Looks officially out, the Vortex Impact 4000 WMLRF

[MikeMiller]

Hey I don’t mean to come off harsh at all. It’s just Vortex has designed this to help shooters hit targets easier than before at a good price point. If you have a system that works for you already you are not needing to upgrade because you have a system

Now majority of my students are looking for easy solutions so providing these work I can show them how to spend less money and make hits. That’s fun and fun is the reason most shoot.

Military shooters have different requirements hence the new Military scope Vortex was rewarded a contract for

 

[kthomas]

You can see the IR laser pulse under NV, there's video out there of it.

The solver thing is annoying. The point being missed that ruebinski is making is you can zero this LRF. You can't zero most handhelds, Kilo 10k does let you I believe.

There's also a stability issue with handhelds while you're waving it around trying to lase a target. When you have something hard mounted on a rifle or a spotter rail and it's zeroed and co aligned you can pinpoint lase stuff you otherwise wouldn't be able to.

Exactly.

If you need/want an LRF that is zeroed with your rifle and can provide a range from a very precise aiming point - this is it.

Handheld LRF's are great. They are versatile. Work in majority of situations - enough that I personally don't need to add a weapons mounted LRF for what I'm doing. But handheld LRF's have their limitations.

 

[LastShot300]

So I tested this today to see if you were right. I took the exact AB solutions I have used and absolutely know are dead accurate and compared them against GeoBallistics. The GeoBallistics from 700yards on was an moa and increasingly inaccurate beyond in drop. The wind and spin was fairly accurate but highlights my exact complaints. Those with good shooting solutions will be forced to go to a lesser or at least different system for no good reason. Same is probably true for those using 4dof.

I’m not calling anyone a lesser shooter but am surprised that anyone with time beyond a good solver wants to change to a new one.

I used the exact same inputs in geo as my kestrel, same temp tables, and even paid the $15 to connect my kestrel for the environmental inputs and it was still inaccurate beyond 700.

I shoot 1k+ rounds a year at 800+ yards i know for certain fact the kestrel is the exact solution needed for my shooting.

All this being said this unit is badass and the kestrel pass thru is my only single gripe (granted it’s the one holding me back from buying it)

If I understood right, you haven' been comparing apples to apples, because you compared a highly tuned AB solution vs. the UNtuned outputs of the other packages. Clearly not fair. If you really want to be objective, try a side-by-side comparison with same inputs from scratch, NO tuning. On the other hand, let's say you already did that, but relied on custom curves, again that won't be the same simply because of different projectile data. So, comparing algorithns must be done on an exactly same basis, and you'll be surprised because they all use the same Point Mass method AB is built on. Any other comparison is simply not right. Of course, your choice is up to you and no argument over that.

 

[WillHugh]

So I tested this today to see if you were right. I took the exact AB solutions I have used and absolutely know are dead accurate and compared them against GeoBallistics. The GeoBallistics from 700yards on was an moa and increasingly inaccurate beyond in drop. The wind and spin was fairly accurate but highlights my exact complaints. Those with good shooting solutions will be forced to go to a lesser or at least different system for no good reason. Same is probably true for those using 4dof.

I’m not calling anyone a lesser shooter but am surprised that anyone with time beyond a good solver wants to change to a new one.

I used the exact same inputs in geo as my kestrel, same temp tables, and even paid the $15 to connect my kestrel for the environmental inputs and it was still inaccurate beyond 700.

I shoot 1k+ rounds a year at 800+ yards i know for certain fact the kestrel is the exact solution needed for my shooting.

All this being said this unit is badass and the kestrel pass thru is my only single gripe (granted it’s the one holding me back from buying it)

I don't have mine in yet, but most people are claiming the Impact 4000 curve lines up with their AB curve to within a 1/10 of a mil, so I'm surprised to hear you're seeing a large difference. It should be as simple as playing with the ballistic coefficient a bit to get them to match.

You already know what you want it to read, so just tweak the settings a bit, and test/verify.

 

[spife7980]

Vortex made a choice to lock out people from feeding their AB through the device. Unless the consumers push back on this they will not change it.

Why would they? They bought geoballistics to do this all "themselves".

 

[blbennett1288]

Primarily shooting UKD field and team matches these days, there have been a couple instances where I wish I had a WMLRF. These are stages typically where x10 binos are not ideal. Situations where you need something like x5-7 power across a larger field of view. I would appreciate being able to mag down on my scope and get a range with a WMLRF. I could care less about onboard ballistics. An arm board in my opinion is just as fast. And I don’t run dope in my binos.

Having said that, the past couple field matches the podium finishers largely ran binos over WMLRF (Storms and Raptars).

Also worth noting is the only rangefinder that returned accurate ranges in rain and fog were the Sigs (10k, 6k, 3k) and Steiners. Vortex Fury's and Leicas did not.

Again YMMV

 

[kthomas]

Why would they? They bought geoballistics to do this all "themselves".

I didn't realize Vortex owns geoballistics. Interesting.

 

[Maurygold]

If I understood right, you haven' been comparing apples to apples, because you compared a highly tuned AB solution vs. the UNtuned outputs of the other packages. Clearly not fair. If you really want to be objective, try a side-by-side comparison with same inputs from scratch, NO tuning. On the other hand, let's say you already did that, but relied on custom curves, again that won't be the same simply because of different projectile data. So, comparing algorithns must be done on an exactly same basis, and you'll be surprised because they all use the same Point Mass method AB is built on. Any other comparison is simply not right. Of course, your choice is up to you and no argument over that.

do you know how a ballistic calculator works? you put in variables it outputs solution. I gave it identical inputs and the solution was off - have no idea on earth why you're claiming I tuned a solver?

Playing with bc and MV beyond what you know to be the real-world outputs to 'make it work' is my exact point for passing through my AB.

 

[spife7980]

I didn't realize Vortex owns geoballistics. Interesting.

Sometime last spring I think it was made pubic

 

[kthomas]

Sometime last spring I think it was made pubic
View attachment 8238188

Well that kind of changes things...

Looks like my assumption of AB likely being made available in future models was a miscalculation.

 

[kthomas]

This is because PRS matches provide ranges to people. LRFs aren't a requirement in mainstream PRS competitions. I would watch Steel Safari as a better indicator of whether or not a device like this has value to a competitor. People use laser range finding binos right now because It's what John q public has and an $8,000 Raptor is prohibitively expensive for one match out of the year. If this vortex WM LRF is worth a shit, watch that match and see what happens.

I also think anyone that actually needs one of these already has one. An inexpensive commercial version is filling the "wants".

Yeah, PRS is not where these kind of devices will be useful.

CD matches where you have to find and engage targets on the clock will be more suitable to show the utility of these WMLRF's.

 

[blbennett1288]

This is because PRS matches provide ranges to people. LRFs aren't a requirement in mainstream PRS competitions. I would watch Steel Safari as a better indicator of whether or not a device like this has value to a competitor. People use laser range finding binos right now because It's what John q public has and an $8,000 Raptor is prohibitively expensive for one match out of the year. If this vortex WM LRF is worth a shit, watch that match and see what happens.

I also think anyone that actually needs one of these already has one. An inexpensive commercial version is filling the "wants".

@reubenski i think you might have misunderstood my post. These are not PRS matches. These are find them, range them, engage them matches equivalent to Steel Safari. I don’t give a shit about PRS. It’s bench rest at this point.

Also think you might have missed the point where Fury’s failed to return ranges in poor field conditions (fog/rain)

The matches I am referencing are Guardian Team matches and Steel City Individual / Team matches.

 

[LawnMM]

They're also using binos because what else is there? Monocular I guess, but those suck.

The last time this was done at an affordable price point SiCo's unit fell pretty far below expectations. Yeah, stuff like the raptar exists, but at like $8k+ plus it may as well be made of gold coins by scrooge mcduck

Ain't nobody got money for that. I'm not sure this is going to eliminate binos at matches but it's definitely a good tool to have.

 

[LastShot300]

do you know how a ballistic calculator works? you put in variables it outputs solution. I gave it identical inputs and the solution was off - have no idea on earth why you're claiming I tuned a solver?

Playing with bc and MV beyond what you know to be the real-world outputs to 'make it work' is my exact point for passing through my AB.

"the hours and time spent perfecting their AB modeling" your words...not mine. Now, let's make this simple. Post the exact input and let's talk about any significant differences, if any. I've said this several times before...AB, GB and JBM all run the SAME calculation method, meaning the outputs must be very close if ALL the inputs, including projectile data is the same. ie NO curves, just BCs in order to be fair.

 

[kthomas]

"the hours and time spent perfecting their AB modeling" your words...not mine. Now, let's make this simple. Post the exact input and let's talk about any significant differences, if any. I've said this several times before...AB, GB and JBM all run the SAME calculation method, meaning the outputs must be very close if ALL the inputs, including projectile data is the same. ie NO curves, just BCs in order to be fair.

IMO, the only real step-up that AB has over the competition is their custom drag models.

Besides that, ballistics softwares are all based off of the same underlying mathematical modeling. They all have their nuances in architecture and features, but otherwise they are very close to being the same.

 

[Timo Turl]

So am I understanding this correctly that you have to dial your turret back to zero every time you range a target, given the 4000 is indexed to a 100 yard zero ?

If this is taller than a Raptor, do you guys recommend a low(er) diving board height ?

 

[superde]

So am I understanding this correctly that you have to dial your turret back to zero every time you range a target, given the 4000 is indexed to a 100 yard zero ?

Interesting

 

[Tx_Aggie]

So am I understanding this correctly that you have to dial your turret back to zero every time you range a target, given the 4000 is indexed to a 100 yard zero ?

If this is taller than a Raptor, do you guys recommend a low(er) diving board height ?

Or just hold over in the reticle.

 

[kthomas]

So am I understanding this correctly that you have to dial your turret back to zero every time you range a target, given the 4000 is indexed to a 100 yard zero ?

If this is taller than a Raptor, do you guys recommend a low(er) diving board height ?

I believe so.

The unit will be zeroed with your reticle at only one distance, which would presumably be your 100 yard zero. So when ranging you would have to keep in mind where your turrets are versus the LRF zero. The easiest way would be to just take ranges with the turret set to your zero, otherwise you will have to hold the reticle by the amount of mils/MOA currently on the turret.

 

[LastShot300]

A simple and fair comparison between AB and JBM (essentially the same for GEO and many others). If some can see any significant difference, don't hold back and tell us

Cal	0.308
BC-G1	0.5
MV	3000 fps
Temp	59°F
Stat	29.92
Hum	0%
ZR	100 yards
SH	2.0 inches
Wvel	10 mph
Wdir	3 o'clock
BW	155 gr

AB​
Range	Vel	Energy	Traj	TOF	Drift
(yards)	(fps)	(ft-lb)	(MOA)	(sec)	(MOA)
0​	3000​	3097​	0.0​	0.000​	0.0​
100​	2806​	2710​	0.0​	0.103​	-0.6​
200​	2620​	2363​	-1.2​	0.214​	-1.2​
300​	2442​	2053​	-3.2​	0.333​	-1.8​
400​	2271​	1776​	-5.6​	0.460​	-2.5​
500​	2108​	1529​	-8.3​	0.597​	-3.3​
600​	1951​	1310​	-11.3​	0.745​	-4.1​
700​	1801​	1117​	-14.8​	0.905​	-4.9​
800​	1660​	949​	-18.6​	1.079​	-5.9​
900​	1529​	804​	-23.0​	1.267​	-6.9​
1000​	1408​	682​	-27.9​	1.472​	-7.9​
1100​	1300​	581​	-33.4​	1.694​	-9.1​
1200​	1206​	501​	-39.7​	1.933​	-10.3​
1300​	1129​	438​	-46.7​	2.191​	-11.5​
1400​	1066​	391​	-54.6​	2.465​	-12.8​
1500​	1017​	356​	-63.4​	2.754​	-14.1​
1600​	976​	328​	-73.1​	3.055​	-15.3​
1700​	940​	304​	-83.8​	3.370​	-16.5​
1800​	908​	284​	-95.3​	3.696​	-17.7​
1900​	880​	267​	-107.8​	4.033​	-18.9​
2000​	855​	251​	-121.2​	4.381​	-20.0​

JBM​
Range	Vel	Energy	Traj	TOF	Drift
(yards)	(fps)	(ft-lb)	(MOA)	(sec)	(MOA)
0​	3000​	3097​	0.0​	0.000​	0.0​
100​	2807​	2710​	0.0​	0.103​	-0.6​
200​	2621​	2365​	-1.2​	0.214​	-1.2​
300​	2444​	2055​	-3.2​	0.333​	-1.8​
400​	2273​	1778​	-5.5​	0.460​	-2.5​
500​	2109​	1530​	-8.3​	0.597​	-3.3​
600​	1952​	1311​	-11.3​	0.745​	-4.1​
700​	1802​	1118​	-14.8​	0.905​	-4.9​
800​	1661​	949​	-18.6​	1.078​	-5.8​
900​	1529​	805​	-23.0​	1.266​	-6.8​
1000​	1408​	683​	-27.9​	1.471​	-7.9​
1100​	1300​	581​	-33.4​	1.693​	-9.1​
1200​	1206​	500​	-39.6​	1.933​	-10.3​
1300​	1128​	438​	-46.7​	2.191​	-11.5​
1400​	1066​	391​	-54.6​	2.465​	-12.8​
1500​	1017​	356​	-63.4​	2.753​	-14.0​
1600​	976​	328​	-73.1​	3.055​	-15.3​
1700​	941​	305​	-83.7​	3.370​	-16.5​
1800​	910​	285​	-95.3​	3.695​	-17.7​
1900​	882​	268​	-107.7​	4.032​	-18.9​
2000​	857​	253​	-121.1​	4.379​	-20.0​

 

[MikeMiller]

Bottom line
It’s a new tool for the tool box

Some will love it
Some already have a solution that works for them

The end goal is the same. Energy on Target

 

[Maurygold]

300 Win Mag - Berger 215 hybrid
Diameter - 308
FPS- 2608
Temp scale - 0.95/ degree
Bc - .365
Bullet length - 1.589
Twist - 1:10
Height over bore - 1.95
Environmentals - kestrel supplied for both.
Wind - 5mph 3 o’clock

 

[Maurygold]

IMO, the only real step-up that AB has over the competition is their custom drag models.

Besides that, ballistics softwares are all based off of the same underlying mathematical modeling. They all have their nuances in architecture and features, but otherwise they are very close to being the same.

Yes, the modeling not the calculator. The benefit of custom drag modeling and spending time with the AB is that you can get an accurate true BC since it’s based on a relationship to speed. Taking that exact number and putting it into the calculator should give me identical results as you suggest. Yet I have provided evidence they do not.

 

[TheOE800]

Yes, the modeling not the calculator. The benefit of custom drag modeling and spending time with the AB is that you can get an accurate true BC since it’s based on a relationship to speed. Taking that exact number and putting it into the calculator should give me identical results as you suggest. Yet I have provided evidence they do not.

Well you shoot MOA so you were doomed anyway.

 

[KingTutsButt]

Wish they had an option for AB, BUT, I would imagine that at some point Geo will also provide custom drag curves like AB and 4DOF. Vortex certainly has enough resources to get the right equipment to do so.

 

[LastShot300]

Yes, the modeling not the calculator. The benefit of custom drag modeling and spending time with the AB is that you can get an accurate true BC since it’s based on a relationship to speed. Taking that exact number and putting it into the calculator should give me identical results as you suggest. Yet I have provided evidence they do not.

Can you run the same BC / MV data without WIND? (zero speed)

 

[kthomas]

Yes, the modeling not the calculator. The benefit of custom drag modeling and spending time with the AB is that you can get an accurate true BC since it’s based on a relationship to speed. Taking that exact number and putting it into the calculator should give me identical results as you suggest. Yet I have provided evidence they do not.

I'm also a fan of AB's custom drag profiles.

 

[kthomas]

Yes. This is another area where the T3 reticle pairs well.

AMR would be perfect for something like this as well.

 

[Timo Turl]

If your laser sits 3” higher than your scope and you adjust for that in the set-up as they show us in the videos; will the laser always be aiming 3” higher than the centre of any target you range at any distance beyond 100 yards ?

 

[kthomas]

If your laser sits 3” higher than your scope and you adjust for that in the set-up as they show us in the videos; will the laser always be aiming 3” higher than the centre of any target you range at any distance beyond 100 yards ?

I haven't watched the video, so I claim ignorance on that.

But, if you level the laser to the height of the offset at your zero range, then the laser will always be that height above your reticle at zero.

If you level the laser to exactly align with your zero at 100 yards, then at any distance besides 100 yards there will be a divergence that will be very difficult to account for.

 

[Maurygold]

Can you run the same BC / MV data without WIND? (zero speed)

I did it despite knowing what the result would be. No difference.

 

[TheOE800]

But, if you level the laser to the height of the offset at your zero range, then the laser will always be that height above your reticle at zero.

Parallel offset zero is the only zero that makes sense.

Returning turret to zero (or holding reticle over) has always been protocol for ranging with a slaved WMLRF, no?

 

[WillHugh]

I did it despite knowing what the result would be. No difference.
View attachment 8238676View attachment 8238677

Unless I'm missing something, you're getting 30.57 vs 31.4 moa at 1,000 yards? .8 moa translates to roughly 2/10 of a mil difference, which is pretty dang close.

Only difference I can see in your inputs is the bullet length is rounded off in one vs the other. Maybe fix that and see if it changes anything? You could also bump the ballistic coefficient a thousandth at a time in the Geoballistic calculator and see when they line up.

 

[TheOE800]

I think you are saying Co-witnessing so I'll respond like that's what you're saying.

Except that co-witnessing is usually easier to conceptualize than actually accomplish. Tolerance stacking often stymies a perfect co-witness. If the co-witness isn't 100% parallell then it instantly becomes just another version of zero'd at range. But now way out of whack. Because it will now have a bore axis divergence and only be precise within an engagement range. Same as a zero-at-range method. What makes zero'ing at range better in my head is it's easier to accomplish and control. It provides a very long effective range of precision to range targets. It's more realistic to accomplish. And it can be done almost anywhere.

I’ll be honest, it’s not my wheelhouse and I have trouble with the concepts used in zeroing lasers for whatever reason. For clarity’s sake, let’s use your terminology and it’s cowitnessed to the bore by a fixed offset (laser axis is parallel to the bore axis at all distances). It makes sense to me that it’s always 3” high off the bore axis.

Help me with the converging zero at distance. If I zero at 1000 yards or further, what is my error closer in? I understand the further out I get the larger the divergence from the converging zero, but is this just like angular measurement where closer distance is smaller linear measure?

 

[Timo Turl]

I haven't watched the video, so I claim ignorance on that.

But, if you level the laser to the height of the offset at your zero range, then the laser will always be that height above your reticle at zero.

If you level the laser to exactly align with your zero at 100 yards, then at any distance besides 100 yards there will be a divergence that will be very difficult to account for.

So in an example where the offset is 3” high; if you put your reticle in the middle of a 5” target/vital zone at 600 yards then the laser will go over the plate. Guess you can aim your reticle st the bottom of the plate if we know this is the way to do it ??

 

[rlsmith1]

@jwramp posted an article linked below that shows the bean divergence, the 45deg offset makes sense due to the discussion above, and is why these have different ranging modes.

I personally think these will be great units and exactly what 95% of might hunters are looking for (and a useful tool for daytime only guys too). I hope they have a 1550nm version in the works

First Look: Vortex Impact 4000 LRF — J.W. Ramp Photo + Video

I’ve been lucky enough to spend some time with one of Vortex’s newest products, a rail-mounted laser rangefinder called the Impact 4000. BLUF: it brings fantastic functionality to a much wider group of shooters with an accessible price and a somewhat hefty silhouette that’s packed with useful featu

www.jwramp.com

 

[Maurygold]

Unless I'm missing something, you're getting 30.57 vs 31.4 moa at 1,000 yards? .8 moa translates to roughly 2/10 of a mil difference, which is pretty dang close.

Only difference I can see in your inputs is the bullet length is rounded off in one vs the other. Maybe fix that and see if it changes anything? You could also bump the ballistic coefficient a thousandth at a time in the Geoballistic calculator and see when they line up.

it is pretty dang close but it's not the same exact solving engine as others have claimed in here. I know that my bc is .365 changing it to accompany the solver is not a solution I accept and no one in here is going to argue that geoballistics is more accurate than AB.

I completely understand not wanting to pay the premium for native AB on the unit but not letting me pass-thru the solver I already have I hope is not something this niche group of users will accept. I can't imagine there's a large number of users buying this that don't own a kestrel.

 

[LastShot300]

I did it despite knowing what the result would be. No difference.
View attachment 8238676View attachment 8238677

Interesting. I guess there are some cumulative differences, worth taking a deeper look into this. Thanks for posting

 

[LawnMM]

Supposed to have one otw, I'll definitely compare them, I played with GB a little a few years ago but it didn't do anything for me my Kestrel didn't at the time so it got dumped.

Agreed with the pass through comment, no need to license AB but wtf can't it BT and display the solution on the device I already have like a Kestrel hud?

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Supposed to have one otw, I'll definitely compare them, I played with GB a little a few years ago but it didn't do anything for me my Kestrel didn't at the time so it got dumped.

Agreed with the pass through comment, no need to license AB but wtf can't it BT and display the solution on the device I already have like a Kestrel hud?

Probably because having purchased Geoballistics, Vortex has an incentive to promote their own solver instead of supporting something that is now a direct competitor to their investment.

And likely because it would require paying a licensing fee to Kestrel & perhaps AB to access the kestrel elite ecosystem.

If having AB and Kestrel integration is that important, there are alternatives. A guy can always pony up the $10k for a MARS…

 

[LawnMM]

It's not a question of importance it's an issue of constantly being forced to choose by manufacturers that won't just let products talk because they all think theirs are better.

 

[Timo Turl]

If you zero'd at 1200yds (vice a 3" parallel offset) your laser offset would only be 1.5"

If you zero at say 1200 yards, are you doing that with 0 on your turret or do you have to dial your 1200 elevation and then zero your laser ?

 

[dirtytough]

If you zero at say 1200 yards, are you doing that with 0 on your turret or do you have to dial your 1200 elevation and then zero your laser ?

You can zero with either if the WM LRF has that much adjustment. But if you zero the LRF with your scope dialed to 1200 yards, every time you range you will need to have your scope dialed to 1200 yards.

If you zero the LRF at 1200 yards with your scope dialed to your zero, you need to range targets with your scope set to zero every time.

 

[Maurygold]

It's not a question of importance it's an issue of constantly being forced to choose by manufacturers that won't just let products talk because they all think theirs are better.

I doubt vortex would actually argue they chose geo because it is better than AB. They blocked out the industry standard 100% for profit and I encourage people to reach out to vortex over it.

Want to know how you can be sure geo isn’t going to surpass AB……. Just read the new research and literature geo is putting out. (Granted I disagree over some points of AB - tuners -but putting out this amount of research and literature is huge point)

 

[MikeMiller]

I understand the off set issue but don’t you believe the offset is less of an issue than trying to laze by hand held? Pretty sure the wobble you induce will be far more than 3 moa

Also if you go to a tripod mounted laser it will take far more time to set up and dial results then always returning your scope to its zero setting

If I am in a hurry I am just going to laze low on target do the offset won’t be much of an issue

Anyway you stack it, slant it this is way nicer and easier than multiple pieces to do the same thing

I look at Vortex going to its own ballistics program the same way most scope companies went away from Horus reticules. The licensing adds to cost of the products. In the case of Horus it was 500.00 per reticule around ten years ago. I have no idea what AB charges but any manufacturer would have to pass the fees onto the end user

AB is great I have used it for years but when teaching students I give all options and price points. GEO is working great as well

 

[MikeMiller]

I have been using a GEO range finder for 7-8 months. Works well. I really don’t see any practical difference between it and AB

I love AB. They were first to put real BC numbers out there instead of the BS manufacturers claim for their bullets

 

[Teflon16]

Does anyone know where these are in stock? Was about to pull the trigger but was worried about not getting paid with the government shutdown (always a great idea to jot pay your military..) and wanted to wait. Looks like I should have bit the bullet. Also any reccomendations on height for the SPUHR diving board? I’m running a vortex 6-36 in the SPUHR mount. Thanks guys

 

[chopit]

Got mine from CSTactical. Gets here tomorrow he shipped same day.

 

[Teflon16]

Got mine from CSTactical. Gets here tomorrow he shipped same day.

They seem to be sold out at the moment

 

[TheOE800]

Scheels, AA Optics, Strictly Offensive Kit (@wigwamitus if I’m not mistaken) all allow add to cart.