Maven, Leupold, Trijicon, NF

[ploxwithblox]

I have that exact scope in my saved list, however Ive seen a lot of comments on the 4-32 being much better glass to look through

I was going to go the 4-32 based on similar things i read online, but once I had them next to each other and considered them for hunting it was a pretty easy choice. I was concerned that a slightly smaller eyebox on the 2.5 would make it harder to get lined up in a hunting situation but it has been a dream to shoot with (I had the good fortune to shoot a bull opening morning, uphill prone shot on a steep side slope and getting the scope to my eye was no issue). Honestly I think you would love either of them, but you would probably be happy with any of the other brands you mentioned as well. A lot of good glass out there.

 

[Sagebrush1]

they dont do scopes with that

Oh….shoot.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I’ve never had any issues with higher power scopes. Anything below 6x is worthless on a ffp scope. Sfp scopes are much better at lower power than ffp scopes.

I prefer higher magnification scopes and can use them with no issues. Apparently, some folks can’t use them.

 

[schmalts]

I have that exact scope in my saved list, however Ive seen a lot of comments on the 4-32 being much better glass to look through

I don't like the physical size of the 4-32. the 2.5-20 is so much more compact and rides better on a backpack. Downside is the are actually darn near the exact same weight.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I can always step down magnification, there's a discussion there. However bigger reticle means more light, and thats not something im coming down off of. Also depending on brand size and weight on say a 44 vs a 50 is negligible and some 50s are the same or even lighter then some 42s or 44s so physical size really isnt a factor here.

A bigger OBJECTIVE LENS means more light (the reticle is the black lines you see when you look through it that are used to align with the target), and higher magnification reduces light transmission. The reason large objective lenses aren't always good are they force you to mount your scope higher off the bore axis which affects your corrections and can make gaining a good cheek-stock weld difficult (unless you have an adjustable comb). For the shooting you describe, light gathering ability should not be your first concern. Nor should having all that magnification. Having a scope that allows you to practice good fundamentals of shooting and having repeatable corrections in your turrets should be, but you seem to be an expert, so what do any of us know.

Here is something to consider. You learn more when your mouth is closed. You are the one who asked for advice, you may consider listening. As for your brands, if you are doing "a lot of turret work" the NF is the only one on your list I would trust for long term repeatability (that said they do have some social credibility issues). The Trij and Maven may be ok, but I don't have first hand knowledge on them. I like leupold, but not for the things your describe. If for no other reason than it doesn't have a windage turret, and given you are doing "a lot of turret work" you must be concerned with dialing your wind.....

 

[Rie Bread]

Night force had very impressive image and color quality

 

[MTLabrador]

I’m admittedly pretty old fashioned, but I can’t imagine using a 4-32x56 scope to hunt with.

If anyone has any older Leupold 3-9 VX2s, 3.5-10 or 2.5-8 VX3s, or fixed 6s that they want to sell to upgrade to the latest and greatest, I’ll take them off your hands… I wish they still made the VX3 without CDS.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I’m admittedly pretty old fashioned, but I can’t imagine using a 4-32x56 scope to hunt with.

If anyone has any older Leupold 3-9 VX2s, 3.5-10 or 2.5-8 VX3s, or fixed 6s that they want to sell to upgrade to the latest and greatest, I’ll take them off your hands… I wish they still made the VX3 without CDS.

Amen...

 

[Wind Gypsy]

A few thoughts:
-All scopes from a given brand aren't of same quality, attributes, function across their models so asking simply for a brand isn't that useful.
-Big objective lenses are nice. Beyond light gathering, they generally result in better image quality and eye position forgiveness ("big eye box") compared to the same scope with a smaller objective (think 80mm class spotter vs 60mm class spotter). That said, I dont have any hunting rifle scopes with objectives larger than 44mm because the scopes that function like I want and weigh what i'll accept usually dont have larger objectives. Sure, a Vx5/vx6 with a 50 or 56mm objective is still relatively light compared to more robustly build scopes but i'll take the robust build and the smaller objective in that case.

For a longer range hunting scope, the maven rs1.2 2.5-15x44 with the mil reticle is really dang hard to beat right now without spending a bunch more money. It has a great FFP reticle for a hunting rifle that is usable throughout it's magnification range which is uncommon as many FFP reticles are poorly designed for hunting applications. My only hold up with it is 15x magnification isn't really necessary for 500 yards and in shots which is about my ethical limit and it weighs more than a 10x mag scope that would serve me fine. Pretty sure i had it at 8x or so when i shot my buck at 350 this year.

 

[ImBillT]

I don’t have any problem with 50mm objectives. Many aren’t even particularly heavy.



I would not be particularly hesitant with Maven. They don’t make anything. The buy from the same manufacturers as Vortex, Sightron, and NightForce. If they go under, there’s a fair chance of another brand buying their name and taking over the warranty department. If that happens, you’ll probably get a Bushnell in return, but wouldn’t be completely SOL.

NF and Trijicon are tops for non-euro scopes. I like that NF is assembled here. I don’t know if Trijicon is or isn’t.

I like the Leupolds that I’ve owned, and their warranty is still pretty good, although seemingly not what it once was. I never dialed any of them in the field. When I shot competitively, almost no one shot Leupold. The story was that they wouldn’t not track reliably. That was a good while back, and it’s possible that Leupold had fixed the issue. I would not know if they have or have not.

 

[WVmike]

I don't have any experience with Maven or Trijicon at all so I can't speak for them. I have a leupold vx3 that does well and probably would in most situations. I do have a Nightforce SHV 4-14x56 that I bought last year and it has been great for me. I was originally between a Zeiss, Leupold VX5 3-15x44, Trijicon Credo and the NF SHV. I ended up settling on the NF because #1 good price, #2 reputation from military use. I did not want a 56mm but I have medium rings on my Seekins PH2 and it does a great job for me. It is unfortunate that some companies support certain things but we can't control what everyone chooses to support vs not support. Like others have said, high turret use sounds like target shooting, police work, military work (ranging, identifying objects by "milling" the object for unknown distances, etc) not particularly hunting. The furthest I turn the magnification up to the my NF is probably no more than 10 power but I'm also not shooting targets out past 5-600 yards either.