Choose your range finder?

Discussion in 'Long Range Hunting & Shooting' started by RangerBrad, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. RangerBrad

    RangerBrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    290
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Given a choice of range finders from maker such as swaro, leica and the new BR2 from gunwerks, which would yal chose and why? I have recently ordered a new BR2 to be delivered the end of sept. I chose it for it's advertised range, intergration with the rest of the shooting system and ability to give accurate ranges under less than ideal ranging situations. I am just getting into long range shooting and want to make one time purchase's of great equipment right up front. I hope I have made a good choice but time will tell. Now what say yal? Thank's, Brad
     
  2. Broz

    Broz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,637
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Of what you have listed ... Leica hands down for the smaller precise beam size. The other two are just to big and you can not be sure that you are ranging what you think at long distances. Especially on flat ground or where sage brush, bushes, trees or corn stalks are in close proximity.

    But if you want to buy once, and have the budget, Vectronix PLRF10.

    PS, do a little search on here and you will find you need to buy from a place you can return the choosn RF if it does not preform. It has been proven not all Rf are created equal. A least in the $1000 range. I have tested many many including 5 swaros, and probably as many or more Leicas. It was not until I tested 5 Vectronix RF's side by side that I found parody.

    Jeff
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011

  3. dirtball

    dirtball Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    764
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Read this thread, especially the last post.

    Dave


    http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...ngefinder-2000-rangefinder-video-intro-64364/
     
  4. RangerBrad

    RangerBrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    290
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Looks like mixed views on desirability. I'm new to range finders. Is 2x4 mrad good? how does it compare to other beam divergance's on the market? Thank's, Brad
     
  5. RangerBrad

    RangerBrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    290
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Does the leica crf1600 trump the br2 simply because of beam divergance? Does the extended range of 2000+ yds of the br2 make up for the larger beam divergance and is 2.5x.5 that much smaller than the 2x4 of the br2? Like i said I am brand spanking new to lrf's. Though this is no saving grace on it but I also picked up the G7 scope. Have I just been drinking to much of the cool aide and bought into the advertisment or was this a solid investment in long range shooting? Thank's, Brad
     
  6. Broz

    Broz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,637
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    The Leica CRF 1600 has a beam divergence of .5 x 2.5 mrad. I feel it is the single most important information when choosing a RF. I have been through most all of them and have been bitten by the big beam units. The Leica is the smallest I have found besides my Vectronix. There is a reason the highest priced mil spec units have small beams.

    Not trying to rain on anyones parade, just stating what you asked and what I have learned after a few years of a lot of field testing in different terrain.

    A RF that gives a more precise accurate range is better than one that gives longer distances, if the longer distances are not what you are ranging. For example a bush 50 yards closer. To give you an idea the swaro beam is 6 ft x 6 ft at 1000 yards and that is smaller than the br2. Think of the beam like a flashlight on the wall. The farther you back up the bigger the beam. Now, lay the flashlight on flat ground. The bigger the beam the more ground it covers.

    Jeff
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  7. RangerBrad

    RangerBrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    290
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    No your not raining on my parade. I want to learn. Pour it on me. Brad
     
  8. SBruce

    SBruce Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,786
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    A good Leica 1600 will get you about 1000 yds on deer over relatively flat ground. Steep, mountain country will give you a further reading, because you're likely getting the ground behind the deer, rather than the deer.

    The Swarovski supposedly gives furthest readings, but as Broz said; you might not be ranging what you think you are due to the bigger beam.

    I've not seen any of the G7 brand in use yet. The ballistic solutions may be nice, but if the unit is really slow to recover from a reading, then the programing is probably why. I'd rather not have the ballistic programing in the rangefinder. I'd rather take 3 or 4 readings quickly (to confirm that I am getting the right range), and then look to my rifle stock, notebook or pocket PC for the firing solution. Just my preference.

    Seems to me that the Vectronix is the hands down winner, especially for ranging beyond 1000 yds.

    Reason I underlined good is because some of us have had to try 2 or even 3 Leica 1600's before we got one that worked like it's supposed to........don't think they've got all the bugs worked out yet. The 1200 yd models seem to have few problems (very few that I've heard of anyway).

    Some of the Swarovski's had problems initially too I've been told.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  9. RangerBrad

    RangerBrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    290
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    S Bruce I believe you can range continious on targeting mode. Wouldn't that solve the problem of slow recovery? You could also at the same time range near objects to validate range. Is this right or am I misunderstanding something( allways possible) I apoligize for all these questions but I only want to spend this kind of money once and don't have the $4000.00 and up for vectronix equip. Thank's, Brad
     
  10. RangerBrad

    RangerBrad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    290
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    SBruce you say you have to go through 2-3 leica 1600's to get one as advertised. What is not working as advertised and Why? Thank's, Brad
     
  11. SBruce

    SBruce Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,786
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    They wouldn't range anywhere near the advertised distances.

    I was comparing my first one to an old 1200 model, and the 1200 would range further on small targets, it would also do it quicker with fewer attempts. Sure, the 1600 would range further on large flat surfaces or something reflective, but I don't hunt stop signs and buildings or large trees and large cut banks. The 2nd one seems to work like it should though.

    There's some other threads here on this site that discuss the issues with rangefinders, a search should bring up tons of info for you. Here are some:

    http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...er-guide-vs-leica-crf-1600-rangemaster-73650/

    http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/very-happy-leica-so-74278/

    http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/leica-crf-1600-a-74781/

    Yes, the scan mode helps speed things up, but it only helps. The 1600's are much slower than the 1200's. Only reason I can think of is the extra calculations it's trying to do. Even with this feature turned off, it probably takes twice as long to get a reading as the old 1200 model did.

    Ranging objects nearby can work on a steep slope that is opposite of you, but on relatively flat ground; the sagebrush you're ranging that "appears" to be next to the animal, could really easily be 25-50 yds further. Even at "short" ranges of say 600 yds, a 25yd error on the range can mean a poor hit/near miss on an antelope. This goes back to the benefit of small beam divergence too.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  12. sheepaholic

    sheepaholic Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    i bought the leica 1600 just before this years sheep hunt and i love it. I was ranging sheep at 1500yrds consistantly and i acually ranged a mountain at 1803 yrds several times. definatly a good LITTLE unit.