Specifically the 4-14x56mm illuminated MOAR-reticle model. I just picked one up at a great price, and the tacticool operator types on the local Canadian forum seem to like Nightforce optics. I have a couple of scopes in this magnification range (Leupolds and Zeiss Conquests), but typically use them only for varmints and predators. My big game hunting is usually done with a 2-7x or 3-9x scope. I was a huge fan of the 1-4x and 1.5-5x Leupolds for years, still have a bunch of them, but I'm finding more and more that they just don't cut the mustard in dim light for me.

This new one is one big-ass scope. I don't like the weight, and certainly regret the imbalanced feel it imparts to my rifle. BUT...I am forced to admit that at last light, it is head and shoulders superior to any other scope I own, and at least the equal of (probably superior to...) my Leica 8x42 Trinovids. I like the MOAR reticle, which makes it easy to achieve precise hold-overs; I've never been one to start fiddling with scope knobs in the field. And I'm kinda sorta in love with the illuminated center crosshair.

My first-ever elk hunt last year (unsuccessful, sadly...) drove home the necessity for the brightest scope possible; it also showed me that I may need to shoot further than I normally do. This scope looks to be the answer to both criteria.

Any thoughts? I'm going back this year to the same place for another crack at an elk; was I nuts for buying a scope specifically for one hunt, when I have a closetful that are probably adequate? Will the trade-offs be worthwhile? Does anybody other than the long-range jokers on Best of the West use scopes like this for actual hunting?

Though you specifically ask about the larger 4-14x56, I hope my inexpert input on its smaller stablemate 3-10x42 will help. I've used one on my primary coyote rifle for about a year now and like it. As you state, it's heavier and bulkier than many other options, but it's tough as nails and has more than adequate optics. I'm not a real scope snob, being pretty happy with Leupold IIs and IIIs and the odd Bushnell Elite, but I'm well pleased with this SHV and wouldn't hesitate to add another to my collection (assuming it won't be on a rifle I have to carry a long way...).

Have you had your eyes checked recently, jwm? Glasses can't solve all problems but are the first thing we should consider when we notice our vision declining.

Illumination is the latest fashion, I know, but I have serious doubts about it from every angle, from need and reliability to sportsmanship.

Thanks for the responses, gents.

Which reticle does your scope have, DesertRam? After posting my question I have put a few hundred rounds downrange from under this scope, and I must say that the MOAR reticle is wonderful. Practically no thinking required (always a good thing for me...). Mildots make my head hurt; after several decades of MOA-thinking, I'm just too hidebound to change.

Sambarman, I didn't mean that my vision was that much worse than it once was. I am more challenged now by iron sights, but I understand that is simply unavoidable age-related loss of elasticity in my focus mechanism. My vision was poor all my life, until laser surgery 15 years ago solved all my problems. Now I use glasses only for reading, not shooting. The laser seems to have negatively impacted my night vision, which was never great to begin with; in any case, I just seem to notice more dim-light hunting opportunities nowadays that I can't capitalize on.

Maybe it's time for another eye check-up; it's been a few years now. I'm just getting tired of medical types telling me some variation of "Well, you're not a kid anymore..." Duh, thanks, bud...I hadn't noticed...

Illumination? This is my first experience with it. I don't consider it unethical, especially when the optic allows me a clear view of the target in legal light but the reticle would be otherwise invisible. As far as reliability...just don't know yet.

This is my choice: http://marchscopes.com/hunting-25-25-x-42-scopes.html

Yes, jwm, we all have different eye situations. I have reasonably bad myopia but, with updated glasses every now and then, I can see very well at a distance. As I get older my short sight gets longer and now I can read a newspaper with no specs at all.

As to reticles, I find the old German #1 is so thick that when I can't see it I can't see the target either. It needs to have a blunt picket, though, or the top can get lost. Even when blunt, you can do some sharp shooting with one; I can get 5mm groups with my old Anschutz .22 at 25 yards using an old reticle-movement Nickel 3-10x, even when the picket grows to fence-paling size. It's pretty useless for long-range sniping, of course. For that I think etched reticles with stadia are the go, much better than clicking back and forth, for several reasons.

I notice Leupold only guarantee the lights in their VX-R scopes for two years and that doesn't include the batteries. I couldn't help laughing when two mates both had flat batteries once when we went deer hunting. They could still see the reticles, of course, but the boys were a bit deflated as they had used the illumination constantly until then and had paid twice the entry price to get it.

My thoughts on the ethics are just this: since rocks and spears are no match for evolved game, we are justified in using some technology - but how much? Scopes have been used for centuries but electric sights and hunting aids are reasonably new - and I think that might be a place to draw the line. If we don't make that the line in the sand, trail cams will be calling our phones when a stag comes to the wallow and electronic triggers will loose the shot as the sight crosses the critter.

quote:

Originally posted by jwm:
Thanks for the responses, gents.

Which reticle does your scope have, DesertRam? After posting my question I have put a few hundred rounds downrange from under this scope, and I must say that the MOAR reticle is wonderful. Practically no thinking required (always a good thing for me...). Mildots make my head hurt; after several decades of MOA-thinking, I'm just too hidebound to change.

Non-illuminated MOAR. I haven't really played around with it much since I mostly shoot coyotes at less than 100 yards. I'd like to stretch it out a little and confirm holdovers at various ranges for the rare coyote that hangs up where I can actually see it.

I have no first hand experience with the SHV, but conceptionally I don't like adjustable parallax on hunting scopes. That's why I limit myself to max. 12x for this purpose.

By design a hunting scope should be rugged and simple. No open turrets, no adjustments in the field, except for the magnification.

Heavy Duplex or German #4 reticles combined with a 50 or 56 lens diameter will make it fit for low light hunting.

I'm not sure where the need for parallax-adjustable scopes begins but it is related to picture focus. Since some binoculars up to 6x could once be bought without central focus, I suspect that powers beyond 6x might be indicated.

A Leupold YouTube says the amount of parallax ever likely within hunting ranges is so little it really only matters to target shooters, and so I I've decided I have no need for it either.

I had a 4-16 Nikon with side-turret parallax adjustment on my 270WSM but, when I finally got a reasonable tahr to aim at, I forgot all about parallax or even the exact range and just shot it. (Second thoughts, the latter was a moot point because the daypack with range finder and other expensive stuff had just rolled off my ledge and down the shingle slides, never to be seen again.) I now make do with a 2-7x Leupold on that rifle.

I've also never felt the need for parallax correction in any kind of hunting situation. I am always practicing my shooting technique, and I take pains to keep my eye centered behind the lens of any scope with which I am shooting, so parallax is a non-issue for me.

I always smile when I read some of the opinions regarding parallax correction that are posted in some forums. I have actually seen one shooter complain about the 6 to 10 inch groups he was shooting with his .22 rifle at 50 yards...only to have some "expert" inform him that his problem was probably caused by parallax error! Yeah...I'm sure that's what it was...

I am planning on leaving the scope set at a parallax-free setting somewhere around 150-200 yards. If I happen to find myself shooting at any considerable longer distance, I will have plenty of time to fiddle with the adjustment to achieve perfect image focus. I definitely won't be spinning turrets in the field, since the MOAR reticle allows easy holdover, so I can afford to fiddle with the parallax adjustment a bit if it seems appropriate. I took a coyote last night at last light and monkeying with my scope settings never even occurred to me.

Essentially, I wanted a huge-objective-lensed scope with outstanding brightness and bulletproof reliability/durability. The graduated reticle was a nice bonus that I feel may be worthwhile. The parallax adjustment and illumination are just fluff that shouldn't get in the way, and might even serve some small positive function. Hopefully, I'll be able to gauge how well I achieved my goal this coming September. Thanks to all for your input and observations.

Thinking of the scope size, jwm, take great care not to knock it. Those big objectives stick out a long way and are usually the first thing to get bumped if you slip over. I bumped that Nikon 4-16 (not too hard, either) and it knocked the zero out three inches at 25 yards, causing me to miss a chamois at about 120.

quote:

Originally posted by Fuchs:
I have no first hand experience with the SHV, but conceptionally I don't like adjustable parallax on hunting scopes. That's why I limit myself to max. 12x for this purpose.

By design a hunting scope should be rugged and simple. No open turrets, no adjustments in the field, except for the magnification.

Heavy Duplex or German #4 reticles combined with a 50 or 56 lens diameter will make it fit for low light hunting.

Lacking a spotting scope (who uses that for coyotes?) a side parallax is great for determining wind direction and intensity; just focus between you and the target. I wouldn't have a LR scope without one.

Butch: I love Nightforce and I love March, although I just had that exact scope suffer a bent tube when I knocked a rifle out of the rack in my reloading room (it fell on the stone tiles).