You won't know until you get the rifle if you're going for "as low as possible". You need to measure some things and buy rings with the correct thickness on the bottom. Midwayusa gives this info for their rings I think.

I, too, like my scopes as low as possible. My 93r17GV, for example, is wearing a Barska 40mm scope that the cover won't fit anymore. Look at the pic of the GV on the website, the objective is lower than the thicker part of the barrel but clears the main body of it. The reason it can be a good thing is for pop shots up close with ,say, a 100yd zero. The shortest sight hight above the bore is crucial for this. But with your 50mm objective, a 1/4" difference in ring height won't make much of a difference as you will be forced to mount it fairly high anyways.

I wouldn't sweat it so much with that 50mm scope because it's gonna have to be high and you will be shooting 50yds and out anyways most likely.

BTW .22s benefit most from low scopes for a point blank range of like 10-60yds, IMHO. I had to dremel my 981T's bolt handle to clear the nikon on it lol. Your 17 outperforms 22s by about 200yds so low scopes aren't as crucial.

 

Thank you for taking the time to write that response (very informative :bthumb: ).

I've spent hours reading about the rifles, and scopes. I chose a 93r17 because I've read and heard nothing but good things about them.. of course there are some haters but every company will have them.. I had to order it as I'm cacky handed and they didn't have any GLV's in stock.

I chose the Leupold VXII because when I ordered the firearm I was able to check out heaps of different scopes from Sun Optics to Bushnell, and then to Leupold.. Out of the lot, the VXII stood out, but the salesman had me under the impression that a larger Objective lens allows for more light (as I will be shooting of a night, and some times with a spot light for most of the time). He has a 3-9x40 in stock but no 3-9x50.. my next question would be is there much of a different in lighting? are there any other differences that I need to know about..?


Thanks

- R :AR15firin

 

scope

The extra-high rings from WEAVER will give you a very small ammount of clearance above your barrel with the 50mm objective.
I just mounted a 50mm scope on a 93 BTVSS and it just fits.

Snipe
:bthumb:

 

for a hunting rifle a low mounted scope is ideal in the event of an animal presenting itself at a closer than expected distance. for shooting targets i dont really think it matters. the argument of a 50mm vs 40mm obj in terms of gathering light, i cant really give you a factual answer, i can say however, i have a fair amount of scoped rifles and the only thing i can factually say is that the ones with better glass are way better than the others in low light situations regardless of the obj lens size.

 

the argument of a 50mm vs 40mm obj in terms of gathering light, i cant really give you a factual answer,

Ideally the brightness of any telescope, rifle scopes included, is determined by the diameter of the exit pupil. It would take too long to explain what the exit pupil is but you can easily calculate its diameter, it is just the diameter of the objective (front) lens divided by the power. If the exit pupil diameter is equal to or larger than your eye's pupil diameter the image brightness will be equal to what you see with your naked eye. If the exit pupil is smaller than your eye's pupil the brightness will be less than what you see with your naked eye.

In low light conditions the pupil size of individual human eyes varies but the average for all of us is right around 6 mm and that is the nominal size that optics designers design around. If you have a 40 mm objective you can go up to 6.7X before you start to see a decrease in brightness with increasing power. If you have a 50 mm objective you can go up to 8.3X before the brightness starts to diminish. At a given high power, say 24X, the 40 mm scope has an exit pupil of 1.7 mm while the 50 mm scope has an EP of 2.1 mm so it will give you the brighter image. Your eye does not respond to light level in a linear fashion so the 50 mm scope does not appear to be 2.1/1.7 or 125% as bright as the 40 mm at 24X. You may be able to detect the 25% difference though.

At noon on a sunny day your eye's pupil constricts to protect your eye against the bright light. I do not recall how much but I think it is unlikely that you would see a difference between 40 and 50 mm scopes even at 24X under full sunlight conditions.

Any scope, even poor ones, have to be made from at least cheap optical grade glass to produce a sharp image with little enough color fringing to be useful. Optical glass transmits light with high efficiency so there is not a great difference between "good glass" and cheap glass. However there are a lot of air to glass interfaces in a rifle scope and each one will produce light robbing reflections unless every surface is coated with high quality anti-reflection coatings, which add considerable expense to the scope. It is a technical point but good "glass" is almost always a question of good coatings rather than the glass itself. At least when you are talking about image brightness. A scope with excellent coatings will certainly give you a brighter image at all powers than the same sized scope with poor coatings and it may outperform a larger scope with the same poor coatings as well.

Other desirable features of a scope like image sharpness and freedom from color fringing are controlled by the quality of the surface finish on the glass (sharpness) and the quality of the glass itself (color). Well crafted lenses are more expensive that so-so lenses and the "extra dispersion" (ED) glass that is used in the finest telescopes to reduce color fringing to nearly zero is also quite expensive, though at least rifle scopes need use very little of it compared to a world class 10 inch diameter astronomical telescope.

The bottom line is that mid range scopes can be made to high enough standards to allow them to be competitive with high end scopes. There will be a difference but is it enough to justify the price?? Individual opinions will always vary on that matter. Cheap scopes though will definitely take a noticeable hit in performance and the decision to upgrade from cheap to mid level is a no-brainer if the wallet allows.

I am talking about optics only here, there are a host of other differences between cheap, mid, and high grade scopes that should also be considered.

Ken

 

I just mounted a bushnell 3200 3x9 with 40mm obj on my 93FV and had to use the high set of weaver rings to get the clearance required...with your 50mm I think you will need extra high rings as there isnt much room under my 40 mm scope using the high rings.

 

Hi guys.. thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated. I may take a gamble and order the rings before the gun and scope come in but I'm not overly sure.

I was hoping to have everything in the basket within a short time and not waiting on it. Never the less.. I will take some photos when I've got the set up together and post them here when I get the chance.


Thanks again!

-R :AR15firin