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