|
|
Post by steiny on May 1, 2017 8:19:16 GMT -5
The quality of the optics is much more important than the objective end diameter.
For instance, a 40 MM Leupold will be much brighter and clearer than a 50 MM Bushnell.
|
|
|
|
Post by 76chevy on May 1, 2017 13:36:37 GMT -5
The quality of the optics is much more important than the objective end diameter. For instance, a 40 MM Leupold will be much brighter and clearer than a 50 MM Bushnell. this!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by esshup on May 4, 2017 10:57:09 GMT -5
The quality of the optics is much more important than the objective end diameter. For instance, a 40 MM Leupold will be much brighter and clearer than a 50 MM Bushnell. 200% in agreement. But, it all depends on your pocketbook too. The buddy that looked through my scopes really liked the Nightforce, but it wasn't in his budget. I think Schmidt & Bender is even clearer than Nightforce, but again, it all depends on the pocketbook. www.schmidtundbender.de/en/new-products/4-16x56-pm-ii-ultra-bright.html |
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 4, 2017 12:46:01 GMT -5
The quality of the optics is much more important than the objective end diameter. For instance, a 40 MM Leupold will be much brighter and clearer than a 50 MM Bushnell. That's normally true, and why I posted figures for the same brand and model in my examples. The only difference was in the objective diameter (with the exception of the Nikon Prostaff and Slug hunter scopes, which I used to illustrate the correlation between eye relief and fov). |
|
|
|
Post by gilder on May 5, 2017 22:49:41 GMT -5
|
|
