Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nightforce scopes.

I have the one NF posted, an SHV that I bought several months ago. NF is a bit heavier than Leupold. I've been a lifelong Leupold customer. But, I'm sending back my second Leupold for failure to maintain zero. They're good about fixing or replacing damaged scopes, but I'm getting tired of the hassle.

And those experiences don't build confidence in my other Leupold scopes..Looks to me like they could get their erector, tracking mechanism built a bit more robust without greatly increasing the weight. I do like their light weight.

DF

I know where a nice NXS 3.5-15x50 with illuminated reticle is for that price. I've been tossing around the idea of that scope or the SHV. When I look at the SHV, it just doesn't have as much appeal as the NXS. Do guys that have truly used the Nightforce NXS really believe the SHV is as good? I know one guy, personally, that uses the NXS and he turns his nose up to the SHV. He says they just aren't the same.

When I bought a 3-10 SHV Forceplex to replace a 3.5-10 Leupold, I figured it would be a noticeable difference in weight on the rifle. After mounting the SHV, I had a hard time telling the difference. I liked it so much I bought another exactly like it.

BTW-Love the Forceplex.

Honest question, do you know that to be true?

I have a NXS 2.5-10x42 IHR on a Sako Tecomate 300 WSM, I like it a lot, balances the rifle better than a Leupold VX-3 IMO. The NXS weights 20 oz.

I have both the SHV 3-10X42 w/Forceplex and the NXS 2.5-10X42 Mil-Dot on rifles and used both this year.

Weight does not seem out of line, both rifles handle well, though neither is a "lightweight". There are small personal preferences with both that I'd change, but in a direct comparison and because of the hunting conditions I encounter, I slightly prefer the SHV, that being due to the Forceplex reticle.

If the SHV had a zero-stop and the NXS had the Forceplex, I couldn't make a choice.

That's true, & is the reason for the cost differential, but unless you're going to join the SEALS or DELTA or some other SOG, & be put into situations that they might be put into, the SHV will do just fine for you.

MM

I guess for guys like us, they work just fine then...

You really need someone who has intimate design knowledge of both scopes to chime in, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think that the SHV simply isn't built to the same standards as an NXS or ATACR. For example, NXS & ATACR lenses are bedded/bonded but I am not sure that the SHV is built this way. NF certainly doesn't advertise this for SHV scopes, so this would be a clue to me.

In terms of overall weight, optical lenses are relatively heavy compared to other single item parts in a rifle scope, which affects weight. The number of lenses depends on the optical design of the scope ("bending of light"), which also affects the length & weight of the scope, and possibly perceived durability for some (those that think that heavier is more durable). All that to say that "weight" isn't always the best indicator of durability, but "might be" if you have other information. All depends.

I don't know any of the design details of the NXS or SHV, but if you compare the specs of the NXS to the SHV, it might provide some clues.

Some observations:

1. The 42mm NXS and 42mm SHV weigh about the same
2. The outer objective diameter are the same, and length are similar
3. They both use 6061 tubes, 30mm
4. The NXS is waterproof to 100 feet (going on memory, so double check me there)
5. The SHV is only waterproof with the turret caps installed, but depth is not rated as far as I know

I would bet that the optical design is similar (i.e. # of lenses), the lens weight similar, and possibly tube material and thickness similar. But it doesn't seem like the SHV is sealed as well, and the lens bedding is unknown.

I'd bet my money on an NXS over an SHV for any hard use. And I think that the price difference reflects this. Whether this matters to Joe-hunter is a different discussion

Thanks buddy. I may still consider this NXS 3.5-15x50 I have my eye on then. I know the NXS is built like a tank. This really doesn't bother me, however, I am not a Navy seal nor do I pretend to be... . However, If I were to ever have the ultimate SHTF scope, I'm thinking the NXS would be the better option... I may be wrong???

I should have added that scopes that need turret caps installed to be waterproof (42mm SHV), are of no interest to me assuming that the elevation turret is expected to be used on a regular basis. For a "set-n-forget" scope, this is less of a concern for obvious reasons. The 50mm SHV has an exposed elevation turret, so I assume that it is "waterproof".

I’ve not had an NXS or ATACR yet but before I bought my SHV F1, I talked to Nightforce at length about them. They told me that EVERY SINGLE ONE is tested for tracking and return to zero before it leaves their facility. Not batch tested... Every single scope. They also told me that they had NEVER had an SHV F1 returned for failure to retain zero, tracking, or return to zero. That was enough for me. My SHV F1 has been superb in all regards and I have absolute confidence in it.

John

The SHV line are durable, reliable scopes that can be consistently dialed without worry.


You can use an NXS as hammer to build a house. The SHV you can build a wall....

The NXS I bought had a black speck on the objective lens when I got it.

I found a good, thick book (one of JB's gun gacks) and proceeded to give it a rather vigorous whack with the scope.

The speck has been gone since, and the scope has performed as expected.

The SHV is my bucket list scope when I need to replace the one on my Fieldcraft. I do wish they'd tone down all the white graphics on it a bit, but they're far from the only company guilty of that. Beats little gold stars and eagles, I guess, maybe.

Well I guess that about sums it up.

So what differences exist between the 2.5-10x42 NXS and 3-10x42 SHV? The more compact NXS weighs almost 2 ounces less yet is more reliable is that what I am reading? If so why?

From what I understand, the lenses are not bedded the same way in the SHV line. That is one of the things that makes the NXS particularly durable. It is a slow process though, so it allows them to sell the SHV for less.

I asked about the weight difference once, and was told that the fast focus eyepiece on the SHV is a little heavier than the standard type that is on the NXS.

Also, in my experience, NF tends to 'round up' on weights. I have weighed several NF scopes on a very accurate digital scale over the last few years and almost all of them were lighter than listed on the website. Recently, I bought a 3.5-15x50 that is listed as 30 ounces, and it actually weighs 29 ounces. My 2.5-10x32 that is supposed to be 19 ounces, actually weighs about 18. A 2.5-10x24 that is listed at 17 ounces, actually weighed 16 ounces.

Thank you for the quick reply. That makes perfect sense, if only the SHV had Zero Stop and a smidge longer tube length.

4th point,



You're assuming too much from the wording on the NF site. The SHV's are "waterproof" in the conventional sense of being sealed against atmospheric moisture, even with the turret caps off.

To my knowledge, no rifle scopes have had turrets that actually leak water since the mid-1990's. Before then, believe it or not, two kinds of scopes would actually ship considerable water when you dunked them: really cheap scopes, and some (not all) expensive European brands. Which is why some of those expensive Euro-scopes tended to fog inside when the turret caps were removed for adjustment in moist places, such as coastal Alaska, allowing humidity to invade the scope.

In fact, several optics writers had an interesting discussion with one of the higher-ups of a major German scope company during a factory tour in 1993. When we brought up that very point about their scopes fogging, the guy looked puzzled and said, "But vy vould you effer take the caps off?" (There were two reason for his question: First, he assumed his company's scopes would never need adjustment after initial sight-in, which was not true. Second, sighting-in in Germany is frequently performed on an indoor range, often by the gunsmith who mounted the scope. Quite a few German hunters have never sighted-in their own scopes, instead leaving the job to a "professional.")

I eventually grew weary of trying to persuade one European company to seal their scope turrets, so the next time they sent me one to test, I took the caps off and left it underwater until there was some H20 sloshing around inside before, the put the caps back on and sent it back. The American president of the company got ticked off, so I explained that I could not recommend their scopes to American hunters (who do sight in their scopes, and sometimes take the caps off in damp places) until they sealed their damn turrets. That happened within a couple of years, not just because of me but other American optics writers who told him similar things.

That is NOT the case with Nightforce SHV's. In fact I just dunked one in a sink full of warm water with the caps off, something I haven't done when testing scopes for several years now, because I haven't found a scope that really leaks (like that sloshing Euro-scope) since the 1990's. Dunking scopes in warm water expands the gas inside, soon forcing bubbles through any leak. The SHV did NOT bubble at all, despite leaving it underwater for five minutes, far longer than required for this test.

This is as waterproof as hunting scopes need to be, at least for those of us who don't plan on swimming 100 feet underwater to our hunting camp.