I recently came across an Aim sports 2-7x32 red/green reticle scope. Does anyone know any thing about this scope. RELIABILITY, FACTORY SERVICE, BEST PRICE??????

I seem to prefer the lighted reticles in the dark timber and brush where I tend to hunt the most.

If you have another recommendation please let me know.

PLEASE SHARE YOU ACTUAL EXPERIENCES and THOUGHTS.

MANY THANKS IN ADVANCE
ABLE

You might think me a scope snob but I wouldn't own a scope under $200 for hunting. The cheapest one I would be interested in is the Leupold VXR 2-7.

The 2-7 or tweener scopes are my favorite hunting scopes. Leopold is good, Kahles is better and I've found the Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8 to be the best yet.

I to am fond of the 2-7X scopes for hunting. IMHO if one needs to buy an "entry level scope" it's best to stick to the basics. Lighted reticles are not one of them. I hunt mostly thick brush and dark timber to and find Leupolds hvy reticle work well. I believe the Leupold 2-7x32 VX-1 shotgun scope is so equipped. Maybe give it a thought.

that 1.8-8x Vortex is a light and game grabbing beast of a little scope. You gain a few ounces over similar leupolds, but I think you will appreciate the benefits.

I also love 2x7 scopes I hunt in the heavy woods. I bought a fullield ll by Burris
nice scope for the money.

There is nothing at all wrong with the Redfield Revolution 2-7. Made in the Leupold plant in the USA. They are well under $200. I got mine for $119 on sale. You'd be hard pressed to find any difference between it and the Leupold.

Had good luck with Redfield Revolution on two different rifles...

I seem to gravitate to 2x7s. I have them on my 308, 270, and 06. Leupold VariX-II, VXII, and Redfield Revolution.

I like the VXII the best of those I own.

Yea, I did forget about that one. I think the scope that the OP was asking about is actually well under $100 with an illuminated reticle. That alone sounds warning bells for me. I just used $200 as an arbitrary number because I wasn't exactly sure about the model the OP was referencing.

The Revolution would certainly work,as will the VX1 or the Burris regardless of being under my arbitrary $200 level. All I really meant was to use caution with the very cheap scopes and those not of well respected name.

I've owned or taken game with the following:

Vortex Viper 2-7: My first one was amazing in every way. 2nd had tunnel vision, but still worked well. 3rd had less tunnel vision, & I like the long range dots. I like the view and the magnification lever.

Vortex Diamondback HP 2-8: Better view than the Vipers, but it's a bigger scope. Kinda funky looking, but quite serviceable.

Redfield Revolution 2-7: I didn't care for the view or the reticle, but it certainly worked well enough.

Zeiss Conquest 2-8: Ocular is big, but the picture is outstanding and I love the reticle. An excellent scope, but it had better be for 2 to 3x the price of the others.

Leupold VX1 2-7x33 (Whatever the current production model is): I've never been a Leupold fan, but this really is a very nice scope. To my eyes, for performance/price, it's near the top of the heap. And yes, I had to swallow hard when I typed that. What with Doug's price on 'em, plus a $50 rebate from Leupold, I'd find it hard to pass up.

FC

Couldn't agree more. All my lever guns were Leupold 2-7x33's. Use these rifle for south AR creekbottoms.

3 VX-1 Shotgun Heavy Duplex
1 VX-II Shotgun with #4
1 VX-2 with Post and Duplex

Picked up an excellent used VX-1 Shotgun Heavy Duplex the other day for $160.

The latest VX-2 Leupold is very near the VX-3 regarding glass quality.

I like the VX-2 2-7 CDS, duplex.

DF

I have two Terra 2X7`s on lever action rifles and am pleased with them.They come with the #20 reticle which is perfect for deep woods hunting.Their eye relieve is not as good as a Leupold,but how much do you really need on a Thirty-thirty?

Got a VX2 2-7 on my whelen, love it

I have a Burris FFII 2-7x35mm, a Leupold VXII 2-7x33mm, and a Rifleman in the same configuration. I really really like 2-7Xs as a rule and have had great experiences with FFIIs but the eye relief and tube flexibility of that model sucks. I have it on my AR and it's ok.

The other two are great. I'd like to try a VXR.

I've used old Denver Redfields so configured and sold a Bushnell 3200 2-7x32mm Firefly. The Redfield was ok but the new Leupold built model sounds a lot better. The Bushnell is on I regret selling. It's EXCELLENT all the way around.

Leupold VX1s were available cheap ($150) for a while which is a steal of a deal I'd jump all over.

The only 2-7x32 I have is a Nikon pro-staff. No complaints at all with it. Adjustments work as they should. Holds zero. Bright and clear with sharp image definition. I'd have to say it plays in the same field as my numerous Weaver classics and Leupold VX-1's. Except the adjustments are better than the Leupolds.

My Winchester M88 .308 wears a Weaver V Classic 2.5-7x32. It is light, decent eye relief and optics good enough that I can see in dark cover past legal shooting light. I'm not an optics elitist by any means. The scope is modestly priced at $173 and is adequate for the task but won't win any top of the line comparisons.

Another vote for the 2-7 Redfield Revolution, I've got two.

One's been on a 45-70 GBL for seven years using full-house loads. It's never lost zero. The other's been on several rifles having been picked up secondhand, it's been faultless too.

Great cheap, compact scopes.

In addition to all the Leupold 2-7x33's I forgot I have a Kahles AH 2-7x36 on my Pre '81 BLR .358. It's a bit above the price point in question though. In my opinion it may be the best 2-7 ever made. At least of all the ones I've ever looked thru.

I haven't seen them mentioned, and don't get me wrong because I'm a Burris fan, but I tried one of there FFII in a 2x7 and it was terrible...eye relief sucked in a major way and I ended up giving the damn thing away.

Love their basic FFII 3x9..

Agree with you on the Kahles, just try finding one.

I have a 2-7 rimfire on a Cooper 57M.

Next best, IMO, is the VX-2 2-7. Decent glass quality, great CS and good ER. Good value for the dollar.

DF

I had forgotten that I had also briefly owned a Nikon Monarch UCC 2-7x32. It was plenty good enough, but kind of, "meh" to my eyes. In the above lineup, I'd put it ahead of only the Redfield.

Looking back through my posts, I sold it here for $110, shipped. I'm thinking I might have left a li'l $ on the table with that one...

FC

I'm now a Redfield Revolution guy. Their 2-7X33 is light weight, fairly short, has good eye relief and it's very clear and bright.

Of course they're now owned by Leupold and have the best warranty in the business.

If you have one that develops a problem, just send it in and they fix it. No questions asked.

I've owned 2 of the 2-7 Kahles,both the AH and CL model.I still own a CL model. The Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8X32 is a better scope in every way if it turns out to be durable. I've only owned it one season,but so far,so good.

I do agree however that the Kahles is better than any other tweener I've ever tried except the Razor.

My only 2x7 experience was with a Nikon Monarch UCC. I thought it was slightly brighter and more clear than my Leupolds. I like the scope but wanted a thicker reticle so I sold it to a friend who is pleased with it. Check the fine print on illuminated reticles. Many brands are only warranted for two years on the electronics.

I think I have 4 Leupold versions of the 2-7 scopes. I like them much more than the larger 3-9X40's. Never had an issue with any of them but still have gravitated to fixed power scopes when hunting out of state; I really like the FXII 4X. I basically keep all variable scopes on 4X when hunting anyway, and only use the higher magnifications for paper/load development.

As an aside, my oldest 2-7 is a Vari-Xii (I think) it is friction adjusted and seems to have the best glass and 'eye box' of the group.

I have a 2-7X33 Leupold VX-2 CDS on a smaller .308 that I use a lot. Hunting mainly in semi to thick woods, the field of view on low power is very useful, and I have never really felt compromised by the upper limit on a farther shot.

I kinda think of it as a more versatile scope than a 3-9X40, and it saves weight, too. The additional field of view is a bonus in the thick stuff.

I love my 2-7x33 Kahles with TDS Reticle. I have it on a Sako 85 338 Federal Stainless Hunter.

It is a great set up. I would buy another Kahles 2-7 however you don't see one reasonably priced because everyone that has them loves them.

I have an old Redfield 2x7, great scope for jumping deer out of canyons.

I started out with my first 2-7 with a Leupold vii with a CPC reticle back in 1982. The scope served me well hunting the dairy farms in upstate NY where I would be in the woods most of the day and may have an occasional shot across a pasture.

I found that my eyesight isn't what it was in 1982 around 2005 or so and replaced the aging optics of the Leupold with the much heralded Vortex Viper 2-7x32. While the optics were a huge improvement over the older Leupold, the field of view was horrendous. Total tunnel vision. I hated it.

I now have a Bushnell Elite 2-7 on that 7x57 rifle. Very nice scope.

I sold the Vortex.

The Leupold rests on an old Savage 32-20 near my backdoor for shooting deer too close to civilization.

Dan

It seems many like the VX-2 2-7X33. How does the VX-2 2-7X28 Ultralight compare? The rifle model, not the Rimfire.

How do you like that Vortex G4 BDC reticle? It would be nice if Vortex offered a duplex option.

I like it a lot better than I thought I would from the pictures.It is much bolder than i thought it would be.It is very much like a German #4 but with a dot in the center and a couple hash marks for longer range. I have not shot it long range yet to correlate the dots to a specific yardage.

I have sat until dark with it in the woods several times and I never saw a time when I couldn't have used the reticle to kill a deer even though I couldn't see the center dot at very last light. I could see the whole reticle plenty enough to make any reasonable distance shgots at dark.For me that would be up to about 200 yards with this scope. I use it on a Montana for a woods gun so distance wasn't top consideration.

The dot seems to me to about perfectly cover one of those quarter size target dots at 100 yards. I really like the dot for an aiming point for anything right up to dark. The thicker portions of the reticle extend close enough to the center to use them to bracket an animal under 100 yards well past any legal light. I could hunt hogs on a bright night on 1.5X up to and possibly a bit past 100 yards.

I told Koshkin,who helped design the reticle, that I would sell all my other scopes if Vortex would use Tritium for the center dot.The glass clarity was very impressive. I could see 100 yard bullet holes on 8X as well as with my Leupold on 12X. The image goes all the way to the tube without any tunneling making the image appear absolutely huge on 1.5X. This is a very good scope for fast target acquisition. Eye box is very generous on low power,better than my 2-7 Leupold or 2-7 Kahles on low power. It shrinks a bit on higher power but I did not find it a handicap.

The higher quality glass you have, the less Xs you need as far as I'm concerned. That is on hunting applications. That is why whenever I'm scoping another rifle my thoughts start at 2X7 every time and go from there. That said, I have an assortment including Nikon, Redfield Revolutions and Leupold. All do fine work but the Leupy is of course the best. I mounted one on sportered Swede yesterday and threw it up to my shoulder and was looking right at 500 yds with clarity then realized it was only on 2X. Doesn't get any better than that. This being an old Vari X II.

Count me as another 2-7 fan. I have that type of scope on most of my hunting rifles. The Leupold is great, but I really prefer the old Redfield Widefield scopes. Makes me laugh when I see supposedly smart gun writers refer to them as "TV screen Redfield's."

I have a Redfield 2-7 widefield on my first deer rifle [ Winchester 100]...both still work fine....purchased the rifle in 1970 and the scope in 71 or 72???...was just a teenager and had to save up for it.....

Recently picked up a used Kahles 2-7x36 TDS from the classifieds and mounted in my Savage LightWeight Hunter 243. Have not hunted with it but after one range session I am very happy with it.

This is a great suggestion.... the revolution line goes through all the stress testing that Leupold puts on their main line of scopes, and passes with flying colors.

Thanks for the review RHC. Sounds like a great little scope.

I miss that scope already.

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.

Not a 2-7, but my Burris 3-9 FF ended up on a .223. Reason, eye relief is not on par with Leupold, Zeiss, Swarovski, and others. Otherwise, I like it and ER is no problem where it is mounted.

jack

Love my 2-7 Bushnell 3200 Elite and it has become my favorite scope. I bought it online and the super heavy reticule spooked me when I first saw it but now love it. Fine crosshairs in the middle. Haven't tried the Leupold nor Vortex but am sure I would like them. If I had only one scope for all of my hunting, it would be one of those in 2-7, even though animals are too close sometimes for the 2 power to focus on them. 1-6 would probably be perfect for my style of hunting but I've got the 2-7 and it works.

My first scope was a Redfield 2-7 and I used it for 20 years as my only scope. Went to 3-9 and have tried 3.5-10, a 6-18 briefly, and have come back to my roots. My big game 30-06 wears a 3-9 Leupold I now wish was 2-7 and my .243 predator calling rifle wears the Bushnell 2-7. I am trying a one power illuminated reflex sight on my .22 rimfire which I use only for grouse.