Vortex Fury HD 5000 AB Review

[catorres1]

​

Whenever a new rangefinder comes out, the first thing I usually look at these days is what does it do with the data. There are a lot of RF’s out there, and most of the flagship models for each company are doing pretty well in the ranging department. No, they usually do not hit deer at their stated maximum range, as those are based on truly reflective targets, but most of the decent ones reach out there pretty far. What makes an RF stand out to me these days is what it does with the data that makes me able to hit my target faster and more efficiently, its all about the workflow. Consequently, an RF that only provides LOS and angle modified range, and does nothing more, is not what I am looking for. So when Vortex released their original Fury 5000, I was not really interested in checking it out. But a few months back, they really upped the game on their Furys, and I got interested, so I reached out and they were kind enough to send me a set to evaluate, along with their pro tripod mount.

Overall, the Fury AB’s are the same as the Fury 5000 in terms of glass and basic ranging. Consequently, while I will discuss the glass and ranging capabilities, it will be relatively brief, as there is a lot of information out there about the Fury 5000s already. What is new is the ballistics systems they have added, and I do mean plural. These are what caught my eye and are what make the new Furys stand out, so I’ll spend most of my time there. Still, as everyone’s conditions are different, it is worth noting what I experienced in ranging and optics, especially verses some of the RF’s I have on hand, to give you an idea of how these generally perform.

What’s in the box

The Fury AB’s come well accessorized, most everything you need is included in the box

​

There are plenty of unboxing reviews out there right now, so I won’t spend too much time here, but suffice it to say, the Furys come well accessorized. In the box are eye piece and objective covers, their glasspack bino pack, as well as a standard strap. Of course there are manuals, a battery, etc..the point is, they pretty much provide you with everything you need to get rolling, and thankfully, to do so while protecting your RF and optics. The glasspack bino pack reminds me a lot of a stripped down AGC, and I found it totally serviceable. That said, I probably was most thankful for the covers. Packs or no, keeping the dirt and sand off the lenses is of paramount importance, and I am glad Vortex made sure to put a set in with the Furys.

Handling, Fit and Finish

The buttons and armor on the Furys were tactile, well laid out, and appear solidly constructed

​

In terms of handling, these binos are a little different than other RF’s I have used so far. Instead of the regular two button systems, there are five on the Fury, owing to the wind input system which I’ll cover shortly. Two buttons are what you normally expect in terms of function (range and options), and the other three are for the wind input system. Like most RF binos, there are diopters on each barrel, one for regular optic focus, the other for reticle focus. Of course, there is the center focus like most binos have as well. While there is no lock on the diopters, they were pretty stiff, but not so much that you could not make fine adjustments. While I would prefer locking diopters, I must say that during the 2+ months that I had these for testing, I never once lost my adjustments, so they worked just fine.

Overall in the hand, they felt just fine, eye relief was great, even with my glasses and deepset eyes. They spread wide enough for my face and no one I had look through them had any problem getting them to fit. They are fairly compact, though a little thick, for a 10x42, the armoring feels good in the hand, overall, I had no complaints about the fit, finish or feel.

The flip up lever was much appreciated for battery changes in the field

​

One thing Vortex thought about was battery changes in the field. The battery compartment has a smart flip up lever that allows you to unscrew the cap easily and replace it without the need for a coin or tool. There is a rubber seal on the bottom of the cap to help the Furys get an IPX 7 rating.

The pro mounting system includes a stud adapter that threads right in and stays on pretty much identical to the Outdoorsman’s system, but they are not compatible. But the threads are standard, so any standard tripod system will work​

And like most binos these days, the front hinge cover removes to reveal a threaded socket that accepts standard bino to tripod adapters. Overall, they felt solid, well-made and I really could not come up with any complaints on the physical design or ergonomics of the Furys.

Optics

In terms of optics, when talking to Vortex, they described them as basically being the same as Viper HD’s. There will be some differences, as the coatings required for the RF side of the bino is different, but overall, that is the expectation. I don’t have a set of Vipers, but I did compare them to my Sig 3k’s and my Zeiss FL’s. Overall, as expected, the FL’s were the nicest of the three, had the deepest penetration into low light and overall, had that special something that you get from alpha glass, even being as old as these particular ones are. I certainly did not expect the Furys or the Sigs to keep up with the FLs, and they did not. But the difference was not as much as you might expect, and their inability to do so should by no means be misunderstood to say that they were poor.

To put their optical performance it into perspective, I tested on a standard optical chart at 50 yards on an overcast day. With my son, we checked all three binos starting an hour before sunset until 30 minutes after sunset. The Sigs and the Furys were very close, I’d say they were fairly equal, with their relative positioning against each other swapping places back and forth. As expected, the FL’s were better, but again, it was not the difference between fine optics and coke bottles. The difference was apparent, but both the Sig and the Furys did a good job and, judging based on a lot of time with the Sigs, I know the Furys will do just fine in the field. After examining the chart to the end of shooting light, in order to get an idea of how they would perform on living things in low light, I proceeded to glass into the fields around my house to see if I could pick up cattle and other features in the dark. At this point, it was probably 40-45 minutes after sunset, and I could pick up cattle, grass features, even the shape of the 2x4’s that we use as target frames that are 275 yards from our house. Overall, to my eyes, the optics were at least as good as expected considering the price point and the package, indeed, probably a little better.

 

[catorres1]

Vortex Fury HD 5000 AB Review Part II​

Ranging

As I mentioned previously, the real changes in the Fury ABs revolve around ballistics, information utilization and workflow, not around ranging. The ranging hardware and software for the Fury AB’s is the same as the Fury 5k HD’s. Nothing has changed in that department. So the divergence remains consistent at 1.5x.1 mils, in an oval shape lying on its side (it’s wider than taller). The reticle is 2.25 mils internal diameter, 3 mils external. In terms of sensor alignment, like most RF’s, you will need to map where it lies on your particular RF. Vortex expects at least 50% of the sensor to be inside the reticle, mine appears to be so, but it was basically sitting at the 4 oclock position, with probably a fourth or maybe a third of the sensor outside the reticle. As I have said in the past, I really wish manufacturers would generally tighten this up, but it seems that with most, some amount of the sensor being outside the reticle, and the sensor not being entirely aligned, is acceptable, especially at this price point. Leica is the main exception I am familiar with, where the entire sensor must be inside the reticle for the RF to be considered in spec, but even there, you still need to map it to know exactly where it is inside the reticle, and Leica’s price point plays in a higher league when you compare apples to apples. So once again, if you want to get the best out of ranging with your new RF, you will want to map your sensor before starting to test, and the Fury was no exception here.

Having not used Furys in the past, once I mapped my sensor, I spent a fair amount of time trying to get an idea of how these would perform under various circumstances. Though my time with the Furys was more limited than it has been with some other RF’s I have reviewed in the past, I still feel like I got a pretty good idea of what they are capable of, where their strengths and weaknesses lie and where there is room for development. Of course, Vortex is very clear that the ‘5000’ part of the name refers to expected performance under favorable conditions on very reflective targets….reflective like road signs. Not quite mirrors, but close. If you listen to their podcast, they will set that expectation explicitly. If you are hitting trees, and not all trees are created equal for ranging, they expect it to top out around 2400 yards. On animals, max range should be just under a mile, at about 1600 yards. Again, these are under testing conditions that are most favorable (not full sun, not in the rain, etc.), and the dramatic effect different conditions can have on results make it difficult to compare based on numbers alone. So, considering the relatively short time I had to test these, in order to get a real measure, I used my Leica 2800 and Sig 3k, two RF’s that I have a ton of time with, to get an idea on where the Furys lie in terms of ranging performance.

One side note, and that is generally, RF performance relies on 3 major factors in design. One is the laser itself (wavelength, divergence, and overall power). The second factor is down to the receptor, and particularly the size. Due to their larger size, all things being equal, bino RF’s usually have an advantage here. The final factor is the software, that is signal processing and interpretation. This is where I believe many RF’s separate themselves from competitors. That is, two RF’s with the same laser and receptor can have pretty different performance that is determined entirely due to different algorithms for signal processing and interpretation.

Reflective

In the case of the Furys, when compared with the other two RF’s I was using for control, this phenomenon seemed apparent to me. Beginning with highly reflective targets, I was able to hit the farthest street sign I could locate with a line of sight, and both the Fury and the Sig easily hit it repeatedly at 4825 yards, this being with only a fraction of the sign being visible and under full sun. I have no doubt that could I find something at 5000 yards, and probably even further, the Sig and the Fury would have ranged it too. The one left out of the party was the 2800. It simply could not play at that distance, reflective or not. Now of course, not many of us hunt signs (though judging from the signs around where I live, someone apparently does), so this would seem a useless datapoint. But I wanted to actually test the contention that these RF’s could pull such numbers, and it turned out to be pretty instructive as the testing continued.

Non-Reflective, Under Full Sun

The top of the water tower can just be seen in the center of this magnified photo. It is 3600 yards away​

When I next switched to more general targets, design capabilities of the RF’s started to become more clear. A white watertower 3600 yards from my house was only rangeable in full sun by the Sig, it was never rangeable by the Furys or the 2800. So it seemed the Furys were now outrun by the Sig, but the Leica and Vortex were on par. However, things changed even more when testing on hills, animals and trees under full sun. Here, while the Sig continually outranged both of them, the Leica pulled ahead of the Furys. With the somewhat bare trees that we had during the winter, the Furys generally topped out at about 1200 yards, while the Leica reached to a little under 1500 in some cases. Keep in mind that the trees I had on hand at this time of year were fairly bare, so my numbers probably won’t match up to other testers numbers owing to the lack of reflective leaf cover on the trees at the moment. So these results need to be taken in relative terms, as they are low compared to other instances where I have tested due to the different conditions. For instance, I have ranged different trees at nearly 2700 yards with the Leica in past testing, but these were different trees with full foliage. During the conditions available for this review, the Leica struggled to read trees to 1500 yards, which illustrates just how difficult it is to compare numbers directly when they are taken at different times, places, and targets of varying condition.

Switching to even more appropriate targets, I spent as much time as possible trying to find animals to range to get an idea of the RFs performance on game. Unfortunately, having the Furys for a limited time and considering where I live, I was not able to range off elk or deer and had to settle for cattle. In order to get the most reliable indication possible, I looked for opportunities where the cows were skylined, and looked particularly for calves.

Cows skylined at about 750 yards, the Fury was consistently able to range these, under full sun

​

While I was not able to find many calves who remained skylined, I was able to range one at 1194, but I had to use scan to make it happen on the Fury. The Leica had no problem ranging off that same calf. The farthest I was able to hit a cow with the Fury was 1345, and was only able to get it to read one time on scan. The Leica was able to hit this same cow with some difficulty, but more than once.

Finally, in order to get an idea of how the Fury will fare on the range, I setup a 2/3 IPSC steel target so that it was skylined. The target was not repainted, I decided to leave it shot up and marked so I could see how it would do under the tougher conditions of a target that had been hit a bunch, not shiny and reflective.

This is the IPSC plate I used for testing. I utilized it without fresh paint so that the conditions would be applicable to more situations​

Under a bright noon sun, I was able to hit the plate out to 611 yards with the Furys. In comparison, the Leica was able to hit it once at 875, but more consistently, was limited to about 750 yards.

Non Reflective, Low Light

So if you look at the numbers and compare the 2800’s performance with the Fury’s performance under full sun, you could surmise that the Fury is capable of ranging at about 80-85% of the distance of the 2800 on these types of targets, which would be defined as lightly leafed trees, barely sloping grassy fields, a lead colored 2/3 IPSC target, and again, all under full sun.

Interestingly, however, those numbers started to change when conditions changed. As the sun went down, the gap between the Leica and the Vortex shrunk considerably. Ranging right before sunset, I started hitting trees with the Leica at over 1600 yards, but now was able to get within 50 yards or so of that distance with the Furys too. On the steel plate, both were now able to hit it at 1016 yards, but the Furys did it easier than the Leicas by a noticeable margin.

In lower light levels, the Fury was able to really increase its ranging performance. A 2/3 IPSC plate was put just in front of the treeline on the horizon, just over 1000 yards away, and the Fury was able to hit it from this position 30 minutes before sunset​

And when it got good and dark, the Furys could now hit that watertower at 3600 yards, but the Leica never could. Overall, in days of ranging, I noticed that while low light effects all RF’s, the Furys showed a much larger disparity when the sun got high than did the Leicas, and the Furys ranging really surged and improved much more dramatically as the sun went down than did the Leica, such that the gap between them closed considerably during lowlight testing.

 

[catorres1]

Vortex Fury HD 5000 AB Review Part III​

​

Non-Reflective, Rain

Even more interesting was what I found when the rain came down, something I was keen to test after hearing from Vortex how their engineers had put a particular emphasis on inclement weather performance. During these tests, using the same trees, hills and houses I had used in full sun, the Fury was consistently besting the 2800. Under those particular conditions, the Fury was able to range trees out to 830 yards, and houses past 1000. The 2800, in this case, did not fare well, not being able to hit a single one of those targets.

This performance, taken in balance with all the other data, from the reflective performance to the capabilities in full sun, I believe demonstrates how each leg of the performance triad determines RF performance, and suggests to me the nature of the Fury’s development. The reflective performance, and even the ability to hit the water tower suggests to me that the horsepower is there in terms of the laser. The larger receptor also is unquestionably a huge asset, and these two taken in concert suggest that in terms of hardware, the Fury is not lacking. In this sense, it seems it may be similar to the Sig 3k, but yet, it cannot match its performance.

It's comparison to the 2800 is a little more complicated because it clearly has more raw power, as evidenced by its reflective performance, but falls behind in its full sun performance, only to quickly close the gap when the sun goes down. And then there is the Fury’s winning performance verses the 2800 in adverse weather conditions to consider, an area of performance particularly called out and focused on as a priority by Vortex’s engineers.

All of this suggests to me that the Fury’s performance envelope is defined and limited not by hardware (laser and receptor), where I suspect it may share much with the 3k, but by the third leg of the ranging performance triad, the software/signal processing. The Fury seems to struggle a bit more than the other two with what it is seeing when the ambient light levels are very high. Leica, in comparison, is the oldest in it’s model line of the three RF’s here and has the smallest receptor by far, but still puts out impressive performance. I believe this is due to their long experience in signal processing and internal RF software, which gives them a significant advantage in taking the hardware they have and getting the best out of it. On the other hand, when the light falls, or targets are truly reflective, the 2800’s advantage lessens as the software influence diminishes and the raw power advantage increases. Another way of saying this is Vortex is pulling off their performance through brute force, with their weakest link being their software algorithms to interpret their data, while Leica is performing via an experienced software approach that makes efficient use out of their hardware so that it can perform in an outsized capacity when you compare things strictly from a hardware perspective.

Additional evidence for software being a major factor comes when you consider the weather performance, where the Fury outperformed the 2800. In this case, Vortex specifically focused their algorithm on solving for this problem, and it paid off by allowing them to use both their brute force as well as apparently smart algorithms to leapfrog the 2800 in this area.

Ultimately, the Fury is an interesting view into RF’s, how their ranging performance is affected by the triad, and how the designed balance needs to be considered when making a decision on what you want. When considering the Furys ranging performance I judge it to be about 80% of what a 2800 can do in full sun on all realistic targets. When the light goes down, either because it’s just after sundown, or it’s particularly overcast, that gap closes considerably. And when the rain comes or the snow falls, the Fury comes into its own when compared to the 2800. Overall, the purpose here is to express a comparison against a known control with the closest level of performance, which in the case of my RF’s is the 2800. So I’ll sum it up by saying under most conditions, I would put the 2800 about 15 or 20% ahead of the Fury in terms of ranging distance capability. Take that reading in the last hour of hunting light, and the gap closes considerably, but I think the 2800 still is ahead. But bring on the rain, and the Fury pulls ahead.

Vortex’s pro mount installed easily and provided a quickly employable but very steady connection to a tripod for range testing​

Ballistics

Ultimately, though bested in some cases by the 2800, the Fury still does quite well in the ranging department. But once you move the evaluation deeper into what it can do with that data, the Fury really comes into its own. While not the first with some of its features, it does include a suite of capabilities that I have not seen together in one package in the RF market, and it has some unique capabilities of its own in the RF bino market, at least to my knowledge at this time. Where the Sig 3k is undoubtedly the winner in any ranging matchup, in the category of ballistic solutions and workflow, the Fury has the upper hand.

As mentioned previously, the upgrade over the previous Fury 5k is all about ballistics and workflow. In the Fury AB, Vortex took the original 5k and added the full Applied Ballistics suite onboard. Arguably one of the most powerful ballistics solvers available, the onboard AB is not a limited version in any way according to Vortex. So unlike other onboard solvers in RFs (except for Sig’s 2400 ABS), you now have onboard a solver that takes into consideration all of the higher level forces, including coriolis, spin drift, and aerodynamic jump, needed to provide a top shelf shooting solution. Consequently, there is no need for a distance limit for your solution, because the RF is internally capable of the levels of accuracy needed to shoot as far as the Fury can possibly range.

To support this capability, the Fury has onboard environmentals, just as the Leica 2800 has. Pressure, temperature and humidity are all fed into the solver. It is important to note Vortex took note of the problem with temperature drift and inertia in the Fury, and implemented a solution through the app. All temperature instruments that we use for shooting are subject to drift or inertia. RF’s are particularly bad in reacting, and their instructions will tell you that it takes a while, sometimes more than 30 minutes, for the temperature sensors buried inside the RF to equalize to significant changes. So if you get out of a warm truck and into the cold, your solution might be based on the 75 degree truck temperature, and not on the -5 ambient temperature, for example. The Kestrel solves this by having that sensor exposed and allowing for a clearing process, as well as easily set lock and input functions for temperature. While not as convenient, the Fury can also have its temperature locked or set by connecting to the app and having it over-ride the temperature reading in the RF.

Like the 2800, in addition to the regular environmental sensors, the Fury has an onboard compass that it utilizes to automatically set the firing direction so that Coriolis is correctly set.

In terms of ballistic curves, these are loaded onto the Fury via the app. The RF can store up to 3 different profiles internally, so you can very quickly cycle between different guns if you are hunting in a group, or are at the range and switching between different guns etc. When creating your profiles on the app, you can choose between G1, G7’s, or best of all, AB’s CDM’s, adding an additional level of accuracy to the calculated solution.

When connected to the app, you can range and the range and direction will be fed into the app, but you can also range directly from the app, which can be useful when trying to hit very small targets while having the RF mounted on a tripod. The app will display the usual elevation and windage adjustments, but will also show LOS range, inclination, set wind speed and direction (we’ll go over that in a moment), MV, temperature, pressure, DA, velocity on target, and remaining energy. The app even has a screen for automatic calculations for moving targets. For the sake of brevity, I won’t go into any further detail on the app, suffice it to say that the app is well designed, very capable with a lot of functionality, while still being very easy to use.

 

[catorres1]

Vortex Fury HD 5000 AB Review Part IV​

Kestrel Connection

The only other RF that I am aware of that boasts such a robust onboard solver is the Sig 2400 ABS, which has been on the market for many years at this point. In regards to its solver capability, it has been at the top of the game up to this point. I am not certain, but do believe the Fury’s version of AB may have a few more forces that it takes into account, but even beyond that, Vortex took it one step further by enabling the Fury to also connect to a Kestrel, and it can connect to a Kestrel with or without AB.

Utilizing a Kestrel with AB opens up a few options like target cards and ballistic truing capabilities, but the main purpose here is two fold. The first is, according to Vortex, because the environmental sensors on the Kestrel are superior to those in any in RF’s. They state that while the Fury has a full system, the one in the Kestrel is better, particularly in how it can not only over-ride and lock in a manually entered temperature setting, but how it can also just quickly clear the current measurement and take a fresh one right away, allowing for a quick and accurate ambient temperature input.

The other reason, of course, is wind speed readings, which leads into another capability that the Fury offers which I will cover shortly. But of course, while connected to a Kestrel, you can have the Kestrel take and apply wind readings to your solution. This is important not only for windage adjustments, but also for aerodynamic jump.

When connected to a Kestrel with AB, the RF will send all the pertinent parameters (range, inclination, compass heading etc.) to the Kestrel. The Kestrel will then crunch those numbers and compute a firing solution. However, unlike other connected RF’s, you have a choice on what happens next. Your first choice is to have the solution displayed in the Kestrel and also transmitted to and displayed in the RF. However, you can also have it set so that while the Kestrel formulates a solution and displays it on its own screen, the Fury will calculate its own solution with the onboard solver and will display that solution in the RF, ie, it never receives back the solution from the Kestrel, it only transmits the data and then goes about its business as if its in standalone mode.

This capability has two important purposes. The first is that it allowed Vortex to keep the internal ballistics system active so that it functions even when there is no AB on the Kestrel. This, in turn, allows the system to be setup so that a non-AB Kestrel can take a wind reading, and then feed that back to the Fury, which then does all the calculations and displays the solution. So unlike other connected RF’s, it’s not an either or situation with the Kestrel, but rather a both plus. But to me, the biggest benefit of this system has to do with connectivity and the problems it creates, particularly with dropped connections and reconnection lag. Most, but not all, connected RF’s, the Fury included, lose their connection to the Kestrel when one or both go to sleep, and the reconnection is problematic. What happens is that when you wake the RF, they either don’t reconnect without some button manipulation on the Kestrel (which, incidentally is very fast, but not what you want to be doing when trying figure out how close you really are in a hurry), or they will eventually reconnect, but that time could be 6, 10, 20, or even 30 seconds, it varies. With the first scenario, you can range, but you are not getting a solution until you hit a few buttons on the Kestrel to re-create the connection correctly. In the second ‘eventually reconnect’ scenario, you can do nothing at all, no ranging, no solution, until it is done. The first scenario is the least bad of the two, at least your rangefinder works, so you can know if that’s 300 yards, hold on hair, or 500 yards, I need a hold. The second scenario, your RF is entirely out of action until its done. The Fury is somewhat in the first scenario, so the RF continues to function. But Vortex did not leave it at that, and that’s where the two solution capability excels. Even if you decide that you want to be using the Kestrel instead of just the onboard for whatever reason, if you set the RF to continue to display its own solution, you are never down. When you power the RF back up, there is no wait for any connection to the Kestrel….you can immediately range AND get a solution because the onboard continues to function on its own. Once the situation is over, you hit a few buttons on the Kestrel, and the two will be connected again. Its a belt and suspenders solution. Your onboard backs up your kestrel, your kestrel backs up your onboard, and they can both function independently so you are never waiting on a reconnect. While the ideal is that the Kestrel and RF would immediately re-pair, no problem, this is the next best thing, and frankly, probably just as good. And that’s not even taking into account the question of whether you need a Kestrel involved or not. Short of solving the re-connection problem, which few have done, this is a brilliant solution.

Garmin Connection

While I have not had the opportunity to test their functionality together, the Fury can also connect to a Foretrex or Tactics Delta with AB if that is more your style. While these wearables lack some of the capabilities of a Kestrel, they have many the Kestrel lacks and appear to be a really convenient way to have an external AB/environmentals source. Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to see how they play out in the field some day, but that option is there for those that are using either of these tools.

Wind

One of the biggest reasons someone might use a Kestrel, rather than just relying on the internal AB solver, is to utilize its wind measurement capabilities. However, there are many shooters who feel other methods are better suited for that job, and there are situations where a Kestrel is just not practical. In that case, you can still enter in a value for your wind so that you can get a hold and so that aerodynamic jump can be calculated in your solution. Vortex has included two options here that do not rely on the app. The first, and most simple, allows you to enter in a wind direction (left or right) and whatever wind speed you decide. This is done using the three wind value buttons on the Fury. You simply press the wind button, which takes you to the appropriate screen where you can use the arrow buttons to simultaneously set direction and full value wind speeds.

However, the Fury also has a wind direction capture mode that allows the actual wind direction to be set in relation to shooting direction. Using the wind capture button, you simply face into the wind and press to capture the wind direction, much like you would on a Kestrel. You still need to enter your estimation of windspeed, but using this method, the Fury utilizes the onboard compass and compares the wind reading to the firing direction reading in order to adjust your wind values for a more accurate call. It’s pretty fast and very slick, and is pretty effective for making quick changes to wind direction.

Wind values are quickly set using the arrow buttons on the Fury. The long rectangular button at the top left enables the wind bearing capture mode, where direction is set by utilizing the onboard compass, and speed is set using the arrows by the user​

In terms of capturing wind direction, it’s not any slower than using a Kestrel, you just don’t get the actual windspeed, that you have to estimate manually. But as I mentioned, many people prefer that, as wind conditions between the shooter and the target sometimes call for a different value than what is experienced at the shooters position. Overall, I found it easy to use and very quick to adjust, and I appreciated the additional accuracy it brought to my manual wind calls, and therefore, my overall ballistic solution.

Ballistics Summary

In summary when it comes to ballistics solutions, the Fury AB is a heavy hitter. Onboard fully functional AB, bluetooth connectivity to a Kestrel or a Foretrex/Tactics, dual solution display capability for operational speed and security, efficient and effective wind data entry solutions, and even the ability to use a non-AB Kestrel for wind calls and environmental data input only, if that’s what you want. Its ballistics system is powerful, very flexible and efficient, and I love how it gives the user a lot of choices on what additional tools you want to utilize and how you want to utilize them. In terms of ballistics solutions tools and workflow, the Fury is the most powerful, flexible, and fully featured RF that I have used to date. I really can’t think of anywhere where it falls short unless you want to count that it does not reconnect to the Kestrel automatically. But as I mentioned, they solved for this by allowing for a fully functioned dual solution, so I really don’t consider this an issue to be concerned about. In terms of ballistics solutions and workflow, I think the Fury AB is the one to beat at the moment.

 

[catorres1]

Vortex Fury HD 5000 AB Review Part V​

Warranty

Vortex built its position by having the best warranty in the business. And that does not stop with the Fury. Like everything Vortex sells, it’s covered for life with their no-fault warranty. While that’s reasonably impressive for the optics, but not unique these days, it is unique, to my knowledge, for the electronics. All RF’s that I am aware of have a limited warranty for the electronic functions on their RF’s, but the Fury’s have the same level of coverage that made Vortex’s name in the industry.

Final thoughts

The Fury is a pretty impressive package. The glass was not disappointing to me or anyone I had look through it. No, it’s not going to beat a Leica or Swaro, or even a Razor, but their price point is at another level, so I did not expect the Fury glass to be on that level. But it is solid glass in the Viper HD range and I did not feel it was insufficient to get the job done as I never got eyestrain, and I could see targets out past shooting light, no problem.

In terms of ranging, this is the only area where it was not always on parity with the other RF’s I had on hand. Not to say that it was poor, but where in other categories it met or exceeded expectations, in the ranging department, it was a mixed bag. In inclement weather and in low light, it did very well, pretty much middle of the pack, where it hung with or, in some cases, exceeded my 2800 in ranging performance. This was particularly evident when it was rainy or foggy. Vortex really focused their development for these scenarios, and the fact that it was able to beat the 2800 under these conditions showed it paid dividends.

But as the light level rose, the 2800 pulled away. While it is only an estimate and somewhat difficult to quantify due to differing conditions and targets, I would say on most non-reflective targets, under full sun, the Furys can range about 80 percent of what the 2800 can.

So again, its something of a give and take when comparing to the 2800, but depending on the conditions, they are fairly close with one besting the other depending on the situation. I will say that when it comes to speed of operation, however, the Furys are much faster in terms of re-range time. The 2800 is quite slow, so if you miss your target, that can be a bit frustrating. The Furys, while not top of class in speed, are quite quick to be ready to try again.

But as I mentioned earlier, the AB upgrade to the Furys was all about bringing high level ballistic solutions to the Fury line, and this is where the Fury really shines. Vortex really pulled out the stops to supply shooters with so many choices and so few limitations, you can use it effectively in almost any manner you like. As a standalone device, the argument can easily be made that nothing additional is needed, but for those that want more or different, the options are there to be utilized in a fashion that provides the user with a level of flexibility and choices that is not currently matched by anything I am aware of. When it comes to what it does with that data, how it manipulates it, displays it, and makes it accessible, of the RF’s I am familiar with, in terms of ballistic solutions/workflow, it has no peer at this time.

Certainly, there are other considerations when making an RF purchase, and I have tried to provide a perspective on the various performance measures to be weighed and balanced. If you are looking for the most powerful, longest ranging RF on the market, this is not it, and that is the only area I can reasonably point out to say I wish there was ‘more’. Sure, optically, there are higher levels, but that’s not a reasonable expectation at this price point, and the glass is not bad at all. But I do see room for improvement on ranging when compared to its nearest competitors. Again, that is not to say the ranging is poor by any means, but it could be better. That said, what it offers in balance is, in my opinion, the best ballistic package available in this market segment. Its very powerful and efficient, and I definitely missed the AB’s workflow once I returned them at the end of the review period. Whether that is the right balance of power and features for you will be determined by your personal needs, but one thing is certain, and that is the Fury AB brings a lot to the table to consider, especially for shooters wanting a robust ballistic solution in a fast, stable, and easily usable and highly flexible package.

 

[JGRaider]

Wow, that was very thorough and very well done, and most appreciated. I've only had my Fury AB's for a couple of days so I'm still learning the ropes, but I'm impressed with mine as well.

 

[catorres1]

Thanks! I'm definitely interested to hear how yours perform for you. I'll say that having full AB giving me a solution overcomes my laziness and helps out.....it was nice to have that level of accuracy in my solution without having to connect to my kestrel every time etc.

 

[Msowa]

Thanks for the write up!

 

[catorres1]

Thanks for the write up!

You are very welcome, let me know if you have any questions or thoughts I did not cover!

 

[Patty]

Excellent write up. I recently got to use a pair of these in a team match and they were pretty awesome, i do wish it gave a firing solution a little quicker though

 

[catorres1]

Glad you enjoyed it! For sure, my Sigs are faster, but they are faster than everything I have tried. One question though, how far were you ranging when you noticed the slowness?

 

[TXGS]

Thanks for the excellent review. In your opinion, how does the Fury AB compare to the Sig kilo 2400 AB?

 

[catorres1]

Thanks for the excellent review. In your opinion, how does the Fury AB compare to the Sig kilo 2400 AB?

You are welcome! I'd say glass and build quality wise, they are more or less the same. Accessorizing (eyepiece covers etc.), Vortex for sure.

When it comes to ranging power, Sig wins for sure, also in speed of operation and re-ranging. The Sig will range farther and faster in all conditions in my experience, except maybe for truly reflective surfaces, where I never hit the max for either...but that's not really very important anyways. If you are talking pure ranging power, the Sig is a hammer.

However, when it comes to ballistic operation and capabilities in terms of workflow, Vortex definitely wins. The onboard environmentals, onboard full AB, wind entry methods, onboard compass, ability to use a non AB Kestrel, etc... the Fury's are very strong in this respect. The workflow is the best and they will give a solution as far as you can range without needing a Kestrel connection.

So they both have real advantages, you'll have to decide what is most important/useful to you. Do you need/value maximum ranging power and speed? Sig. Do you need/value the best/fastest use of that data to give you the best possible shooting solution, and do it fast and efficiently without the need for a Kestrel? Vortex.

Best solution? These two get together and have a baby.

 

[MasonfromWi]

You are welcome! I'd say glass and build quality wise, they are more or less the same. Accessorizing (eyepiece covers etc.), Vortex for sure.

When it comes to ranging power, Sig wins for sure, also in speed of operation and re-ranging. The Sig will range farther and faster in all conditions in my experience, except maybe for truly reflective surfaces, where I never hit the max for either...but that's not really very important anyways. If you are talking pure ranging power, the Sig is a hammer.

However, when it comes to ballistic operation and capabilities in terms of workflow, Vortex definitely wins. The onboard environmentals, onboard full AB, wind entry methods, onboard compass, ability to use a non AB Kestrel, etc... the Fury's are very strong in this respect. The workflow is the best and they will give a solution as far as you can range without needing a Kestrel connection.

So they both have real advantages, you'll have to decide what is most important/useful to you. Do you need/value maximum ranging power and speed? Sig. Do you need/value the best/fastest use of that data to give you the best possible shooting solution, and do it fast and efficiently without the need for a Kestrel? Vortex.

Best solution? These two get together and have a baby.

Thanks for the information as I am in the market to buy one or the other. Your saying that Vortex produces a firing solution faster than the Sig will? I’m really struggling with the decision to go with the handheld unit or the binoculars, might be nice to let my buddy shoot the range and give me the call in comparison to pulling out my binos and doing it myself.

 

[catorres1]

Thanks for the information as I am in the market to buy one or the other. Your saying that Vortex produces a firing solution faster than the Sig will? I’m really struggling with the decision to go with the handheld unit or the binoculars, might be nice to let my buddy shoot the range and give me the call in comparison to pulling out my binos and doing it myself.

No, for sure the Sig is faster in terms of actually responding and displaying. But because the Vortex is so comprehensive and all onboard, if you want a full AB solution at, say, 850 yards, it's faster because you do not have to connect to a Kestrel with AB to get that solution. Just range and you have it. With the Sig, in that scenario, you have to pull the Kestrel, power it on and then range etc....If you are 800 yards and under, the Sig does not need a Kestrel, but it does not have onboard environmentals, so you have to have inputed that information ahead of time, and if it has changed since then, it can not update to current conditions automatically. In addition, it uses the lite version of AB, so the solution is not as accurate as the full version of AB, which can use CDM's and considers higher forces like coriolis, spin drift and aerodynamic jump.....which is why your AB lite solution is limited to 800 yards. After that, they want you connecting to a Kestrel to access the full AB.

The Vortex, having full AB onboard, is therefore faster to use in these conditions because it does not need the Kestrel etc.

But in terms of ranging, displaying, and re-ranging speed....the Sig is the fastest.

 

[catorres1]

In terms of speed with a buddy, I think it is usually best to have a spotter doing the ranging and making the calls for you. You can be getting in position, setup on target, starting your breathing etc....while he ranges, checks wind etc...then gives you your solution. Definitely more efficient with the right partner. But in that case, he is going to have to use your RF anyway, whether it is a bino or a handheld, unless your curve is loaded in his RF.

When you are on your own, the RF bino has it's positives in that it can be faster for a single shooter because you are already looking at your target, you don't have to put your binos down, pull our your RF, reaquire the target, then range etc.

On the other hand, the binos are more bulky to pull out and use than a little CRF, so if you spot something with your eye alone, I find pulling out a CRF to be faster, but that's debatable. With a partner, one thing about the CRF is that if you know you are the shooter of the day, you can hand them your CRF for the day loaded with your data, and still have the use of your binos.

I use both....I think when I am by myself, I prefer a bino RF...when with my son and I know who is the shooter for the day, I prefer to have the RF and bino separated so the spotter always carries the RF, but both hunters still have binos for glassing etc.

 

[TXGS]

Thanks. I am trying to decide which one I will purchase. Is the AB ballistic solver in the hand held mono RF Kilo 2400 AB a different version than in the Bino Furry HD 5000 AB? I have heard that the only differences were Bino vs. mono and that the Bino's have better wind calculator and easier to manually adjust the wind on them vs. having to use the app on the 2400 RF.

 

[catorres1]

I do not have a 2400 ABS, so I am not sure if there are any differences between the AB versions between the Vortex and the Sig. I had thought that maybe horizonal coriolis was missing, but I might be wrong on that. Of course, there are other differences. The divergence is larger and the sensor is a less optimal shape than the newer RF's. There is no Kestrel connectivity, as well as some of the things you mention in terms of wind. As I said, I don't have one, so I have not tested it, but as I remember talking to Sig, ranging wise, it's about the same as the 2400 BDX, which I did have.....which seems to be fairly close to the Vortex in terms of ranging as I remember....but not having had them at the same time/place, this is largely conjecture.

 

[TXGS]

Thanks!!

 

[robby denning]

great review! We actually linked it to our staff review we just published. We like giving members lots of user experiences and yours was great.