New Glass?

[moog5050]

22 minutes ago, Lawdwaz said:

Understood. 

The Tract is interesting......and gets great reviews.

https://tractoptics.com/all-products/toric-uhd-2-10x42-t-plex-rifle-scope

That is interesting. First I heard of them. Buy one that can be returned and test it without mounting it.   

[chrisw]

Thanks for that tidbit but I don't know where else you've hunted but this is the first year NYS has given us the 30 before/30 after.  I hunted Pennsylvania for lots of years and never gave it much thought as they had the 30 before/30 after and didn't sweat it with my 2.5x8x36 Leupolds. 
 

Is it darker in NY 30 minutes before/after than PA? I said any quality glass will cover all legal times (yes I was talking about the new regulations). I'm not sure what you're getting at? If the scope worked there why doesn't it here?

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[Lawdwaz]

18 minutes ago, chrisw said:

Is it darker in NY 30 minutes before/after than PA? I said any quality glass will cover all legal times (yes I was talking about the new regulations). I'm not sure what you're getting at? If the scope worked there why doesn't it here?

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk
 

Sorry you’re confused.  
 

Thanks for your input to this point.  Merry Christmas 

[sbuff]

Great price ...

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020880099

[Rack Attack]

A couple of other good options for low light hunting rifles are the trijicon and Meopta rifle scopes.  Both offer great glass for the price point.

[sbuff]

Meopta does make a great scope with sweet glass.  I looked at one in Maine 

https://cameralandny.com/shop/meopta-optika5-2-10x42-pa-z-plus-1032565/e7750a30-cdd5-0138-a7ac-00163ecd2826?variation=2779754

[BizCT]

@Lawdwaz Have you looked at Vortex? I've always heard great things about their scopes for low light conditions.

https://vortexoptics.com/blog/what-makes-great-low-light-performance.html this is a good read.

[PraiseDiana]

I am a big fan of the Nikon Prostaff scopes and have them on all my rifles. Unfortunately they were recently discontinued

[Jeremy K]

The Leopold binoculars I just bought have some light gathering coating or technology that supposedly adds 20 minutes of usable light . After the first look through them during a morning hunt they do indeed brighten the image more then what the eye sees. Maybe look into what that technology or coating is and look for a scope with jt.

[ATbuckhunter]

22 hours ago, stubborn1VT said:

This doesn't make any sense to me in a low light situation.  Maybe I'm missing something.  If a a 50 will take in more light than a 40, wouldn't that make a difference 29 minutes before sunrise?  Or are you saying the difference in light gathering won't allow me to see better.  That doesn't scan either.  I don't think a 40 or a 50 will provide more light than my eye can handle at dawn and dusk.  

Now its been a good while since I've done these calculations in my physics courses so forgive me if I'm a little off on things. I believe it has to do with exit pupil calculations. Ill have to do some reading when I have time to better explain it, but ill say what I can remember off the top of my head.

Your pupil is what control how much light your eye can take in and during the day its somewhere around 2 to 4mm. A 5mm objective on 7x will give you around 7mm of EP (exit pupil) and on 10x it will be 5mm. Basically you're only registering 4mm of EP and the rest is basically not helping. It can make a difference when it gets to those last few minutes of legal light when your pupils can dilatate up to 7mm. You can achieve the same level of light in a 40mm by reducing the magnification of the scope. Basically it only helps at very low light situations when you want it on a higher power setting. If you're ok with reducing the magnification a bit, you can achieve the same results in a 40mm lens. So it looks like my original comment was slightly incorrect, but I still hold firm that its a bit of a waste unless you're consistently shooting very far distances in low light situations. 

[stubborn1VT]

12 minutes ago, ATbuckhunter said:

Now its been a good while since I've done these calculations in my physics courses so forgive me if I'm a little off on things. I believe it has to do with exit pupil calculations. Ill have to do some reading when I have time to better explain it, but ill say what I can remember off the top of my head.

Your pupil is what control how much light your eye can take in and during the day its somewhere around 2 to 4mm. A 5mm objective on 7x will give you around 7mm of EP (exit pupil) and on 10x it will be 5mm. Basically you're only registering 4mm of EP and the rest is basically not helping. It can make a difference when it gets to those last few minutes of legal light when your pupils can dilatate up to 7mm. You can achieve the same level of light in a 40mm by reducing the magnification of the scope. Basically it only helps at very low light situations when you want it on a higher power setting. If you're ok with reducing the magnification a bit, you can achieve the same results in a 40mm lens. So it looks like my original comment was slightly incorrect, but I still hold firm that its a bit of a waste unless you're consistently shooting very far distances in low light situations. 

So what you're telling me is that you are anti 50mm because "science" sorta, half remembered.  (You can just say you don't like the way they look.)

[BizCT]

So what you're telling me is that you are anti 50mm because "science" sorta, half remembered.  (You can just say you don't like the way they look.)

Check out my above article.
Below is a copy of paste piece of it.

Objective lens diameter has something to do with it, but is not the most important aspect. Too many people will tell you the objective lens is basically the only thing that matters, but they're only saying that because it's the only thing they can see and the only lens in the system that's given its own number in the scope’s name (like a 4-16x50). That "50" is referring to the objective lens diameter. What you don't see is a bunch of other numbers behind that "50" about the 5, 10, maybe even 15 other lenses behind that one! All are very important; you can shove as much light as you want down the bell of a scope with a massive objective, but if all the lenses behind it can't handle it, the image will still be disappointing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ATbuckhunter]

23 hours ago, stubborn1VT said:

So what you're telling me is that you are anti 50mm because "science" sorta, half remembered.  (You can just say you don't like the way they look.)

LOL dude I couldn't care less about how they look, that makes literally no difference to me (but it did to the OP if you look back). Idk why you put science in quotation marks, go look it up. Its not a myth, these are facts. Nothing I said is factually incorrect. If you don't want to believe it, that's a different story. I'm just trying to show the OP that spending all that money on a big 50mm scope and new rings, may not deliver on expectations. No where did I say I was anti 50mm either

Edited December 10, 2021 by ATbuckhunter

[stubborn1VT]

2 minutes ago, ATbuckhunter said:

LOL dude I couldn't care less about how they look, that makes literally no difference to me (but it did to the OP if you look back). Idk why you put science in quotation marks, go look it up. Its not a myth, these are facts. Nothing I said is factually incorrect. If you don't want to believe it, that's a different story. I'm just trying to show the OP that spending all that money on a big 50mm scope and new rings, may not deliver on expectations. No where did I say I was anti 50mm either

Unbunch your drawers.  Your science sounded pretty weak to me.  A 50mm doesn't cost "all that money".  I was mostly just messing with you because your first post made zero sense to me.  You're probably correct in your second post, but I don't see how it can be true.  It also makes no difference to me, but you laid out (poorly explained) scientific facts to show there is no benefit to a 50mm objective.  That seems pretty anti to me. 

[ATbuckhunter]

8 minutes ago, stubborn1VT said:

Unbunch your drawers.  Your science sounded pretty weak to me.  A 50mm doesn't cost "all that money".  I was mostly just messing with you because your first post made zero sense to me.  You're probably correct in your second post, but I don't see how it can be true.  It also makes no difference to me, but you laid out (poorly explained) scientific facts to show there is no benefit to a 50mm objective.  That seems pretty anti to me. 

I admit Im not the best guy to be explaining it, and I know there are a few guys on this forum that can explain it much better than I can. There's also a ton of online articles that probably explain it better than me. Its been a while since I've been in a physics course so im plenty rusty on it and how to explain it. I thought I did an ok job at explaining it, but maybe I didn't (no problem accepting that I may not have). I was just saying that the additional cost of a 50mm scope compared to a 40mm scope may not pay the dividends the OP is looking for, especially since he already doesn't sound like he's in love with the idea of a 50mm scope. Maybe he would be better off putting the difference in getting a higher quality glass instead of a bigger objective. I think higher quality glass will make a bigger difference than a bigger objective.

Not anti 50mm, just showing its not a necessity and trying to put some facts behind my claim. Will a 50mm take in more light than a 40mm...100 percent it will. Is it worth buying a new scope when you can turn the power down a little...not in my opinion. The main place the 50 excels is being able to keep it on a higher power during low light conditions. Only the OP can really decide if that benefit is worth the added cost of a brand new scope and rings. 

[stubborn1VT]

5 minutes ago, ATbuckhunter said:

I admit Im not the best guy to be explaining it, and I know there are a few guys on this forum that can explain it much better than I can. There's also a ton of online articles that probably explain it better than me. Its been a while since I've been in a physics course so im plenty rusty on it and how to explain it. I thought I did an ok job at explaining it, but maybe I didn't (no problem accepting that I may not have). I was just saying that the additional cost of a 50mm scope compared to a 40mm scope may not pay the dividends the OP is looking for, especially since he already doesn't sound like he's in love with the idea of a 50mm scope. Maybe he would be better off putting the difference in getting a higher quality glass instead of a bigger objective. I think higher quality glass will make a bigger difference than a bigger objective.

Not anti 50mm, just showing its not a necessity and trying to put some facts behind my claim. Will a 50mm take in more light than a 40mm...100 percent it will. Is it worth buying a new scope when you can turn the power down a little...not in my opinion. The main place the 50 excels is being able to keep it on a higher power during low light conditions. Only the OP can really decide if that benefit is worth the added cost of a brand new scope and rings. 

Well put.  I was mostly joking. My apologies.

[ATbuckhunter]

2 minutes ago, stubborn1VT said:

Well put.  I was mostly joking. My apologies.

No worries, no need to apologize. I actually missed that you were mostly joking, so its my bad

[Pygmy]

Time for a group hug.....

Larry  50 MM objectives look like s**t and throw off the balance of a nice handling hunting rifle...

Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse would put one on his rifle..

Other than that, I have no opinion on the subject.....<<GRIN>>.....

[Moho81]

Time for a group hug.....
Larry  50 MM objectives look like s**t and throw off the balance of a nice handling hunting rifle...
Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse would put one on his rifle..
Other than that, I have no opinion on the subject.....>.....

SOB I didn’t know I was a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse. The wife is NOT going to be happy about this. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[suburbanfarmer]

4 minutes ago, Moho81 said:

SOB I didn’t know I was a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse. The wife is NOT going to be happy about this. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should be out hunting, so many of us are counting on you this week to fill all your tags  

[SpacemanSpiff]

On 12/7/2021 at 8:17 PM, ATbuckhunter said:

While technically a 50mm will take in more light than a 40, It actually wont make a difference when it comes to what you can actually see. Your eye can only take up so much light, so a 3-9x40 will take in as much light as your eye can handle. Better off spending extra for higher quality glass than getting a bigger objective. I've always been able to see better through my 40 than my own eyes after a certain point.

This is so true. A lot of science and research has gone into this. Your eye cant pick up the so called extra light a 50mm can bring in. However a wider fire of view is a nice feature. 

[suburbanfarmer]

1 hour ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

This is so true. A lot of science and research has gone into this. Your eye cant pick up the so called extra light a 50mm can bring in. However a wider fire of view is a nice feature. 

Agreed , the field of view at max zoom with 50mm will be better and help with acquiring the target.

[TreeGuy]

Time for a group hug.....
Larry  50 MM objectives look like s**t and throw off the balance of a nice handling hunting rifle...
Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse would put one on his rifle..
Other than that, I have no opinion on the subject.....>.....

WRONG

My whore house is proudly serving WNY

Also, I've been dealing with an off-balance rifle my whole life, if ya know what I mean.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[moog5050]

9 minutes ago, TreeGuy said:

WRONG

My whore house is proudly serving WNY

Also, I've been dealing with an off-balance rifle my whole life, if ya know what I mean.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

And I thought it was your long purple jacket that made you a pimp.  Little did I know!

[TreeGuy]

And I thought it was your long purple jacket that made you a pimp.  Little did I know!

Regardless of what color and size of the clothing, by technicality whatever a pimp wears, is pimp gear.

Now back to work before you get slapped.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk