Leica CRF 1600 vs Bushnell ARC 1600

[BlackSS]

First off I know the Leica is surely going to have better glass, but I am looking for which one will perform the best as a rangefinder.
Leica should certainly be better for the money, but there seem to be a bunch of Leica duds out there. In fact on several other forums the bushnell seems to be preferred over the Leica.

So, if you've used or tried these two LRF's what are your thoughts in terms of overall performance and value?

TIA

Craig

 

[Broz]

Craig, if beam divergence is not a worry to you and you can live with the large beam of the ARC then either will work. If you are concerned about the ill affects of a mis range because the large beam gave you a reading off something other than your intended target, then the Leica is the way to go.

The Leica 1600 did have an issue with some units at first. But they were replaced and I have not heard of any issues with one for a long time.

There was a pretty lengthy discussion on this very subject in the last few weeks. You may want to try the search box in the upper right corner of this page.

Jeff

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

The Lieca is the better product. I have ordered several for friends lately and all worked very well. Shooting long range rocks etc. they have been consistent to 1300 yards or so. If you shoot further than that you need to pay a few thousand dollars.

This brings up another good discussion that most guys gear up with long range rigs that are designed to far outshoot their rangefinders. Shoot a rig that is best within the distance your rangefinder can aquire a target and you can actually reliably kill something.

Broz just posted and he has a rangefinder and equipment that match his long range shooting. This is expensive but way fun. Many have some good long range rigs matched with a short range rangefinder doesn't make sense.

 

[Jordan Smith]

The Lieca is the better product. I have ordered several for friends lately and all worked very well. Shooting long range rocks etc. they have been consistent to 1300 yards or so. If you shoot further than that you need to pay a few thousand dollars.

This brings up another good discussion that most guys gear up with long range rigs that are designed to far outshoot their rangefinders. Shoot a rig that is best within the distance your rangefinder can aquire a target and you can actually reliably kill something.

Broz just posted and he has a rangefinder and equipment that match his long range shooting. This is expensive but way fun. Many have some good long range rigs matched with a short range rangefinder doesn't make sense.

Just a quick question- have you used the Bushnell 1600, and if so, how would you compare it to the Leica 1600? Thanks

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

Jordan, Sorry I missed your question. I have used every top end bushnell since they first started making rangefinders. Had both of these side by side on an elk hunt this year. The guy with the bushnell 1600 sold it after the hunt and I ordered him a lieca 1600.

The most important thing was the size and weight. the lieca 1600 is half the weight and fits in a shirt pocket. The lieca would range further on average and not pick up as much clutter causing bad readings. The lieca is the best to hunt with of any I have found in this class.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Thank you, sir.

Now was this a Bushnell Elite 1600, or the Bushnell Fusion 1600?

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

elite 1600

 

[jehu]

Thanks to Broz and his extensive comparison research I ended up with the Lieca 1600 and it has performed flawlessly with dependable repeatable readings and as stated fits in your shirt pocket.

 

[bigbuck]

I use a leica CRF 1600 and it has worked , I would say 90 % of the time . I had one case where I tried ranging green trees in bright sun light form the top of the Mtn down to the valley and it had problems giving me ranges past 900 yards. but most of the time its quick at ranging whatever I range.

Hope this helps.

 

[BlackSS]

Well, I bought the Leica and just compared it to my cheapo Nikon 1200.
In my neighborhood I can only find one thing the leica can do that the Nikon can not, but I am looking at big targets (buildings) where the large beam of the Nikon will not be much of a detriment. In low light I could not get a reading on a white water tower at just over 2000 yards but was able to get ranges on buildings at 1250 yds with both units. Nothing visible from my house between 1200 and 2000.
The Leica was able to hit one building that was just barely sticking up from behind a house that the Nikon could not, I assume due to the large beam as the Nikon kept reading the closer building.

Glass is not even a comparison, the Leica makes it seem like the Nikon glass is tinted like sunglasses.

I will have to go drive around and find a pasture with some cattle for a real comparison. I just had to run out and try the new toy.

 

[Broz]

The Leica was able to hit one building that was just barely sticking up from behind a house that the Nikon could not, I assume due to the large beam as the Nikon kept reading the closer building.

That is what you are looking for. Good test. Next time that mght just be the body of a deer or elk over a hill and that is all you can see. This is where the small beam brings home the meat.

Jeff

 

[pockets380]

I have the Leica 1600 and love it. I stepped up from a Leupold RX-1. I absolutely love it! I'm not familiar with the Bushnell. I really like the lighted reticle. I've ranged a pole building at 1854 yards with it. I have had no problems with it, ranges very well. The furthest I ranged with my old one was a bear at 720 yards. I would recommend it for sure.

 

[Jordan Smith]

On Friday I was out with my Bushnell Fusion 1600, and I got set up and ranged 5 different targets. The first 4 targets were 10-14" rocks. The first was 252 yards, the second 457 yards, third was 835 yards, and fourth was 982 yards. The fifth target was a small evergreen tree. The range was 1857 yards. The first 3 shots from the cold bore of my 7WSM smacked the 10" rock at 835 yards. The next few were a mix of hits and near misses on the 982 yard ~12" rock. The wind was howling pretty good (about a 16-19 mph wind), but the elevation was bang on.