Gunwerks New Rangefinder

lowlight

HMFIC of this Shit
Staff member
Moderator
Supporter
Minuteman
  • Apr 12, 2001
    33,419
    28,446
    Base of the Rockies
    www.snipershide.com
    Gunwerks New Rangefinder


    IMG_1662.JPG
    IMG_1666.JPG


    I will have a video coming but I have been using the new Gunwerks Rangefinder for a few months now and I have to say, Wow, what an impressive unit.

    It's insanely fast, and super accurate even on small targets. I was able to range an individual Cow on the range in the bright Colorado sun out to 1800 and when I do the video I am gonna try to get one farther because I think I can do it. It's that good.

    The unit is an entire weather meter, connects to your phone no problem, and has a smaller reticle to hone in on small targets.

    The refresh rate is insanely fast, and its software for ballistics is solid.

    I will have more soon, world events got in my way again, but man is this unit worth the time.

    IMG_1877.jpg
     
    Last edited:

    Max

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Gunwerks New Rangefinder


    View attachment 7695893View attachment 7695894

    I will have a video coming but I have been using the new Gunwerks Rangefinder for a few months now and I have to say, Wow, what an impressive unit.

    It's insanely fast, and super accurate even on small targets. I was able to range an individual Cow on the range in the bright Colorado sun out to 1800 and when I do the video I am gonna try to get one farther because I think I can do it. It's that good.

    The unit is an entire weather meter, connects to your phone no problem, and has a smaller reticle to hone in on small targets.

    The refresh rate is insanely fast, and its software for ballistics is solid.

    I will have more soon, world events got in my way again, but man is this unit worth the time.

    View attachment 7695900
    I want one!
     

    The King

    Back to the Range
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Sep 17, 2004
    1,855
    2,251
    Following with interest. I like the Leica 3500 a lot, but god they need to hire someone who knows how to do software.

    Minor niggle- all these companies keep shipping units with CR2 batteries - its the only thing I have that takes CR2's which gets annoying pretty quick.
     

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    I’ve got one on the way; I’m curious to see how it compares with the Leica 2800.com I’ve got sitting around. I’m also curious how the ballistic solutions will pan out when trued vs. my Kestrel 4DOF.

    I do hope they add the ability to add/remove/modify profiles from the RF directly, as I don’t trust mobile applications to last long term. I know it’s not going to be super fast but shouldn’t be awful, either.
     
    Last edited:

    StrayDog

    At large
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 25, 2010
    799
    538
    ME
    Nice to see 10x in a LRF with ballistics. Looking forward to the video.
     

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    Nice to see 10x in a LRF with ballistics. Looking forward to the video.
    That’s actually the thing I’m a little concerned about. I want the extra magnification to make sure I’m ranging exactly what I want, but I’m worried the FOV might make scanning for the target more difficult. It’ll be interesting to see how it pans out.

    I received a shipping notice today so shouldn’t be too much longer.
     
    Last edited:

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    Wonder what the minimum range is on this unit is? Didn’t see this in the specs. I use my kilo duel purpose bow and gun.

    5 yards. Doubtful you need a RF closer than that, hah! Here’s a snapshot from the product manual where I found that and other specifications before ordering:

    97A2CC07-8E9E-4A4B-BB25-032EF6B98601.jpeg
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Max and Painless300

    The King

    Back to the Range
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Sep 17, 2004
    1,855
    2,251
    Looks like it might still be made by LTI. Wonder if its a US made unit like a lot of the LTI's were.

    1.5mrad beam divergence, and looks like a round beam which is unusual.

    Looking forward to trying one - my leica might be on the PX if it kicks its ass.
     

    The King

    Back to the Range
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Sep 17, 2004
    1,855
    2,251
    Rectangular is the common design, or oval. Have not seen many round beams or square ones.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Max

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    The website shows this; interesting that the specifications in the manual don't match the web regarding divergence (called and let them know so they can correct):

    Screen Shot 2021-09-07 at 1.15.19 PM.png
     
    Last edited:

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    Quick tip for those setting the ballistic calculator profiles up, when using the application, and setting up your profile(s), on the "Ammo" section, click on "Ammo" and it'll give you a drop-down of bullet manufacturers. For Hornady, it supports doppler radar based drag models, and they are adding more bullets with this model, but for the other brands it will pre-populate the other measurements for you. It wasn't obvious to me you could do this, and it saves a bundle of time (and the modeling is, in theory, more accurate on those bullets for which there is doppler data).
     

    Hoax001

    Private
    Minuteman
    Oct 8, 2014
    75
    24
    Following with interest. I like the Leica 3500 a lot, but god they need to hire someone who knows how to do software.

    Minor niggle- all these companies keep shipping units with CR2 batteries - its the only thing I have that takes CR2's which gets annoying pretty quick.
    CR2 batteries are a deal breaker
     

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    Don’t they all use CR2?
    The Leica mentioned definitely does. While I wish everything used the same batteries I wouldn’t throw out a potentially good option over a battery. A few spare CR2s doesn’t exactly eat up a ton of room or add a ton of weight in a pack, even if hiking.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Max

    The King

    Back to the Range
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Sep 17, 2004
    1,855
    2,251
    The Leica mentioned definitely does. While I wish everything used the same batteries I wouldn’t throw out a potentially good option over a battery. A few spare CR2s doesn’t exactly eat up a ton of room or add a ton of weight in a pack, even if hiking.
    It’s the only thing I have seen in 10 years that takes this battery.

    CR123s are in almost every store today that sells any form of batts -CR2s are rare.

    I’m also of the opinion units like this should take the 16xxx series batts primarily and have CR123s as a backup. AKA handle from 5v to 2v input.

    That said, I’m just Joe Dickhead and lord knows nobody asks me how it should go down.

    If it performed at 10/10 of the leica, had better software, AND took a 16350/CR123 I’d buy it right now. But it didn’t do the one thing I really wanted to push it over the edge.

    I think it’s funny that companies have a huge lot knowledgeable base of people here who are likely customers...and almost none of them show up and ask.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Hoax001

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    It’s the only thing I have seen in 10 years that takes this battery.

    CR123s are in almost every store today that sells any form of batts -CR2s are rare.

    I’m also of the opinion units like this should take the 16xxx series batts primarily and have CR123s as a backup. AKA handle from 5v to 2v input.

    That said, I’m just Joe Dickhead and lord knows nobody asks me how it should go down

    The Leica uses CR2. Maybe you're saying you wish the whole RF industry changed?

    As much as I’d love the capacity and universal replaceability of something like an 18650, that would significantly impact the size and heft of a rangefinder/scope/etc. 18350 is just another odd-ball cell that very few have. As to 16340s/RCR123A, I also get what you're saying about variable voltage input handling, but now you're talking more cost, and the batteries are still larger than CR2s. These are already fairly expensive devices, doing wide voltage power regulation to handle all cell voltages adds a good bit of per-unit cost. That's why almost nothing supports CR123A and RCR123A. You'd also have to increase the size or get more compact with the packaging, one of which disappoints people due to bulk and one due to cost.

    My go bag has a few CR2s, 2032s, 18650s, and so forth. I don't have anything still using CR123As.

    If it performed at 10/10 of the leica, had better software, AND took a 16350/CR123 I’d buy it right now. But it didn’t do the one thing I really wanted to push it over the edge.

    16350? I don’t think I’ve ever even seen that used in a product - I’ve seen CR123As in more than a few (historically, this is on a massive decline, since most of the use was flashlights but they've all switched to 18650s) but they haven’t been rechargeable implementations. I suspect you mean 16340/RCR123A?

    I don’t have any reason to believe it’s anything but better than the Leica based on the initial feedback from all of the testers. I’ll compare with my Leica as soon as it arrives on Thursday.

    It also has a decent ballistics engine in it; the one in the Leica sucks. I have to use the somewhat flaky Bluetooth to my Kestrel solver in order to see results on the Leica. This BR4 has it all built in, and all of the environmental sensors you need aside from wind. These are absolutely huge improvements on the Leica. We all have our own priorities so I won’t attack how hung up you are about CR2 other than to say you’re frustrated about something that is no different with the other rangefinder in question…

    I think it’s funny that companies have a huge lot knowledgeable base of people here who are likely customers...and almost none of them show up and ask.

    I’m sure user feedback from design to test phases was incorporated. I do wonder if you have experience with product engineering and design goals? There were almost assuredly design targets for weight/dimensions since the previous RF was attacked for its bulk quite frequently. Everything is a compromise, and a smaller dimensioned battery that is completely inline with the competition (they use the same battery) is definitely one that makes sense from a user’s standpoint, in my view.
     
    Last edited:

    USMC22

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 10, 2017
    882
    194
    New Hampshire
    Certainly not going to throw my BR2500 away to get this but do like the new physical layout. It’s always been hard to find a good aftermarket pouch that would fit the range finder and kestrel. If it were a ”normal size” several companies make a solution to keep both stored together.
     

    Max

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • The Leica uses CR2. Maybe you're saying you wish the whole RF industry changed?

    As much as I’d love the capacity and universal replaceability of something like an 18650, that would significantly impact the size and heft of a rangefinder/scope/etc. 18350 is just another odd-ball cell that very few have. As to 16340s/RCR123A, I also get what you're saying about variable voltage input handling, but now you're talking more cost, and the batteries are still larger than CR2s. These are already fairly expensive devices, doing wide voltage power regulation to handle all cell voltages adds a good bit of per-unit cost. That's why almost nothing supports CR123A and RCR123A. You'd also have to increase the size or get more compact with the packaging, one of which disappoints people due to bulk and one due to cost.

    My go bag has a few CR2s, 2032s, 18650s, and so forth. I don't have anything still using CR123As.



    16350? I don’t think I’ve ever even seen that used in a product - I’ve seen CR123As in more than a few (historically, this is on a massive decline, since most of the use was flashlights but they've all switched to 18650s) but they haven’t been rechargeable implementations. I suspect you mean 16340/RCR123A?

    I don’t have any reason to believe it’s anything but better than the Leica based on the initial feedback from all of the testers. I’ll compare with my Leica as soon as it arrives on Thursday.

    It also has a decent ballistics engine in it; the one in the Leica sucks. I have to use the somewhat flaky Bluetooth to my Kestrel solver in order to see results on the Leica. This BR4 has it all built in, and all of the environmental sensors you need aside from wind. These are absolutely huge improvements on the Leica. We all have our own priorities so I won’t attack how hung up you are about CR2 other than to say you’re frustrated about something that is no different with the other rangefinder in question…



    I’m sure user feedback from design to test phases was incorporated. I do wonder if you have experience with product engineering and design goals? There were almost assuredly design targets for weight/dimensions since the previous RF was attacked for its bulk quite frequently. Everything is a compromise, and a smaller dimensioned battery that is completely inline with the competition (they use the same battery) is definitely one that makes sense from a user’s standpoint, in my view.
    I think it is important to note that they brought back the tripod mount, which was erroneously omitted by most companies likely to save space and weight. I’m sure it was a battle in the design phase regarding features vs. size and weight.
     
    Last edited:

    The King

    Back to the Range
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Sep 17, 2004
    1,855
    2,251
    I think it is important to note that they brought back the tripod mount which was erroneous omitted by most companies, likely to save space and weight. I’m sure it was a battle in the design phase regarding features vs. size and weight.
    They gave the customers what 99% of them wanted - not having to have a stupid and expensive external cradle for their LRF.

    I'm sure some design engineer was screaming for weeks afterwards about how his baby was ruined now. Just like he did when someone suggested a $0.49 voltage regulator or a multi-fuel battery compartment.
     

    Max

    Major Hide Member
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • They gave the customers what 99% of them wanted - not having to have a stupid and expensive external cradle for their LRF.

    I'm sure some design engineer was screaming for weeks afterwards about how his baby was ruined now. Just like he did when someone suggested a $0.49 voltage regulator or a multi-fuel battery compartment.
    I make my living off products that I design and refine. Believe me when I tell you that it's a clusterfuck. The business owner. me, has to deal with egos, laziness, perfectionists, bean counters, obstructionists, supply chain problems, the government etc. etc. I must give the market what it wants and needs while making a profit.

    I have seen time after time companies thinking that customers know what they want and need as the gold standard. Sure ask the customers. They will give you a litany of wishes without ever considering the tradeoffs. I have seen companies ask customers on forum and get " It needs x, y & z and I will for sure buy it!!!!" Then when the product is released with exactly what they asked for, no one buys. It is easy for folks to push a wish-list but much harder to reach up pull your product off the shelf and then reach into their wallet and purchase it.

    A product is a culmination of it's "parts" . Design, branding, cult following, user experience, product prestige etc. etc. etc...... The wise business realizes that it must, in many cases, interpret market needs, demands and consumer wish lists.

    I have faced a lot of static over the years. "Why don't you do x, y or z????" Most of them have never taken a product to market or had to eat and pay their bills in doing so. Many of my best product decisions were roundly criticized by some purportedly "very smart people".
     

    The King

    Back to the Range
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Sep 17, 2004
    1,855
    2,251
    I make my living off products that I design and refine. Believe me when I tell you that it's a clusterfuck. The business owner. me, has to deal with egos, laziness, perfectionists, bean counters, obstructionists, supply chain problems, the government etc. etc. I must give the market what it wants and needs while making a profit.

    I have seen time after time companies thinking that customers know what they want and need as the gold standard. Sure ask the customers. They will give you a litany of wishes without ever considering the tradeoffs. I have seen companies ask customers on forum and get " It needs x, y & z and I will for sure buy it!!!!" Then when the product is released with exactly what they asked for, no one buys. It is easy for folks to push a wish-list but much harder to reach up pull your product off the shelf and then reach into their wallet and purchase it.

    A product is a culmination of it's "parts" . Design, branding, cult following, user experience, product prestige etc. etc. etc...... The wise business realizes that it must, in many cases, interpret market needs, demands and consumer wish lists.

    I have faced a lot of static over the years. "Why don't you do x, y or z????" Most of them have never taken a product to market or had to eat and pay their bills in doing so. Many of my best product decisions were roundly criticized by some purportedly "very smart people".
    You won't have to work too hard to convince me the average person is stupid.
     

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    Is the operating temperature range a factor of battery performance, or something else?
    There's a lot more too it, but voltage droop is real. They'll have specced out ICs for the design based on operating windows, as well - cost goes up as you widen operating ranges. All components do, in general, for that matter.

    How many are really hunting/using RFs outside the window provided by these?
     

    The King

    Back to the Range
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Sep 17, 2004
    1,855
    2,251
    There's a lot more too it, but voltage droop is real. They'll have specced out ICs for the design based on operating windows, as well - cost goes up as you widen operating ranges. All components do, in general, for that matter.

    How many are really hunting/using RFs outside the window provided by these?
    Me. For sure.

    I would also say that hunting is an activity frequently done in extreme environments.

    My understanding as well is that some rangefinders quit when dealing with colder temps if they have any plastic lenses in them. Not sure why, or if thats 100% true....but it was a thing mentioned here about the Sig Kilo.

    I will also say that I have exceeded equipment temps MANY times, and usually its fine. Sometimes its fine anyway, and the component spec wasn't actually that important.

    That said , if you put the equipment in your insulation, like a radio or kestrel et/al, and don't let it hard freeze out there in the cold it'll work for the limited time you need it out in the cold.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 6.5SH

    ormandj

    Supporter
    Supporter
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 5, 2009
    687
    473
    TX
    Received mine today, I've only had a little bit of time to mess with it, so take this all with a grain of salt. It's fast. Nearly instantaneously fast, not just in ranging, but in the ballistic solver too. Night and day faster than the Leica 2800.com + Kestrel combination when retrieving ballistics results. The Leica ranges very quickly, and the Revic BR4 is about the same in speed (nearly instant), but the Revic is delivering the ballistic solution in the same amount of time, calculated on device.

    A few things I've noticed - I like the 10x. It's definitely easier when ranging out past 500yds or so. The glass quality isn't quite the same as the Leica, but it's fairly good. It reminds me of Vortex glass, whereas the Leica is more like TT/ZCO, if that helps. The near/far settings are wonderful. I was trying to range a telephone pole about 1200yds away, with various tree branches in the way. Switching to far mode allowed me to range the pole without steadying, which I was unable to do with the Leica (it always ranged the branches at various distances). I can see myself using these in some more difficult field scenarios.

    The projected display on the Revic is more sensitive to eye position than the Leica, so you just need to make sure you line up on it a little better to read it clearly. It annoyed me a little at first, but after using it a few dozen times, and getting the diopter adjusted, I don't think it'll be an issue in practice. Brightness at level 4 (highest) is readable in any situation you'd realistically encounter. The Leica has thin but sharp lines on the display, whereas the Revic has wider but not quite as clear lines to my eyes. I have astigmatism, so this may explain some this - but so we are clear - the Revic is perfectly readable - you'll just find eye positioning impacts the readability slightly more than the Leica if you have astigmatism as well. Many may prefer the wider lettering on the Revic, as it likely is more clear with varying backgrounds. I may find I do too, once I use it more in the wild.

    On to the ballistic solver - wow - this is fast. Far faster than my Kestrel, and it's doing ranging at the same time. The only downside I've noticed so far: the ballistic solver on the RF can't do doppler-curve based calculations (yet). I spoke with Revic, and they intend to have this support pushed out as an OTA update to the RF by EOY. Using G7 models, it's close enough to my 4DOF numbers after truing slightly (which have proven true out to 1000yds with a bit of tuning themselves) that I suspect I'll be ditching my Kestrel w/ 4DOF for a 1000 series just for wind, and using the built in sensors in the RF for the rest. Wind input is super easy, fire it up, hit the up/down arrows to set the direction, menu, then up/down arrows to set speed.

    The rest of the environmental information it gets from it's built in sensors. Speaking of, here's a spot test I did about ten seconds ago:

    Kestrel:
    Temp: 73.8F
    DA: 2030
    Elv: 745
    P: 29.11inHg

    RF:
    Temp: 75F
    DA: 2015
    Elv: 759
    P: 29.10inHg

    The build quality is very solid, but I do wish it was plastic on the exterior instead of metal, as counter-intuitive as that may be. Beyond just weight, It’ll be cold when it’s cold outside, and I also worry about my body heat transferring to the temperature sensor when measuring. I'll poke more at it later, but it's definitely a nice RF.
     
    Last edited:

    mckeand13

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jul 17, 2017
    166
    24
    MN
    Minor niggle- all these companies keep shipping units with CR2 batteries - its the only thing I have that takes CR2's which gets annoying pretty quick.
    No doubt. CR2’s are so 80’s.
    I bought a Leupold RX-2800 (which I really like) because it’s one of the few range finders that uses a CR123. I have piles of those cells around and exactly zero CR2’s.