Nikon Rangefinder 3000 vs 4000

[Ez454]

Looking at getting a rangefinder for shooting at targets out to 1,000 yards. Will also use it for hunting but I won't take any shots past 400 yds or so. I like the stabilization feature of the 3000 model but looks like from reviews I've read the 4000 will range farther.

Has anyone use the 3000 model out to 1,000yds on steel targets and how did it do?

Both are on sale right now and trying to decide which to get.

[OpticsPlanet]

If your primary use is shooting stationary targets at distance, I would definitely go with the Nikon 4000 LRF

While the stabilization feature is cool on the 3000 and useful when hunting, you are giving up ranging power for that

In the best of conditions, you can get 1000yd readings on steel with the 3000 but in less than ideal conditions you may struggle to get that max distance reading.

-Matt S.

[bman940]

I have used Nikon's 7iVR for 2+ season's now. As Nikon's first Vibration Reduction Rf it has worked flawlessly for me. I have used it for hunting in all condition's. Ks in the winter and TX in the summer, no problems. I just bought the MONARCH 3000 Stabilized just for the stabilization feature. I do like to practice shooting longrange and this should be all I need. Some good deals out there right now. 5-year warranty is great too.

[k1dude]

Nikon blew it IMHO with both the 3000 and 4000.

They're both 6X. For ranging that far, they should be at least 8X.

6X was fine when rangefinders only went out to 1,000. But they've improved the ranging distance with each passing year without a corresponding increase in magnification. Target ID is getting very difficult at those distances.

I imagine as the complaints pile up, they'll introduce a 3000 and 4000 with an 8X or 10X next year or the year after.

[bman940]

I have heard that a lot and I agree with you. Using mine for ranging inside of 1000 yards and for hunting situations I do not expect any issues at all.