Rifle Scopes nf svh or bushy lrhs......help me pull trigger

[ker2222]

picking between these two scopes:
the night force 4-14 svh F1 or the bushnell lrhs in 4.5-18.........illuminated versions in both. I prefer MOA which leans me towards the NF but MILs isn't a deal breaker so long as knobs match reticle.

rifle is my 6.5 creed and it will almost exclusively be used for longer range hunting and smacking steel our west. I also might have to draw down on the rogue occasional prairie dog.....

would love input for guys who have shot both or either. I am especially interested in eye box and eye relief and ease of setting zero stop and the like....

 

[ScottyS]

Can't speak to the SVH, I've only owned the NXS line, which I know and trust. Not really interested in "budget" NF scopes.

The LRHS is a wonderful tool, has all the features for flexible shooting and is really well designed ergonomically. Have one on my primary hunting/midrange steel match rifle, not really interested in changing it out. I'm sure I'll buy more. The scope is easy to set up and use, I usually shoot matches with the power on ~16x and hunt with the power turned down. You won't be sorry unless you're one of those guys who has a high rate of returning items.....

 

[Glassaholic]

Like Scotty I cannot speak to the Nightforce but I have the LRTS version of the Bushy which is basically the same with a different reticle. The glass and mechanics on this scope are really nice and the Bushnell gives you 18x vs 14x at the top end over the NF. The eye box is pretty impressive and has some forgiveness, depth of field is also decent for a 30mm tube and 44mm objective. All in all an impressive scope, I used to think they were overpriced but when you compare glass to others in this range it is pretty impressive, Bushnell has been upping their game of late and ruffling the feathers of the competition.

 

[gpo1956]

I haven't used the Nightforce, but I have had both the 3-12 and the 4.5-18 Bushnells. As other's have said, the glass is good and I liked the low profile turrets. I wasn't crazy about the reticle. I would probably choose the 3-12 over the 4.5-18 if I were going back with either one. The eyebox was fussier on the higher mag scope and, at least with my setup, I had less elevation adjustment. I shot them both in lower light situations and just wan't that impressed. I didn't find them, especially the 4.5-18, to be as impressive as a lot of folks do. I personally would want to look through them all before making a decision.

 

[ker2222]

I pulled the trigger on the bushnell---found a used one for under 800 so I snatched it up......i love the way it sits and set up on the rifle....haven't gotten a chance to shoot it yet but it passed the finger and eye tests really well!

 

[5RWill]

You wont be disappointed, especially at that price. I got my LRHS for 806 after rebate during the 25% off month or so Bushnell had. I was and am thoroughly impressed with the optic. It's glass is phenomenal for it's price range. The day i got it i put it side to side with my SN-3 and stayed at the range (farm) about an hour comparing them. It's not far off the SN-3 at all. I will say there is some notable CA, which i didn't notice at first due to overcast but it became apparent on a sunny day viewing white targets. Though i'm not the biggest stickler on CA and especially in this price range. I've had scopes far more expensive that exhibited CA just as bad.

If i had one complaint it would be the size. I wish the 4.5-18 was the size of the 3-12 and the 3-12 the size of the ATACR 4-16 or something similar. Just wish overall the scopes length was decreased. I sort of hate how long the 4.5-18 looks. Somewhat of an irrational complaint because the function of the optic isn't really affected, basically it's just aesthetics.

 

[longshot2000]

Can't speak to the SVH, I've only owned the NXS line, which I know and trust. Not really interested in "budget" NF scopes.

I have owned a number of NXS scopes (no ATACR yet), and have one SHV. As far as glass and function, I cannot tell the difference. The NXS has some bells and whistles, like tough, tactile turrets, a little heavier look and feel, and more options in the MRAD. I cannot tell any difference in quality of glass (I am pretty sure it is the same) or reticle, although NXS has far more choices in reticles. What I have been told by NF reps is that the SHV started as an NXS, then they looked for functionality and hardiness (needed for battle but not for hunting) that could be removed. It was not a cheaper scope, per se, like other brands.

That said, I am constantly looking at Bushnell and am impressed by what I see in the Tactical Elite line, aside from some confusing branding and models.

 

[TC308]

Doesn't matter now I guess since you already got the bushy, hope you like it. I've never owned one. I will say tho, I am super impressed with the shv. I ordered the 5-20 and was super impressed. I was leaning on the nxs and went the less expensive route. Glad I did because I don't know if all the extra money would have been worth it TO ME. I know it's a nicer scope but for the money the shv will get my vote everytime. Sure the turrets could be a little nicer, but the clarity is very nice and the bigger obj gives a good fov.

 

[5RWill]

If the SHV had 10 Mil turrets i'd love to try one, really dislike the 5 Mil turret though, and prefer Bushy's reticle to the Mil-R, though i don't mind the Mil-R. Though with what i paid for the LRHS it was impossible to turn to NF. See the only NF i've looked through were ATACRs which were gorgeous. If they fielded a 10 Mil turret FFP 5-25, it'd be hard to turn it down.

 

[toddconley]

Do you guys with the Bushys like the ret on the lowest power? Is it useable? I am currently looking for. 2nd focal plain hunting scope. I bought a march for the size but it was awful in low light and the ret just got too small for me.
Thanks,
T.

 

[5RWill]

I don't personally mind the size of it at 4.5x during the day. If you have any plan to shoot it on 4.5x i suggest getting it illuminated so it's not a worry in low light

 

[Glassaholic]

Do you guys with the Bushys like the ret on the lowest power? Is it useable? I am currently looking for. 2nd focal plain hunting scope. I bought a march for the size but it was awful in low light and the ret just got too small for me.
Thanks,
T.

I've had the March 3-24x42 in MOA and the March 3-24x52 in Mil and liked the MOA reticle a bit better for it's thickness at the top end (above 18x) but the FML-1 reticle was better at the bottom end (below 6x), it is a trade off between whether you want better low mag performance or high mag in regard to thickness. Here's a comparison of the different reticles at their lowest magnification: