Rifle Scopes Nightforce SHV vs. Viper PST GEN 2

[Helislacker]

Hi guys,

I’ve been listening to all of Frank Galli’s podcasts and they were talking about pairing SHV’s with Tikka’s for a really solid platform when teaching up in Alaska. Frank started talking about some of the scopes in that price range and I noticed that Frank didn’t really touch on what is probably the most popular scope in that range - the Viper PST Gen 2. That kind of made me curious and now I’m wondering how the two compare. They seem very similar in terms of glass but the Viper seems to have a better reticle, turrets, better zero stop, and more features. I know quite a few guys who have run them hard as do it all hunting/match scopes, and they seem to track and hold up quite well. So, I’m curious if I’m missing something here and what your general thoughts are on these two optics.

Thanks

 

[jcam]

I have an SHV on my OBR, I like it on the AR10 platform. The glass for me was pretty good. Mil-R was okay for me as well. I was able to make hits at 1MOA steel targets at 870 yards. The turrets slipped on me one time but thats because I didn’t tighten the screws right. The turrets are not NXS quality but still has an acceptable tactile feel to it.

I have only peaked thru a Gen 2 PST. So I can’t comment on it.

 

[hypno02]

That PST is going to fail far before you’ll be able to break a NF whether it’s a SHV or a ATACR. The features might not be there but peace of mind will be.

I’ll never own a vortex product that doesn’t have razor in the title.

I shoot a g2 on my match rifle and have the 4K LRF from vortex. Good stuff.

PST2 & lower? Pass.

 

[beetroot]

I had a chance to compare my 5-25 PST to a 3-10 SHV a few weeks back.

Preferred the PST glass, turrets, reticle, FOV and basically everything thing else.
I'm yet to break my PST so can't comment on lack of robustness.

For me would be the PST by a long shot.

 

[tlsmith22]

I just pulled the trigger on a PST Gen II to replace a NF NXS on a Vudoo 22. The only reason I wanted to replace the NF was because the PST focuses down to 25 yards and honestly that was the only reason. I haven’t spent a lot of time behind it yet but the PST Gen II just doesn’t have the “feel” of the NF to me. The glass isn’t bad IMHO opinion but the rest of the scope just doesn’t feel like NF or even a Razor. I did run a box test on the PST and it tracked abt half MOA high along the range of the elevation.

That being said, I only have NXS and ATACRs to compare it to, I don’t have any of the SHV scopes. I’d personally put the Razor in the same class as the ATACR, to me it has some really nice glass and feels like a really robust scope.

 

[Eurodriver]

I’ve had a NF SHV for almost 4 years (I got mine as soon as they were released to the public) It has never let me down and I’ve beat the shit out of it. I actually bought a second one but then sold it because I didn’t have the rifle anymore.

I too will never own a Vortex that isn’t a Razor.

 

[Gohring65]

I owned two SHVs, I liked them as a hunting scope. But the reticle is to thick for me on the FFP version, and the 5mil turrets is a little dated. Good solid scopes though.
Edited to add.. I have yet to see any Philippine or Chinese scope compare to even the lowest quality Japanese LOW or any other Japan manufacturers.
They are getting better, but still not up to the same tier.
Even Vortex knows this, hence why the Razor is made in Japan.

 

[10000yards]

Nightforce SHV all day. better glass, better reticle and turret. personally like it.

 

[ddavis]

I had an SHV for a few months. It seemed like a really nice scope. Good glass, turrets felt nice. I got rid of it because I wanted just a little more magnification and I didn't like the reticle. That was a couple years ago so I don't have a side by side comparison, but I really like the PST2 I've got now. I like everything about it better. Good glass, turret, 25 yard focus, reticle. I totally understand why you'd pick the SHV though. The reliability track record is way better.

 

[Helislacker]

To be

A couple years back someone started a thread asking for everyone's top 3 picks based on price point. The $1000'ish price point was one of them. Frank chimed in with his favorite three, and the Vortex wasnt one of them. When asked why if I recall, he listed reliability as his reason. He judges a lot of optics based on his experiences in his classes. So he sees a lot of scopes in action. And that was his feedback.

I would try to find the article, but I cant remember if it was on the old Scout website, or shortly after we came back to this one.

To be fair that he would have likely been speaking about the PST Gen 1. The first PST was okay and really opened the market to decent scopes in this price range. The Gen 2 is a whole different scope, not even a close comparison.

 

[Helislacker]

Nightforce SHV all day. better glass, better reticle and turret. personally like it.

Nightforce SHV all day. better glass, better reticle and turret. personally like it.

Not sure about the glass, but I know based on my experience the GEN 2 has significantly better turrets than the SHV. Everything from the zero stop to the 10mils per rev. Plus the EBR2c is another area where I found the PST to be ahead, but reticle is just preference.

 

[Delta Echo]

The SHV is more durable and has better glass, IMO.

 

[Delta Echo]

To be



To be fair that he would have likely been speaking about the PST Gen 1. The first PST was okay and really opened the market to decent scopes in this price range. The Gen 2 is a whole different scope, not even a close comparison.

Isn't the Gen II PST essentially a Gen 1 Razor? I recall reading that somewhere, but don't know if it's true. I do know that Gen 1 PST turrets were awful, but Gen II PST turrets are nice.

 

[McNamara0851]

My SHV has a nicer turret, but functionality seems about the same otherwise. What I can tell you, is that a PST would have died a long time ago if it was subjected to the same abuse as the NF. Mine literally goes everywhere I go in the farm truck, and then in the tractor during farming season. It has a smashed bell and dented scope tube that is scratched down to bare aluminum, sits in the summer heat and winter cold and never misses a lick.

 

[beetroot]

Isn't the Gen II PST essentially a Gen 1 Razor? I recall reading that somewhere, but don't know if it's true. I do know that Gen 1 PST turrets were awful, but Gen II PST turrets are nice.

Awful in what way? Every PST G1 I have used had very audible and tactile turrets, with good resistance.

The G2 turrets if anything aren't as good feeling wise, but everything else is dramatically improved.

 

[Helislacker]

My SHV has a nicer turret, but functionality seems about the same otherwise. What I can tell you, is that a PST would have died a long time ago if it was subjected to the same abuse as the NF. Mine literally goes everywhere I go in the farm truck, and then in the tractor during farming season. It has a smashed bell and dented scope tube that is scratched down to bare aluminum, sits in the summer heat and winter cold and never misses a lick.

Possibly, I’ve seen some pretty abused Vipers as well. Mountain hunters use them a lot and they absolutely abuse the crap out of them. Despite this, they’re still very popular with these guys. Don’t think they would be so popular if they were fragile.

 

[OLD308]

I have both. The NF is a tank with better feeling turrets. The low magnification and basic reticle regulated it to a loaner hunting rifle. Way over priced.
The PST Gen 2 feels cheap by comparison but has not failed yet. $1,100 is a joke. Got mine for $800 and that’s fair to slightly over priced. The higher magnification and more detailed reticle places it on my NRL22 rifle.
The glass in both is with in the realm of personal preference.
The Athlon Aries BTR on sale for $500ish was a way better value. Down side was I found out after I bought it that’s is China. So if supporting China does not bother you this is a way better option. Deal breaker for me. Hope this helps.
All three have great warranties. All three companies have made good and less than perfect scopes. All three have their pros and cons. NF safer bet for durability and tracking. Vortex quicker turnaround with warranty work (compared to NF). Athlon/China better $ value. Hope this helps.

 

[trob_205]

I think the 3-15 PST gen 2 is one of the best scopes in that price range IMHO. That being said the SHV might not be as feature rich but I would be willing to bet NF wouldn’t put their name on it if it wasn’t reliable.

Unfortunately I think the Gen 2 PST gets a bad wrap with the problems that came with the original PST.

 

[beetroot]

I have both. The NF is a tank with better feeling turrets. The low magnification and basic reticle regulated it to a loaner hunting rifle. Way over priced.
The PST Gen 2 feels cheap by comparison but has not failed yet. $1,100 is a joke. Got mine for $800 and that’s fair to slightly over priced. The higher magnification and more detailed reticle places it on my NRL22 rifle.
The glass in both is with in the realm of personal preference.
The Athlon Aries BTR on sale for $500ish was a way better value. Down side was I found out after I bought it that’s is China. So if supporting China does not bother you this is a way better option. Deal breaker for me. Hope this helps.
All three have great warranties. All three companies have made good and less than perfect scopes. All three have their pros and cons. NF safer bet for durability and tracking. Vortex quicker turnaround with warranty work (compared to NF). Athlon/China better $ value. Hope this helps.

I had a play with a Ares BTR 2.5-15 recently and didn't like it at all compared to my PST. From that experience I'd gladly pay the price difference for the PST.

I'd previously (before owning the PST) compared that same Ares BTR too my Leupold VX5hd, and despite being limited to SFP and MOA I by far preferred my VX5.

 

[Delta Echo]

Awful in what way? Every PST G1 I have used had very audible and tactile turrets, with good resistance.

The G2 turrets if anything aren't as good feeling wise, but everything else is dramatically improved.

I don't like the small diameter, they stick out too far, and only 5 mils per revolution.

 

[beetroot]

I don't like the small diameter, they stick out too far, and only 5 mils per revolution.

I don't think it's fair to call them awful based on those issues alone.
Have to remember when the PST 1 came out pretty much all scopes had huge tall turrets and only 5Mil per rev, or more like 12moa turrets too match the Mil dot reticle.

It's easy too forget how much scopes have improved in the last decade and the PST G1 was a huge driver for that change, at least in lower priced scopes.

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[tlsmith22]

I don't think it's fair to call them awful based on those issues alone.
Have to remember when the PST 1 came out pretty much all scopes had huge tall turrets and only 5Mil per rev, or more like 12moa turrets too match the Mil dot reticle.

It's easy too forget how much scopes have improved in the last decade and the PST G1 was a huge driver for that change, at least in lower priced scopes.

Sorry for going off topic.

I think that is an accurate statement. You can say the exact same thing abt the Gen 1 Razor and the original ATACR. The both had crazy tall ugly turrets on them.

 

[408w]

For what 95 percent of people do with their rifle the pst gen2 is perfectly fine. For the other 5 percent the SHV would not be in its place either. Some people like one brand some like another, and one will never be good. Both are solid.

 

[beetroot]

I think that is an accurate statement. You can say the exact same thing abt the Gen 1 Razor and the original ATACR. The both had crazy tall ugly turrets on them.

You have a very different idea of what is considered awful to me then.
I don't think I've ever heard the Gen 1 Razor turrets considered rubbish due to being too tall.

 

[tlsmith22]

You have a very different idea of what is considered awful to me then.
I don't think I've ever heard the Gen 1 Razor turrets considered rubbish due to being too tall.

I was just meaning compared to the sleeker looking low profile turrets today. Purely aesthetics.

 

[Dev L]

I dont get people saying the SHV glass is just "better" full stop. They seem very much the same to me in the area you use. The SHV is definitely better outside the center 50% and SHV has better edge to edge clarity for sure, but in the center... very close when propperly adjusted. This is comparing the 3-15× to the 4-16× examples.

I think the PST Gen II is the better value at $700-800 vs. $1000 for the SHV. I also like the reticle options on the Vortex better and the turret features. Feel is a toss up... just different, neither is perfect, with a slight edge to SHV for my taste.

They are certainly head to head competition. The Vortex is the feature winner and Nightforce the overall optical winner, but Vortex PST Gen2 is at least as much further ahead of the SHV in features as the Nightforce is in the see/feel category by having better quality in the outter 50% of the FOV and slightly better turret click feel/spacing.

 

[FALex]

The PST II's are pieces of shit. We had a guy at a match a couple of weeks ago literally have his elevation turret sheer right off. @Birddog6424 puts some pics of it up under the XTR3 thread.

Then, I was surfing FB a few minutes ago, and found this in one of our local groups:

If you're comparing any Nightforce against any Vortex, you're doing it wrong. They aren't even in the same goddamned galaxy.

Get the PSTII because you'll be able to get a brand new one when the first one breaks. It's a much better value.

I get it, all scopes have problems, but I've been doing this shit for about a decade now. Been haunting various boards and know a lot of shooters and I will say, without a doubt, Vortex as a company has the most problems out of any other optic out there.

ETA - The shooter reporting this issue verified the rifle was fine by putting that 40.00 Bushnell on top of his rifle and shot an excellent group. You know, the one you get with the cheap shit "combo" package hunting rifles at Cabela's. That's the one that outperformed the 1000.00 Gen2 PST.

ETA #2 - I just read the comments to the end...this guy must be my long, lost brother. Another anomaly in the optics marketplace, having problems with virtually every Vortex product he's owned:

 

[beetroot]

.

ETA #2 - I just read the comments to the end...this guy must be my long, lost brother. Another anomaly in the optics marketplace, having problems with virtually every Vortex product he's owned:

Maybe hes just a ham fist?

I don't know how everyone on here manages to break so many scopes.
Perhaps I'm not operating hard enough but I've never managed to break a scope, be it $40 or $1000.

 

[Hunt]

Eye relief on SHV 4-14x50 F1 absolutely sucks.

 

[pineoak]

I've owned 1 SHV & 2 PST Gen 2 (3-15) & Razor G2

For the one sample I had, the PST glass was noticeably better. Durability, had no issues with any of them but I'm not hard on gear at all. Overall, I liked the PST G2 more and kept 1, sold the other when I didn't need it anymore, the SHV was sold fairly quickly (5 mil turret wasn't my thing). I like the ATACR 5-25 a lot as well (other than rotating ocular), nothing against NF.

Glass is noticeably better on the Razor than PST G2 when side by side, but the glass on any of them including the NF SHV won't keep anyone from making a shot at 1k. At less than 1/2 the price, the glass is a great value. Durability wise, I'm certain the Razor is the better value. Razor is just a bit large for some guns like a .223

I'm very respectful and don't like to abuse my gear so I can't speak to durability.

 

[spearknives]

I recently picked up an SHV 3-10 with a Forceplex. As it gets dark it really starts to shine! love it.

 

[BallisticPrimate]

I don't have a NF SHV, but I spent a decent amount of time comparing the Vortex PST G2 with my ATACR's, and Bushnell LRTSi/LRHS. I was really surprised with how well the PST held up in those comparisons. I was expecting there to be a much larger difference in the glass than was actually apparent. I was also impressed with the ergonomics on the PST. Some of the comments above make we wonder how much sample variation is in play. I can't comment on the Vortex durability, but I'll certainly post here if I manage to break one.

 

[deersniper]

My SHV has a nicer turret, but functionality seems about the same otherwise. What I can tell you, is that a PST would have died a long time ago if it was subjected to the same abuse as the NF. Mine literally goes everywhere I go in the farm truck, and then in the tractor during farming season. It has a smashed bell and dented scope tube that is scratched down to bare aluminum, sits in the summer heat and winter cold and never misses a lick.

Dude

 

[onthex]

I have multiple Vortex scopes including 4 Gen 1 PSTs, 2 Gen 2 PSTs, a couple of Gen 2 Razors and the Razor AMG. I have put a few of them through hell, and I have not had one fail in the field yet. I did once have an illumination problem with a new one, and the way the folks at Vortex took care of me was unparalled.

I also have the NF ATACR, and I have had the NF SHV. I love my Razors and my ATACR. I think the Gen 2 Razors have the edge in versatility and function, but I like the weight, look and feel of the ATACR. To me they are equal in quality. I cannot say the same for the SHV vs. the Gen 2 PST. To me the PST has better turrets, glass, functionality and versatility. My SHV could hang in there with my Gen 1 PSTs, but after I got my first Gen 2 PST the SHV had to go.

 

[Ugly_Duck]

Following, Currently have a Gen 1 PST looking to upgrade

 

[metroplex]

I have a Razor HD LHT 4.5-22 (the one that just came out) and the glass is good, but like I had mentioned in maybe another thread, it's slightly better glass than a Diamondback Tactical 6-24 but certainly not $1100 better glass. I also just got a Viper PST Gen II 5-25x and the glass is about comparable to the Razor. The EBR-2C MRAD reticle is quite nice. Busy but useful. The EBR-7C has replaced it. The PST Gen II has really good FOV for some reason even at 25x. I can use much more of the reticle than with the Diamondback Tactical. The thing that bothered me the most on the Razor was the horrible illumination switch. They did that to cut cost or save weight but it is a sorry excuse of a switch to put on a Razor.

For the guys that supposedly sheared their elevation turrets off their PST Gen II, there are two elevation turrets. The outer one and the inner one. After going back/forth with Vortex CS and reading the manual, I basically left the outer turret off the scope when I went to zero it at the range. I had to turn down the inner turret all the way to the zero stop, loosen the screws and zero the scope (it doesn't click when in this mode) and then tighten the screws. I don't see how you can shear off the inner turret as there are 2 additional screws on the top that secure it to the mechanism. I'm thinking the guys that "sheared" off their elevation turrets didn't check the 3 set screws or they were loose, and the outer turrets came off.

I've had Japanese Bushnell scopes with questionable quality. For awhile a lot of the low/mid priced Bushnells seem to come from Japan and Korea. They all failed at some point.