Rifle Selection

bigten

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Why would you buy a light trim rifle and put that monstrosity of a scope on it? You honestly don’t need a 50mm objective or that power range to deer hunt with. Before you buy, make sure you check Whitaker’s guns or buds gun shop for prices. I got my sons tikka t3x lite stainless from Whitaker’s for $569 plus shipping. To good of a deal to pass up to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe that's because it's what he WANTS or LIKES! Just why do you feel it's necessary to ask a question like that, or make a statement such as that? I may not NEED 50mm objectives on my rifles, but that is exactly what they all wear because it's what I WANT.
 
Last edited:

bigten

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Go with a Tikka T3 SS in 270Win. It will last you forever, shoot MOA, kills animals well at all ranges and ammo is everywhere for it [even your Dads truck].
I personally would go for the laminated stock and if you intend to use a really big scope, I would order another scope ring from Tikka when I ordered an extra magazine.
You will need that third ring on those big 50mm scopes.
Good luck and keep us posted on this project.
FWIW, I don't own a single 270Win caliber rifle but it is one of the most versatile calibers out there.

Please explain why a third scope ring is necessary for a 50mm objective scope? I'm not sure I'm following your intent with that statement. Maybe I'm just behind the times here but none of my rifles are toting 3 rings to keep the scopes affixed. And, they are almost all 50mm...
 

Truth10

Button Buck
It might be heavier, but just incase I have an opportunity to hunt fields/long distances it would be nice to have...I have a Leupold rifleman 3x9x40 currently
 

shadycove

Twelve Pointer
Please explain why a third scope ring is necessary for a 50mm objective scope? I'm not sure I'm following your intent with that statement. Maybe I'm just behind the times here but none of my rifles are toting 3 rings to keep the scopes affixed. And, they are almost all 50mm...

Unlike most hunters,I use a rifle as a tool, it needs to be sturdy and be able to get bumped/scraped in the woods. Unlike most rifles, Tikka uses a groove scope mounting system that will easily accommodate 3 rings. This does several things on longer/heavier scopes, less chance of a bump or recoil changing the zero and it looks good too IMO.
I first used a 3 ring system or a custom T/C Contender 45/70 barrel made by JD Jones [SSK Ind] way back in the early '80s. It needed 3 rings, truly needed them.
I have 3 rings on my 338Federal T3 and 3 on another hard kicking Encore too.
 
Last edited:

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
Maybe that's because it's what he WANTS or LIKES! Just why do you feel it's necessary to ask a question like that, or make a statement such as that? I may not NEED 50mm objectives on my rifles, but that is exactly what they all wear because it's what I WANT.

Because they are no more brighter then a good 40mm scope with good glass and good coatings. I hunt woods often and I don’t own a single scope that has a 50mm objective at all. Hell not even my rifles I shoot out to 1000 yds don’t even have a 50mm objective on it. Most of my hunting rigs wear with a fixed 6 power, 2-7, 3-9 or 1.5-6. 50mm objectives cause more issues then they solve. And like I said they DO NOT transmit more light. That is why. It is ironic how many people are ill informed about optics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
It might be heavier, but just incase I have an opportunity to hunt fields/long distances it would be nice to have...I have a Leupold rifleman 3x9x40 currently

I routinely shoot out to 1000 yds with a fixed 6 power scope. And honestly in reality how many shots have you ever taken over 300 yds? I can count on my hands the deer I have shot over 300 yds in 30 plus years of deer hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
Unlike most hunters,I use a rifle as a tool, it needs to be sturdy and be able to get bumped/scraped in the woods. Unlike most rifles, Tikka uses a groove scope mounting system that will easily accommodate 3 rings. This does several things on longer/heavier scopes, less chance of a bump or recoil changing the zero and it looks good too IMO.
I first used a 3 ring system or a custom T/C Contender 45/70 barrel made by JD Jones [SSK Ind] way back in the early '80s. It needed 3 rings, truly needed them.
I have 3 rings on my 338Federal T3 and 3 on another hard kicking Encore too.

I have never used a 3 ring system on anything at all. Never had a need for it at all. I have gone to picatiny rail and Burris signature xtr rings. Never had an issue with anything shifting on any rifle I have. I have that setup on my savage smokeless muzzleloader that kicks as much as a 458 win mag and the scope has never moved at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
I have three rings on one of my contender barrels,,,,,it's a .375 JDJ and the recoil "snap" is impressive,,,,,barrel manufacturer said three rings and I ain't arguing with him,,,,

three rings can help,,,,,are they always needed - nope,,,,,just added insurance on some guns,,,,,
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
I have three rings on one of my contender barrels,,,,,it's a .375 JDJ and the recoil "snap" is impressive,,,,,barrel manufacturer said three rings and I ain't arguing with him,,,,

three rings can help,,,,,are they always needed - nope,,,,,just added insurance on some guns,,,,,

you could not pay me enough to shoot that thing............
 

pinehunter

Eight Pointer
Get what feels good to you. Savage and Tikka are good. Weatherby or a Winchester model 70 are better IMHO. There is a lot of plastic on a Tikka in places I don't like for the record but they shoot well. A lot depending ds on what you n are going to m do with the rifle.

If you are humping a climbing tree stand 2 miles a day into the woods and back weight and length woul d be moreasier important and Weatherby would be out. Short walks to treat stands and box blinds a heavier rifle is just fine. As far as scopes go only you really know what you need. 200 plus yard low light shots? Maybe the extra light is needed on that 50mm bell. Short shots on moving deer, maybe not.

Have fun with buying your rig. Don't let the Internet jockeys tell you how wrong you are. You will learn lessons just like we all have!
 

Mr.Gadget

Old Mossy Horns
Maybe that's because it's what he WANTS or LIKES! Just why do you feel it's necessary to ask a question like that, or make a statement such as that? I may not NEED 50mm objectives on my rifles, but that is exactly what they all wear because it's what I WANT.

Who rubbed you wrong?

He was just making a point that a smaller lighter gun like that does not need a big heavy optic on it when there are so many smaller 36 to 40 that will do the same.
 

Mr.Gadget

Old Mossy Horns
Please explain why a third scope ring is necessary for a 50mm objective scope? I'm not sure I'm following your intent with that statement. Maybe I'm just behind the times here but none of my rifles are toting 3 rings to keep the scopes affixed. And, they are almost all 50mm...

Several of mine have 3 rings. Lot of the AR platform guners like to run 3 rings even on smaller scopes. Locks them in and makes sure it will stay put.

No one is bashing you for using a 50mm scope. Dont take it personal.
 

apexhunter

Ten Pointer
I can't speak of a third ring as none of my setups were intended for them. As to the scope size I have had many 50mm scopes on several rifles for the light gathering ability...but to get maximum light transmission a 30mm tube will trump even the larger objective lenses. My current scope is a Leopold VX 6 3-18x44mm- the larger 30mm tube and smaller objective lens I get more light transmission than a 1" tube & 50mm OL and the scope is mounted lower for more comfortable shooting.
 
Last edited:

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
I can't speak of a third ring as none of my setups were intended for them. As to the scope size I have had many 50mm scopes on several rifles for the light gathering ability...but to get maximum light transmission a 30mm tube will trump even the larger objective lenses. My current scope is a Leopold VX 6 3-18x44mm- the larger 30mm tube and smaller objective lens I get more light transmission than a 1" tube & 50mm OL and the scope is mounted lower for more comfortable shooting.

not picking on you AH, but 50 mm objectives don't 'gather' light, in fact no part of a scope 'gathers' light.......all any scope can do is transmit the ambient light. Coating and glass quality have more of an effect on that then anything else as you see with the VX6. your last part is spot on about using a smaller objective on a rifle.
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
this explains the 50mm objective myth......
by opticsplanet.com on Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:18 am
Hi

Thanks for posting. This is a question we get a lot and one that takes some explaining.

The short answer:
In practical terms, the 50mm scope will be brighter than a 40mm scope only under a combination of the highest magnifications and the very darkest conditions. Otherwise, a 50mm scope is delivering more light than your eye can use. In addition, a 50mm scope will pull your head up off the stock and also be heavier as well as more expensive than a similar model in 40mm.

The big objective is a hard myth to bust, because we have become so conditioned to bigger is better. On a riflescope, though, a bigger objective does not always guarantee a brighter image. Here's why.

The long answer:
The scope.
The exit pupil on a riflescope is the actual width of the beam of light that leaves the eyepiece. If the beam of light that leaves the eyepiece is larger than the opening in your eye, the riflescope is delivering more light than your eye can use. You can calculate the width of this beam of light (exit pupil) in millimeters on your riflescope by dividing objective size by the magnification setting. A 3-9x50 set at 5x produces a 10mm exit pupil (50 divided by 5). A 3-9x50 set at 8x produces a 6.25mm exit pupil (50 divided by eight) . The higher the magnification setting, the smaller the exit pupil (beam of light) your scope produces.

Your eye
In order for your eye to open to its maximum, you must be exposed to conditions of total darkenss for at least thirty minutes. Most people do not hunt under these situations, but for the sake of argument, let's say that they do. Under these conditions, the average widest a young persons eye can open is about 7mm (some individuals 8mm), but most folks who hit their forties will find their eyes can open no more than 5 or 6mm. By age 50, you're doing good at 5mm. It's part of the aging process.

According to the math, if your eyes can, and are, open to 7mm, a 3-9x50 delivers more light than your eye can use at magnifications below 7x. For eyes that are open to 6mm, magnifications below 8x waste light. For eyes that can only open to 5mm, magnications below 10x waste light - in other words, all magnifications on a 3-9x50 when your eyes are only open to 5mm, deliver more light than your eye can use.

Since very few people hunt under total darkness, they will not be shooting with eyes that have opened to 7mm. Under typical low light situations, your eyes will be open to 4 - 6mm at best.

Once again, do the math. For eyes that are open to 5mm - typical for low light adapted eyes - a 40mm riflescope is still delivering more light than your eye can use at magnifications below 8x. Since most deer are shot at much lower amgnifications than 8x, a 3-9x40 will do anything you need to do in terms of low light shooting. If you want to spend more money, you are dollars and performance ahead to invest in a better quality 3-9x40, rather than jump to a 3-9x50. Quality will have a greater impact on performance.
----------------------
Your personal optics expert
Joanie (Jne) K
http://www.OpticsPlanet.com
Phone: (888) 263-0356
Fax: (847) 574-6820
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
the "head off the stock" is dependent on other factors as well,,,,mount height and the persons head size,,,,,

you seen my melon? sometimes a higher scope is a blessing!!
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
the "head off the stock" is dependent on other factors as well,,,,mount height and the persons head size,,,,,

you seen my melon? sometimes a higher scope is a blessing!!

LOL I am with you there...........I have been called 'big head Jed' a few times.................
 

apexhunter

Ten Pointer
not picking on you AH, but 50 mm objectives don't 'gather' light, in fact no part of a scope 'gathers' light.......all any scope can do is transmit the ambient light. Coating and glass quality have more of an effect on that then anything else as you see with the VX6. your last part is spot on about using a smaller objective on a rifle.

You are correct that I did use the wrong term initially...it is light transmission and the exit pupil is the main determining factor and the quality of the lenses and coatings beyond that.
 
Last edited:

bigten

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Who rubbed you wrong?

He was just making a point that a smaller lighter gun like that does not need a big heavy optic on it when there are so many smaller 36 to 40 that will do the same.

For the simple reason that "need" and "want" are usually two different things. The gentleman stated that his inclination was to go with a 50mm scope and was told, rudely in my opinion, what he needed and basically informed of how stupid he was for that consideration. Whatever you wish to utilize is entirely up to you, as it is with all others, but none of us have the right to shove our thoughts down another's throat. And yes, that is the way I interpreted the content of that post...
 

bigten

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Several of mine have 3 rings. Lot of the AR platform guners like to run 3 rings even on smaller scopes. Locks them in and makes sure it will stay put.

No one is bashing you for using a 50mm scope. Dont take it personal.

And this too.. You have a need for a 3 ring system. I honestly had no clue of any rifles actually needing that, therefore my query. Now, with that said, since the op was questioning specifically about 270, 308 and 30-06, would you direct me to the rifles in that caliber that NEED a three ring set up if they are wearing 50mm glass? I need to know which to avoid...
And I never claimed anyone was bashing me. I felt that was directed to the op of this thread..
 
Last edited:

shadycove

Twelve Pointer
I've seen that noggin and as best I can quantify it, I say it is somewhere between Fred Flintstone's head and Andre The Giants head.
You could get away with a 100mm objective IMO.
the "head off the stock" is dependent on other factors as well,,,,mount height and the persons head size,,,,,

you seen my melon? sometimes a higher scope is a blessing!!
 

TravisLH

Old Mossy Horns
not picking on you AH, but 50 mm objectives don't 'gather' light, in fact no part of a scope 'gathers' light.......all any scope can do is transmit the ambient light. Coating and glass quality have more of an effect on that then anything else as you see with the VX6. your last part is spot on about using a smaller objective on a rifle.

Now I may be incorrect but doesn't tube diameter make more difference than bell size for light gathering purposes? Pretty sure I read an in depth article comparing the maximum light than be put through a 50mm scope with a 1inch tube vs a 42mm with a 30mm and the 30mm tube made much more difference than the objective size. This is of coarse considering glass and coatings being equal. If I recall correctly this because the tube diameter allows for a larger lens which increases the exit pupil diameter, granted this is assuming that the scope mfg actually used a larger lens (many cheaper scope mfgs wont). Other than this I agree that the quality of glass and coatings has far more to do with low light use than bell objective size. Another benefit of a smaller bell is being able to use lower rings putting the scope closer to the rifles bore line. I'm also surprised that many do not know that in low light if you dial your scope down to lower magnifications it will increase the light transmission by increasing the exit pupil diameter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
Now I may be incorrect but doesn't tube diameter make more difference than bell size for light gathering purposes? Pretty sure I read an in depth article comparing the maximum light than be put through a 50mm scope with a 1inch tube vs a 42mm with a 30mm and the 30mm tube made much more difference than the objective size. This is of coarse considering glass and coatings being equal. If I recall correctly this because the tube diameter allows for a larger lens which increases the exit pupil diameter, granted this is assuming that the scope mfg actually used a larger lens (many cheaper scope mfgs wont). Other than this I agree that the quality of glass and coatings has far more to do with low light use than bell objective size. Another benefit of a smaller bell is being able to use lower rings putting the scope closer to the rifles bore line. I'm also surprised that many do not know that in low light if you dial your scope down to lower magnifications it will increase the light transmission by increasing the exit pupil diameter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

given equal quality glass and coatings, it should, but unless you are a young buck with good eyes you will never be able to see the extra light. 30mm tubes do offer more elevation and windage adjustments...............which is a plus in some applications.
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
For the simple reason that "need" and "want" are usually two different things. The gentleman stated that his inclination was to go with a 50mm scope and was told, rudely in my opinion, what he needed and basically informed of how stupid he was for that consideration. Whatever you wish to utilize is entirely up to you, as it is with all others, but none of us have the right to shove our thoughts down another's throat. And yes, that is the way I interpreted the content of that post...
your opinion is just that.......your opinion...............if you took offense then that is on you and not me. He offered up what he was considering and I asked why he would make that choice.............it was not meant maliciously at all. If the OP took it that way, then I do apologize to him. I stand by my assertions that the vast majority of hunters are misinformed and do not understand how optics work and buy in the myths many so called 'experts' throw out there.
 
Last edited:

TravisLH

Old Mossy Horns
given equal quality glass and coatings, it should, but unless you are a young buck with good eyes you will never be able to see the extra light. 30mm tubes do offer more elevation and windage adjustments...............which is a plus in some applications.

True enough but if we're gonna split hairs for 30 seconds of shooting light we may as well slice em super thin lol. I do agree there is a lot of misinformation out there for optics. Only thing I have with 3 rings is a tc contender pistol in 30-30 and that's just cuz it came that way.
I'd also suggest no later what scope/rifle that you (OP) decides on to also not skimp on the rings and bases. I cannot count how many expensive rifles/scopes I've gotten CHEAP because "they don't shoot good" from guys that had $2000 in rifle and glass mounted with $15 Walmart cheap aluminum rings and bases. It's like building a new house and relying on duct tape instead of nails to hold it together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Mr.Gadget

Old Mossy Horns
For the simple reason that "need" and "want" are usually two different things. The gentleman stated that his inclination was to go with a 50mm scope and was told, rudely in my opinion, what he needed and basically informed of how stupid he was for that consideration. Whatever you wish to utilize is entirely up to you, as it is with all others, but none of us have the right to shove our thoughts down another's throat. And yes, that is the way I interpreted the content of that post...

I dont see it as rude. No more than you for calling him out.
He ask a few questions to get more info on why.

If you ask for thoughts you will get thoughts. Was it now a OP asking for info and input?
 

Mr.Gadget

Old Mossy Horns
And this too.. You have a need for a 3 ring system. I honestly had no clue of any rifles actually needing that, therefore my query. Now, with that said, since the op was questioning specifically about 270, 308 and 30-06, would you direct me to the rifles in that caliber that NEED a three ring set up if they are wearing 50mm glass? I need to know which to avoid...
And I never claimed anyone was bashing me. I felt that was directed to the op of this thread..
Find it on your own. That is not what he ask for.
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
True enough but if we're gonna split hairs for 30 seconds of shooting light we may as well slice em super thin lol. I do agree there is a lot of misinformation out there for optics. Only thing I have with 3 rings is a tc contender pistol in 30-30 and that's just cuz it came that way.
I'd also suggest no later what scope/rifle that you (OP) decides on to also not skimp on the rings and bases. I cannot count how many expensive rifles/scopes I've gotten CHEAP because "they don't shoot good" from guys that had $2000 in rifle and glass mounted with $15 Walmart cheap aluminum rings and bases. It's like building a new house and relying on duct tape instead of nails to hold it together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That last part about good mounts is a platinum nugget to take to the bank. I have gone to using picatiny rails on everything and bedding the rail to the rifle and the using the Burris signature XTR rings with inserts. Amazingly strong and reliable way to mount a scope on anything. My savage ml kicks like a mule shooting the t-Rex loads I use out of it and it has not shifted zero since I mounted the scope on it. Oh and btw.....that ML wears a leupold vxII 3-9x40 on it. It’s a set and forget scope and works great on that gun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top