I am tossing up between the 6.5-20x and 8.5-25x but before the long string of people chime in saying that 6.5-20 is plenty, I prefer higher magnification. It makes me feel more precise. What I want to find out about the eventual differences in the scopes has more to do with their clarity in marginal conditions. For example on one rifle I have a NF 8-32x and I find that as with ll scopes, on the highest setting you get diminishing returns. However, on a 32x scope, when you set it at 20x, or 25x, you tend to get better clarity, less distortion and a greater FOV than you would with a scope that maxes out at the same 20x. In fact I don't often use the 8-32 on 32x, but tend to use it around the 25 mark quite often, just by looking through it and turning up the magnification until it starts suffer, then back down. Can I assume with these two Leupolds that the FOV should be pretty much identical at 20x and 8.5x? Will the 8.5-25 give me better resolution at 20 than the 6.5-20, or is this just an impression I have? One more consideration is that with a front focal plane reticle; the higher magnification will impose a reticle that appears to be and in the case of the TMR I have chosen, that will allow you to see more through the gap in the middle of the junction of the crosshairs, so I wonder if that will be distracting or take away from the more precise feel I get from a fine second plane reticle at high magnification?