cabage

I' ve got my eye on a browning a-bolt composite stalker in 7mm wsm. I' ve also got my eye on a leupold VX-I. I would like to keep the scope cost under 200, but the VX-I 3-9x40 comes in gloss black for 200, and matte black for 220. Would i sacrifice too much by droping to the 2-7x33 in matte black for200? I do have opportunitys for short woods shots as well as open field shots up to 300+/-. Do you folks have any experience or recomendations with these scopes, or any experince with the caliber and recoil effects on the scope?
Thanks,
ak

James B

I love my VX-1 scope its a 3x9 Matte. I have no expierance with the 7MM short mag but I would think that if you need a Magnum, it would be as good as any. I would also consider the 270 Short mag as I think it fills a nich only occupied by the 270 Weatherby mag. That ones to expensive and hard to find ammo for in my opinion. You may or may not have the same trouble with the 7mm Short mag. It depends on where you live and if you reload or not. I have my VX-1 on a 257 Roberts.

bigbulls

This is just my personal opinion and I' m sure I' ll catch flack for saying it but I wouldn' t buy the Leupold.[] To me you pay a lot for the name and don' t get any thing any better than what some of the lesser expensive scopes cost. I would honestly look at the Bushnell 3200 (rain guard, fire fly reticle, fast focus eye piece), Sightron ($139 at bearbasin.com), Burris full field II, Weaver V series. IMO the Bushnell 3200 and 4200 has more scope for the dollar than any other out there.


As far as the gun goes, it is a great choice.

James B

I really like the Bushnels as well. I have about six of them and never had a problem with any of them. Even the cheap ones. I never considered a Leuplod until the droped below 200.00. That narrowed the price range between Leupold and some of the less spendy scopes. I had a couple Leupolds that sure were not worth the money. Not clear at all. However so far I like the VX-1.

BareBack Jack

The 2-7 scope will work fine for you new rifle,your not losing much if anything to magnification.I have a 2-7x30mm Burris compact on a .338 win mag and it works fine for in the timber or the flats.
I to think alot of leupold' s are high priced for what you get,why pay 200.00 for the bottom grade scope,when you can pay 10-20.00 less for a good grade Bushnell or Burris,Weaver,Sightron ect...

Danny45

I think you' ve made some good choices, but... there' s always a but isn' t there?

You might want to look at the .270 wsm. You don' t really gain that much with the 7mm. If you want something with more ooomph, step on up to the 300. If you don' t like recoil, go with the .270.

The Leupold scopes are nice, but, (there it is again) you can get the Nikon Buckmaster scope for the same money. I don' t like the VX-1 for one reason, no click adjustments. I never did like the tension adjustments on it and the older Vari-XII. And the $199.00 Buckmaster is matte finished. You may even find it cheaper on-line. I saw on another post where a guy got one NIB for $149.00.

Good luck with your choices.

RedAllison

Cab IMO a 3x9 is the MINIMUM I would put on any short mag. Any less is hamstringing a flatshooting mag! Whats an extra $20? Thats not even a box of ammo. Personally I would recommend an additional $20-$25 above even than and get a VX I 4x12 gloss!

What is $20-$50 on something you are going to get a lifetimes use from?
RA

James B

Danny45. I have to agree with you on the click adjustment on the VX 1. Thats the only thing I don' t like about mine. I got used to the click settings and ofen turn it to far before I remember that it is not going to click.

biggunz.45-70

I wonder why so many people think they need alot of magnification on a big game rifle. I have a nikon monarch 2-7x32 on my .25-06, which is as flat shooting as most short mags. I have never felt handicapped by this combination. In fact I just returned from a wyoming antelope hunt where I used that " little" scope and rifle to take a nice buck at just over four hundred yards.

Danny45

Biggunz, congrats on your prairie goat!!! They make beautiful mounts. Some people shoot better if they have more magnification. Makes " picking a spot" much easier if you' re not seeing the entire animal in your scope. Granted, you don' t want such high magnification that all you do see is hair, but, beyond two hundred yards, if the animal doesn' t fill up the scope, it' s really easy to just " shoot at the whole animal" . I think it' s great you can shoot that well with a less powerful scope, but many can' t. I personally use a 3-9x40 or 3.5-10x40, but rarely put it above 7 myself. At the range, I shoot my best groups on the lowest setting, but there' s a visible mark to shoot at too.