Nightforce SHV: good quality for the money?

[Mackay Sagebrush]

I have been using NF NXS scopes for a number of years and picked up an SHV a couple years ago. It is on a heavy barrel .260 (not much in terms of recoil).

The turrets track in a repeatable manner, and the glass is good.

I have zero complaints.

 

[Rorschach]

Just received an SHV F1 mil-mil 4-14x50 in the mail and, having the Bushnell LRHS already mounted, I'm honestly not sure which one to keep. The slightly smaller objective of the LRHS is a definite plus, to me (being able to mount it lower), and the reticles each have good and bad points, which kind of makes it a draw, in that respect.

The scopes are laid out very similarly - so much so, that I'd almost say the inspiration for one was the other.

Any advice? Keeping both is not an option. And, I will definitely shoot the same rifle with each scope to ascertain differences. Also will try to compare the image through each - literally - side-by-side.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

Just received an SHV F1 mil-mil 4-14x50 in the mail and, having the Bushnell LRHS already mounted, I'm honestly not sure which one to keep. The slightly smaller objective of the LRHS is a definite plus, to me (being able to mount it lower), and the reticles each have good and bad points, which kind of makes it a draw, in that respect.

The scopes are laid out very similarly - so much so, that I'd almost say the inspiration for one was the other.

Any advice? Keeping both is not an option. And, I will definitely shoot the same rifle with each scope to ascertain differences. Also will try to compare the image through each - literally - side-by-side.[/QUOTE

personally I like the turret better on the Bushnell... But since you have both why don't you compare the glass on both, the weight $ price etc... and give us a short paragraph writeup. There are like 5 other guys recently asking about these scopes... and 2 threads going in the longrange section.

 

[Rorschach]

I am totally not qualified to talk about quality of glass (or much else pertaining to a scope, at least when it comes to actual experiences). Perhaps I could print out some sort of calibration target and compare the performance of the two scopes by looking at the target through them ('calibration' = something with a grid that I could compare the ability of each scope to resolve at a given range) - i.e., some objective measurement - and then provide data on which one could resolve the target to a higher degree, or something along those lines.

The LRHS, just going off factory specs, should be about 6oz. lighter than that particular SHV (30oz.). Might be chump change for some folks, might be in a different universe of weight class for others.

Eye relief, as I mentioned in this thread or another, was also a big difference between the two, and one that I was slightly concerned about, being that I'm putting this on a lightweight 300 win. mag. The SHV had about 3/4" less eye-relief than the LRHS.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

Ror-

Whatever you want to do bud. I would think your opinion would hold some weight because you actually have these 2 damn scopes in your hands and can comment on the glass to your eyes as well as little things like how the dials move, what you like or dislike about the reticles. What is better at low light... Its your opinion bud. A lot of guys on here offer there opinions on shit they haven't even had there damn hands on.

I wouldn't worry about resolution charts and shit. Just look over the scopes and tell us your thoughts. Look through both one night at dusk and tell us what you see...

You don't need to be some super sniper scope expert

 

[bhylton]

Opinions are like you know what. As long as we can all respect each others, we all stand to learn something. I too think your in a good position to offer some simple observations that most people wont have the chance to see themselves. Im interested to see how the eye relief plays out.

 

[wind gypsy]

Ror-

Whatever you want to do bud. I would think your opinion would hold some weight because you actually have these 2 damn scopes in your hands and can comment on the glass to your eyes as well as little things like how the dials move, what you like or dislike about the reticles. What is better at low light... Its your opinion bud. A lot of guys on here offer there opinions on shit they haven't even had there damn hands on.

I wouldn't worry about resolution charts and shit. Just look over the scopes and tell us your thoughts. Look through both one night at dusk and tell us what you see...

You don't need to be some super sniper scope expert

^what he said. If you have to really strain to find optical differences it probably doesn't matter in a functional hunting sense.

 

[Rorschach]

I actually found some patterns that photographers use to compare lenses that I can observe through both scopes at 100yds at some point when I get an opportunity and see if there are any obvious differences. Maybe even try to do it in low light conditions.

Yesterday, I actually got out and fired the Tikka 300 Win. Mag. with the Bushnell mounted (24rds total). No scope bite. So, at least for me and with that particular set up (benched, rear bag, bipod), there were no issues with eye relief. The SHV is the one that has shorter eye relief, however (~3/4" shorter).

I adjusted windage, elevation, and zeroed the turrets out afterwards, but did not adjust the elevation turret's zero stop. Will do that after I get a chance to confirm zero with Hornady Precision Hunter a time or two, again.

Plug for Hornady Precision Hunter ammo. I've fired it in two calibers from two different rifles (admittedly, though, it's the same brand/model, just different caliber - 308 Win. vs. 300 Win. Mag.) and it has gone 3 shots into much less than an inch more than two or three times per rifle. Take that to mean whatever you will - I wouldn't put ultimate stock in it, but it may be a place to start if you're looking for as accurate a factory load as possible.

^what he said. If you have to really strain to find optical differences it probably doesn't matter in a functional hunting sense.

 

[dotman]

You can use charts but really just look through the scopes in fading light, you'll notice which starts to blend colors and which shows detail longer or if they are equal. We don't need an experts perspective just your general opinion of what you see when looking through both and of course which you prefer.

Did you ever look at the Sig Whiskey 5? I've read some great thing about it and it sounds like a very good option, it is also a tad cheaper then the NF. Might need to add a third to your list

 

[wind gypsy]

You can use charts but really just look through the scopes in fading light, you'll notice which starts to blend colors and which shows detail longer or if they are equal. We don't need an experts perspective just your general opinion of what you see when looking through both and of course which you prefer.

Did you ever look at the Sig Whiskey 5? I've read some great thing about it and it sounds like a very good option, it is also a tad cheaper then the NF. Might need to add a third to your list

I believe all 3 (Whiskey, LRHS, SHV) are made by Light Optical Works in Japan.

 

[Rorschach]

I apologize - did not recognize your question. I didn't ever look at the Sig option.

It makes a lot of sense, what WG just said, that these scopes are supposedly manufactured by the same people, at least the SHV and LRHS; there are a lot of similarities between these scopes.

You can use charts but really just look through the scopes in fading light, you'll notice which starts to blend colors and which shows detail longer or if they are equal. We don't need an experts perspective just your general opinion of what you see when looking through both and of course which you prefer.

Did you ever look at the Sig Whiskey 5? I've read some great thing about it and it sounds like a very good option, it is also a tad cheaper then the NF. Might need to add a third to your list

 

[Jesse Jaymes]

I will second or third....that having both and getting some side by side feedback on a direct comparison is very very helpful or could be...to many folks. It get's asked often.

I own the LRHS...but have not other similar scopes to compare it to. The Vortex HS-T...I have two...and it blows them out of the water, as they are grainy and cloudy AF even after trying to tune them in every way imaginable. I almost hate the HS-T and may move them.

I did shoot a local Steel shoot a few weekends ago and was pretty competitive running the 4-18 LRHS. I didn't have any issues with it.

 

[TheCougar]

I believe all 3 (Whiskey, LRHS, SHV) are made by Light Optical Works in Japan.

Because they are all built by the same folks, do you think the build quality and materials are the same? NF makes a big deal about how durable and well built their scopes are. Wondering if the bushnell is made the same way...

 

[dotman]

Because they are all built by the same folks, do you think the build quality and materials are the same? NF makes a big deal about how durable and well built their scopes are. Wondering if the bushnell is made the same way...

I would doubt it, all materials will be selected or in spec to each company. I know the glass in the NF SHV is the same as the NXS and it also has the same turret spring. Doubt the others are using a NF design.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I will have one of the new WHISKEY5's soon for testing and will compare it to the SHVs when I get it. I don't have an LRHS but I'll see if I can get my hands on one to compare as well.

 

[wind gypsy]

Because they are all built by the same folks, do you think the build quality and materials are the same? NF makes a big deal about how durable and well built their scopes are. Wondering if the bushnell is made the same way...

I can't say, but I'd have every bit as much confidence in the elite tactical line from bushy as the SHV line. Nightforce put their name on a spotter that is basically a meopta S2 as well. I doubt it's more robust than the meopta.