40 vs 32mm objective lens

Rifle scopes, iron sights and optics. Spotting scopes and target acquisition devices.

40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 23 Sep 2021, 9:58 am

So I'm really wanting to replace this Nikko Stirling mount master that came with my Norinco 22. I'm probably the least fussy here, but it's fairly horrible and makes the $165 bushnell AR I've got on the 308 look like a premium scope.

Anyway, I'm capping my budget around the $300 mark as I just don't have oodles of income in the near future and it's just a cheap rifle. Got a list of a heap that fit within that price range, bit hard choosing between.

I like the features of the AR optics-side focus/adjustable objective for varying ranges and the hold over reticle, plus they seem to be reasonably tough and good value with most users. I've since learnt how to change the fixed objective on many scopes, so that's less of an issue if throwing it onto a different calibre later on etc.

Reading reviews on the AR 3-9x40 mentions the weight. It's probably max 100g heavier that anything else in similar price bracket at the same size, generally less difference. But it did make me consider the idea of going down to a 32mm objective to save weight. Maybe something like the Vortex Crossfire2 2-7x32.

This will be a rabbit rifle, so likely to be used right up until last shooting light, right at dawn etc. Possibly spotlighting if I find some private land to hunt on, but that's not on the cards currently.

Given the use, what difference will I see going down to a 32mm objective lens from 40mm in those low light type of situations?

Cheers, Stu
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by boingk » 23 Sep 2021, 10:36 am

Hi mate, I'd be sorely tempted to go the 2-7x32. I've got similar fixed to my Norinco 22 at the moment and it feels just about right. I don't go dusk hunting much with it but it certainly does its part on heavily overcast or otherwise dim days.

Personally I don't think you'd be giving up much, especially at the lower magnifications. If spotlighting in the future having a nice low-end mag will help with target acquisition, too.

- boingk
Nil
boingk
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 682
Other

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Oldbloke » 23 Sep 2021, 11:02 am

Vortex Crossfire2 2-7x32.. Vortex have a good rep. But for low light 40mm objective will be better.

It's all about compromise.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Bugman » 23 Sep 2021, 11:06 am

32 objective is a bit old hat when it comes to the humble 22 (just my opinion, mind you) I think you would get better service from a 40mm objective letting more light in etc.
User avatar
Bugman
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1071
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bigpete » 23 Sep 2021, 11:18 am

I just fitted a vortex crossfire II 2-7x32 on my 308 and I'm very impressed with it so far,plus I have 32mm scopes on at least 5 of my rifles,all of which I will use for spotlighting
bigpete
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3577
South Australia

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 23 Sep 2021, 1:06 pm

Thanks all. Not really selling me either way just yet!!

Have you used it yet at sunset type times without lights Pete? Because I'm in state forests most of time spotlights are out for that, so I'm generally hunting rabbits at the low light times. That part is making me think 40mm still, but I'm yet to read anyone who has done similar with 32mm
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bladeracer » 23 Sep 2021, 1:14 pm

disco stu wrote:Thanks all. Not really selling me either way just yet!!

Have you used it yet at sunset type times without lights Pete? Because I'm in state forests most of time spotlights are out for that, so I'm generally hunting rabbits at the low light times. That part is making me think 40mm still, but I'm yet to read anyone who has done similar with 32mm


I find the forests tend to be a bit dark anyway.
The 32mm is slightly smaller than the 40mm, but is it actually any lighter?
I have a 2-7x32 scout scope, but being such it's very difficult to compare it to a 40mm conventional scope. The scout scope tends to feel more like a ghost ring than a scope I find.

You could use QD mounts and swap on a red dot or reflex sight when it gets darker.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 23 Sep 2021, 1:57 pm

That's a good point. The vortex is around 100g lighter, but there are some options that are about 200g lighter.

100g I don't think is really significant when it's sitting on a rifle that weighs 2.5kg or probably more. 200g probably the same if I'm being honest.

There is a bushnell ar 3-12x40 that weighs the same as the 3-9. Same features etc, just costs about $20 more. If I was going the ar optics I'm thinking going the 3-12 wouldn't be stupid just so I can use it at a later time on other rifles that I might want greater magnification on. Certainly don't need it on 22, but don't have to use it either
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by boingk » 23 Sep 2021, 1:58 pm

How about I get out the back lot this evening with a 32 and a 40? Pretty sure I've got both in equivalent Leupolds.
Nil
boingk
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 682
Other

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bigpete » 23 Sep 2021, 2:05 pm

I haven't used the vortex in low light yet but I've used my other ones a lot in low light/scrubby conditions and they're fine
bigpete
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3577
South Australia

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bladeracer » 23 Sep 2021, 2:11 pm

disco stu wrote:That's a good point. The vortex is around 100g lighter, but there are some options that are about 200g lighter.

100g I don't think is really significant when it's sitting on a rifle that weighs 2.5kg or probably more. 200g probably the same if I'm being honest.

There is a bushnell ar 3-12x40 that weighs the same as the 3-9. Same features etc, just costs about $20 more. If I was going the ar optics I'm thinking going the 3-12 wouldn't be stupid just so I can use it at a later time on other rifles that I might want greater magnification on. Certainly don't need it on 22, but don't have to use it either


I decided I wanted the same scope on whatever rifle I was shooting, so I did a lot of research and settled on the AR Optics 4.5-18x40. I use these on everything from .22LR to 8x57mm and .44 Magnum. 4.5-power is low enough for close-range hunting, and 18-power is high enough for the odd 300m shot on a fox, or for seeing .22LR bullet holes in paper at 200m. And it focuses back to 10m distance. Whatever I happen to be shooting at the time, the scope is always the same.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 23 Sep 2021, 5:42 pm

Thanks all.

Don't go to any effort for my sake boingk. I would think being Leupold that the difference would be less than with lower end scopes.

You sound like you're happy with the AR optics then BR? I've got the 4.5-18 in my 308. If I had known how cheap I was getting it then I would have bought 2, I think I paid $150 plus postage. They are double that now, older model I'm guessing as I can't see the 308 option these days. I've been happy enough with it so far, but I was worried 4.5 was to high initially.

Given the minimal weight difference with 32mm in my price range I'm starting to think I'm probably better going 40mm, plus the rings on rifle currently suit 40 etc etc
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bladeracer » 23 Sep 2021, 6:15 pm

disco stu wrote:Thanks all.

Don't go to any effort for my sake boingk. I would think being Leupold that the difference would be less than with lower end scopes.

You sound like you're happy with the AR optics then BR? I've got the 4.5-18 in my 308. If I had known how cheap I was getting it then I would have bought 2, I think I paid $150 plus postage. They are double that now, older model I'm guessing as I can't see the 308 option these days. I've been happy enough with it so far, but I was worried 4.5 was to high initially.

Given the minimal weight difference with 32mm in my price range I'm starting to think I'm probably better going 40mm, plus the rings on rifle currently suit 40 etc etc


I paid about $350 for the first few, and $160-odd for the last ones - I have eleven of them as most of my rifles don't scope.
Mine are all 223BDC, all old style without the throw-down lever, I made my own.
20190429_143409b.jpg
20190429_143409b.jpg (316.3 KiB) Viewed 4583 times

https://enoughgun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10450#p171266
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 23 Sep 2021, 7:30 pm

Thanks. Seems I'm not alone with how stiff I find the adjustments, especially in the middle of winter in the snowy mountains with gloves on. I've been thinking about making something to go on the magnification ring like that, but I'll look into getting some of those things
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Oldbloke » 23 Sep 2021, 9:51 pm

Its a 22lr. Perhaps consider a fixed 6 x 32 but getting scarce.

Because there are fewer lenses, lighter and better light transmission.

All my rifles are 3-9×40mm. Works for me.

Pros and cons, bottom of page.

https://riflescope-review.com/a-look-at ... ket-today/
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bigpete » 24 Sep 2021, 8:16 am

Nikon do a 4x32 which is both affordable and very clear even at night and is more than enough on a 22
bigpete
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3577
South Australia

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by straightshooter » 24 Sep 2021, 8:32 am

bigpete wrote:Nikon do a 4x32 which is both affordable and very clear even at night and is more than enough on a 22

Good advice.
When reading threads such as this one I just can't understand how I managed to shoot so many rabbits with just a cheap Bushnell 2.5x20 on an equally cheap .22 over so many years.
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
straightshooter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1263
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 24 Sep 2021, 9:10 am

Black powder worked great for many years also......

I'm thinking the weight is a non issue, need to stop listening to fuss pot reviews. Even the fixed power scopes aren't that much lighter, so not going to make a world of difference. Plus I happily walk around all day with a scoped howa 1500. Would need to be fitting 3 scopes or more to this 22 to be getting close to it's weight

I'm really thinking 3-9 x 40mm is going to give me something much more versatile that I can use on a range of rifles for different purposes over time.

Thanks for the responses all
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bigpete » 24 Sep 2021, 9:43 am

It still does. Just need to be skilful
bigpete
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3577
South Australia

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Gamerancher » 24 Sep 2021, 11:27 am

"Black powder worked great for many years also......"

"It still does. Just need to be skilful"

You beat me to it Bigpete :lol:

My eyes just don't like scopes with objective lenses smaller than 40mm. I see a "fish-eye" sort of image with the smaller diameter lenses, I like a flat image.
User avatar
Gamerancher
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1596
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Oldbloke » 24 Sep 2021, 11:35 am

"I'm really thinking 3-9 x 40mm is going to give me something much more versatile that I can use on a range of rifles for different purposes over time."

Thanks for the responses all
disco stu

Just don't go too cheap.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Harrynsw » 24 Sep 2021, 12:44 pm

Vortex crossfire.
Harrynsw
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 440
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bladeracer » 24 Sep 2021, 3:06 pm

disco stu wrote:Black powder worked great for many years also......

I'm thinking the weight is a non issue, need to stop listening to fuss pot reviews. Even the fixed power scopes aren't that much lighter, so not going to make a world of difference. Plus I happily walk around all day with a scoped howa 1500. Would need to be fitting 3 scopes or more to this 22 to be getting close to it's weight

I'm really thinking 3-9 x 40mm is going to give me something much more versatile that I can use on a range of rifles for different purposes over time.

Thanks for the responses all


I think you probably need to get out and spend a day or a weekend wandering around in a state forest to be able to determine your own preferences and limitations. I think the basic Howa 1500 is around the same weight as the LA101 anyway, so get out into the bush with it.

I looked at lower-zoom scopes as well, but I wanted one scope that I could do everything with across a wide variety of chamberings and platforms. For practicing on paper, 9-power is just barely sufficient to see .22-caliber bullet holes at 100m, for me, and certainly no further. The ability to shoot small targets at longer ranges is not greatly lessened by lower zoom, but it is easier to place your bullet on a foxes head at 300m with much greater magnification than a 4-power scope offers.

If you want to borrow a nice compact Winchester 1894 .30-30 I'm sure it can be arranged. Or I can put the Ruger Compact back into a polymer stock if you just want to take a .22LR. I could put it in the laminated stock and scope it with a lightweight 4-power or 3-9x40, or the heavier 4.5-18x40 if you want to see if you're happy to carry something closer in weight to the LA101. You could borrow the Target model if you want to try it out, but it removes the option of iron sights.

If you really want to challenge yourself I have the .45-caliber Hawken Rifle with patched balls, but good luck seeing which way the rabbit went when you pulled the trigger :-)
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Oldbloke » 24 Sep 2021, 3:21 pm

BR, DS is an 8 hour drive for you. Lol

If you shooting rabbits you only need to clearly see the rabbit. Not holes in paper.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 24 Sep 2021, 3:32 pm

bladeracer wrote:
disco stu wrote:Black powder worked great for many years also......

I'm thinking the weight is a non issue, need to stop listening to fuss pot reviews. Even the fixed power scopes aren't that much lighter, so not going to make a world of difference. Plus I happily walk around all day with a scoped howa 1500. Would need to be fitting 3 scopes or more to this 22 to be getting close to it's weight

I'm really thinking 3-9 x 40mm is going to give me something much more versatile that I can use on a range of rifles for different purposes over time.

Thanks for the responses all


I think you probably need to get out and spend a day or a weekend wandering around in a state forest to be able to determine your own preferences and limitations. I think the basic Howa 1500 is around the same weight as the LA101 anyway, so get out into the bush with it.

I looked at lower-zoom scopes as well, but I wanted one scope that I could do everything with across a wide variety of chamberings and platforms. For practicing on paper, 9-power is just barely sufficient to see .22-caliber bullet holes at 100m, for me, and certainly no further. The ability to shoot small targets at longer ranges is not greatly lessened by lower zoom, but it is easier to place your bullet on a foxes head at 300m with much greater magnification than a 4-power scope offers.

If you want to borrow a nice compact Winchester 1894 .30-30 I'm sure it can be arranged. Or I can put the Ruger Compact back into a polymer stock if you just want to take a .22LR. I could put it in the laminated stock and scope it with a lightweight 4-power or 3-9x40, or the heavier 4.5-18x40 if you want to see if you're happy to carry something closer in weight to the LA101. You could borrow the Target model if you want to try it out, but it removes the option of iron sights.

If you really want to challenge yourself I have the .45-caliber Hawken Rifle with patched balls, but good luck seeing which way the rabbit went when you pulled the trigger :-)
:D

Thanks for the offer, very generous. But like old bloke said I'm a fair way north of you. Also, this scope is for a Norinco puma bolt (can't remember model number), which I gather is a lot lighter than the LA101.

Don't make me cry with getting out in a forest! I can't leave my lga currently. I'm getting so bad I'm going to go for an overnight hike in the bush behind my house. I could walk all the way to the blue mountains only crossing 2 roads, but resisting that urge
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bladeracer » 24 Sep 2021, 4:53 pm

Oldbloke wrote:BR, DS is an 8 hour drive for you. Lol

If you shooting rabbits you only need to clearly see the rabbit. Not holes in paper.


True, but you also need to spend time practicing :-)
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by bladeracer » 24 Sep 2021, 5:11 pm

disco stu wrote:Thanks for the offer, very generous. But like old bloke said I'm a fair way north of you. Also, this scope is for a Norinco puma bolt (can't remember model number), which I gather is a lot lighter than the LA101.

Don't make me cry with getting out in a forest! I can't leave my lga currently. I'm getting so bad I'm going to go for an overnight hike in the bush behind my house. I could walk all the way to the blue mountains only crossing 2 roads, but resisting that urge



Yep, the JW15 is a nice little rifle. I really do need to get myself a JW25A Kar98k replica :-)
It's a 3.5kg rifle though :-)

I really feel for those locked down.
We have had "lock downs" here, but they amount to virtually nothing as anything we want or need to do is still allowed - like shopping or collecting stuff from the Post Office. We don't leave the farm unless we have to anyway, and hunting was unaffected, other than not being allowed to "camp" overnight in the bush at times. Rose has had some time off work in town which has been a very good thing actually, as she's been able to get things done on the farm. It has meant that I haven't been able to have any friends down here to do any shooting for far too long though.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by Oldbloke » 24 Sep 2021, 5:23 pm

bladeracer wrote:
Oldbloke wrote:BR, DS is an 8 hour drive for you. Lol

If you shooting rabbits you only need to clearly see the rabbit. Not holes in paper.


True, but you also need to spend time practicing :-)


True
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by disco stu » 24 Sep 2021, 6:47 pm

We're allowed to hunt, but only of you have somewhere in your lga to go. I'm not sure if we're allowed to camp or not, but no one will know where I'm gong regardless, looks is still my lga, it's exercise etc etc.

I'm still trying to get back out to see if my jw15 is shooting better after having to fix a few things up on it. Getting frustrating waiting for permission to do something, anything
disco stu
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
New South Wales

Re: 40 vs 32mm objective lens

Post by boingk » 24 Sep 2021, 7:27 pm

^ yep, hearing you mate. I fully support camping and hunting. Its about the most solitary and "covid-safe" thing you can do.

On the DL, I reckon Police are fed up with this crap as well. A few mates in the job have said they do anything they can to avoid the designated shifts for it, and when doing regular shifts they turn a blind eye to most stuff related to the ever-mounting ridiculous rules for it.

- boingk
Nil
boingk
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 682
Other

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Scopes, sights and optics