I started out shooting practical/tactical steel matches with Sightron SIII 6-24x50 LRMOA scopes a few years ago on a couple of my rifles, then got a couple of Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50s. Never had a problem with either brand - except for losing track of my zero with the Sightrons a couple of times (no zero stop). It's no secret that both feature good optical quality & good tracking, so I won't repeat the obvious.
But when I finally decided that I needed a ffp scope, and decided to switch from the MOA to MIL system, I didn't know how high up the food chain I'd have to go to get quality glass, a good reticle, and accurate tracking. Research here seemed to indicate that a lot of guys were happy with 34mm Bushnells & G2DMR reticle, so I wound up calling Scott at Liberty for a ET35215GZA. That was more money than I'd ever spent before for a scope, and I haven't been disappointed, even though I'd have preferred that it have the same 24x I'd gotten used to with the SIIIs & PSTs. This being my first mil/mil scope, I thought the zero stop was important enough to spend the extra $$ for - only after I'd worked with it a bit did I realize that 10 mils would get me out past 1000yds. Not a big deal - I'm happy with the scope, and have seriously considered buying another one, or maybe try the 4.5-30x50 XRS. Even though several guys here have said it gets a little dark at 30x, I'd be willing to bet that it'd work well at 24x-25x, which is as far as I'd likely push it during a match.
But about three weeks ago, I started reading a lot of good things about Kahles and their new AMR reticle, and wound up buying a K624i AMR. It cost me all the $$$ I'd saved back from the sale of three AR15 Service Rifles several years ago, but so far, I haven't had any issues with the dreaded 'buyer remorse' syndrome. At the ripe old age of 62, I'm not sure my vision is good enough to fully appreciate the quality of the glass in the Kahles - I can't honestly say that I can see an obvious difference between it and the Bushnell ERS when using both on steel at 600. I will say that the Kahles is excellent in less than perfect light conditions - I shot with it until around 8:15 last evening, after the sun had set, and wasn't having any issues seeing what I was shooting at. Should've set the two rifles side-by-side and done a comparison with both set to 21x in that light - might've been able to see how much - if any - advantage the Kahles' glass & 56mm objective had over the Bushnell's 50mm. But, it'd been a long day, I was tired, ready to load up and go home; really doubt I'd have learned much.
Which brings me to this conclusion - youth is wasted on the young. It's taken me to this point in my life to be able to swing the purchase of any of the scopes in this price range, and I'm not darned sure that - aside from pride of ownership - it makes that much difference when it comes down to being able to put a shot right where I want it to go. Like most of you here, I'd love to be able to get my hands on the new Gen II Razor HD 4.5-27x56 and a NF BEAST, but even if I did - at my age, would it really make any difference?
@55 I have 20/30 vision. I get no advantage over an SWFA 5-20x $1200 scope over the high priced glass. In fact, I shoot just as well with the rebadged Weaver 4-20x that used to be Black Hawk (Cabela brand). I'm just saying you can shoot what you can't see. We all know the glass isn't going to make the x ring more visible at long range to the point it is going to make a difference unless you are Jesus Christ himself. But I will answer your question. I would go with what I already have and that is the SWFA. The rest of the limitless budget would go towards the rifle, other needed components, tweaked ammo, and of course, my own being. Okay, I've walked on water long enough and I'm starting to sink... 
