NF shv or Swaro z3

[SDHNTR]

One scope has no frills, no sex appeal, but just works, is reliable and has good enough glass - SHV.

One scope has wonderful glass and looks pretty and people (who don’t know) will swoon over your designer scope, but it is wrapped in a tube as fragile as egg shells and has plastic erector guts. Other than look pretty, it does everything else a scope is supposed to do, poorly. - Z3

Take your pick.

 

[JFK]

The SHV is not near NF “typical “ standards or quality. And I am very serious. It’s their most sent in optic for repair and service. Most returned NF back to dealers. Canted reticles, parallax issues and so on.

With that said. The Z3 is no gem. It’s about as delicate as they come.

I actually believe that it probably is their most sent in optic. It’s their least expensive offering and, based on my limited understanding, doesn’t receive the same rigorous testing of their more expensive lines where every single scope that leaves their facility is tested prior to shipping. Every brand of anything made has a failure rate. So yes, it’s plausible that it’s their most returned scope, but it still beats most other scopes on the market and is a solid scope.

 

[Marbles]

I actually believe that it probably is their most sent in optic. It’s their least expensive offering and, based on my limited understanding, doesn’t receive the same rigorous testing of their more expensive lines where every single scope that leaves their facility is tested prior to shipping. Every brand of anything made has a failure rate. So yes, it’s plausible that it’s their most returned scope, but it still beats most other scopes on the market and is a solid scope.

NF also still repairs it, unlike say Vortex where the company considers their best scopes to be throw away items.

It says a lot that NFs cheapest scope is better than the best most companies can make.

 

[gearguywb]

NF has built their reputation on reliability.

I love Swaro, but there is a reason the 3 is so much lighter than about anything else.

IMHO, If you are going to put the scope on, zero it and run (no dialing, etc) go with what pleases you. If you want a tough all-around optic go with the NF.

 

[Greenringer]

After having my Z3 fail on an elk hunt I replaced it with a NF SHV. The repaired Z3 is going on my 223 as I can’t trust it on a big game rifle.

 

[JohnJohnson]

NF also still repairs it, unlike say Vortex where the company considers their best scopes to be throw away items.

It says a lot that NFs cheapest scope is better than the best most companies can make.

Sometimes the Vortex hate (and Nightforce worship) on here gets a little unrealistic. The SHV line isn't coming close to the best scopes most of the top manufacturers make. For most of them it's not even coming close to their second best. It's produced for a certain price point and does generally well there, though it hasn't evolved since its release and other companies are putting out scopes that compete very well with it at its price point now.

 

[Tl15]

Unless you are willing to go second hand, I’d go with a Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15x44 for that sub $1k price point. It’s pretty easy to find them in the mid $800’s if you surf gun.deals. The glass is totally acceptable, it’s proven rugged, and offers illumination, parallax, and zero stop. As much as I love the snooty stuff, it’s a hard package to beat. I’ve got a Steiner Predator 8 with the same features that will set you back $1,700 and to my eye, it’s hard to find any daylight between them in practical use. The reticle looks like it’s a bit much, but it’s really not anywhere near that crazy in real life. With a Creedmoor, I’d set your zero stop at 150 and mark your turret to dial for your furthest shot. You’ll be money for life.

 

[amassi]

Sometimes the Vortex hate (and Nightforce worship) on here gets a little unrealistic. The SHV line isn't coming close to the best scopes most of the top manufacturers make. For most of them it's not even coming close to their second best. It's produced for a certain price point and does generally well there, though it hasn't evolved since its release and other companies are putting out scopes that compete very well with it at its price point now.

Which “top” manufactures make 2 or 3 scope lines that retain zero & track as well or better than the shv does?
Price has nothing to do with quality and I’m interested who is innovating other scopes at that price point that have out evolved the shv line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnJohnson]

Which “top” manufactures make 2 or 3 scope lines that retain zero & track as well or better than the shv does?
Price has nothing to do with quality and I’m interested who is innovating other scopes at that price point that have out evolved the shv line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vortex, March, Burris, Schmidt & Bender, Zeiss, and maybe Leupold (no experience though and not a fan at all). I don't have enough experience to know much about the offerings companies like Tract, Arken, Trijicon, Athlon, or Meopta would have in comparison to the SHV. And I left out the brands that only make top line scopes like ZCO and Tangent Theta.

At the SHV rough price point, a Burris XTR3 would compete well. So would a few SWFA scopes including the 5-20 HD (depending on which SHV you were looking at mag-range wise). Heard good things about the Bushnell LRHS2 and HMDR at a bit under SHV price. People seem to really like the Trijicon offerings around $1000 as well. That's just off the top of my head while half asleep too. By the way I own an SHV 5-20, but the brand worship NF has as the only scope brand capable of retaining a zero is hilarious. They have a well earned reputation and their reliability is great. They are not the only ones capable of that and you sometimes have to make concessions with some of their lines in things such as eyebox.

 

[tlbradford]

I agree with this… 3-9x40 accupoint is clear, bright, simple, and reliable. Eurooptic has really good prices on them.

I’ve had good luck with Swaro, but others haven’t.

NF has a really good reputation. I have the NX8 and ATACR that are really great.


>>>——JAKE——>

x3. I feel Trijicon is underrated for regular hunting scopes. The light transmission and sharpness is fantastic.

 

[Formidilosus]

Vortex, March, Burris, Schmidt & Bender, Zeiss, and maybe Leupold (no experience though and not a fan at all). I don't have enough experience to know much about the offerings companies like Tract, Arken, Trijicon, Athlon, or Meopta would have in comparison to the SHV. And I left out the brands that only make top line scopes like ZCO and Tangent Theta.

At the SHV rough price point, a Burris XTR3 would compete well. So would a few SWFA scopes including the 5-20 HD (depending on which SHV you were looking at mag-range wise). Heard good things about the Bushnell LRHS2 and HMDR at a bit under SHV price. That's just off the top of my head while half asleep too. By the way I own an SHV 5-20,

What’s your personal experience with Vortex, March, Burris, S&B, Zeiss, and Leupold scopes that hold zero and function correctly in hard use better than the NF SHV 3-10x?

but the brand worship NF has as the only scope brand capable of retaining a zero is hilarious. They have a well earned reputation and their reliability is great. They are not the only ones capable of that and you sometimes have to make concessions with some of their lines in things such as eyebox.

Where do you get that only NF makes scopes that hold zero here? Because even a cursory glance here would show that is not what is stated at all.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Where do you get that only NF makes scopes that hold zero here? Because even a cursory glance here would show that is not what is stated at all.

Literally the post I was replying to in the post you are quoting. I'll put the quote below. And I'll also throw in the line from the original post I was replying to as well.

"Which “top” manufactures make 2 or 3 scope lines that retain zero & track as well or better than the shv does?"

"It says a lot that NFs cheapest scope is better than the best most companies can make."

What’s your personal experience with Vortex, March, Burris, S&B, Zeiss, and Leupold scopes that hold zero and function correctly in hard use better than the NF SHV 3-10x?

I've only personally owned a couple SHVs, Vortex LHT 4.5-22, Razor Gen 1, Razor Gen 2, and now Razor Gen 3 (no experience yet though it's arriving today). I've owned a few other scopes below the $1,000 price point but nothing that would be particularly relevant here apart from a Gen 2 Viper 5-25 that was on a .22 and never saw any hard use at all.

The other brands are just commonly known brands that produce scopes above the SHV price point and that I've seen friends or acquaintances use. The exceptions being March and Leupold, which are just conjecture even though I distrust Leupold and March scopes tend to be a more paper shooting sort of deal.

 

[Formidilosus]

Literally the post I was replying to in the post you are quoting. I'll put the quote below. And I'll also throw in the line from the original post I was replying to as well.

"Which “top” manufactures make 2 or 3 scope lines that retain zero & track as well or better than the shv does?"

"It says a lot that NFs cheapest scope is better than the best most companies can make."


I've only personally owned a couple SHVs, Vortex LHT 4.5-22, Razor Gen 1, Razor Gen 2, and now Razor Gen 3 (no experience yet though it's arriving today). I've owned a few other scopes below the $1,000 price point but nothing that would be particularly relevant here apart from a Gen 2 Viper 5-25 that was on a .22 and never saw any hard use at all.

The other brands are just commonly known brands that produce scopes above the SHV price point and that I've seen friends or acquaintances use. The exceptions being March and Leupold, which are just conjecture even though I distrust Leupold and March scopes tend to be a more paper shooting sort of deal.

So no experience in actual field use checking zero retention with any of them?

I have do, lots. It is demonstrably false that those companies (excepting S&B) make scopes that are better at zero retention and correct functioning than the SHV 3-10x. Do those companies make scopes with more features, of course. Better as aiming devices, no.



A whole sub forum about that very thing-

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

 

[JohnJohnson]

So no experience in actual field use with any of them?

I have do, lots. It is demonstrably false that those companies (excepting S&B) make scopes that are better at zero retention and correct functioning than the SHV 3-10x. Do those companies make scopes with more features, of course. Better as aiming devices, no.



A whole sub forum about that very thing-

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

Can you directly link the SHV field evaluation thread? I'm having a hard time finding it in that subforum and I looked twice.

 

[Formidilosus]

Can you directly link the SHV field evaluation thread? I'm having a hard time finding it in that subforum and I looked twice.

Hasn’t been done here. Quite a few SHV’s have been through that evaluation without issue, or I wouldn’t be talking it. If you want to say since their isn’t a eval done here, then it can’t be said, ok.
Can you find anywhere that tracks zero retention, especially through impacts and legitimate field use, on any of the scopes you mentioned working?

 

[Marbles]

Sometimes the Vortex hate (and Nightforce worship) on here gets a little unrealistic. The SHV line isn't coming close to the best scopes most of the top manufacturers make. For most of them it's not even coming close to their second best. It's produced for a certain price point and does generally well there, though it hasn't evolved since its release and other companies are putting out scopes that compete very well with it at its price point now.

Denial gets pretty old, and when stating facts can be called "hate" denial is the appropriate word.

I stated a fact, send in a top of the line Vortex for repair and most of the time you get a new scope.

Send in an NF for repair and most of the time you get the same scope back (or an S&B).

Vortex clearly considers their top of the line products to be throw away items as proven by their frequent choice not to repair them.

Literally the post I was replying to in the post you are quoting. I'll put the quote below. And I'll also throw in the line from the original post I was replying to as well.

"Which “top” manufactures make 2 or 3 scope lines that retain zero & track as well or better than the shv does?"

"It says a lot that NFs cheapest scope is better than the best most companies can make."

Literally, you did not read, I said MOST and put the modifier in for a reason, not all. I sold the NF I had and don't own one, probably will not buy another, so you are reading too much into that statement.

And literally, the post you replied to in the post Form quoted was not the one you quoted anyway.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Hasn’t been done here. Quite a few SHV’s have been through that evaluation without issue, or I wouldn’t be talking it. If you want to say since their isn’t a eval done here, then it can’t be said, ok.
Can you find anywhere that tracks zero retention, especially through impacts and legitimate field use, on any of the scopes you mentioned working?

I don't have anything that does it through field use but for sheer tracking ability a test was done a few years ago by SH. For sheer tracking in a controlled test the Razor Gen 2 did better than the ATACR 4-16 and 5-25, though not meaningfully so in my opinion. The SHV did great but in a couple cases actually gained a bit of adjustment instead of the usual case of losing it. I'm not sure how kosher it is to link another forum on here but for now I'll link it below, can remove if needed. There was also a guy on SH that for years did tracking tests on scopes with a gigantic testing setup that removed any variables, think it was like "killswitch" or something.

Obviously some new scopes have come out since then so it's not that updated either. And it doesn't deal with zero retention.

Scope Tracking Test Results 2020

Follow Sniper's Hide and pick up the latest information on all things precision rifle related. Sniper's Hide Training is for the serious tactical marksman.

www.snipershide.com

 

[Formidilosus]

I don't have anything that does it through field use but for sheer tracking ability a test was done a few years ago by SH. For sheer tracking in a controlled test the Razor Gen 2 did better than the ATACR 4-16 and 5-25, though not meaningfully so in my opinion. The SHV did great but in a couple cases actually gained a bit of adjustment instead of the usual case of losing it. I'm not sure how kosher it is to link another forum on here but for now I'll link it below, can remove if needed. There was also a guy on SH that for years did tracking tests on scopes with a gigantic testing setup that removed any variables, think it was like "killswitch" or something.

Obviously some new scopes have come out since then so it's not that updated either. And it doesn't deal with zero retention.

Scope Tracking Test Results 2020

Follow Sniper's Hide and pick up the latest information on all things precision rifle related. Sniper's Hide Training is for the serious tactical marksman.

www.snipershide.com

I’m not trying to be rude here, however you haven’t answered one question about zero retention which is what posters here care about. I specially, and others are specially speaking about holding zero through field use. Most scopes made now adjust to within 2% at 10 mils, that isn’t a real factor anymore. However, very few hold zero- NF SHV’s do. No SHV has been through the field of Val here because no one has sent one in, and they are a known commodity to the point that it isn’t worth Ryan buying one and spending 3,000 rounds to show how it works over unknown scopes. For the same reason only one SWFA has been done- they are known.


You stated-

The SHV line isn't coming close to the best scopes most of the top manufacturers make. For most of them it's not even coming close to their second best.

This is demonstrably not true when it comes to things that matter- zero retention and correct function in realistic field environments. If you want to say that because there isn’t a Field Eval dome on a SHV, then there is no evidence, ok. However, there is a lot that shows how poorly most of the scope brands you listed as superior perform, that don’t work at all, and quite frankly are garbage aiming devices.

So again, in your experience which second tier scope made by Vortex, Leupold, Zeiss, Athlon, Tracy, etc are better at zero retention and correct function in hard field use?

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’m not trying to be rude here, however you haven’t answered one question about zero retention which is what posters here care about. I specially, and others are specially speaking about holding zero through field use.

"PAK" is the OP of this thread and has two posts in it including the original. I can't seem to find in his posts a mention of zero retention or hard use. In fact he said he's hunting mainly from tree stands stationary-style. But because I suggested in a reply that NF isn't the end-all-be-all of zero retention/tracking, it regrettably derailed the thread and that's my bad. When to be honest it's not particularly relevant to the OP in the first place. Tracking should be good and zero retention should also be good. He is also not deploying to Afghanistan, he's walking to a tree stand and sitting in it.

 

[Tl15]

Train about to come off the tracks.

Since you’re here Form, do you have a position on scopes that will be babied and how they fall in the mix with the field evals? For example, here in south Texas, a lot of people pull a rifle from the safe, pack up in a decent foam lined case and drive a nice piece of highway to their ranch/lease. There will be some mild dirt roads, but nothing challenging. Does that consumer need to pull options off the table because they failed the evals? Ideally, yes, they buy the best, but should it be thought of as a must?
Edit: essentially, where does the failure threshold come into play, and how do you establish that?