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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Swaro Rangefinder Feedback
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="bkondeff" data-source="post: 586305" data-attributes="member: 10444"><p>Thanks so much for the responses. I reviewed the other posts, that you referred to. Very imformative. I must add though that a $7000 min purch price for the Vectronix will not happen, purely for economic reasons. Maybe someday. The fact is right now I doubt I need that as my immediate goal will be 800 yards on deer/elk, up from my current 600-650. I have run to the end of my Nikon 1200's abiliities, especially this year on my elk that was feeding in a burn. Rangefinder did not like that black surface even at 500 yards. </p><p> </p><p>Anyway, I have been paying more attention to the Beam Divergence numbers. I get that they are quoted at Vertical(mrad) x Horiz(mrad). So that a 1.0 x 1.0 beam would be 3.6" high x 3.6" wide at 100 yards, and 36"x36" at 1000. </p><p> </p><p>So, if I look at the Swaro, with a beam of 2.0x2.0, it would basically be a 6' square(72"x72") at 1000 yards. The Leica 1600 at .5x2.5, would be 18" tall x 90" wide at the same 1000 yards. </p><p> </p><p>The interesting thing is that I routinely see reports of the Swaro having more reliable readings , especially in all kinds of conditions out to around 1000-1200 yards. Yes I also read that have longer max readings. I'm not really concerned with max yardage, but with consistency. I can see how you might assume a much shorter and only slightly wider beam may be more reliable, but is there any other factors such as optical clarity, laser quality/strength, etc. that may affect this. For example, the exit pupil of a bino has a direct affect on the low light viewing, but I know my 15x56 swaros can show me a deer at twilight as good or better than most 8x50 B brand bino's due to the glass and coatings.</p><p> </p><p>Will the unit usually return the single largest item in the given field of view? For example at 1000 yards, a 6' beam is going to have a lot of elk in it if held steady. Not so much on a deer or wolf(i'm from Idaho). </p><p> </p><p>So I ask, based on the high number of reports that the Swaro's are the best LRF under the price of the Victoronix, is there anything other than the size and dimension of the beam divergence that will regularly affect it's ability to get consistent readings, especially in that 800-1200 yard range?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bkondeff, post: 586305, member: 10444"] Thanks so much for the responses. I reviewed the other posts, that you referred to. Very imformative. I must add though that a $7000 min purch price for the Vectronix will not happen, purely for economic reasons. Maybe someday. The fact is right now I doubt I need that as my immediate goal will be 800 yards on deer/elk, up from my current 600-650. I have run to the end of my Nikon 1200's abiliities, especially this year on my elk that was feeding in a burn. Rangefinder did not like that black surface even at 500 yards. Anyway, I have been paying more attention to the Beam Divergence numbers. I get that they are quoted at Vertical(mrad) x Horiz(mrad). So that a 1.0 x 1.0 beam would be 3.6" high x 3.6" wide at 100 yards, and 36"x36" at 1000. So, if I look at the Swaro, with a beam of 2.0x2.0, it would basically be a 6' square(72"x72") at 1000 yards. The Leica 1600 at .5x2.5, would be 18" tall x 90" wide at the same 1000 yards. The interesting thing is that I routinely see reports of the Swaro having more reliable readings , especially in all kinds of conditions out to around 1000-1200 yards. Yes I also read that have longer max readings. I'm not really concerned with max yardage, but with consistency. I can see how you might assume a much shorter and only slightly wider beam may be more reliable, but is there any other factors such as optical clarity, laser quality/strength, etc. that may affect this. For example, the exit pupil of a bino has a direct affect on the low light viewing, but I know my 15x56 swaros can show me a deer at twilight as good or better than most 8x50 B brand bino's due to the glass and coatings. Will the unit usually return the single largest item in the given field of view? For example at 1000 yards, a 6' beam is going to have a lot of elk in it if held steady. Not so much on a deer or wolf(i'm from Idaho). So I ask, based on the high number of reports that the Swaro's are the best LRF under the price of the Victoronix, is there anything other than the size and dimension of the beam divergence that will regularly affect it's ability to get consistent readings, especially in that 800-1200 yard range? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Swaro Rangefinder Feedback
Top