New RF bino from Vectronix!!! Vector X

[DocUSMCRetired]

Something better coming?

I have no idea.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

LIDAR based wind measuring for 999$ ?

No, at that price its fairly useless with ranges of like 400 yards.

you're absolutely pouring gasoline on my baseless Garmin theories

I don't play with fire, I control it in a finely tuned precision manner. Much like our missile on missile ballistics etc.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Something better coming?

 

[117D-RTO]

There is always something better coming...it's just down to how long you want to wait and how many times you want to buy close to the same thing.

 

[kingston]

Being reticle designer and proud member of project team, I am happy to tell that your concerns too were considered very carefully.

As FinnAccuracy original MSR / MSR2 riflescope reticles, Vector X MSR-DMR is designed with absolute guideline of fundamental binocular use: Reticle has to be non obstructive, clear and simple for any observing use - while offering precision and versatility when mil references are needed.
Reticle design notes:

- Upper 50% of FOV is perfectly clean for any observing use
- When display is not on, wide lower center part of reticle is clean without any etched structures
- Uaers will get full reticle functionality with both basic and range enhancer use
- "T" elements blend nicely with display, are kept very close to it for multiple reasons
- Outside "T" hairlines, reticle extensions are subtle dots and also toward outer areas of FOV. Dot weights are balanced so that they are not effecting general clear feel. Still, If wider or taller reference size than T is needed, eye catches on them immediately.
- Dot-grids can be used as layover mil reference on top of target. They are most obstructive elements of reticle, but are also located in outer FOV area. Grid element weights are light, for precision and daytime use.
- Center area cross is 1x1 mrad, with 1mrad stepped dot extensions. Center cross area is compact but still useful refence for many needs, calling shot corrections based on impact signature for instance.

For those who appreciate good optical quality, I can confirm that it is good! Rather early prototype Vector X test mule I benchmarked against Zeiss Victory RF 45mm objective version was already preforming same, if not slightly better than Zeiss. But Vector X optical system was still improved after that, so final version is even better. Image also remains good when pushed up to 17x with range enhancers. This includes other than bright daytime use, enhancer quality is also very good.

Edit - P.S.
Photo taken with 12x42 and mobile phone, no range enhancers. Reticle feel is very different against practical backgrounds - black&white reticle drawing changes its appearance to very highlighted. Only elements eye catches immediately in real life are center cross and compact mil-T:s, rest are there if needed and when eye concentrates on it. Bit hard to explain, but functionality and "real-life feel" on practical use is based on dimensioning, weights and locations on FOV as combination.

Phone adapters were also considered when eyepiece was designed, so almost any cheap Amazon phone adapter will work very nicely. Also display refresh rate matters and was taken into account, display won't flicker annoyingly when Vector X owners want to capture photos or video. Eyepiece is also very easy to remove for cleaning, very useful but rather rare feature in binoculars.

I was hoping you might be able to answer a couple reticle related questions for me. How thick are the reticle lines? How much of the target will the reticle obscure? I'm concerned with ranging small targets (woodchucks) at extreme ranges. The reticle documentation on your site does not include line thicknesses. Did the design team consider leaving the center of the main crosshairs open, this would have been preferable. Thank you!

 

[4O6shootist]

I was hoping you might be able to answer a couple reticle related questions for me. How thick are the reticle lines? How much of the target will the reticle obscure? I'm concerned with ranging small targets (woodchucks) at extreme ranges. The reticle documentation on your site does not include line thicknesses. Did the design team consider leaving the center of the main crosshairs open, this would have been preferable. Thank you!

So you want to use the reticle to range the chucks? Or the actual LRF?

 

[kingston]

I want to use the LRF to range the chucks, but if the ranging reticle is too large it will obscure (completely cover) the target. This is why an open center reticle would have been an advantage. As range increases, target decreases in size. Depending on the thickness of the crosshairs' lines, at a certain range the reticle will completely cover the target.

 

[jwramp]

Being a binocular system, wouldn't the non-reticle eye help you see "through" the other one pretty well?

 

[4O6shootist]

I want to use the LRF to range the chucks, but if the ranging reticle is too large it will obscure (completely cover) the target. This is why an open center reticle would have been an advantage. As range increases, target decreases in size. Depending on the thickness of the crosshairs' lines, at a certain range the reticle will completely cover the target.

Beam divergence will likely be a larger concern than the reticle over lap. Judging from the photos of center cross hair VS the milling grid, center cross appears to be 0.1-0.15 mil, so at 1k yards, it'd cover 3.6-6" target. Rock chucks standing upright are roughly 6" wide, sure some are chunkier. However trying to laze that small a target is difficult at long distances. The beam is only 0.1 mil tall x 1.5 mil wide, so the beam will likely pass by the sides of the chuck and possibly send a range back from a more substantial reflective target behind or next to the chuck. I have never run a terrapin, maybe the vectronix laser is capable, but my sig 10k atop a tripod have a tough time hitting silhouetted plates that are 2 moa, I have to lase the base, or I'll return a range behind the target.

 

[JR1200W3]

I haven't come across a LRF yet that will lase a 6" plate reliably at distance. My experience has been PLRFs, the old terrapin, the Terrapin X, Wilcox Raptor, and an Insight RULR. Most of the time I don't even bother trying to hit a plate, I just lase the feet.

Pro tip: If you purposely load ammo for a massive velocity ES, your vertical "cone" of fire will make up for bad ranges. ... kidding

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

I haven't come across a LRF yet that will lase a 6" plate reliably at distance. My experience has been PLRFs, the old terrapin, the Terrapin X, Wilcox Raptor, and an Insight RULR. Most of the time I don't even bother trying to hit a plate, I just lase the feet.

Pro tip: If you purposely load ammo for a massive velocity ES, your vertical "cone" of fire will make up for bad ranges. ... kidding

This depends a lot of understanding how LRFs work as well. 905 and low power lasers use a series of pulses. That is then run through an algorithm in order to try to predict what the software thinks you are looking at.

The reason the RAPTAR-S, PLRF and others do this better. Is because with the 1550 and other high power lasers you send one single pulse. And hope they are steady on target.

 

[CoryT]

I haven't come across a LRF yet that will lase a 6" plate reliably at distance. My experience has been PLRFs, the old terrapin, the Terrapin X, Wilcox Raptor, and an Insight RULR. Most of the time I don't even bother trying to hit a plate, I just lase the feet.

Pro tip: If you purposely load ammo for a massive velocity ES, your vertical "cone" of fire will make up for bad ranges. ... kidding

As a rule, you want 50% or more of the laser on the target. So for my 21, with a .3 x .7 beam, to 1000 a 10x25 inch target is covered, a 5 x 12 target is 50% coverage, anything smaller is not likely to return a good range.