Just wondering who has used both, and your thoughts? Going on a lightweight gun. I like the idea of 2x in the timber, but like the idea of 9x out in the open.

It will be paired up with the LR reticle.

I have owned a 2.5x8 and liked it, but I am not wanting a VX3, and I like the LR reticle.

thanks.

I just bought a VXII 2-7 for a 9.3X62 and have not used it a lot(yet) but think it is a good match, FWIW.

I guess it depends on the game sought. 7x is plenty for 300+ yard deer, maybe not for 300 yard varmints.

Mt deer gun a .257 Roberts wears a VX2 2x7x33, so does my coyote gun.

How does the eye relief/box compare? Just wondering if it is forgiving side to side when you look through it. I don't know the technical terms, but I owned a Monarch before, and if your eye wasn't just right, you saw a black donut.

Thanks.

Great eye box on the 2x7x33, and the 2.5x8x36 for that matter I have one of those too.

Most of my scopes are 3-9x, but lately I have become a fan of the smaller and lighter 2-7x's, and recently purchased a 2.5-8x for a new rifle. I find that other than at the range I just never use anything beyond 6x. That's just me and my hunting areas though...suppose it might be different if I spent most of my time in flat open country chasing varmints.

This will be on a deer/elk rifle. I would like solid performance out to 400 yards though.

Both will be fine.

Will this be a "light rifle" (2-7) or a long range (3-9).

Barely worth worrying about, as they are both just fine for the application.

(BTW-I have both, like both, and would buy both again.)

BMT

My range doesn't go to 400 yards, but I shoot sub-2" groups at 300 yards all the time with straight 6x scopes. That's on a 308 class sporter. With no wind my heavy 223 equipped with a 6x42AO will shade that easily.

I like and use higher magnification scopes too, but you don't need a lot of X's to hit stuff.

mathman

Tikka T3 Lite.

Similar eye relief between the VXIII 2.5-8 and the VXII 2-7,IMO.

...but better eye relief for the 2-7x than the 3-9x loopy variX2 I have...

For me . . .

Standard Caliber (7-08, 308, 270, etc) I would go 3-9.

Magnums 2-7 (bigger eyebox for bigger recoil).

Good Shooting.

BMT

I have a 3x9 and a 1x4 (both VX2) and the eye relief and eye alignment are forgiving.
The 2x7 has a tube length between bells 5.2" and 3.8" of eye relief. The 3x9 has a tube length of 5.6" and 3.7" of eye relief. The 3x9 is 1.5 oz. heavier. I got the 3x9 instead of the 2x7 because I needed the extra tube length. For the longer ranges the 3x9 may be better for you.

dogcatcher: Right now I have both and they make me wonder why I have any VX III's. The 2-7 is on a 30/06 and I have another NIB;the 3-9 presently sits on 300 winmag.I like both and except for size they seem as alike as peas in a pod.Both are easy viewing,flexible as to head position on the stock,eyerelief, etc.Good flexible hunting scopes.

I shot them both at 400 and 500 yards within the last 2 weeks, and had no problem hitting what I needed to. On a light rifle,like a 270,280,I like the 2-7 better because the definition is sufficient out 400 yards or so,and the scope is lighter.

The gun is a 6.5x55. Nice and light, that is what tempts me to keep the scope lighter too. Although, 1.5oz is not the end of the world.

I have 3x9's on the following:

223AI
243
30'06
338 Win mag.

I have no complaints, but I do wish all my scopes were the LR reticle. It makes dinging the target at 400, a no brainer.

IMO, a 2-7X would be perfect for a 6.5X55.

1

2-7x

Do you see the barrel when set at 2x?

I've owned both and I say go with whatever feels/looks best on your rifle. I really love the sight picture of the 3x9, but that 2x7 is plenty. I carried a 2x7 on a javelina hunt several years ago. I emptied my rifle and held on some cattle twice as far as I would ever consier shooting. We're talking 800 yards or more. Now cattle are bigger than deer, but even at 6x, I was able to hold on vitals just fine. The reticles didn't cover half the animal. Right then I decided that I would never need anything more for the hunting I intend on doing - basically 400 yards and in. The scope may work even futher, but I wouldn't. IMO, a VX-II in 2x7 is one great all-around scope when considering a variable.

AZ: I am inclined to agree with you on that.Some want and like more power, but a 2-7 is a very satisfactory scope for most of the big game shooting that most of us do.The 2-7 is sort of unsung,but is light, rugged,mounts well,and gives adequate definition for most situations. I like the fact it turns down to 2X which is really handy when tracking/still hunting here in the Northeast.

What impressed me about the 2-7X33's is their very generous, easy to use eye box. Makes them very user friendly. Far more useful an attribute than more magnification for big game hunting. E

I put my first Loopy 2-7X on my 9.3X62.

I like it!

I'm running the 2x7 Leupold on my .50 cal MZer and 12ga rifled slug gun...great scope that doesn't give up much in any department....

The 2-7x33 is the one Leupold I've owned the most of... it's a touch short, however, for some LA's.

I tend to try to match the size/power of a scope to the rifle/cartridge it'll be perched on.

My Kimber 300 WSM is getting the 3-9x40 LR. Love that scope/rifle combo.

My Kimber 308 has a 2-7x33 LR on top. Perfect power/proportions for that rifle IMO. Ditto a 6x36 LR.

I'm building a SS M70 270 Fwt which will get a 6x36 LR on top.

If you do the math, an object view at 7x doesn't appear much different then an object viewed at 9x.

At 7x, an object viewed at 100 yards appears to be at 14.3 yards, or 42.9 feet.

At 9x, an objected viewed at 100 yards appears to be at 11.1 yards, or 33.3 feet.

The difference is 3.2 yards or 9.5 feet per 100 yards.

I like the slightly smaller size of the Leupold 2-7x scopes and have several Vari-X ll, Rifleman, VX1, and VX2 configurations. My favorite is the VX2 with a heavy duplex reticle.

Jeff

Jeff, in theory you are absolutely correct... However, I absolutely do notice the difference in the field for stuff past 500 yards. Still, I'm comfortable with the 7X (actually 6.8x I think) out at long range on BG... I just prefer the sight picture of the big 3-9x40 a bit better than the 2-7x33... but the big 3-9 is just too much of a good thing on svelt rifles for my taste even though I think it's one of the smartest scopes Leupold makes.

Brad, wondered when you would chime in.

I knew you were a proponent of the LR reticle too. I really like that reticle so far.

At 500 yards, an object viewed at 7x would appear to be 71.43 yards away and an objected viewed at 9x would appear to be 55.56 yards away, a difference of 15.87 yards or about 48 feet. I don't think that I've ever shot a game animal or predator at over 400 yards away, but if I was going to, I think that I might want a little more than 7x, and would probably mount something in the 4-12x or 4.5-14x range.

Most of the deer that I have shot were within 250+/- yards, so, for me, the HD reticle works fine and is easier to see under low light conditions.

Jeff

Dogcatcher, actual top end magnification of the 2-7x33 is 6.6x while the 3-9x40 is 8.6x. Mathman shoots small groups at 300 yds with a 6x. I've had the same experience with both a 2.5-8x36mm and a 1.75-6x33mm, both set at highest power. So fine long range accuracy with either scope is doable. I have an old Vari-XII 3-9x40mm on my 30-06 M70 FTW Classic and IMO the scope is 'too big' for the rifle - the 40mm objective overpowers the rig. On the same rifle in 6.5x55mm I have a Vari-X II 2-7x28mm and it seems 'just right.' I confess a bias for 2-7x28s early in life, later switching to 2-7x33s and now use 2.5-8x36s preferentially - all Leupolds. I haven't had to pass up a shot in the field yet just because of not enough magnification. Just my 0.02.

Thanks for the input.

I liked the 2.5x8, it just doesn't come in the LR reticle. It comes in the B&C reticle, but I don't care for it.

Leaning towards the 2x7. On a side note, I have rang the gong at 500yds with my scope set on 2.5, so I know it is possible, just like a little help sometimes.

My latest 2-7x33 has the LR reticle. I like it, but have used the B&C a lot and despite the generally negative feelings about it here, I find it easy to use and useful.

Haven't spent much time behind a B&C reticle, but it seemed to busy for me. I do wish the LR dots were a tad smaller though.

Like all else in shooting it takes enough dedicated practice with it to get over the learning curve. I've shot the B&C quite a bit over the past 5 years and it's helped me make some tough shots reasonable. However, I recognize there are other good solutions and personal preference is an important part of the decision.

Brad: Cool!

Following Brad and Dober's advice,I have been shooting a 3-9 LR reticle lately on a 300 Win Mag,and have found so far that it allows a 300 yard zero,and use of the first dot at 400 yards; the second dot at 500.Load is a 165 at 3260 app.More shooting is required....

I kind of agree with those that like the smaller 2-7 on smaller,lighter rifles like a FW 270 or 30/06.The 3-9 suits the bigger rifles, but day in and day out,I would have no problem with the 2-7 on a 300 or 7 mag either,as I've shot 600 yards many times with a 6X at targets.After having owned many 2.5-8 VX III's, I am about convinced they offer no practical advantage over a 2-7 as presently made.

What I've noticed is that fine reticles and fine dots tend to disappear when it gets dark. Are you going to be hunting on any dark days or dark timber with that rifle ? E

I hunt from dark to dark, but never had noticed a problem with the standard duplex, which isn't very bold.

Well, I orderd a 2x7 LR today. I had to just get it over with, rather than keep dabating it.

Thanks for all the feedback.

i've had both, but now i only use the 3x9x40.

I own four Leupold 2x7s. One (same as yours) has been NIB for a year now waiting for the next suitable rifle to arrive.

Not a Leupold 3x9 anywhere in the locker. I'd rather have the lower end magnification than the extra weight and length.

I've been doing some homework, and like the compact size/weight and the 75 moa internal elevation travel inherent to the 2-7x33, as compared to the 56 moa on tap in the 3-9x40.

I have not seen this scope yet, but with every gun I own wearing at least a 3x9, I thought it was worth a shot. Worse case scenario, I put it on a 10/22.

Had a 2.5-8, and liked its small size.

DC, you may have mentioned and I missed it, but what rifle/chambering is the 2-7 going on?

300 RUM.....grin


6.5x55

Yep, 6.5 Swede.

PS, I might see how much Leupold would charge to change out one of my duplexes into a LR. I love that reticle.

dogcatcher: Good choice...can't really go wrong.

I wonder what Leupold charges to change out a reticle to the LR dots job?

340boy. Just had it done, right at $75.00 with shipping etc. Before I'm done all my Leupolds well have the LR retical.

75 bucks?
Not bad at all...

Thanks Super T!

$75 is kind of steep, for a VX-1. You are looking at $100 after shipping.

Big fan of the VX-1's. I have owned 1's, 2's and 3's, and couldn't tell the difference, so I buy the 1's.

Fom what you say I would get a 2x7. I have used both. I have 2x7's in Varix IIc, Rifleman and VX2 with LRR.

I have 3x9's in VariXIIc and VX1 with LRR.

I like the 2x7 for it's small size, lighter weight and lower magnification which seems a little easier to shoot with both eyes open than a 3x9.

I like the 3x9 for it's longer tube and the 9x setting lets folks see bullet holes at the range easier. They are much easier to mount on a Model 70 than a 2x7 for example.

The VX2 in 2x7 is an incredible scope by the way. It is quite comparable to my 2.5-8x36's.

I think you will like your 2x7.
I own several Remington 600's and a light carbine deserves a light,short,and functional scope imho.
I put a VX-1 2x7 on my 600 in 308 and the scope really compliments that rifle.
The eye box is wonderful and every thing comes in to view quickly when you pull the rifle up into shooting position.
I shot a buck at almost dark a few years ago and we lasered that shot at 244 yards and i could see that deer clearly.
The only thing i dont like about my VX-1 is the friction adjuster.
But that's all.
I have a VX-2 3X9 on my 600 in 6MM but the scope seems to over whelm the little carbine.
I tried to find a Nikon Monarch 2x7 but was unable to so i cheaped out last Friday and ordered a Bushnell Legend in 2x7 for the 6mm.
I have a Monarch 2x7 on my 600 in 243.
A great scope but again it is not as forgiving eye box wise compared to the the VX-1.
Again i really think you will like that nifty 2x7.

Thanks, I am glad this whole discussion remained civil, LOL.

I like the VX-1's because I believe they are the same as the old Vari-X-II's, which I liked. I do wish they had click adjust, but once I get the LR reticle dialed in, I won't be messing with it.

I would be curious how you like the Legend. I've considered that for another gun I have that needs a scope. I cannot afford to slap Loopys on everything, even the VX-1's add up.

Money was the key reason i did not buy another VX-1.
I have read some decent reviews on the Legend and after i mount it and shoot the rifle i guess i will give a seat of the pants review.
I ordered it from Optics Planet for 119.89 and shipped for free.

What are your feelings about the Leupold VX-II Ultralight 3-9x33 scope?

Power change rings too hard to move?

It is about the same size as the 2-7 and weighs less I think.

The 3x9 ultralight is .3" longer tube between the bells but has .7" less eye relief and at 9x the exit pupil is less than 4mm.

Just my 2cents. When I bought my wife a 6.5x55 (22" barrel)it came with a 3x9 Leupold. It felt clumsy having that big scope on it. I put a 2-7 on it and it balances much better now. I have both, but have been buying more 2-7 than anything else and they have plenty of magnification.

That scope has the dubious distinction of being one of the very few Leupold scopes I don't recommend. It's eye relief tends to be barely adequate to too short and it's eye box is just barely adequate at 3-4X. Not at all at any magnification over 4X.
I wish I'd have tried it before I bought the Compact I have. I'd much rather have a VX1 2-7X33 over either of the Ultralight variables. E

I too heard poor feedback on the Ultralights/compacts. Everyone said the 2x7 was a better choice.