Kinda curious about these. The 3-10x42 would be pretty nifty on my Kimber. The price is interesting as well- under &900 for the 3-10x42:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2268571744/nightforce-shv-rifle-scope-30mm-tube-3-10x-42mm-matte

I understand they are not tacticool due to being SFP. However, from where I sit, I think I'd actually prefer SFP in a hunting scope.

Anyone try one? Thoughts?

I'd simply get a 3-9 SWFA HD....

20.8 oz sounds heavy.

And on a Kimber, I'd get something a bit trimmer and definitely lighter.

Just me.

DF

DF, it currently has a 3-10x42 Swaro on it that I am very fond of.

Probably shouldn't have mentioned the Kimber- let's just forget that part of it. The part that matters is, it's a rifle with some real reach (7 WSM w/ very accurate premium barrel) and I'm exploring the notion of scoping it such as to wring every last bit of potential from it.

Thanks Greg. That's definitely a candidate. Not THAT much cheaper than the NF, though.

Edit: plus, it's FFP. I have not used or owned an FFP scope. "I hear" that the MQ reticle gets pretty small and hard to see at low power settings in lower light and with a messy background? Dunno. Definitely don't want to give up low-X performance.

I'd stay with the Swaro, just me.

I understand you wanting to twist turrets, etc. The Z3 4-12x50 BT is a turret scope, BT not offered on the 3-10x42. It's pretty light and sleek for a 50 mm objective. I have one on a 26 Nosler and feel I can squeeze what I need to from that round using it.

DF



I used a Sharpie to write in ranges, can "erase the board" with a touch of acetone.

'Guide, thanks for the pics. Really like that camo job a lot! That's an 8400 (WSM) Kimber, yeah?

DF, I've been really pleased with the stock turret on the Swaro; I put a sticker on top with the yardages marked off. It tracks really well. It worked well enough to kill my first mule deer a few years ago at 520 yards. And he was a small target!

However, I'd like to take the rifle to the next level.

18" 308...

I have a 3-9 SWFA SS on my Kimber 7WSM and wouldn't change a thing...

I have a 3-10x SHV and so far like it a lot, but have only had it on one rifle so far, a 28 Nosler.

I have the 4x14 on my 7x300wm ..It's been a solid scope that gets me out there and back..By back I mean back to exact zero..I have had some others that didn't do that so well..

The capped turrets are a plus for me as the gun goes on a horse some..For a hunting scope the caps are almost a must,at least for me ..

I want the 3x10 to go on my 260..I am saving...LOL

I don't think any of the reticles in the 3-10 make very good hunting reticles in lesser light stuations that are common in hunting. I sold mine because of that. As crazy as it sounds if they just offered it in the plain ole mildot I would buy another heck or even plain duplex

CC... Out of curiosity what scope do you use now that fits all of your stringent requirements of a hunting scope...

I would run one on my Kimbers without any hesitation. I like their MOA reticle personally and have no issues with a couple of ounces to know it will work.

I eventually want to replace all my Leupold 3-10's with them. Only on the Campfire Nightforce now doesn't make the grade....

I got a 3-9 SWFA for Christmas and traded it for a Bushnell LRHS.
I wanted to get a 2.5-10 NSX, but the store was out of stock, so I looked at the SHV. In my opinion the SHV was far superior to the SWFA. No tunnel vision, and the optics were much clearer. The SHV MOAR reticle was a little light, so I opted to wait for the lit NSX.
I liked the LRHS so much I just bought a second one. Mostly due to the reticle for long range work. I still want to try a lit NSX for in the woods, short range hunting.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...g_range_hunters_forgotten_a#Post10920323

Whenever you get the chance CC......

Really appreciate the input, guys.

I need to find a way to handle some FFP scopes. The notion of the reticle getting small and thin at low X's (close range, quick shots) and then big and thick at long ranges is counterintuitive to me. But that's just me "imagining", haha. Hopefully I can find some examples to look through before its go time on this next scope purchase.

Keep talking, I'm listening! Thanks again.

Personally, I like the MOAR recticle and had no problem last year on this High Cascade muley at last light..

He was bedded in a patch of timber on a point and I had to thread the needle..As you can see it was clear dark by the time I got to him.. I don't think it is a handicap at all..

I am sure there are better reticles for last light shooting,but this one works fine..

Santiam, very nice buck! I've drawn that tag a couple times but ended up hunting blacktail later in the season instead. I did kill a bentleg (benchleg? I've heard it both ways) up near the PCT in blacktail season; that would've been within the High Cascade unit.

How do you like the optical properties of the scope at lower power settings? Is it easy to get behind? One review I read of the Bushnell 3-12 LRHS called out the performance at 3x, 4x as being pretty poor. Don't like that.

Very easy to get behind..My brother liked mine so much that he bought one for his 7 mag..He doesn't like to spend money so it says something when he spends that much on a scope..LOL

But the proof is in the pudding..You spend that much it had better work like it's sposed to..

This is the proof..First time he got to try it out was a spring bear at 520 yards...Right through the heart..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7lbyG1gTLw

Thanks, that's great to know.

I was just up in what I presume is your general AO- my daughter had a basketball game at Sweet Home. Pretty town, and some of our favorite fans in the Sky-Em league.

I'm liking everything I'm hearing about this scope....

Basing your opinion on one review is not very intelligent .
The LRHS performance from 3-12 is very good. Now if someone doesn't like the reticle at 3x, that's a different situation.

Yeah, it's always a chore trying to sort out optics review data wheat from chaff, and then there's the fact that much of this stuff is subjective.

This was from a user, not a magazine or online "magazine". The guy felt that the scope didn't give what you generally want from a scope at 3x, 4x.... IE, big eyebox and FOV. He felt it really came alive at 6X.

It's just a single data point, but he did come across as credible, and had one mounted on his rifle.

Nice to hear that the NF SHV does not have that issue.

I also am beginning to think I don't even WANT an FFP reticle in a hunting scope! Blasphemy, I know...............

I am a FFP guy through and through but I'd submit that FFP is not needed on a scope that maxes out at 10x.

Consequently, I received the 2-10x42 NXS yesterday,mounted it up and will zero it tomorrow. Looks good so far. First nightforce I've owned in a decade.

Hutch,
You'll enjoy that one.

there isn't one I am happy all the way with. probably 2 different scopes right now. the 3.5-15 NXS with MOAR reticle, that would go on big game calibers,or long range guns. 2.5-10x32 NXS w/mildot on AR type and guns I am likely to be shooting at less than 400 yards with. Nightforce reticles in some cases may be tuff to see without illumination.

simply put check the model of scope, the MOAR reticle is very different in a 3.5-15 NXS vs the same reticle in a 2.5-10 model.

I will trash on FFP again because I feel like stiring the pot. looked at the LRHS yet again at the sportsmans expo last week. I would love to like this scope BTW. The reticle washed out looking at a curtain inside the full lights of the show, let me repeat the reticle on low power washed out against a dark curtain in full light at the show standing in their booth. there is simply no way anyone can look someone in the eye and say this is a good low light scope on low power. for what its worth the higher power LRHS is much better on low power, but still not good enough for a hunting scope IMO. Its so bad I am surprised they put a product like this on the market.

The interesting thing is, bushnell was there, vortex was there, leica, swaro, all of them were represented at the show. when I was looking at stuff at 3 different booths someone came in and asked about FFP scopes. In EVERY case the reps working the both said they didn't like FFP and it wasn't their thing. I thought that was interesting. I think there is alot of hype associated with FFP.

look thats my opinion, don't like it, fine, I really don't care, if the scope bottoms out at less than 6x on the low end it should not have a FFP reticle, end of story.

Handholding a scope inside a building and making a definitive opinion on it is ignorant. I've done it myself, then I grew up.

I appreciate the fact that FFP is not for everyone and that your preference is SFP. FFP makes sense to me with variable scopes over 10x top end having "holdover" or "ranging" reticles. SFP for the duplex or simple crosshairs.

The one LRHS I have does not exhibit any of the "issues" you seem to be seeing on your indoor hand-held safari.

BS if the scope reticle can't be seen inside a well lit trade show against a dark curtain across the show. It will be horrible in a hunting situation. a trade show is IDEAL lighting conditions, real hunting, ie not being a range ninja is often in poor lighting.

Thou doth protest too much.

Artificial light is ideal....WOW. You are dumber than I thought. Congrats.

No reason to stick out your ribs while typing there Sally...It was a legitimate question as I thought perhaps you had a secret weapon and had found something in the scope world that I had missed... Obviously that was not the case...

You seem to bitch and complain about most if not all optics, but thousands and thousands of HUNTERS seem to get by just fine... Your bitches although quite comical carry lil to no weight...

FFP optics work just fine if one is talented enough to run one... You lack in that category as well... Condemning a scope in a building against a dark/black background only solidifies your stupidity...

This killing stuff is only as hard as a gal makes it... YOU seem to like it HARD...

While you're still "here".... Could you answer Starsky and I? Soley for entertainment purposes if you will....

There's a link conveniently there to save you some hassle....

Look at the shape this nation is in because of Obama.

And ALL you stupid SOB's are happy to help an Obama supporter named JeffO.

Simply AMAZING.

So EHG, Dirtfarmer, Jordan Smith, myself, etc. are all stupid SOB's Scott, and all of us are partially responsible for the shape of this nation simply because we posted on a thread started by Jeff O about a scope?

Good thing real hunters don't shoot curtains inside a trade show...

Thanks for your YouTube ! Nice shot! First I thought ya just nicked him and still went some 20 yards thru that tangle!?
If ya got more vids posted Id be pleased to look at them

Comical that so little could be so "AMAZING" to someone... I wouldn't expect any less from an inbred, never has been lush...

What does anything posted in this thread have to do with the shape of this nation... If poor dumb JeffO is that dumb then the poor dumbfück needs all the help he can get...

I'd wager that the others posting on this thread have forgotten schitt about optic's, hunting and manhood that you haven't even learned yet, dipshit... I know I dropped more intelligence in the thundermug this morning than you could ever possibly muster...

Regale us with what you have done to "Better" the shape of the nation... From your post count it appears you fit into the 98% of the other big mouth posters... You haven't done a fückin' thing other than sit on your fat drunk ass and up your post count...

Until you have something of worth to say you should shut your purdy fückin' mouth, Deliverance...

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

Not that SH needs defending, but I'd say 20+ years in the Coast Guard and earning retirement from the CG is doing "something" for our nation and I'd wager that's a hell of a lot more than Jeff_O will ever accomplish.

JDS...

I couldn't care less what SH has or has not accomplished nor if JeffO was the magic negros campaign manager... SH came off as a sniveling little bitch and I'll treat him as such...

I was in no way comparing the two or their achievements... I was replying to a whiny cünts post... Nothing more or nothing less...

SH is not the only person to have served...

A new spring bear season is almost here..I will see what I can do..

Santiam... does the lack of a zero stop bother you? How's it hitting in you low light in the Oregon woods?

starsky has a 3-10x42 SHV on his 7mm Rem Mag. He killed a bunch of shist with it this year. And he also let me shoot an elk with it. It was a 5x5 bull at 720 yards about 30 minutes before dark, and I had no issues with the scope at all. Pretty much all I needed to know. It might be tougher to kill things up in Oregon, but I don't plan on finding out.

Sermon over.

Tanner

Tanner, good stuff. Thanks!

With the turret caps,a zero stop is mostly a non issue..

Santium that's a great video!

Nice shot!

Must be pretty tough over in EweTahh too....

These cyber bullies keep running off all the posters with all the real world down low.

Bumping this in hopes of getting a measurement from someone who has one in hand....

I need to know the distance from the ocular (eyepiece) to the beginning of the objective bell, as in where it starts to flare out to bigger than the tube.

The compact nature of the scope, combined with the relatively few mount options for the rifle, combined with my own deviant scope mounting desires, have me worrying it might an issue. That number should tell me all I need to know.

Thank you!

http://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/NFO_SHV_3-10_consumer_20150402_web.pdf







Mine will be here Wednesday.

You lucky dog! Well, I suppose luck has nothing to do with it, eh?

Looking forward to your thoughts on it. I'm still a month or so out.

I've perused that web page, and there's some good dimensioning info there, but there's not enough there to give me the one thing I need, which is the measurement requested up above. If you'd stick a tape to yours when you get it I'd be very grateful!

8 1/2".....

Josh, that's what I needed. Thank you for taking the time.

I think 8-1/2" is not good news for me though. Hmmm.

Bob which reticle did you get?

Scotty: IHR.

I have one that I've used quite a bit on a Ruger Hawkeye Predator in 6.5 Creedmoor. So far I've shot it on steel out to 750 yards and the adjustments have been true. I like it a great deal.

wood hits that's good to hear. Im putting it on my Creemoor.

Only one i've seen put thru the paces,over two years is a 5-20x56, a pard has it on his 7 wsm "chunk". its never had a hiccup,and I have to assume the other models are similar.

It aint no NXS tho..

It sure isn't! And I don't expect it to be.

But personally I was disinclined to drop $1900 for a scope. One of my intermittent fits of frugality.

Bob

FWIW we have a 12X42 NF That my son and I used in 1000ydBR, 600 yd BR and various other competitions. We shared the same rifle and just shot on different relays. We would burn through a Kreiger barrel every summer. That scope was clicked to hell and back and never failed to return to its zeros. Some matches started at 200 & out to 1000 and back again. Lots of turret twisting NEVER lost zero.
If they weren't so heavy I would have one on my hunting rifle, and now that there are some lighter ones just may spring for one soon.

Lefty C

Lefty: yes a number of my friends who are match shooters have them, but they have the NXS-types in various powers. I know they are good.

From what I hear and read, the SHV is not built to NXS standards for dialing,and is missing goodies like zero stop, lighted reticle etc. "they" say it isn't as durable either.

OTOH from what i see, talking to folks who own them, they aren't dog doodoo either.

Anyway it's my first NF and if it turns out to be unsatisfactory, I can spin into the more expensive model later.

I hear that. The pricing on these SHV's is very aggressive. Got my attention!

I'll be curious as to your thoughts on the optical properties once you get it mounted up. According to my highly scientific conkalations, the tube length looks to be a bit short for ol' stiff neck here. Which is a bummer. Seems that at the moment, there's (4) brands of solid "dialing" hunting scopes competing at roughly this price point: SWFA, Bushnell LRHS, some Vortex or the other, and these SHV's. I'd rather stick a NF-branded scope on my rifles than any of those- even IF they are all coming out of the same factory in Japan <g>....

Jeff I bet the eye relief and that stuff is akin to the same NXS. I climbed behind a couple of those in Kansas this past year,and found it just fine.

Anyway the Gods of the Internet say it arrives today. The grandkids are on their way to thwart my scope mounting and shooting but I will post what I think.

I have a S&B here to compare optics FWIW.

Bob, if you don't mind, report on the ease of use of the reticle please. I probably missed which reticle you're getting, but since it's non-illuminating I'd be curious how easy it is to see in poor light, up against brushlines, etc? Thanks, hope you love it. That sweet rifle deserves a winner.

JG: I can give a half assed report now since I hunted with the NXS a day or so in KS,and aimed at a bunch of deer out to 500 yards or so.

It was fine but the light was good.....I will bring to to the range and see how late I can see it as the lights go out.

I kind of liked it.It is different from what I am used to though....

No criticism of the scope itself or others' choices but I personally don't get putting a scope that's a quarter lb + heavier than others available in the same power range on a trim, light Kimber.

That's not to say it won't work-it will.

Hell, in my case I'd be adding a full HALF pound to my Kimber! It's got a 12 oz Swarovski on it now.

One reason, and one only, to do that: to increase the utility of the rifle. Mine is a 7 WSM with a Pac-Nor tube; it's very accurate. If a scope change gained me 100 yards of "reach" that opens up huge swaths of terrain. Currently, dialing the Swaro, it's a 550 yard hunting rifle.

Whether a very precise dialing scope actually could do that for me is totally up for debate, but I'd like to try!

However, at 8-1/2" from objective bell flare to ocular, that is almost 3/4" shorter than my Swaro- 3/4" farther from my eye I mean. I don't think that'll work unless they've understated the ER spec on the SHV.

I'd gladly take the 4-8 ozs extra on a light weight rifle for the comfort of knowing that my scope will work when needed...

YMMV...

Jeff mine is on the rifle. It's a piece of cake to get behind and eye relief is very forgiving. You should have no issues on a short action and correct mounts.

So the scopes you currently use now are the 2 nxs's you listed? Those are not getting it done for you? Not really understanding but trying to.

Tis an exercise in futility to try to understand him. You could dump a truckload of money on his front lawn and he'd beotch and moan that it wasn't stacked and counted.

Oh I see one of them. I'd love to know what it is he's doing that's giving him such trouble with available scopes.

The answer:

"Correct mounts" being an operative clause there. Being a Kimber, the options are a lot more limited than say a Rem or M70.

...... but that said, I might have no choice. I shot a "tall target" test today with that rifle and let's just say, I can see why I was having trouble past 550 or so.

Lol

I'm trying to find humor in it.

Always wonder.....

does a thousand dollar scope help anyone shoot that much better than they would with a $200 scope or even a $59 Tasco...

at least in most hunting situations?

I already found it..... pretty easy to love Warne bases and Burris/SWFA Low rings....

Though you are master of the skull-phug.... and the azz-shot....

One ass shot. ONE!!

Those are some beefy rings. Very... tacticool <g>. I'm using similar bases on my heavy 7 WSM and they do work. Never really LIKED them but I can't fault their function.

You liking that LRHS? Heaviest of all the ones I've been considering... Jordan sure likes his. Saw a box test shot with one over on LRHF that was pretty impressive.

I don't know what "most hunting situations" really means but I'm not contemplating this scope upgrade to address most hunting situations anyway.

Precision über alles if you are dialing for distance.... if you aren't, then the scopes under discussion here don't make much sense from a strictly practical perspective.

I've gone to similar mounting setups on my Kimbers (with Warne steel bases), except I use Burris Signature Zee rings. My Kimbers currently wear a SWFA 3-9 and an FX3 6x42/M1...

If the cheap scope survives the round count and trauma of a hunt and still stays zeroed probably not...depending on what you try to do with it.

But life is too short and hunting opportunities too few to care.

Amen to that.

With just a little luck, I'm burning 14 years of Oregon antelope points this summer..... good motivation.

Guess its an attitude point then...

if you want to go for antelope, instead of waiting 14 years and buying a $1000 scope... I'd just go to Wyoming or Montana, instead of waiting for Fish and Wildlife to quit doing their favoritism to the places that Vote democRAT and say essentially to hell with everyone from the rest of the state...

If a guy wants a $1000 scope, then I saw have it.. and enjoy...

somehow slumming with Leupolds, Weavers, various Bushnell offerings and even Tascos, has really fit my needs just fine...

granted the longest distances I have taken deer has been 300 yds or a little beyond.. but that works fine for me...

Even having opportunities to get some of these big buck scopes.. I wasn't impressed with their weight, didn't think the optics were any clearer than any other scope I've used ( byproduct of not having real perfect eye sight anyway)...

don't interpret this as criticizing those of you that desire such spendy luxuries.. just curious if I am missing something as I just don't see it...

Love playing with scopes the way I love playing with 'what if' at the load bench....
spending time shooting a couple thousand or 5 rounds at sage rats come spring and early summer.. really takes care of my shooting large game at distances...

so the statement was not as to of offensive to anyone at all..

those rings weigh about 2.5-3oz each.... they're beefy, but light.... as are the SWFA rings.

I dig LRHS.... it's the best of all worlds as far as I'm concerned. I think it has a couple of excellent features.... and the compromises are in the right places.

You could go around and around on all this schitt..... or you could pick one.... run it, figure out what you like/don't.... trip it.... buy another candidate..... repeat as necessary.

Dog,

Which LRHS are you using?

3-12....

I am pretty impressed with the SWFA rings. Should hold up no matter what.

I've got several "prongs" going with gun-stuff at the moment (also building a big .33 boomer) and don't have unlimited funds so I've got time to research this while I save my pennies. But in principal I agree with your last statement. Makes sense.

When I was saying that mounts/rings might be an issue with my Kimber, it's not that I didn't know things like Warne crosslots or beefy rings exist... it's that I am not like the rest of y'all it seems in that I like the scope back towards me more than most folks. I'm running Talley 1" extensions on it now and it puts the Swaro (3.5" nominal ER) on it just where I like it. I didn't like it near as much with regular Talley's. I just mention that for illustration. Those beefy 3-screw rings in your pic would cost me at least 1/4" and probably closer to 1/2" of "back" because what stops it from going back further, is the objective bell, and those thick rings hit it considerably sooner than even regular Talley's would.

As far as I can see, there is no 30mm Talley extension ring for a Kimber 8400. I could go Leup DD but I don't like how Leup does extensions. That little shelf. I could do a Pic rial but on a KIMBER?! Nah.

I am aware that all of that might be mental masturbation; I might mount up a HSV or LRHS (which is 3.75" nominal ER, and has a bit more tube than a SHV I think) and it might be just peachy. BUT, as a general rule of thumb, I've found I like scopes further back than normal folk. So, as in your pic, when I see NO ability to come any further back, it gives me pause. Now your rifle is a long action- right?- so there's that but the point is, getting the right mounts is gonna be key for this to work for me... and the options are more limited.

That's also a long action Kimber... so a WSM length would be more flexible.

There's always the option of a pic rail.... then your options are limitless....

SHV mounted on a Montana 308 in DD's:



Fore/aft positioning is very comfortable for me, and there is 3/4" or so to move rearward.

Not ONCE have I seen the additional 1/2lb of weight be the demise of a hunt... UNLESS it involved the lack of gray, spongy matter wrapped in a numbskull....

The SHV continues to suck....

Walked this one out to 921 and back to 530, 3 times without it missing a lick. Set it back to "zero" and stoned this ram in his bed at 428. Might just get me a window sticker or two....

Very nice bud...

Yeah no kidding!!! Nice!

I'd have that front ring flipped around the other way.... grin... gives me warm fuzzies to see it so far forward and working for Josh.... gives me hope it'll work for me! Ol' Stiffneck.

Took mine to 600 yards this afternoon. Dialed in 10 MOA correction from a 250 yd zero, (per the Hornady ballistics calculator) and fired a 5 shot group. Load was 120 Amax factory ammo.

There was heavy mirage boil up and leaning right,which might have affected things but I just shot throughout it. I got what you see below on that 6" dot. Seemed to me the scope tracked pretty well.

Bob, I appreciate your updates very much.

Here's an update.... I called Talley and even though I couldn't find any via Google, they do make a LW 30mm extension ring for the 8400 Kimber. That's GREAT news for me.

What would be the purpose of that...

Being the smart azz I am, I was going to through something cute out there, but didn't want it to be misinterpreted.

Very nice Josh. Great post!

Bob,

Have you ditched the SS 6x or are you running both, just on different rigs? Thx

EHG, so that I could move the scope back towards me.

Gotcha...

AK: Both..The 6X SS is on my 7 Rem Mag.


The SHV is on my new 6.5 Creedmoor. That was the first time i used it at 600.

Bob, did you check RTZ after?

Also, next time I would suggest dialing it back down to zero, then up again 10 MOA, and try another group while the atmospherics are the same. You can check it at 600 next time at the range but it'll almost certainly print the group somewhere else due to different wind, temperature, etc.

And finally, if you shot a 100-yard Tall Target test I'd think you were even cooler.

Lot of fun to be had playing with TT's..... grin. But seriously, there is a wealth of data there on the scope's function, minus most of the atmospheric influences that muddy things at 600 yards.

I returned to zero but did not check it yet. It was time to head home.Will do it next time I shoot. I was shooting through that mirage soup crap at 600,so yes maybe POI will be slightly different.

I won't likely do a TT because if the thing is behaving the way I want. The scope is very new but so far it has been spot on. I found it interesting that scope and load did pretty much exactly what the Hornady Ballistics Lab data said it should.

Thanks Bob,

I appreciate the response and look forward to future posts.

Me too. Thanks to Bob and Tanner and EHG, and everyone else who's posted first hand info.

Bob, I'm with you in the sense that I think we are both results-oriented with this stuff. For me, it's "will it hit a pie plate at XXX yards?" If so, done! Not gonna get spun out over minutiae that doesn't matter.

However, and I'm pretty sure you know this so don't let me, I dunno, talk down or whatever.... but it's DAMN hard to gather much actual "data" on a scope at 600 yards. Let's say hypothetically that next time you shoot it at 600 it prints the group 3/4 MOA away from that one. What caused that? It's unknowable. Too many atmospheric variables, how the rifle is rested, etc.

So if you really want to see how that bad boy tracks, repeats, and returns to zero, set up a simple tall target test at 100 yards exactly. That can be as simple as a plumb line on butcher paper with an aiming point at the bottom of the line.

Let me rephrase that. *I* really want to see how that bad boy tracks, repeats, and returns to zero, so I'm trying to persuade YOU to set up a simple tall target test yadda yadda yadda.

But even if you won't, then whatever info you do bring back here is very much appreciated.

Finding out that extension 30mm Talley LW's exist for my Kimber has got my blood running on this one............

Tag

I'm running a 4-14 x 56 SHV on a very accurate Savage in 260 Remington. I have not run the dials through their paces yet so I'm really enjoying this thread.
Thanks all!

I had time to shoot a three shot group at 600 this afternoon, after running the turret back down to zero yesterday...then 10 MOA correction back up to 600,today.

So...rip rip down,then rip rip back up.

Conditions were different, no mirage, grey overcast and low scuddy clouds. No wind.

The group shifted slightly lower to 3 o'clock on the right side of the orange dot you see in the photo above.

No pictures since it was flat rock raining, the target was soaked and the bullet holes sealed shut from too much water. I was too wet to care

I guess you can say it works which is not a real surprise.

That's all I have to report.

Bob, are the turrets resettable via a screw on top- loosen screw, lift, reset, push back down and tighten screw?

Jeff on the 3-10 a piece of cake...coin slot on top; unscrew, remove the screw,lift the turret cap,drop it back on at "zero".

Replace the screw and snug it up ( not Farmer Tight)

Spin away!

Sounds similar to my Zeiss' setup then. Cool! I could make a zero stop for it like I just did for the Zeiss. Gray band under turret.

Snap a pic with the turret off, and the gray thingy still on if you don't mind.

Sure. It's just a "ring" of PVC that I machined to fit the needed OD and ID, and that is the correct thickness (height) to "fill up" the gap underneath the turret at its zero point.

Black plastic might be cooler. I kinda like the gray. Dunno.

At least for the Zeiss, they aren't hard to make (on a lathe). I can make more...

I'm setting pier blocks for a deck right now- pic in a bit.

Ha! Someone finally googled my .sig!

I've always known what it meant! One of my faves!

Man... that was back in the day, eh? Now picture the television you watched it on... the phone in the kitchen....

JG: here's a pic with the turret off. As you can see, the modification I made was to add a highly technical device I call a "ring".

I'd be happy to make any of you guys one, no charge. Would need a measurement. Well, for the SHV I'd need 3 measurements since I don't have one on hand.

Jeff, that's some nice work. Very kind on you offering to make them for others.

Oh Yeah, "sig line" kinda cool.

It's a wonder, BLM movment haven't protested the "Jetsons"

Have a good day.

Excellent report on the SHV on longrangehunting.com check it out.

Randy! Howdy sir.

I'd be very happy to make those zero stops for anyone who wants one. It's not difficult and the material is cheap. I'm tickled to have one on my Zeiss now. I made it this far without one <g>, but it's one less thing to worry about.

I'm pretty sure a SHV is in my future, maybe two.... A 3-10 for the Kimber and a 4-14 for the heavy 7 WSM... Once I have one I can get measurements for zero stops for those too.

If it's the one I've seen, where he tests the 3-10 version, it was a little disappointing in that he didn't test the tracking at all; just made that comment that it seemed to track a little "tall". I like that forum but I haven't found a great review of the SHV on there yet. Got a link?

Got to handle one today, a 4-14 at Cabelas. It seemed damn good optically. Eye relief "seemed" adequate, but it wasn't mounted up. It had the MOAR reticle which looked very useful. The lines comprising the reticle were quite thin. Clicks on the turret were very positive but a bit mushy. Comparable to my Zeiss in that regard. All in all, it seemed pretty damn sweet, at least insofar as you can tell holding it in your hand in a Cabelas.

Looked like it'd be a piece of cake to make a zero stop for it.

I could like one.

Looked through a buddies SHV scope this weekend. I measured the eye relief to where I could see a full picture..... 3 1/4" is what we measured.
They're a nice piece of glass......

Which model did you measure?

It was the SHV F1 4-14 on 14x...

I was shooting a musket today with the 3-10x42. It tracked right on on the board,being a MZ i didnt do any tall target test shooting.

Took it to 400 yards shooting 275gr parker aluminum tip bullets, 130grs of BH209 means lots of recoil. ER wasnt an issue.

Nice little scope was my impression, but havent used it enough yet.

Bob, anything new to report?

Who me?

Nope standing on a pat hand. Have not shot it again. Switching mounts around on the rifle.