|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565 |
I have long stated the cheaper VX2 2-7x33 to be a better scope than the VX3 2.5-8x36. And been questioned on it plenty of times. Others here seem to wholeheartedly agree. I was questioned on it again, so here goes.
This is my opinion, not theirs. Anyone who cares to, is more than welcome to post their own reasoning in defense of either model right here.
Advantage:
Price----------------------VX2
Weight-------------------VX2
Mounting latitude----VX2
Lower mounting-----VX2
FOV----------------------VX2
Constant eye relief----VX2
These things are enough for me to pick the 2-7x33 over the 2.5-8x3 every time. The 2-7x33 is simply easier to "get behind" IMO.
The 2.5-8x36 has 2moa more adjustment. And that will vary from scope to scope, so it's really a wash. It also supposedly has better lens coatings and is brighter due to larger size. If it is brighter, it sure ain't much. Certainly not enough to over ride the other shortcomings. IME it has wandering eye relief. Roughly twice that of the 2-7x33 IMO. I guess one could argue that it has a nicer or smoother power ring and adjustments. But again, not enough here either to sway my opinion.
Anyhoo, these are my thoughts and not yours. Just letting some here know why I say what I say regarding the 2 models. And I have taken plenty of deer with the 2.5-8x36. Even on 2 long actions, so you needn't tell me it works. I know that. It is just less scope for more money IMO.
Lets hear it......
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
I asked you and I wouldn't disagree with anything you just said.
I've used one on a model 70 in 7mm rem mag for years. It doesn't take any balance away from that gun and so far I've had no need for anything more powerful or brighter. I don't think I've even lost a deer shot at with that gun.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10 |
The 2.5-8's have a larger eyebox, easier to get on target quickly than the 2-7.
I have every generation of the 2-7x33's and 2.5-8's except for the current 3i. I like the 2-7, I wish I could like it more--it's less expensive and smaller and the glass itself is all a guy needs. Plus the LR dots are a more usable option than the ridiculous B&C flea turds cluttering up the crosshairs
My serious elk-getters have 2.5-8's, they are just easier and faster to use.
Casey
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,243 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,243 Likes: 2 |
I'm a fan of the Leupold 2-7x line of scopes from #106xxY all the way back to #1118xx.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565 |
The 2.5-8's have a larger eyebox, easier to get on target quickly than the 2-7.
I respectfully disagree
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10 |
The 2.5-8's have a larger eyebox, easier to get on target quickly than the 2-7.
I respectfully disagree What am I missing? I just went and looked at two rifles I have out right now--a VX-II 2-7 and a VX-3 2.5-8. The lowest power for each, the 2-7 blacks out sooner than the 2.5-8 when I move my head around? Casey
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10 |
And just for the record, after counting my fingers and toes, I own more 2-7's than 2.5-8's.
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565
Campfire Ranger
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565 |
Not sure, but what I can tell you is that eye relief changes with the 2.5-8x throughout the power range about twice as much as the 2-7X does, IMO....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,330 Likes: 10 |
Not sure, but what I can tell you is that eye relief changes with the 2.5-8x throughout the power range about twice as much as the 2-7X does, IMO.... And that's a good point. I'll have to check that out this weekend. I'm taking my eagle eyed teenage son shooting and I'll have him check it out too. Casey
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
I've had lots of VX2 2-7,and VX3 2.5-8X. When called upon they both work.Presently I have a pair of 2.5-8X's.
I have noticed the VX2 line in general seems to show more parallax out around the 300 yard mark than the VX3.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,303 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,303 Likes: 4 |
The 2.5-8's have a larger eyebox, easier to get on target quickly than the 2-7.
I have every generation of the 2-7x33's and 2.5-8's except for the current 3i. I like the 2-7, I wish I could like it more--it's less expensive and smaller and the glass itself is all a guy needs. Plus the LR dots are a more usable option than the ridiculous B&C flea turds cluttering up the crosshairs
My serious elk-getters have 2.5-8's, they are just easier and faster to use.
Casey
Casey pretty well said what I think. I too have owned every variation of the 2-7x33. I'm certain I've had at least 10 of them. I prefer the 2.5-8x36 for the reasons stated. BUT, I really like the 2-7 too, and I can't fault 2muchgun's thinking. He's a guy that is out there doing it. All that to say we can all look at something differently, and not end with the same solution. It's not a right/wrong thing. Quick question, does the 2-7 have the same twin erector springs as the 2-8?
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,019 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,019 Likes: 1 |
Own both. Shoot both. Like both.
I am continually astounded at how quickly people make up their minds on little evidence or none at all. Jack O'Connor
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,610 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,610 Likes: 1 |
They both suck so why does it matter which one sucks more?
You need to up your game on glass.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
They both suck so why does it matter which one sucks more?
You need to up your game on glass. Really, what would you suggest that can compare in weight, size and magnification that is better? I have a couple of the Kahles 2-7X36 scopes but they are now discontinued. I've heard too many bad reports on the Swaro Z3's to think their internals are any better.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,610 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,610 Likes: 1 |
You heard...but haven't experienced a 1st hand Z3 failure.
Gotta love this forum. Lol
Last edited by Ghostman; 10/21/16.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,243 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,243 Likes: 2 |
They both suck so why does it matter which one sucks more?
You need to up your game on glass. I have been using 2-7x Leupolds for 48 years and have over 50 Leupold scopes in service on this date. All have worked fine for me, but I am not a turret turner, generally don't shoot a lot of rounds with any single rifle, generally don't hunt in severe weather, and generally don't shoot belted magnum cartridges. Still have the first one, a 2-7x23 with a TCH reticle, in Redfield turn-in mounts on a Remington 660 in 6mm.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
You heard...but haven't experienced a 1st hand Z3 failure.
Gotta love this forum. Lol Do you know that you are on a talk forum that deals exclusively with other people's opinions and experiences? I don't like the thin reticles in the Z3's. I also looked a a new one last week that had trash inside the tube. Speaking of loving this forum,did you have any useful suggestions, or just derogatory remarks?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,610 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,610 Likes: 1 |
Mr Clark
If you believe a Leupy VX-2 is better than a Swaro Z3 then no I don't have any suggestions for you. WOW
Perhaps Ringman can point you in the right direction with a Bushnell. Lol
Last edited by Ghostman; 10/21/16.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,699
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,699 |
The 2.5-8's have a larger eyebox, easier to get on target quickly than the 2-7.
I have every generation of the 2-7x33's and 2.5-8's except for the current 3i. I like the 2-7, I wish I could like it more--it's less expensive and smaller and the glass itself is all a guy needs. Plus the LR dots are a more usable option than the ridiculous B&C flea turds cluttering up the crosshairs
My serious elk-getters have 2.5-8's, they are just easier and faster to use.
Casey
Casey pretty well said what I think. I too have owned every variation of the 2-7x33. I'm certain I've had at least 10 of them. I prefer the 2.5-8x36 for the reasons stated. BUT, I really like the 2-7 too, and I can't fault 2muchgun's thinking. He's a guy that is out there doing it. All that to say we can all look at something differently, and not end with the same solution. It's not a right/wrong thing. Quick question, does the 2-7 have the same twin erector springs as the 2-8? No sir, the VX2's do not have the twin erector springs, and that always sticks in the back of my mind when using a VX2. Never had a reason not to trust one, just one of those things... Count me in for preferring the 2.5-8, But I do agree that the 2-7 is a nice scope.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,972 |
Mr Clark
If you believe a Leupy VX-2 is better than a Swaro Z3 then no I don't have any suggestions for you. WOW
Perhaps Ringman can point you in the right direction with a Bushnell. Lol More condescending and derogatory remarks. WOW right back at you. Is it possible for you to converse like a grown up adult? I never said the Leupold was better than the Swaro. I said I'm not convinced the durability is any better.I do think they have better glass, and I like the designs and weight. I don't think you have any suggestions at all,since there just isn't anything available in a high end 2-7 power light weight scope. I do have hopes for the new Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 and the Leica in the same size and magnification. My whole point though is that there isn't anything the Leupold 2-7 is competing with.
|
|
|
|
564 members (160user, 257 roberts, 1lessdog, 1_deuce, 12344mag, 10Glocks, 59 invisible),
2,426
guests, and
1,269
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,363
Posts18,527,223
Members74,031
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|