$1000 budget scope. Need help.

[ColPenguin]

If that is the case, wouldn't you want a bigger objective lens for any type of longer range shooting?

Why? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[rfroese]

Why? How did you come to that conclusion?

By your measure, at certain magnification you would benefit from a larger objective lens right? Basically, you could use a higher magnification at the optimum exit pupil size? I could be misunderstanding the topic altogether but that's where my mind went.

 

[ColPenguin]

By your measure, at certain magnification you would benefit from a larger objective lens right? Basically, you could use a higher magnification at the optimum exit pupil size? I could be misunderstanding the topic altogether but that's where my mind went.

The human eye is the bottleneck. At night there is going to be a max dilation of human pupil between 6 and 7 mm.

For a rifle scope the objective size should not be a primary factor in selection. It should be a final consideration whether you're buying an appropriately sized optic for your intended purpose of hunting. Its appropriate for a variable max of 9x - 15x to have a 40mm or 44mm objective. It can be appropriate for a lower power scope in the range of 1x - 8x to have a 24 or 28mm objective.

I am pretty sure this has been discontinued in the latest generation of Viper scopes but there used to be a Vortex Viper 4-16x44 and 4-16x50. They had the same field of view, same effective performance, and the 50mm costs a little more and weighed a few ounces more. I am pretty sure that Ryan stated on one of their podcast episodes that more people gravitated towards the 50mm and it was largely because of successful marketing.

Given two scopes of equal performance, I would gravitate towards the lighter package if it provided a better value and met other primary criteria for a hunting scope.

 

[rfroese]

The human eye is the bottleneck. At night there is going to be a max dilation of human pupil between 6 and 7 mm.

For a rifle scope the objective size should not be a primary factor in selection. It should be a final consideration whether you're buying an appropriately sized optic for your intended purpose of hunting. Its appropriate for a variable max of 9x - 15x to have a 40mm or 44mm objective. It can be appropriate for a lower power scope in the range of 1x - 8x to have a 24 or 28mm objective.

I am pretty sure this has been discontinued in the latest generation of Viper scopes but there used to be a Vortex Viper 4-16x44 and 4-16x50. They had the same field of view, same effective performance, and the 50mm costs a little more and weighed a few ounces more. I am pretty sure that Ryan stated on one of their podcast episodes that more people gravitated towards the 50mm and it was largely because of successful marketing.

Given two scopes of equal performance, I would gravitate towards the lighter package if it provided a better value and met other primary criteria for a hunting scope.

I understand. And I actually agree with you on the point regarding marketing. The hunting industry in general is riddled with misinformation and marketing gimmicks.

I was just commenting on the fact that if are looking to squeeze every ounce possible in long range shooting scenarios, it would then make sense to get a bigger objective lens. I prefer the lightest weight scope possible without sacrificing clarity and zoom on my hunting rifles but on my ranges toys, I don't really care about weight and the longer, bigger scopes in general that I have owned, just seem brighter and clearer to me. Could be a bit of a placebo as well, who knows...