DING DING DING we have a winner!!!

On the typical 24" brl, long action the 3x9x40 is a good fit. But for 20" short action compacts the 3x9x40 almost makes you think the gun is fit under the scope instead of the other way around.

Performance wise, whatever I ever shot with a 9x could've just as easily been done with a 7x. Now sure a 2x7 is no replacement for a 4x12 or larger. But it's all about what you're putting this scope on. On my 300Wby Mark V the 3x9x40 is fine. On my sons 243 youth guns I went with 2x8 Monarchs.

Are you considering the new Redfield 2x7? For the money and with Leupold building and backing them, I've found nothing else as interesting in the $150 range!!!
HL

ps
A scope has a pupil just like your eye does. Hold the scope at arms length and look through it. That smaller hole is the pupil. It will get larger as you turn down the power. The human eye is between 4 and 7mm usually, any less and what we see is very dim (like a 32 power scope with a 50mm lense at sunset). Now with a 2x scope with a 33mm lense, obviously that image is much brighter because more light is being let in. To find the scopes pupil just divide the objective lenses size (in MMs) by the power.... example 40mm objective / 9x = 4.4mm pupil. That's on the lower end of the human eyes range. ALL 9x 40mm scopes are going to have a 4.4mm pupil, doesn't matter if you're talking about a Tasco Worldclass or a Swarovski Z, each scope only has 4.4mm to work with (at 9x 40mm). BUT it's what the scope DOES with that 4.4mm worth of received light that decides how good or bad the image is that we see... So that 2x 33mm is going to have a 16.5mm pupil when the 4x 40 will of course have a 10mm pupil. So the 2x will let in 65% more light than the 4x 40 will. (But remember, no scope lets in all 100% of the light it collects and our eyes will only let in up to maybe 8mm worth of light at most to begin with, anymore is just more than our eyes can let in plus bright light hurts our dialated eyes.)