Swarovski Range Finder?????????

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by Fiftydriver, May 20, 2005.

  1. Fiftydriver

    Fiftydriver <strong>Official LRH Sponsor</strong>

    Messages:
    6,848
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    To all that have used this RF,

    Just got back from a hunt in Idaho where I was able to take a world class Mouflon Ram at 610 yards. I would have possible had a much longer hit but due to a range error I was shooting for 925 yards instead of 860 yards which is the range the ram was acutally at.

    That first shot hit roughly 8" high, the only reson I know that is because the hole is in the horn to prove it.

    My question is this, I am using the Leica 1200 at the moment and have always been impressed with this rangefinder but on this hunt, in the terrain I was in, it did not work well on this size animal.

    Basically the performance of my Allen Magnums in my Extreme Sporter rifles has outgrown the effective range of this range finder unless a landmark can be used as a range indicator.

    As such I am in the market for a rangefinder upgrade.

    I have heard some good things about the new Swarovski range finder but wanted to hear from those that have actually used it in teh field on game size targets, not on buildings or vehicles or trees, on deer size game in open country, or on grass covered ground only.

    Also, does anyone have any information on the Newcon 6000 and 20000 range finders as far as quality and price. They sound to good to be true but I was just wondering if anyone has tested one of these systems out yet.

    Basically tell me why the Swar is better then my Leica and if it will offer true 1000 yard on game ranging of deer size game.

    Thanks for the information.

    Kirby Allen(50)
     
  2. Ian M

    Ian M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,410
    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Fifty,
    I have a lot of time in the field with both the Swaro and the Leica. In a recent B.C. hunt I got reading off black bears right out to 1000 yards, matter of fact all three lasers that I took with me did this that particular day. On deer last year we used the Swaro much more than the Leica, simply because it gave longer, faster readings and it had a bigger view through the larger eyepiece. Both are great optically, but to my eyes the Swaro is sharper and brighter. We did a lot of mulies in the 700+ range, some out to 1000. Recall an antelope we had no problem getting 1000+ reading on but this was late afternoon, light was optimum for readings.

    I am afraid that what you are needing performance-wise is beyond any of the hand-holdable, sub 1000 dollar units that we can get our hands on. You need the big Leica that Len is using, simple as that but they are a lot more $$$.

    Sunlight beats hell out of the performance of the handholdable, sub 1000 dollar units, regardless of brand. I believe that the Swaro is a step up from the Leica 1200 and also will perform better than their new Geovid binocs - on good lasering days. What you get is superb optics, better ergonomics, bigger and better located send-button, ability to mount directly to tripods, bigger eyepiece for a nicer picture acquisition. Heard a rumor that there are better handheld, sub 1000 dollar units coming in the future, but they ain't here yet.

    Just my thoughts.
     
  3. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Ian,

    Were you comparing the Geovid to the Swarovski there, or the Leica 1200 scan? I am really wondering if they just integrated the same laser into the Geovid or it has a little advantage over the 1200 model like one would hope. You said sub 1000 dollar units so I assume you've been comparing the 1200 model to the Swaro.
     
  4. lerch

    lerch <strong>SPONSOR</strong>

    Messages:
    1,497
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Kirby, the only thing I would have to say bad about the swaro that I have found from playing around with them here at my shop is that once you click the button on the swaro there is a delay until you get your reading. On the leica there is a much smaller delay. This is the only semi annoying problem I could find with them and since you are getting that world famous swaro glass, a set of binoculors, and possible the ability to range game sized targets at 1300 yds or more then I could sure put up with a somewhat slow reading. Using the leica 1200 scan model I have ranged live animals, cattle, at just about 1K. The odd thing was that a black cow would send back a reading but a red cow would, hell if I know why. I think you will love those swaro's Kirby, the one's I looked through were some of the clearest bino's I have ever looked through.

    Thanks
    Steve Elmenhorst
     
  5. ss7mm

    ss7mm Writers Guild

    Messages:
    3,707
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Kirby:

    I have tested the Swarovski side by side with a Leica 1200 scan and the Swaro would range animals and inanimate objects that the Leica couldn’t get a reading on. All testing was done with a rock solid rest or a tripod.

    I have ranged deer at 1104 yards and elk at 1342 yards. This was on the same ridge at the same time, on the same day. They were just on different parts of the opposite ridge. Granted, this was on a day that was slightly overcast so that helps.

    I have ranged rocks and old barns at ranges up to 1680 yards and more reflective stuff like metal buildings etc. at ranges up to 1950 yards. As you know, the material you are ranging and the angle the laser hits it at also make a big difference. I don’t rely too much on the results I get with the very reflective stuff but I sure do like what it does on animals, rocks, trees etc.

    I know you've heard about the glass in the Swaro unit but it's great to say the least. Comparing the view to the Leica is like night and day. The Swaro unit is typical Swarovski quality. Makes it very easy to use it all day long. The view through the lens is bright, wide and clear!

    In talking to Swarovski I was told that the delay is to allow the electronics for the laser to fully charge so you get a very accurate reading every time. It does seem to take a second or so longer than the Leica but knowing what the delay is for, I can gladly wait a second or two for the performance it gives.

    They also told me that you can use their optical doubler on the range finder but that it would probably cut off part of the numbers in the display.
     
  6. Fiftydriver

    Fiftydriver <strong>Official LRH Sponsor</strong>

    Messages:
    6,848
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Ian M,

    I agree with your comments about the limitations of the handheld RFs with some the the modern rounds, bullets and rifles we are lucky to have today.

    I honestly never though that the advances in big game hunting equipment would out grow the handheld range finders capabilities but I believe this is happening.

    What is the big Leica that Len is using? Is this the Vector range finder?

    What kind of performance is this system getting and what is the cost of a unit like this? I have played around with the idea of getting one of the optical mil surplus range finders but I do most of my long range shooting either at game or in hunting type practice situations and do not feel I want to pack around a meter long optical rangefinder.

    If you have any information on his rangefinder or Len if your reading this, could you please offer some information on what you are using.

    Thanks,

    Kirby Allen(50)
     
  7. Fiftydriver

    Fiftydriver <strong>Official LRH Sponsor</strong>

    Messages:
    6,848
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Brent, Lerch and SS7mm,

    Thanks for your replies. I think I am leaning toward the Swar but I will wait to hear if Len replies with some inforamtion on the range finder he is using now.

    Thanks for your comments and experiences you shared. Right now the Swar is the head of the pack.

    Is the Swar a moocular or a binocular? The only model I have seen was a monocular but Bino system would be MUCH better in my opinion.

    Thanks,

    Kirby Allen(50)
     
  8. lerch

    lerch <strong>SPONSOR</strong>

    Messages:
    1,497
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    the ones we have at our store are a monocular eye piece with a binocular objective end, if that doesn't make sense I am sorry. 7mm is right they are amazingly clear.
    Thanks
    Steve Elmenhorst /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
     
  9. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Kirby,

    Len uses the Leica's Laser Locator Plus and I beleive he got his for $6100 - $6900, somewhere in that range. It's basically the civilian Vector IV. It, the Vector and the Riegl FG21-LR are basically in the same class and price range, i.e. 6-10K and all are easily +2000 yard capable in daylight.

    Len told me he gets beyond that with his but I forget just how far, but it was way out there and he seemed happy this wasn't a limiting factor any longer.
     
  10. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    [ QUOTE ]
    the ones we have at our store are a monocular eye piece with a binocular objective end,

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That's kind of why I hope the Geovid has a little added performance in laser range, it would replace my Leica 10x42 but I'd gain the combined rangefinder.

    Wish they'd stick the guts from the Laser Locator Plus into the lower end Geovid 10x42.