Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Lets discuss 2-7x scopes?????

Not much of a range reticle guy, but IMO, the TDS is the best of the lot. It's simple, not too busy, but effective.

I had one in a 6-18 Swaro. The problem, unless you want to do a bunch of calculations, you need to be on max powder with a SFP reticle for it to work.

7X would be fine, 18X was a bit of a problem. So, I sold that scope, went to twisting turrets.

I think the Kahles 2-7x36 TDS would be about ideal for the TDS, you'd be on 7X for LR shots.

Try finding one of those scopes...

DF

I prefer a 2-7 in general over a 3-9 but seem to have a hard time always getting a suitable one.

I have a Leupold 2-7 Rimfire, about 2 years old. Underwhelmed by it so far. Most likely to it's compact design and/or limited mounting options on that particular rifle. Hard to get behind it. Would likely be great in another application.

My kid put a new VX-2 on his new Vanguard S2 in 300 Win using Talley lightweights. Not particularly sharp or clear. I think that rifle is cursed though, nothing so far shoots under 2" at 100 yards. Fliers galore. Maybe he has a bum scope. It can happen.

Tried a Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35. Optically better to my eyes (except around the edges) than the Leupold but I couldn't live with the short eye relief and got rid of it. Too bad, I'd have a couple of them instead of 3-9s if they worked like the 3-9.

I'm not much into the Leupold Compact series. I do have a couple of rimfire 3-9 with A/O. ER is pretty short.

No Compacts on centerfire guns.

DF

It's too small. You need to trade it for my 3-9 Trijicon Accupoint green plex.

Maybe he didn't just fall off a turnip truck...

DF

It is sarcastic...read my post about my loving my baby Kahles.

DF and I might give the wrong idea in that back and forth..Trijicon Accupoints are very nice optics.

Compact little 2-7 though is the subject and I like mine a LOT.

The 2-7 leupold are my favorite big game hunting scopes. They could be improved greatly by adding about3/4-1 inch to the tube length between the bells as they are just a bit short for long actions.

I love 2-7's. Ive tried Leupold VX1 & 2's, newer Redfield, Nikon Monarch, Buckaster, Prostaff, Vortex Viper, Burris FF1 & 2, Weaver classic and Bauch and Lomb.

My favorite is the weaver classic. Tracks very nice, very clear. 2nd would be the Vortex, 3rd B&L. I had issues with the VX2's and Monarch.

Bought a 35 Whelen bergara barrel for my T/C pro hunter and have been trying to decide on a scope for it. I like the Leupold VR-X 2-7x33 in the red dot but can't decide which recticle. The fire dot plex, firedot 4, or the ballistic firedot. Most of my shots will be under 75 yards in wooded area. After reading this thread I'm kind of interested in the Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 but not sure about reticle.
What do you recommend?

I think the Razor only comes in the G4 which would be fine for your purpose.At short range I wouldn't be interested in any ballistic reticle with the Leupold.

The Leupold may give you a couple minuets longer of reticle vision with the illumination but you will sacrifice a little to glass quality ,FOV, and ease to get behind compared to the Razor. The Leupold is still a great scope and easy to get behind with good glass. The Razor is just a little better in those reguards.

Thanks for the info. You really have me leaning toward the Vortex now. I got on Vortex and some other sites and really like what I'm hearing about the FOV and ease to get behind like you mention. Also I usually use Warne rings on my rifles and already have a Warne base on this barrel. Do you think I would need low rings to mount this scope?

I used to be a 2-7X guy. Still nothing wrong with them and the Redfield Revolution is probably the best bang for the buck. I think they are probably just as good as the VX-1 for a bit less.

But after fooling around with some 1-4X scopes the 2-7X's have lost out for me. If I need low power I find 1X to be significantly better than 2X. In fact I can't really tell any difference in 2X and 3X.

I still have a couple of 2-7X scopes, but nowadays I just use 3-9X40's on most of my rifles, there is only 1-2 oz difference. And 1-4X's on those that I want to use up close and fast.

Another vote for Kahles 2-7 ... wish they would bring this one back!

The Razor has a fairly large ocular(eye piece). On my Kimber Montana,I had to use medium Talley lightweights to clear the bolt handle. The Montana has such a straight stock I actually liked the higher position much better for my eye alignment anyway,and there really wasn't a huge difference. It would certainly mount in lows on a rifle with a 60 degree bolt lift or anything where bolt lift wouldn't be an issue.My guess however that with the added height of a base,lows would work.

Here's a couple of shots of the G4 reticle in the Razor. it does look better in person and any blurring of the edges is in the picture rather than the scope but this will give you a better idea.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-razor-hd-lh-1.5-8x32-g4-bdc-riflescope#opi2471903876

http://s159.photobucket.com/user/cl...0727_190023458_HDR2_zpsfntwboth.jpg.html

I'd get the VX-R Firedot 4. Really like the #4 reticle.

+1, I'm liking mine more and more. It holds no real advantage over the VX-2, except the availability of the Firedot, that I can see.

To the guys who said the full field ll scopes have less eye relief, they have approx 3.1 inches as compared to 3.8 to 3.9 for others leupolds, red fields, Nikon etc. thanks for the info.......

The Leupold 2-7x33 is my favorite of the bunch. The LR Duplex makes it all the better. More than a couple of elk have fallen to rifles with that scope on top. Light, trim, and an ideal power range, spitting range to far out. The current glass and click adjustments on the VX2 make it a different scope than your grandpa's 2-7x33.

Brad,have you ever looked at a Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8X32? I think you would like it even better than the Leupolds,at least I do.