Nightforce SHV 4-14x50 F1 best reticle option?

[Formidilosus]

Have you guys found in courses that it’s too time intensive or impractical to turn illumination on when the terrain is broken or difficult to pick up reticle?

No. There are two issues-

1). Usability to aim in low light. This is somewhat solved by illuminated reticles. However, that is a poor solution for the fundamental problem, which is-

2). Reticles designed for how flat range, bright light; and/or for how people think they shoot, not how they actually shoot. Both the Mil-C and Mil-XT are thin, lack clear bold brackets to drive your vision to center, and have unneeded complexity for killing animals.

The Mil-C and especially Mil- XT, as well as others like them have 0 advantages for general hunting- even longer range hunting, on animals. .2 mil ticks are nice, however far from needed, and 10+ mils of elevation marks below center is totally wasted for hunting, and for nearly everyone- including competitors for shooting.

A straight conventional mildot reticle is a far better general killing reticle than all the tree and thin PRS reticles made. Even deer vitals are relatively are large targets- 12” is .5 mils at 666 yards, and .4 mils at 833 yards. Even 1 full mil between marks is easily and near instantly broken down to within .1 mils for holding wind, and a .5 mil hash reticle is the same for less than .1 mil precision.

 

[Castmaster]

No. There are two issues-

1). Usability to aim in low light. This is somewhat solved by illuminated reticles. However, that is a poor solution for the fundamental problem, which is-

2). Reticles designed for how flat range, bright light; and/or for how people think they shoot, not how they actually shoot. Both the Mil-C and Mil-XT are thin, lack clear bold brackets to drive your vision to center, and have unneeded complexity for killing animals.

The Mil-C and especially Mil- XT, as well as others like them have 0 advantages for general hunting- even longer range hunting, on animals. .2 mil ticks are nice, however far from needed, and 10+ mils of elevation marks below center is totally wasted for hunting, and for nearly everyone- including competitors for shooting.

A straight conventional mildot reticle is a far better general killing reticle than all the tree and thin PRS reticles made. Even deer vitals are relatively are large targets- 12” is .5 mils at 666 yards, and .4 mils at 833 yards. Even 1 full mil between marks is easily and near instantly broken down to within .1 mils for holding wind, and a .5 mil hash reticle is the same for less than .1 mil precision.

You need to tell nightforce that lol. You’d think they would come up with better reticles on their hunting line of scopes but I guess not.

 

[Formidilosus]

You need to tell nightforce that lol. You’d think they would come up with better reticles on their hunting line of scopes but I guess not.

They’ve been told, a lot. They don’t care.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

No. There are two issues-

1). Usability to aim in low light. This is somewhat solved by illuminated reticles. However, that is a poor solution for the fundamental problem, which is-

2). Reticles designed for how flat range, bright light; and/or for how people think they shoot, not how they actually shoot. Both the Mil-C and Mil-XT are thin, lack clear bold brackets to drive your vision to center, and have unneeded complexity for killing animals.

The Mil-C and especially Mil- XT, as well as others like them have 0 advantages for general hunting- even longer range hunting, on animals. .2 mil ticks are nice, however far from needed, and 10+ mils of elevation marks below center is totally wasted for hunting, and for nearly everyone- including competitors for shooting.

A straight conventional mildot reticle is a far better general killing reticle than all the tree and thin PRS reticles made. Even deer vitals are relatively are large targets- 12” is .5 mils at 666 yards, and .4 mils at 833 yards. Even 1 full mil between marks is easily and near instantly broken down to within .1 mils for holding wind, and a .5 mil hash reticle is the same for less than .1 mil precision.

I know this is a hunting forum, but it would seem as if their reticles aren’t optimum for their target mil/police market either then

 

[Helislacker]

I know this is a hunting forum, but it would seem as if their reticles aren’t optimum for their target mil/police market either then

That’s what I don’t get. Based on what I’ve observed, most legit five eyes SOF all seem to use NF, and all the LE units I’m familiar use NF - they’re also using them for field shooting. That said; they’re primarily banging steel and not shooting living creatures. And to be clear, I agree with Form, I’ve experienced those issues first hand due the mil c being too thin. I just don’t get why NF would be so opposed to building a proper field reticle given their end users

 

[Shraggs]

That’s what I don’t get. Based on what I’ve observed, most legit five eyes SOF all seem to use NF, and all the LE units I’m familiar use NF - they’re also using them for field shooting. That said; they’re primarily banging steel and not shooting living creatures. And to be clear, I agree with Form, I’ve experienced those issues first hand due the mil c being too thin. I just don’t get why NF would be so opposed to building a proper field reticle given their end users

I’d wager that if the NF engineers or head of market development actually attended Shoot to hunt event - they would see first hand. Especially if form put them behind swfa 6x….

They don’t hunt.

 

[Castle Rock]

They seem to have lost their way, like most companies that get too big, the NX8 could have been great but it is a disaster

 

[Lawnboi]

I will agree that I do wish the mil c had posts at the 5 mil mark all around, but it’s still my favorite of them all.

Little thicker would be alright too but I havnt had any issues, even shooting predators In next to no light

I dislike the mil r enough that I am considering getting rid of that scope. It’s simple on paper but I have a hard time actually using it.

I do enjoy the mil c as a long range reticle. IMO the mil xt can go away. Didn’t mind the tree before but any tree just makes spotting that much harder.

 

[Helislacker]

I will agree that I do wish the mil c had posts at the 5 mil mark all around, but it’s still my favorite of them all.

Little thicker would be alright too but I havnt had any issues, even shooting predators In next to no light

I dislike the mil r enough that I am considering getting rid of that scope. It’s simple on paper but I have a hard time actually using it.

I do enjoy the mil c as a long range reticle. IMO the mil xt can go away. Didn’t mind the tree before but any tree just makes spotting that much harder.

I’ve made my Mil C work too. If you’ve got time to set up on hiking sticks/backpack combo or clip into a tripod it doesn’t seem to have many downsides. That said, if you need to quickly make a shot with very little time in low light/broken terrain it could be problematic. I’ve compared it to other reticles in those conditions and without illumination it’s difficult to pick up

 

[Formidilosus]

That’s what I don’t get. Based on what I’ve observed, most legit five eyes SOF all seem to use NF, and all the LE units I’m familiar use NF - they’re also using them for field shooting. That said; they’re primarily banging steel and not shooting living creatures.

You are presuming that the people making the choice, and the people using the item have a high degree of competence and experience in the specific area, and that their skill and experience is both wide and deep.

NF’s are excellent scopes and for dedicated long range shooting the reticle are fine.

And to be clear, I agree with Form, I’ve experienced those issues first hand due the mil c being too thin. I just don’t get why NF would be so opposed to building a proper field reticle given their end users

As above- the “end user” may be the ones saying they want the reticles offered.

 

[JGood]

I think the main advantage i find with the Mil-C reticle (other than the dot center) is that i use it all the time and im very familier with it. All of my comp guns run the same reticle and it has become second nature to spot an impact on a berm or a steel and correct instantly with the closest hash mark. BUT in PRS i shoot mostly at 18x and in RimPRS mostly at 12x. I could see being at 4-6x it being an issue. All that being said, i shoot steel about 800x more times a year than animals so the practice is with the Comp reticle

 

[Southern Lights]

I have shot both reticles quite a bit. I prefer mils, but the MOAR reticle I find slightly easier to see on busy/dark backgrounds for hunting. I really dislike the gaps in the stadia on the Mil-R and find them distracting when holding off and again gets lost easily on busy bush backgrounds. Just give me a line with tick marks to count vs. gaps to count.

None of the NF reticles are good all around hunting reticles. They are optimized for high mag ranges and distance shooting. In FFP scopes they are very hard to see at typical 4-6X ranges used in most hunting distances.

NF has undoubtedly been told over and over and over again that their reticles for general FFP hunting dialing scopes aren't good. But, they clearly don't make them for this use case. They are made for people trying to shoot tiny targets at long range.