just bought 2 Weaver Classic Extremes on closeouts to see how they compare to my other scopes.


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 15:19
The 56mm sounds great for low light conditions!! How's your rifle's cheek weld??

-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 16:25
It all comes down to the scope and the coatings for that line.  The coatings make for more differance than 6mm.

-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 17:47
I mentioned cheek weld because the scope will probably be sitting higher than say a 40mm - 50mm. For me, I find long distance consistency while hunting may suffer some if I don't get a good cheek rest so I might shy away from a 56mm scope.

Some on the other hand love the 56mm especially when hunting hogs in low light/night time conditions which I think is really cool!!


-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 18:01
Perhaps only a slight amount............................



Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 18:02
Excellent


-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 18:04
Texas Sheep Rifle...................


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 18:08
Nice cheek weld. Wink

Sweet rifle!!!


-------------
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 18:12
I hope you don't think that train wreck is mine.................what a POS


Posted By: rifle looney
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 18:18
Roy, that aint no damn Remington .....Wink

-------------




Posted By: TerryC
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 19:17
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

Perhaps only a slight amount............................

 
 
Yea, I've seen that one before. That's a 72mm objective Zeiss! It's a little different than a 56mm. The donuts on the barrel are a hoot.
 
 
The cheek weld is something I really haven't considered and don't know about. I've got a stock on order from McMillan so I won't know until they deliver.


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 19:24
The "donut" on the barrel is the Limbsaver Barrel Deresonator... works the similar to the Browning Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System.

-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: RONK
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 19:34
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

I hope you don't think that train wreck is mine.................what a POS
 Why?


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 19:45
I think it all depends on the intent for the rifle it's to be mounted on.  I'm not a fan of 56mm objectives (and in some cases, even 50mm) in general, but I do realize they have their use.  My personal objection to huge objectives isn't really about additional weight either.  For me, I just don't like my scope to be significantly wider than the rifle's forearm, when looking down from above or below.  This is partially an aesthetic consideration, partly a mount height and cheek weld consideration, as well as a scope & mount system rigidity consideration.  Having the objective bell wider than the rifle itself means that the bell dictates how well the rifle will fit inside a scabbard or case, and can cause undue wear on the objective bell finish.  Lean the rifle up against something and it tends to want to roll onto the objective bell, especially if a huge scope makes the rifle top heavy.

HOWEVER, I have a 56mm scope on a rifle with adjustable cheekpiece that I only shoot from a bench or bipod, and in that application, it isn't at all a hindrance.  If I planned to use the rifle for the purpose specified in this thread, I can see the value of gaining that little extra low light performance at higher magnifications a 56mm scope offers.  Whether or not 56mm really makes a difference vs. 50mm depends on the magnification setting you really use most of the time.  IMO, having a 56mm objective doesn't make a huge difference vs. 50mm to my eyes on a scope topping out at no more than 10X.  Beyond that, and the larger objective does start to make a difference to me.


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 20:32
Originally posted by RONK RONK wrote:

Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

I hope you don't think that train wreck is mine.................what a POS

 Why?


Why, what? Why do I call it a train wreck or a POS. I honestly don't know what someone would use that rig for. Deer hunting? Long rang shooting? I can think of so many more practical and efficient applications for both.


Posted By: Al Nyhus
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 20:34
    Ahhhhhh, the mythical, magical, can't-shoot-well-without-it "......cheek weld". Love
 
     Too funny. Wink   -Al


Posted By: 308WIN
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 20:48
quality glass in 40-45mm will do 99.9% of the 56mm stuff in the dark and 100% of it in legal hours for deer


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 20:52
Taz will play...

Al, are you saying, perchance, that perhaps the mystical "cheek weld" obsession is overstated and that perhaps one can shoot, and shoot well, without a scope mounted a dollar bill's width from the barrel????  


-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 20:52
The short answer to your question is NO it's not worth it!!!  Al, cheek weld is an issue for long range hunting shots like a bean field so it does have reliance.  but many other things matter as much or more.  Like actually knowing your rifle and the ammo's ballistic characteristics.  

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: rkingston
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 20:58
If its truly a beanfield / deer stand rifle that you aren't going to tote around then go for it. The 56's really shine when shooting in low light with the scope set at the higher magnification settings. I wouldn't worry about the extra height of the scope either. You see a lot of guns with 50mm scopes mounted on them with extra high rings that would probably work with a 56. It's personal preference. I have a 2.5-10X56 mounted on a Rem Sendero and its a critter gitter so long as you don't have to tote it very far from the truck to the stand.
RK


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 20:59
I'd say if you want to put in the time and you want a long-range tack driver, 56mm is good, especially if it will be a high-magnifications cope (>15X.)

It would be a special-purpose scope and rifle, which I think you mentioned it would be.

My advice, since you asked, would be to set it up as a benchrest gun, shooting into the field in the off season, learn the distances and the dope for the shots during the season.


Personally, I like big objectives on long-range guns.  So long as I ain't stalking with it or worrying about banging it on something or worrying about the weight, build a huge, hulking bohemoth that will hit coke cans at 600 yards, there is little more gratifying than a perfect long-range hit.


But maybe it's just me.


And for the record: I own no 72mm objective scopes.


-------------
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.


Posted By: Al Nyhus
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:05
Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

Al, are you saying, perchance, that perhaps the mystical "cheek weld" obsession is overstated and that perhaps one can shoot, and shoot well, without a scope mounted a dollar bill's width from the barrel????  
 
    Yessir. Smile   -Al


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:06
I don't either... BUT I WANT a Hensoldt 6-24x72 SAM.  WHY, you might ask... because it exists. 

-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:08
Al, I know you have little trigger time to back up your feelings...................grin


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:08
Originally posted by Al Nyhus Al Nyhus wrote:

Originally posted by Kickboxer Kickboxer wrote:

Al, are you saying, perchance, that perhaps the mystical "cheek weld" obsession is overstated and that perhaps one can shoot, and shoot well, without a scope mounted a dollar bill's width from the barrel????  
 
    Yessir. Smile   -Al
Agree.  


-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:11
I'm sorry to disagree but thirty years of shooting tell me otherwise! Scope or steel, at long ranges consistent cheek weld is important. 

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:14
There are many more factors also but the basic building blocks of a good shot comes from consistent sight alignment and good fundamentals.





Edited: Fingers don't want to do as there told tonight!!   LOL


-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:20
I don't think cheek weld is essential for accurate shooting, but it is better when the configuration of your rifle allows you to settle into a familiar form, in the same way that a pistol that better fits your grip helps you to shoot it better.  Everything that aids the shooter in repeating the same form ultimately results in greater accuracy.  Also, a rifle is faster to aim quickly at moving game when the scope instinctively lines up with the eye without having to reposition the head after shouldering.

But then again, this didn't apply the stated purpose of the rifle in question, where I think a 56mm scope is a fine choice.  


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:26
But  his question was, is it WORTH it?  I think he can get just as much bang for his buck in a 50mm as compared to a 56mm. I just don't think most peoples eyes are going to be able to notice the difference. 

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: HuntMaster
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:29
I just got in on this thread. To answer the o.p.'s question, yes there is a slight difference in performance between 50 and 56mm. If you are going to be using the scope for extreme dusk conditions, go with the 56. If dim light performance is not that big a deal, go with the 50 or even smaller. This difference is only if your comparing like-branded scopes within the same model.Ex; Nikon Monarch 50 vs Monarch 56.


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:37
Derek, We didn't get to the BJCC until 11.  Did you see how many guys fit the description you gave me. Derek? No! Derek? No Derek? No! 

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: Al Nyhus
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:44
   I recently had a chance to compare two new 5.5X22 scopes side-by-side....one a 50mm and the other a 56mm objective.
 
   In bright sunlight, I couldn't tell any difference. In overcast and low light conditions, the 56mm was brighter. Not by a lot.....I'd hate to have to live off the difference.  
 
   Though the overall optical quality was pretty ho-hum.  Disappointing, actually..... Sad -Al
 
   
 
   


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:47
Originally posted by Al Nyhus Al Nyhus wrote:

   I recently had a chance to compare two new 5.5X22 scopes side-by-side....one a 50mm and the other a 56mm objective.
    


Did the brand in question happen to start with an "N" by chance, Al?


-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:48
But would it have given you a shot when the 50mm would not have? 

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:48
So we have to guess what kind they were????   What a tease...

-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:52
Let's say you had the 56mm on 10X and got 5.6mm of light transmission.  The 50mm at 9X is giving you 5.5mm of light transmission and your still not missing the shot. That extra 1X is not going to be a shot buster.  Just my thinking.

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: Al Nyhus
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:55
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Did the brand in question happen to start with an "N" by chance, Al?
 
    Unfortunately, it did.  These two NSX's were simply not in the same league as the BR series scopes...despite claims that there are no differences in optical quality between the series.
 
     Maybe it was a fluke? But two of 'em?
 
     Not dissin'....just wonderin'.   -Al


Posted By: Al Nyhus
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:56
Originally posted by Steelbenz Steelbenz wrote:

But would it have given you a shot when the 50mm would not have? 
 
    Nope.  At least not a shot I'd take. Wink   -Al


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 21:59
Originally posted by Al Nyhus Al Nyhus wrote:

Originally posted by Steelbenz Steelbenz wrote:

But would it have given you a shot when the 50mm would not have? 
 
    Nope.  At least not a shot I'd take. Wink   -Al



Wink


-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 22:00
That is good info.  Thank you.

-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: Ed Connelly
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 22:03
I have had some scopes mounted higher than they really should have been because the objective of a 4X scope had to clear a rear iron sight...and I shot with the rifle just fine....even though my face was a little higher off the comb.  ( What really bothered me ---believe it or not---was the fact that it looked like it was too high when I was simply looking at the rifle!  But it mounted perfectly.  And naturally. )
 
I'm sure I would be comfortable with a high scope....especially if I wanted to put together one of 'them' beanfield---shoot-across-the-county--rifles---that would also be able to see in the dark like they do in Germany!!    Bandito
 
It's all about enjoying yourself.  We ain't getting 'graded' on this stuff!!   Bucky


-------------
Be sure to visit,

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=50 - THE ED SHOW

Ju Cucarachas!!!


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 22:08
Oh I agree Ed! The weapon must fit.  Weather it be LOP, sling adjustment , Bi-pod, Scope height!!! it all matters for a good result. 

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: TerryC
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 22:12
Lots of great info!
 
Thanks


Posted By: Steelbenz
Date Posted: March/24/2009 at 22:17
No problem Terry!!! Hope it gave you something to crew on!!!    Love the avatar by the way!!!

-------------
"Don't argue with a fool! From a distance you can't really tell who's who!"


Posted By: seawolf
Date Posted: March/25/2009 at 03:51
I have the Zeiss Victory both in 2,5-10x50 and 3-12x56, only difference is that the x56 has the IR, otherwise they are "4 reticles.
The 56 mm is defenately better in dusk and dawn and night hunting situations.
I don´t figure exit pupils, I compare in the field.
 
If low light was not an issue, the 50 mm would do just as well as the 56 mm.
But the 56 will always give you an edge if the light situation is less than perfect.
 
How important that is must be up to each and every one to decide.
 
My open field/low light rig is a Ruger No1 in 270 Win with the 56 mm Zeiss, and cheek weld is no problem when shooting from a stand or a high seat.
 


-------------
Seawolf


Posted By: TerryC
Date Posted: March/25/2009 at 07:08
Originally posted by Steelbenz Steelbenz wrote:

No problem Terry!!! Hope it gave you something to crew on!!!    Love the avatar by the way!!!
 
It doesn't hold a candle to yours. Funny stuff.


Posted By: cbm
Date Posted: March/25/2009 at 07:28

I can not personally tell a huge difference in low light between a quality 42mm or so scope and a 56mm quality scope (Zeiss, Swaro,Kahles, S&B...etc.) ! I have seen where a 56mm is better in low light on 12 power vs a 50mm in the scopes listed previously..........but for legal shooting in the Southeast..........I'd place more weight on cheek weld, power range, reticule choice, etc. over sheer low light performance ! I'd probably go with something like a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 with target turrets on a beanfield gun or a Swaro Z6 2.5-15x44 BT(if I had the cash) !

Even if you can see a deer a little better with a 56mm at dark at 300 yrds.......you certainly can't tell if he's a 10 pt or an 8pt ..........at least I couldn't with my scopes ! And in low light where I "could" tell how many points a buck had..........I could have done just as well with a 42-44mm scope as a 56mm !!
 
But if I were night hunting .........I'd probably want the best 56mm out there ! Just seems a little unnecessary for lowlight hunting in the south !! But I will admit that I "HAD" to try a 56mm to figure it out !
 
I can shoot stuff with a 44mm Conquest when folks have come out of the stand , loaded up and are driving down the road going home !! Can't see where you need a whole lot more than that ..........unless your pig hunting at midnight or something !!
 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net