How much are you giving up in glass w/ Fury hd 5000 vs sub $1k binos (conquest, trinovid etc)

[bojangles808]

Disregarding price how much are you giving up glass wise with the non ab fury 5000 hds vs sub1k bino category like the zeiss conquest hds, leica trinovid hd etc? Are the furys 10% worse 25% worse 40% worse? Not guiding the governors tag on the az strip but most of my hunting is spot n stalk both archery and rifle hunting year round so glass is somewhat important. some long range shooting too out to 1k. current binos are brunton epochs which aren't euro alpha glass but were 1500+ new before they were discontinued so that's what I'm used too. living in hawaii i dont get a chance to personally compare much, only read reviews online

 

[hereinaz]

The Fury are actually pretty good glass. I don’t think you would be giving up much.

I used the Fury for two seasons, and they were better than the Sig Kilo 3K I had before.

I switched up to the Sig 6k cause they are lighter, even though the glass is worse per reviews. I don’t feel like they will be an issue either.

 

[Macintosh]

Interesting. I have the non-AB 2nd gen fury's, and a bunch of the guys I shoot with have the sig 3k’s mentioned above as well as the same fury’s, so Ive had good opportunity to compare side by side . To my eye the sig glass is slightly better, although the sigs have a blue hue to them while the color rendition on the furys is better. I know glass is subjective to a degree, so take that for what its worth. Neither are alpha glass, but they are pretty good and dont think theyve held me back. Edge to edge clarity is pretty good, depth of field pretty good. Of the ones in the class you mentioned Ive looked through some
Zeiss, all of the various razor models, but not the leicas. If you were staring through them all day for weeks on end Im sure youd see a difference, for more casual use or in decent conditions Im not sure theres much difference. I dont know that I can quantify it, but I’d say its a lot closer to 10% different than it is to 30% different.

 

[Tahoe1305]

IMO the fury is close to Viper HD glass. Agree it isn’t bad with RF.

I have the sig compact 8x30 RF binos and really like them. I think the glass is close to same. But mine are small and light. And the laser is really good.

To answer your question more directly the center resolution will be about the same. The colors won’t be as good and they will get blurry towards edges. Call it 25% less than those mentioned.

 

[theotherlandon]

I used to have a pair of fury’s and hated them. To me they looked like diamondback glass or worse. I don’t know if my pair was a lemon or what but they are suppose to have viper glass in them. I’d spend the money and get something nicer

 

[hereinaz]

Interesting. I have the non-AB 2nd gen fury's, and a bunch of the guys I shoot with have the sig 3k’s mentioned above as well as the same fury’s, so Ive had good opportunity to compare side by side . To my eye the sig glass is slightly better, although the sigs have a blue hue to them while the color rendition on the furys is better. I know glass is subjective to a degree, so take that for what its worth. Neither are alpha glass, but they are pretty good and dont think theyve held me back. Edge to edge clarity is pretty good, depth of field pretty good. Of the ones in the class you mentioned Ive looked through some
Zeiss, all of the various razor models, but not the leicas. If you were staring through them all day for weeks on end Im sure youd see a difference, for more casual use or in decent conditions Im not sure theres much difference. I dont know that I can quantify it, but I’d say its a lot closer to 10% different than it is to 30% different.

My 3k were older, so maybe that was it. But, they weren't that much worse. Could be attributed to personal preference.

 

[sram9102]

I have been having this idea for a while. I have 10x razor HDs and don't know if I would miss the quality going to the furys. Carrying one less thing with a battery makes sense to me, but I have never had the opportunity to really compare furys to what I currently have.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

 

[Macintosh]

I own diamondback hd’s as well, got a pair so I could travel with them and not worry about $$$ optics. The fury’s are sharper, WAY better edge to edge, way better depth of focus. @theotherlandon Ive looked through at least 8 or 10 different pairs of fury’s, so Im certain mine are not unique—if yours were that bad I think its safe to say you had a lemon, or you had an exceptional pair of diamondbacks. Not that the fury’s are fantastic, but to me they are easily noticeably better edge to edge clarity and depth of focus. Agree other stuff will be better, but at a sub $1000 price point its a stretch in my experience to say anything will be more than marginally better—my eyes say I have to double that $ or more to be really noticeably better, even comparing to models without the ranging ability. Might be worth it for lots of folks, might not.
@hereinaz , agree its personal at that point, of the folks I mentioned its a mixed bag which model each prefers—sorry if that wasnt clear, I mentioned only because they are so close, if you are considering one, to me its worth also considering the other.
@sram9102 , like someone else mentioned, the fury’s are +/- indistinguishable from viper hd’s. See if you can check a pair of those out next to your razors, you could safely use that to compare. Or swing by a PRS match, lots of folks will have fury’s there that you could compare side by side with your razors on a tripod.

 

[mjspeers]

I had some Fury’s and a set of Maven B2s (just over 1k) and it wasn’t close. I ended up carrying both. I’ve since offloaded both. I did think the Fury glass was any good and not worth the weight penalty of a decent set of binos and RF with solver.

 

[Duh]

Can you still clearly see deer and get a good range on them out to 1000yards?

 

[Macintosh]

Yes, easy in decent conditions. Obviously lighting and humidity/fog will compromise the best rangefinder, but Ive been able to range deer out well past 1000 yards, and you can range steel or reflective stuff a LOT farther than that. Even well past 1500 yards I’ve almost always been able to range the ground, a rock, tree, etc next to an animal even if I couldnt range the animal itself—Im not shooting critters out that far so close is good enough for me at those ranges.
“Seeing” deer is a meaningless metric though, no one can answer that question as posed. My uber-cheap diamondback HD’s that I consider pretty crappy can easily see deer at 1000 yards. The question is if the glass quality is good enough to pick up a tiny flicker of brown-on-brown movement at the edge of the field of view at 1000 yards, and then pick it out of the shadows to identify it as a deer with antlers against a broken background in poor light…they are not going to compete with swaros or similar. I have not personally felt handicapped by them, but I also dont spend days on end glassing for deer in the desert, etc. I use them for prs, my local deer hunting, and an occasional trip west to hunt elk, antelope, etc. For my use I have no complaints. If the above is what you are after, its probably not what you’ll end up being happiest with.

 

[Duh]

Yes, easy in decent conditions. Obviously lighting and humidity/fog will compromise the best rangefinder, but Ive been able to range deer out well past 1000 yards, and you can range steel or reflective stuff a LOT farther than that. Even well past 1500 yards I’ve almost always been able to range the ground, a rock, tree, etc next to an animal even if I couldnt range the animal itself—Im not shooting critters out that far so close is good enough for me at those ranges.
“Seeing” deer is a meaningless metric though, no one can answer that question as posed. My uber-cheap diamondback HD’s that I consider pretty crappy can easily see deer at 1000 yards. The question is if the glass quality is good enough to pick up a tiny flicker of brown-on-brown movement at the edge of the field of view at 1000 yards, and then pick it out of the shadows to identify it as a deer with antlers against a broken background in poor light…they are not going to compete with swaros or similar. I have not personally felt handicapped by them, but I also dont spend days on end glassing for deer in the desert, etc. I use them for prs, my local deer hunting, and an occasional trip west to hunt elk, antelope, etc. For my use I have no complaints. If the above is what you are after, its probably not what you’ll end up being happiest with.

No that’s pretty much what I was looking for. Thanks for the response. I think I’m going to buy these within the next year.

So are you just estimating your wind holds or meassuring it with kestrel?

 

[Macintosh]

Me? Dont take wind advice from me, but Im estimating. I dont own a kestrel. Im not what I would call a long range hunter. I use it for range to get elevation solution, to see stuff a ways away, and thats it.

 

[Duh]

Me? Dont take wind advice from me, but Im estimating. I dont own a kestrel. Im not what I would call a long range hunter. I use it for range to get elevation solution, to see stuff a ways away, and thats it.

Gotcha. Thanks

 

[hereinaz]

Yes, easy in decent conditions. Obviously lighting and humidity/fog will compromise the best rangefinder, but Ive been able to range deer out well past 1000 yards, and you can range steel or reflective stuff a LOT farther than that. Even well past 1500 yards I’ve almost always been able to range the ground, a rock, tree, etc next to an animal even if I couldnt range the animal itself—Im not shooting critters out that far so close is good enough for me at those ranges.
“Seeing” deer is a meaningless metric though, no one can answer that question as posed. My uber-cheap diamondback HD’s that I consider pretty crappy can easily see deer at 1000 yards. The question is if the glass quality is good enough to pick up a tiny flicker of brown-on-brown movement at the edge of the field of view at 1000 yards, and then pick it out of the shadows to identify it as a deer with antlers against a broken background in poor light…they are not going to compete with swaros or similar. I have not personally felt handicapped by them, but I also dont spend days on end glassing for deer in the desert, etc. I use them for prs, my local deer hunting, and an occasional trip west to hunt elk, antelope, etc. For my use I have no complaints. If the above is what you are after, its probably not what you’ll end up being happiest with.

To add a similar opinion and experience, I regularly ranged to two miles and in on rocks, using a tripod of course.

Coues hunting, I would use them to quickly scan for deer in the open, but I switched to bigger better glass to pick apart the landscape. While moving, I would use them to look. If I thought I saw something naked eyes, I would look. If they were all I had, I could glass all day with them. And, when caribou hunting I did carry only my 10s after a couple days when I realized I didn’t need my 18s.

For matches, especially NRL Hunter nothing is much better than a bino rangefinder.

I didn’t use the ballistic solution in the bino, I linked it to my Garmin watch or Kestrel.

For wind, I generally don’t put it in my calculator, I estimate it and then use my “gun number” for the call. There were too many steps for my ADHD and it didn’t offer much after I had learned wind without it.

 

[CoMulies]

Did you end up buying these? Looking at a pair now, was wondering how the glass is.

 

[Duh]

I

Did you end up buying these? Looking at a pair now, was wondering how the glass is.

I bought some the other week and like them. I have some Vortex Viper HD’s to compare them too and I believe the glass is on par with those. I’ve liked them so far but haven’t got any hard use out of them. Primarily got them for coyote hunting.

I will say the laser is better than I expected in snowing/blizzard conditions. I have a Leupold RX- 2800 rangefinder that’s been an awesome but it wouldn’t pick up past 17 yards in a recent blizzard. The Furrys got out to 453 yards without issue (the pics don’t do it justice for how hard it was snowing).