Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anyone not like their NF SHV?

Hey fellas, does anyone NOT like their NF SHV, regardless of model?

If so, what were the reason(s) and what did you replace it with?

Personally, on the fence for the SHV F1.

Thx!

I have no idea what that is. I know that lots of folks here like to use letters that they are familiar with, but they sure leave a lot of us in the dark. miles

I ordered one for evaluation, it was great but but was monstrous in size, returned and they sent me an NXS 2.5-10 x 42 which I still have. The NXS is not perfect but I keep it and swap it from rifle to rifle to test loads.

I had one of the 20x models... too big for my purposes, very clean glass though, I'm sure it would work for someone

I have an SHV 3-10 x 42 & it's the same size as the NXS 2.5-10 x 42 Compact & they weigh within an ounce or each other.

So far, it's been a very good scope & tracks reliably.

I have the MOAR reticle & it's a little marginal in low light, but that's my only real complaint; I think it a decent scope for the money & I'd take it anytime over a comparably priced Vortex & it significantly lighter than the comparable Bushnells. I do wish that NF would put illumination in the 3-10 x 42 model, however.

But I wouldn't want in in a 50mm objective model as it would surely be too bulky to suit me.

MM

MM,

I have that same scope. I too would prefer the reticle be a little heavyier or illuminated. However I really like the scope.


LC

Thx for the input fellas!

Sorry milespatton, for clarification NF is abbreviation for Nightforce, SHV is one of the models.

My only aversion to the SHV is the price. For not that much more you can get a NXS...they both weigh about the same, so I'd rather save $ for a couple more months and get the real thing.

My thoughts as well. The SHV is a good scope but I don't think the "bang for your buck" is there like an NXS, you can see it if you sell your SHV as well.

There's no doubt that the NXS is a somewhat better scope..............but they are nearly 2x the price of the SHV.

20-30% more would be enough to not buy the SHV, but at double the price for the NXS, I'm not sure that for everyday use, it's really worth the difference but I would like to have the illumination of the NXS.

MM

I have the 3-10x42 SHV and have the same "complaint", which is the reticle is a bit thin in low light. But other than that I love it. It's been super reliable mechanically and tracks great. The glass is very good as is the eye relief. I'm plotting another.

My two rifles that are somewhat dedicated to timber hunting, my .338 and my .358, have scopes with very bold reticles. I wouldn't put an SHV on a rifle I was setting up to sneak around in the dark woods with. But for everything else this model of SHV rocks.

The 2.5-10x42 NXS would be sweet, no doubt, but it's almost exactly 2x the price and while the illum would be great to have, it's a very tactical-looking scope and the glass is the same as far as I can tell. The SHV is more appropriate on the HUNTING rifles I've been upgrading, and as much as it pains me to say so, the extra $900 is relevant too.

the NXS has digilume.

My SHV F1 has so far been quite nice. Thinking I paid around $1150 or so new. Mine has the Mil-R reticle, quite nice to my eye.

The NSX 3.5x15's have a reticle thats a little more user friendly compared to the 2.5x10x42, I'm sure the F1 is pretty useable at higher magnification, but Digilum helps the compacts in low light or the dark woods!

Just for informational purposes here's a quickie test I shot today... 3-10 SHV on my new 6.5 GAP build, prone from a Harris bipod and Crown Royal beanbag, 20 MOA minimum dialed between each shot, 5 shots.

They RTZ.

I have 2 SHVs (3-10x and F1) and love them both. My only complaint about the F1 is the short eye relief.

I had a 3-10 and sold mine. I didn't like the reticle choices available in that power range. the IHR reticle IMO kinda sucks and the MOAR is too fine of a reticle to work in the that power range. Its great in the 3.5-15 NXS because in that model the reticle is 50% larger in the view. I didn't feel the scope could do all I wanted it to do in the conditions I hunt. which is most of the time the scope is on low end power. and often I hunt in bad light against animals and targets that are difficult to see even in the best of light. I think nightforce is weak on low light reticles across their entire line. the MOAR works great but it needs to be in at least the 3.5-15 or the higher power SHV would work too. otherwise the mil dot IMO is their best low light reticle. that is what I replaced the SHV with, a NXS compact with mil dot.

Gotcha fellas, I typically dont find myself hunting in thicker timber.

However, I dont want the handicap if I find myself in a situation.

Makes me wonder how different the same reticles, namely MOAR, are in a F1 versus non-F1 NXS.

Is the reticle less defined in the F1?

at low power they dang sure are. FFP is a controversial issue. the simply fact of the matter is most people don't shoot much unless they are at the range. FFP is great if your mostly at max power or close to it. IE at the range. hunting your going to want the opposite and be on low power in case a fast shot is needed. FFP isn't what you want for a hunting scope IMO

??? Have not used a SHV, but have used NF MOAR reticles in NXS's in 2.5-10x42 and 5.5-22x56 to shoot feral pigs by moonlight, always with the power turned to lowest magnification. I really like the MOAR. Also have an IHR, which is not as useful as the MOAR, and also some other more specialized reticles. Illumination is a must have feature in any scope for me. About a year ago, had a NF NXS 2.5-10x42 side by side with another rifle that had a SWFA SS 6x on it. Could not see the pigs or reticle with the SWFA SS 6x, but the NF NXS Compact worked great. Turn the illumination to the lowest setting and the magnification to low and it worked just fine.

Do agree the SFP is handier for hunting, especially on low power and I have both SFP and FFP's to choose from. If low power is needed, holdovers usually are not needed.