Help with rangefinders

[ECVMatt]

Hello to all,

I am looking to add a rangefinder to my hunting kit and wanted some advice. I have really don't have a fixed budget, but probably would not spend more that $500 or so. I have tried to look for reviews, but they seem all over the place. Does anyone have a favorite that they could recommend?

Thanks,

Matt

EDIT: I should add that I have received lots of recommendations for the Vortex Ranger 1300. I would not really range animals farther than 5 or 6 hundred yards.

 

[troy fairweather]

the new Nikon Monarch 3000 Stabilized Laser Rangefinder 6x 21mm looks good $369 on sale at midway $50 off

 

[LoonWulf]

5-600yds is actually pretty far for ranging animals. The only cheap one ive used that would do it consistently (at least the smallish sheep and goats we got here), is the Sig2k. I also like the 2200, but i havent used it in the field, just goofing around.
I have a Bushnell Geforce Dx, and its pretty good on stuff out to 4-500yds, but wont pick up a dark goat on lava rock outside of about 300-400yds. It will pick up trees and stuff out to around 800, and houses flat sided objects at over 1k.

That monarch looks good, i may have to try and get my hands on one of those.

 

[troy fairweather]

5-600yds is actually pretty far for ranging animals. The only cheap one ive used that would do it consistently (at least the smallish sheep and goats we got here), is the Sig2k. I also like the 2200, but i havent used it in the field, just goofing around.
I have a Bushnell Geforce Dx, and its pretty good on stuff out to 4-500yds, but wont pick up a dark goat on lava rock outside of about 300-400yds. It will pick up trees and stuff out to around 800, and houses flat sided objects at over 1k.

That monarch looks good, i may have to try and get my hands on one of those.

the monarch has lots off dodads it i had the cash and looking for a rf id get the nikon

 

[Varminterror]

In today’s market, the Sig Kilo 2000/2200 or Leica 1600/1800 are the only ones which make sense. I have the Vortex 1500, Bushnell Elite 1 Mile, Sig 2000, Sig 2200, and Leica 1600, plus a couple other lower range models from Leupold, Nikon, and Bushnell. I paid less than $400 for each of mine. The Vortex doesn’t have the speed of the Leica or the Sig, and it cost more than the Sig. The Bushnell has the largest beam divergence of any of the above, so it gives more mis-reads. The Leica has the best glass.

If I only had ONE, it would be the Sig, with the Leica being a close second.

 

[Nature Boy]

I have the Vortex 1500

Me too. I'd like something better

 

[Legionnaire]

If I only had ONE, it would be the Sig ...

Ditto that. I only have one--the Sig 2000 and really like it. My only complaint, and it's minor, is that it does not have a tripod mount. Easy enough to work around.

 

[Varminterror]

Sig and RRS make tripod mounts for the Sig. I had my brother in law 3D print mine from plastic, not as stout as the aluminum factory options, but it was a lot cheaper. I pressed a threaded ferrule into the bottom.

I’m gonna have him do another for me which has a side mount, so I can hang it on the side of my spotter.

 

[Legionnaire]

I'm thinking of trying one of these, rotated 90 degrees on my tripod ball head. It would work with my binoculars too, of course.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M6Y5I5M/

 

[ECVMatt]

I like the Nikon and have had good luck with their scopes. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Infidel]

For that price, it it would be just about impossible to beat a Leica 2000B, currently available from Eurooptic for $400.

 

[Doc7]

I like my Leupold RX-1200i

 

[Ks5shooter]

I like my Leupold RX-1200i

yup x2

 

[jmr40]

I like my Leupold RX-1200i

Me too. I also have a Leica rated for 800 yards that I bought used several years ago. It is a good device, but it is an early device and is a lot bigger than newer models.

In my experience expect them to be accurate at about 1/2 the range they are rated for. I've never been able to range anything at the extreme range either of mine is rated for. At about 1/2 that distance they seem to work very well and if conditions are good I can get readings at about 75%-80% of that distance.

At least that is my experience. A different device might do better.

 

[taliv]

this is kind of a weird market for LRFs. I first bought a swaro laserguide for $900 and it was awesome but it looks like they're discontinued now. used it for years until I got a vectronix terrapin for $2000, which were also discontinued. I used it until I got a vectronix PLRF 10c for $4500, which was also discontinued. I also bought a Silencerco Radius for $500, which was discontinued.

I can vouch for all of the above, if you can find something on the secondary market and don't care about warranty.

I have no experience with it, but the new terrapin x, which sells for $1800 and goes to 1.8 miles with beam divergence of 1.2x.5 isn't too bad and looks like the way to go for someone wanting "something better", especially given it also will calculate slope and horizontal as well as straight line distances, and it will bluetooth to your phone or kestrel.

 

[SamT1]

Buy a mildot scope and learn to range with it. Took me 6 months of practice, but I can range coyotes and pigs to 600 yards and dial in.
The range finders take a lot of time to hold steady and in my experience are only good for using at the shooting range, not in field conditions. But I’ve never had a $500 plus one to play with either.

I’ve setup some targets of known size at Unknow distances and played with ranging them to get started. Takes a little longer on game animals.

 

[LoonWulf]

The range finders take a lot of time to hold steady and in my experience are only good for using at the shooting range, not in field conditions. But I’ve never had a $500 plus one to play with either.

I agree it does take some practice to develop a technique for holding and RF steady. Generally ill rest it on something if targets are outside of a few hundred yards. Ive also held it to the side of my rifle scope while prone to keep it steady.
My range finder goes everywhere with me now, and i use it for any shot that isnt a "stand and deliver". I limit my range to 400ish depending on the day tho, as thats as far as im comfortable with the rifles, rounds, and practice I have.

I cant judge size accurately enough on game animals to use a "ranging" reticle. I keep playing with mine tho and im getting pretty confident on measuring known size targets.
Maybe ill eventually get confident enough to use it for realzies.

 

[Varminterror]

I love practicing reticle ranging, but it’s a fool’s errand for field use on game. It works well enough at short ranges with a high velocity bottleneck round, but when you get out where you really need it, the reticle will let you down. Is the buck 17” deep or 19”? Is he covering .75 Mils, or .83 - are you even reading to the nearest hundredth, or 5 hundredths? For second focal shooters, are you on your reference zoom? Did you calibrate your reticle to be sure it actually matches your reference zoom? If you’re not on reference, did you correct for magnification? Not the number on the knob, but the actual relative zoom versus reference. At short ranges, a guy can often eyeball - it looks more like 400 than 350, and not be “wrong enough” to cause a miss. Farther, things get real...

The mil ranging formula is: range in yards = target size in inches divided by Mils read times 27.777

Run the math:

16” estimated buck reading 0.8 Mils * 27.77 = 555 yards. That’s 3.0mil for my 6 Dasher load.

If it’s really a 0.83mil read, that’s 535yrds, or 2.8 Mils - at 535, those 2 extra tenths will send my bullet about 4” higher than I wanted. So instead of an 8” group potential centered on the top edge of the heart, now half of my coverage will be above the lung, maybe miss the heart.

But wait, what if he’s 18” deep? 18 / .8 * 27.777 = 625yrds, or 3.7 mils. So if I underestimate his size by 2”, I’m off by about 70 yards, and my shot will fall about 16” short... or maybe the read was supposed to be .83 Mils again too... that puts him at 602yrds, or 3.4mils. If I estimated 16” and a .83 read, and dialed a 2.8, I’d fall 13” short...

So is he at 535, 555, 602, or 625? Can you estimate within 2” of back height? Can you read to within a couple hundredth Mils? Even by 500, there’s way too much at stake and way too much inherent error in the system.

Ranging with the reticle is one of my favorite aspects ballistic mathematics, but unless my target is incredibly large and forgiving, it has no place in hunting fields.

 

[SamT1]

I love practicing reticle ranging, but it’s a fool’s errand for field use on game. It works well enough at short ranges with a high velocity bottleneck round, but when you get out where you really need it, the reticle will let you down. Is the buck 17” deep or 19”? Is he covering .75 Mils, or .83 - are you even reading to the nearest hundredth, or 5 hundredths? For second focal shooters, are you on your reference zoom? Did you calibrate your reticle to be sure it actually matches your reference zoom? If you’re not on reference, did you correct for magnification? Not the number on the knob, but the actual relative zoom versus reference. At short ranges, a guy can often eyeball - it looks more like 400 than 350, and not be “wrong enough” to cause a miss. Farther, things get real...

The mil ranging formula is: range in yards = target size in inches divided by Mils read times 27.777

Run the math:

16” estimated buck reading 0.8 Mils * 27.77 = 555 yards. That’s 3.0mil for my 6 Dasher load.

If it’s really a 0.83mil read, that’s 535yrds, or 2.8 Mils - at 535, those 2 extra tenths will send my bullet about 4” higher than I wanted. So instead of an 8” group potential centered on the top edge of the heart, now half of my coverage will be above the lung, maybe miss the heart.

But wait, what if he’s 18” deep? 18 / .8 * 27.777 = 625yrds, or 3.7 mils. So if I underestimate his size by 2”, I’m off by about 70 yards, and my shot will fall about 16” short... or maybe the read was supposed to be .83 Mils again too... that puts him at 602yrds, or 3.4mils. If I estimated 16” and a .83 read, and dialed a 2.8, I’d fall 13” short...

So is he at 535, 555, 602, or 625? Can you estimate within 2” of back height? Can you read to within a couple hundredth Mils? Even by 500, there’s way too much at stake and way too much inherent error in the system.

Ranging with the reticle is one of my favorite aspects ballistic mathematics, but unless my target is incredibly large and forgiving, it has no place in hunting fields.

But can you even get your laser finder to lock on a buck at 600 yards? How confident are you that you ranged him and not the tree 50 yards behind him? Nothing is bullet proof unless these $1000 plus range finders are a lot better than the $500 ones. The $500 ones I’ve been around I could only make work in shooting range scenario on metallic targets. Had trouble hitting cows at 400 yards with a 2000 yard model resting on my pickup mirror.

I’m probably shooting 50% on the first shot coyotes using mils 500 yards and on. I use 12”. Shoot suppressed so I usually get a second chance and can Kentucky it or use the tree to adjust depending on what I’m shooting and it’s features.
I guess If a guy is hunting deer for sport he may not want to take those odds due to social stigmas! But I’ll take 50/50 on predator and nuisance control all day.

 

[taliv]

the more expensive ones are MUCH better. and they typically give multiple readings. so they'll flash the range of the buck and the tree behind him. or the limb in front of him. then you get to pick which distance the buck is.

 

[SamT1]

the more expensive ones are MUCH better. and they typically give multiple readings. so they'll flash the range of the buck and the tree behind him. or the limb in front of him. then you get to pick which distance the buck is.

Some day I’ll have the cash for one of those bad boys.

 

[Varminterror]

^this.

But hitting a deer at 600, or rather 800, isn’t much of a challenge. I cuddle it up to either my spotter or my riflescope, the Terrapin X (don’t tell my wife!), the Leica 1600, or Sig Kilo 2200 will hit a deer past 600 reliably.

Maybe I better ask this question - if you can’t hold a rangefinder with a 1.3x.5 mil beam steady enough to hit a deer at 600, should you really be sending a 24-30caliber bullet out there?

 

[taliv]

Some day I’ll have the cash for one of those bad boys.

The silencerco radius which at one point was on sale for $500, would display three readings at the same time. It had an external lcd display. The strongest signal would be big and the next two strongest would be displayed in smaller type underneath it

 

[Legionnaire]

I've been using a Sig Kilo 2000. As taliv points out, it has a scan mode. When you sweep a distant target, it will read the background, then the target, then the background. Unless there is something between you and the target, the lower number is your distance. I have not used mine in a hunting situation yet, but have tested it extensively. It works pretty well.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Based on what I've discovered in the thread about ranging apps, I wonder why anyone still buys an optical or laser rangefinder.....GPS has taken over the thunder and its free.