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.

And thus the crux of my quandry....SHV ticks off a lot of boxes for me though.

Or do I ditch the idea, eat some more top ramen and spring for a NXS.

However, I must admit, the Leupold LRP is intriguing but not enough field time to pass judgement.

Almost all of my NF's were purchased used. Paid $900 - $1200 for NXS Compacts and $1200 - $1400 for the 5.5-22x56's. Never had a problem with any of them. Had to adjust oculars, which takes less than a minute. Honestly wonder if some folks sold them because they did not understand how to adjust them.

If I could have only one scope to do everything the 5.5-22x56 is the most versatile. The 2.5-10x42 is handy for walking and carrying on a lighter rifle, but noticeably behind the x56 for image. Physics is the law. But, the x42 is a nice scope.

I've handled a SHV and the turret adjustments felt less precise than the NXS, but Leupold just is not a reliable product anymore.

Couldn't disagree more. IMO, reticle subtensions which are constant WRT to the target at any/all ranges/powers trump low power useability in field conditions (i.e., hunting) almost every time.

That said, and also IMO, many of the NF reticles are too fine for hunting applications.

That explains your bias.

Thin reticles kick ass, you just need illumination for later hours.

Agreed, I'd send my 3-10 SHV back to the mothership tomorrow if they offered an illum upgrade for it... failing that, a guy has to pony up another $900 for the NXS version which is otherwise (size, weight, optics) more or less identical functionally, other than the superior feel and zero stop'd NXS turrets of course and the extra-uber-overbuilt qualities of the NXS...

I wish they'd offer something like the duplex Zeiss used to put in the Conquests, but with some windage hashes on the horizontal stadia.

On the zero-stop note, I make my own for my SHV and have made a few for forum members. Happy to make more (no charge). I'm putting the disclaimer on there that since "grounding out" against the ZS puts in essence upward pull on the erector internals, I don't think these zero stops are something to use aggressively- IE, crank down hard against it. I think of it as a safety net, just there as backup in case I were to forget what rev I was on. I set them up so that the actual stopping happens a couple MOA below nominal zero for just that reason. Anyway, they look like this; it's the black ring with a notch in it:

so actually seeing the reticle at low power in bad light means nothing to you? good luck when someone left the illumination on your FFP scope without you knowing it and there is an animal jogging by at 50 yards at first light or last light and you can't even see the reticle. Go back to the gun range, who the hell cares about subtensions at low freaking power, you don't need them you need to simply make a quick shot, most long range hunting or areas where you can and do need to shoot long range. Often the shots can also be close. you don't need the features of the reticle unless your shooting long range, and at that time you have a chance to check what power your on and with the scopes I use I simply dial max power. Its either the least power or max power. my scopes does not see in between very much. then again I don't shoot that much at a gun range.

Yo Jeff, I just may have to take you up on the custom ZS.

BTW, do you fellas feel that the eye relief and eye box are a bit lacking at all?

Please do! PM me.

No, at least with the 3-10 SHV, I find the ER and EB to be great on a short action rifle.

Hmm, thinking LA Mag Jeff-O....

Got a chance to spy through an NXS....big mistake 🤤

The 3-10 works just fine on a LA mag.

Finally got some time in with my creedmoor ( I know , gasp) today. It's got s 4-14x50 f1 shv. Shot beside some nxs and atacr scoped rigs. Shot out to 1100yds. Dialed from 350-700 repeatedly to see how it tracked. No problems in 40 rounds. Mid morning to mid day. So can't comment on low light performance.

If you use a picatinny rail.......

I'd have to use a rail. I like scopes back towards me- not enough tube for that on a LA. But for more normal folk it might be just fine. At any rate- it's a very easy scope to get behind.

WDEA- NXS are awesome and certainly my big NXS has great glass I'm pretty sure the SHV's have the same glass- at least in the case of the 2.5-10 NXS and 3-10 SHV they do. My buddy owns both and I've messed with his NXS a bitside by side.

If you use Talleys.......

Nightforce one piece on mine.

True BigDave, and you're running a M700 flat bridge round ring receiver.

If you're running round bridge and round receiver then picatinny is the only rail option.

Two piece opens options a bit.

Sure it will fit, just not very much adjustment, and won't be optimal for a lot of users!

I commented with my experience. Killed a bunch of stuff with it on a 7mag. YMMV.

Ok.......

Just to clarify, my comment about it working great for me on SA rifles was only because of the tube length. The eye relief is great, and completely adequate for any magnum I'd shoot. It's that the tube length will lock it in place on say a Remington LA in Talleys and I'm guessing I'd be wishing it could be back closer to my eyeball.... Only a guess, haven't tried it, but since it's perfect on my SA rifles, being ~ 1/2" further away would likely be not-perfect.

Was shooting with mine (on a 6.5 SAUM) out to 900 yards yesterday. I love the parallax adjustment, even on a 10x top end, it is a great crutch to have and ameliorates many sins from field positions.... The superb resolution had me easily bisecting clay pigeons with the reticle at over a half-mile.

Conditions are perfecto this morning- cool, still, and cloudy... sitting here finishing my coffee and trying to resist the pull of goin' shooting again... grin... angel on one shoulder: bid the drawing in your inbox! Devil on the other: fuggit, go shootin'!

I have an SHV and at first I was disappointed with the low light performance. Mine is the 20X version and it has a lit reticle. I have no issues with the relief or box. Once I realized that you have to adjust both the power as well as the eyepiece for best low light performance I was pretty impressed with the glass. Initially I had mine mounted on a lightweight rifle with Talley mounts. I had trouble holding zero and believed there might have been an issue with the scope. I called NF and the guy asked how it was mounted. When I mentioned the Talley's he said, "nope, wont do it...NF recommends that you always mount our scopes on mil-spec rings and bases. The scopes are heavy and will move in "lesser" rings and bases." Not wanting "tacticool" stuff on a mountain rifle I opted for Leupold dual dovetail rings and bases and that did the trick.
I have since moved it from the mountain rifle and I have it on a 308 700 that I hunt with. Overall in general I like the scope and I should add that it is the only scope I hunt with that is not a Leica or Zeiss.

Don't doubt they said that... but...

3-10 SHV in Talleys, prone with a Harris, all day long:

That being said, that's only a 20 oz scope. My big Nightforce (5.5-22 NXS) is in one of these. If you don't want to tacticool your hunting rifle, these are very clean, and light. The whole lower portion is unitized, and it even has a little recoil lug that takes the shear loads off the screws mounting the thing to the action. Nightforce makes it.

Nice rig there Jeff!

I like my Binford 2000 ex,myself.

I took 5 new rifles hunting in 2016. I arrived weeks early and practiced out to 500 yards:

1) Low budget $45 Arisaka Simmons Aetec scope $3 ebay rings, ...
2) High budget pre 64 M70 action, Bansner stock, Shilen barrel, Nightforce NXS 2.5x10x42 scope
3) Light weight Rem 700 short action, Pac Nor mountain taper 243 barrel, Leupold scope
4) Heavy rifle, Sav110, Boyds pro varmint stock, Pac Nor 7mm bull barrel IOR 10x56 scope
5) Factory rifle Browning B-78 25-06

I shot 2 antelope opening day with the 6mmBR & Leupold and then shot a buck mule deer 3 days into the deer season with the 25-06 Nightforce.

None of the scopes formed a memory. I do remember liking to carry the light rifle best.

I am building more rifles and buying more scopes for 2017. I did not buy any more NF scopes, so it must have not been that big a deal.

Don't doubt you did that .......but..........Apples and oranges.....No doubt your rifle is a lot heavier than mine and I don't think the 6.5 GAP with 140 grain bullets recoils quite as much as a 280AI shooting 175's, especially in a 5 pound Kimber Mountain Ascent. Your scope weighs 20 ounces. Mine weighs in at 30.5 according to the NF website. Big heavy scope, lightweight rifle and relatively heavy recoil is not a good combo when you throw in Talley rings. They just slap did not work in this combo. The guy I talked to at Night Force didn't discuss other models, but it did come across as a blanket statement the way he said it, "Night Force recommends mil-spec rings and bases for our scopes" Glad the Talley's work for you, glad you like them. Wish they worked for me, they came with the rifle....I had to spend more money. I like the one you have posted.

Or anywhere where there is mirage or poor atmospheric conditions, evidently

Yeah, I wouldn't put a 30-oz scope in Talleys.

I remembered the name of that Nightforce mount: the Direct Mount. I'd say my only dislike of it, is that with the 20 MOA slope and since its built to work with 50mm objectives on loooong scopes (tilted down towards the barrel due to the slope), the objective is tilted up and is a bit high. That neoprene shellholder on the butt of my rifle is enough extra comb to get my eye up adequately, so that's an easy fix. Other than that- which could be a non-issue anyway on many stocks- it's awesome. Clean, light, and has that utter simplicity and minimal interfacing surfaces, like Talleys. I know rails are proven, but man that's a lot of fasteners and surfaces. Lot to go wrong.

Just want to add, in case it wasn't obvious, that my "all day long" comment was a bit tongue in cheek. While my rifle/SHV/Talley combo can do groups like that all day long- to my point, the Talleys don't move- I will most certainly [bleep] up plenty of groups with shall we say software errors.