I just bought a 1600 that didn't work right as bad as it is. i sent it in and got another one in the mail with in a week. But here's good part it didn't work any better than the first one. so i call up and told the lady what was going on. she said she would have ups come by and get it. So i'm thinking that is it and i'll be getting another one soon.
Well that was yesterday this evening i get a call from a very nice guy that works for leica. His name is Hamilton he was very interested in what was going on with these units. We talked and i told him what was happening and that this has happened to some of y'all on this sight. He wants me to send him a email with both units SS# so he can try them him self. so I'm going to send him a email with my story and I'm going to add link to all of the post about them not working right on here as well. He said that he was going to send my email to the guys that make them. We also talked about the other features that are on the 1600 and i told him that the ballistics and the barometric pressure was not worth having IMO. he said that there wasn't no room left to add any thing else to it. he also told me that they are making a aluminam case so you can mount it to a tripod.
He seamed like he really cared. he was a very nice guy and calling me personally that makes a big differance to me when a company does stuff like that. So we will see how it goes from here. But i feel a lot better about it now i think this guy is going to do what he can.
I am sure they are probably getting tired of returns and are trying to fix the problems that some of the 1600's had. Good to hear they called you and were interested and willing to change stuff.
I agree, the BP should be in something besides psi, preferebly inches of HG, and the ballistic curves only work out to about 500 yds........I don't plan on using either feature because of this. I'd rather have the faster recovery speed of the older LRF 1200 than the barely usable "new features".
I never got a call, but I got a replacement that worked. Here's a copy of the letter I sent to them when my first one didn't work as it should. Feel free to pass this on to the gentleman on the phone.
My second unit seems to work as it should, happy with it so far.
RE: Leica Rangemaster CRF 1600
I just purchased this brand new Rangemaster CRF 1600 and I am very disappointed!
I was counting on being able to extend my ranging abilities by at least a couple hundred yards beyond what I can get with an older LRF 1200 Scan model, but that hasn't been the case.
It struggles to range small targets beyond 500 yds, where the older LRF 1200 has no problems on identical targets out to about twice that far. When the new 1600 did give readings, it was always 3 to 5 yards further than the 1200 was giving.
I use these to range small targets (deer size and smaller), and the smaller beam divergence is why I chose this CRF 1600 over the Swarovski unit. I know the Swarovski will range right up with and beyond my LRF 1200.
To say the 1600 fell short of my expectations is an understatement. It would take 5 or 6 tries to range tree branches and limbs at 700-1000 yds......the 1200 would range on them every time. The 1200 would range an Eagle perched on a treetop at 538 yards every time, where the 1600 would never give a reading at all. It would range the tree itself, but not the Eagle. I tried all positions (relative to the aiming box) around the Eagle for at least 10 minutes and no luck.
Next I tried 300 gallon round fuel tanks at 680 yds. Once again, the 1200 hit them nearly every time while the 1600 never gave a reading at all.
Then I tried a 2' thick tree trunk against a yellow grass background at 809 yds. Same story; the 1200 pinged every time, and the 1600 wouldn't give a reading.
Then, I tried a row of telephone poles against the sky background. The 1600 stopped giving readings at 585 yards (1 of 10 tries I got 711 on the next pole), but I was able to get readings from the 1200 all the way out to 1089 yards, and nearly every time I pressed the button.
Next, deer at a sharp angle in a yellow grass field; 544 yards= 1200 yes, 1600 no.
Deer at a sharp angle between 750 and 785 yards= 1200 mostly yes, 1600 not at all.
Broadside deer in same yellow grass background at 614 yds= 1600 yes, 1200 yes.
Bedded deer on snowy slope at 807 yards= 1600 yes, 1200 yes.
Cut banks (3-6 feet tall) at 975 to 1047 yards= 1600 yes, 1200 yes.
Finally I decided to drive 80 miles round trip to get a new battery for the 1600 and try that.
Same story, no dice!! It was now dark, and I could just barely see the outline of trees against the snow in the cloudy moonlight.
1200 = ping every time at 907 to 910 yards, shot about 5 times.
1600 = no ping. I tried about 8 times and couldn't get a reading.
Brown dirt road going over a snowy hillside= 1200 gave readings from 730 to 750 yds.
Same dirt road, 1600 wouldn't give a range.
On a more positive note; The 1600 seems to have better optics, better resolution and a brighter sharper image. It is more ergonomic and easier to hold steady, the button requires less force to push, which is a plus too. The 1600 would read on 30' tall cut banks at 1450 to 1470 yards while the 1200 wouldn't (naturally). However none of these mean much if it won’t range at least as far as the 1200 on identical targets!!
I never even got the try the other features of the 1600, but they don't mean a thing either under the circumstances. The LRF 1200 has a smaller aiming box (which is nice) and is faster on recovery (which is a big plus too). These are two things I wish Leica would have kept going with the CRF model.
I would like a replacement or repair. If the replacement doesn't do as expected, then I will request a refund. If a brand new 1600 won’t beat the pants off of a 6 yr old 1200, then I have no use for it. I'd be better off saving my money for a Vectronix or maybe even buying a Swarovski.
I hope they get the quality consistency problems figured out and fixed. This prevalence of units with such variable performance is going to harm their reputation. I sent mine back after one day of fairly extensive field testing. There are long ranging CRF 1600s and short ranging CRF 1600s - and 300 - 350 yards difference in ranging capability between the two. I ended up with the short straw. Relatively poor ranging distance compared to what others report when they happen into a good one. jeff 300, I hope you end up with a good one! I won't buy another unless I can verify the ranging performance prior to purchase - based on the stories that have been reported on just this Forum in the past 3 weeks.
If you end up with two good ones, sell the 2nd one to me!
Thanks and I'll send him the links. He really wanted a lot of info any that i could give him. Like i told him i under stand stuff happens but its how they work to fix it. That will make people come back after a bad experience. If they work with me to get me one that works right at no more cost to me i'll be happy.
I own my own Fencing business so i know how this kind of stuff works being on both sides. It dam sure sucks for the people that r spending all the money. but its no fun for the other end either. So we will see how well it goes and I'll keep y'all up dated.
Well i got a call from Hamilton today he said he had try my RF out and it was not reading as good as others that he had but it was working out to 1800+ offhand' But i never got either one to work out to even a thousand 1000. i tried ranging a oil tank that was not even a 1000 a number of times and it never worked. the first one i had at my ranch and tried ranging mountain side that where 750-1500 and only got it to read out to 850 a couple times never any thing close to a 1000 and dam sure not over a 1000. He said that in his controled field it worked some what OK like 3or 4 out of 10. he said that he has found that the 1600 ranged some trees and other things better than others and that a round tank was one thing that it would not work good on WHY!!!!! He also said he has found that the 1200 would range some things better that the 1600 again WHY?????? THE TANK IS FIGGING 20'X40' TALL WHY IN THE HELL WOULDN"T A 1600 RANGE FINDER NOT RANGE IT ?????????????
OK OK forget the tank. i tried a roof top some where around 550 not off hand i was using a wall as support it wouldn't range it but my 9-10 year old Bushnell 1000 would hit it every time?????
So i say if they can't make a range finder that works OK most the time. then maybe they need to call Swarovski and ask them how to make one. If a range finder as supposed to range out to 1600 then you should not have to look for a perfect dam target the dam thing should read a figging oil tank that is 20x40 and not get whipped by a 10 year old junky bushnell 1000 at around 500. I don't know how he got it to read off hand out to 1800+ when i could not read a roof top 500-550 supported by a wall.
So i like that Leica at least called me. BUT I'm not overly happy with what i was told why the 1600 didn't work right. it sounded like they really don't have a answer to fix the problem or to what the problem really is.
So I'm getting my 3rd one with one of the new tripod mounts for it but if this one doesn't work a hell of a lot better then the other two. I'm going to just buy a used Swarovski . till i save enough for a Vectronix PLRF 10. I'm sick of this dam range finders they all r a joke.
SO IMO DON'T BUY!!!!! DO NOT BUY!!!!! DO NOY BUY!!!!!!!A LEICA 1600 WITH OUT TRING IT FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ill let y'all know how the new one works out and take a picture of the new tripod mount they are make for them now. CROSSING MY FINGERS
I hope they get it figured out. Seems something happened between the manufacture of the 1200 and 1600.? I don't recall many people having issues with the 1200's.
He said that in his controled field it worked some what OK like 3 or 4 out of 10.
I wouldn't consider that being OK. Personally, 5 or 6 out of 10 is maybe OK. The unit takes long enough to recover that making 10 tries to get 3 readings (lets just hope they all are the same) is too much time involved. The old 1200 I have was much quicker to recover and be ready to range again.
Best wishes on your third, hope it doesn't give you any grief.