Nikon’s new Rangefinders

#101
I was getting readings at 1890 yards in overcast (60*, 28.62 inHg, 45% RH) off hand on canopies. Individual trees I could only get 1250-1300. Rock faces at approximately 90*, I was getting readings out to 1870 every 2-3 attempts off hand. Using the tripod with a Hog saddle, I was getting consistent first time readings. Readings were instantaneous, though. Distances were confirmed with my GPS location using Google Earth Pro (I have found to be extremely accurate).
My only gripes are a lack of tripod mount, and no mil or MOA reticle.

As far as ranging rocks and buildings, lets be real, it absolutely is applicable. Even when I was using a PLRF15C, getting readings on steel in 100*+, no cloud cover, was still difficult passed 1500m, but ranging surrounding terrain, whether it be buildings or rocks was always going to be dependable.
As for hunters, ranging a deer past 1000 is irrelevant if not only to confirm its out of range for an ethical harvest, which in that case, ranging the hillside will suffice.
ELR shooters probably have more than just the LRF to range a target. GPSs, most of time is +/-3 to 12 yards depending on satellite visibility, and that means the targets location and your location so it literally could be +/- 6 to 24 yards.
 
#102
Last report and I am sending it back as I need a little more oomph for ELR hillbilly rock shootin.

Got a 3589 yard read on a two story white painted house that was lit up with late afternoon sun. This is with elbows supported in a truck window. Couldn't get it done twice though.

My opinion is the Nikon 4K is a nice unit, glass is decent, reticle doesn't really bug me. I would like to have seen it output the shooting angle so that could be put into a solver but it doesn't seem to do that. And it does come up well short IMO of all the initial hype when ranging natural terrain past 1500 yards. With that though it might do better in a built up areas where there are more reflective targets at extended distances if one needs to get a range on things like that.
 
#104
magtech said:
Because 50% of the time that I use my RF its when all the animals are hiding or within 100 yards.
45% of the time is range time where i shoot at metal
5% of the time i actually find something way out there to use my RF on.
Any Semi long range RF is going to pickup everything under 300 yards, which conveniently is where i get to see animals most of the time.

If someone gave me good enough reason I would spend the day driving around the countryside trying to pick cows at longer ranges
Buttt,
A. I dont shoot cows, so with your methodology that's irrelevant to its performance
B. I have more important things to do than driving around farm country looking for cows to range.
C. Speaking of accuracy, with the differing beam divergences, how do you even know you are the actual animals past 1k and not the ground around them?

Maybe i could snare a deer then lead 1000 yards away and compare that to what the Rf says, but who in all honesty will do that.

Ok, you actually got me thinking here.. I have a elk hide and bear rug I could put at 1k and test my Rf's on... But who does this?
Click to expand...


I’m not sure if you’re talking to me, or you missed my point.

If your rangefinder ranges a tree line, or a mountain at 3000 yards, that is no indication it will range an animal or a piece of steel at even 1500 yards.
 
#105
Received my BlackX 4K over the weekend... and I am NOT impressed. I am not interested in ranging skyscrapers or semi trucks... I need a rangefinder for shooting. Took it to the range... and it would NOT range past 1400 yards on steel silhouette targets. A friend had the SIG 2400 and it easily and consistently ranged out to the max of our local range of 2003 yards. The Nikon.... absolutely was not able to range past 1400 yards EVER. I called NIKON today... and they recommended "resetting" the device by holding down the power and the mode button at the same time for 20 seconds. After completion...same pathetic results. This is NOT a 4000 yard rangefinder. It should be name 1.4K....not 4K. They recommended sending it in for service, but in talking with others... they are all reporting the same results. I am able to range high rise office buildings or grain elevators out to 3200 yards....but what is the point?
 
#106
jeffmedlin said:
Received my BlackX 4K over the weekend... and I am NOT impressed. I am not interested in ranging skyscrapers or semi trucks... I need a rangefinder for shooting. Took it to the range... and it would NOT range past 1400 yards on steel silhouette targets. A friend had the SIG 2400 and it easily and consistently ranged out to the max of our local range of 2003 yards. The Nikon.... absolutely was not able to range past 1400 yards EVER. I called NIKON today... and they recommended "resetting" the device by holding down the power and the mode button at the same time for 20 seconds. After completion...same pathetic results. This is NOT a 4000 yard rangefinder. It should be name 1.4K....not 4K. They recommended sending it in for service, but in talking with others... they are all reporting the same results. I am able to range high rise office buildings or grain elevators out to 3200 yards....but what is the point?
Click to expand...

I think it’s clearly stated in the specs that 4000 yards is on reflective targets. Range on non reflective targets is always much less. I think 1400 on steel is pretty respectable, what size was the steel?

Thanks,
 
#111
Patruck825 said:
A road sign would be considered reflective.
Click to expand...

So you're the guy shooting up road signs?

Lol, so a white painted surface can only be ranged to, let's say 1500, but a green, red or yellow one can be ranged to 4000.

I am calling BS

Everything I have read suggests that anything metal is considered reflective, even a wet rock. I realize that not everything is going to return results to 4k but it's pretty disappointing that a steel target will only range to 1400. If I were going to buy something that advertised 4k on reflective objects, wouldn't you expect, at the very least, it could range a steel plate to 2k?
 
#113
super_poot said:
So you're the guy shooting up road signs?

Lol, so a white painted surface can only be ranged to, let's say 1500, but a green, red or yellow one can be ranged to 4000.

I am calling BS

Everything I have read suggests that anything metal is considered reflective, even a wet rock. I realize that not everything is going to return results to 4k but it's pretty disappointing that a steel target will only range to 1400. If I were going to buy something that advertised 4k on reflective objects, wouldn't you expect, at the very least, it could range a steel plate to 2k?
Click to expand...

No dude, I am reffering to what rangefinder companies consider to be reflective. White painted steel is not reflective. Have you ever noticed that a road sign at night lights up like a Christmas tree in your headlights hundreds of yards away? That’s reflectivity, road signs aren’t painted, they have a reflective film applied to them, white painted steel doesn’t do that. It’s not about color.
Rocks typically contain a ton of tiny reflective particles that aid in returning the laser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ELVIS90
#115
The Nikon guy said directly on this thread that the 4K in his hands would range trees to 2700 yards consistently. Which it does not seem to do. The one I have can range a tree with a tripod and in the dark to 2000 yards. But 2700 yards during the day, not even close.

He out to be taken out back behind the snipers hide shed and flogged with Nikon user manuals for laying out those kinds of expectations and stuck to manufactures spec of 1500 yards on trees.
 
#117
Patruck825 said:
No dude, I am reffering to what rangefinder companies consider to be reflective. White painted steel is not reflective. Have you ever noticed that a road sign at night lights up like a Christmas tree in your headlights hundreds of yards away? That’s reflectivity, road signs aren’t painted, they have a reflective film applied to them, white painted steel doesn’t do that. It’s not about color.
Rocks typically contain a ton of tiny reflective particles that aid in returning the laser.
Click to expand...

So you are shooting road signs?

Where are you getting this?
I cannot find a definition for a reflective target from Nikon anywhere.

Also, I beg to differ, a white painted anything will reflect light at night. Maybe not as well as a road sign, but again, who shoots road signs?

Just admit it, the marketing on this thing is nothing short of shameful and a flat-out lie. You can make excuses for them all you want, doesn't change the fact that it's a POS.
 
#118
super_poot said:
So you are shooting road signs?

Where are you getting this?
I cannot find a definition for a reflective target from Nikon anywhere.

Also, I beg to differ, a white painted anything will reflect light at night. Maybe not as well as a road sign, but again, who shoots road signs?

Just admit it, the marketing on this thing is nothing short of shameful and a flat-out lie. You can make excuses for them all you want, doesn't change the fact that it's a POS.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you keep talking about shooting road signs. No one has mentioned that once.

I’m not making excuses for them, I picked up the Nikon 3000 and sent it back because it couldnt range steel past 550. It was indeed a POS. I could not care less about the success of this product, it’s no skin off my back.

Nikon themselves haven’t made any claims about what they consider to be reflective that I have seen, but there are objects that many rangefinder companies have said to be reflective, one of those is road signs. I have never heard any company refer to white painted steel as reflective. That notion exists in your world alone, and we are here talking about range finders.

Objects often referred to as reflective are, road signs, and rock faces. Neither of which anyone shoots, so to judge a rangefinders performance based on the number claimed to range reflective targets, is irrelevant. The buyer expected to range steel at 4000 yards, painted steel is not considered reflective by anyone but you.
 
#119
Patruck825 said:
I have no idea why you keep talking about shooting road signs. No one has mentioned that once.

I’m not making excuses for them, I picked up the Nikon 3000 and sent it back because it couldnt range steel past 550. It was indeed a POS. I could not care less about the success of this product, it’s no skin off my back.

Nikon themselves haven’t made any claims about what they consider to be reflective that I have seen, but there are objects that many rangefinder companies have said to be reflective, one of those is road signs. I have never heard any company refer to white painted steel as reflective. That notion exists in your world alone, and we are here talking about range finders.

Objects often referred to as reflective are, road signs, and rock faces. Neither of which anyone shoots, so to judge a rangefinders performance based on the number claimed to range reflective targets, is irrelevant. The buyer expected to range steel at 4000 yards, painted steel is not considered reflective by anyone but you.
Click to expand...



So you are saying that a white painted piece of steel has zero reflectivity?
 
#120
super_poot said:
So you are saying that a white painted piece of steel has zero reflectivity?
Click to expand...

No, not zero, as nothing but black has zero reflectivity.

This is like me asking you, “are you saying a white painted surface is as reflective as a mirror?”

It’s stupid, and it has no relevance to the topic.
 
#121
Patruck825 said:
No, not zero, as nothing but black has zero reflectivity.

This is like me asking you, “are you saying a white painted surface is as reflective as a mirror?”

It’s stupid, and it has no relevance to the topic.
Click to expand...

I think it's stupid too, the way they market rangefinders is stupid. If they want us to range a rock near the target, what is the point? Noone is shooting rocks, and most of us are not shooting road signs or mirrors. They need to stop overrating the bejesus out of these things and give honest numbers. If you market a rangefinder to a shooter, the number on the side of the damn thing should at least produce consistent readings on things that you actually shoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patty
#122
super_poot said:
I think it's stupid too, the way they market rangefinders is stupid. If they want us to range a rock near the target, what is the point? Noone is shooting rocks, and most of us are not shooting road signs or mirrors. They need to stop overrating the bejesus out of these things and give honest numbers. If you market a rangefinder to a shooter, the number on the side of the damn thing should at least produce consistent readings on things that you actually shoot.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, 100%
 
#123
super_poot said:
I think it's stupid too, the way they market rangefinders is stupid. If they want us to range a rock near the target, what is the point? Noone is shooting rocks, and most of us are not shooting road signs or mirrors. They need to stop overrating the bejesus out of these things and give honest numbers. If you market a rangefinder to a shooter, the number on the side of the damn thing should at least produce consistent readings on things that you actually shoot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there should be a testing standard that everyone agrees to. Obviously, that could not be a cow or a deer, but just as the FBI has a testing protocol for bullet penetration and expansion (x kind of ordinance gellatin, x layers of x weight denim etc.), the industry should come up with a standard target to use for ratings. Illumination could also be stated by using a light meter. Then we would know what was being tested on, and how bright the conditions were during the test.

It would not be perfect, people will always cheat to some degree, but would be a lot better than what we have now where one manufacturer seems to test their performance in a cave off a mirror and another is shooting at a black marshmellow in the sahara at noon.
 
#124
jeffmedlin said:
Received my BlackX 4K over the weekend... and I am NOT impressed. I am not interested in ranging skyscrapers or semi trucks... I need a rangefinder for shooting. Took it to the range... and it would NOT range past 1400 yards on steel silhouette targets. A friend had the SIG 2400 and it easily and consistently ranged out to the max of our local range of 2003 yards. The Nikon.... absolutely was not able to range past 1400 yards EVER. I called NIKON today... and they recommended "resetting" the device by holding down the power and the mode button at the same time for 20 seconds. After completion...same pathetic results. This is NOT a 4000 yard rangefinder. It should be name 1.4K....not 4K. They recommended sending it in for service, but in talking with others... they are all reporting the same results. I am able to range high rise office buildings or grain elevators out to 3200 yards....but what is the point?
Click to expand...

What were the target sizes? You are comparing a 1400$ (Kilo 2400AB)and 450$(Nikon) units ! dont expect to much out of a Sig ither ,we tested bunch of 2200MR units and none could range past 1100y on a 1mil sized white painted metal target , Leica 2700 could , but could't range a 900y red and black painted 2mil sized target that Sigs all could. For now with SIG kilos its been quite a disapointing hit and miss affair , not to mention glass is total junk probably plastic anyway.
 
#125
Patruck825 said:
I think it’s clearly stated in the specs that 4000 yards is on reflective targets. Range on non reflective targets is always much less. I think 1400 on steel is pretty respectable, what size was the steel?

Thanks,
Click to expand...
The steel at 1760 yds and at 2000 yds were 36" square... and it wouldn't range either. Freshly painted white.
 
#126
NATO has a standard: 2.3m x 2.3m with 10% reflectiveness.

I just got back from the range, where I had a 66% IPSC and a 18"x24" steel plate freshly painted, 64*, DA 4523', 58% RH, 26.67 inHg (Kestrel 5700), winds 4-6mph with gusts up to 12-14 mph, no mirage, overcast; ideal atmospherics for LRFs.

Farthest I was willing to hike was 1370 yards. I was getting consistent readings at 1199 and 1370 yards off tripod. Off hand, at 1370, I was getting readings every 3-4 attempts. Even off the tripod, unless the reticle was directly on the target, I was not able to get a reading from the surrounding terrain.

Used my Garmin Foretrex 701 and my cellphone to confirm distances. At 1199 yards (LRF), GPS on both phone and Foretrex read 1192 yards. At 1370 yards (LRF), GPSs both read 1367 yards, accuracy was +/- 3 yards at both target position and current location. Tried ranging evergreen trees on adjacent hillsides and only got 1 reading at 1223 after numerous attempts.

On my way back down the mountain (opposite DOF), there was 2 trucks, 1 with a trailer, broadside facing me at 2170. No GPS data, but did get a reading offhand after close to 20 attempts (2167 yards). From the tripod, I had a few readings at 2169, 2173, no reading, 2167, no reading, and 2171, respectively.

I will be returning mine.

20180509_114033[1].jpg
20180509_121929[1].jpg
 
#129
Patruck825 said:
I'm curious about one thing after having owned it. The stabilization is only on the eyepiece, so if youre moving around, even though you have the reticle steady on the target, that still means the laser emitter is moving, so whats the point in the stabilization if both arent stabilized?
Click to expand...

The eyepiece and laser are synchronized and they move together.
 
#130
Patruck825 said:
No dude, I am reffering to what rangefinder companies consider to be reflective. White painted steel is not reflective. Have you ever noticed that a road sign at night lights up like a Christmas tree in your headlights hundreds of yards away? That’s reflectivity, road signs aren’t painted, they have a reflective film applied to them, white painted steel doesn’t do that. It’s not about color.
Rocks typically contain a ton of tiny reflective particles that aid in returning the laser.
Click to expand...

Painted steel is reflective.

catorres1 said:
Yeah, there should be a testing standard that everyone agrees to. Obviously, that could not be a cow or a deer, but just as the FBI has a testing protocol for bullet penetration and expansion (x kind of ordinance gellatin, x layers of x weight denim etc.), the industry should come up with a standard target to use for ratings. Illumination could also be stated by using a light meter. Then we would know what was being tested on, and how bright the conditions were during the test.

It would not be perfect, people will always cheat to some degree, but would be a lot better than what we have now where one manufacturer seems to test their performance in a cave off a mirror and another is shooting at a black marshmellow in the sahara at noon.
Click to expand...

The Applied Ballistics guys had a good standard setup for the big LRF test they did and the sizes were reasonable. Little bigger than some steel targets but way smaller than cars and glass buildings.
 
#131
Kopfjager1 said:
NATO has a standard: 2.3m x 2.3m with 10% reflectiveness.

I just got back from the range, where I had a 66% IPSC and a 18"x24" steel plate freshly painted, 64*, DA 4523', 58% RH, 26.67 inHg (Kestrel 5700), winds 4-6mph with gusts up to 12-14 mph, no mirage, overcast; ideal atmospherics for LRFs.

Farthest I was willing to hike was 1370 yards. I was getting consistent readings at 1199 and 1370 yards off tripod. Off hand, at 1370, I was getting readings every 3-4 attempts. Even off the tripod, unless the reticle was directly on the target, I was not able to get a reading from the surrounding terrain.

Used my Garmin Foretrex 701 and my cellphone to confirm distances. At 1199 yards (LRF), GPS on both phone and Foretrex read 1192 yards. At 1370 yards (LRF), GPSs both read 1367 yards, accuracy was +/- 3 yards at both target position and current location. Tried ranging evergreen trees on adjacent hillsides and only got 1 reading at 1223 after numerous attempts.

On my way back down the mountain (opposite DOF), there was 2 trucks, 1 with a trailer, broadside facing me at 2170. No GPS data, but did get a reading offhand after close to 20 attempts (2167 yards). From the tripod, I had a few readings at 2169, 2173, no reading, 2167, no reading, and 2171, respectively.

I will be returning mine.
Click to expand...


These results seem decent to me for the price. Are you returning yours because there are better options at this price point, or because you only wanted if it was much better than its price point.
 
#133
Tested both Monarch and Black 4K yesterday , hugely disapointed with ranging preformance , impressed with stabilisation feature on Monarch. With 3000 and 4000 are probably referencing feet not yards.
 
#134
Received the Black X 4000 yard model a few days ago. This thing is terrible.Other Rangfinders in the $500 range kill it. I returned it yesterday. Nikon is going to get flooded with returns on those gems.
 
#136
jeffmedlin said:
Received my BlackX 4K over the weekend... and I am NOT impressed. I am not interested in ranging skyscrapers or semi trucks... I need a rangefinder for shooting. Took it to the range... and it would NOT range past 1400 yards on steel silhouette targets. A friend had the SIG 2400 and it easily and consistently ranged out to the max of our local range of 2003 yards. The Nikon.... absolutely was not able to range past 1400 yards EVER. I called NIKON today... and they recommended "resetting" the device by holding down the power and the mode button at the same time for 20 seconds. After completion...same pathetic results. This is NOT a 4000 yard rangefinder. It should be name 1.4K....not 4K. They recommended sending it in for service, but in talking with others... they are all reporting the same results. I am able to range high rise office buildings or grain elevators out to 3200 yards....but what is the point?
Click to expand...

I'll buy it off you..
 
#139
gr8fuldoug said:
The Leica CRF-2400 R really is as great as everyone says
Click to expand...

Yes it is! Consistently measures 1 MOA and 2 MOA targets out to 2000 yards. I have compared it to to just about everything except a Terrapin (Not even in the same cost/performance category)... and have been extremely pleased with my purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8fuldoug
#140
triatleta said:
I have send a message at nikon about more spec about rangex 4k...and this is the reply:

I have got consistent readings on trees at 3140. Nikon will understate and overperform

•Measurement range: 10-4,000 yd.* Maximum measurement distance •Reflective - 4,000 yards
•Tree - 1,700 yards
•Deer - 1,500 yards

•Accuracy: ±0.75m/yd. (shorter than 600m/yd.)±1.00m/yd. (600m/yd. and over, shorter than 1,000m/yd.)±1.50m/yd. (1,000m/yd. and over)
•Variable intensity, high visibility red OLED display–automatic or 5 selectable intensity levels
•HYPER READ–Quick and stable measurement response in approx. 0.3 seconds regardless of distance
•Fully multicoated optics
•ID (Incline/Decline) Technology–Horizontal Distance/Actual Distance display mode can be easily switched
•Tru-Target Priority–First Target–Distant Target
•8-second continuous measurement
•Waterproof and Fogproof

5-YEAR Warranty
Click to expand...

Accuracy rated higher than the TERRAPIN X??
 

Attachments

  • E4D13703-6083-4EF5-99A8-D659B3686E5C.png
    E4D13703-6083-4EF5-99A8-D659B3686E5C.png
    149.6 KB · Views: 122
#141
Airw4ves said:
Monarch 3000 looks like a great offering for most of what we do, and the stabilizer is a nice feature. Looking forward to how these will perform out in the wild. Im looking to make my first rangefinder purchase so if this turns out to be a good offering it will make my short list.

What are your guys thoughts?

Click to expand...


Bought one at Scheels for under $300on sale. Works OK out to 1000. Stabilization is nice. Could not read anything beyond 1000 even big buildings, etc. nothing. Much hype.
 
#144
Its best bang for the buck but there are plenty lemons among them for me on practical targets it toped out at cca 1200y

* find a Frank review that was not claiming awesome product !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bhoges
#146
I was ranging a small sign in the river today in very hazy conditions at 1530 yards (+/- 1 yard) using a tripod. I’m very impressed with it for the money. The reticle seems to be right on target.
 
#147
sleeplz said:
Do you guys think Frank gets paid for his reviews?
Click to expand...
I’ve paid attention to him for about 18 months and have known him since March. I’ve never been misled, and I have no regrets about ever following his advice, whether it was on a purchase, a match to attend, or a method to train.

There is no doubt in my mind that his reviews of products are his honest opinion. Furthermore, he actually uses the stuff he reviews. He was very specific about the capabilities of the 4K, and I don’t think his results were different from others who’ve posted here.

No, I don’t think he gets paid. I do think when he finds a problem, he works with the vendors. As a maker of (non-firearm) products that get reviewed publicly, I think his approach is fair and reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scocoabeach
#148
Nikon 4K is definetly best buy at present prices , but keep it real on practical targets is 1000-1200y LRF no more it comes no where close to high end offerings.

This is a honest note on the differences that set apart LRFs and folks overlook when entusiasticaly ranging large objects far away and then take that as benchmark of LRF preformance
Lowlight

Wednesday at 3:35 PM
New #19
What I have found the biggest difference to be using all these lasers is the actual target.

We can hit big stuff like a house or vehicle and most will give you a reading. But once you go to an actual target, the field narrows rather quickly. I was using the Nikon Black 4K last week and unit will hit rocks and the side of a hill at 2000 yards, depending on the light, but it won't hit a target. I found it stopped hitting actual targets around 1200 yards in most cases.

The Sig Kilo2400AB will get targets to 1 mile but they have to be reflective. None reflective targets hover around 1500. The reticle, the doughnut is just too large and on top of that, you have to determine where in that circle is actually sending the beam. Which is why, when you range stuff like a house it works greats, but you end up missing small targets.

The Terrapin will get targets to about 2400m, after that it will hit houses and whatnot farther.
Just hitting a house really far away does not tell the story, we shoot targets, not houses and cars, and billboards.
We need a standard like an IPSC target, Vectronix stated this, a 2m plate at 2000m is the spec.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Rifle Scopes DNT 7-35x56 FFP Riflescopes
Replies
246
Views
9K
eamars
eamars
gr8fuldoug
Leica Announces Fall Promotion
Replies
0
Views
266
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
S
Scope for 6.5 Creedmoor AR10 - Mark 4 4.5-18, Mark 5 3.6-18, Stryker 3.5-21, LHT 4.5-22, NX8 2-20, March Fx, or?
Replies
24
Views
793
SMTGWKD
S
R
Rifle Scopes Going from Razor gen 6-36x to LHT 4.5-22x
Replies
4
Views
165
Rodney65
R
wheels2487
Optics Vectronix Terrapin X for Sale
Replies
6
Views
338
wheels2487
wheels2487
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts