32mm Objective lens

[mike.dawson]

I am looking to purchase the Burris short mag, 4.5-14x32 as my primary hunting optic. Is the 32mm objective lens large enough to allow enough light into the scope. Richard has this scope for range work but couldn't offer an opinion on this scope for hunting on 10ml ll

Thanks, Mike

[ChrisChampion]

If you want the 14x for target shooting but never plan on increasing the mag past 6 or 7 while hunting then that scope should be fine. If you plan on using the higher magnification settings for hunting then I would consider a scope with at least a 40mm obj lens.

[Harley]

Chris is right; it won't make any noticeable difference at mid-day, but very early and very late (deer sighting times) the difference is critical at the higher magnifications.

Harley

[rangeball]

Rule of thumb, you want the exit pupil ratio to be 5 or above for maximum light transmission, the most your eye can use.

Take the objective diameter and divide it by the power setting, result should be 5 or more for max transmission. For example, 40 mm objective lense with scope set on 3 power will give you an exit pupil of 13.3, way adequate. The same scope set on 9x will give you an exit pupil of 4.4, and the image at first and last light may appear dimmer than what your eye can see without looking through the scope.

[petev]

The only rifle I like a 32mm on is a carbine where I want the lower power of 1.5 or 2 and the lower weight and shorter length. Otherwise it's a 40 mm.

[Harley]

Rangeball, an exit pupil of 5 is the most a YOUNG eye can use. As you age, your pupil becomes less elastic and can't dilate well enough to take advantage of that much light transmission. So, for instance, an older shooter could do as well with a 10x42 as with a 10x56.

Harley

[petev]

For hunting it would seem that your field of view would be pretty small at the higher powers with the 32 mm.

[tar12]

Jan 5, 2009 18:07:58 GMT -5 petev said:

For hunting it would seem that your field of view would be pretty small at the higher powers with the 32 mm.

You are absolutley correct.I find I like no less than a 44mm.

[SW]

When hunting I leave the scope on the lowest power in case something shows up close and I have little time to acquire the tgt(animal). So with 3X12, I'm on 3 pwr and 2X7 on 2 pwr. If it's farther out and moving I'll still appreciate the lower power for acquisition. If it's way out there, there should be time to increase the pwr as needed.
Concerning scope size - I hunted 2 seasons with a 3.5X15 56 mm Nightforce on the 10-ML and then 10-ML2. Loved the scope but just too big/heavy - it was an AO that held up. Nightforce recently came out with a 24mm 2.5X10 with reticles including MD. This is certainly light, small but very small. They have just come out with a 32mm version of a 2.5X10(30 mm tube) with reticles(3 to choose from including MD) on etched glass and lighted reticle as std. 6 pwr could still be used during very low light conditions. I'm hoping to get one of these. Would also go great on a nice Strykeforce x-bow .

[ozark]

I have a 2-7 x32 On my Marlin .17 Cal. I like it just fine and have not experienced any occasion where it was inadaquate. I may be an exception to the general rule because regardless of the scope setting, objective lens size or whatever, when I shoulder the rifle or shotgun the scope is on target close enough to view the animal. Ordinarily, I just have to make a slight move to get the crosshairs on intended poi and start the squeeze. I don't know if it is a trained response or a natural knack. Ozark

[joe21a]

The info that rangeball gave is very good to compare different scope. It is not completely reliable with the coating the they use on the better scoped. I have several 40 mm scope in the 3-9 range. At dusk and dawn I use then if I am not sure a stump is a stump. The scope view is always brighter than my eye see. I find the same thing with my 10-42 Nikon bino's. The 32 mm may be to small go to a gun store and try one in a low light room.

[SW]

Jan 5, 2009 20:24:53 GMT -5 ozark said:

I have a 2-7 x32 On my Marlin .17 Cal. I like it

I also have a 2X7 32 mm on my Marlin 17 and love it. (Browning 2X7 for $119 from Natchez, actually a Bushnell 3200-what a deal!). Great minds in Arkansas .

[rangeball]

Jan 5, 2009 17:47:32 GMT -5 Harley said:

Rangeball, an exit pupil of 5 is the most a YOUNG eye can use. As you age, your pupil becomes less elastic and can't dilate well enough to take advantage of that much light transmission. So, for instance, an older shooter could do as well with a 10x42 as with a 10x56.

Harley

Good point Harley, hadn't learned that through OJT but inching closer to it every day

[Harley]

Rangeball, I just experienced it the hard way: I have an excellent pair of 10x42's, but just bought (for Xmas) the new Zeiss Victory Fl-T 10x56. I've spent hours at twilight trying to convince myself the difference is worth the money, but I can't "see" it. LOL.

Harley

[chuck41]

I had a Simmons 3-9x40 that "went south" on me. Returned it to Bushnell and they sent me a 3-9x32 Bushnell as a replacement. I was a bit concerned about that difference, but if Harley can't "see it", at my age I probably won't be able to either.