Kestrel meters

[GSonnen]

For you guys that bought the 3500 or the 4000, did you ever regret not getting the 4500? Looks like the 4500 adds a compass and wind direction function.

[Graham Smith]

I had a 3500 and upgraded to a 4000 so that I could explore density altitude compared to pressure and temp. For me, at least, I could find no advantage that matched the extra cost*. Still, now that I have it, it's convenient and I would be unlikely to switch back.

As for the base 4500, wind direction in a meter is rather extraneous. Wind shifts around and varies between you and your target. You have to read the wind, a meter can only give you a clue as to what it's doing near you. There's not another $150 value in that for me.

If I had money to burn then I would like to have the 4500 Applied Ballistics meter to play with. If I were shooting a lot of practical rifle competitions it might still be nice to have but I can't justify the price.

----------------

*Note: I use a ballistics program on an old iPod that can take either DA or Press/Temp for an input. I also have a WhizWheel which is much simpler to use with DA.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Graham Smith

[taliv]

yeah, i bought the minimum needed to do DA, which was the 4000NV and it was all i needed.

I recently acquired a Nomad with FFS, which has the ability to bluetooth sync so i don't have to type in wind, speed, direction, DA etc. Not sure it's really worth $150 extra, but if somebody wanted to buy my 4000NV, i'd replace it with a 4500. i don't want a ballistic calc on my wind meter though

[Graham Smith]

At the risk of sounding like a complete amateur - which isn't far from the mark... I think a lot of this comes down to what someone actually needs based on the type of shooting that they do.

I suppose that if you are someone who shoots a lot of practical rifle matches with unknown distances where time is a factor, then having just one thing that can handle multiple functions is better than having two or three. But I find it really difficult to convince myself that it's a necessity.

Since I have done very little of this sort of thing, I may be missing something. Here is what my head and limited experience tells me...

If I'm getting ready to shoot in the next 30 min or so, I can get a reading of pressure and temp and punch them into my ballistic calculator. If I know the target distances then I can jot that down onto a card with the drops and wind. Nothing is likely to change enough in the next 90 min to make any real difference in my data.

If there are unknown distances involved, then I can take the time to record drops and wind on a more detailed card or I can take my calculator with me to the line and do a quick check there (based on the readings I took before) once I know the distances.

Either way, the only thing I really need to do this is pressure and temperature. DA may be convenient but it's not really necessary. And I don't need to do this on the shooting line with the clock ticking. I'd be better off sticking with the 3500 and spending the money on other things.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Graham Smith

[taliv]

that's all true enough.

when you're standing around in the staging area though, you are far more likely to hear "what'd you get for DA?" than "what's your baro reading?" just like people measure distances in yards instead of meters and call wind in miles per hour instead of km/h and give temp in F instead of C. Yeah, you can do a little extra math and convert to whatever units make you happy.

[MarkCO]

Just another opinion...some based on shooting matches and some based on hunting.

The precision and time factor I need determines which devices or type of data I use.

For most cases, the "Shooter" app will give me what I need for variable distances and "close enough" atmospheric data collected from the nearest station (which might not be close enough for the best precision, or unavailable). In other cases, where a second shot is not an option, and the distance is past about 500 yards, then for me, DA is the simpler and more expedient because it reduces the error potential of using more than one data point, plus it is the right there right now measurement. However, I don't use a Kestrel and use a DA device only in that condition.