Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaster

[kennyg]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I guess I am more concerned with the ability to range something like say a deer at distance rather then a large reflective object....I hunt in Kansas, it is relatively flat where I am at and I am worried that the large beam divergence might give me inaccurate readings at longer ranges.

 

[Broz]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I guess I am more concerned with the ability to range something like say a deer at distance rather then a large reflective object....I hunt in Kansas, it is relatively flat where I am at and I am worried that the large beam divergence might give me inaccurate readings at longer ranges.

Great Point!!!!!!! And wise statement. 2008 in Kansas I had two big WT deer in a flat field feeding, being raised and hunting Iowa WT all my life I can tell you one was close to 180 and the other would probably go 200". My Swaro choked and would not giv me 3 ranges with in 50 yards of each other. The big beam was catching corn stalks or the trees behind. I elected to pass the shot. We saw the same two bucks with their 5 does the next morning at 300 yards... on private ground. So I guess it was not ment to be. But you will not catch this guy packing a RF with a large beam ever again.

Jeff

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

PS:

Here's a thread from another fellow...

My Experience with the Bushnell Fusion ARC 1600 - Sniper's Hide Forums

I read every post in that snipershide Thread. Sadly, I didn't see any ranging detail that would allow for any direct comparison to the ranging ability on trees or hillsides past 1300 yds. Everything past 1300 yds was a water tower or a house. The link that bigngreen provided didn't provide the nitty gritty on the ranging ability either. So I remain skeptical. Water towers at 2400 yds mean something, but I'm not sure how that compares to ranging natural vegetation in the country the game I hunt is found. They may be the best thing since sliced bread. But I can't confirm that from what I've read to date. I'm not able to reach any conclusion, because no one has reported anything comparable to brush, grass, trees, hillside, mountainside ranging ability.

Anybody have any links to some more pertinent Forum Threads/reviews? I would like to read more, if any members have found any pertinent Threads/reviews.

 

[royinidaho]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I also read the referenced thread from top to bottom. I agree with phorwath, nothing there to hang a hat on.

The 993 yard shot is a good post but as the PHDs say, "more testing is needed.

My single experience of the wide beam causing a clear miss by giving a reading about 50 or so yards short of the actual 1475 is burned in my mind for the eternities.

Just because the distance is shown big, bold and black doesn't make it so.

I'm still lookin' though.

 

[SBruce]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Even the Leica 1600 will sometimes over-shoot the target on relatively flat ground. I would guess the Swarovski would be worse.?

Just the other day I was ranging (trying to) my 10" diameter AR-500 plate. It was only from 510 yds. Even being dead steady on sandbags, I couldn't actually range the plate itself, instead I would get the small dirt berm that is 25yds directly behind the plate. Now if I hang a tractor triangle where the plate is, it will read 510. Leads me back to the belief that the beam wants to "find" the most reflective object in it's area.?

 

[royinidaho]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Leads me back to the belief that the beam wants to "find" the most reflective object in it's area.?

Next time you're out there place a bikini model next to your target. You'll then have empathy for the range finder.

 

[bigngreen]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I read every post in that snipershide Thread. Sadly, I didn't see any ranging detail that would allow for any direct comparison to the ranging ability on trees or hillsides past 1300 yds. Everything past 1300 yds was a water tower or a house. The link that bigngreen provided didn't provide the nitty gritty on the ranging ability either. So I remain skeptical. Water towers at 2400 yds mean something, but I'm not sure how that compares to ranging natural vegetation in the country the game I hunt is found. They may be the best thing since sliced bread. But I can't confirm that from what I've read to date. I'm not able to reach any conclusion, because no one has reported anything comparable to brush, grass, trees, hillside, mountainside ranging ability.

Anybody have any links to some more pertinent Forum Threads/reviews? I would like to read more, if any members have found any pertinent Threads/reviews.

Everything I can find has been shooting water tower or buildings which the Fusion should excel at with a 2x4mil beam, I was not going to waste more money on that kind of beam deliverance! But, the G7 range finder has the same beam but it seems some algorithm will make it accurate, don't know about that, I do know nothing has ticked me of more than rangefinders!!!!!!!

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Everything I can find has been shooting water tower or buildings which the Fusion should excel at with a 2x4mil beam, ... I do know nothing has ticked me off more than rangefinders!!!!!!!

Thanks for the link you shared. With the passing of some more time, additional field experiences with the Fusion will be reported. Then we'll have a better idea of its value, relative to the Leica, Swaro, and to die-hard LRHs.

 

[shirney]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I live in New zealand and I have had the crf 1600 for just over a month. The ranging is pretty consistent with what Porwah has observed. I have changed two units in the past month and they dont range consistently beyond 1100 meters. I also notice that consequtive readingsof barometric pressures vary by as much as 8 to 25 millibars. This is most obvious when you point the Leica in different directions wheb taking readings. The temperature reading is also not accurate as it varies with boady temperature if carried in a pocket.
The optics are great and almost on par with my nightforce scope.
Has anyone else on the forum noticed this inconsistency in barometric readings.
Thanks

 

[highridge1]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I have owned both the leica 1600 and still own the Swaro, The Leica is good but the swaro is better. The swaro ranges further and far more consistent. It also holds alot steadier than the Leica.If the Zeiss PRF ranged a little further I would rate it above the Leica 1600 too.

 

[Broz]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I have owned both the leica 1600 and still own the Swaro, The Leica is good but the swaro is better. The swaro ranges further and far more consistent. It also holds alot steadier than the Leica.If the Zeiss PRF ranged a little further I would rate it above the Leica 1600 too.

Have you studied the Beam divergence and the affect of it for those 3 units? It might be interesting and could help you to not have the problems I have with the big beamed unit like the Swaro and Zess. I agree the swaro will return more numbers , especially off hand. But the problem is many times it is not what you intended it to range.

Jeff