Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX, Part 1a

catorres1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
450


This first review will cover the Sig 2400 BDX, it’s general function, optics, and it’s ranging performance. The second review will look at the Sierra 3 scope in the BDX platform and its integration with the RF, as well as provide some thoughts on how the 2400 BDX stacks up vs the 2400 ABS option.

For many years, with a very few very high-end exceptions, Leica had the ‘mostly top shelf’ spot locked up for itself. As is usually the case when that happens, someone notices that there is plenty of room on that shelf for a good competitor. Enter Sig Electo-optics. I think it is safe to say that heads were turned when they released their Kilo series of rangefinders that could compete with Leica, and were doing so at a lower price point.

Since that time, it’s been a race, and Sig has been going full bore. Their iteration schedule has been extremely aggressive, which has allowed them to innovate at a high rate. The 2400 ABS is a great example of this, combining significant ranging power with arguably the best ballistic solution on the market. While not perfect in everyone’s eyes, and perhaps out of reach financially for many shooters, it is definitely a flag in the sand.

Ballistic Data Exchange

For many people, though, this solution was not all they wanted it to be. Sig recognized this some time ago and have been working on a solution that, while not as integrated, is more flexible for some people and solves some issues that some, but by no means all, shooters were concerned about. To round it out, Sig wanted to take it to another level, offering another form of integration that would appeal particularly to hunters.


The 2400 BDX comes with a lanyard, battery, carrying pouch and quick start card. Most instructions are accessed online, along with the app and a lot of video content about the system

This all came together in the BDX (Ballistic Data Exchange) line of rangefinders, and now, integratable scopes. The BDX line has several rangefinders to fit the budget of most hunters. Up to the BDX 2200, they differ from the previous Kilo line via capabilities enabled by their Bluetooth connection ability. This allows the user to input ballistic and environmental data from an app on their phone to the RF so that when they range the target, they receive a ballistic solution out to 800 yards., via the onboard AB Ultralite software. AB ultralite differs from the full AB suite (such as what is loaded on the 2400 ABS) in that it does not consider higher level forces like coriolis, spin drift, etc…Ostensibly, this is why the data return is limited to 800 yards. While BDX RF’s do not have on board environmental sensors (like the ABS does), the ballistic and environmental data is stored in the RF once it is uploaded from the app, but if the RF and the app are left connected, and if there is cell signal, the app will continually update the environmental data based on what it pulls from the nearest weather station. If there is no cell service or they are not connected, it defaults to what was last loaded into the RF.

The top RF in this line at this time, the 2400 BDX, takes connectivity one step further. It takes all of the capabilities and choices of the rest of the BDX line and adds connectivity with full AB Suite devices like the Kestrel Elite, and now, the Garmin Foretrex. For shooters that opt for the 2400, they gain the ability to connect in real time with one of these devices, so that when they range, the distance and angle is transmitted to the AB device, and a full AB solution (same as one would get on a 2400 ABS) is transmitted back and displayed in the rangefinder (both distance and wind hold). The distance is only limited to what you can range with the RF, so the solution is the complete package.


The BDX system offers users a lot of choice. One of it’s most powerful configurations comes via wireless integration with AB Elite devices like the Kestrel 5700 and the Foretrex 701

So in summary, you have three ways you can run the 2400 BDX with ballistic returns (you can also run angle modified range only for bowhunting etc.). First, you can load your environmental and ballistic data on the RF via phone, and then run it stand alone with ballistic returns. Second, you can keep it connected to your phone while in the field so that environmental data is updated in real time where there is cell signal, or manually if not. And third, you can run it connected to an AB Elite device, allowing the AB to do all the environmental and ballistic work, which will display on screen in both the 2400 and on the AB device.

The other major difference between the Kilo and BDX lines is the connectivity capability with BDX scopes. Essentially, when the two are connected, the scope displays both wind and elevation holds automatically in the scope via illuminated dots. So the shooter only needs to range the target, and if the scope and RF are connected, the proper aiming point will be illuminated in the scope based on the ballistic and environmental data loaded in the RF. I’ll cover the scope and RF combo working together in a follow-up to this review, but so far, I am more impressed with the utility of this package than I thought I would be.

There are some other tech features that I’ll skip over, but suffice it to say, Sig is hitting their stride in the electro portion of Electo-Optics, and in the BDX line, they have created a solution that allows the user to decide just how far they want to go. From stand alone RF all the way to a fully integrated system, shooters can decide how much tech, and how much money, they want to put into their shooting system. It allows configurability and an upgrade path to fit any budget and timeline.

Ergonomics

The 2400 BDX follows in the same line as previous Sig’s in terms of build. It is pretty much identical to the 2400 ABS, which is to say a bit wider than a Leica, with a distinct feel of robustness, due to it’s metal body and rubber armor. The eyecups twist out to adjust for eye relief, and the diopter, though it does not lock, is very stiff and very unlikely to move.



The diopter ring can be hard to turn, but it’s stiffness ensures it does not move accidentally. There is also a great deal of adjustment in the eyepiece. When fully retracted, it worked fine for me even with my glasses on

I particularly liked the battery cap, which has a flip up portion to make removal very easy. It is o-ring sealed as well, helping the 2400 achieve its IPX-7 rating.


The flip up lever on the battery cap makes battery changes quick, even with gloves on

The one thing I found that could be improved on is the ranging button, which is slightly recessed to prevent accidental actuations. It works fine with warm hands, but I found actuating it with numb fingers inside gloves sometimes difficult enough so I would remove my gloves to get it done in some cases. A little taller button would strike a better balance between usability and protection, at least for me, but YMMV. But overall, like the 2400 ABS, this is a well made, very solid piece of kit that feels good in the hand and seems built to take some abuse.
 

catorres1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
450
Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1b

Setup

No way around it, Sig has done a great job making connecting their RF to a phone or to a Kestrel easy. I am not much of an instruction reader, but I had the RF connected in minutes and had ballistics loaded and good to go. Soon afterward, I handed it to my 15 year old, and he had it ready for his gun in half the time. Easy. Likewise, connection to the Kestrel was hard to mess up. Connection was sure, with only very rare instances where a solution did not feed. Mainly, it occurred when I re-ranged repeatedly and very rapidly, and sometimes no solution would be displayed at all. I would expect only the last range to get a solution, but that sometimes did not happen. From what I could gather, it appears that the Kestrel or perhaps the connection could not keep up when I hit the button 10 or 15 times in rapid succession. When that happened, I would just re-range on the last target (made easy by the Sig’s re-range speed) and a solution would display immediately. This did not occur when using scan mode, so my guess is only the last range is transmitted for processing by the Kestrel.

In terms of automatic reconnect, if I had the Kestrel running but the RF was asleep, all it took was one button press to wake the RF up and within 2 seconds, we were connected and good to go. My experience with the connectivity was excellent, probably more reliable than the laptop I am currently using! In terms of workflow, this means you could conceivably keep your Kestrel running all the time (battery permitting). When you see a target, just wake the RF up, range, and go. The RF will display distance, followed by your hold based on the selected rifle profile, and a wind hold. The only time you need to touch the Kestrel is if you want to take or enter a new wind reading and/or to set direction of fire, which is only necessary for shots long enough where Coriolis etc. come into play. In those cases, you have the time to do that, but for shorter range affairs, it’s probably not necessary. However, for a more streamlined workflow, I do wish Sig had incorporated a compass in the BDX, as they have done on the ABS, and were passing that automatically just as the distance and angle data is passed.

Optics

Depending on how you use your RF, optical quality may or may not be all that important to you. However, in the very least, if you cannot see your target, you can’t range it. I have used RF’s that, once the sun started to dip, became unusable at appreciable distance due to poor optical performance, so it holds some importance for everyone. In addition, I often use my RF’s as observation devices, sometimes making pulling the binos out unnecessary, so my personal criteria differs from some users who are only looking for the ability to range an already determined target, not find one. While RF’s are generally not intended for this purpose, I’ll try and describe the 2400’s applicability for both roles.

The 2400 has a 7x magnification, a little more than some of the BDX line. At first glance through the 2400, and second to be honest, I was underwhelmed. The glass has a distinct blue cast, is fairly low contrast, and sharpness falls off quickly towards the edges though the center appeared reasonably sharp. So I was a little concerned about how it would fare in terms of sharpness tests and low light usability.

To test sharpness, I set up a standard eye chart at 100 yards and tested off a tripod in full sun, and then pretty continually from 30 minutes before sunset until 30 minutes after. On a standard eye chart, reading from the center of the RF where sharpness was at its best, at 100 yards in full sun, I could read down to the fourth line and most of the 5th line as well. Thirty minutes before sunset, I could still read the 4th line, but less than half the 5th line. By sunset, I was down to just the 4th line, and within 10 minutes, I was down to the 3rd line. Twenty minutes after sunset and on, I could only read to the second line of the chart. Keep in mind, I tested on a day with full sun, and on my street which has consistent lighting.

I have tested a few RF’s in these same conditions, so have a pretty good idea about what to expect and frankly, I was surprised by what I found, which is despite first impressions, the 2400 performed quite well. This test must be understood as what it is, limited to resolving a black and white (high contrast) image at distance, under consistent lighting that may or not coincide with particular conditions of the day. So it does not tell me if you will be able to see a deer 20 minutes after sunset at your favorite hunting spot. What it does tell me, however, is that in terms of clarity and the ability to resolve, contrary to my expectations, the optics on the 2400 were pretty much right in there with other competitive offerings. Based on my first glance, I definitely did not expect these results. Though the view appears a bit dim in broad daylight, this is probably due to the fact that the optics present a distinct blue cast which, to my eye, lowers overall contrast. As my other optics have a much warmer, natural hue, I found the cast to be quite noticeable, and contrast levels effect our perception of sharpness. In use, however, the 2400 turned in a surprisingly competitive performance on the eye chart.

Of course, an eye chart test only tells one part of the story. In finding targets to range in daylight that I had already found with my eyes or through other optics, I found it took me longer to locate them in the 2400 than through my other optics because the color and contrast cues I was looking for to identify a previously selected target were off, so I had a hard time finding my way back on target at times. But looking into deep shadows at night in places I test, I was able to make out the details I would expect to see, so was surprised again that the 2400 performed as well as it did.

Everyone’s eyes are different, so your mileage may vary, and I definitely prefer a more natural hue in my glass with more contrast that matches what my eyes see, and I want that consistently across my optics. But I did find myself adapting at least somewhat after a while, and when the sun went down, the hue was no longer perceptible to me as the colors cooled at the end of the day. Night performance was better than I had expected, and peering into shadows and darker areas provided me with plenty of vision to range a target up to the end of shooting light.

Speaking of light, one area where the RF struggled was in flare control. The coatings on the Sig did not handle flare as well as I’d like. In some cases, depending on the angle of the sun, I found as much as one third of the viewfinder to be covered in strong enough flare that details could not be perceived. For the most part, I could still find my target, or was able to shade the RF enough to block the sun from the lens, but I would like to see improvement here.

Overall, the optical performance was a surprise for me. Everyone’s eyes are different, so your mileage may vary, but when I look through the 2400, compared to what I am used to, the color cast and lack of contrast gives the perception of a lack of sharpness. Coupled by noticeable softness on the edges, and I was wondering just how these would far as the light went down. But in use, I was very surprised. In terms of using it as an RF, the 2400 was not merely sufficient, but more competitive than I expected. Don’t get me wrong, for an observation device, I definitely prefer a more natural hue in my glass with more contrast that matches what my eyes see, and I want that consistently across my optics because these qualities help me initially find and identify game. The 2400’s optics lack that pop and clean feel that you get from rich but true life colors and strong but natural contrast which, in turn, helps you identify a deer hiding in a thicket. But in use as a ranging device, they are completely up to the job. The viewing experience is not as vibrant and lifelike, which does have some downfalls, but they absolutely get the job done outsized to what I expected based on my first impression looking through the viewfinder. The notable exception was the flare issue, but otherwise, in the role of an RF viewfinder, I’d characterize the 2400’s optics as delivering a solid, dependable yeoman’s performance.
 

catorres1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
450
Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1c

Ranging Performance


Not a lot of street signs on this West Texas ranch where I tested the 2400, but there is a big mule deer buck in there somewhere….

Before we get into the performance numbers, one note on these results. According to Sig, the 2400 will hit over 3000 yards on reflective targets, 1800 on trees, and 1400 on deer. I have heard anecdotally from others that they have hit the range limit both nearer and farther, and I don’t doubt it. Through all the testing I have done, I have found all RFs’ performance to be pretty dramatically affected by the conditions of the day. Sun, haze, dust, moisture in the air, and of course the nature of the targets, really effect the results. A clear day in the city I live in gave much shorter results than those achieved at 10,000 feet in Colorado or out among the Guadalupe Mountains in West Texas. So to really get a feel for how an RF performs, I test them over and over in many conditions, times, places, and against various targets, and I run these tests against a well known control at the same time so I can get an idea of how the conditions and the target might be affecting performance. I do this both hand-held and tripod mounted. Only by doing it over a long period of time in tandem with a control can I really get an idea of what the true performance capability of the RF is.

So your mileage may vary depending on the environmental and target conditions you may encounter, to say nothing of unit to unit variation (which should be much less pronounced). The results below should be seen as an assessment of the average performance as demonstrated across a broad spectrum of conditions over an extended time. In some situations, a particular unit may perform better than what I have documented, or worse. But overall, I think what I have experienced is a fairly representative view of what you can expect from the 2400.

Two other data points of significance that affected my testing. In distance testing the 2400, I initially had some inconsistent results. The aiming circle on the 2400 is approximately 3.5 mrad, while the laser divergence is 1.3 and round. So for small targets at long distance, you could conceivably be barely on target, or even slightly off target. In addition, while ideally the laser would be aligned directly in the middle of the circle, it is not on my unit, and in talking to others, this appears to be a common situation, and not just with Sigs. Subsequently, I found the same issue on another RF I am testing by another manufacturer. Accordingly, I tested using an antenna pole and found that the sensor on my 2400 is right of center, and very slightly low, but still within the aiming circle.


Ranging and optical performance were tested both hand-held and tripod mounted

The other point to note is that of the divergence of the beam. That, coupled with the size of the reticle and placement of the sensor, made it easy to miss the target (and think the RF ran out of gas) or hit the wrong target at times. For those longer range targets, there is a setting to help ensure you are hitting the farther target rather than objects close to the RF. But sometimes, it was hard to tell if you were reading off a tree at 300 yards, or a target at 385 just beyond it. Generally speaking, if I were to change anything in this regard, I would recommend going to a shape and size similar to what Leica uses. That beam is about the same width of the Sig’s (which is 1.3 mil round), but less than half the height and rectangular, making miss-hits on closer range targets less likely. That, and/or knowing right where the sensor is in relation to the reticle (either by testing for placement, or by a combination of a smaller reticle and more precise sensor placement within the reticle) would be helpful in ensuring you are ranging what you want with the 2400. Once I determined where my sensor was placed and adapted to its shape and size, I re-ran my ranging tests with much more consistent results and was able to get returns on small targets at much longer distances.

Testing took place in Central Texas, North Texas, Colorado, as well as out in West Texas, Michigan and Northern Indiana. Some of these locales have a lot more long range targets and weather conditions available to me than where I live, particularly in terms of rain and snow conditions. Testing took place under controlled conditions, as well as in actual field use hunting elk, mule deer and Aoudad sheep.


Range testing took place in multiple locations including Colorado, Central and West Texas, Palo Duro Canyon, Indiana, and Northern Michigan. Conditions ranged from full sun to snow, at all hours of the day.

Natural Targets

More often than not, I find myself ranging trees and bare hillsides when I am hunting (assuming there is no game to range, which sadly seems to be my lot this year!), so that is the standard I use to see how an RF will do. Generally, with RF’s, after thousands of actuations, I usually find they have a ‘consistent’ distance, where they are very strong and can generally be depended upon to return off of an average target in most conditions. Very bright light will lower this number, but I can usually find a shaded portion that will return even in those conditions. Then there is the ‘stretch goal’, so to speak….which are targets which will only return periodically in full sun, but much more often at the end of the day just after sundown or under cloudy skies. These tend to represent the limits of what the RF will do on that category of target, often with the use of scan mode.

Trees

For the 2400, it was a pretty solid performer out to 1800 yards, even in sun. There were some trees it would not range at 1600 and there were one time hits at 2300 or a bit more, but the RF was generally fairly solid and fast at the 1800-1900 yard range. As the sun went down, I very occasionally got hits as high as 2330 on trees, but those were few and far between and I never saw 2400 or higher show on my unit when ranging a tree. Sig claims 1800 on trees, and I think that is a fair, if not conservative, estimate, depending on conditions, with a stretch goal being in the 23-2400 range. Keep in mind, this is on trees, not on reflective targets.

Cliffs and Hillsides

As strong as the 2400 is on trees, it really excelled on stone outcroppings and hillsides, especially when they were lighter in color. While Aoudad hunting in Palo Duro Canyon, where there are a lot of cliffs and some long distance opportunities, while briefly testing at the end of the day I was able to hit out to 2787, and perhaps could have gotten further with a tripod mount, which I was not carrying due to trying to cut pack weight. In these conditions, the RF really seemed to be able to stretch its legs and appeared to want to approach its reflective target range. On reflective targets, Sig claims over 3000 yards, which anecdotally, I have heard is accurate. I don’t have consistent reflective targets to test, though I could sit by the highway and shoot road signs, but I don’t find that particular data point all that useful so I have not gone out of my way to do that. But considering that near 2800 was achievable on white rock cliff walls, I suspect that 3k on a reflective target is entirely reasonable, just as Sig claims.

Range Targets


Private range where I can test on steel out to 1390

Concerning steel, I did get to try the 2400 at a range I use to test RF’s and optics, and they recently added a 24” x 48” plate at 1390. The plates are all painted yellow and red, so not exactly reflective and certainly not white, and the plates at 1125 were about 20 inches in diameter, so just under 2 MOA. The conditions were basically bright, full sun in the afternoon, testing off a tripod and continued until a little before sunset. Under these conditions, I was able to hit a 24”x48” yellow and red plate at 1390 yards, though reticle alignment had to be just right (biased towards the right). I could hit the 20 inch plate at 1125 pretty easily with less concern for alignment and more consistency.
 

catorres1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
450
Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1d


High center, you can see the plate 24”x48” yellow and red plate at 1390
Subsequently, while in Northern Indiana and under more favorable conditions (heavily overcast skies, but no rain or mist), I tested on 12" and 18” white square targets made of cardboard that were set up skylined in a rolling corn field. By using scan mode, I was able to read the 12" plate out to 1135 yards. On the 18" target, I reached 1281 before the wind ripped it off the target frame. At 1281, I was able to hit the target the first time using the standard mode (not scan). As I have found that the 2400 is able to reach “so far” using standard mode, and then additional distance can be measured by utilizing scan mode, and since the 2400 hit the 18" plate at 1281 on the first ranging attempt in standard mode, I am confident that it would reach a bit farther under those conditions. Unfortunately, the weather would not cooperate for the rest of my visit, so I was not able to push it to the max range I had available, but my guess is that 1600-1700 yards would be achievable under ideal conditions using scan mode. Unfortunately, I don’t currently have access to a range with those kinds of distances with appropriate space for testing on targets. If I find the right place, I hope to try the 2400 a little further out and will update this review if that occurs.

Game

Sadly, as much as I would have liked to, I did not get the opportunity to really test the 2400’s ability on game at long range. Black cows at 900 yards is about the longest I was able to come across unfortunately. Based on the 2400’s performance vs Sig’s claims, I would believe large deer or elk at 1400 is entirely reasonable, but I cannot say for sure. I have been planning to make my own ‘deer’ using an old pelt and a 3d target so I can be more consistent in testing RF’s on game. When (if) I do, I’ll try and update this review with that result.

Precipitation

Precipitation performance is a bit tricky to test because the conditions can change literally second to second, so it is harder to get a baseline and a fair comparison, and consequently, hard to express the capabilities of the RF. But overall, in several hours of testing in the rain, I found that by at least one measure, the 2400 was particularly strong in its rain performance. RF’s generally respond in three ways to precipitation: they will either read as normal; they will fail to give a range just as if you were pointing at the sky; or they will give what I call a malfunction reading, usually a reading of 40-50 yards even though the target is much more distant. This last reading appears only when rain, snow or fog is particularly heavy, so heavy that I believe that the beam is being diffracted so as to fool all the RF’s I have tested into believing the target is in that 40-50 yard range. In terms of the first two, the 2400 did about as well as other RF’s I have tested, give or take. However, on the occasions where the rain was really pouring down, the 2400 was the last to display the ‘malfunction reading’. While I cannot give exact percentages, I can say that I tested the 2400, cumulatively, for several hours in the rain and found it's advantage in these conditions to be consistent. Why this is so, I cannot say for sure, but my guess is that Sig's utilization of a class 3 laser, as opposed to the class 1 laser used by competitors, is probably the reason for its strong performance in the rain. The 2400's laser has roughly twice the raw power of some of its competitors, and while raw laser power is only one component of an RF's ranging performance, I suspect in this case, and in the case of the 2400's reflective target performance, the extra power is making the difference.

Ranging Summary

I am working on a multiple model direct comparison for later this spring, but at this time I will say the 2400’s ranging capabilities are competitive. The only difficulties I found revolve around the size of the aiming circle and the uncertainty of just exactly where the censor is within that circle, which can cause some difficulty in precisely ranging very small targets at distance. While this can be overcome to a great degree with some personal testing about where the placement and boundary of the ranging sensor lies within the aiming circle, nonetheless, I’d love to see the circle size decreased and the sensor placed in the center for easier precision ranging. However, once I got the hang of how my RF was setup, I found ranging to be very good, strong and very fast. And that last is something to note. When you range with a Sig, if you miss or you get no reading, you can range again immediately. The unit is blazing fast, so when your hand shakes and you miss or you hit a tree in front of you instead of the deer behind it, there is no wait time, the 2400 is immediately ready.



Conclusion


Strengths

Robust build
Powerful ranging
Immediate re-ranging capability, the unit is super fast, allowing for quick followups
Strong performance in heavy precipitation
Outstanding integration with external devices, more of which will be discussed in part II.


Could be improved

Optics coatings, particularly in terms of flare suppression
Reticle size/sensor placement for easier precision ranging
Ranging button can be hard to actuate with gloved hands
An internal compass would make integration with a Kestrel more complete

Overall, I have to say I am very impressed with the 2400. Truth is, I thought it was pretty cool when I got it, but the more I have used it, the more I am impressed, especially once I figured out where the ranging sensor lay within the reticle, and additionally, once we got to use it pretty extensively while hunting. While it is nothing new in terms of ranging power or optics (the 2400 ABS, which shares the same ranging engine and optics, has been out for quite some time), its ability to connect and execute bi-directional data sharing with external devices is particularly noteworthy. Being able to connect with the phone and, more importantly, the Kestrel or Foretrex, and to have that data feed back in with wind holds included, is very nice. The option to use the RF without a Kestrel, relying on the phone for environmentals, gives the BDX added flexibility. But the optional connection to the BDX line of scopes takes the system to the next level for those that want to go there. That integration and how it well it works, as well as how the BDX theoretically stacks up against the ABS, is what I’ll explore in more depth in part 2.
 

KaSH0508

Active Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
36
Location
Utah
Excellent review! I also upgraded to the 2400BDX last year. I purchased it as soon as they showed in stock at sport optics. My review is no where near as thorough as yours, but I will agree on its performance 100%. After hunting Antelope in SD, Mule Deer in Wyoming, Mule Deer in Utah and then Whitetail in SD I found mine to be consistent at the following. Trees at 1800, rock cliffs at 2300 and game animals at 1300 is almost a guarantee. I did have plenty of hits out further but not consistently. I hit a elk at 1545 in Utah but could not count on doing that consistently. I also ranged a big steel barn at 3000 or so but I don’t really care about reflective targets so didn’t really try anything else. My only two issues I have had are glare/flare when ranging directly into the sun. It can really wipe out the view. My only other issue I found was in snow fall calling coyotes. I kept picking up ranges of 30/40 yards on snow flakes while trying to range a coyote. I estimated him at around 250 nd sent a 75 Vmax from the 6mm AR at him. Either way dead coyote. The Ballistics system seems to work well also. I ranged dialed what it told me and bang tag filled. Overall I am happy with the purchase. Once again thanks for the thorough review!
 

catorres1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
450
You are welcome and thank you for adding your experiences! Our experiences are remarkably consistent, which is cool to see. Did you notice on your whether the ranging sensor was well centered or not?
 

KaSH0508

Active Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
36
Location
Utah
You are welcome and thank you for adding your experiences! Our experiences are remarkably consistent, which is cool to see. Did you notice on your whether the ranging sensor was well centered or not?
Mine hits right in the center. I had a different rangefinder that hit off center before. I was glad this one was right where it should be.
 

Indypendent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
141
Same here. I’m pretty satisfied with the Kilo/BDX and Sig App method (up to 800). I feel like Sig did a great job at providing instruction and tutorials for how to use the complete BDX system but just simply mentions the connectivity opportunities to the Garmin 701 and the Kestrel 5700 Elite. There’s no dedicated and “joint” Kestrel/Sig or Garmin/Sig tutorial that would teach a user to incorporate all technology and apply it in a drill...like Kestrel does with CRUSH. I don’t know, maybe I missed something 3rd party someone built/made like a tutorial video. Although I called Kestrel and Sig, even talked to Sig face to face and everyone admitted there’s no official tutorial for full scale integration of all the compatible technologies.
 

catorres1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
450
Yeah, there are videos that show how to connect stuff and set stuff up on the sig. There are probably videos on how to use the Kestrel...a little on the Foretrex. But there is no 'whole system....RF, Scope, Kestrel/Foretrex....end to end stuff that I am aware of. Wonder if Doc from AB would be doing something like that.
I hate being video'd or I'd do it. Maybe I need to get over it and get it done, but that's a whole other level of time in terms of sound, editing etc...
 

catorres1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
450
Mine hits right in the center. I had a different rangefinder that hit off center before. I was glad this one was right where it should be.
That's good to hear and that's the way it should be. Makes ranging a lot easier. I did figure out where mine is, but it's still not as optimal as when it is centered.

I have seen this with other manu's RF's as well, as the ranges get farther and the targets smaller, it's something I think all manu's will need to address. People are wanting to hit sub MOA targets at long distances, and to make that consistently possible, you need to be able to really aim correctly.

From a marketing perspective, it does them a disservice as well. When I first talked with some folks about the 2400's capabilities on small targets, they underestimated them and I think they probably had an off centered sensor. I had that experience as well until I tested for placement and then retested ranging. So if they'd make sure it's centered, I think overall feedback would be better and more accurate.
 

Trending threads

Top