Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX, Part 1a
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="catorres1" data-source="post: 1558075" data-attributes="member: 80699"><p><strong>Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1b</strong></p><p></p><p>Setup</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Optics</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <strong>as an RF</strong>, the 2400 was not merely sufficient, but more competitive than I expected. Don't get me wrong, <strong>for an observation device</strong>, 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 <strong>as a ranging device</strong>, 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="catorres1, post: 1558075, member: 80699"] [B]Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1b[/B] 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 [B]as an RF[/B], the 2400 was not merely sufficient, but more competitive than I expected. Don’t get me wrong, [B]for an observation device[/B], 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 [B]as a ranging device[/B], 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX, Part 1a
Top