I was set on getting NF 3.5-15 for my latest RECCE/SPR Kreiger build, but the more I read up on the Leupold VX6 3-18, the more I think this is the scope for me.  It's lighter, cheaper, and has a higher top end zoom.

So who has experience in comparing these two?  Which would you choose?

I'll be using this for coyote hunting, precision paper shooting, steel punching, and prairie dog hunting.  This is pretty much my do-all rig.

I am very pleased with my NF 3.5x15.  It is used primarily on my Colt 901 and it does what I need it to do.

Personally I'd go NF.

I have a 3.5-15x50 NXS and a Leupold Mk6 3-18x44. Both are very nice scopes and to me the glass is about equal. As far as I know the vx6 is not available with any mil-based reticle choices. I could not live with a bdc or duplex on a LR scope that I spent this much money on.

There's also NF's unbeatable reliability and toughness. I prefer their turrets and zero stop over anyone else's.

Do you prefer your NF 3.5-15 over your Mk6 3-18 as well? And if so, why?

I haven't personally been a big fan of the 15x and 22x NF optics I've owned and used. The eye relief (or lack thereof) just doesn't do it for me.

eye relief in the NF 3.5-15 and mk6 3-18 is the same and barely any less with the 22x

Interesting. If that's the case, then I may need to reconsider a Mark 6 3-18 now as well.

I've yet to use the Mk6 3-18, but I've used one NF 3.5-15 and two NF 5.5-22s, and I've never been a fan of the eye relief.

ETA - I have heard great things about the Mk6 3-18 eyebox and eye relief though. That's why I figured it was larger and more forgiving...I'd think the 34mm tube surely helps.

It's a tough call but I think I do like the NF a little better. Mostly because of the ridiculous elevation turret on the mk6. Frankly it sucks. It probably won't keep you from hitting your target but for the price it costs I don't care for it. I'll probably keep the mk6 simply because it is so small and lightweight. I also prefer FFP and the TMR is my favorite reticle. I've thought of selling it to buy an F1 but I can't justify the money it would take to do it.

I haven't noticed a difference in eye relief or eye box between the two.

I have both, heavily invested in NF.   I use Nightforce on all my long range precision rifles (more than a few) so I am a fan of Nightforce.  I have to respectfully disagree with the comparison of the glass in the quote above. The glass in a Nightforce and the glass in a VX6 are not even on the same planet.  The VX6 uses Schott (sp)  glass, which is on the same level as any European optic.  If you can see it in a Nightforce it will be exponentially better through the MK6.  I prefer the Nightforce turrets, if you don't dial in your corrections, not an issue.  I like the size and weight of the VX6 better than the Nightforce.  The VX6 is 34mm which may mean a new mounting system if you already own a 30mm system.  I prefer Nightforces NP-R1 and NP-R2 reticles to any offered in the MK6.  MK6 is only offered in Mils.  MK6 looks sexier on most rifles, IMO.  MK6 has more magnification, an with the comparative clarity of the glass between NF and MK6, it appears like far more difference in mag than is actually present.  Price wise the MK6 is more $$. Lastly the NF is bulletproof with its erector system. I have had no issues with the MK6's yet and do not anticipate it, but they are a relatively new design so it is a possibility.  Hopefully these pros/cons will help you make a decision.  

 
 

Everyone's eyes are different and I've seen lots of praise over the mk6 glass. I just don't see much difference in them. The colors in the mk6 are a tad brighter but it did not blow me away like I expected. {shrug}

I think I'll be going with the Nightforce.  I'll be using this rifle for 95% of my centerfire shooting, so the rock solid platform is a must.  Maybe in a year or so I'll invest in the Leupold.  Planning on doing a .243 once there gets to be more manufactures for the new G2 platform rifles and parts.  The Leupy will be a good fit for that.