Gunwerks G7 BR2 Rangefinder Review

S Bruce,

Good test I know a couple of places I can set that up if we don't get snowed out. I will keep you guys posted. On of the ways I have defeated this issiue on flatter ground in the past is by technique. I use the LRF on a tripod, I range the animal, I range at it's feet and purposly over its back. This gives me 3 readings to quickly compare to make sure there is no error. This works well as long as there is a background above its back and at a reasonable distance. In very flat country this probably wouldn't work worth a crap. In canyon country it makes it easy. More testing to continue........
 
Mr Davidson,
Thank you for your explanation about the Beam Divergence and pulses. I think I learned something here. Now I need to get my hands on a G7 BR2 and do some testing of my own in the field. I too would be comparing it to my PLRF10, and as with Shawn I realize their intended use differences. I get frquently asked to recommend a good rangfinder to people I set up a rilfe for or train. I need to know these things first hand, so I could test in some of my own terrain. I am not trying to be stubborn, (although I know I am) but I once was convinced the Swaro 8x30 laser guide was the end all to Rf's. A couple very bad experiences in hunting situation led me on the search for something better. Since then I have tested many RF's extensively and as I have stated many times before, the smaller beams have always performed better for me. But you are spot on correct, and I have preached this too, They have to be held rock solid. Anyway, I have only had the pleasure to use your Rf in a few instances. I look forward to the day I can take one a field and see for myself.

Thanks again for you explanation.

Jeff
 
S Bruce,

Good test I know a couple of places I can set that up if we don't get snowed out. I will keep you guys posted. On of the ways I have defeated this issiue on flatter ground in the past is by technique. I use the LRF on a tripod, I range the animal, I range at it's feet and purposly over its back. This gives me 3 readings to quickly compare to make sure there is no error. This works well as long as there is a background above its back and at a reasonable distance. In very flat country this probably wouldn't work worth a crap. In canyon country it makes it easy. More testing to continue........

Shawn you method of 3 ranges is a very good one. In the instances where there is nothing behind the target for a long ways, then I simply come down slowly firing the RF until I get a reading. Like I touched on in this thread a while back.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f30/yote-down-1100-plus-83800/

Another good test that can also give some different answers is the pole test.
I will position myself where I can see a row of electric poles for a mile or so. Then start walking the RF out from pole to pole (about 200 yard spacing usually) . Aim it high on the pole so there will be nothing there to interfear. What this test can tell you is if your RF's reticle is indeed aligned with the actual beam. Most I have tested are not. If you get a miss try again slightly left or right of the pole. If you then get a hit you will know how to better use your RF to its full mechanical capabilities, as you now know where your beam is in referance to the reticle. You can also do this same test for elevation of the beam on the cross bars of the poles (if they have them) This test is a bit more tricky, but you get the idea. All good info to know so you can use your RF to get better results.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Skip, for that information. That's the best explanation I've heard yet and it makes sense, it's just new information that folks are trying to then wrap their head around. I think part of the issue is that perhaps the beam technology you are using in the G7 is not as well known/understood, but folks can grasp the idea/issues surrounding a small beam very easily. So, education to spread the word as much as possible on how and why your technology works on your guys part is going to be very key to sales/etc., obviously.
 
This is the great review of a product ,,,done without any sarcasm
or bickering ,,,,i have been waiting for someone like shawn to test
this unit because he does it professionally and unbiased...
Thanks to shawn and others who have done the foot work for others.time to call and order my g7-br2.
 
I spent several days wringing this unit out as well. What I saw mirrored what Shawn did with some minor exceptions. Since I didn't have a Vectronix unit to compare to, I just used a Leica 1600. I found it much easier to range a target with the BR2. It was 3 yards different from the Leica at 300, 500 and 800. I don't know which one was correct but found it odd that it was always 3 yards different, rather than a percentage. When the BR2 said 500, the Leica said 497. I was ranging a target backer with no close backstop so I am comfortable on the ranges.

I carefully zeroed at 300 to test the ballistic solutions. At first, it was off quite a bit- I discovered that I have put the wrong velocity it. I fixed it and it then agreed with my Shooter software within .2 MOA at any range and mostly was the same.

I never got a ballistic solution over 1250 but I just couldn't find the right targets between 1250 and 1400 to test. I got readings out to 2150+ on dark rocks. I never ranged any super reflective targets like the side of a dry van or metal building.

It sometimes took several seconds to give a reading so it was pulsing pretty good to get some of those long ones. The beam divergence is not an issue. It ranged everything the Leica did and beyond with matching distances other than the 3 yard issue.

The Leica required a dead-steady hold to work. The BR2 was much more forgiving in this area. I used the same battery that Joel had in it when he sent it to me. I can't imagine not getting through a season on a battery.

A few issues that I perceived: It is big compared to the Leica or Swarovski. It is rated only down to 32 F. I couldn't test it as it was between 40 and 70 here in Arizona when I ran my tests.

It could very well work down to minus 20? I don't know. The lithium batteries are a lot better in cold than the 9 volts. The Leica uses a CR2 lithium which is less than half the storage of the CR123.

Most of my testing was done in bright, sunny conditions. I did get out on one cloudy day and that is when I got 2100+. I was only able to get 1900+ at the same spot previously.

I could range a horse standing in a pasture at 1100 yards with no problem.

I think this unit does what they claim it does.
 
Battery life has been really good, however I have not had a chance to really run it out in sub zero weather.


Just a Little FYI on CR-123 and CR-2 lithium cells:

1. Buy made in America. ALL CR cells made in America are produced by a single plant in Columbus Georgia. Owned by Panasonic they make , Energizer, Duracell Surefire etc....All the same except price and label.

2. If you cannot buy USA, Buy Japan. Stay away from, European and Chinese cells.

3. My testing has been down to -40C for most military applications the CR-123 cells have performed at -30C(-22F) and very well at -20C(-4F) even under heavy loads that would exceed a Laser rangefinders loading.

4. These cells don't go bad. I have 2002 vintage cells and they are still performing at >98% of cells produced in 2010. I stocked up as I get them for less than a buck each....

5. Stay away from ALL rechargeable versions of these CR-123 and CR-2. Trust me. They are waste of time, money and are not safe.



I'm really interested in a G7 but I'm gonna wait until they combine the Laser into the Binoculars. I really hate carrying both and on my S.Africa hunt it was very difficult terrain to re-acquire a Kudu in your LRF after setting down your bino's.
 
Question, for those of you using this the G7-BR2 to replace your kestrel and pda's and ballistic programs. What do you do for your windage solution? Does it have a way to enter a wind value and will it give a correction in MOA?

Thanks
Jeff
 
Last edited:
I read it has inputs for wind in 5mph increments. It has to be manually entered.


Now that you mention that I kina remember reading that too. But I must have skimmed over it pretty fast. Five mph increments seems like a large step especially at the longer distances. I wonder if that can be changed?

Thanks for the reply

Jeff
 
After it has given you the yardage then the dail correction you can then use the arrow keys to scroll through wind values in 5 mph increments 5-50 mph. I have had no trouble using the 5 mph increments.
 
After it has given you the yardage then the dail correction you can then use the arrow keys to scroll through wind values in 5 mph increments 5-50 mph. I have had no trouble using the 5 mph increments.

Thanks Shawn, I have a friend that I do some set up for and he called me yesterday and wants me to get him a new RF. We talked about the G7, Leica 1600, and PLRF05.

I just ran these number with my .338 LM and a 300 Berger. I chose it since it bucks the wind best.

Full value wind @ 1000 yrds.

5 mph = 2.6 moa
10 mph = 4.8 moa

So a 2.2 moa / 21" difference at 1000.

A 7 mph wind is 3.5 moa. So in this situation would you feel it would be best to look at both a 5 and a 10 and split the difference?

If I did that it would be 1/2 of the 2.2 which is 1.1, and adding it to the 5 mph correction of 2.6 I would come up with an end correction of 3.7 which is closer that I can read the wind anyway.:)

Plus, I don't see us taking many shots at 1000 or farther on game in much worse contitions.

Thanks
Jeff
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top