Rangefinder

[BredWest]

Hello,

I'm looking for an inexpensive rangefinder capable of adequately measuring the distance to things like tree, bushes, grass, foliage, up to five hundred yards on a good day.

I suppose I could (in theory) get something expensive, something that will be good for about a mile but such rangefinders offer a lot of features I simply won't need (I'm talking Leica 1600 and the like)I won't be in a position to spend that kind of money on an accessory anytime soon (wife). So if I can get it done for cheaper, that is what I am aiming for.

Burris scopes seem like something that might do, at least, they offer some features other scopes don't (http://perfectriflescope.com/is-there-any-use-in-buying-a-rifle-scope-with-a-rangefinder/). But the are not exactly the cheapest. Perhaps, something like the Aim Sports Scout (https://www.amazon.com/Sports-2-7X42-Scout-Scope-Rangefinder/dp/B005N82V6K) will do better?

Any input is appreciated.

[yobuck]

A good day means the days they work as for lazer rangefinders. You don't have to use all the features the rangefinders have.
I have a Leica 1600 B and simply use it as a rangefinder and never attempted to use the other features.
Hard surfaces will reflect better than soft ones but for closer distances you might be ok at least some of the time.
You can get a Bushnell for about a couple hundred and they work pretty well.
For about $400 you can get a Sig 2000, and that's the one id buy if I were you.

[Oxn316]

I have the Bushnell one mile arc and am really impressed. You can find them for 400-450 which is not too bad and they work well. I've ranged next to a Leica and they were the same out to 1k.

[BredWest]

I have a Leica 1600 B and simply use it as a rangefinder and never attempted to use the other features.
Well, yeah, but doesn't that feel like a waste?

[yobuck]

Well, yeah, but doesn't that feel like a waste?

Well it isn't as if its a problem to use as just a rangefinder. But to answer your question, yes it is a waste for me at least.
If they offered a cheaper version without that information, id have bought one.
If the Sig had been availiable, and knowing what I know now, I would have bought that one.
Frankly, all of them at some point under certain conditions will disappoint you.
The possible exception would be the very expensive Vectrinix. But I haven't used one enough to be certain of that.
Ive been (told) by those I know having them that they never fail.

[m12lrs]

I want the bushnell elite 1 mile conx to pair with my kestrel. Should be a winning combination

[yobuck]

I want the bushnell elite 1 mile conx to pair with my kestrel. Should be a winning combination

The big word in your statement is (SHOULD).
But then don't be sticking your thumb someplace that could embarrass you. lol

[hereinaz]

Vortex. Its what I have. Excellent for the money with the best warranty.

[LoneWolf]

I've seen the Leica 1600B and the SIG Kilo 2000 both be extremely consistent.

[m12lrs]

The big word in your statement is (SHOULD).
But then don't be sticking your thumb someplace that could embarrass you. lol

Do you have information I don't.

I have been waiting for some real world reviewseries of how they work together. My kestrel is great.

[Wide Glide]

I have the vortex Ranger and it has worked great but in all honesty if it wasn't for the awesome warranty that it comes with I would have gotten the Sig kilo instead the Sig supposedly works a lot better but the warranty isn't nearly as good

[yobuck]

Do you have information I don't.

I have been waiting for some real world reviewseries of how they work together. My kestrel is great.

Well first, I'm not attempting to bash or discredit either product.
The main issue I personaly have with the Kestrel, is accurate wind reads in mountainous terrain where wind could come from several directions including up.
They simply give the information at the location the device is sitting. Even the data obtained from the device isn't necessarily always going to ensure a first round hit, because our world isn't always perfect.
Nasty tree branches grabbing bullets for example, lol.
What works for us is capitalizing on oppurtunities. That usually means getting and keeping lead in the air till its over.

[m12lrs]

Well first, I'm not attempting to bash or discredit either product.
The main issue I personaly have with the Kestrel, is accurate wind reads in mountainous terrain where wind could come from several directions including up.
They simply give the information at the location the device is sitting. Even the data obtained from the device isn't necessarily always going to ensure a first round hit, because our world isn't always perfect.
Nasty tree branches grabbing bullets for example, lol.
What works for us is capitalizing on oppurtunities. That usually means getting and keeping lead in the air till its over.

Have you ever used a kestrel with applied ballistics?

Reading wind is an art that only experience can teach. Starting with a good base line helps.

[scope eye]

I have a Sig 2000 and it is sweet

Dean

PS: I got it on here as a matter of fact.

[huntin1]

I have had several Busnells, a Nikon, a Leica and a Zeiss, I now have a Sig Kilo 2000. The ranging ability of the Sig is better by far than anything else I've had. The Leica and the Zeiss both had better glass, not that the Sig is bad, but they were both just a bit crisper to my old eyes.

I don't believe that paying for the extra features is a waste, you don't know that at some point in the future your needs will change and those features will be needed. If that happens you'll be buying a new rangefinder.

I would recommend the Sig.

[yobuck]

Have you ever used a kestrel with applied ballistics?

Reading wind is an art that only experience can teach. Starting with a good base line helps.

And the very best base line, regardless of new gagetry is called a (sighter shot).

But no, I will admit to never having used that system. I am admittedly old school, and of the (if it aint broke don't fix it mind set.)
I do consider data as being important for long range shooting. But there are also various ways of obtaining the data, and regardless
as to your choice, it will never (guarantee) perfect results. Unfortunatly, you wont know that till you shoot.
Now keep in mind, I am referring to whitetail deer hunting in the steep (heavily wooded) mountainous terrain of N C PA.
If the type of shooting your interested in has certain other requirments, then disregard what I'm saying. Feel free to disregard it regardless,
and you wont hurt my feelings. lol. We, and I say we, because we always hunt as a group of at least 2, with one acting as a spotter for the shooter.
We have an accurate chart for the gun which has been confirmed by actual shooting. It will have included (averages) for temperature, altitude,
pressure etc for the time of year we hunt in that area. Shocking as it may be to some, most shots will produce first round hits.
On longer shots, say 700 and beyond, we will make every effort to swing over and take a sighter shot if at all possible. But a first round miss is also a sighter. We place a higher priority on how we shoot, as for position, than data. The best data and everything else is only as accurate as the
ability of the shooter under the conditions he finds himself, and we don't leave that to chance. We also don't just willy nilly walk around looking
for things to shoot at. We go to specific places, where weve been many times before. Once there, we set up our gear and commence glassing the
ridges opposite where we are. So if it took 21 minits last year, why would we need a rangefinder or anything else to tell us that? Just put on the 21
minits and send one over there. Hey, we just might get lucky yet again lol.
I would highly recommend trying before rushing out and buying.

[m12lrs]

And the very best base line, regardless of new gagetry is called a (sighter shot).

But no, I will admit to never having used that system. I am admittedly old school, and of the (if it aint broke don't fix it mind set.)
I do consider data as being important for long range shooting. But there are also various ways of obtaining the data, and regardless
as to your choice, it will never (guarantee) perfect results. Unfortunatly, you wont know that till you shoot.
Now keep in mind, I am referring to whitetail deer hunting in the steep (heavily wooded) mountainous terrain of N C PA.
If the type of shooting your interested in has certain other requirments, then disregard what I'm saying. Feel free to disregard it regardless,
and you wont hurt my feelings. lol. We, and I say we, because we always hunt as a group of at least 2, with one acting as a spotter for the shooter.
We have an accurate chart for the gun which has been confirmed by actual shooting. It will have included (averages) for temperature, altitude,
pressure etc for the time of year we hunt in that area. Shocking as it may be to some, most shots will produce first round hits.
On longer shots, say 700 and beyond, we will make every effort to swing over and take a sighter shot if at all possible. But a first round miss is also a sighter. We place a higher priority on how we shoot, as for position, than data. The best data and everything else is only as accurate as the
ability of the shooter under the conditions he finds himself, and we don't leave that to chance. We also don't just willy nilly walk around looking
for things to shoot at. We go to specific places, where weve been many times before. Once there, we set up our gear and commence glassing the
ridges opposite where we are. So if it took 21 minits last year, why would we need a rangefinder or anything else to tell us that? Just put on the 21
minits and send one over there. Hey, we just might get lucky yet again lol.
I would highly recommend trying before rushing out and buying.

Oh yeah

Building a range card for your rifle under your hunting conditions from actual fired rounds at your different ranges is a very effective tool. Obviously you know that rifle well.

Different strokes for different folks. I shoot a lot of different rifles all in different chamberings. The kestrel and a range finder works for me.

[yobuck]

Rangefinders have been with us for a very very long time. Very accurate rangefinders were in use during WW1.
So that part of the equaision has never really been an issue for hunters.

[m12lrs]

They have been doing it for a very long. Simple trigonometry. Figured it out around the birth of christ.

Known height, measure the angle. Tangent of the angle = height/distance

[hafejd30]

I've used/had Bushnell 800, Leupold RX IV, Sig Kilo 2000 and Leica 1600b.

I own all but the Sig. (Friend has that model)

The Bushnell is good for the money. Will range a deer about 400 yds on good day
Leupold is IMHO the worst. It's a 1500 yd rangefinder and struggles to range deer out to 500 yds

I did a review of the Sig and Leica on here. If I recal correctly the sig ranged every bit as far as the Leica. The Leica was easier to pick up targets due to the size of the sigs reticle (if sig would reduce the reticle a bit it be a home run in my opinion). The glass on the Leica is better as well. Sig has blue tint making the Leica a better for low light.

In that price range id really look at the bushnells or sig. If the reticle is better on the Bushnell (like the model suggested above) I'd get that. The sig is a good choice to but after using it a bit you need to use the scan mode most of the time to pick up deer at long ranges. 700+ yds. Again due to the reticle size. That's just my $.02