The weapon mounted LRF conundrum.

[ajdemar215]

Aight, so @sneakypayload and I have been discussing the options (or lack thereof) for weapon mounted LRF. Seems as though it’s either 10k or discontinued. I was bitching about how come Holosun hasn’t ratted some shitty LRF into on of their “laser/IR/wml” housings and made a mediocre quality WMLRF.

Now, I’ll preface by saying, I’m just a dumb pipefitter. I in no way shape or form understand how any of this witchcraft works. But to me, it seems awfully simple to smash one of the thousands of low budget LRFs into an aluminum housing that’s mountable. Like, this doesn’t seem that unobtainable for a sub $500 LRF good for 600 and in. I know some people might scoff at the idea of only 600 yards but for me and my only application of nighttime predator hunting, that would be plenty.

By sure dumb luck, today we came across the Trybe optics diMa 1000 LRF. After scouring the internet, there’s basically zero information about it other than the company sells a LVPO and a clip on magnifier for LVPOs. Optics planet has them on their website for $500. Found one video on Facebook from 21’ of it and looks to be pretty legit. But again, zero information out there about it. Any one have any experience with one? Or is it just a figment of my imagination.

Also feel free to educate my ignorant ass on possibly why there isn’t a poor kid friendly WMLRF.

 

[NWnewguy]

Haven’t seen this one yet. Will have to check it out. All I’ve seen is the Ali Express ones that look lackluster.

I would guess that the market doesn’t realize there’s much of a demand for it at this point. The SiCo Radius was ahead of the market and they’d sell pretty well if they made another batch of them. Overall though I’d guess the market is still fairly small compared to a handheld unit.

 

[GreenMushroom]

When I posted a similar question a few years ago the answer was there just isn't demand. The use case for a cheap short range wmlrf is basically nighttime shooting which is a very niche market. When I searched I found the unit you mention and there's also a unit put out by infaray but there's very little info on either. I believe the infaray model plugs into some of their thermals and I wasn't able to determine if it has an external display.

 

[ajdemar215]

When I posted a similar question a few years ago the answer was there just isn't demand. The use case for a cheap short range wmlrf is basically nighttime shooting which is a very niche market. When I searched I found the unit you mention and there's also a unit put out by infaray but there's very little info on either. I believe the infaray model plugs into some of their thermals and I wasn't able to determine if it has an external display.

Yeah I could see the “low demand” but with more states legalizing night hunting that demand is growing. In the grand scheme of things, buying a thermal and an additional wmlrf, I would have been the same money out just buying a unit that has it all combined. Still just seems strange to me that there isn’t an option. You’d figure the tactigoons and IG gun pages would create a demand strictly off aesthetics.

 

[ajdemar215]

Haven’t seen this one yet. Will have to check it out. All I’ve seen is the Ali Express ones that look lackluster.

I would guess that the market doesn’t realize there’s much of a demand for it at this point. The SiCo Radius was ahead of the market and they’d sell pretty well if they made another batch of them. Overall though I’d guess the market is still fairly small compared to a handheld unit.

I still have a hard time with “lack of market” I know dudes that’ll knock their grandmother over for a shot at a used SiCo radius.

 

[GreenMushroom]

Yeah I could see the “low demand” but with more states legalizing night hunting that demand is growing. In the grand scheme of things, buying a thermal and an additional wmlrf, I would have been the same money out just buying a unit that has it all combined. Still just seems strange to me that there isn’t an option. You’d figure the tactigoons and IG gun pages would create a demand strictly off aesthetics.

I agree the market is much larger than a few years ago but in the grand scheme of things the numbers are still quite small. I'd be willing to pay 1k maybe 1.5k at the outside for a quality unit ie waterproof with a reasonable recoil rating. I think I probably fairly represent the unwashed masses that would make a product like this viable since the people that are really into this already have the 10k units you mention.

That's not a lot of $ for a low serial production run. I don't know the history of the radias other than I should have bought one when they were cheap. That might be the best bet being an existing product I would assume some tooling and production costs would be mitigated.

 

[sneakypayload]

I feel like with more widespread use of ballistics solvers, higher end scopes, and better rifles in the hunting and competition world, a under 3k priced LRF is something that is marketable.
Vortex 100% has something of that nature coming with their XM157 (or whatever the fuck it's called) optic for the military.
Maztech is partnering with Magpul for a LPVO integrated LRF mount with a Heads up display.

So the question begs is why did SiCo discontinue, and no one else has picked up the torch other than shoddy companies with zero actual. experience?
If there was a decent WMLRF that was under 2k, I would buy two. 3kish, I would totally buy one. But at 8k plus it's just insane.

I can't believe vortex or someone similar doesn't have an offering yet.

 

[cake5150]

I've been periodically looking at the Trybe since last year, but already have a Radius so didn't feel like it was worth the gamble. I saw the price drop so I bought one in April. I returned it after using it the first time because the visible red zeroing laser was 3+ mils off diagonally (verified under NV so I could see the ranging laser) from where the rangefinder beam actually hits. In other words, zeroing the visible laser did absolutely nothing to zero the ranging laser to my optic. I have no idea if that was a random defect in mine or not. I emailed Trybe and got a response the following day advising me to return it. This did not impart a great deal of confidence in the product. I thought about trying another, but the Radius has been solid for me since 2017. YMMV, but I'd be curious if anyone else here has tried one.

 

[b6graham]

if i need a WMLRF I probably have $20k in NV and thermal...so what's a little bit more

 

[sneakypayload]

if i need a WMLRF I probably have $20k in NV and thermal...so what's a little bit more

WMLRF's are also good for non-nv use too. Ranging targets on your weapon system for unknown distance shoots, matches, etc.

it's not always about ultra-LARPING.

 

[b6graham]

WMLRF's are also good for non-nv use too. Ranging targets on your weapon system for unknown distance shoots, matches, etc.

it's not always about ultra-LARPING.

sure but i'd rather have the ballistic data in a LRF bino in that scenario

 

[264Charlie]

Newcon has one that's sub 2k that's solid, Wilcox and Envision MARS on the high end covered (9-13k). Pulsar and others have units that cover 700 yards integrated into thermal sights for sub 5k all-in with the thermal.

I love me some RF, out of all mine I use the Newcon 3500BT, or Pulsar most. It might change when the Mars arrives.

-PLRF 10C
-PLRF 15C
-SC Radius
-Newcom 3500BT
-STORM PI
-Pulsar Trail 2 LRF
-Envision MARS
-and a gaggle of Leica, Bushnell, Sig, and Vortex units floating around.

 

[4O6shootist]

I pre-order the Mars. F it, buy once cry once. BIG upgrade from my radius. It'll be used in matches, hunting, and shooting in the dark with my eotech CLIPIR-LR.

 

[sneakypayload]

Newcon has one that's sub 2k that's solid, Wilcox and Envision MARS on the high end covered (9-13k). Pulsar and others have units that cover 700 yards integrated into thermal sights for sub 5k all-in with the thermal.

I love me some RF, out of all mine I use the Newcon 3500BT, or Pulsar most. It might change when the Mars arrives.

-PLRF 10C
-PLRF 15C
-SC Radius
-Newcom 3500BT
-STORM PI
-Pulsar Trail 2 LRF
-Envision MARS
-and a gaggle of Leica, Bushnell, Sig, and Vortex units floating around.

Huh. I’ll check newcon.

 

[264Charlie]

I pre-order the Mars. F it, buy once cry once. BIG upgrade from my radius. It'll be used in matches, hunting, and shooting in the dark with my eotech CLIPIR-LR.

I'm counting the days....

 

[shoots100]

Here you go.

LRF

 

[ajdemar215]

Here you go.

LRF

Does FedEx and UPS deliver to that fucking mailbox?

 

[ajdemar215]

Well then…..

 

[snoopyloopy]

Hey OP, I also was looking for a poor's friendly WMLRF and found the Sightlok RF-1 recently.

It allows you to mount whatever rangefinder you currently use to your rifle and it comes with windage/elevation adjustment capability.

It's been working for me on a .308 using a Sig BDX rangefinder, but the risk with this option is that commercial rangefinders are really generally not designed to handle heavy recoil, so depending on your caliber, you could potentially kill your rangefinder.

All I can say is it has been working in my case.

 

[338_Lapua]

Hey OP, I also was looking for a poor's friendly WMLRF and found the Sightlok RF-1 recently.
It's been working for me on a .308 using a Sig BDX rangefinder

I'm also using the Sightlok RF-1 with a Sig KILO2400BDX rangefinder. I'm a WMLRF geek and own a couple of the available WMLRF options, including a Vortex Impact 4000 and a Wilcox RAPTAR, and I use the Sightlok over those options, even though it's a less expensive solution.

 

[338_Lapua]

Regarding the Sightlok RF-1

Here's why it's better:
We all know a high-end handheld rangefinder like the Sig Sauer KILO2400BDX, KILO5K, or KILO8K-ABS has more advanced features than purpose-built units like the Vortex Impact 4000 or Wilcox RAPTAR.

For example, the Sig has the full Applied Ballistics engine, and can pair with a Kestrel Elite to gather environmental variables like wind, giving real-time firing solutions and wind holds. These are game-changing features. None of these purpose-built units compare to the Sig in that regard.

With the Sightlok RF-1, you get to keep all the advanced features of your handheld rangefinder, plus you have a more flexible mounting system. You can put your rangefinder pretty much wherever you want it. Including right next to your scope eyepiece, so your eye only needs to move an inch left or right to go from your scope to your rangefinder. And obviously the Sightlok can co-witness your rangefinder with your scope.

Regarding the recoil issue, there are Youtube reviews with US military riflemen testing the Sightlok mount with various handheld rangefinders and cartridges. Basically testing to see if the Sightlok mount can protect rangefinders from recoil, and AFAIK, no rangefinder has been damaged by rifle recoil yet.

 

[carbonbased]

I'm also using the Sightlok RF-1 with an Sig KILO2400BDX rangefinder. I'm a WMLRF geek and own a couple of the available WMLRF options, including a Vortex Impact 4000 and a Wilcox RAPTAR, and I use the Sightlok over those options, even though it's a less expensive solution.

How do you see the little LRF display when behind the rifle?

 

[carbonbased]

Wait, I was looking at the pics wrong. So one can align the LRF eyepiece to be right next to the scope’s ocular “plane”.

I see now how it could possibly work. Hmmmm I have an unused Leupold 2800 unit hmmmm

 

[338_Lapua]

So one can align the LRF eyepiece to be right next to the scope’s ocular “plane”.

Right, and you can orient the rangefinder either on the left or right side of the scope. There's a fair amount of adjustability.

 

[carbonbased]

Right, and you can orient the rangefinder either on the left or right side of the scope. There's a fair amount of adjustability.

The issue for me is then how to mount it, as the rifles I’d like to use this on have one piece mounts. Meaning no pic rail under the scope. And they’re mounted either as far back as possible or close, so no/not enough pic rail behind the scope either.

The mounts are either Mbrace or Spuhr, so I could possibly attach a section of pic rail to their sides. However, it doesn’t appear that the Sitelok has a way to mount to a vertical pic rail (or at least they don’t appear to show that).

 

[338_Lapua]

so no/not enough pic rail behind the scope either.

You only need about 1/2 inch of exposed pic rail behind your Mbrace / Spuhr. Can't you just move your Mbrace / Spuhr forward 1/2 inch and move your scope back 1/2 inch in the rings?

There's also pic rails that mount on scopes. Some WMLRF mount on diving board style pic rails that mount on scopes anyway. Basically with something like this, where there's a will, there's a way.

The Sightlok mount can adjust in length and height relative to the mount point, and horizontal distance from the rail.

 

[carbonbased]

You only need about 1/2 inch of exposed pic rail behind your Mbrace / Spuhr. Can't you just move your Mbrace / Spuhr forward 1/2 inch and move your scope back 1/2 inch in the rings?

No, there’s either not enough space in the mount (34mm tube scopes) or I think it looks dumb (30mm).

There's also pic rails that mount on scopes. Some WMLRF mount on diving board style pic rails that mount on scopes anyway. Basically with something like this, where there's a will, there's a way.

That is what I was getting at when I wrote this:

The mounts are either Mbrace or Spuhr, so I could possibly attach a section of pic rail to their sides.

Which led me to state this:

However, it doesn’t appear that the Sitelok has a way to mount to a vertical pic rail (or at least they don’t appear to show that).

Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t see an easy way to mount a pic clamp on the side of the Sitelok. Like the ADM mount.

That’s their 17s model, but they make a dizzying number of different interfaces.

So my question to you is, do you know of a pic clamp that will mount to the side of the Sitelok? If you don’t I can inquire with the manufacturer.

 

[338_Lapua]

do you know of a pic clamp that will mount to the side of the Sitelok?

Nope, sorry I don't.

 

[338_Lapua]

@carbonbased There's a couple videos that show people mounting them, if you haven't checked them out already.



Also this:

 

[carbonbased]

Nope, sorry I don't.

Ok, no prob. I have inquired the manufacturer. Are you a distributor or the inventor btw?

 

[338_Lapua]

Ok, no prob. I have inquired the manufacturer. Are you a distributor or the inventor btw?

Nope, just a dude with some experience using various WMLRF. Hopefully they can answer your questions.

 

[carbonbased]

Ok, the inventor got back to me and basically said, “No.” lol oh well.

Seems like such a basic thing to have, but it often seems inventors don’t think about existing standards. Attachment standards in this case.

For example, I would’ve had the side attachment holes and interface be compatible with the 17s ADM standard. This is the one that many bipod manufacturers use so a variety of pic clamps just bolt right on.

He could’ve still used his own attachments, I’m sure, just by having the same hole spacing and screw type on that longer plate thing he uses.

Ah well. I could always have something custom machined to work. Not sure if it’s worth it.

 

[ggmanning]

I have never been much interested in the WMLR...except night shooting where the handheld is mostly useless even seeing the beam under nods. That RF-1 looks like a great on/off solution for my coyote guns.

 

[carbonbased]

I have never been much interested in the WMLR...except night shooting where the handheld is mostly useless even seeing the beam under nods. That RF-1 looks like a great on/off solution for my coyote guns.

Yeah, looks especially good for tripod mounting where the user can come off the gun a little in order to range. Tripods give you more fore/aft mounting flexibility.

I tend to shoot the most on a 360° rotating pdog table, so I can’t lean forward to range like you can with tripods. The upshot is the LRF has to be able to be mounted basically flush with the scope’s eyepiece. Hmmmmmm…

 

[338_Lapua]

The upshot is the LRF has to be able to be mounted basically flush with the scope’s eyepiece. Hmmmmmm…

When I need to mount something, I get all the parts and pieces together and figure out a way to mount it. About 90% of the time I can figure out a solution.

Often where I expect to be a great mount point doesn't actually work in practice. And you can only discover that fact by trying.

For example, even if you could mount this to the side of your Mbrace / Spuhr, you'd probably discover that the mount or rangefinder bumps into your scope or your rings or isn't anywhere near where you need it to be. Maybe you're different, but personally, I'm not smart enough to anticipate all the possible angles and options in my head.

 

[Sightlok]

To clarify, our response to @carbonbased was roughly as follows:

The design objective of the Sightlok RF-1 was a universal rangefinder mount that offers enough flexibility to get around obstructions and address limited mounting points, left- and right-handed shooters, various rangefinder shapes and sizes, a wide range of scope lengths, and so on. Simply put, the goal was to allow the shooter to place their rangefinder where they wanted it.

Our current gen 2 design allows the mount to expand and contract in length, offers 3 different height options, and 3 different gap widths between the mount and the rail. It can be mounted on the right or left of the scope, and it can be mounted with the arm facing forward or aft.

Our engineering team considered a wide range of standards, including the 17S standard, during the design process. The problem with the 17S standard in particular, is it expects the clamp side to be "female." And if you accept female on the clamp side, you cannot achieve mount points at 3 different heights on the U-shaped LRF holder, which is flexibility our clients need.

If we have misunderstood how a 17S standard could be accomplished and still achieve mount points at multiple heights, perhaps @carbonbased you could sketch how that would work. We're always open to improvements in our designs.

Thank you for the opportunity and hope that was helpful.

 

[carbonbased]

To clarify, our response to @carbonbased was roughly as follows:

The design objective of the Sightlok RF-1 was a universal rangefinder mount that offers enough flexibility to get around obstructions and address limited mounting points, left- and right-handed shooters, various rangefinder shapes and sizes, a wide range of scope lengths, and so on. Simply put, the goal was to allow the shooter to place their rangefinder where they wanted it.

Our current gen 2 design allows the mount to expand and contract in length, offers 3 different height options, and 3 different gap widths between the mount and the rail. It can be mounted on the right or left of the scope, and it can be mounted with the arm facing forward or aft.

Our engineering team considered a wide range of standards, including the 17S standard, during the design process. The problem with the 17S standard in particular, is it expects the clamp side to be "female." And if you accept female on the clamp side, you cannot achieve mount points at 3 different heights on the U-shaped LRF holder, which is flexibility our clients need.

If we have misunderstood how a 17S standard could be accomplished and still achieve mount points at multiple heights, perhaps @carbonbased you could sketch how that would work. We're always open to improvements in our designs.

Thank you for the opportunity and hope that was helpful.

Hey! Nice chatting with you over email!

This is what I’m talking about.

Adjust the raised “bars” to mimic the 17s male bump. And adjust the screw holes and spacing to 17s spec too.

Then a 17s clamp will screw right on, and your existing tuning fork bar should might also work, especially if you deviate from the typical depth of the 17s male bump. Edit: or use a slightly different pitchfork clamp method.

Does this make sense? It’s probably dumb.

 

[carbonbased]

Or, here’s an easier solution.

Just machine an adapter; a plate with a single 17s male bump that screws onto your existing hole pattern.

Then one can just screw on their chosen 17s clamp.

The adapter would look like this, but imagine it without that 1/4-20 hole in the middle and screw holes that attach to your screw hole pattern.

Atlas BT56: AccuShot 1/4-20 Lever Adapter (Does Not Include Lever)

Atlas : BT56 - Atlas BT56: AccuShot 1/4-20 Lever Adapter (Does Not Include Lever)

www.milehighshooting.com

 

[Sightlok]

Right, but the 3 male rails above are not going to mesh with a female 17S spec rail mount, as shown below:

These 2 parts will not fit together.

The only way the two parts would fit together is if we eliminated all but 1 of the rails. Then the two parts could be connected, but that would be a signification reduction in adjustability.

 

[carbonbased]

Manufacturer link to the plate above:

https://accu-shot.com/shop/accessories-official-manufacturer/gear-furnishings/bt56-3/

 

[carbonbased]

Right, but the 3 male rails above are not going to mesh with a female 17S spec rail mount, as shown below:

They would if the male and female rails & channels are all 17s spec.

You might need to make the walls of the U-shaped adapter taller to accommodate three 17s spec rails.

But just making the adapter I mentioned afterwards would be easier and you wouldn’t have to redesign your system.

 

[Sightlok]

Or, here’s an easier solution.

Just machine an adapter; a plate with a single 17s male bump that screws onto your existing hole pattern.

Then one can just screw on their chosen 17s clamp.

The adapter would look like this, but imagine it without that 1/4-20 hole in the middle and screw holes that attach to your screw hole pattern.

View attachment 8550822

Atlas BT56: AccuShot 1/4-20 Lever Adapter (Does Not Include Lever)

Atlas : BT56 - Atlas BT56: AccuShot 1/4-20 Lever Adapter (Does Not Include Lever)

www.milehighshooting.com

Right, with that additional part, something like what you're suggesting might be be feasible. It's potentially a good idea. Just depends on the number of people seeking that type of option. Please allow us some time to discuss this internally and get back to you.

Thanks very much for your time and the suggestion!

 

[carbonbased]

Like this. One could move the adapter around a bit to adjust the height and fore/aft placement of the U-shaped bit.

 

[carbonbased]

Right, with that additional part, something like what you're suggesting would be feasible. It's a good idea. Just depends on the number of people seeking that type of option. Please allow us some time to discuss this internally and get back to you.

Thanks very much for your time and the suggestion!

Ok, whew, I’m glad we finally communicated. Hard to do without speaking or without drawings, eh?

But the little adapter idea is probably way easier. Or make a clamp that conforms to your male bumps and female channels.

Anyway, good brainstorming with you!

 

[carbonbased]

Side note: above, why the eff did I continually use the word “bumps” instead of “rails”???

Seriously strange

Lol I need to go to bed.

 

[Sightlok]

Anyway, good brainstorming with you!

Thank you, sir.

One potential issue with mounting at that point is that the U shaped mount would probably bump into the scope (meaning some kind of offset would probably be required). And if I'm not mistaken, the mount bolted at that location would probably not have your rangefinder on the same optical plane as your scope.

The best adapter I can recommend if you only have a vertical pic rail, is a "Picatinny 90 Degree Angle Mount" (B007AO0SPQ on Amazon), and then you have none of the above concerns.

Apologies to the OP that this thread was taken off track.