IF, I was to look into a NF, which line or model would best fit a hunting rifle?

Considering weight, power, reticle and price.

rifle would be a .300 wsm bolt. Fully rigged now with Leupold 3.5x10 weighs 7.75

Would like to stay close to that weight.

Broad question no doubt, We can narrow it down has we go.

The new 3-10X42 SHV

I thought there was an illuminated version but I can't seem to find any info on it.

That Leupold weighs around 12.5-13 oz..................you won't find a NF close to that.

I have a couple of the 3-10x SHV's & they are 21 oz or so & I don't think there's much in their line that is lighter.

Is illumination a must? What max / min magnification do you want?

Great scopes if you need to dial regularly & want maximum durability & mechanical reliability; glass is good but there is better.

MM

If you want the weight to be the same there is no offering which would meet that criteria. The two lightest models would be the NXS 1-4x24 and the Competition 4.5x24. Everything else you consider will increase the 7.75 figure significantly.

SHV

NXS are great and are meant for the PRS guys who's rifles weigh 12#'s without optics. They are young and strong.

The SHV is a great scope and will save you some precious ounces.

The lupey is about 13oz, correct, another 4 oz puts the rifle at 8.
Loks like any NF will put me at 8.25.

No illumination at all needed or wanted.

better glass than NF? For instance?

The 1-4x24 is listed at 17 oz. and the 4.5x24 is listed at 15.4 oz.

My 300 WSM weighs in at 8.3 pounds with a NF 4-16 on it. Yeah I could have it around 7 pounds with a leupold on it, but if I wanted to go lighter, I have other rifles for that.

How often you twisting it up to 16X?

The only reticle that I like on the SHV would be the forceplex,

what are you guys using?

The NXS compact 2.5x10x42 weighs 19oz,

The IHR reticle looks interesting,

thoughts?

I was in your situation earlier in the year. I went from a VX3i 4.5-14x40 to a SHV 3-10x42 illuminated Forceplex reticle. Once I got it put together the weight difference was mostly in my mind. Love the fell and looking through the scope made me glad I made the switch.

It took me a bit to warm up to the IHR but I really like it in both 32mm and 42mm models.
For a 100% hunting scope, the illumination isn't a bad idea.

I like this one, the SHV 3-10x42 Forceplex. It's a bit heavier than a Leupold, but a really solid, good scope. Glass is excellent, the Forceplex about right for hunting. I was fortunate to get this one from Opticsplanet via Ebay when Ebay had a 15% discouint coupon. Saved $100. I've never seen NF discounted.

DF

The 2.5x10-42mm Compact/3-10 SHV are about 20 ounces and would add 7 ounces above your current Leupold. That’s or the 3-10 SHV aren’t bad options. Probably depends on what you want for a reticle and mil or MOA adjustments.

I always thought that this discontinued model would be the one I chose for a hunting scope.

http://nightforceoptics.com/nxs/2-5-10x32

I have 3 SHV. 2 forceplex and 1 MOAR. I have slowly replaced my Leupolds, and very happy with NF. A little heavier, but track well and good glass. I’ve been stretching out my shooting to longer distances and have started dialing vs years of just setting and forgetting. Good luck and happy new year.

That scope with the Velocity 600 Reticle was my favorite scope for a couple of years. Replaced it with a LRHSi and have never looked back.

But, you know, that's just my opinion.

I like the IHR reticle and have 3 2.5-10x32 scopes outfitted with it. It works just as it should for me and with the illumination it is more than enough until last light. I have shot several deer with it at last light with zero problems. Reticles are obviously a personal choice and there are several here who don't like it. You will have to decide which is best for you. The 2.5-10x42 would be a great scope for you. The 3-10x42 SHV with Forceplex looks like a solid scope and easier on the wallet but I have no experience with it. It is probably the next Nightforce I will be trying. I don't think you can go wrong with either.

Are you really packing the rifle around so much you need to keep the weight down? On my mountain rifles I am, so I don't go with NF. But o/wise I would go with an NXS 3.5-15 which weighs 30 oz. and has illumination. They can be found used for about $1,200. The SHV's use the same glass as the NXS, they just don't have the quality, heavy duty construction.

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.

I spent several days hunting with the elevation cap off of a 3-10 SHV in an area where I would need to dial over the past week...it got plenty of rain on it during that time and seems no worse for wear.

They really need to do the Forceplex in the 2.5-10 NSX....and/or a zero-stopped elevation on the SHV.

Haha.


SHV’s are waterproof without the caps. No legitimate scope manufacturer is going to build a scope that isn’t. NF isn’t talking about “waterproof”, they’re talking about diving. NXS/ATACR/etc. are built and tested for diving. SHV’s are not tested for diving.

Good to know if I ever decide to combine my dive trips and hunts!

Or plan on falling out the boat. (grin)

JMCUBIC, can I have an "Amen"!

If those two things were done I don't think I could ask for a better hunting setup....at least in my world.

I have no performance issues with either one, and to have those small issues addressed would amount to having found perfection in a hunting scope.

Thanks for the post John, and the results of your warm water dunk test. Do you think your results are representative for the whole SHV line? I don't have any experience with the SHV, nor am I knowledgeable about the design details.

I was referring to Nightforce's Limited Warranty, which states "SHV™ models maintain waterproof integrity with their protective caps installed." This is printed the owner's manual.

I agree that a 100 foot depth rating isn't needed for hunting, but found it curious that NF mentions the above multiple times. And doesn't provide a depth rating. Not that waterproof rating is at the top of most scope shoppers' lists, but dropping a scope in a few feet of ice cold water could, and has happened. And might be worse than a warm water dunk?

For conversation, Bushnell Tacticals are rated to 3 feet, Trijicons to 10 feet, and I believe SWFA to 15 feet. Again, just seems a little odd to me that instead of a depth rating, NF states that the scope is waterproof with the caps installed.

To me, not knowing anything about the SHV, the literature from NF indicates that there is a potential failure mode. If they did their homework during product development, validation testing was done, the risk assessed, and the risk addressed with a counter measure. The counter measure being that customers are told that the product is waterproof, only with the caps installed. This is standard operating procedure for product development, unless they are just winging it in Orofino.

I don't believe that any, well most , companies would go to trouble of making the above mentioned statement in the warranty literature if there was minimal risk. Especially when their marketing department reviews the jargon in the warranty. Anything that can hurt their sales is frowned upon.

Jason

Yes sir. If I had to chose between the two scopes....I guess I'd go with the Forceplex in the NSX....maybe.

I have ran several model NSXs over the years, still have one an a heavy gun which has been there for. 6 or 7 years. As others have said they are tough reliable spinners that are a little on the heavy side. As an optics loony I will have to say I agree with a few others as well that the glass, while good, is not up to par with other alpha glass in the same price range, it just never seemed as sharp or bright to me. The older I get the more I like a heavier reticle for hunting like a #4, reticles are where the newer NF hunting lines don’t do it for me.

Happy New Years all and be safe.

My inclination, also.

Duplex reticles make sense in a non-illuminated scope, but with the illuminated NXS I want a thin reticle, certainly no thicker than an MOAR. MOAR-T or the old NP reticles are what I choose, but I can see them just fine. A friend looking at the same target with my MOAR-T says he can't see it, even after adjusting the ocular. I think he needs glasses or something, but whatever the problem, the thin NXS reticles do not work for him. I love 'em, and if I am ever in a situation where I can't see the reticle I just pop the illumination on.

Nightforce’s solution to seeing the reticle in low light is illumination. Purely personal preference, but I prefer to not have an extra knob, battery and electrical function on my scope when I can get all the capability I need with good glass, which they have, and well designed reticle. No argument that their solution works, I prefer simplicity. I can live with the non-illuminated Forceplex which has a 5 MOA wide thin bar, 2.5 per side and .75 MOA thick main bars. If it had just a bit more windage reference and a bit thicker main bars I’d be very happy. Perhaps a tick mark at 2 MOA and a thicker 1 MOA bar starting at 4 MOA from the center?

Yes, please.

Am not alone, I believe, in saying would spring for the nsx but for lack of reticles suitable to varied hunting conditions. So looking to take an SHV for a spin instead, which should be fine, but note to Nightforce: you'd have sold another more expensive scope if you offered it in a forceplex/similar.

Something like Leupold's Windplex........call it the ForcedAir.......God, I'm funny


I do like that idea, and no more complicated than that.

Yep, dial elevation, hold windage...

I’m surprised more manufacturers don’t have plex reticles with windage marks only.

1. There is no extra knob on the NXS - you just pull the parallax knob out.
2. Needing to take a shot IN A HURRY in low light is a once-in-a-decade situation, having a big reticle blocking my view happens every time I use the scope.
3. Replace the 2032 battery in the NXS every couple of years and there are no worries.
4. That said, I usually go with Trijicon's battery-free illumination when hunting. But either way, I want illumination, not a big reticle.

Give me a decent fatty in the glass and I'll buy one. The lights can get dim in the woods long before it does out in the open. Have yet to have a HD or PD block enough of a Deer that it was a problem.

Or.....GaleForceplex......

Huskemaw.

Yep, 3-12X42 has that. At least that'ed be the one I'd be interested in.

Just bought a VHS 5x20x56, it has the MOAR reticle, illuminated, zero stop, and exposed elevation turret (no cap). My first Nightforce. Like it so far...

Man, I didn't think you could buy a VHS anymore. Learn something new every day.

Think he got that backwards......lol

Lol! Yea I guess I was typing instead of thinking, sorry