Rangefinders - Bushnell Fushion 1600 Arc OR Leica CRF 1600??

[coloradokevin]

I need a laser rangefinder.

I've been looking at these things for a while now, and I've discovered that quite a few rangefinders from popular manufacturers don't quite live up to the claims that are made in their advertisements. I want to use this device for long range rifle shooting, and I need a range finder that will reliably range to 1,000 yards and beyond.

As such, I've narrowed my field to a couple of choices that have (thus far) seemed to meet this requirement. Thought I'd see what kind of experiences you guys have had with these models. I've listed the considerations I've come up with thus far:


1) Bushnell Fushion 1600 Arc

Pros:

-Binocular/rangefinder combo.
-Seems to effectively range beyond 1,000 yards in mid-day light outside of the local gun shop.
-shot angle readout

Cons:

-Heavy
-Noticeable bluish hue to the glass
-Seems to range a bit slower than the Leica
-No tripod mount


2) Leica CRF 1600


Pros:

-Seems to effectively range beyond 1,000 yards in mid-day light outside of the local gun shop.
-Quickly ranges targets
-lightweight
-Very clear glass
-Angle readout, plus temp and barometric pressure

Cons:

-lower magnification
-no tripod mount
-lack of binocular vision is harder on the eyes




I'm leaning slightly towards the binoculars at this point, since I don't have a decent pair of binoculars at the moment, and could also use this setup for hunting. But, I am concerned by the fact that the glass appears notably bluish when I looked at these. For those who have used the Bushnell line, did you find that this strange hue caused any trouble while scouting for game with the binoculars?


(and, yes, the Leica Geovids would be nice... but I'm not made of money!)

 

[bgr2014]

Range Finders

Get the Lica we use both prairie doggin and the Lica works farther out on smaller targets. They cost more but are worth it.

 

[coloradokevin]

Thanks, bgr. Anyone else out there have some thoughts on this subject?

 

[dmazur]

I have one of the older Leicas (the 1200?) and I chose it because it worked reliably outside and the other models on display didn't.

I believe Leica has "honest" specifications, but I'm not sure what that makes the others. Perhaps "optimistic" would be a kind description.

I'm quite happy with it. For spot and stalk, I don't dial shots. There just isn't time. I've learned to use the hash marks on the Zeiss Rapid-Z reticle as a kind of mil-dot rangefinder, then just use the appropriate ballistic reticle mark and shoot.

For deer hunting from a fixed position, I take the Leica and make up a "range card" which shows ranges to stumps, rocks, trees, etc. Then I put it away in my pack. If a deer comes into view, I can glance at the range card and determine which ballistic reticle mark to use.

The next time I go after ground squirrels, I'm planning to take the Leica and see if the adjustable turrets on my "target rifle" really work. Last time I estimated range and used the "varmint reticle" for hold-over. Results were OK, but perhaps an accurate range might be better than estimating.

The new model sounds like an improvement, with the built-in barometer and thermometer. I have to use a separate altimeter and anemometer/thermometer to set up my ballistic program.

I don't know what to say about the angle gauge. I've never shot at anything at long range that wasn't kind of "flat" in eastern Oregon...