Leupold 2-7x28 Ultralight--Enough Scope?

[Lonestar.45]

So I just got a new Ruger M77 Compact in 7mm-08, walnut stock, blued metal. I want a small lightweight scope on it that looks good and is rugged. I've pretty much decided on a Leupold Ultralight VX-II of some kind.

I really want the 2-7x28. My question is, is 28mm too small of an objective? I don't need higher than 7 power, I know that, but I'm concerned that the small objective will severely limit my late afternoon and early evening light gathering abilities. Any one have one, and what's your experience with them? Thanks.

 

[rbernie]

It's a bit small, but that's the point - it mounts low and stays light. The quality of the glass will more than make up for the smaller exit pupil. Also - it's unlikely that you'll be taking 300yr shots in the duskiest of dusk; you'll probably have the scope dialed down to a power that gives more than adequate exit pupil size.

It's a great scope for the rifle; good match. I have a VXIII 1.75x-6x on my Browning A-Bolt and have better dusk/dawn performance with that glass than I have had with many of my Nikon and Burris scopes with larger objectives.

 

[ArmedBear]

Why not an FX II 4X?

It has a 33 mm objective, and should be even more rugged. Similar weight, at least equal glass, lower price.

The old hunters I know with a lot of miles on their boots and mounts on their walls have little interest in a variable scope for big game, or for that kind of rifle. "One more thing to screw up, and believe me, it will," is what they say to a variable. They grumble that it's getting hard to find a lot of fixed scopes, with everyone wanting more knobs to turn.

If you can't see it with a 4X33, you won't be able to see it with a 7X28, and yes, if you crank a scope with a smaller objective, it will get noticeably darker. A really nice scope will not get as dark as a cheap one, but light's gotta come from somewhere.

With a 3-9x40 cranked to 9X, I can see all my .30" bullet holes in the target, big and clear, without straining, at 100 yards when I'm sighting in -- in the dark. I used to go to an indoor 100 yard range. It's hard to think of a big game hunting scenario where I needed to see .30" holes, and the little jagged tears around them, clearly, at 100 yards, in the dark. Apart from not needing a spotting scope when sighting in, I'm not sure what a quality 4X scope won't do.

 

[MCMXI]

I really want the 2-7x28. My question is, is 28mm too small of an objective?

Are you sure the Vari-X II model you're considering is a 2-7x28mm? Leupold's web site only shows 2-7x33mm. I just bought two Leupold Mark 4 1.5-5x20mm PR scopes with the SPR reticle and I'm amazed by how much light they "collect". I mounted them on a pair of Marlin lever-action rifles in .45-70 using XS lever rails and Warne QR rings and shot them both this weekend on a gloomy, rainy day and I'm impressed!! I've always been a 3-9x40mm or higher/bigger type of guy but now I'm starting to rethink that. As for the objective, as has been mentioned, a large objective with cheap glass isn't good either so you'll be fine with the Leupold. If you're worried about shooting at dawn/dusk, you might want to think about an illuminated reticle since contrast between the reticle and the target might be a much bigger problem. I have some Leupold Mark 4 scopes with illuminated reticles and they are awesome in low-light conditions.

 

[Coltdriver]

I am looking at the Ruger ultra light in .308 and I was pondering the same question.

Since you do limit the performance of the round with the shorter barrel I really don't see a need for a large or high magnification scope. Realistically you are not going to shoot out 300 yards.

I had a 1-4 20 VXII on a .223 with which I could easily hit a four inch plate at 225 yards.

I was thinking about the Luepold 1.75-6 32 in a VX III. The lower magnification is as important as anything. If you have to move quickly its everything. If you can crank it up chances are pretty good what ever you are looking at has not seen you yet right?

The clarity on my little VXII is just outstanding. I have not tried the one you are talking about but you would sure think it would work just fine and be about the right size for your rifle.

 

[Lonestar.45]

Are you sure the Vari-X II model you're considering is a 2-7x28mm? Leupold's web site only shows 2-7x33mm.

Yes, it's under the Ultralight section. I'd be more than happy to go with the regular 2-7x33mm VXII but they only offer it in matte, and I want a gloss finish to match the bluing on the rifle.

 

[moosehunt]

Damn it's nice to see someone realize the good of a fixed power!!!!! My only difference is that I prefer the 6X. I have 14 of them, all Leupolds, on various guns (I know--no way to justify that many shooters, but, what can I say, I have them). I also have a Leupold fixed 7.5X and an 8X, niether of which have been available for a long time. They are on some "specialty" guns that are generally used in situations where long shots are quite likely, i.e. 400+ yards. I own no variables, and what you said about them is dead on. One more thing to go wrong, plus they are heavier. I've observed that most guys with 3-9X scopes set them about 6X and leave them there. So why the variable aspect? Others wind up with them on 9X when they have a close shot in the timber, and 3X when they have a long shot in a big park. Then they go to adjusting, and the damn critter decides he's seen enough and goes! Unfortunately, the selection of high quality fixed power scopes is quite limited. Another case of sellers playing to the whims of gullible, less than knowledgeable buyers!

 

[MCMXI]

Yes, it's under the Ultralight section. I'd be more than happy to go with the regular 2-7x33mm VXII but they only offer it in matte, and I want a gloss finish to match the bluing on the rifle.

Oh yes ... there it is ...

http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/ultralight-riflescopes/vx-ii-2-7x28mm-ultralight/

Thanks and my apologies.

 

[MCMXI]

Another case of sellers playing to the whims of gullible, less than knowledgeable buyers!

Oh really ... so anyone with a variable scope is gullible and less than knowledgeable ... are you kidding? What an arrogant, uneducated comment ... I suppose the whole world has to conform to your viewpoint or else they're wrong. There are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful, successful hunters and target shooters out there that have been using variable scopes for years for a number of reasons that are important to them ... so get over it!! :banghead:

 

[Lonestar.45]

Gotta agree with you ther 1858.

On the fixed v variable thing, I like a good fixed probably more than the average guy. I have an old Weaver K4 made in the 60's sitting on top of my Dad's old sporterized Enfield 1917 which has taken a ton of deer. They have their place.

But let's be honest, a good high quality variable these days is nothing like those of old and am pretty sure they've more than earned their place in the optics world.

This little rifle is begging for a high quality low powered variable. Problem is there are so few to choose from in a gloss finish!!! Everything is matte.

The old hunters I know with a lot of miles on their boots and mounts on their walls have little interest in a variable scope for big game, or for that kind of rifle.

Armed Bear, the old hunters I know with a lot of miles on their boots and mounts on their wall also have a lot of kids and grandkids they want to take hunting, and "that" kind of rifle fits the bill pretty well, especially with managed recoil ammo. I bought this rifle with the intention of using it some myself until my son is old enough to hunt. I want the capability of the 7 power because I do have some areas where it would come in handy, but yeah mostly it will probably stay on 3x or so.

 

[earlthegoat2]

If your a moderate shot it is going to be just fine. The lower power fits into the power range that you would most likely use or want if you got something bigger and more powerful.

 

[Gordon]

The VX3 1.75x6 mentioned above is extremely popular with professionals in Alaska and Africa and me! If you can afford it is the best stop under a Schmidt and Bender for 3 times it's price. Keep it set for 1.75 an crank up for the rested long shots. It is BRIGHT and crisp.

 

[achildofthesky]

If you like the Leupold ultralight, go for it. I bought one of the 2.5x ones and marvled at the crispness of image for the price ($240 shipped, optics planet via ebay make an offer) and the thing is really light. God what I wanted and it was much better than expected. The 2-7 UL sounds like a great match for the ruger and with some careful shopping you can get a new leupold scope for a nice price. The 1.75x6 VXIII is very nice too but IIRC a fair bit more. It is marketed more towards HD rather than Ultralight...

What ever you do, enjoy and get what YOU want.

Patty

 

[bratch]

I have the VX3 1.75-6 on my 6.8 AR that I hunt with. Its a really nice scope.

 

[Art Eatman]

I generally only crank a variable to the higher magnification when I don't have concern about field of view. Prairie dogging, for instance, or where I'm expecting a long shot out at 200 yards or more.

Otherwise, I leave my variables down on low magnification for field of view. So, since most early-morning or late-evening shots on Bambi are generally going to be at closer ranges, the low-end setting works just fine.

Where I'm headed with this is that on low magnification, the smaller objective lens lets in plenty of light. It only "suffers" on the higher settings.

I have a 2x7x32 on my .243; it works just fine at night with a flashlight, for Wily Coyote at 40 or 50 yards...

 

[Walkalong]

I love my 2.5 X 8 X 36 Leupold Vari X III. Clear, compact, huge field of view at 2.5X. It's mounted on a .308.

 

[moosehunt]

1858--Like most young pups, you don't read the words, but develope your own veiwpoint of what was said, even if it's true. If you will take the time (doubtful) to read the words, you will note that I did NOT say that anyone with a variable was gullible & less than knowledgeable. You invented that. What's the problem? Does it apply? Learn to read the words, not invent your own idea about what they say. Obviously, what was actually said is too deep for you to comprehend. Grow up!

 

[MCMXI]

Another case of sellers playing to the whims of gullible, less than knowledgeable buyers!

moosehunt, since you're such a literary genius, perhaps you can explain to a young pup (44 years old by the way) what else you could possibly mean by the statement above other than "gullible, less than knowledgeable people" buy/demand/want/use/need variable power scopes.

One more thing to go wrong, plus they are heavier.

Well that's interesting ... of the seven Leupold scopes (all variable since I'm gullible and less than knowledgeable) that I currently own and one that I sold, going back 12 years, none of them have had any mechanical problems ... NONE ... despite hundreds if not thousands of rounds fired. In addition, if you look at two offerings from Leupold such as the FX-III and Vari-X III the weight is for all intents and purposes the same.

FX-III 6x is 11.3oz
VariX III 2.5 - 8x = 11.5oz

Given the choice above, I'd choose the Vari-X III but I certainly wouldn't criticize or insult someone for choosing the FX if that's what they want/need.

 

[Sinixstar]

I chose a variable powered recently for one simple reason.

Better to have and not need, then need and not have.

Variable power doesn't complicate things. Messing with another knob unnecessarily complicates things. Don't touch the knob if you don't need to - and it's no more complicated then a fixed.

 

[moosehunt]

Dear Mr. 1858, yes, 44 years old is definitely a young pup! Again, I didn't say all owners of variables were gullible and lacking in knowledge; you have chosen to edit the meaning in order to be offensive. I was referring to marketing and the general fact that enough buyers lacked advanced enough knowledge of optics to allow the industry to make the more expensive variables quite profitable to themselves. Again, I did not suggest that all, or even many, have mechanical problems, but it is without question that the extra lens or lenses and associated moving parts add to the opportunities for problems. While modern variables don't demonstrate a lot of problems, the proportion of mechanical failures in variables still exceed those of fixed. Lastly, I didn't claim to be a literary genius; again you developed your own opinion contrary to what was written. If I thought I was a literary genius, I'd tell you. I didn't. Read the words for what they are, not for what you want to quibble over.

 

[ArmedBear]

Better to have and not need, then need and not have.

That would be valid if and only if a 2-7X actually did anything a 4X won't do just as well.

Is there anything you can see with a 7X that you can't see with a brighter 4X?

Small varmints, perhaps, but not deer, not antelope, not jackrabbits for that matter.

I want the capability of the 7 power because I do have some areas where it would come in handy

You were also saying you wanted it to work in low light. Higher magnifications do make the image darker. If you want to shoot something very far away in broad daylight, sure.

But if I want to shoot something very far away, I would get something with more than a 16" barrel on it.

It's about matching the gun, the scope, and the round, as you know. Of course the 2-7X will work. I just think the 4X would work as well, or better, with an equal or better image, and for less money at that.

But what the hey. I like to shoot at 100 yards with irons. I figure that a 4X scope magnifies the image at least as well as I can hold the gun steady -- especially a stubby little carbine.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Well, you don't really need a bigger objective that power, at least in terms of exit pupil - 4mm is a pretty nice exit pupil.

As for light gathering for hunting at dusk/dawn, it's still gonna be FAR superior to the naked eye, and only slightly inferior to a larger objective lens. I think that will serve you well, unless you're tying to hunt by moonlight or in Alaska's 3-month winter darkness.

 

[MCMXI]

While modern variables don't demonstrate a lot of problems, the proportion of mechanical failures in variables still exceed those of fixed.

Do you have data to back up that statement? If so, I for one would like to see it.

 

[Shawnee]

The 2x7x28 should be perfectly alright but I think when it is on 7x you'll wish you had the brightness of the 33mm objective.

Personally, I think - "Coltdude's" comment...

"I was thinking about the Luepold 1.75-6 32 in a VX III. The lower magnification is as important as anything. If you have to move quickly its everything. "

...is a major Bullseye. The lower power is what will usually mean the difference between venison steaks and Big Macs.

 

[moosehunt]

No scientific data, 1858, but I have 27 years as a dealer and gunsmith for experience, and I know what I've seen and experienced. I can recall but a single fixed that I had to return for service, but well over a dozen, probably closer to a dozen and a half, variables that I've had to return for service. Hey Pard, use what you want. I'm not trying to change your desires, just hitting facts. No question, variables rule the market. But you might be surprised at the number of customers that I have convinced to buy 1 fixed power that come back later and thank me and purchase another fixed, telling me that's it for them from now on. I generally make more profit off of variables that fixed, because it's a percentage deal.