rangefinders

[MontanaRifleman]

Your right about the price . The Leica is a great deal if you want the actual yardage and have time to calculate the corrected yardage for incline shots. Leica has been proven in the field and shown to work nicely. I was not aware that the BR2 only displayed the corrected yardage. I would think that it would display both actual and corrected like the Leupold does.

When I said "only corrected yardage", I meant it didn't give MOA or Mil come ups for those type of turrets. I'm not sure if it gives actual yardage, but I'm not sure why you would want actual yardage, if you're using the BDC turret? Anyway, I am going to contact Leica and Swaro and see if I can stir the pot. That should be interesting.

The Leica would eliminate the need for a weather station unless I wanted a wind readout and that would only be from where I'm standing. I could probably dope the wind just as well. It would also eliminate the angle indicator mounted on my scope and trying to look around at it while I'm looking through the scope. It would make things a lot simpler.

that would

 

[kellyc33]

If you wanted the actual yardage to an object, not necessarily a target, this would be usefull. It would also come in handy for setting targets at specific ranges. You could then check how accurate the compensation program works. I really like both the Leica and the Swaro and hope they jump on board soon with a simple solution. Good luck with your pot stirring. Let us all know what their future plans are.

 

[sp6x6]

As someone mentioned, the BR2 looks like it is made by Lazer tech. Inc. Modeled after the TP360, same company making the Bushnell lr. Any body find beam divergence info, not listed on sites selling TP 360.

 

[SBruce]

Personally, I'd rather just have the rangefinder. No extra ballistic solution stuff.

Reason I say this, is because the Leica 1600 does have a ballistic program of sorts, and even though it only goes to 500 yds..........it slows down the ranging feature. The 1600 is noticeably slower than the 1200's are.

I would rather use the Sierra or Nightforce/Exbal program for ballistics, cause they are known to be fairly accurate. No predetermined ballistic curve (like the rangefinders offer) will ever exactly match your drops and real life trajectory at extended distances. They will always be just a little off one way or the other. Not to mention, to get a rangefinder that has all the settings and features of a true ballistic program......it would be big and heavy too.!!

Keep the rangefinders simple, fast, accurate, small and lightweight!! Increase the range capability and decrease the beam divergence if you want to change something, but leave the ballistic programs to the computers................If I call and "stir the pot" that is what I'll say.

 

[Scott300RUM]

SBruce, I think you said it right there. All these companies are too busy trying to come out with the next cool gadget and gizmo to add to there products to make them seem more appealing. When all they need to do is put more focus into the main reason we want and need a rangefinder.....to range far, and range accurately.

 

[sp6x6]

SBruce, Hows the Leica working, 3 friends are not having luck, my hunting partner is on 2nd. one?It seems to be working

 

[SBruce]

I've taken it out side/side with the 1200 a couple of times. It seems to be working as it should, and has increased my ranging abilities by about 200 yds over the 1200 on small targets (large or reflective targets are further of course).

I've been able to get deer in open grassy meadows at just over 1000 a few different times. Prarie dog mounds out to 850. 3' top section of telephone poles against the sky out to 8 something. Small lone sagebrush out to 1000 +/-, small hardwood trees to a little over 1000 too. This was all on bright sunny days.

My 1200 quit on deer at about 800 +/-.

This is my 2nd one also, the first didn't do so well. Leica was real good about getting me another unit within 2 weeks though. Apparantly, they had some bugs to work out of the first couple batches.?

 

[sp6x6]

That sound like good performance, I think the g7br2 is going to have a hard time at more than double price,2x weight and size, unless it really ranges as depicted

 

[SBruce]

Yes, would like to see beam size and real life tests on small targets for the G7. I don't remember the exact Leica beam divergence off hand, but it was nearly as small as the Vectronix. Just doesn't have the range of the big V.

 

[AaronSkipDavidson]

Thanks guys for the imput.
I checked out the G7 BR2 and will be ordering one as soon as they're released. The only question I had with the BR2 is whether it would store ballistic information for more than one rifle. It would really be great to be able to switch programs on the fly.

6 profiles can be stored on board at once. You just select the one you want. If you need a new one, it only takes me about 2 minutes to update a new profile in the field, so its fairly easy if you need something other than the stored 6.

 

[AaronSkipDavidson]

Personally, I'd rather just have the rangefinder. No extra ballistic solution stuff.

Reason I say this, is because the Leica 1600 does have a ballistic program of sorts, and even though it only goes to 500 yds..........it slows down the ranging feature. The 1600 is noticeably slower than the 1200's are.

I would rather use the Sierra or Nightforce/Exbal program for ballistics, cause they are known to be fairly accurate. No predetermined ballistic curve (like the rangefinders offer) will ever exactly match your drops and real life trajectory at extended distances. They will always be just a little off one way or the other. Not to mention, to get a rangefinder that has all the settings and features of a true ballistic program......it would be big and heavy too.!!

Keep the rangefinders simple, fast, accurate, small and lightweight!! Increase the range capability and decrease the beam divergence if you want to change something, but leave the ballistic programs to the computers................If I call and "stir the pot" that is what I'll say.

This unit does have all the settings and features of a true ballistic program. Additionally, it has onboard sensors for pressure and temperature incline and compass heading.

We offer a windows mobile 6 handheld program for you guys that have that hardware, and the online calculator that we use on our website, and here at Len's forum. The RF calculates the same numbers based on your BC (G1 or G7), MV, Alt, Temp, Zero Range, and Sight Height. The bulk of our testing shows errors on the order of .1 MOA at ranges to 1250 yards.

 

[SBruce]

This unit does have all the settings and features of a true ballistic program. Additionally, it has onboard sensors for pressure and temperature incline and compass heading.

We offer a windows mobile 6 handheld program for you guys that have that hardware, and the online calculator that we use on our website, and here at Len's forum. The RF calculates the same numbers based on your BC (G1 or G7), MV, Alt, Temp, Zero Range, and Sight Height. The bulk of our testing shows errors on the order of .1 MOA at ranges to 1250 yards.

Sounds like this unit's ballistic feature is quite a bit better than the Leica 1600's calculator. I am still very curious what the beam divergence is?

What are the true ranging capabilities on small targets (prarie dog mounds, 5 gallon buckets, single lone sagebrush, trunks of small hardwood trees, rounded 3' top section of REA/telephone poles, round fenceposts, coyotes, deer and antelope, angled upslope grassy hillsides, small single rocks, black angus cattle, ect.)?? These are all things that some rangefinders have problems with, especially out beyond 800 yds. In fact, I can't get black angus heifers with winter hair past 550 with the Leica 1600 under bright sunlight, sometimes not even past 450.

Thanks for the information. If you would like someone to do a real world test on such targets, record the performance and report back/post results; I would gladly do this. I have done the same things with my Leica 1600.

 

[300grains]

I use a Zeiss PRF. It ranges in all kind of weather conditions and the LED reticle is always clearly visible.

 

[kellyc33]

I agree with the part about being small, light, simple and affordable. How about showing actual yardage in large print on top with an adjusted incline yardage on the bottom.( different colors too) Simple, and if you want to do your own calcs, fine.
Personally, I would just set my turret for the incline yardage. I have no real need for the actual yardage when hunting.