New Nikon 4K LRF Reviews

[Ledd Slinger]

The one feature I liked about the Sig Kilo LRFs was the automatic brightness adjustment on the readout that changes with ambient light levels.

The Nikon 4k has the same technology. Can set it to automatically adjust with the light or manually select the brightness with 5 different intensity levels.

 

[micmac]

I have one of the older nikon 1200 something. works good but the rated distance is on reflective targets. it'll range a stop sign if you can hold it at 1200yds but it cuts back to about 6-800 on brown fur. it'll range white spray paint on a gong at 1000. i have no issues with nikon rangefinders.

Road signs are painted with very reflective paint so not a benchmark . In geology and planing there are some LRFs used that can maybe hit 2000y on anything but against a reflective prism that comes in the package and is meant to be used at all times they can range well over 10.000y with accuracy ,that just shows how much target reflection matters.

 

[Grimstod]

Does it have a tripod mount? Holding these tinny range finders on a small human size target at 2000y is nearly impossible by hand.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Does it have a tripod mount? Holding these tinny range finders on a small human size target at 2000y is nearly impossible by hand.

Not sure. Would be nice.

The Sig Sauer LRFs do not have a 1/4-20 tripod thread and I wasnt going to spend extra money on their tripod adapter sleeve when I found the 2200MR wouldn't perform. So I just used a bunch of electrical tape to secure it to a tripod head while desperately trying to get it to range what the company claimed. Actually made for a really solid mount. I'm sure there's a million other ways I could have done it with cords and straps, but the tape was the first thing I grabbed. Could do the same with the Nikon if need be.

 

[micmac]

Did a short test yesterday with bunch of LRF's ,budget to not so budget models ,most targets 2moa some much larger at up to 1200y. Conditions varied from overcast to bright summer day to slight rain, but mostly slight overcast so not too adverse to LRF preformance , most targets white metal plates some paper and some red metal (issue too most LRFs)

Best value for money on the test > Vortex Ranger 1300 did measure all targets till 1100y and 1200y tree was no issue ,ATN Laser Balistics 1500 could range all targets including 1100y 2moa metal target .Both units deliver what the promise . ATN reticle box is a tad large for the job .

Bigest flop of the day Nikon Monarch 3000 and Black 4K suck bad , both had issues past 1000y , while Monarch 3000 stabilisation feature is great , ranging preformance sucks ,4K measured all but only with repeated trys so not consistently . Promise vs delivery ratio is off the charts with these Nikon units. Maybe they meant 3000 and 4000ft with the model designations. Interestngly old Nikon 1200 preformed on level of Monarch 3000 ,Measured large 10x2ft cluster of paper targets at 1000y but couldn' measure small 2 moa 1000y targets.


Top preformers :Sig Kilo 2400AB ,Leica 2700
2 of 3 Sig Kilo 2200 (3rd .Kilo 2200 Couldn't make it past 1000y)
Tested also Zeiss Victory RF binos , no issues with range and great glass but man ranging takes like forever ,you press a button and then you wait for what seems like eternety . I wouldn't buy them even considerable discount as they were just too anoying to use.
Vortex Fury Bino - not too impresive . Rudolph RF bino has the best RF preformance of rf Binos tested

None could measure rock face under 2000y away.

Couldnt make it half way > Yukon Extend 1000 worked to cca 700y

All LRF's tested both off hand and from tripod.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Thanks for the review. I'll test the Nikon 4K when I get the chance and see if mine does any better. I have tons of terrain to mess around with in the mountains.

Not surprised to hear about another failed Sig Kilo on your list of tested RFs...

 

[Hotshot]

My buddies and I are in the midst of our annual prairie dog safari and we just did some comparisons yesterday.
In our group there are several Leica, a Swarovski, Zeiss, Fusion, Leupold. In the past we have had numerous other that have been replaced over time. We don't use ballistic programs. When you fire thousands of rounds per year you know your ballistics all you need is the range.
All the rangefinders worked better on a tripod! Leupold didn't make the first cut.
Fusion holds up pretty good for its price range but it was the first one out on our testing for distance, size of target, bright light conditions. Swarovski was significantly better for all conditions in the prairie dog towns. Leica and Zeiss were excellent for 700-800 yards on small targets in bright light from a tripod. The Zeiss triggers different than the others and that's probably the reason for a previous comment. Zeiss triggers upon release of the button which makes it easier to hold on target. Everyone praised the Zeiss trigger and we judged it to be the fastest.
This testing wasn't very scientific just a bunch of old guys sitting on the prairie. Leupold was the only small rangefinder most of us gave up on them long ago. For our kind of shooting we like the rangefinder binocular. The Swarovski being the only non bino of the bunch.
2 cents worth from Montana

 

[micmac]

I haven't considered Zeiss trigering upon release of the button if that is the case i have been annoying my self with long trigger squezes that are needed on most other LRF's when trying to hit small targets far away.

Considering the ranges they are now suposed to range i also find it disapointing that large reticles and low magnifications are still the norm .


I agree if fully dont care for any other data than range that LRFs give , balistics is trash in trash out and 'multitool' LRF's are heavy on trash that is why most stop giving balistics past say 800 or 1000y even if they can measure twice that range as pile of trash just got to big to handle.

 

[Forum Boss]

A few years ago we tested five LRFs, with four types of tests:

1. Holding in hand -- four different persons
2. Holding in hand but supported off knee from sitting position - four different persons
2. Holding off a support sandbag -- four different persons
3. Attached to a horizontal test fixture, secured with elastic cord, fixture mounted on heavy tripod weighted with sandbags -- two different testers.

We had a variety of targets, including a stuffed doe-sized animal.

We concluded that normal humans, hand-holding the very best commercial LRFs, couldn't laze a non-reflective deer-sized object much past 700 yards. The limitation was the human NOT the LRF.

I kind of laugh at the notion of a 2000-yards LRF (for ranging animals), unless it can mount to a very solid tripod and be activated without touching the LRF.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Someone should make a LRF that is meant to be mounted directly to the rifle. If such setup can't be held steady enough to laze a target past some "X" distance, then the shooter really has no business shooting that distance anyhow.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Someone should make a LRF that is meant to be mounted directly to the rifle. If such setup can't be held steady enough to laze a target past some "X" distance, then the shooter really has no business shooting that distance anyhow.

They've had LRF riflescopes for many years now. Ugly as sin. Lol

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I kind of laugh at the notion of a 2000-yards LRF, unless it can mount to a very solid tripod and be activated without touching the LRF.

All depends on how you use a LRF. I live in a very mountainous area. A lot of times I don't need to land the laser beam directly on an animal. If I hit the dirt of the steep slope they are standing on, that's good enough to make an accurate kill shot.

I also use LRFs to plan a stalk before I dive off a high mountain ridge after an animal. I may see an animal at 2K. Not gonna shoot at them from that distance, but I can start ranging other geographic features in front of the animal that offer a good shooting position. I subtract that from the distance to the animal and I know the "general" distance of the shot I'll be trying to take before I ever begin the stalk. Works great for planning stalks this way when the terrain allows it.

 

[Ned Ludd]

They've had LRF riflescopes for many years now. Ugly as sin. Lol

I am aware of some of the scope-mounted LRFs, and you're right, they're hideous. I'm thinking more along the lines of a simple QD mounting bracket to be used with with current hand-held LRFs...maybe as the top part of a ring set such as used with bubble levels and anti-cant devices. Such a bracket could be used with the LRF to get a quick measurement, then the LRF could be removed. Almost anything would be better than trying to get an accurate distance measurement holding the unit by hand against a tree or post. It's also not always convenient to haul a tripod around everywhere you might want to shoot.

 

[micmac]

A few years ago we tested five LRFs, with four types of tests:

We concluded that normal humans, hand-holding the very best commercial LRFs, couldn't laze a deer-sized object much past 700 yards. The limitation was the human NOT the LRF.

I kind of laugh at the notion of a 2000-yards LRF, unless it can mount to a very solid tripod and be activated without touching the LRF.

Stabilised LRF like Nikon can get you on target with ease even past 1000y .But unfortunately cant measure much past 1000y

But between us four testing the lrf's geting 1000y hits without tripod is quite realistics ,further with larger heaver bino LRFs , but off course tripod mount is way to go .With new Terrapin X 2000+y man sized target ranging is reality.
https://finnaccuracy.com/blogs/fa-news/terrapinx-premiere-performance-review

As mentioned we tested all mounted and off hand.

Scope or rifle mounted LRF's would be great , so far SWR Radius was only hafway succesul and is discontinued cost 900 or so $ but was practicaly usable to 700-900y at best , which explains its demise far too expensive for the preformance. http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2015/09/silencerco-offers-new-rail-mounted-laser-rangefinder/

 

[Forum Boss]

With the better units in our test, we were able to repeatably laze pickup trucks at 1200 yards or beyond. But the stuffed bushbuck (about size of a small doe), with its torso about 40" high was a total fail much past 800. At long range yes you will get a return (on larger, more reflective targets), but you need to study the specs of beam divergence very carefully. You may not be getting a return on what you think you are aiming at.

"Man-sized target ranging at 2000+ yards" -- sounds intriguing...

A man-sized object is maybe two feet wide (24") at waist. At 2000 yards, that's slightly more than one MOA. Now read your LRF manual -- what angular measurement does the visible aiming dot in your LRF cover. I bet it's a lot more than 1 MOA!

I'm not contesting that you may get a return from that distance -- but from what, is the question. If your aiming dot is 3-5 MOA... what are you really putting the dot on at 2K?

And is the aiming dot you see perfectly centered with the laser beam? (Hint, maybe not.)

In past few years Leica and Zeiss have made significant progress in error correction and holding tighter beam divergence, but you still have regulatory limits on beam strength (laser output power).

FWIW, Leica lists the Beam Divergence of its latest, high-end CRF-2700B as "approx. 0.5 x 1.2 mrad". That is significantly better than most.

Link: https://us.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Hunting/Rangefinders/Leica-Rangemaster/Range

But consider that 1 MRAD equals 3.44 MOA, so 1.2 MRAD equals 4.128 MOA. That means, at 2000 yards, your max beam divergence, under perfect conditions, is 86.4 inches (4.128 x 1.047 x 20).

Again, with a perfect hold you may get a return... but are you really ranging a man, or the rock 7 feet away?

Then add the 3-5 MOA "spread" just from the size of the aiming dot.

And we haven't even talked about mirage at 2K.

-------------

Having said all this I HAVE used a modern LRF to confirm a target at approximately 2085 yards. But I wasn't ranging the 36"x36" steel plate we were shooting at. I was ranging a water tank 50 yards laterally to the left. Big targets at 2000 yards are definitely doable.

 

[micmac]

FinnAccruracy guys use same targets that are used by the military and same they use on Finnsniper comp they help organise , where i met them number of times now , Target is a 45x70cm (just shy of 18x28in) human torso target , height might vary but width is always 45cm

I am fully aware of beam size and them not being centered with the reticle most of the time.

But the part you are sugesting about beam hitting other things is where you are not correct , modern advances to diode LRFs have not come by increase in power or beam narowness but mostly at resolving the feedbackplus minor wavelenght tweaks.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/10/29/how-do-rangefinders-work/[/QUOTE]

 

[JamesnTN]

This is an old review but helpful...


http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/...-reviews-field-tests-overall-results-summary/

 

[Flouncer]

A few years ago we tested five LRFs, with four types of tests:We concluded that normal humans, hand-holding the very best commercial LRFs, couldn't laze a deer-sized object much past 700 yards. The limitation was the human NOT the LRF.

I kind of laugh at the notion of a 2000-yards LRF, unless it can mount to a very solid tripod and be activated without touching the LRF.

Also in. Thanks Boss !! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B018VM3LWC/?tag=accuratescom-20

 

[hogpatrol]

I have the Leica 1600 but was curious about the new Nikons. Thanks to all who posted testing and practical use info. I think I'll stick with my Leica.

 

[micmac]

I have the Leica 1600 but was curious about the new Nikons. Thanks to all who posted testing and practical use info. I think I'll stick with my Leica.

For now you can stick with Leica as Nikons will not bring you much ,Nikon Black 4 might ad 100 or so yards to your range monarch nothing but is easyer to ping off hand due to stabilisation . Leica LRF 2000 are going for 399$ on various sites ,that is at present best buy.