Rangefinders for 600 plus yards
- Thread starter Jimbeaux82
- Start date
- Nov 4, 2004
- 25,166
- 8,426
hardpan":eo1n7bcz said:
Silly question...
Have you tried fresh batteries?
JD338
I'm surprised there were no accolades for the LEUPOLD laser rangefinders.I've used the RX 4 for three years and in my humble opinon it works great.It has the B&C option with the true ballistic range.I don't know what the German ones cost,but I'm sure they are way over $400.
- Thread starter
- #24
Jimbeaux82
Handloader
- Jan 6, 2011
- 407
- 176
lechero,
what is the farthest you have ranged an animal or tree with your Leupold?
what is the farthest you have ranged an animal or tree with your Leupold?
- Nov 4, 2004
- 25,166
- 8,426
lechero":poyyxwlr said:
I bought my Swaro before the Leupolds were out. I am a big fan of Leupold but I would have still gone with the Swaro, it is the best LRF on the market.
JD338
Ridge_Runner
Handloader
- Sep 29, 2006
- 1,377
- 700
I've used a leica 1200 since 2005, I've ranged deer to 1210 yards, groundhogs to 700-800 yards.
ranging into or diagnal to a low sun and no it doesn't work but do the others? I don't know, I've had 2 RF's, the best thing that ever happened was the day I lost my bushy 600.
RR
ranging into or diagnal to a low sun and no it doesn't work but do the others? I don't know, I've had 2 RF's, the best thing that ever happened was the day I lost my bushy 600.
RR
Greg Nolan
Handloader
- Nov 25, 2004
- 2,143
- 18
I sold the Bushnell 800 compact because it wouldn't range antelope beyond 350 yds. I bought the Leica 1200. It ranges antelope to 850+ that I can attest to and rocks and trees to 1200+. I'm happy as a clam.
It's a matter of what you want and need it for. I did the old scale and balance decision.
The Leica is very small, very light, has the lighted reticle (which I didn't realize I needed until I used it in the pre-dawn one day) the price new on e-bay was $450 so it was the cheapest of the two options. The Swarovski probably ranges a little better but is bulkier and heavier and costs about twice as much. What do I want? If I was a real long range shooter or didn't hike long distances when I hunt the Swaro. is tops. For my 500 or so max range and I hike a lot of rough country where bulk and weight are not good the Leica. is tops. The price didn't matter that much because it was going to be the LAST rangefinder I buy and they are both beyond what I want to pay. There was no third option. All the fancy angle compensation and altitude and trick options were a minus from the other companies not matter what. I've found that the more options my gear has the more confusing it gets when the adrenalin gets pumping and something goes wrong.
The bottom line is: There is no wrong choice if you get the best. By the way the Leica has a 1600 yard version and I asked the salesman at Sportsman's warehouse about it. He said that it was the 1200 with a bunch of software options added to compete with the other rangefinders. I can't swear to this but he said he tried them both outside and the 1600 didn't range any farther than the 1200.
Greg
It's a matter of what you want and need it for. I did the old scale and balance decision.
The Leica is very small, very light, has the lighted reticle (which I didn't realize I needed until I used it in the pre-dawn one day) the price new on e-bay was $450 so it was the cheapest of the two options. The Swarovski probably ranges a little better but is bulkier and heavier and costs about twice as much. What do I want? If I was a real long range shooter or didn't hike long distances when I hunt the Swaro. is tops. For my 500 or so max range and I hike a lot of rough country where bulk and weight are not good the Leica. is tops. The price didn't matter that much because it was going to be the LAST rangefinder I buy and they are both beyond what I want to pay. There was no third option. All the fancy angle compensation and altitude and trick options were a minus from the other companies not matter what. I've found that the more options my gear has the more confusing it gets when the adrenalin gets pumping and something goes wrong.
The bottom line is: There is no wrong choice if you get the best. By the way the Leica has a 1600 yard version and I asked the salesman at Sportsman's warehouse about it. He said that it was the 1200 with a bunch of software options added to compete with the other rangefinders. I can't swear to this but he said he tried them both outside and the 1600 didn't range any farther than the 1200.
Greg
- Oct 30, 2004
- 24,276
- 2,988
With my swaro I have ranged antelope at 1122 yards.
I have a Leupy RX-3 and I can get rocks out to 600, trees and bushes to 600 (sometimes), and game out to 500. Nothing pisses me off more than when I have a yote standing there under 600 yards not knowing I'm there and I can't pick him up with the rangefinder. Works great If you don't ever want to shoot over 450/500 yards.
While I do love the way it calcs that angle, my next range finder will be a lica or swaro.
While I do love the way it calcs that angle, my next range finder will be a lica or swaro.
Ridge_Runner
Handloader
- Sep 29, 2006
- 1,377
- 700
I can guarrantee you a leica 1200 will range a deer at beyond 600 yards, I have personaly ranged deer with mine at 1210 yards, 1170 yds, and 1155 yds. I know a swuaro will range targets farther, but the leica wins the contest on deer sized targets hands down, this is coming from 3 different reviews over on LRH.com
RR
RR
Similar threads
