Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Gunwerks G7 BR2 Rangefinder Review
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SBruce" data-source="post: 600751" data-attributes="member: 21068"><p>Thanks for that feedback Shawn. That's positive info. I am glad you had the concern too.</p><p> </p><p>You mention the most vertical target should give stronger readings, so I would like to run this by you: One of the tests that I've done gives rangefinders a real fit. Both my Leica 1600 and 1200, and a friends Swarovski and Vectronix PLRF10 failed this test, only the distance they began failing at was greater with the Vectronix. The Leica and Swaro failed at 500 yds or less, the Vectronix failed at 800 yds but was closer to being accurate, it was kinda splitting the difference and only giving a 10 yd error.</p><p> </p><p>Here's the situation, I have a 12" diameter AR-500 plate hanging 20 yds directly in front of a small clay cutbank. The cutbank is a few feet tall and is probably about 15 yds wide. All these rangefinders will read the cutbank and not the plate, the plate is very very close to being perfectly perpendicular to the line of sight, and the cutbank is really not all that vertical, a person <em>could</em> walk up it. The only way I can get them to read the plate instead of the bank, is to hang a reflective tractor triangle on the plate. We know that a 20 yd error at 780-820 yds is over 5" of vertical even with the big 338's and 300 grn bullets. And I don't see any reason it couldn't just as easily become a 50 yd error in the right circumstance.</p><p> </p><p>This is a test I'd like to see the G7's performance on. The country I live in and hunt in is <strong>relatively flat</strong>, but <u>is full of these little cut banks and rock outcrops and sagebrush patches</u> and of course the game that inhabits this country is usually not as big as these natural features are. Some places here the deer can stand up in the Sage and all we can see is their neck and head. Do you have any thoughts on this that you'd care to share?</p><p> </p><p><strong>Again, thanks for the review</strong>. I am really interested in this units performance in country that is relatively flat, and if<u> the unit will give priority to readings from the center of the reticle</u> rather than the most reflective or bigest things inside the whole beam. I can see how the beam divergence wouldn't be nearly as big an issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SBruce, post: 600751, member: 21068"] Thanks for that feedback Shawn. That's positive info. I am glad you had the concern too. You mention the most vertical target should give stronger readings, so I would like to run this by you: One of the tests that I've done gives rangefinders a real fit. Both my Leica 1600 and 1200, and a friends Swarovski and Vectronix PLRF10 failed this test, only the distance they began failing at was greater with the Vectronix. The Leica and Swaro failed at 500 yds or less, the Vectronix failed at 800 yds but was closer to being accurate, it was kinda splitting the difference and only giving a 10 yd error. Here's the situation, I have a 12" diameter AR-500 plate hanging 20 yds directly in front of a small clay cutbank. The cutbank is a few feet tall and is probably about 15 yds wide. All these rangefinders will read the cutbank and not the plate, the plate is very very close to being perfectly perpendicular to the line of sight, and the cutbank is really not all that vertical, a person [I]could[/I] walk up it. The only way I can get them to read the plate instead of the bank, is to hang a reflective tractor triangle on the plate. We know that a 20 yd error at 780-820 yds is over 5" of vertical even with the big 338's and 300 grn bullets. And I don't see any reason it couldn't just as easily become a 50 yd error in the right circumstance. This is a test I'd like to see the G7's performance on. The country I live in and hunt in is [B]relatively flat[/B], but [U]is full of these little cut banks and rock outcrops and sagebrush patches[/U] and of course the game that inhabits this country is usually not as big as these natural features are. Some places here the deer can stand up in the Sage and all we can see is their neck and head. Do you have any thoughts on this that you'd care to share? [B]Again, thanks for the review[/B]. I am really interested in this units performance in country that is relatively flat, and if[U] the unit will give priority to readings from the center of the reticle[/U] rather than the most reflective or bigest things inside the whole beam. I can see how the beam divergence wouldn't be nearly as big an issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Gunwerks G7 BR2 Rangefinder Review
Top