Why is there such a gap in the market for a reasonably priced weapon mounted laser range finder?? What’s preventing someone from putting the sig kilo 5k tech in a metal body with a pic mount?? The tech is there I just don’t get it and I want one that doesn’t cost as much as my entire weapon system
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Weapon Mounted LRF
- Thread starter Maurygold
- Start date
It is suprising that LR are not built into more scopes as a feature. Don't we want them to automatically range and adjust elevation?
If I'm limited to one LRF for cost or space/weight reasons, I'd rather it not be weapon mounted. If we get it without cost/penalty, then sure. Remember you gotta dial it back to zero (or some other set point) to range though.
sir this is a Wendy’s. You’ll need to be drunk and non-intelligent somewhere else
This is a very valid point. Which many don’t realize. Then there is recoil. Mounting system failures. Internal failures. I think a separate LRF is the better solution overall but I do want this area of the market to advance as well.
And then the fact that rangefinders are going through evolutionary changes quickly while good riflescope glass and reticles not so much.
They're finding their way into binos and the tech today is probably as good as 99.9% of shooters need the kilo 5K is like 2300m for refelctive or somehting?
These are good points about zero and recoil though.
I think the one time a mouted LR really shines is when shooting at night with NV or thermal. You can not see what you are ranging because it is dark. Having it paired to your point of aim is nice. There are ways to do it not mounted but most are inconvenient at best.
Now once the scope is integrated and it can do things light illuminate a dot on the reticle on the correct hold over for that range.... well that is another story.
Now once the scope is integrated and it can do things light illuminate a dot on the reticle on the correct hold over for that range.... well that is another story.
I have a kestrel paired with a Bushnell LRF and it is a nice combo. You point the LEF at target, it gets range, direction and incline. It pairs that to the Kestrels real time wind speed, direction, conditions, etc. To make balistic calculations and feed it back to the LRF. I think this is where we are headed except integration to the scope as well.
The Revic is cool, have not seen one in person yet. Have you checked out the Swarovski?
Swarovski dS Rangefinder Scope — Ron Spomer Outdoors
The Swarovski dS riflescope combines rangefinder, angle compensation, atmospheric readout and more to provide fast, precise aiming points.
www.ronspomeroutdoors.com
Simple, the demand isn’t there. The radius was a product that came out too soon. People were still debating MOA v Mils at the time let alone trying to find faster ways to range and engage targets.
I don’t know who spots with rangefinders, so why it being attached to a firearm is a deal breaker is beyond me. You spot with your binos or spotting scope…see something you want to shoot, then you use the rangefinder, then aim with the rifle. Weapon mounted LRF just eliminated a step from 3 times of looking at something to 2. A LRF binos does the same thing ultimately eliminating a 3rd step.
It’s funny how convenient arguments can be. People have a problem with LRF on a rifle because you’re muzzling everything yet thermal scopes for night hunting is the same shit. While I agree you don’t wanna needlessly point a loaded firearm everywhere, a weapon mounted LRF would still be pointed at something you decided worth shooting and not to spot with for hunting.
NV clip on or thermal optics fall into in exception I guess. And no, not everyone has helmet mounted NV or thermal in conjunction with weapon mounted options. Most people have dedicated thermal scopes on rifles and that’s it. Yet, more hunting accidents happen when people are bird hunting during daylight or deer.
I don’t know who spots with rangefinders, so why it being attached to a firearm is a deal breaker is beyond me. You spot with your binos or spotting scope…see something you want to shoot, then you use the rangefinder, then aim with the rifle. Weapon mounted LRF just eliminated a step from 3 times of looking at something to 2. A LRF binos does the same thing ultimately eliminating a 3rd step.
It’s funny how convenient arguments can be. People have a problem with LRF on a rifle because you’re muzzling everything yet thermal scopes for night hunting is the same shit. While I agree you don’t wanna needlessly point a loaded firearm everywhere, a weapon mounted LRF would still be pointed at something you decided worth shooting and not to spot with for hunting.
NV clip on or thermal optics fall into in exception I guess. And no, not everyone has helmet mounted NV or thermal in conjunction with weapon mounted options. Most people have dedicated thermal scopes on rifles and that’s it. Yet, more hunting accidents happen when people are bird hunting during daylight or deer.
I have / have used both. It's a pain in the ass to have the only range finder you have with you on your gun, let alone have a ballistic computer built in that will only give (or only "conveniently give") data if it's just ranged something. Then having to dial back to your zero between targets is dumb. So I see targets starting at like 400 and going to 1200, why would I not want to just range them all real quick while I'm scanning them? With a weapon mounted laser only, I have to have it dialed to zero, range 400, then bounce it back to 0 mils to range the next target. Even better, have your spotter feeding you distances while he scans for more targets, and you can dial or hold with no steps in between.
With thermals, yeah, having to point your gun everywhere to scan is also retarded and a pain in the ass. The good ol' boys I've shot with used a cheapish thermal scope on repeatable QD rings and just threw it on the rifle when they were all set to engage. With a little more budget, just keep a smaller scanning thermal around your neck while looking for hogs, and the weaponsight one on your rifle.
The above is why I said earlier that if you can have just one, it should not be on the rifle.
With thermals, yeah, having to point your gun everywhere to scan is also retarded and a pain in the ass. The good ol' boys I've shot with used a cheapish thermal scope on repeatable QD rings and just threw it on the rifle when they were all set to engage. With a little more budget, just keep a smaller scanning thermal around your neck while looking for hogs, and the weaponsight one on your rifle.
The above is why I said earlier that if you can have just one, it should not be on the rifle.
Last edited:
I had not seen that scope but it’s exciting to see a top manufacturer putting that in their scope. Once the solution is there then making it modular may be a logical next step for the NV / thermal guys
The issue of dialing back between targets is partially mitigated with a reticle that has hold under capability. I haven’t thought it all the way through but there should be a solution for that. A disturbed reticle is probably the best solution ultimately
The issue of dialing back between targets is partially mitigated with a reticle that has hold under capability. I haven’t thought it all the way through but there should be a solution for that. A disturbed reticle is probably the best solution ultimately
I didn’t catch the “have just one” part. I would say that’s a fair comparison as to why I went with dual tube NV first vs dedicated weapons mounted.
Yeah for sure. Just saying that’s the future. Revic is gen 1. Improvements to come hopefully
I agree that is “a” solution, however given holdover reticles have been around for at least 20 years, yet they are not exclusively used means there are downsides to them. I shot H25 and another Horus reticle I can’t remember in the mid 2000’s and found that for the types of terrain and targetry we shot most of the time, it was a liability not an asset.
Almost everyone I see at our and other field matches uses the “dial elevation, hold wind” method (which is how I do it too). There’s probably something to that.
That’s a tough stage to start on.
All our matches require target location and ranging and even the guys with rifle mounted lrfs tend to not use them (or not use them primarily). I agree with the monkey see monkey do attitude, but the top Steel Safari shooters are smart enough to do something the better way, and that seems to be dial elevation.
All our matches require target location and ranging and even the guys with rifle mounted lrfs tend to not use them (or not use them primarily). I agree with the monkey see monkey do attitude, but the top Steel Safari shooters are smart enough to do something the better way, and that seems to be dial elevation.
All that said, it’s kind of a side issue. Imagine a scope with reticle 1, with an aim point a couple mils up and left of the normal crosshair. That’s where you range. The scope the automatically moves the primary reticle (reticle 2) based on your range.
So they do use rifle mounted LRFs primarily? I read your original post to say they don’t primarily use the rifle mounted LRF?
I care because I’m getting close to looking for a solution like this and want to learn about what’s best to plan for
I care because I’m getting close to looking for a solution like this and want to learn about what’s best to plan for
Regular highish end handheld lrfs is what most competitors use.
Night stuff is when rifle mounted lrfs really come into it, at least at this point in development of everything
I am not against rifle lrfs, it’s just I think at this point a handheld is more useful. If there was a reliable 2kyard unit that was smaller than a pack of cigarettes and a reasonable price, there’s little reason to not have one in addition to whatever else I’d use. My old lrf is one of the Swaro monoculars and it still works fine. I also have a higher end set of binocular lrfs
Well I did say for the types of terrain and targetry we usually shoot in, IMO they are not that great. But my impression is consistent across the various matches and venues we currently use or have used, and our target setup style/philosophy. There are certainly target and stage types that are a much better match for reticle holdover. Changing the “game”, my favorite 3gun scope is still the TA11 which is obviously a holdover setup.
As far as real uses, on the martial side you’ll have to ask them. On the hunting side, everyone I know dials the same way they do in matches.
As far as real uses, on the martial side you’ll have to ask them. On the hunting side, everyone I know dials the same way they do in matches.
Other than adding more stages to the match, and making all stages either 2x3's or 1x6's (there used to be some short 1 or 2 target stages), the spirit of it is the same. Back when the original landowner ran it, the level of skill in the competitors was less and the average level of equipment was less.
I, and the match rules, literally do not care if someone wants to use a rifle-mounted LRF, a handheld, or both, or mil the target crossbars, for that matter, if they want to. (We did have a snow match where the blizzard wouldn't let any LRF's work and some guys milled. ) Same for holdovers vs. dialing elevation. I was just pointing out my experience, and the technique used by the top 10 shooters.
I, and the match rules, literally do not care if someone wants to use a rifle-mounted LRF, a handheld, or both, or mil the target crossbars, for that matter, if they want to. (We did have a snow match where the blizzard wouldn't let any LRF's work and some guys milled. ) Same for holdovers vs. dialing elevation. I was just pointing out my experience, and the technique used by the top 10 shooters.
After your comments I was playing around with the Horus simulator and once I switched from a grid reticle to T3, it was much easier to make hits (simulated). This helped me understand the design of the reticle.
How does the reticle do in situations with multiple wind calls or variable winds?
How does the reticle do in situations with multiple wind calls or variable winds?
That's a good point. Back when I had my H25 (in a USO SN3 at the time), I shot it in competition for over a full year before giving it up. The main problem was that it obscured too much of the target (ie, reduced target visibility), or even completely obscured small targets.
I currently have a TT with the Gen3XR and I can barely see the tree dots unless I actively look for them.
I currently have a TT with the Gen3XR and I can barely see the tree dots unless I actively look for them.
Good on you to admit your early bias and how you feel now. Personally I don’t mind the reticle, I just can’t stand the guy who designed it.
The tip that retains more circumferential speed is the side you hit.No issues seeing targets or splash hereIt's more difficult to see which way a plate spun when you hit it on one side..... Was that left? Or right? ....than it is to see hits or misses. Regardless of the reticle
Met yes. Class no. I’m fully aware of my personal bias. It’s something I need to move past. i know this.
that’s why I give you props for admitting your early bias. I need to do that myself.
I wasn't terribly impressed with the "advanced" course I took a few years ago. It was my first official precision rifle class and I didn't really take anything away from it.
Similar threads
