What size scope rings?

[Frog48]

I currently have a Savage 110 with 3-9x40 Simmons scope, mounted with "low" rings.

I'd like to upgrade to a 3-9x50 Nikon, and I'm not sure if I will need "medium" or "high" rings. Obviously, I'd like to keep the scope mounted as low as possible, without touching the barrel.

What do yall think?

 

[jmr40]

Just my opinion, but if you want to upgrade I would get a good quality scope with a 40mm objective. and use the same mounting system you have. I don't think you gain enough (if any) to justify the negatives of 50mm objectives.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Agree with JMR's advice, the best thing about the large bell scopes is how cool they look !!

 

[Frog48]

What are these negatives you speak of?

So far the only one I've heard is that you might not get as good of cheekweld, since the scope is mounted higher...

 

[jmr40]

In addition to being mounted higher the 50mm scopes are longer heavier and generally just get in the way more. Their only advantage is being able to transmit more light but to take advantage of that will cost a lot more money.

Good quality lenses are more important than the size. A $200-$300 scope with a 40mm objective will more than likely have better quality glass than a 50mm scope of the same price.

Being able to shoot in low light is but one factor in selecting a scope and too many people stress over that one thing while ignoring other qualities in a scope. My favorite is the Leupold 2.5-8X. This scope only has a 36mm objective but I can easily see well enough to shoot long after legal hunting time has past. It is light weight, rugged, dependable and has a long eye relief which makes mounting the gun less critical for fast shots in the woods.