Rifle Scopes S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

[skibum]

Has anyone been able to compare these side by side? Do you really lose much with the slightly smaller Obj? I looked through a buddie's 4-16x50 today and liked it. Looking at possibly buying a 4-16x42s.

Thanks
Jim

 

[dmg308]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

IMO the 42mm makes no sense with the 34mm tube the lowest rings set up high enough to clear the 50mm.So if the scope is gonna be up there you might as well fill the gap with glass.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Jim it is a great scope and there is no real difference between the 42 & 50, at least no real noticeable difference. I use both and the 42 is my primary.

It was made for a specific reason, and you can get lower Seekins rings that drop the 42 down pretty well, so doesn't do anything but keep it a bit further from the barrel.

It was meant to meet a military requirement when they thought they needed to have a smaller objective because they didn't want to upgrade to a 50... but I have 2 and like them a lot.

 

[Pete Lincoln]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

I think maybe i can join in here.
It was me who was largely responsible for conving S&B to build a 4-16x42 PMII. Going on the thinking that the lower a sniper scope is mounted the better, when it gets too dark, on with the Night Vision device.. and to be honest, I think most of the current sniper empolyed rifles are too bulky and too heavy for requirement,,and a lower profile scope would be one step in the right direction,. but thats another matter,

ive got apparently the 1st 4-16x42 PMII that was released to the civilian market sat on my .260 Hunting Rifle.

Now depending on how you want to employ the scope there either is or is not any difference to all practical purposes of the 2 scopes.
The 50mm objective gives you a little more shooting time at dusk when using the higher magnification, and at dawn it gets you shooting a little earlier. otherwise same same all day long.weight is near as damn it the same,

You can mount the 42mm objective lower.. Yeah I know most of the available rings are for the 50 - 56mm Objective. Most !!

Ive got mine sat in 6mm high ( top of rail to bottom of scope) PSG rings, and it sits perfectly, 6mm high are the lowest 34mm rings Ive seen. ( Glens Seekins low 34mm are 6.368, but thats splitting hairs, but at least you have some low enough rings available state side)

As good as the 4-16x42 is.. with hind sight, for sniper type operations, and most other uses, if i had to choose between the 42 and the 50, I would err on the side of the 50.. having said that,, my 42 is, along side my 1.5-6x42 DMR Zenith, my main stay S&B scope these days.

Pick which one you can get fastest and cheapest is how I would choose

Pete

 

[dmg308]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

This is a picture off a IOR 35mm tube with a 40mm obj with the lowest Seekins rings.Almost identical to the 34mm the pic is not the best but you can see quite a bit of space between obj and barrel.After talking with Glenn he explained why this was as low as he could make them.There may be other options I was not aware of but I was not happy with this one and changed setups.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Dave, your getting into minutiae, I don't even use the Seekins on my Werewolf and it has the 42mm S&B and it is fine.. zero issues.

What you're essentially saying is, it looks wrong.

Cheek piece isn't overly high, the height off the barrel is fine, etc...

Jim it is a good scope.

 

[dmg308]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

LL I agree its mainly a looks issue.The only point I was making is if the scope has to be up there you might as well fill the gap with glass.If you already have a 42mmm or can get a good deal thats great.But if I was buying new and prices were'nt insanely different I would opt for the 50mm.As far as application there certainly would'nt be any issues and I hope I did'nt project that belief.

Darren

 

[Lowlight]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Up there seems to subjective, I have been using this scope on this rifle for more than 2 years now, and never once did I think I wanted a 50mm over it, and I have a 50mm one on my Harbinger right next to it.

90% of my S&B are 50s, but my most used are the 2 42's, and then the 50 with the Klein reticle.

I know Jim is currently using a 3-12X50 on his SHR #22, so if he can find a 42 for a decent price, its a good scope and regardless of the use, there are no limiting factors to the 42 and with Seekins rings its plenty low, so I doubt he will have wished the space was filled with glass.

The 50s are good too, but 42s usually have a GEN II reticle and are lit, which is a good way to get one.

 

[Graham]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

I have the 42 Gen II XL: Perfect on a Surgeon/AICS.

Best 'fighting' scope, in my opinion, even if all I do now is punch holes in paper.

Jim, you shot mine: In my opinion the scope looks more proportional with the 42 objective than with the 50.

In an AICS, with 1" high 34mm rings, the cheek piece does not have to be elevated and the full-down position works fine for me with that scope.

I think it was Jerry at Premier who said they tested the 42 vs the 50 once, and that the difference in light gathering and exit pupil due to any difference in objective size was so small that it would not be a noticeable factor to a user. I don't want to put words in his mouth, though - care to comment, Jerry?

 

[SFree]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Mr. Lowlight, sir,

This may be a tad off topic, but I have a 4-16-42 on the way and will be perched atop a 20 MOA rail and snuggled in BO medium rings. Is an adjustable cheek piece needed or can I use a fixed stock and stock pack? I'm 5'10", 165lbs, med. build.
Stock in reference will be either an A-5 or a Manners T4.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

I have no idea, height has nothing to do with your cheeks... ?

I personally like the TC adjustable Cheek piece regardless of the stock... but that is me.

 

[skibum]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Thanks for all the input guys! My question originated out of the couple 4-16x42s that were listed in the classified lately with Gen II XLs at a reasonable price. And as Frank said, I currently have a std Gen II in my 3-12 which after a couple trips to RO to learn how to use, I have grow to really like and would prefer to stay consistent with if possible. Just wish the XL still had the center plus rather than a continuous reticle.

Frank, check your inbox, I sent you a couple questions.

Jim

 

[geodavis52]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

To All,
with respect to the original question about the difference in the 42vs 50 mm obj lens, can anyone tell any significant difference in light gathering ability from a practical standpoint, especially looking into shaded areas with the sun coming in from the front? I have run into the "washout" problem on more than one occaision with other scopes but haven't tried the S&B 42 yet. Would appreciate anyone's input about the washout problem.
THanks, Bill

 

[SFree]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Mr. Davis,
I now have my 4-16x42 and having had the 50mm I can tell no distinguishing difference. To me this may be the "world's most perfect" scope. Crisp edge to edge, great light transmission in shade and shadow with lower mounting solution atop the rifle. Works for me.

 

[Matt in Virginia]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SFree</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. To me this may be the "world's most perfect" scope. </div></div>

fwiw,
I'd tend to concur with that observation...imho

Regards, Matt Garrett
757-581-6270

 

[Turk]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Which rings are you using to mount it lower then the 50?

 

[geodavis52]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

SFree,
Thanks. I am particularly interested in the shaded area while sun comes in from the front. Thanks for your input...i sure do dread spending those bucks but looks like i will have to sell a couple of leupolds to help cover the cost...
Bill

 

[abersfelderami]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which rings are you using to mount it lower then the 50? </div></div>

Me too.

 

[DoubleBarrel]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: abersfelderami</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which rings are you using to mount it lower then the 50? </div></div>

Me too. </div></div>

any answer to this?

 

[Seuss]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Seekins.
Agree on the 4-16x42 being best all around, +1.
[img:center]

[/img]
Pic of my 260 w the Seekins.

 

[Turk]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Same seekins rings fit the 50!

 

[M21tactical]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

I agree with the others about the S&B 4-16x42 as being the best all around, but I am a little bit biased.

Here is a picture of my setup with Seekins low rings. It's mounted on a Surgeon Scalpel with a Kreiger #10 MTU contour. I really like the low profile feel and look. I tend to agree that the 50 and 56mm objectives look and handle more bulky. That is why I opted for the 42. I am very, very pleased with this scope.

 

[DoubleBarrel]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

Iagree and i too like the low feel and look. just to see if i understand correctly that the only performance difference would be the exit pupil. if so wouldn't the x42 at 6 power be just as bright as the x50 at 7 power?

 

[angelone]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

holy cow,look at the hot semi auto in the background

 

[M21tactical]

Re: S&B 4-16x42 vs 4-16x50

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: angelone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">holy cow,look at the hot semi auto in the background </div></div>
It may be hot, but it's owner was slobbering all over my bolt rifle. He was in the process of spec'ing out a new bolt build. I let him shoot my rifle/scope setup and he was very impressed and placed his order after that.