Been looking at a bunch of scopes for my Kimber Montana 280 AI. I bought a SWFA on Black Friday but not enamoured with the tall turrets or spiderweb crosshairs. I didn't realize a NF could be had for sub $1000 but the SHV falls into that category.

I'm liking the ForcePlex reticle offered on the SHV. My issue is picking up the fine crosshairs on the SWFA at ends of daylight on dark backgrounds. I think the ForcePlex solves that issue. I wish the SHV had a zero stop and waterproof turrets w/o the caps but the rest of NF quality is supposed to be in the SHV line.

For those seen/used the SHV, what are your impressions for a backpack hunting rifle to be used from timber ranges (30 ft to 100 yds) with opportunities to as far as I'm comfortable (500)?

bwinters,

Comparing an SS 3-9x42mm to a NF 3-10x42mm is not a apples to apples comparison. One is FFP and one is SFP and both have strengths and weaknesses. If your goal is hunting 30 ft to 300 yds, take the SFP Nightforce and run. If your goal is hunting at any range out to the limits of you and your equipment, take the FFP SS 3-9 and run. The very things you dislike about the SS 3-9 are the very things that make shots longer than 300 yds possible. Trying to turn a NF SHV 3-10 into a long range scope is an exercise in futility as it is not equip t for such use. A point and shoot reticle combined with capped turrets will just frustrate your efforts to do your best work north of 300 yds.

What you have to decide is whether you can live with the limitations that are present with both respective FFP and SFP designs. It's not a easy choice,...

I'm anxious to try the Forceplex reticle. I have an SHV 3x-10x with the MOAR reticle. It's not difficult to get used to like some of the other cluttered reticles and I would not be adverse to hunting with it. Like other 30mm scopes, it's a bit on the heavy side, but not nearly as heavy as many. I don't know how this scope would fare in low light conditions. I intend to do some 300 and 500 yard target shooting in the coming week or two; 10x should be ample.

I have had one for about 3 years. As soon as I can afford it, I'll get another.

I have the SHV 3-10 with the MOAR reticle and really like it. I thought the reticle may not be bold enough at dusk, but then a funny thing happened -- I actually tried it! Legal shooting light for us ends 30 minutes after sunset. I watched the clock and checked it against deer in the alfalfa out to 500 (8.5 MOA) right as time expired. I could have shot anything I wanted to shoot in the field.

I've also shot steel at long ranges 800ish with the reticle. I made it clang without ever twisting a turret.

It's a lot of scope for the money....

I have the SHV 3-10 and took it to Kodiak island on a deer hunt. No complaints and I will buy another. The Forceplex reticle is perfect for my needs and the 2.5 MOA to the bottom of the fine portion of the crosshair makes for an easy hold over. Past 300 yards on twist the turret. I ran the SS 3-9X42 with mill quad last year and prefer the shorter turrets and more compact size of the SHV. Your mileage may vary.

For those who have had both(SHV and 3-9 SWFA), how does the eye relied compare?

That’s the one thing holding me back from buying an SHV...

I had the chance to use a 3-10 SHV next to a leupold vx 5hd 2-10x42. I have a nightforce scope for my target rifle and it works fantastically, but for hunting aplications (when I was choosing between the SHV and the VX 5HD) I ultimately went with the leupold. To me the scope picture was brighter and clearer, and it has better features (like zero-stop on the elevation dial). Although I did not measure or weigh them, I think they would be similar in feel/weight on the rifle.
I truly don't think you would go wrong with the NF, but my experience was side by side comparison and going with the leupold, which was also a bit cheaper when I bought one. I know they have at least one illuminated reticle, too.
my $.02

Just bought one with the Forceplex reticle for my 7mm Mashburn build, the rifle isn't done yet, but, the glass looks spectacular.

I bought one of the 3-10’s with the Forceplex reticle during Black Friday. The reticle is perfect for a hunting rig IMO, glass is clear and bright edge to edge, the turrets are firm with defined clicks (more defined than the SWFA 3-9). I’ll gladly accept the extra 6 or so oz’s for a rock solid scope with reliable adjustments should I need to make them. I know there’s a bunch of guys that want the mil type reticles but I’ll gladly dial elev or wind if needed with this scope.

Great to hear, the illuminated version of 3-10 Forceplex sounds awfully good and exactly what I want. A simple hunting scope that can also be dialed when needed. Heck I could even forget about the illumination probably.

I have the 3-10X42 with MOAR on my Fieldcraft....I actually like the reticle a lot. SFP isn't a big deal for me on a scope in this power range. If its fair enough for me to be needing to use the reticle for hold over then I will be setting up to go to 10X anyways.

No overly heavy and still sub 7.75 pounds with the rifle, scope, cheek pad, and bipod.

What I think is that I want one. The Forceplex made the difference.

Many have commented one way or the other on the visibility of the various mil reticles in poor light. A casual survey seems to indicate that most who find them adequate or even prefer them are located in areas that offer more open terrain. Those of us that hunt in heavily forested areas may need something more visible. One size does not fit all in this case, a concept which some just can't seem to grasp when the opinions start flying. I've concluded that for my use, my eyes can see a typical duplex better in the shadows than the mil type. The closer the posts come to the center the better, because you don't always have time to bracket the target with widely-spaced posts. A lighted dot at the center, provided it isn't so bright as to interfere with the view of the target, is the best as there's no doubt about the aiming point.

My experience mirrors shortactionsmoker. Taken it out past 1000 yards, image is fine until to dark thirty. And with 30 moa on the windshield you don't have to dial it unless you want to. Its compact so you might need a rail on a long action .

Luke,

Are those Mountain Tech rings? And which bipod is pictured on your rifle?

Thanks,
Andy

The more I look at the 3 scopes I've mentioned in my 2 threads (Bushy LRHS, SWFA SS, NF SHV), the more I like the Bushnell. It is more money and heavier but the weight thing is OK. I can keep my rifle/mount/scope to 7lbs 1-2oz which was my goal from the start. Now if I could just find another $6-700 to offset the cost, I'd be golden <G>

bw


I have one with the MOAR reticle on my NULA .260. The reticle is fine and at first I thought it was going to be a problem. I have no trouble finding the center in most any conditions but the MOA hash marks tend to be a bit difficult especially in poor light against a dark background. Difficult does not mean un usable. As I used the scope more I can get to the MOA hash mark I need even in poor light. Practice and concentration.

I shot two deer this year, a , and a Whitetail in the east, Mulie in Colorado. Colo Deer was about 250 yds and in the open and the whitetail was 80 yards in the timber. Both are dead and the scope worked perfectly. It was zero'd in August has bounced around on my 4wheeler and truck, been dropped, been out of the stock and had pins removed to adjust my trigger and has held a perfect zero.

From my deck I have shot rocks across a canyon from 600 yards to over 1000. You don't have to twist turrets to hit LR targets.

Overall nice scope. Oh and even with a 20 oz scope my NULA is under 7lb.

LC

Perfect little scope for killing Dad has one on a kimber hunter it’s a killer. Be even better with zero stop and exposed elevation like the shv F1.

That it is. Too bad I don’t shoot in MOA or I would probably still own it. If that scope came in mils I would own several as now under leo/mil they are significantly under MAP

Darrik,

I have 3-10x SHV's with both the MOAR and Forceplex reticle. The MOAR certainly works fine in open fields to the end of legal shooting light, but it sucks in dense conifer timber at closer ranges, especially on darker animals, like black bear or moose. I know this because I've tested the MOAR on black bear and moose hides in conifer timber. (One little-known optical fact is that the dark green of northern conifers absorbs more light than any other color, except black, which is one reason conifers survive so well in northern climes.)

Which is why I am so far leaning hard toward the Forceplex 3-10x as an all-around hunting scope, for those who hunt in any conditions from dark timber to occasionally dialing-up at ranges beyond 250-300.

I've no doubt the Forceplex would be better in the timber.

I simply hate dialing unless I'm banging steel. I'd much rather have lines or dots to work with while hunting. I spent more time this deer season in the fields than I did in the woods. This was an about face from years past. Usually I'm in the timber. We had a ton of east winds during our gun season and an east wind kills me in our small chunks of timber.

I started the first few days of season with a VX5 3-10, duplex reticle with the firedot. I was in the alfalfa on the third day of season and I had a good buck come out at 300 yards. Checked the range and knew I didnt need to dial for that. Then the chase started. He took her to 425 and stopped. I ranged and dialed. They both bolted and stopped again around 500. I ranged and dialed again, then they bolted. They came all the way back to where they started. Dialed back to zero and they went back in the woods.

Had I not been dialing and using dots, I could have easily gotten off a shot each time they stopped even after ranging. It was perfectly calm, so wind wasn't an issue. A few seconds (2-3 each time) lost was the difference. The next day I had a rifle with a different scope with me!

And I also have no doubt locale, terrain and hunting styles come into play.

I'll also add this -- if the SHV 3-10 with the MOAR had center only illumination like the SHV 4.5-14x50 it would be about the perfect hunting scope....as long as the illumination wasn't too bright. The NXS that illuminates the entire reticle is almost perfect for my liking, but I prefer capped turrets like the SHV on a hunting rig.

Everybody is different and has different wants! It's not that I don't like exposed turrets. I just don't really need them on my hunting rifles that are primarily used for chasing whitetails in western Kentucky.

Yeah, a lot of illumination is too bright these days--partly as a result of skinny reticles.

To tell the truth, I do a lot more dialing when shooting varmints than big game, because varmints require more precision. I spent years before laser rangefinders ever appeared using a plex-type reticle, both to range and hold, and killed plenty of big game out to 500 with almost no problems--all with wind-holds, as they usually are, since wind isn't as predictable as gravity....

Still use the reticle to double-check the laser's range quite often, especially in flatter country. Did so this fall when shooting my pronghorn buck with the RAR fast-twist .22-250 you sent!

Darrik, John - thanks for the real world insights. This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I've found my 54 year old eye have different needs than they did 20 years ago. I've found my arms aren't quite long enough as well....... <G>

This exactly.

My neighbors have a variety of bushes planted around their houses ranging from dark to light. They are all in some stage of brown right now - about matching elk hide. I also have some almost black conifer type bushes. I've been using these bushes at different ranges as the backdrop for my reticle evaluations. Fine crosshairs at edges of daylight are very hard to pick up. The black culvert at the end of the road eats fine crosshairs before daylight ends.