Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupy 2-7x33 vs. 2.5-8x36..........

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......

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.

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

I'm a fan of the Leupold 2-7x line of scopes from #106xxY all the way back to #1118xx.

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

And just for the record, after counting my fingers and toes, I own more 2-7's than 2.5-8's.

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

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.

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?

Own both. Shoot both. Like both.

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.

You heard...but haven't experienced a 1st hand Z3 failure.

Gotta love this forum. Lol

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Why if they work?
The smaller Leupolds work fine if you don't shoot at night (legal hours here are 1/2hr before sunrise to 1/2 hr after sunset) and you keep your shots inside of 350 yards or so (the vast majority of us) and you aren't using them as a spotting scope/binoculars.
They are a sighting system with the advantage of being small and lightweight and affordable. Is there something with those attributes that is better? Have to be a lot better to make me give up something that has been working for going on 50 years (not the same glass but the same manufacturer).

I am on 60+ Leupolds and counting.
For hunting scopes, and set it and forget it scopes, they are great.
I know I have Leupolds that have held zero for longer than half of the new "tactical scope only" crowd has been alive. My first was a M7 4X made in the 60's.

That said, For precision rigs, I run NF NXS variables. Only.

And Leupy Mark 4s. But fixed power only.

And Weaver Micro Trac and SWFA SS. But fixed power only.

Regardless of what anyone says, I am right certain I have it figured out quite well.

For normal Michigan hunting ranges, the The Leupold variables have been good to me. But there are some I can't like. The1.75-6x32,2.5-8x36, 4.5-14x40.

I know most here consider me a Leupold slut, but it is actually on a limited basis. Certain models I love, certain models I won't touch.

YMMV.....

I've had such good luck with the 1.75-6 and 2.5-8 that I've gotten rid of most of my other scopes. They aren't top end glass but they aren't $2K either.

I prefer the 2.5-8 but really don't know why. It just works better for me in the field than the 2-7. It might be that the scope comes up perfectly, the image is sharp and clear, and that I have a bias towards the Vari X III line of scopes.

I have a 1978 Vari-X II that has been on my 1978 M700 since both were new--Redfield one piece mount and rings. It's sighted in for 150 NBT's with H4831 since the mid 90's and I haven't adjusted it since........

I don't know if that's saying much for my loonyism............


Casey

Brad,
Leupold ballyhooed the erector springs in the VX3 line but I have never seen them mention it about the VX2 scopes, so I don't think they do have the twin springs.

The VXII 2-7 on my son's rifle, 1 click may equal anywhere from nothing to 3/4 inch on the windage adjustment. One of these days I'm going to send it in.

Casey

Each to their own. I've never seen enough difference to justify $100 more for the 2.5x8. YMMV

Maybe I shoulda also put the 1.75-6x32 into the title. It is another that I dislike and would buy the 2-7x33 over. I can't remember if I have had 2 or 3 of them. They are all gone now. One of them had a bad windage turret.....

I have a 2-7 the first year they came out and it still works great. The only problem I have ever seen with it was a friends fault. He had to get one because I had one. I told him to set it on four and don't mess around with it. Jumped a good buck and it went straight up to him on a dead run. of course he had been fooling around with it and now it was set on 7. Nothing but hair in the scope for three missed shots. He bought the drinks that night.

I'm no scope expert but I have learned that the lighter and lower-mounted the scope, the less weirdness I see regarding wandering zero etc.

Ie a low profile, light weight scope that can be mounted lower in good mounts, will always be my first option. It gets more important as recoil increases, whether that's due to a more powerful cartridge and or a lighter rifle.

Maybe not too much in it in respect of the two scopes cited above, but for the reasons above I choose the 2-7x33.

If you pay attention to used scopes, 40mm and larger objectives will generally have more and bigger dings on the objective bell--they stick out more and a lot more likely to get banged around.

Actually I much prefer looking through Leupold 3-9's and 3.5-10's, but they "unbalance" a lightweight rifle.

I've carried a number of 2-7's and 2.5-8's on lightweight and heavier hunting rifles, and the compactness makes it easier to avoid banging them on stuff. Horse and ATV scabbards are another consideration.

For me, the size difference between the two is almost nil--but the
2-7's are more S/A friendly.

Casey

Dont care for the Leupold 2 X 7 sold my last one have owned around 5 the early ones were a pain to get zeroed. Much prefer the 2 X 7 Vortex Viper. Like the 2.5 X 8 Leupold holds zero its adjustments work. Just sold a newer Leupold 2 X 7 replaced it with a Vortex Viper 2 X 7 zeroed in 2 shots and it holds it zero.

I have and like both, never had a problem with either.

I just picked up my first 1.75-6 a VX3, so far playing with at the house I really like it. Taking it to the range this weekend to stretch it out, this range offers electronic targets out to 600yds about twice as far as I'm capable of. I look forward to reporting back on but if it performs there like it should I may be on the lookout for more of these.

I've owned several 2.5-8s and liked them a ton, I've never had a Leupold 2-7 to compare them to but other maker's versions to which I liked the 2.5-8 Leupold better.

If Leupold currently made a straight 8x (approximately the size of the 2.5x-8x), that's what I would use. However, I have several of the 2.5x-8xs. Great scopes; I leave them at 8x all the time.

I have several of the 2.5-8 version. The eye relief does change with power, but it's largely a moot point for me. I mount the scope to be perfect on 8x, and at lower magnifications the eyebox is so flexible that I get a full sight picture right away anyway.

I've also noticed "threes" seem to have less parallax then "twos" when both are used away from their parallax free distances.

4X......

Yes. This is why I have three vari-x II/VX2 2-7x33 and three vari-x III 1.5-5x20 scopes.

Can someone who owns either of these scopes tell me the actual Mounting space available on the tube? I debating buying one of these for a model 70 375, but the outside distance on my talley scope mounts is 5.25 inches and I want to make sure it will fit. I see the factory specs, but IME those can be incorrect. Thanks!

Both are a bit over 5", neither gets you to 5 1/4".

I will jump into the Leupold / Swarovski fracas. Agree that the Swarovski optics are generally better. I have a lot of Leupolds. None have yet been back for repair. Three Swarovskis have been home for a total of five times. Once on the scope, four times on two binoculars (3&1). Swaro service is quick and they come back as good or better than new. Leupolds work for me as well.

Jack

I own 2 VX2 2-7x33's and both are on larger caliber rifles (a 358 Win and a 9.3x62 Mauser). They have held zero since installed and they have been though some fairly rough mountain hunts in CO and elsewhere. They are great little scopes and have never needed service.

This scope doesn't get much press here. Is there a reason?
Lupy 1.7-6

I have a VX-3 1.75-6x32 on a Marlin 336 and love it. I've got a VX-R 2-7x33 on an AR and love it. I don't have a 2.5-8x32 VX-3 but I look through them at work all the time. To my eyes they are great and I'd like to get one. I also look through Swaro Z3's a lot at work along with other Swaro Models and I flat out don't see as well through a Z3 as I do a VX-3, MeoPro, Conquest or Elite 4200 which I own. From my experience selling optics I believe another persons view is useless when it comes to optics because everyone's eyes are truly different.