PDA

View Full Version : 2-7x33 scope?


BoneDigger
January 30, 2006, 02:45 PM
I was raised on 3-9x40 scopes. I have a line on a 2-7x33 Leupold VX-I. I realize that there is not a direct correlation between larger objectives and light gathering ability, but can anyone tell me if this scope would be suitable for woodland hunting (east Texas) out to around 200 yards? Will I be losing a considerable amount of light gathering ability?

I am weighing this scope against a new Nikon BuckMaster 3-9x40 or a Bushnell Elite 3200 in 3-9x40. The Leupold is cheaper, but I want to make sure I have a good scope for my conditions.

I appreciate any help.

Todd

Dirty_Harry
January 30, 2006, 03:27 PM
Personally I would stick with what you know best...the 3-9x40's. I think the 2-7x33 would be fine out to 200 yards.

Pointer
January 30, 2006, 03:39 PM
To get the answer to this question is to ask yourself how hoften you have needed 9x in the past... and were the conditions such that you could tell the difference from a 7X.

You should be hunting with the scope set on the lowest power...
And then if you have time to set up and take aim you can crank it up...

I actually prefer 2 - 7X over the 3 - 9x because it is better for closer, faster shots. And, the higher the power the more difficult it is to acquire/hold the target. :)

BoneDigger
January 30, 2006, 04:07 PM
Thanks, I appreciate the input. What about objective size? Will the 3-9x40 and the 2-7x33 have about the same clarity and same light gathering ability if they are from the same manufacturer and same model? Just wondering how the size of the objective compares and what that means in alow light hunting situations?

Also, I now also have an offer for aBurris Fullfield II scope for around $170. How does the Burris compare to Leupold VX-I or Nikon BuckMaster?

Todd

Charles S
January 30, 2006, 04:21 PM
I hunt in East Texas and I must state that the 2-7X33 Leupold and the 2.5-8X32 Leupold scopes are my favorites. I can see to shoot well past legal shooting hours, and they provide plenly of magnification for the longest shots I will make on game.

I am not saying the 3-9 and the 3.5-10 are not great they are, but I just really like the 2-7. They are more compact, have a wider field of view and still provide plenty of light to shoot with.

Charles

Pointer
January 30, 2006, 04:26 PM
Clarity is due to the lens glass "quality" and the grind, polish and coatings...

Light gathering is primarily due to object-lense size...

Lower power will compensate "a little" for the difference in light gathering...

The light gathering is the critical factor because it makes the difference on how early in the morning, or how late in the evening, you can hunt... but, an extra ten minutes of shooting time will be a great value when hunting.

And, for binoculars and spotting scopes, it would help when you are looking "through" the trees and trying to find or identify your quarry. Obviously, you don't use a rifle-mounted scope for game spotting. ;)

Leupold's lenses are very excellent, and so, early/late hunting isn't the main consideration for you, at this point...

If your 3-9x was another brand, then the 2-7x Leupold will make a definite improvement... Nikons are good, Bushnell does well, but Leupold is really noticeably "brighter" and at the top of that price range.

I hope that helps... ;) :)

P-990
January 30, 2006, 04:46 PM
Don't forget, lower magnifications don't require as large of an objective lens to remain clear.

I have a coworker who gets all gushy over the idea of a 4x40mm fixed power scope. He doesn't understand that on a 4-power all he NEEDS for good light gathering and clarity is a 20-25mm lens, which has benefits of being lighter and less obtrusive.

That 2-7x33mm Leupold VX-1 is a fine scope. I have an older one, with the friction adjustments and gloss finish, on a Remington Mountain Rifle. It just looks right, handles and carries well and is light. Don't worry; I hunt in the brush of New Hampshire, which is likely much darker and gloomier than any place offering 200-yard shots, and the Leupold is plenty bright right to the end of legal light.

FirstFreedom
January 30, 2006, 04:52 PM
2-7 is fine. Great in fact, for 200 or less yards. On 7 power, with a 33mm objective, that results in a light beam with an exit pupil of 4.7mm. While your eye might be able to utilize a larger exit pupil than that if you are young, it probably doesn't matter much, and it's no worse than the 4.44mm of exit pupil offered by a 3-9x40mm on 9 power - it's better in fact, if you always just crank it up to the max available for long shots. So then the question becomes, do you need the 2 extra power and the answer is no, not really. Somewhere on the net you can find charts of how large your eye pupil diameter is as you grow older (it gets smaller with age). It is in fact nice to be able to have a scope with an exit pupil AS LARGE AS your actual iris pupil, but if the exit pupil is any larger, then the extra light is wasted as your eye cannot take it in. As an example, if you find that you actually USE 5 power the most let's say, regardless of scope, that is an exit pupil of 6.6mms on the 2-7x33, and 8mm of exit pupil on the 3-9x40. Well, if you're over 20 years old, your eye cannot even take in anything over about 7mm of light, so it's irrelevant that the 40mm scope allows for the 8.0mm of exit pupil. Now if your favorite setting is 7 power exactly, then you might rather have a 3-9x40 set on seven over a 2-7x33 set on 7 because that's 5.71mm vs. only 4.71 for the 2-7x33, and depending on your age, you might be able to fully utilize the 5.71mm of light.

I like 2-7s (or 1.5-5s or 1-4s) on big boomers like 7 remmag so that I can set them on 2 and have a lot of eye relief. And when walking around in the woods, where snap shots are a possibility, 2 power is better than 3 by a significant margin for finding the game quickly in your scope. And, in that situation, of course 1 or 1.5 is even better than 2.

DWARREN123
January 30, 2006, 10:59 PM
I think it really depends on the quality of the scopes, a quality 2-7X33 is much better than a cheap 3-9X40 anyday.

PDshooter
January 31, 2006, 12:23 AM
That's what I have on my Win70 in 06. Leupold VXII 2X7 I've taken at least 4 deer that I know of! Most of the time I had it turned down to 2-4 power......I like a wide angle in deep woods...All my shots were less then 100yds.

Foxman
January 31, 2006, 05:24 AM
Having a an exit pupil larger than the eye pupil diameter is not "wasted" light, it prevents "blacking out" when you move your eye slightly from the centerline of the scope a problem with all optics as you increase the magnification. In real terms, the best scope is a fixed power one, the losses from number of lenses and glass to air surfaces is considerably less. I have and use 6X42 and 8X56 and have no trouble aquiring targets. Also an old timer trick which works all the time if you practice a bit is to ignore the scope on 20-30 yd or closer shots, just look down the side of the barrel and you will hit your target every time, your not lookiing for 1/4 moa at that distance. we used to get ducks for the table with an airgun using this method and shoot em in the head at up to 20 yds. Pointers right on glass quality and objective light gathering. The variable scopes do not compare directly with a fixed power, like at 6 power with 33mm objective because of the losses described above, that swhy the move to bigger objectives and 30mm tubes on varipower scopes, they dont do it to make em look pretty!

PSE
January 31, 2006, 06:52 AM
i would get the bushnell 3200 elite for the same money in a 3x9x40. its really as good as my VX2's and almost, by a hair, as good as the VX3's.
i own the scope you mention and while its plent to hit any deer at 200 its not enough to determine spread or tine length if you hut QDM and certainly not at dusk. i use mine on a DRC custom 30-30 and only as a morning rifle in 100 or less.

Brian Williams
January 31, 2006, 09:17 AM
Get the 2x7x33 I have a 3x9x33 on my Win Compact Classic in 7mm-08 and it is a great scope but here in Eastern Pa woods a 2x7 would be better.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=7605&d=1069260888

FirstFreedom
January 31, 2006, 09:47 AM
Having a an exit pupil larger than the eye pupil diameter is not "wasted" light, it prevents "blacking out" when you move your eye slightly from the centerline of the scope a problem with all optics as you increase the magnification.

Ahhh, ok. Good point.

mtnbkr
January 31, 2006, 09:53 AM
I have a 2-7x33 VX-1 on my Winchester. While it's not the best for precision target shooting past 100yds, it's more than adequate for hunting in the Virginia mountains. When it gets dark, I've been able to clearly see deer through this scope that I could barely see without it. I counted the points on a small buck this season through it at dusk when I couldn't even see his rack with bare eyes.

Chris

Foxman
January 31, 2006, 12:29 PM
I should have said also that one of the best little scopes I ever had and wish I'd never sold was an original blued steel Weaver 4x33, I shot more game with that on different rifles than I can remember. If you like the scope and are happy with the mag and size , go for it, like they say " nothing is for ever" if you grow out of it you can put it on a 22 rf or another rifle. I would also say that Nikon are not fools when it comes to optics and the bushmaster would do nicely too.

fisherman66
January 31, 2006, 12:41 PM
Lower power will compensate "a little" for the difference in light gathering...


I disagree....it makes "a huge" difference IMO. Assuming the two scopes are of equal make you can construct a ratio.

2-7X33 vs 3-9X40

2:3 vs 33:40 or 33/2 against 40/3......................33/7 against 44/9

16.5 vs. 13.3333................................4.41 vs 4.8

The 2-7X33 would be a slightly better light gather"er" in a perfect world. I suspect the differences in real life would be negligent.

I really think a 4X40 fixed scope is the ideal package for any point blank +-3" work.

The ratio comes out a little lower, but light loss should be at a minimum due to simple construction and no moving lenses.

BoneDigger
January 31, 2006, 01:07 PM
Well, I thought long and hard about this decision and finally made my choice. One of my reasons was that the gun came with leupold rings and bases and thery are setup for 40mm objective. Rings aren't that expensive, but if you already have some...

I have heard some good reports and some not very complementary reports on the VX-I line of scopes. Almost everything I have read has pointed to a VX-II or better. However, I came across a scope that seems to fit the bill nicely. I purchased a Burris Fullfield II, 3-9x40 with the Ballistic Plex reticle for $150, NIB on EBay.

Most of what I have read about the Burris scopes is good. I hope I did OK. We'll see I guess.

Todd

Brian Williams
January 31, 2006, 02:33 PM
Any contact info on the 2x7x33 would be appreciated

Pointer
January 31, 2006, 03:02 PM
the differences in real life would be negligent.


You are probably right... ;)
Also I think the word you meant to use was "negligible" :)

fisherman66
January 31, 2006, 03:02 PM
You are right. That was very negligent of me.

BoneDigger
January 31, 2006, 03:33 PM
The guy is in Dallas and he wanted $125 for the scope. If you want his contact e-mail me at [email protected] and I'll see if I can find it for you.

Todd

mtnbkr
January 31, 2006, 03:41 PM
At that price, if I had a rifle to put it on, I'd buy it right now.

Chris

BoneDigger
January 31, 2006, 03:47 PM
Chris, what kind of bike do you ride? I have a Giant NRS full suspension and I love it. Of course, the hills in east Texas are nothing like in VA, but fun none-the-less!

Todd

mtnbkr
January 31, 2006, 03:51 PM
I have a Klein hardtail. It's about 8yrs old now.

Chris

FirstFreedom
January 31, 2006, 05:18 PM
the fullfield II is a good scope at a good price. You'll be pleased with it.

Pointer
February 6, 2006, 05:04 PM
I have a Klein hardtail. It's about 8yrs old now.

Where do you hang the holster on the bike?

Gotta keep it "related". :D :D