Ernie
SPONSOR
#1 Is it set-up to use a tripod?
#2 How comparable is it to the Swaro LRF?
Thanks Guys!
#2 How comparable is it to the Swaro LRF?
Thanks Guys!
2 Questions about Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaster
- Thread starter Ernie
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
MT4XFore
Well-Known Member
Hey Ernie, how's things down in Wyo? I'll try to answer your ?'s:
1) NO
2) It ranges faster, but not as far. Distance it ranges is like most other rangefinders, and dependent on conditions and what it is your ranging.
I have no complaints with mine so far.
God Bless
Jim
1) NO
2) It ranges faster, but not as far. Distance it ranges is like most other rangefinders, and dependent on conditions and what it is your ranging.
I have no complaints with mine so far.
God Bless
Jim
My hunting buddy is on his 2nd. Seems to be working. I took a small spring clamp, the type you grab and open. Drilled hole and JB WELD a small nut for tripod to go into for the handle end. It can hold any small laser or binoc. I mounted 2 clamps in jeep for laser and bino holders on my sky rack gun rack.
On my second unit now. The first wouldnt range as far as my crf 1200. Cabelas, true to form, replaced the unit with no questions. This one works remarkably better. Out of the box it was set to metric units instead of US so my measurements had to be converted for accuracy. I had it range 1856 meters on the same object four separate times. My calculation shows that to be 2029 yards. It would not take this reading every time. If I would leave the unit 'off' for a several seconds, then quickly turn it on by pressing the button, press the button a second time immediately, then it would give this reading. If I tried to get a continous reading or scan to get repeated readings, it would not register. Checking the locations on a high resolution map concluded that the 1600 was very close to accurate at this distance as near as I could tell.
It still has the red only readout, limiting its usefulness to those who are not colorblind. The ballistics I am still studying, but they do not seem to be as acccurate as a student of long range ballistics might like, but it should be more than adequate for big game hunters who seldom shoot over 500 yards. The owners manual packs a LOT of information into very few words. Difficult to comprehend which button to push and how many times in what order to get the information you desire. But, if you are patient, it is all there.
Overall, I really like the unit. I have carried the Swarovski and while it may range further if conditions are perfect, it left a lot to be desired. I expected the Swaro to be hands down a better rangefinder and was sorely disappointed. What I found was that when the conditions would limit my Leica (crf1200 for those tests) to under 1000 yards or less, the Swaro would never range any further than the Leica. If conditions were perfect, the Swaro would range further, but only in perfect conditions. The Swaro was larger, I like the compact size of the Leica. The ranging circle in the view finder was much larger on the Swaro and much more difficult to pinpoint objects in the far distance. The Leica 1600 will be my rangefinder of choice for future use.
It still has the red only readout, limiting its usefulness to those who are not colorblind. The ballistics I am still studying, but they do not seem to be as acccurate as a student of long range ballistics might like, but it should be more than adequate for big game hunters who seldom shoot over 500 yards. The owners manual packs a LOT of information into very few words. Difficult to comprehend which button to push and how many times in what order to get the information you desire. But, if you are patient, it is all there.
Overall, I really like the unit. I have carried the Swarovski and while it may range further if conditions are perfect, it left a lot to be desired. I expected the Swaro to be hands down a better rangefinder and was sorely disappointed. What I found was that when the conditions would limit my Leica (crf1200 for those tests) to under 1000 yards or less, the Swaro would never range any further than the Leica. If conditions were perfect, the Swaro would range further, but only in perfect conditions. The Swaro was larger, I like the compact size of the Leica. The ranging circle in the view finder was much larger on the Swaro and much more difficult to pinpoint objects in the far distance. The Leica 1600 will be my rangefinder of choice for future use.
mthunter86
Well-Known Member
I have both the swarovski and the 1600. I have yet to find an object that my swarvo will read that my leica will not. on a more important note on the extreme end of the ranges my leica seems to be more accurate. i only state this because of some testing a good friend of mine did after the swarvo and leica did not agree on several targets in the 1200-1400 yd range. He is a surveyor and brought out his gear and compared his distance notes on a dozen targets out to 1500 yds. the leica was + or - 6 yards on the worst reading. the swarvo was off by 87 yds on its worst reading and was off by 27 yds on average.
Sent the swarvo in and received wonderful service and customer report. it came back cleaner but no more accurate.
Out to a grand i believe both are excellent, however i now have a hard time trusting the swarvo past that....
Sent the swarvo in and received wonderful service and customer report. it came back cleaner but no more accurate.
Out to a grand i believe both are excellent, however i now have a hard time trusting the swarvo past that....
new shooter
Well-Known Member
I WOULD NOT BY A Leica 1600. It would not work at -8 My swarovski worked all the time. Last week went out with my 338 ax shooting at 1100 and 1400 + yd The swro would work great but my Leica would not rang past 800 yd. The sun was out great day. So i will send it back there has ben outher people that have the same truble. Get a Swarovski.
