Nightforce SHV Durability

[JRem257]

Long time lurker. I appreciate all of the time, energy, and money that’s gone into the scope testing on this site.

I know the RS1.2 vs. Credo vs. SHV features have been discussed endlessly, but is there a general consensus on which of the 3 is the most durable? Put another way, is the SHV more durable than the other 2? Anyone actually seen any of the 3 fail under general use?

 

[SneakyThunderCat]

@Formidilosus will likely be your guy with the answers

 

[JRem257]

Thanks. I know the NXS, NX8, and ATACRs are considered bomb proof but didn’t know if there is a measurable difference in reliability between the 3 mentioned in the initial question.

 

[Southern Lights]

NF has a far longer and established reputation for durability than Maven. I've looked at the Mavens and they seem OK, but the sample sizes are much smaller than you see with NF in terms of field use. Time will tell.

NF does abuse tests on their scopes before they ship. They are beating on them from various directions and then test for reticle shift. This is why their rifle scopes tend to have lower warranty issues than others. They have basically weeded out the immediate problems before consumers get them.

As far as I know, they are they only company testing each scope this way before they ship.

 

[JRem257]

Thanks for the info. Are the SHVs individually tested though? I assumed that because they didn’t have the “inspected by” stickers on the objective bell (the way the NXS, NX8, and ATACR do) that perhaps they simply pull samples from batches the way most scope manufacturers do?

 

[nephewjephew]

I have two MOA shvs (3-10 and 4-14f1) that have been spot on from day one. They are very good aiming devices. I made the move to MIL recently so if you want cheaper than new send me a PM.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Thanks for the info. Are the SHVs individually tested though? I assumed that because they didn’t have the “inspected by” stickers on the objective bell (the way the NXS, NX8, and ATACR do) that perhaps they simply pull samples from batches the way most scope manufacturers do?

My understanding no, there is a cost difference for a multiple reasons, that being one. With that said the SHV and Maven 1.2 are probably made right next to each other in same factory. I think the glass of maven is higher tier. I’d go with what ever you got a better deal on although both are highly MAP protected

 

[Southern Lights]

Thanks for the info. Are the SHVs individually tested though? I assumed that because they didn’t have the “inspected by” stickers on the objective bell (the way the NXS, NX8, and ATACR do) that perhaps they simply pull samples from batches the way most scope manufacturers do?

I will call NF and ask again. But in the past I called and asked this specific question about the SHV and they told me they were tested. It would not be to the NXS standard I suspect. I thought it was a mistake so I called again and spoke to another tech and got the same answer because I was surprised by it. If I get a different answer this time I'll post here.

 

[Macintosh]

Thanks for the info. Are the SHVs individually tested though? I assumed that because they didn’t have the “inspected by” stickers on the objective bell (the way the NXS, NX8, and ATACR do) that perhaps they simply pull samples from batches the way most scope manufacturers do?

If a manufacturer has consistent production tolerances, or specifies that from their contracted producers, then there is nothing wrong with batch testing. It's obviously different than testing every individual scope, but depending on the test it could actually be far more rigourous than individual testing can realistically be, becasue an involved test, let alone a destructive test, isnt practical to conduct on a zillion scopes, but might be very realistic on a sample-set from each production lot. ideally you'd have both--batch testing that is involved and possibly even destructive to see where the limit of durability is to ensure lot-to-lot consistency of standards, as well as individual testing to catch any obvious issues, but which must necessarily be simpler and faster and certainly not destructive. It's not unlikely that diferent levels of scopes have DIFFERENT internal testing procedures and standards, even if they are all "individually tested".

That said, my understanding is that very few scope manufacturers test zero RETENTION, even if they are doing impact testing to verify post-impact function--those are two totally different things so I'd be very careful reading too much into manufacturers marketing of impact testing.

Also, OEM manufacturers routinely hold different tolerances and build to different designs for different customers--this is totally normal--so just becasue two scopes are built in the same factory really doesnt mean they are of the same or even similar quality.

 

[Southern Lights]

The NF pillar impacts would be testing for zero shift in the reticle along with scope function. They do this with NXS scopes, I'll have to check again to see what level (if any) they are doing with the SHVs. Here is a video of what they would be doing:

 

[JRem257]

I have two MOA shvs (3-10 and 4-14f1) that have been spot on from day one. They are very good aiming devices. I made the move to MIL recently so if you want cheaper than new send me a PM.

Thanks man. I have a lead on a new 4-14 56mm objective, that’s what got me thinking about the relative durability. Glad to hear yours have been solid.

I will call NF and ask again. But in the past I called and asked this specific question about the SHV and they told me they were tested. It would not be to the NXS standard I suspect. I thought it was a mistake so I called again and spoke to another tech and got the same answer because I was surprised by it. If I get a different answer this time I'll post here.

If a manufacturer has consistent production tolerances, or specifies that from their contracted producers, then there is nothing wrong with batch testing. It's obviously different than testing every individual scope, but depending on the test it could actually be far more rigourous than individual testing can realistically be, becasue an involved test, let alone a destructive test, isnt practical to conduct on a zillion scopes, but might be very realistic on a sample-set from each production lot. ideally you'd have both--batch testing that is involved and possibly even destructive to see where the limit of durability is, as well as individual testing to catch any obvious issues, but which must necessarily be simpler and faster and certainly not destructive. It's not unlikely that diferent levels of scopes have DIFFERENT internal testing procedures and standards, even if they are all "individually tested".

That said, my understanding is that very few scope manufacturers test zero RETENTION, even if they are doing impact testing to verify post-impact function--those are two totally different things so I'd be very careful reading too much into manufacturers marketing of impact testing.

Also, OEM manufacturers routinely hold different tolerances and build to different designs for different customers--this is totally normal--so just becasue two scopes are built in the same factory really doesnt mean they are of the same or even similar quality.

Thank you both for your thoughts. This is really helpful and gets at the crux of my question. There seems to be little doubt that the NXS is among the most (if not the most) durable variable power scope on the market. It seems that the SHVs are held in high regard also but are the SHVs any more durable than the other LOW manufactured scopes that have passed the field evaluation?

Forgive me. I’m an academic by trade so the data being gathered and presented on this site surrounding scope durability, accuracy, group size, etc leads me down rabbit holes and confirms suspicions I’ve never had the time or spare cash to evaluate… appreciate everyone’s thoughts.

 

[flyfisher117]

I can say I borrowed a rifle with an SHV, I accidentally dropped said rifle. Rifle was still zeroed.

I'm still bouncing around between an SHV or RS1.2.
My gut says go NF because they design their scopes to be rugged. Where as it feels that Maven just got lucky with a scope.
My wallet says I get more bang for my buck with the Maven.
My heart says just save up for an NXS/NX8.

 

[JRem257]

I can say I borrowed a rifle with an SHV, I accidentally dropped said rifle. Rifle was still zeroed.

I'm still bouncing around between an SHV or RS1.2.
My gut says go NF because they design their scopes to be rugged. Where as it feels that Maven just got lucky with a scope.
My wallet says I get more bang for my buck with the Maven.
My heart says just save up for an NXS/NX8.

My feelings exactly! Though I actually prefer the covered turrets available on the SHV, especially if they’re durable enough to be dialed when the situation calls for it.

 

[Southern Lights]

The thing I'll say about NF is I was introduced to them in the late 2000s when I went to an F-Class comp. Every scope on the rack wore a NF. When I asked why it wasn't because they had the "best glass" but because they were the most reliable. The comp shooters spend a lot of money and time traveling around and can't afford to have something break.

I'm not saying NF never have issues as anything can break. But NF entire marketing message is tough/durable and I suspect his is just drilled into the heads of everyone that works there and what they do.

I think their ranging reticles have a lot of room for improvement. But, mostly they work and I never worry about them losing zero when riding in a truck, quad, or when I've slid down some scree.

 

[gethuntin]

I can say I borrowed a rifle with an SHV, I accidentally dropped said rifle. Rifle was still zeroed.

I'm still bouncing around between an SHV or RS1.2.
My gut says go NF because they design their scopes to be rugged. Where as it feels that Maven just got lucky with a scope.
My wallet says I get more bang for my buck with the Maven.
My heart says just save up for an NXS/NX8.

I am also hesitant on the Maven. In the tests here on Rokslide I didn't feel it passed with flying colors and somewhere it was mentioned from a Maven rep that the rs.2s erector system is no different than the originals that failed said test. So I am leary on the Maven but I prefer some of its features over the SHV.

 

[flyfisher117]

I am also hesitant on the Maven. In the tests here on Rokslide I didn't feel it passed with flying colors and somewhere it was mentioned from a Maven rep that the rs.2s erector system is no different than the originals that failed said test. So I am leary on the Maven but I prefer some of its features over the SHV.

Yeah the Maven offers a lot of features in comparison to the SHV. The SHV is now 11-12 years old?

 

[plebe]

Yeah the Maven offers a lot of features in comparison to the SHV. The SHV is now 11-12 years old?

So what’s the consensus on long term Maven reliability? Cause features without reliability=Rokslide Leupold.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I can only speak to my experience but I’ve had an shv 3-10 for a few years that’s been bumped around in airplanes, boats and rafts, it’s even been on rifles that have taken spills and it’s never needed any adjusting.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah the Maven offers a lot of features in comparison to the SHV. The SHV is now 11-12 years old?

What kind of features does the Maven have over the SHV?

 

[SkunkCabbage]

Highly recommend the NXS compact if you are after a mil option at 20.5oz that is bulletproof and will track reliably time in and time out.

Basically your best option at this point for a lightweight/durable/dial/parallax 10x optic