Originally Posted by eric2381
I want to be able to range rocks and steel gongs for practice out to 1000 yds. I want to be able to range deer and elk to 850yds.
I practice shoot on the prairies and river coulees. Brown grass background.
I hunt deer in the flat prairies with sage and grass. Also deer in the river coulees, but with the same brown background.
I hunt elk in the mountains. Meadows, trees and side hills..
I would like to have one here soon, and don't really want to wait 'til August, but I will if the Leica is a serious thing.
Either one will range targets to 1000 yards when on a solid rest. Either one will range deer at 850 even on flat ground. The important thing here is with the larger beam on the Swaro. You need to be careful you dont pick up something in front or behind the animal. When thinking of the beam, think of a flashlight laying on a table. the beam covers a long area and will grab the most reflective object. The beam of the Swaro is a 6 foot circle at 1000 yards. The beam of the Leica is 2 1/2' tall by 7' wide rectangle. With either you need to rest it solid ( I use sand bags) then raise the point of aim till you are sure you are ranging what you are wanting to. Ranging an anilmal on flat ground is a challenge, especially past 800 in mid day sun. In the hills or mountains it becomes much easier. If you are ranging game on a hill side you can see the beam cover less gouund and if you happen to get a near by bush or the ground it is not as big of an issue. Both will do fine in this type terrain but the Swaro will definatly record higher numbers here. I believe that this is due to the larger beam. The larger beam is fine in the hills but not good on the flat. That is why I feel the Leica is more precise. In morning or evening light they both will record their highest readings on anythng. My swaro has recorded rock ledges to 1999 yards. My Leica 1485 yards. Remember the farther you are ranging the larger the beam in both cases it is like a "V" shape. Both are in my bag and with me at all times. I use the Leica more, it is more than twice as fast in giving readings. Plus it has a smaller reticle, again more precise, and the reticle is always there. The swaro reticle is sower, hard to see at times and huge. You will sometimes wonder where it went but when you back your eye off or reposition your eye location it will appear.
So, you decide, I have no doubt either will do you fine. But you can see there are differences. For mountains I would go swaro, for flat ground Leica especially in morning and evening light.
Another point, using one of these is a lot like shootinglong range. You need to rest it solid and practise. Get to know it well and it will preform better for you.
As for the new Leica 1600. like I said, if they keep the reticle and beam small, I feel it will kick butt. If this is true, there will be a load of used Swaro's for sale.
Thats my 2 cents.