data-csrf="1711632272,5859088c5481b656599f7d972c48851a" Scope for Montana 7 WSM | As Real As It Gets

Scope for Montana 7 WSM

Chesapeake

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2010
1,287
14
SW Washington
I liked the NSX 2.5-10x42 compact Mil-R on the WSM. Tried the 6x SS but couldn’t like it in low light. Had a V-3 3.5-10 M1 before that.

Have an SHV F1 4-14x50 Mil-R on the current 7mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22 skadoo

22 skadoo

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2007
429
10
NJ
Im running the NF 2.5-10x42 with mil-r reticle on my Kidd SG rifle and love the shit out of that little scope.
 

22 skadoo

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2007
429
10
NJ
Stick I bet you have at least 50 6x MQ scopes by now or is it a-lot more? They are a really nice scope for the money and I still cannot get over the $200.00 sale they were on not long ago.
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
Money has nuttin' to do with it...but I'd wager that unobtrusive 10yd parallax,40+ Mil's of elevation,an incredible ability to retain zero and tracking like it has eyes,along with a windshield that correlates the erector,prolly don't hurt Production.

I'm happy to grant anyone/everyone the first shot and I don't get X Spooked...............(grin)
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
I believe it to be a safe correlation and a constant,that as things get closer in proximity to the MQ...the better they become.(grin)

Which example in particular,are you musing?...................
 

cwh

Administrator
Nov 18, 2007
4,574
99
Anchorage
Only thing in their lineup that really interests me is the NSX 2.5-10.

Not really considering it seriously at the moment, but may go that direction on the fieldcraft eventually.
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
Second focal plane is a bitter pill,but I agree...it's the only thing in their line up that's even plausible.

The sole advantage I see over the 6x MQ,is illumination...................
 

Painless

Administrator
I have a NF 2.5X10X32 on my Fieldcraft and my 700 7/08AI, while heavy I like the scope and it is bulletproof with the exception of the recticle. Both are NPR2 and if I hadn't of gotten great deals on them I might have passed but they are usable for my pursuits.
 

dznnf7

Well-known member
Apr 30, 2016
600
27
NF really had something with the 2.5-10x32. If they sold them with a decent reticle, they might have...sold them.
 

cwh

Administrator
Nov 18, 2007
4,574
99
Anchorage
NF really had something with the 2.5-10x32. If they sold them with a decent reticle, they might have...sold them.
That scope, and the '42, with the option of no illumination to knock a little off the price, would sell. At least a couple copies, to me.

I have a hard time caring about anything that depends on a battery, because my experience is that I'm too dumb to keep batteries in them. So eventually nothing has illumination, regardless of whether you paid for it.

Nightforce is really determined to never sell me a scope, and every time they get close, they swiftly correct course in the wrong direction.
 

Chesapeake

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2010
1,287
14
SW Washington
Beef??
The SHV scopes are nice, but have some concessions and some plusses compared to an NSX. Limited choices, only the very center of the reticle is lit. Limited reticle choices, Reticles differ between SHV and NSX, capped windage, only 90 MOA instead if 100. Fast focus eyepiece rather than locking eyepiece focus, the reticle line thickness differs from the NSX, zero stop is different, first focal plane option, ect...

I run the 4-14x50 F1 with the Mil-R reticle on my 7mm. I have the NSX compact 2.5-10x42 on my 308. The NSX Compact has some of the features seen on the ATACR line scopes, shift handle, ect...

For a short action or WSM the NSX Compact seems ideal to me. 10x isn't bad for reticle use. Being used to the 3.5-10 Leupolds it feels natural to me.
The ATACR 4-16x42 F1 might be a bit better, but much more expensive.

The SHV 4-14x50 F1 is pretty long. It fits well on a long action. The F1 is handy for not requiring 14x for reticle use. The lit cross in the center is nice for dark timber when your not holding off, just placing the cross and touching it off. The capped windage is nice as well as the Zero stop.

About $1100 for an SHV.
 

d2junky

Well-known member
Feb 10, 2010
271
6
The 2-10x32 flavor grants slightly more tube length for mounting on a long action I haven’t been hurt by the lack of parallax on that model but they all live on boomers for no other reason than zero retention and reliability and reasonable weight
If the SHV f1 would come in just a little bit smaller all the 32’s would be f1.
i don’t much like any of the reticles truthfully.
In the end the lrts checks the most boxes for me.
I have some vision issues and the 6x chicken and I just don’t get along, as much as I’ve tried. And believe me, I’ve tried.
 

Chesapeake

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2010
1,287
14
SW Washington
Interesting that folks don’t like the Mil R reticle(s).

The Mil R SHV reticle is pretty similar to the SS6 and SS10 MQ reticle(s). The MQ has a .07 line thickness and the SHV has a .04 line thickness (for reference the SS10 MQ reticle is .05). Other than that they both have main marks at 1 mil, minor marks at .5 mil, outer fringe marks at .2 mils.
The SS6 has 10 mil below the crosshair and the SHV has 15 mil.
The SHV reticle gets a bit small at lower magnifications and at 14 you cant see all 15 mil of the reticle.
 

d2junky

Well-known member
Feb 10, 2010
271
6
It’s not always about line width or placement for my issues. I have holes similar to what people with macular degeneration have. They are just smaller and randomly placed due to where the scar tissue is in my retina. I can look at 6 different digital clocks and every one will have different parts of different digits missing. It’s weird. And sux.
 

tnv

Well-known member
Dec 25, 2007
726
12
TN
I don’t have any NF, but what’s the beef with the SHV line?
I have the SHV 4-14x50 F1. There are better scopes on the market for the money. 5 mil/revolution, short eye relief and center is only lit are a few of my beefs with it. Second to that is that it's a big scope. Biggest beef is the critical eye relief.
 

Chesapeake

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2010
1,287
14
SW Washington
I have the SHV 4-14x50 F1. There are better scopes on the market for the money. 5 mil/revolution, short eye relief and center is only lit are a few of my beefs with it. Second to that is that it's a big scope. Biggest beef is the critical eye relief.
What are the better scopes for the money?
 

Chesapeake

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2010
1,287
14
SW Washington
I figured someone would mention the LRTS. Its for sure comparable. I've fondled one for a bit and it was nice, but I'm not looking to trade out my SHV for one. Its on the short list of options for the next one though.
 

ktnlocksmith

Active member
Apr 30, 2019
38
5
Got the scope in on the 10th and mounted it in SWFA lows. Got around to shooting it yesterday. Put up a target at 100. Pulled the bolt and looked through the barrel. Got the crosshairs on target and fired one round. 3 mils low and .5 mil left. Made the corrections and fired another round. Bullseye. That was cool! Shot some rim fire for a bit and then fired another at 100. Bullseye. Held 1 mil for the 300 yard steel. Plink. 2.4 mils for the 500. Plink. Put it away. So far it’s alright.

I don’t like the reticle as much as the MQ. It’s busy and hard to see on low Xs. It would be nice if the posts were bolder and closer together. I do like the additional eye relief and the extra Xs are nice to have, but it seems like 8-9x is just right for shooting. Now I want to get my hands on the 3-9. Also contemplating if I shouldn’t have skimped on illumination.
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
The FDE Non-Lighted Bitches,cain't match the Black Lighted Bitches for Utility.

Pass the 6x MQ over all of 'em,for said Utility.................
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
  • Deleted by Big Stick
Show…

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
I tried HARD to like the 3-9x MQ and cain't do it. Just got in from gunning 90gr Beer Cans and yarded it off,on the fly and went '12x LRTSi instead.

Wayyyyyyyyy more friendly,faster and it is NICE to have parallax control back! Shithouse LUCK,that with zero stop undone and erector at TOTAL bottom of travel,that I could get a 250yd zero(.5 Mil high at 100yds). Only slapped it around to 900yds,due weather.

Sooooooooooo much fucking BETTER!..................





 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
ktnsmith fucked up...I tried to fling it his way.(grin)

I think it's either in the backseat,or bed of my crummy,but I don't have any plans for mounting it on anything................
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
Been more than a few folks swing by,these last few days and it of course ALWAYS turns to Rifle Stuff. I made more than a few grab said wares and gawk 'em,then their story CHANGED. Theory don't always meet Application and the 3-9x crashed hard in it's Application.(grin)

The 3-9's sole advantage on the Bushy,is weight. If weight is the hurdle,simply pass the 6x MQ. For Utility,simply pass the 6x MQ. For unfuckedupness,simply pass the 6x MQ. For erector travel,simply pass the 6x MQ. For speed and factoring all at 6x,the 3-9x is DEAD last and by a goodly margin. If I only had (1) 3-9x,I'd be receptive to the idea of having a poor sample,but dat ain't the case either.(grin)

EVERYONE grooves on the '12x LRTSi and I get that. It's a useful mag range and has very nice illumination upon a rather good reticle,that'll cure any/all heavy cover/low light woes,for pasting crosshairs on a Victim. It's reticle is bolder than the non-illuminated LRTS. Not in a HUGE fashion,but just enough to make a positive difference as zoom selection heads towards the bottom.

Locking windage do not suck either and it's tough to cuss the Bushy zero-stop.

Pass the 6x and hold The Fluff....................(grin)
 

d2junky

Well-known member
Feb 10, 2010
271
6
Rumor has it that Rabbinowitz Rabbinowitz and Rabbinowitz are running low on remaining stock.....and they are down one more. LAST time I call in to order thinking it’d be quicker.
 

Brazo

Well-known member
Mar 29, 2013
525
3
The Keystone State
on a heavier play gun, not a utility hunting rifle, is the non iluminated the choice, or is the illumination still worth it? Thanks in advance
 

Jordan Smith

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2015
169
0
I actually prefer the reticle in the non-illum for a play gun. The center 0.5 MRAD is a little finer, which makes it a bit easier to hold hard on small targets.
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
Can poke it at heavy cover in the backyard and 1500yds++ off the front porch.

Have yet to meet anyone that liked the Dark version's reticle,over the Lit version...with power off...................
 

Jordan Smith

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2015
169
0
It‘s definitely not the best choice for shooting against dark backgrounds or against heavy cover, but for good lighting and more open country, like what I typically see in comps, I prefer it.
 

Big Stick

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2007
42,650
465
Paradise
I'd like to finger fuck a TactaCam,as if it was worth a shit,I'd go ALL in for comparison reviews.

Anybody play with one?..............
 

Jordan Smith

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2015
169
0
I've not used the TactaCam, but I have a few crappy cell phone pics of the two reticles. It's not great, by any means, but at least it gives guys a notion of how the two compare. The pics are out of focus, so take all this with a grain of salt, but you can see that the center 0.5 MRAD on the vertical, and 2 MRAD on the horizontal are a little finer in the G3, as where the reticle remains the same thickness throughout in the G3-i.