NF

I made a very expensive mistake the other day - looking through the NF 2.5-10.  That is by far the nicest piece of glass I've ever handled, and I'll be buying one shortly.

That scope has fixed parallax and no adjutment knob... whats hard to understand?

Leupold has shitty, low life of battery in the illumination system.  Contacts dont matter as that is handled by the diopter adjustment.  The time you need parallax adjustment is to reduce reticle shift from your head not being centered at long range far past the fixed parallax setting or to see the target better vs seeing the mirage with very high power becasue your scope and reticle will be focesed better at that range if you can adjust it out further.

2oz is meaningless in weight IMO.

The larger objective of the Leupold is going to give a larger exit pupil for low light use for a very small amount of time with both at 10X.  Other than that it wont matter.  The 2.5-10X24 exit pupil is small enough that head placement is a little finicky but if you dont have parallax adjustment that could be a bonus.  The 32mm objective version wont be as finicky but will work great in all but the lowest light conditions.

Of course you could go to the 3.5-15x50 NF and have even better exit pupil at 15X than the 32 at 10X or smoke the exit pupil at 10X of the Leupold and get everything in one optic but it will be heavier and that IS a consideration.

I see scopes with no prallax as sacrificing some very long range precision for extra speed in close (close for a long range optic being 400m and in IMO).  I also like over 10X for very long range or super precision.  Which is more important to you?  I think parallax adjustment is wasted on a 10X scope since for super long range I want more magnification and just a bigger overall scope in addition to the parallax adjutment.  Others disagree as 10X is plenty to shoot larger (human sized) targets at very long range.  I like the 12-18X range for long range or precision (long range being out to 800-1000 yards).

If you understand what each item is for it all comes down to preference in the end.  To me, a mix of MOA adjustments with mil reticle, only 10X, and no FFP reticle does not make for a great long range scope.    The 2.5-10x32 NF does not pretend to be an ultra long range ultra precision scope.  It is a fantastic SPR type scope.

I have shot the 2.5-10X24 NF and the 3.5-10X Leupold LR/T but not the 32mm NF, just to be clear.

Yes at very close and very far ranges that are far from the fixed parallax setting you will use the focus of your eye to compensate so you will have a blurry reticle OR a blurry taget.

In theory the Leupold 2.5x8 would be the scope that should be compared to the Nightforce 2.5x10 - however - due to the wider range of power and various other positive features of the Nightforce product line, is does a good job of running with the next size up Leupold.
if size and weight was no object (or if Nightforce made a 40mm vesion of the 3.5x15) I would go with the 3.5x15 NXS.  Myself will probably go with the 3.5x10 Leupold on the next build, as it is being replaced on the 50 by a Nightforce NXS 5.5x22 ;-).

I tried a NF 2.5-10.  Didn't like it for longer range stuff, and the lack of adjustable parallax was a problem for me.  

I also tried a Leupld 6.5-20 50mm, which is a GREAT scope, but I decided that less magnification is a good thing for closer in shots.  Four days of prairie dog shooting taught me that.  

I ultimately went with the NF 3.5-15 50mm.  It's not that much larger or heavier, and it's pros far outweigh its cons––i just wish they would revise the reticle dimmer knob to be externally adjustable.

How come no one makes like a 1-6X scope with a 50mm objective? I would rather have lower mag and huge FOV.  I like ACOG TA-48, but it is not adjustable, and it does not have a precision reticle.

I was also thinking about an optic for a M12 Mod 0 rifle. By only looking at specifications and not to price and so on I went into the direction of a SN-3 1.8-10x44 in some badger rings.
It is really the most expensive option.

It means he is lying about the infinity part and it has a 125 yard parallax setting.  50 to 100 yards will not be that big a deal... inside 50 or even 25 would be a huge problem.  There will be some issues at very long range with reticle drift due to off axis head postion but it is minimal.  Are you a picky person?

A traditional scope can only have its reticle focused at ONE range.  There is no way to make it 125 to infinity... if there was why even have scopes with adjutable parallax?

My next rifle is going to be a 18" SPR styled .308 and it will probably be getting a 3.5-15X50 NF FFP scope.  I suggest that and dealing with the weight.  Its not just reticle focus and reticle drift that makes adjustable parallax better bet a way to focus to reduce mirage or see the mirage to get a better idea of wind.  If you like the parallax knob get the 3.5-15X50 NF and if not get the 2.5-10x32 NF.

What Ken should have said is that the parallax setting on the 2.5-10x32's is set at 125yds. If you don't know Ken, then calling him a liar is a bit over the top as that is not the type of person he is at all and more likely was typing things at work where things are going a million miles a minute. It was a mistake and they happen from time to time.

When I was recently in Idaho and had the opportunity to check the parallax on a rack of 2.5-10x32's, there was extremely minimal parallax out to 725yds which was the furthest I could check them-to the tune of less than 4" (not MOA). That is perfectly adequate for precision shooting within the ideal engagement ranges of an SPR. If you push it out further than that, sure it is going to get worse, but that isn't exactly the distances that were in mind when they were designed for the military.

If your building a dead nuts Mod0, quite frankly the Leupold 3.5-10x40 w/ M3 knobs is the correct way to go even if the NF is a better scope.