2-7x33 or 3-9x40?

[littlelefty]

Hello,
a month or so ago I had my mind set on a Leupold VX-II, 2-7x33. Now I see that the VX-II, 3-9x40 is the same price both at Cabelas and Midway.

Which would you pick and why?

Here's more data and my thought process, maybe this will help...
The scope is going on a Remmington 788, 22" barrel in .308 that is used a couple of times per year; a little at the range, and a little hunting. Hunting is all done in the east, Florida and GA, on predominantly hog and deer. One regular location offers shots out to 300 yards, but most of the work will be done at 100 or less. I wold like to hunt out west some day but right now that is not monitarily feasible.

I like the thought of the overall lower profile and cg of the 2-7, as well as the 2x for woods carry. However, 3x is not much more than 2x when it comes to the lower power. Also, the 40mm objective is quite a bit more area than 33.

Hmmmmm.

 

[FC]

With the 2-7x you will have a better field of view, it would be best for closer range shots and if you need to make a 300 yard shot while hunting 7x should be plenty. As you pointed out it will also get hung up on brush and such much less.

 

[Coltdriver]

Have you looked at the Leupold AR series? They have a dot reticle that is simply outstanding. I never have been crazy about the duplex and since discovering the new reticle I won't buy another duplex. You can get the LR in the VX II also. Well worth it if you like to dial in a particular round.

I have opted for 3x9 40's on mine. One's a VX II and the other is the AR series, both have the LR reticle. You can get one of these very low and they won't snag on anything. 3.5mm higher on the scope ain't gonna hang you up!

The smaller is tempting just for the compact look, 7x is enough for 300 yard shots. But a little bigger objective and a 9X, though common, is a great combo and all you need to hunt the West by the way. Check out that LR reticle.

 

[Brian Williams]

I have a 3x9 33 and wish it was a 2x7 33. 2x is much better hunting eastern woods.

 

[courtgreene]

I'm a big fan of the 3x9. I have both. It's mostly preference. Just look through both.

 

[sappyg]

I chose the 2-7x33 because it's handier. I've never needed 9x so why carry the exta bulk and weight? I usually keep it set on 2x anyway.

 

[benzy2]

I'd rather the 2-7x. A friend has one on his hunting .22lr and honestly it is a lot better than a 3-9x in a closer range hunting situation. If you really are only going out to 300 yards, 2-4x is probably all you need. More won't hurt at 300 yards, but it isn't always needed either.

 

[35 Whelen]

If you do ever end up hunting out west, the few ounces of weight you save with the 2x7 will serve you MUCH better than the extra magnification of the 3-9. Plus, like you said, the lower profile of the 2-7 just looks better.
35W

 

[hardluk1]

Tough call. If your 788 is like most it shoots very well at longer distance too and being a SE hunter also I know if you hunt clear cuts too you can easily shoot at longer distances. There are some scopes out today that will cover a greater power range. Weaver super slam and the classic V series in a 2-10 power that might also make a good choice. natchez has some good prices to start with.. I have a used a 2.8-10 power for some years on my 788 for bottoms and timber hunting.

 

[rbernie]

I vastly prefer the 2x-7x/33 over the larger 3x-9x/40, both because it's easier to mount low on the rifle and because I prefer a 2x low-end than a 3x.

 

[heeler]

I own far more 2x7's than 3x9's.
Count me out of the camp that more is better.
I prefer good glass and a light short scope.
Rarely will you ever need more than 7 power for hunting.
Long range varmint hunting I can see some of the need of the Hubbell type scopes.

 

[wingman]

I purchased a 2-7x33 Redfield made in the Leupold factory it is bright and clear edge to edge appears to be same scope as the Leupold vx-1 with a different finish paid $129 on sale. It's mounted on a mini-30 and performance is excellent.

Personally I don't care about brand name if it has a warranty and the glass is clear.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

I've owned a couple 2x7's but they always seem to get traded off while my 3x9's stick around----nothing against 2x7's but I never have been able to warm to them.

About all I own now are red dot's and 3x9's except for a 1x4 that has sort of found a home on my muzzleloader.

 

[slowr1der]

In that rifle, I'd personally go with at least the 3-9x40. IMO a 2-7 is better suited for a lever action or similar.

 

[chas08]

I have a 2-7 on a Lever gun that I really like because of its smaller size. A few of my bolt guns wear 3-9 VX-II's. My personal choice on a 788 would be the 3-9 because I'm very pleased with the ones I own and it doesn't look too big on a 22" bbl bolt gun like it would on a lever or a short carbine. Either would be plenty enough scope for your intent and purpose.

 

[Pistol Ranch]

Choice

If you hunt in low light conditions (dawn/dusk) the 40mm objective on the 3x9 would be my choice. Since 100% of my hunting is out of an elevated blind, the extra weight is of no concern.
If you still hunt and shoot at shorter distances, the 2x7 would be the better choice..

P.R.

 

[littlelefty]

Wow! Thanks! Lots of excellent input and some data points I had not previously considered. And, as usual, it boils down to me making a decision.

 

[terryknight]

I have 2 2x7 leupold, 2 2.5x10 nikons, 1 2.5x8 leupold, and no 3x9s and see no reason for a big scope when a little one will do. and everyone has a 3x9 and i like to be different