More Useful ?

[truck driver]

What is more useful when hunting out west, a range finder or binoculars?
Buying binoculars with a built in range finder is out of my price range.
Also what is everyone using for range finders?

 

[Thebear_78]

I've heard good things about the sig kilo2000

I currently have a bushnell but it's very difficult to range objects past 400 yards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimbires]

I'll say they are equally important . you will glass a lot more than rangefind , but when the shot presents itself you'll be glad you have a capable rangefinder .

 

[tddeangelo]

I am using a Leica Pinmaster, which is essentially a white-colored CRF800. I'm very happy with it, and got it for a screaming deal when CLNY did a "flash sale".

I've also heard good things about the Sig Kilo, but also saw some mixed reviews on them, too. They're new, so it's probably par for the course to get a mixed bag.

 

[wisconsinteacher]

I would say binos are more important but man it is nice to range your animal when it is time to make the shot. Something about the wide open spaces that makes it hard for me to judge distances.

 

[DrMike]

I got by for years w/o a RF, but hunting w/o binos imposed a terrible handicap. If I had to give up one of the two, it would be the RF so that I always had a good pair of binos.

 

[Guy Miner]

Some years ago I bought a Swarovski rangefinder, which is like a half a pair of good 8x binoculars...

Most of the time, that's and the rifle scope are all I carry for optics.

Guy

 

[truck driver]

I have noticed where some of the Stiener millitary style binos have what I would call a manual range finder in them like a mil dot scope and was wondering if these would be useful or more trouble than they are worth since I don't have the training to read them.

 

[tddeangelo]

I personally have a really hard time using an RF as a bino....compared to proper binoculars, I can't see nearly as well nor as easily with the RF. I carry both all the time.

Rodger, to your point about the RF reticles in bino's....I am not a fan. I think they clutter your field of view and are sort of "interpretative". When you need them, you'll be amped up and running on adrenaline, too. Point, push, range is a lot simpler, but it is one more piece of gear to have and take along.

 

[super-7]

I'm using 10x42 Nikon binos and a crf 1200 lecia range finder.
I like having both, the 7x monocular in the Leica is good but not the same as a bino. I have ranged coyotes out to 700 yards with it and that is no easy feat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thankful Otter]

I got by for years w/o a RF, but hunting w/o binos imposed a terrible handicap. If I had to give up one of the two, it would be the RF so that I always had a good pair of binos.

I agree with Dr Mike 100%. Working or hunting without a good pair of Binoculars would be near impossible for me, but I have gotten fairly good at judging distance, so could certainly live without a rangefinder. I have a tendency and it may simply be where I hunt that allows me to do so, but shooting over 200 to 250 yards just isn't something I do much, even when goat hunting, but they are the worse.

However, I do have access to and use the Leica 10 x 42 Geovid and can not deny it is pretty slick. It is a bit spendy, but a nice range finder/ Bino combo, if the opportunity ever presents itself Rodger to get a combo this would be my recommendation

I am currently in California and it so hot and there is no snow and there is SUN----LOL

 

[Darkhorse]

I find binoculars to be indispensdable when hunting the west. My Leupold scope has a rangefinding ability if I really need to range a shot. And it seems pretty accurate.
When hunting the west I carry my .300 Win. Mag. Though not as flat as some of the newer cartridges it is still flat enough for the ranges I prefer to shoot at.
I'll admit though a RF would be a nice addition, but not at the cost of binos.

 

[cloverleaf]

TD- not to high-jack a thread- but does anybody still use he old "distance between the post and crosswire" technique? Its what I can afford. Eventually I'll get around to something besides cheap Bushnell binos. Since I am in self imposed exile in Mn I have to hunt with a slug gun. I had the custom shop at Leupold put a 2 min dot in the scope on my slug gun. (2-7 VX-II) At 4x it covers 2 inches at 100 yards. I figure if the dot covers more than a deers nose, I hold mid chest, if it covers the ear, hold on the spine etc.. Its a target reticle so the cross wires are thin, they basically disappear, 'til the dot finds brown hair. Its not a perfect system, but where I hunt is typically open country and long range shots for a slug gun. Deer I see are typically making break for it and its quick as a dot sight and gives a guesstimate of range.



this one fell at 110yds- point and shoot


from here - he stopped just a moment to long at the end of the trees on the right



I started hunting and shooting in SD so I get the idea that its nice to know the difference between a 200yd and 300 or more yard shot. If I can only afford one though Id go with the binos. You spend a lot more time looking for game than looking at it through the scope.
That said, I just cant stand a scope that dosent stay where I left it so I spend some money there too (used leupolds when I can afford them). Sorry for my long winded .02 - CL

PS- I cheated- in the OFF season I borrowed a range finder from a buddy and ranged the "known points" from where the photo was taken- that's not what you were asking for. But then... of the half dozen or so deer and pronghorn I shot in SD (and one in wyo.) only one was beyond 250 yards.

Also FWIW- I've missed more stuff because I was holding high cause I thought they were further away than they were. (maybe that's an argument for the range finder..? ) When I learned to "hold on the hair", and measure "between the posts", or with the dot, things got better. Not perfect, but better.

 

[ksubuck]

I have to vote for the rangefinder starting out. I found estimating range was the hardest when I started hunting the wide open prairie. I used my scope primarily for spotting and bought a decent rangefinder. Now that I am fairly competent in ranging by eye, I would say the binos are more useful. But if I had to cut weight for a long hike, the binos would still get left in the truck before the rangefinder.

 

[Anonymous]

In open country I'd rather lose my boots than my binos.

I got by for years without a rangefinder, but when i did I learned that i really stunk at estimating range. It's nice to know exactly how far a critter is, but not imperative. If it looks too far before you range it...it's too far. That said, I do find it a really nice piece of gear. I ranged a few at 350-400yds this year and talked myself into getting closer. Pre rangefinder, I'd probably just have held a bit high and shot them.

You can get a decent 600yd rangefinder for cheap if you watch sales, etc. They're electronics and the next "new big thing" will make the old "big new thing" go on sale for pennies on the dollar. My wife bought mine as a gift...Leupold RX600...for $90 on a closeout at Cabelas. I've got no need to range past 600, if it's over that...it's just too far for me to shoot at and I need to get closer.

 

[Elkman]

Wow TD, your really making it hard for us. In the country I hunt in (out west) the range finder by far is the most useful. If you are really up close you don't need either one. If you are trophy hunting you need both. In most other situations your scope can do double duty. I killed a really nice spike bull in November which makes my point. I had been stalking a small herd of elk for about a 1/2 hour when another herd came over the ridge across the canyon from me. The herd I was shadowing had crossed over at the same place 45 min, before at 290 yards. Since that time I had been adding distance and elevation with every step. I could see from their coloring there were several bulls in the herd so I got behind the ridge and headed down hill as fast as a old man can. Sunset was minutes away and the sun was behind me. When I carefully crawled up on the ridge line once more, I had my rifle, range finder and range card. I knew they were at least 400 out and still quite a bit below me. I got settled in for the shot and ranged a bull in the center of the group of spikes (I believe there were 5 or 6), and got a reading of 360 yards. I thought that I had picked up the top of a tree or grass tip , but after ranging him again came up with the same figure. I would have guessed a lot farther. I put 6 clicks of elevation into the scope, took a breath let it out a little, and the bull walked behind the top of a tree. After a second or two I required on the next one about 20 yards above him, held at his lower body line,(sharply down hill) and pulled the trigger. He immediately went down and then got up and started stumbling back over the ridge. I waited until he stopped and finished him with a second shot. A lovely young bull. My ranger finder is Zeiss Victory. So just to recap. You can find them without binoculars, but unless you know the range, shooting them may be difficult.

 

[Africa Huntress]

since we hardly ever need to shoot anything out of the mpbr range, the binocular's are far more important than a rangefinder. The binocular's for us are needed to sort out the animals from the bush as much or more than it is for distance. Range finders are nice and are definitely used but binoculars are a must, as we sometimes want to avoid something in the distance, as well as find something in the distance and to sort out what it is we think we see

Best Regards

Jamila

 

[Rol_P]

Rodger, I have a Leica 1,000 that was a demo on sale at Cameraland NY. I bought it when my old Bushnell Range finder, bought for bow hunting in the 80's did not measure up. The Leica is 7x very small and clear. The battery seems sensitive to cold so I keep it in an Inner pocket but easily accessible. I have heard that It may be a little slower to give a reading than some others.

When I set up on a location I will take the rangefinder and range objects a tree, rock or similar feature and make a mental note of the distance in advance of anticipated game arrival to those points. I will have it with me while we are together this fall.
Regards, Rol

 

[lefty315]

I use my binds a lot during hunting season, especially in the timber when elk hunting. Depending on where and what, not all Western hunting is in the wide open that you can see for miles. Even the wide open terrain has so many creases, dips and uneven features to hide in. I've spotted several animals hidden to the naked eye using my binos in country you swore couldn't hold a living thing. If it came down to money, I'd buy the absolute cheapest rangefinder I could find and then put the rest on the best binos I could afford. I was fortunate several years ago to win a handgun in a raffle. My buddy really wanted it more than I did so I traded him for a brand new Leica 1200 and a Leupold 1-4x20. The raffle ticket cost me $10. I figured nobody on the planet ever bought a Leica for $5, so I essentially got the cheapest rangefinder I could find

 

[Blkram]

Hands down, the one to have is the binoculars.

The range finder is the "nice to have", and for some, a real bonus in being able to know for certain how far away the target is. But as they are usually 5-7 power and monocular, they can be difficult to hold steady and see well enough (especially in low light) to clearly count points (when/where required), let alone range an animal further out under certain conditions.

Quality optics (the best that your budget will allow) are always the best money spent for hunting, after a good pair of boots. You walk a long ways to get to your hunting destination, and throughout that area, and you glass a lot so that you do not hike (and/or climb) further than you have to. You only use the rifle and the scope (or even the range finder in most cases) for a moment during the hunt. If you cannot afford a RF, than hopefully someone else in your group will have one and can help you out when you need it. While spendy, the combination bingo/rangefinders, are a great option, and nice to use in a pinch vs having to carry and use two separate pieces of equipment.

If you have a RF, practice with it when you are out in the field scouting, in the off season, whenever you are in new or unfamiliar territory. You will find that this will help you estimate range more accurately as your skills are honed. DrMike and I are constantly doing this when we are out in the field, and it really helps for those instances when you may not have time to range before taking a shot on a wary animal. We also practice that one is ranging for the other, while the shooter is preparing to take the shot.

And use of a riflescope for identifying targets is definitely frowned upon, as there have been multiple incidents of "scoping" targets that turned out to be people instead of animals. And yes, there have been fatal results because of this ill advised practice, by those with less than proper firearms handling techniques. Definitely a topic of discussion that I have had with my wife, my daughter, and any other new hunter I have ever taken afield. I will, and have taken rifles away from people that I have caught "scoping" unidentifiable targets. And yes, on more than one occasion the unidentifiable target turned out to be another hunter, once, another member of our own hunting party.

How would you feel if you found the target in your riflescope turned out to be your best friend or a member of your immediate family? Please, think about that before you think about using your scope (an aiming device) to glass for game again!