OK, about 8000'+ in Colorado has a Station Pressure of 22.525 in., not 30.06 in. (Walden Colorado).
http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=BOU&product=OSO&issuedby=BOU
Try plugging those numbers into JBM and see if it jives with what your actually shooting. Remember to disable (no checkmarks) the two boxes at the bottom (Standard Atmosphere at Alt & Pressure is Corrected).
In the off chance it does get you close, you don't need a new range finder. You need a device that measures real Pressure.
I have a old Leica 1600. It does not give a ballistic solution. Does yours or are you using JBM for your dope?
Mike,
Here is how I got the two seperate dopes that I used and compared to eachother both in terms of numbers and actual shooting performance. BTW, I am back home now, so I can't go out and check it now that I am home in Texas.
For dope 1: I used JBM, input 8000 feet as well as a pressure and checked 'pressure is corrected'. The pressure I pulled from local weather sources for where we were. Temp set to 50 degrees, humidity 25%. For distance, Sig kilo angle corrected distance. This dope worked out fine to 1k plus.
To compare, I tried my Leica, using EHR. Dope from JBM...set to Leica's standard conditions....0 for elevation, 29.92 pressure, temp at 68 degrees, humidity 50%. Tried pressure corrected on and off...as I remember, it was the same. I ranged, got the EHR, then checked it against this JBM dope. It was accurate to around 600 IIRC, but then started to diverge from the previous dope as it stretched out to the max where it would give EHR. At that distance (875), it was almost exactly 1 MOA lower than what dope 1 called for, and shooting showed dope 1 to be correct.
I actually used to know a Leica rep, Hamilton IIRC, and still may have his contact info. Might give him a call. But what I know is that the Leica EITHER gives you an uncorrected distance, or if you opt for EHR, you get the uncorrected followed by one corrected for angle, pressure and temp, and for this, you have to choose one of their generic curves. Problem is, my temp is almost always too high, pressure seemed about right...angle...I assume so....but the curve is definitely off. #3 is too flat, and #4 is not flat enough. So the RF is using presumably correct angle and pressure, but inaccurate temp and inaccurate curve. That is my guess as to why it is correct close, but not far.....the inaccuracies start to add up.
But I think I will reach out to Hamilton and see what he can tell me.
In reference to the recommendation for the 2400, my 1600b is old, it will never get me near what a .2400 will cost me. If it would, I would have gone that route, as it seems amazingly cool. But 1300 plus is just too much for me, I am not in that tax bracket.
Even if I cannot get the Leica to do what I want, ultimately, I will probably still use it. I'll just take the raw distance and the raw angle and input them into the kestrel for my shooting solution.
The only other option, and it would be nice if it worked, would be the CONX...which would be faster...no need to enter anything, just let them do the talking and then shoot the solution that displays in the CONX.
I can get the CONX for 300 right now, but if I read it correctly....it is super slow in ranging, it's really bulky, I don't know if it will range to what I am used to with the Leica, and I am spoiled by the Leica glass. But I have not even seen one in person, so if anyone has one and has tried it, I'm all ears.
If that does not work out, then I'll just manually enter those two data points from the Leica and stick with it. Because it really works great otherwise. Glass is awesome....and I easily range trees and bushes at well over 1600, so that's pretty cool. And it fits so nicely in my AGC rig, hate to go with something as bulky as the CONX appears to be.
Again, just want to thank all for the responses. Sounds like there are at least two more people who have the exact same experience I do with the 1600b. If I find something out from Leica that will help, I'll post it for sure.
