Rangefinder

HungryHunter · December 23, 2012, 07:59 PM

So my xmas present to myself is a rangefinder. I don't have much experience with these things. Previously the set up I used was either trying a mil counting formula, or I would "step off" the distance between my deer feeder and my anticipated ambush area. So I figure that's not always gonna be realistic if I'm not hunting around home. So all aside bear in mind I've never even picked one of these things up. I saw a leupold and really believe in their products. That being said, I had a budget cut and just put a Nikon Monarch on my Browning and was incredibly happy at the range Saturday. The Leupold I imagine, as always, you get what you pay for. If there was something of similar, or close to quality, I would be open to that. Any suggestions, and pros and cons, or experiences would be greatly appreciated.

dmazur · December 23, 2012, 08:06 PM

While the Leica 1200 is a tad bit pricey, it works. It doesn't have a complicated screen, doesn't calculate slopes, etc. It just reliably shows the range out to 800 to 1000 yds, depending on the target characteristics.

I'm sure there are dozens of ways to use a rangefinder. When hunting from a stand, I make up a little 3x5 card with "landmarks" drawn on it, then write the lasered ranges beside the landmarks. Then I put the rangefinder in my pack.

When trying this out with a ballistic reticle scope pre-season, I've found I do much better at 300 yards than guessing at "hold-over".

And the other half of the solution is a pair of shooting sticks, if I have to set up where using my pack as an improvised rest is just not high enough.

solocam72 · December 23, 2012, 08:11 PM

Really depends on what you plan to use it for, I have had bushnell, and leupold but I wanted something that would reliably range out to a 1000 yrds and neither the leupold or bushnell would do this, I had to go higher end to get what I wanted, I narrowed it to the leica 1600 and the swarovski, I liked the fit and feel of the leica the best and that's what I went with and i don't regret my decision one bit! I have ranged trees all the way out to 1,957 yrds is the farthest, it gives me instant readings out to 1200 to 1300 yards on bushes, trees, rocks, etc. The down side is I paid around 800.00 for it iirc? I know it was substantially more than bushnell and leupold but does what I want. I enjoy shooting long range for fun and it is an invaluable must have tool for that

HungryHunter · December 23, 2012, 08:31 PM

Great, thanks for the advice. I also have used the "landmarks" technique. You guys are way ahead of me. 600m and under, is not my rifle or my scopes effective range, but it is for the shooter

....that guy. I've been watching a lit of Hollands videos and trying to find a mentor but a lot of guys seem to like being the only ones that can shoot that far. Anyway, it will mostly be used for finding distances on elk. I think the ones you guys use are ptobably pretty advanced for me. I'm kinda looking entry level, good quality, thanks again.

dmazur · December 23, 2012, 09:15 PM

I didn't select the Leica because of positive reviews...I went to a store which had a selection, including Leupold's, and asked if I could range something in the parking lot. The manager agreed, so I went through them, one at a time, until I found something which would actually work.

It was the Leica.

As I said, it is most definitely not "advanced". It is just expensive.

603Country · December 23, 2012, 10:23 PM

I bought a Nikon that ranges to 800, which is the same gear that Bushnell sells that ranges to 800. Except that they only range to 800 under the best of conditions. My experience suggests that you buy twice the ranging distance that you really need. If you need 500 yards of ranging, get a 1000 yard rangefinder. My experience might not hold true for the Leica, but if you go with Nikon, remember what I'm telling you.

oldandslow · December 24, 2012, 05:24 AM

HH, 12/24/12

When I needed a rangefinder for my pig hunting I bought the Leopold RX-600. It is simple to use and accurate. All my ranging is done at distances less than 300 yards so I can't comment on its maximum range. It cost about $200 new. It has worked well for me.

Merry Christmas- oldandslow

hooligan1 · December 24, 2012, 06:47 AM

I pride myself, in judging distances, I do it 100 yds at a time, here in Missouri it's not that tough, HOWEVER,,,, when I worked at Ft. Riley, a co-worker showed up with that 1200 ARC from Bushnell, it was as that instance I lost my pride I WAS WAY OFF.....

I hope Santa brings us one.

stubbicatt · December 24, 2012, 09:52 AM

Leupold, Bushnell, Leica. I own them all. The Leica works every time. There are $1000+ LRF that are really swell too.

But until my Leica stops telling me the distance to prairie dog mounds, it will be my choice.

tAKticool · December 25, 2012, 06:26 PM

See this is very interesting to me because I asked for a Range Finder for Christmas and my old man said he would take me for one after Christmas, so I could pick out what I wanted.

I am a Nikon guy (as I have made clear in scope threads lol) and I have two Nikon ProStaffs 4-12x40mm's on my two .22LR sporter type rifles.. . and on my brand new Remington 700 SPS Tac AAC-SD package .308, I put a Nikon Monarch 5-20x44mm Side Focus Bullet Drop Compensating reticle scope, which I love and have detailed how I liked better than a 1200+ VX3L scope I almost bought.

Anyway I wanted a Nikon range finder to go with my other Nikon optics, but the problem is, I could care less about having a 'Monarch' vs. 'ProStaff' Range finder, but they are limited in range as you go down in price. One is like 450yds, then like 600 yds, then the Monarch is a 1000 yd one, and big price difference. Well what is the point of a range finder that only goes 450-ish or 600 yds, I could use the reticle for that lol. If my .308 rifle can shoot 1000 yds max (not that *I* Can but the rifle can shoot that,) I would want a range finder for 1000 yds so I can at least have the CHANCE to learn how to shoot far.

I know I know I am not saying I'm going to go out and start sniping miraculously at 1000 yds. But with enough ammo, some practice time and range time, a range finder, and the BDC reticle, its at least pretty feasible. So for my uses if I want the Nikon I need the Monarch and its like almost $500. So I am thinking I will get a different brand, maybe a lesser fancy one but one that can go 1000 yds.

Lemme know how you make out I'm curious because I might be buying one soon too.

kahrguy · December 25, 2012, 07:07 PM

get the leica or don't expect much from the others to give a yard return much past 450 yards on a deer, trees a bit farther. Reflective objects like your truck will go to the rated distance.

If you buy a leupold , nikon, bushnell you have plane on walking the ground you wish to hunt if over those majical 450 yards and range back to your truck rear window even with the 1500 yard models.

solocam72 · December 25, 2012, 07:28 PM

Like I said I've bought and basicly had to eat a few different brands trying to get a true 1000 yard rangefinder at a more decent price than the zeiss, leica, and swarovski. My leica 1600 hits targets instantly out to 1200 and 1300 yrds, and the farthest I have ranged is 1,957 yrds. I wanted to shoot long range (800 to 1000 yrds) and without a tool that will religiously give you those readings you are DONE before you get started! My money comes hard and spending that much hurts but I strongly believe in the buy once cry once theory

Nathan · December 25, 2012, 08:01 PM

My Nikon 1000 yd model has been effective to 1000 yard, but it will range some stuff to 1300 or so.

I have ranged an Elk at 900.

Under 500, it can range very well and quick.

lefteye · December 25, 2012, 08:55 PM

Leica gets my vote. I first bought an LRF 900 - it is great but too large for my small pockets. I bought a Rangemaster 1200 when it was introduced. It is about half the size of the LRF 900 and is very accurate. Leica and Swarovski are not low cost but price is an accurate measure of quality in optics including rangefinders.

spaniel · December 25, 2012, 10:10 PM

Leica and above if you want to get to 1000 yds. A buddy and I bought Bushnell 1500s at the same time; his will get 1300 yds on reflective targets and 1000 yds on trees (less on game), mine is about 400 yds shorter on each type of target.

I have no personal experience with the Nikons of similar price, but as of ~3 years ago the people I knew that had them said they were on par with the Bushnells.

If I could do-over I would save up longer for a Leica 1600. I was once on a hunt with a guy using a Leica 800 and it indeed read to at least 800...on game.

fatwhiteboy · December 26, 2012, 12:26 AM

I went with a Swarovski 1600. I have ranged non-metallic objects out to 1375 yards with it. Yeah, expensive but it works.

603Country · December 26, 2012, 06:07 PM

That Nikon of mine (I think it's an 800 model) won't read to the rated distance on anything that needs shooting. It'll range a hog or deer to about 400 sometimes, but good luck on a coyote. The good news is that I can usually range to trees out to 500. Since I hunt my own place, I just range to all sorts of markers (trees, powerline pole, etc.) and I don't usually need the rangefinder. If I was doing some long distance work on coyotes, I'd have to pony up some money for something better - which is a Leica.

December 23, 2012, 07:59 PM	#1
HungryHunter Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2012 Location: Arizona Posts: 164	Rangefinder So my xmas present to myself is a rangefinder. I don't have much experience with these things. Previously the set up I used was either trying a mil counting formula, or I would "step off" the distance between my deer feeder and my anticipated ambush area. So I figure that's not always gonna be realistic if I'm not hunting around home. So all aside bear in mind I've never even picked one of these things up. I saw a leupold and really believe in their products. That being said, I had a budget cut and just put a Nikon Monarch on my Browning and was incredibly happy at the range Saturday. The Leupold I imagine, as always, you get what you pay for. If there was something of similar, or close to quality, I would be open to that. Any suggestions, and pros and cons, or experiences would be greatly appreciated.

December 23, 2012, 08:06 PM	#2
dmazur Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2007 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,310	While the Leica 1200 is a tad bit pricey, it works. It doesn't have a complicated screen, doesn't calculate slopes, etc. It just reliably shows the range out to 800 to 1000 yds, depending on the target characteristics. I'm sure there are dozens of ways to use a rangefinder. When hunting from a stand, I make up a little 3x5 card with "landmarks" drawn on it, then write the lasered ranges beside the landmarks. Then I put the rangefinder in my pack. When trying this out with a ballistic reticle scope pre-season, I've found I do much better at 300 yards than guessing at "hold-over". And the other half of the solution is a pair of shooting sticks, if I have to set up where using my pack as an improvised rest is just not high enough. __________________ .30-06 Springfield: 100 yrs + and still going strong

December 23, 2012, 09:15 PM	#5
dmazur Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2007 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 1,310	I didn't select the Leica because of positive reviews...I went to a store which had a selection, including Leupold's, and asked if I could range something in the parking lot. The manager agreed, so I went through them, one at a time, until I found something which would actually work. It was the Leica. As I said, it is most definitely not "advanced". It is just expensive. __________________ .30-06 Springfield: 100 yrs + and still going strong

December 24, 2012, 06:47 AM	#8
hooligan1 Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2010 Location: Independence Missouri Posts: 4,585	I pride myself, in judging distances, I do it 100 yds at a time, here in Missouri it's not that tough, HOWEVER,,,, when I worked at Ft. Riley, a co-worker showed up with that 1200 ARC from Bushnell, it was as that instance I lost my pride I WAS WAY OFF..... I hope Santa brings us one. __________________ Keep your Axe sharp and your powder dry.

December 25, 2012, 08:55 PM	#14
lefteye Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2006 Posts: 1,433	Leica gets my vote. I first bought an LRF 900 - it is great but too large for my small pockets. I bought a Rangemaster 1200 when it was introduced. It is about half the size of the LRF 900 and is very accurate. Leica and Swarovski are not low cost but price is an accurate measure of quality in optics including rangefinders. __________________ Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member

December 23, 2012, 08:11 PM	#3
solocam72 Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2012 Location: Great Northwest Posts: 222	Really depends on what you plan to use it for, I have had bushnell, and leupold but I wanted something that would reliably range out to a 1000 yrds and neither the leupold or bushnell would do this, I had to go higher end to get what I wanted, I narrowed it to the leica 1600 and the swarovski, I liked the fit and feel of the leica the best and that's what I went with and i don't regret my decision one bit! I have ranged trees all the way out to 1,957 yrds is the farthest, it gives me instant readings out to 1200 to 1300 yards on bushes, trees, rocks, etc. The down side is I paid around 800.00 for it iirc? I know it was substantially more than bushnell and leupold but does what I want. I enjoy shooting long range for fun and it is an invaluable must have tool for that

December 23, 2012, 08:31 PM	#4
HungryHunter Senior Member Join Date: December 16, 2012 Location: Arizona Posts: 164	Great, thanks for the advice. I also have used the "landmarks" technique. You guys are way ahead of me. 600m and under, is not my rifle or my scopes effective range, but it is for the shooter ....that guy. I've been watching a lit of Hollands videos and trying to find a mentor but a lot of guys seem to like being the only ones that can shoot that far. Anyway, it will mostly be used for finding distances on elk. I think the ones you guys use are ptobably pretty advanced for me. I'm kinda looking entry level, good quality, thanks again.

December 23, 2012, 10:23 PM	#6
603Country Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2011 Location: Thornton, Texas Posts: 3,998	I bought a Nikon that ranges to 800, which is the same gear that Bushnell sells that ranges to 800. Except that they only range to 800 under the best of conditions. My experience suggests that you buy twice the ranging distance that you really need. If you need 500 yards of ranging, get a 1000 yard rangefinder. My experience might not hold true for the Leica, but if you go with Nikon, remember what I'm telling you.

December 24, 2012, 05:24 AM	#7
oldandslow Senior Member Join Date: October 2, 2007 Posts: 641	HH, 12/24/12 When I needed a rangefinder for my pig hunting I bought the Leopold RX-600. It is simple to use and accurate. All my ranging is done at distances less than 300 yards so I can't comment on its maximum range. It cost about $200 new. It has worked well for me. Merry Christmas- oldandslow

December 24, 2012, 09:52 AM	#9
stubbicatt Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2007 Posts: 1,707	Leupold, Bushnell, Leica. I own them all. The Leica works every time. There are $1000+ LRF that are really swell too. But until my Leica stops telling me the distance to prairie dog mounds, it will be my choice.

December 25, 2012, 06:26 PM	#10
tAKticool Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2010 Posts: 430	See this is very interesting to me because I asked for a Range Finder for Christmas and my old man said he would take me for one after Christmas, so I could pick out what I wanted. I am a Nikon guy (as I have made clear in scope threads lol) and I have two Nikon ProStaffs 4-12x40mm's on my two .22LR sporter type rifles.. . and on my brand new Remington 700 SPS Tac AAC-SD package .308, I put a Nikon Monarch 5-20x44mm Side Focus Bullet Drop Compensating reticle scope, which I love and have detailed how I liked better than a 1200+ VX3L scope I almost bought. Anyway I wanted a Nikon range finder to go with my other Nikon optics, but the problem is, I could care less about having a 'Monarch' vs. 'ProStaff' Range finder, but they are limited in range as you go down in price. One is like 450yds, then like 600 yds, then the Monarch is a 1000 yd one, and big price difference. Well what is the point of a range finder that only goes 450-ish or 600 yds, I could use the reticle for that lol. If my .308 rifle can shoot 1000 yds max (not that I Can but the rifle can shoot that,) I would want a range finder for 1000 yds so I can at least have the CHANCE to learn how to shoot far. I know I know I am not saying I'm going to go out and start sniping miraculously at 1000 yds. But with enough ammo, some practice time and range time, a range finder, and the BDC reticle, its at least pretty feasible. So for my uses if I want the Nikon I need the Monarch and its like almost $500. So I am thinking I will get a different brand, maybe a lesser fancy one but one that can go 1000 yds. Lemme know how you make out I'm curious because I might be buying one soon too.

December 25, 2012, 07:07 PM	#11
kahrguy Senior Member Join Date: October 1, 2012 Posts: 561	get the leica or don't expect much from the others to give a yard return much past 450 yards on a deer, trees a bit farther. Reflective objects like your truck will go to the rated distance. If you buy a leupold , nikon, bushnell you have plane on walking the ground you wish to hunt if over those majical 450 yards and range back to your truck rear window even with the 1500 yard models.

December 25, 2012, 07:28 PM	#12
solocam72 Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2012 Location: Great Northwest Posts: 222	Like I said I've bought and basicly had to eat a few different brands trying to get a true 1000 yard rangefinder at a more decent price than the zeiss, leica, and swarovski. My leica 1600 hits targets instantly out to 1200 and 1300 yrds, and the farthest I have ranged is 1,957 yrds. I wanted to shoot long range (800 to 1000 yrds) and without a tool that will religiously give you those readings you are DONE before you get started! My money comes hard and spending that much hurts but I strongly believe in the buy once cry once theory

December 25, 2012, 08:01 PM	#13
Nathan Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2001 Posts: 6,331	My Nikon 1000 yd model has been effective to 1000 yard, but it will range some stuff to 1300 or so. I have ranged an Elk at 900. Under 500, it can range very well and quick.

December 25, 2012, 10:10 PM	#15
spaniel Senior Member Join Date: November 26, 2008 Posts: 217	Leica and above if you want to get to 1000 yds. A buddy and I bought Bushnell 1500s at the same time; his will get 1300 yds on reflective targets and 1000 yds on trees (less on game), mine is about 400 yds shorter on each type of target. I have no personal experience with the Nikons of similar price, but as of ~3 years ago the people I knew that had them said they were on par with the Bushnells. If I could do-over I would save up longer for a Leica 1600. I was once on a hunt with a guy using a Leica 800 and it indeed read to at least 800...on game.

December 26, 2012, 12:26 AM	#16
fatwhiteboy Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2011 Posts: 317	I went with a Swarovski 1600. I have ranged non-metallic objects out to 1375 yards with it. Yeah, expensive but it works. __________________ Fat White So Cal

December 26, 2012, 06:07 PM	#17
603Country Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2011 Location: Thornton, Texas Posts: 3,998	That Nikon of mine (I think it's an 800 model) won't read to the rated distance on anything that needs shooting. It'll range a hog or deer to about 400 sometimes, but good luck on a coyote. The good news is that I can usually range to trees out to 500. Since I hunt my own place, I just range to all sorts of markers (trees, powerline pole, etc.) and I don't usually need the rangefinder. If I was doing some long distance work on coyotes, I'd have to pony up some money for something better - which is a Leica.