Objective Size
Printed From: The BaitShop
Category: FireArms, et cetera
Forum Name: Optics, Gear, Calls, Clothing and Other Accessories
Forum Description: You can't shoot it if you can't see it, sneak up on it or fool it!
URL: http://www.baitshopboyz.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1832
Printed Date: 26 March 2026 at 20:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Objective Size
Posted By: Rob1
Subject: Objective Size
Date Posted: 20 October 2003 at 13:30
|
Multiple options that cross over so vote more than once if you need to. |
Replies:
Posted By: TasunkaWitko
Date Posted: 20 October 2003 at 13:43
|
i went with the "makes up for cheap glass" option. as for looks, i never thought that one looked any better or worse than the other, except for the one on http://www.tikka.fi - tikka's home page . THAT one is a little too big, sorta like the titanic was a little boat!
------------- TasunkaWitko - Chinook, Montana  Helfen, Wehren, Heilen Die Wahrheit wird euch frei machen |
Posted By: Rob1
Date Posted: 20 October 2003 at 14:24
|
What looks *goofy* certainly is a matter of opinion and one should choose what they think looks good. It is my opinion certain rifles call for certain scopes and some rifles....it really doesn't matter. For a rifle such as your project I think the large objective bells and longer than needed barrels look out of place for the style you said your going for. For such projects I think it has to look good and perform good. If Leupolds had a big goofy cat eye on the side of the turret you couldn't give me one. Weaver has the big rubber ring that is not only ugly IMO but also calls for higher than needed rings for many rifles just to clear the bolt handle. Here is a pic of a custom .260 with a 2.5-8 Leupold. IMO anything bigger would look *goofy*
|
Imagine a big old cateye on the turret or a 44mm obj. and way high rings on that rifle and it makes me ill! But just my opinion
Posted By: TasunkaWitko
Date Posted: 20 October 2003 at 14:28
i want that stock! ------------- TasunkaWitko - Chinook, Montana Helfen, Wehren, Heilen Die Wahrheit wird euch frei machen |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20 October 2003 at 19:56
|
Large objectives only help 'somewhat ' for late night shooting. I have a 55 mm for night shooting leopards and it does help. on 11x I have maximum light for a 5mm eye. At 100 yds with a spot light and 3 seconds max to shoot a leopard in a bait tree, it helps. For deer hunting I see no advantage in anything over a 3-9x40. 30mm tubes are a total waste of $. Even the manufactures have not been able to 'invent' some advantage for them. BEAR |
Posted By: The_Mountaineer
Date Posted: 21 October 2003 at 03:45
| I'll have to agree with BEAR. I think that big objectives, for the most part, only make up for cheap glass. Of course if you have something like a 3.5-10 Leupold witha 50 mm objective, that isn't to say the glass is cheap. I think most manufacturers sell big objectives for the minimal gain in low light gathering capability. For me, I'm beginning to believe that it's more about the coatings than anything. Match the scope to the task and don't worry about the $$$ is a good rule of thumb. If you are going prairie dog hunting where you won't likely be shooting at the wee hours of daylight get a good quality scope but you don't really need those big objectives do ya. Now if you're predator hunting at night you may want the big objective. |
Posted By: North Logan
Date Posted: 25 October 2003 at 12:11
|
I'm usually a 3-9x40mm maximum type.... but have a couple outta that dimension:
Rem 700 "Classic" .264 Win Mag with B&L Elite 5-15x50mm scope.
Browning A-bolt .30-06 with Tasco World Class Plus 3-9x44mm scope.
Rem 788 in 7mm-08 with Tasco World Class Plus 3-9x44mm scope.
Regards, Marcus.
-------------   "COLTS & PONY CARS"...
|
