adam246 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Just bought a new Tikka T3 Lite (stainless barrel/synthetic stock)in a .270 Win - I'm getting a scope on it and had a question. I'm definatly going w/ a Bushnell 3200 Elite w/ FireFly reticle in a 3 x 9 - BUT...what's the opinion on the different objective sizes available? I can go w/ 3x9x40mm or the 3x9x50mm. I'm leaning towards the 50mm but A)does it make that much diff. in brightness B)will it fit the rings that came w/ the gun or will I need to buy new ones to get the scope high enough to clear the barrel and C)is it gonna really throw the weight/balance out of whack & be so clumsy as to be not much fun....?!?! BTW - I can order a 3x9x50mm online for $220 - the 3x9x40mm around here is about $230...Mostly deer hunting but want to get into varmint/predator hunting as well in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nels Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I too just bought a t3 light stainless, in 30-06 though. I am waiting for my Burris compact to arrive on Monday. I found a good deal online.I believe the manufacturer specs say that you should be OK for a 50 mm objective, but it might depend on how close the end is to the receiver.I went with a compact just because I didn't want to throw off the balance. I think the beretta HSOforum lists what max diameter scope you can have with the standard Tikka rings.Nels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irvingdog Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Unless you swat rats, stay with a 40 objective. If you don't you'regoing to need much higher rings, and that's not good. Plus. (shallow warning ahead) it looks kinda bad. Elite 3200 has great light transmission, and a fine field of view. Pay less, and K.I.S.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerchJerker Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 I'm with irvingdog. No reason to go with a 50mm, especially if you need higher rings. And I also think the 40's look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 40mm, 50mm why not compromise. I did a ton of research and a lot of comparison before purchasing a scope for my Browning Stainless Stalker 7mm that replaced my Browning White Gold 7mm. I decided before purchasing that I was going to not skimp and was looking to spend the money to get a quality scope. I looked at Leupold, Nikon, Weaver Grand Slam, Burris, Bushnell Elite but after all was said and done the scope that was the clear cut winner was the Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10 44mm. A little more $$ but by far the best optics I have seen in that price range.Hope you find what you are looking for.SUNNYD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bklimek Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Absolutley do NOT go with a 5O. I bought a Tikka Hunter in the fall 300WSM and was looking for the right scope to put on. I spoke with a gentleman at Gander about this. You think bigger is better but not in this case. I can't remember exactly what he said but basically your eye can only use 40 and thats its limit a 50 is overkill. He asked Leupold then why do they make a 50 and their answer was because people buy it. By the way the Tikka is a sweet gun and I went with a 3x9x40 Nikon Monarch. Watch out elk![This message has been edited by bklimek (edited 04-15-2004).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam246 Posted April 16, 2004 Author Share Posted April 16, 2004 just put the 3x9x50mm back in the mail today - exchanging for the Elite 3200 3x9x40 - thanks to all for the input - this site is awesome. PS -I found a great place to purchase optics from on the web - WELL below any retail cost I've seen in a store or even anywhere else online. Don't think I'm allowed to post it here tho - but ask if you're interested.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts