LastShot300
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2014
- Messages
- 73
Because the real good ballistics engines are far from being cheap, the usual crap is useless (Leica et al) and maybe Nikon management don't see the need to spend a dime on a good one.
Hottest Rangefinder's at SHOT Show 2018
- Thread starter Bman940
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Because the real good ballistics engines are far from being cheap, the usual crap is useless (Leica et al) and maybe Nikon management don't see the need to spend a dime on a good one.
I don't know the answer to your question. I have no idea of something so specific and expensive is in Nikon's future or not. I think it is certainly a possibility especially the direction compact electronic's are moving. I have had a number of folk's ask me the same question and I guess we will all have ot wait and find out. It's amazing what can be done these days, heck my Thermal scope sends bluetooth to my phone so you can see real time pics and it even records shots in video. I'd love to see Nikon put out a Ballistic Calc. Rangefinder as well but ffor now I'll use a regular stabilized rangefinder and Spot On on my phone. I will pass on your suggestion's though.
Quackshot
Well-Known Member
So if you buy a rangefinder capable of ranging a big reflective target at 3000 yards and claims to work on deer at 1200 we might get it to work at 600-800 yards in the field if the glass is good enough to see through? Hmmmm. I don't shoot big game anymore but I do spend a lot of time in the prairie dog towns. Myself or shooting buddies have tried them all from the old original Bushnell crap to a $10,000 Veltronix. Number one is decent glass if you use them a lot, number two is ability to work in bright sunlight, number three is the size of target it will read. I have definite opinions on what works best. Although I haven't tried this new Nikon I sure have doubts about the ability to satisfy my needs based on previous products and information shared here.
Not sure what to tell you then Q., I have seen the MONARCH 3000 Stabilized work on soft target's beyond 1200 yards is all I can tell you. I have no reason to believe that it won't range a prairie dog which I doubt you are ranging at nearly that distance?
Then again, if you have a Vectronix Rangfinder.....
Then again, if you have a Vectronix Rangfinder.....
Quackshot
Well-Known Member
I won't mess with your thread anymore. I realize there are many different ways and needs for our rangefinders out in the field. I do like the stability thing probably eliminate the need for a tripod for my use. No we don't range prairie dogs beyond 600 yards usually hit a big mound or close by rock or bush to get close.
Q., I appreciate your input. I truly hope Nikon comes out with a ranging Ballistic's calc. in the near future. I agree, you definitely need the right engine for it to be successful. I rthink I could be a multimillionaire and I"m still not spending $8600 on a range finder but if my son needed one and he's going tot he middle East, you can bet I will find a way to get it for him. Comes down to want and need for most of us. We shall see. Thank you for your input, it is appreciated.
CatShooter
Well-Known Member
Bman…
I could care less about the range a laser can range a tree or house – it means absolutely nothing (unless you are a military shooter).
Trees and houses are pure BS, because, to a laser range finder, they are not dark green, they are bright white.
(This is what your laser sees...)
The real test and challenge for a laser rangefinder is not to "ping" a house or a 40 foot tall maple, it is to ping a target that a is very small, and dark, like pile of wet dirt, or a black bear… in bright sunlight – and under those conditions, most lasers fail miserably.
I have been a range finding junky since forever. I shoot woodchucks, crows, and some years ago, prairie dogs.
My first rangefinder was a "Ranging 1000", a poor quality split image rangefinder that was good to 150/200-ish yds – that was in 1975. I actually threw it in the garbage, 'cuz with the cartridges I was using, 200 yds was "Point Blank" and needed no scope adjustment.
My next was a Bushnell 400, the first consumer grade laser rangefinder. I don't remember when that was – maybe 1985-ish?? It was (and is) good for 300-350 yds. I still have it and it works perfectly. Then I added a Bushnell 1000 (good for 700-ish yds), and still have that one too.
But then I got serious about range finding, and acquired the following:
An AN/GVS-5 which is good for 10,000 meters under the worst conditions.
And a Swedish NIFE A-40-P (a.k.a. The Swedish Periscope)… maximum range 10,000 meters, effective against PDs and woodchucks, 1,500 meters.
And a WILD, 80cm rangefinder. Maximum range is 20,000 meters, effective against woodchucks and PDs, 1,800 to 2,000 meters.
So, it should be obvious that I am serious about rangefinders, and I know what I am talking about.
I find your comments to be disingenuous. You speak more as a shill for Nikon, than someone that is here giving honest answers to honest questions.
You say:
"6. I asked a question about how their models competed with the sig kilo 2k.
The MONARCH 3000 Stabilized is head and shoulders above the Kilo. I usually don't comment on things like this but it is entirely ture [sic]. The laser's used in the Nikon's are also much safer."
HEAD and SHOULDERS? Really!
Sorry, but they may be competitive, but they are NOT head and shoulders over the Sig, Leica, and others in the under $1,000 range, and here's why.
The Leicas allow you to put in your own ballistic data on a SD card, so if you use odd bullets, no problem… the Nikon - Nada, nothing – this is "Head and Shoulders BEHIND the crowd… it is dark ages technology.
"Class 3R visible-light lasers are considered safe for unintentional eye exposure, because a person will normally turn away or blink to avoid the bright light. Do NOT deliberately look into or stare into the beam -- this can cause injury to the retina in the back of the eye.
Be aware of beam reflections off glass and shiny surfaces. Depending on the surface, the reflected beam could be about as strong and as focused as a direct beam.
The Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance (NOHD) for the most powerful Class 3R visible-beam laser (4.99 mW) with a tight beam (0.5 milliradian divergence) is 104 ft (32 m).
Color indicates the relative hazard: Red = potential injury, green = unlikely injury. Beyond the Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance, the chance of injury is "vanishingly small" according to safety experts.
For a 4.99 mW Class 3R laser with a less-tight beam that spreads out faster (1 milliradian), the NOHD is 52 feet (16 m). This divergence is more typical of consumer lasers.
If you are closer than the NOHD distance to the laser, there is a possibility of retinal damage if the direct or reflected beam enters your eye longer than about ¼ second. The closer you are to the laser and the longer the beam is in the eye, the greater the chance of injury."
Almost none of the above is relevant because it is about VISIBLE lasers – range finders use longer wave length invisible beams.
The one part that IS relevant is, that Nikon uses much larger beam divergences – and that is in the WRONG direction from what we want. The larger the beaam divergence is, the more false reflections you get when going after smallish targets.
Leicas use divergences of 1.5x0.75 mrads. Which are equal to ~5"x3" at 100 yds, and
Nikon beam divergences are HUGE, as shown here with the 1000 and 1200 yard lasers.
So, Bman, you should stop using this forum as a sales tool, and making erroneous and blatantly wrong statements and claims – it taints the forum.
I could care less about the range a laser can range a tree or house – it means absolutely nothing (unless you are a military shooter).
Trees and houses are pure BS, because, to a laser range finder, they are not dark green, they are bright white.
(This is what your laser sees...)
The real test and challenge for a laser rangefinder is not to "ping" a house or a 40 foot tall maple, it is to ping a target that a is very small, and dark, like pile of wet dirt, or a black bear… in bright sunlight – and under those conditions, most lasers fail miserably.
I have been a range finding junky since forever. I shoot woodchucks, crows, and some years ago, prairie dogs.
My first rangefinder was a "Ranging 1000", a poor quality split image rangefinder that was good to 150/200-ish yds – that was in 1975. I actually threw it in the garbage, 'cuz with the cartridges I was using, 200 yds was "Point Blank" and needed no scope adjustment.
My next was a Bushnell 400, the first consumer grade laser rangefinder. I don't remember when that was – maybe 1985-ish?? It was (and is) good for 300-350 yds. I still have it and it works perfectly. Then I added a Bushnell 1000 (good for 700-ish yds), and still have that one too.
But then I got serious about range finding, and acquired the following:
An AN/GVS-5 which is good for 10,000 meters under the worst conditions.
And a Swedish NIFE A-40-P (a.k.a. The Swedish Periscope)… maximum range 10,000 meters, effective against PDs and woodchucks, 1,500 meters.
And a WILD, 80cm rangefinder. Maximum range is 20,000 meters, effective against woodchucks and PDs, 1,800 to 2,000 meters.
So, it should be obvious that I am serious about rangefinders, and I know what I am talking about.
I find your comments to be disingenuous. You speak more as a shill for Nikon, than someone that is here giving honest answers to honest questions.
You say:
"6. I asked a question about how their models competed with the sig kilo 2k.
The MONARCH 3000 Stabilized is head and shoulders above the Kilo. I usually don't comment on things like this but it is entirely ture [sic]. The laser's used in the Nikon's are also much safer."
HEAD and SHOULDERS? Really!
Sorry, but they may be competitive, but they are NOT head and shoulders over the Sig, Leica, and others in the under $1,000 range, and here's why.
The Leicas allow you to put in your own ballistic data on a SD card, so if you use odd bullets, no problem… the Nikon - Nada, nothing – this is "Head and Shoulders BEHIND the crowd… it is dark ages technology.
"Class 3R visible-light lasers are considered safe for unintentional eye exposure, because a person will normally turn away or blink to avoid the bright light. Do NOT deliberately look into or stare into the beam -- this can cause injury to the retina in the back of the eye.
Be aware of beam reflections off glass and shiny surfaces. Depending on the surface, the reflected beam could be about as strong and as focused as a direct beam.
The Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance (NOHD) for the most powerful Class 3R visible-beam laser (4.99 mW) with a tight beam (0.5 milliradian divergence) is 104 ft (32 m).
Color indicates the relative hazard: Red = potential injury, green = unlikely injury. Beyond the Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance, the chance of injury is "vanishingly small" according to safety experts.
For a 4.99 mW Class 3R laser with a less-tight beam that spreads out faster (1 milliradian), the NOHD is 52 feet (16 m). This divergence is more typical of consumer lasers.
If you are closer than the NOHD distance to the laser, there is a possibility of retinal damage if the direct or reflected beam enters your eye longer than about ¼ second. The closer you are to the laser and the longer the beam is in the eye, the greater the chance of injury."
Almost none of the above is relevant because it is about VISIBLE lasers – range finders use longer wave length invisible beams.
The one part that IS relevant is, that Nikon uses much larger beam divergences – and that is in the WRONG direction from what we want. The larger the beaam divergence is, the more false reflections you get when going after smallish targets.
Leicas use divergences of 1.5x0.75 mrads. Which are equal to ~5"x3" at 100 yds, and
Nikon beam divergences are HUGE, as shown here with the 1000 and 1200 yard lasers.
So, Bman, you should stop using this forum as a sales tool, and making erroneous and blatantly wrong statements and claims – it taints the forum.
Last edited:
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
How bout ranging in snow? Or when it is snowing, raining, or foggy?
Steve
Steve
ShtrRdy
Well-Known Member
So, this thread has mostly been about Nikon. Are there any other brands that were shown at SHOT this year?
I have used the Nikon 7iVR the last 2 season's for hunting. 2016 in KS I hunted in the snow and was able to range and take a nice buck just under 400 yards. I had ranged other landmarks while it was snowing and there was also blowing snow.
I have not used it in the rain or in foggy condition's.
As I have not hidden, I do some freelance work for Nikon like SHOT Show this year. I don't do any sales at all. My intent for this thread is to just let you know about 2 new Rangfinder's that Nikon has coming out for the consumer. My comment about the Sig was made to me on numerous occassion's by guys who owned the Kilo. Yes, there are a lot of rangefinder's on the market today. I encourage you to check out Nikon's competitior's against the MONARCH 3000 Stabilized and the BLACK RANGEX 4K. Then buy the one you think will fit your needs the best. That's all guy's, I say the same thing when buying riflescopes and bino's too. Take a look at what Nikon offer's but buy what you think will work the best for you. It usually comes down to feature's and price for most of us and I think Nikon did it right with these sub $450 rangfinder's.
I have not used it in the rain or in foggy condition's.
As I have not hidden, I do some freelance work for Nikon like SHOT Show this year. I don't do any sales at all. My intent for this thread is to just let you know about 2 new Rangfinder's that Nikon has coming out for the consumer. My comment about the Sig was made to me on numerous occassion's by guys who owned the Kilo. Yes, there are a lot of rangefinder's on the market today. I encourage you to check out Nikon's competitior's against the MONARCH 3000 Stabilized and the BLACK RANGEX 4K. Then buy the one you think will fit your needs the best. That's all guy's, I say the same thing when buying riflescopes and bino's too. Take a look at what Nikon offer's but buy what you think will work the best for you. It usually comes down to feature's and price for most of us and I think Nikon did it right with these sub $450 rangfinder's.
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
For me ranging to 400y is almost unnecessary. I set my hunting rifles up to be able to hold hair out to 400y. It is beyond this range that truly matters. Currently using Leica with all the limitations that plague rangefinders for sportsmen. The new stuff is much less expensive than what was paid for the Leica 6 years ago but nothing has convinced me to replace.
Steve
Steve
Quackshot
Well-Known Member
I like discussing these topics if it doesn't get too nasty. Entertaining and educational all at once. I think we established there are many different needs including budgets to consider. Cat shooter is very knowledgeable about rangefinder but his needs are more sophisticated than many others. I probably have more experience in prairie dog towns than many of you and I know what works best from years of side by side testing. I don't even express my opinion on this forum anymore because of the attacks. Let's keep it informative and polite there could be something to learn or at least think about.
