Tag Archives: range

Nikon Black RangeX 4K Rangefinder

Optics, Product review, , , , , ,

A good laser rangefinder is an essential tool for any marksman who regularly shoots any significant distance. Personally I learned the value of a good laser many years ago, and have carried one ever since. I’ve had a chance to use many of the most popular models, and today another one joins my collection.

Nikon Sport Optics has long provided quality optics to the hunting and shooting community, so I was happy to see one of their newest product show up at my door, the Black RangeX 4K rangefinder.

The RangeX features an OLED display, it has several brightness settings which include an auto adjust for surrounding light conditions. Simliar to many of its competitors, the RangeX also will give the user an angle compensated distance should it be selected. The RangeX has an available Arca Swiss compatible tripod mount, allowing the rangefinder to be quickly mounted and used from the sturdy perch of a tripod.
The response time of the display is very fast, not quite as fast as the laser itself, but .3 seconds is close enough for me. It uses a single CR2 lithium battery for approximately 9000 uses.

The display as seen through the RangeX, the X around the crosshair shows when the laser is activated.

Perhaps the most celebrated feature of the Nikon RangeX, is its distance capabilities. For some time, ranging beyond 1200 yards or so was relegated to higher priced LRF’s. But as the market has grown, there are more and more great options that will go well beyond what folks are used to. The RangeX is advertised as a 4000 yard maximum range, that is a very impressive statement, and one I planned on testing.

In my experience, the lower the price point on a rangefinder, the less likely it was to hit its maximum advertised distance. Unless you spent upwards of six or seven hundred dollars, you basically had a thousand yard rangefinder, and sometimes not even that. The best rangefinders are the ones that will range not only their advertised distance, but even beyond it sometimes.

To be completely fair though, once a rangefinder hits the two thousand yard mark reliably, I dont really care if it goes beyond. At least not for civilian use.
The vast majority of recreational shooting takes place inside two thousand yards, and those few that need more range know how and where to get it.

I started out the RangeX with basic simple ranging tasks, shooting down the road, across town etc. The simple stuff like inside a thousand yards was lightning fast, and targeting was easy. The narrow beam divergence of the RangeX (Vertical 1.8MRAD by .25MRAD horizontal) allows the user to shoot through gaps in trees, and between closer obstacles. This is a very handy feature for those like me who hunt in wooded forests and mountainous terrain.

The first time I took the RangeX into the mountains to shoot, I decided to stretch it out a little further. It was a cold February afternoon, heavy clouds hung tight against the Wasatch Mountains. Snow was falling at about 6500 ft, which wasn’t too far above my shooting spot that was tucked back into a deep and jagged canyon. Therein was plenty of real world ranging opportunities, rocks, trees, deer, etc. And all at whatever distance you wanted to try and hit them at.

I tried out the angle correcting feature of the RangeX, first measuring the distance to a target, then again with an angle corrected distance. Regardless of how far the target, the display popped up faster than I expected. The furthest I was able to range that day was 1978 yards, which was pretty impressive considering how much precipitation was in the air. Looking back down into town from my Rocky Mountain post, I ranged some buildings that were 2240 yards away.

Ive tried it several other times since, and have been able to reach out even further. The best I can do on rocks and trees is still about two thousand yards, but good reflective targets like cars, windows, and especially road signs, I have hit as far as three thousand eight hundred yards.

The tripod mount made the RangeX very stable, and easy to focus the reticle on targets. And with the various mounting solutions it could be configured however you want it.

The Nikon RangeX is a fantastic buy for the committed shooter, it gives outstanding performance at a very reasonable price. It is lightweight, waterproof, compact, and it gives accurate range readings very quickly. I haven’t hit the magic 4000 yards with it yet, but I’m at least several thousand yards from the park that Nikon knocked it out of.

-CBM

Cheap Ammunition, is the Bang worth the Squeeze?

Ancillary gear, , , , , , ,

Inexpensive ammunition is very appealing to shooting sports enthusiasts.
The relatively high cost of ammunition and its high angle trajectory shows no sign of changing anytime soon.


Today we are going to discuss an interesting topic; Is cheaper ammunition really a good buy? There are a few questions that are relevant to the discussion here, to determine that answer:

  • What kind of shooting am I doing?
  • What kind of target?
  • What is my budget?
  • What type of gun am I using?

A quick perusal of catalogs and store shelves can give you a good idea of what people buy the most of. There is usually a large amount of what has become known as “plinking ammo“. Plinking ammo refers to its application, inexpensive ammunition that can be bought in large quantities allowing for longer shooting sessions, or at least more of them.

Plinking ammunition typically is used for pistols and carbines, the higher volume capability of these types of firearms is part of the reason people buy them. They shoot lots of inexpensive ammunition, which most of the time equates to more fun and training. This type of shooting usually takes place at relatively short distances, at targets ranging from automated steel plates, right down to improvised things like cardboard boxes. For this kind of shooting, plinking ammo works great.

Accuracy is dictated by the size of your target. If you are shooting pumpkins at two hundred yards, then you have a much larger margin for error than if you are trying to hit prairie dogs at four or five hundred yards. It is important you start out with reasonable expectations, don’t shoot at one or two MOA targets with a three to four MOA rifle. You’ll quickly find yourself spending more ammunition, only to be frustrated with poor results. The same can be said for ammunition, if your three thousand dollar rifle will only shoot 3-4 MOA with cheap ammunition, you are going to be disappointed.

If you intend on a more serious type of shooting, such as competition, or hunting, or some other application, you may find that inexpensive ammunition may not be savings you intended on getting.
Inexpensive ammunition is produced on large-scale production lines, using components that were also mass produced. These processes drive the cost of the ammunition down and the volume up, but it is hard to maintain consistency when mass producing something meant to fly faster than the speed of sound. Quality ammunition is also produced on large scales, the quality of the ammunition depends on the attention paid to its assembly. In order for ammunition to be accurate, it must be consistent. The time and precision it takes to produce consistent ammunition translate into a higher cost.

Perhaps hunting is your main shooting activity. If so, going cheap may not only be more expensive, but it could be unethical. If inconsistent ammunition is used during a hunt, it could cause an animal to be wounded and go unrecovered. It also could be the cause for multiple shots needed and a loss of meat, either scenario should be avoided. Accurate ammunition isn’t always expensive, but cheap ammunition can cost you far more than the money you spent.

I set out to try an experiment, our theory being that quality ammunition is still a better buy than the cheap stuff. The reason behind the theory is simple; If I shoot at my target 5 times and hit it once, shooting my cheap Fiocchi 308Win at $0.80 per shot, I have spent $4.00 for one hit. If I shoot at the same target using DTM 308 match and hit it on the first shot, I have only spent $1.44 for the same hit. So how much money have I saved? Even if it takes two shots to hit my target, I am still spending less per hit.

Here you can see some of the results to my experiment (admittedly not clinical). You can see that with the same gun and shooter combination produced better results with high quality ammunition vs. the inexpensive option. Left target is DTM 308Win Premium Match, right is Fiocchi 308 Win.

The theory proved to be well founded, from a precision perspective. As you can see in the pictures above, the less expensive ammunition created a much larger pattern on the target. Using the exact same point of aim, you can see that it created a roughly three inch group. While on the left target we see groups closer to half or three quarter inch. This is where the answers to the questions I asked at the beginning of this article come into play. If all you need is to hit a sheet of paper at 100yds, then the inexpensive ammo from above will work fine. But let’s say hypothetically that the paper was moved out to 500yds, several of those shots may not even be on the paper much less near the point of aim. The match ammunition on the other hand that prints sub MOA groups, at five hundred yards will still keep groups small enough to hit a small piece of fruit, over and over. So for cost per hit, the premium ammunition proved to be the better buy for sure.

Obviously this depends greatly on the type of firearm and the target you are using. For example, if you are shooting a surplus military rifle or relic, shooting quality ammunition might not give you that big of an advantage. Or if you are training with pistols at 7-20yds, it would make sense to use something inexpensive. Some firearms perform good or great with performance ammunition, and others perform mediocre no matter what you feed them. Not all guns are created equal. The above groups were shot using the Desert Tech SRS A1, perhaps in the future we can redo the same test with a surplus rifle, or an inexpensive equivalent, and see how the results compare.

It is important to compare apples to apples then, plinking inside one hundred yards with a rifle, doesn’t always require the best. But clearly, if hitting exactly where you aim is important you, then your best bet is to stick with quality. Also keep in mind that some firearms are like high performance cars, they aren’t meant to run on 85 octane. The same goes for some performance firearms, running cheap ammo could actually do more harm than good. If you are lucky, you can often find an inexpensive combination of rifle and ammunition that still performs to the accuracy standard you desire. But since luck has never been my companion, I stick to well known performers, and the quality ammunition that they run on.

So if serious shooting and accurate engagement of targets is part of your plan, quality ammunition should be one of your first considerations. There is a time and place for cheap ammo, but when the pressure is on and hits are a must, send the best you can get.

CBM

Originally posted on http://www.deserttech.com/blog/

Rangefinder Shootout

blog, Optics, Product review, , , , , , , ,

 

Rangefinder Shootout

rangefinders
One of the most important tools a marksman can have in his bag, is a good rangefinder. When I first started shooting, I didn’t have the money to buy one, neither did I have the sense to. Interesting how something seemingly insignificant would soon become indispensable. I figured a lot of these things out the hard way, the stupid way you could even say. Despite my hardheaded approach to distance shooting, I got pretty good at estimating range. A skill that was later confirmed by the rangefinder that had done without far too long.
By the time I finally purchased a laser rangefinder, I had at least gained enough smarts to recognize what I needed.
My first purchase was a Leica 1200, a good piece of equipment that served me very well. I quickly learned as I played with other rangefinders that good ones usually reach beyond their limits. While lower end units, wouldn’t even reach advertised distances.
As my skills matured, and distances became longer, I out grew that old Leica, and it’s since been replaced by a newer CRF model. I also stepped up to a Swarovski Laserguide, as with my Leica, the Swarovski reached well beyond its advertised envelope, reaching to 1800+ yards in the right conditions.
These tools have sharpened this shooters abilities, through day to day use, and confirming estimations.
Well, I was recently handed one of the new Sig Sauer Kilo 2000 rangefinders. I have heard many good things about this new line of optics from Sig. And this Kilo seemed like a big winner.
With an advertised range of 3400yds (reflective) I was very optimistic. In my opinion, it fell into that price range where rangefinders always underperformed. But even so I thought, if it reaches half what they advertise, it’d be worth the money.
I quickly made my way to my Rocky Mountain haunt, to put the Kilo against my Leica CRF1200, and my Swarovski Laserguide.
I’m a simple guy, I don’t care much for bells and whistles. So though the Kilo features an angle adjusted range, I switched it to simple range only. I can do field math, I like whole numbers, and percentages. I don’t need my optics to do it for me. Plus I like to know exactly what I’m getting into.
A quick run through the various rock piles in my cold and snowy canyon would tell me how well the Kilo measured up. 12790832_1704415849801909_8589088304493706408_n
At the quarter mile mark, all three rangefinders barely broke a sweat. My first impression of the Kilo was how fast it returned with a reading. Faster than my Leica, and twice the speed of the Swarovski. “This will triple the speed at which I miss my targets.” I thought to myself, “better slow down”.
I soon noticed a slight difference in color while looking through the Kilo, a bluish hue that was quite apparent (see pics). This is certainly not a big deal, at least to me. It was certainly lighter as well, easily placed in a pocket to be carried. The optical field of view looking through the Kilo was almost exactly the same as my CRF1200, the quality was comparable as well. Both of them were narrow compared to the Laserguide, which also had a better image I might add. But for twice the price of the others, it ought to.
I pushed all three RF’s one after another out to 1050yds, all three of them working flawlessly. And returning ranges to within +/-1 or 2 yards. Perfectly acceptable for a guy who’s targets are +/-2 or 3 yards wide right?
Up to this point I had to say I was pretty happy about the results. Simply because For most people I know, a good rangefinder that will reliably hit 1,000yds plus and cost under 500$ is a pretty good deal.12321320_1704415956468565_4349457969971441508_n
Well I had to push them further. The sunlight was fading somewhat as it hid behind the evening clouds to the west. I thought surely I could push the Kilo further, but to my surprise I couldn’t get it to read on anything further out.
I thought that perhaps maybe this Kilo couldn’t hang with my “higher end” RF’s. So I pulled out my Leica, and the Top hat it came with, and tried to hit the same rock. To my surprise, it wouldn’t read either. I suppose the light and conditions weren’t good enough for either RF to read. But before I put shame upon the two smaller units, I figured I’d check to see how the Swarovski would fair.
Sure enough, as usual, the Laserguide came through. Showing 1300yds. My suspicions about light angles and conditions were confirmed, as my Swarovski would reach no further in the cold quiet canyon. Leaving me scratching my head.
Further testing is warranted, and no doubt I will get more info. I’d like to see how far this Kilo will really go, I am skeptical that it will actually reach advertised distances due to my experiences, as well as those of others. None the less, I am very impressed that Sig has produced this RF for less than 500$ and that easily hits to 1000 yards and beyond. If I could go back to the beginning of my shooting career and sell myself this Kilo, it may have been one of the best purchases made.
I won’t be replacing my Swarovski anytime soon, but if I was in the market for a new rangefinder, for hunting, or practical shooting, the Kilo 2000 would be top contender.