# differences between bigger and smaller scopes for 3D



## Nick728 (Oct 19, 2014)

With my HHA's i prefer 1 5/8" over 1 3/8" or the larger 2". I tried smaller, great for spots not so good for 3D.
1 5/8" gives the right amount of light, good visibility, good target coverage and it's light enough in weight for my needs. More so that I add a sunshade with every scope.
Its a personal choice, a couple of buddies prefer the larger scopes but no one I know prefers smaller scopes for 3D.
With the ones you've mentioned I'd go with or favor the 42mm.


----------



## DXT-RN (Sep 6, 2011)

I have the nomad in 42mm and love it... I like the sight picture out to 50 yards with it , using a 4x lens... the major advantage with the shrewd,IMO, is that if u buy the 42, and decide u want smaller, shrewd make shades that neck the size down, thus making the scope adjustable down to the 35 mm size... but if u buy the 35, u can't make it any bigger if u decide that's not quite the sight picture you r looking for


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

For me, the biggest advantage of a large scope comes on close targets. The more of the animal you can see (especially the back/belly lines), the easier it is to find points of reference.


----------



## math1963 (Apr 9, 2014)

I just switched my nomad 42 out for a nomad 35. I'm also using shrewd's 2-step short sunshade in the front. I made the change to see if a smaller peep and scope would yield a few extra points. Remimber that the nomad 35 is a 35 toward your face and a 42 on the target side. So you get the light coming in and the lens and sunshade toward the target can be switched between the nomad 35 and 42. This will save you some money if you decide later to get the other one.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

I use the 29 mm for spots AND 3D. I have short draw length so that helps make the 29 mm big enough for me. The 35 mm is not a light and is much heavier than the 29 mm so I expect the 42 mm is real heavy compared to any other scope that I know of. 

As for the field of view, I shoot a lot of 3D and I haven't yet had one spook before I found it in the scope and made the shot. Also I haven't had to make a shot on a walking or running 3d target. I haven't shot a target and then realized there was a bigger "trophy" standing nearby. The field of view really does not need to be any bigger than is necessary to get the top and the belly of the somewhat close 3D target in your sight picture. Of course I don't think you should use so small of scope you have search to find any target. If you use a high power lens you may need a bigger diameter scope and/or if your scope is a longer distance from your eye because of your draw length or by choice. I have my scope run out a good ways from the bow compared to most folks.

I bought a 35 mm Nomad that I've never used. If the 42 mm is even a shade heavier than the 35 mm I may not use it for that reason alone. Because the field of view I get with the 29 mm scope I expect few people _need _ the increased field of view the 42 mm offers over the 35 mm for very stationary and very calm 3D targets.

I would recommend starting with the 35 mm. Like has been previously mentioned the accessories work with either scope.


----------



## Quasimodo (Nov 26, 2014)

DXT-RN said:


> I have the nomad in 42mm and love it... I like the sight picture out to 50 yards with it , using a 4x lens... the major advantage with the shrewd,IMO, is that if u buy the 42, and decide u want smaller, shrewd make shades that neck the size down, thus making the scope adjustable down to the 35 mm size... but if u buy the 35, u can't make it any bigger if u decide that's not quite the sight picture you r looking for


Excellent!


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Scope housing diameters also effected amount of the adjustment of in and out and by diameter of the peep opening. Nice about the Super is the available sizes of orifices. My main scope housings are 1.75". I either use a smaller diameter orifice (or peep) or stick-on rings on the lens. I had the 1 3/8" and 1 5/8" housings and never had any issues other than changing orifices in my Super peep.


----------



## Garceau (Sep 3, 2010)

I shot 42 for a while, then 35 and then got a 29.....honestly I never saw a difference in anything relating to "seeing the target" I did get much less glare on my 29 with sun shades. Much less.

I honestly am not looking at the nose and tail while I am making a shot on a 3D target so never had much need for a bigger set up.


----------



## wannaBelkhuntin (Jul 3, 2006)

I can't believe any kind of target archer can complain about the weight of the scope housing, what is the difference ? 1/2 an ounce ? But you add a pound and a half in stabilizer weights and don't think twice about that !!! LMAO at you guys.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

wannaBelkhuntin said:


> I can't believe any kind of target archer can complain about the weight of the scope housing, what is the difference ? 1/2 an ounce ? But you add a pound and a half in stabilizer weights and don't think twice about that !!! LMAO at you guys.


All else being equal, I would choose a lightweight scope over a heavy one, and it has nothing to do with reducing the overall weight of the bow. Target sights are relatively delicate instruments and more mass at the end of the sight imparts more stress on sight components than less mass. Granted, I was shooting tournaments in the 90's when scopes rained down on the practice range like leaves fall from the trees in Autumn. Fortunately, bows have less vibration now, and sights are generally engineered better, but the principal remains the same.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

wannabelkhuntin said:


> i can't believe any kind of target archer can complain about the weight of the scope housing, what is the difference ? 1/2 an ounce ? But you add a pound and a half in stabilizer weights and don't think twice about that !!! Lmao at you guys.


Believe it because the weight of a scope can matter even for guys that use a lot more than a pound and a half of stabber weights!!!
You should be aware that you are laughing at Reo Wilde, Rodger Willet and a host of other world class archers...... I can assure you that your statement has some folks "Lmao at you"!! 

You might want to do a little research before publicly stating you "can't believe any kind of target archer" cares about the weight of his scope.... Rather than argue with me go on Shrewd's web site and note the name of a certain scope.

I'm not even going to bother explaining why a lighter scope can be advantageous because I'm fairly certain you'll _not _understand and will totally disagree that there is anyway any world class or other type of archer would prefer a lighter weight scope over a heavy weight scope. 




nestly said:


> all else being equal, i would choose a lightweight scope over a heavy one, and it has nothing to do with reducing the overall weight of the bow. Target sights are relatively delicate instruments and more mass at the end of the sight imparts more stress on sight components than less mass. Granted, i was shooting tournaments in the 90's when scopes rained down on the practice range like leaves fall from the trees in autumn. Fortunately, bows have less vibration now, and sights are generally engineered better, but the principal remains the same.


A big reason to use lighter weight components is to have more control over the _balancing _of the rig. A heavier scope might matter to some folks while others aren't concerned.


People should pause for a moment before posting "laughing at" "you guys".......... He could have simply asked why a heavier scope _may _be a disadvantage.


----------



## Brohalloran (Aug 2, 2016)

Thanks for all the advice guys i think i am going to go with the larger housing for 3D and smaller for spot shooting. since some people are saying its preference i will probably try them each for 3D to see which one i like more for sure


----------



## allxs (Mar 10, 2005)

Kstigall said:


> Believe it because the weight of a scope can matter even for guys that use a lot more than a pound and a half of stabber weights!!!
> You should be aware that you are laughing at Reo Wilde, Rodger Willet and a host of other world class archers...... I can assure you that your statement has some folks "Lmao at you"!!
> 
> You might want to do a little research before publicly stating you "can't believe any kind of target archer" cares about the weight of his scope.... Rather than argue with me go on Shrewd's web site and note the name of a certain scope.
> ...



too funny!


----------



## B.T. Splinterz (Aug 31, 2016)

field of view, light transmission


----------

