Rings finally came in and I got my NF SHV 3-10X42 forceplex mounted up. Looks and feels good. Very impressed with the NF so far - glass is better than I expected and it just feels sturdy and heavy duty like you imagine a NF should. For those guys curious, the Forceplex reticle is to my eye exactly the same as leupold's duplex - so if you like that one, you should have no issues with the Forceplex. For my needs (bombproof hunting scope, that occasionally may be dialed to a 4-600 yard shot) this thing is just about perfect.

This scope is setting on my LAW Professional 280 AI. Steel factory 2 piece pic. bases, Burris XTR low rings. With the muzzle break on and as shown, weighs 8 pounds 13 oz - just fine by me. I may save a few ounces with Talleys, but this seems like a pretty sturdy setup. Still need to pick up a front butler creek cap and get it taped on - plan to do that tomorrow.

I am hoping to get out this Sunday and shoot and test it out, but so far, I like it a lot!

Looks good to me. Im looking at that scope myself. Let us know how she shoots.

Never have seen or held any NF scope before
All I have and use now are Leupold 6x42`s with German#4 or Heavy Duplex
or Meopro 6x42 with their German#4
Could some one here who has a 3-10x42 SHV with Forceplex.
Please post a pic of the Forceplex Reticle?
How does the Forceplex Reticle compare
to a Leupold Heavy Duplex or Zeiss Conquest #20 reticle?
Thanks AMRA

Any reason for choosing the 6 vs 4 screw rings?

I chose the 6 hole rings because I got them on closeout at a price I couldn't say no to. Plus its just that much more surface being held by the ring.



Again, the forceplex is identical to leupold's standard plex. Use that as your baseline when comparing.

That is a fine looking rig!

Looks good. I'm in the same camp. I'm done compromising scope and mount integrity to save a few ounces. The only thing that gives me pause is that it looks like not all of the clamp is contacting the base where it sits. I'm sure it is plenty since the bar will prevent forward movement but I would rather the whole base have contact.

Looks good.

One question, I've never handled a SHV, so on a longer range shot where dialing is needed, you must unscrew the cap and than dial?

Was there not enough room on the scope tube to move the rear ring back a notch? If so, move that rear ring back. If not, you need narrower rings, in order to maximize the mounting distance and to keep the rings out of the action port, as the way you have it mounted now is an abortion.

Can’t see the need for a muzzle brake on a 9 lb all-up 280, but it’s your hearing to lose.

Not enough tube to move the ring back, however the Burris ring clamp on the screw side is half the normal size so the actual clamp on that side doesn't go past the base. On top of that, the rings/bases have enough loctite on them that they are not going anywhere.





As far as hearing goes, I use ear protection every range session and in the field, usually only need one shot.... Doesn't bother me.
.


Yes, however if you have to take a long enough shot to dial - 400 yards plus for this rifle, the extra 15 seconds to unscrew the top dial shouldn't matter much. Plus, I carry my rifle a lot in my pack as I hike into the backcountry and pull it out from the top when needed. Capped turrets give one more layer of protection to ensure dial does not get accidentally spun. Lastley, even a capped NXS was $7-800 more - just couldn't swing it.

Capped turret with the plex wouldn't bother me for the application I would use such a scope in,as a basic set it and forget it scope that I could have a higher level of confidence in.

Five minutes with a Dremel would get rid of that useless lip sticking down on that ring...

That is a really nice rig you have there except for those horrible rings and all the nail polish.
Do your self a favour and buy some Seekins rings, you will then have the perfect package.

Hairing8

Very nice setup there. That rifle will hunt!

Critical bunch of bastids here.

Lefty C

I don't know if critical is the correct word? It's more like several people including the poster are discussing his new scope rings and mounts. Seems like more discussion thoughts and advice.

I would have to use a narrower ring or just go with a rail due to the portion hanging over. I have no doubt that it's a rock solid setup though.

What does the turrets look like are they just capped for hunting

Indeed.

Because the last thing I would ever want to do is "upset the campfire crowd" I pulled my scope today and remounted in the Extended Front, Low talley's that I had. It actually probably was the best solution as it saved me 5 oz (8# 8.1oz) and got the bases out of the ejection port.

However, the NF scope is short, and the action is very long and the scope sets just at an area where I had to dremel a bit of material out of the outside lips of both bases to prevent the power ring and objective bell from touching. But no big deal, 5 minutes of dremeling, little black touchup marker, and we are good to go - not by much - but there is clearance on both ends.

Something to keep in mind for anyone with future plans on this scope (Very short tube) or a LAW (3.6" long action).

Elegant and practical

I like it

That does look slick.

Let us know how the scope works once you get to shooting.

Looks much cleaner, S&K actually machined a base to not hang over the rear bridge for my FN Sako.

Heck of a nice looking setup. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for the correspondence.

Functionally, those Burris rings were great, they just looked a little funny with the rear ring hanging into the ejection port a bit. A Dremel could have fixed that up, but the Talley's look good too. Not that looks matter at all to me. Hopefully the Talley's hold up as well as the Burris XTR's would have.

Looks good, for those wanting an elevation turret some of the other SHV models like the 4-14x50 F1 have a capped windage and an exposed elevation turret w/zero stop.

Looks great just wish these had a little more tube length for mounting on long action rifles.

Yep,pretty much need a rail on long actions for 90% of scopes anyway.

Rail and LW Warne Mountain Techs work well on my Tikka. Absolutely love the scope, tracks exactly as it should.

NF on Tikka

What's the verdict on that NF SHV 3-10X42 forceplex? I'm looking hard at the scope.

My final verdict is AWESOME PURCHASE, AWESOME SCOPE. I took it out on my 280 ackley and shot it along with another rifle that I put my bad VX3i on - mainly to see side by side differences in the reticle and glass quality (already new the Leupold wasn't tracking right so only cared about optics)

Side by side - to my eye, the Forceplex and Leupold plex is identical. No distinguishable differences. However, the NF glass is better. Better is very subjective and we aren't talking leaps and bounds better - maybe 5-10%???. I won't say that is was any brighter than the Leupold, just clearer - more definitive. Not sure if that cause it has parallax adjustment and leupold doesn't but the image "popped" through the NF scope. (The best way to put it for me, is when I look through a high end pair of binoculars, and then I look through my Leica HD'S, no matter how good the other binos are, my Leica's just see to pop to my eye - this NF was the same way)

I shot both at 10x to be fair and eye relief wise, the NF was great - plenty of eye relief. I think the Leupold is rated at 3.6" at 10x and I would say the NF felt to have at least that much if not a touch more. No issues with the eye box at all with either scope at 10x.

Of course as far as tracking - the NF was dead nutz on. I didn't do any box test or anything like that but here is what I did do. It took 3 shots and I was on paper and zero'd for 100.I moved the the scope up 8 clicks and shot two shots. Both touching right at 2" high. I moved it up 8 more clicks and shot 1 shot - 4" high as should be. I then moved it down 11 clicks to site in for 1.25" high to match my load data. 3 shot group right were it was suppose to be. Now I realize this isn't a hardcore test and I fully plan to get out this month and dial up and down and bang some long range steel - but so far I am very happy.

Scope is built like a tank and to my mind is about as close to a perfect general hunting scope as you can get. For the 280 ackley it sets on, my drop data gives me hold on deer ability out to 375 yards"ish" anything past that, I will dial for, so I have a scope that is rock solid as a duplex - set and forget scope with great optics - that is also completely reliable and able to dial long range as needed.

The only "issue" i can foresee is not having any reticle markings to help with wind holds at long range - but if your shooting at deer/elk at a long enough distance for wind holds to really effect your shot, I will just need to dial for wind.

Buy this scope/reticle with confidence. I was really hung up on the NXS 2.5-10X42 (which I am sure is amazing) but for my money - this SHV is great. The minute they add illumiation, I will be purchasing a MOAR reticle version as well.

How would you rate the low light performance? There has been some discussion of a finicky parallax adjustment on the 2.5-10 NXS. I don't suppose you had any issues with the SHV since you don't mention any.

I did my testing at around 2pm on a cloudy overcast day. So no real test of lowlight or how bright it was at final light. As mentioned, very similar to the VX3I. I can take a break from the SB this afternoon and put the scope up at last light at some targets here are the house and see if I can tell a difference between it and the Leupold.

No hurry or anything ,but I would be interested whenever you get a chance.

Thanks for the analysis on your thoughts. I think this is exactly what I am looking for in a scope. I am 98% a "set it & forget it" guy. But If I wanted to dial I could with confidence.

JB used one of those (with the IHR) on the Barrett Fieldcraft he tested. If I can swing it, that's what's going on mine when it lands, with the Forceplex, of course.

Nice rig.

I can definitely dig that entire set-up..... one question though....

What’s with the spreadsheet taped to the stock?

Nice rig.