[outerlimits]

looking for a good (read not pricey) rangefinder for 3 gun. basically, something that's accurate out to 400 yds, but no need for inclinometer.

[BerKim]

I bought a real cheap one.. if the targets are nice size flashers.. no problem.. but it needs a good solod reflective surface.

It cost about $100 at Cabelas.. it works about 90% of the time..

Checkout some of the ones the golfers use too... I don't know models.. but if they can read the flag, they can probably read anything.

[3GunF1Guy]

Go the 6mmbr.com website they have a really good reveiw on rangefinders. What makes the good one good and what makes the bad ones bad.

Scott

[John Dunn]

Find a buddy with a Swaro Guide and ask to use it. They aren't cheap, but seem to do better at non-reflective targets than the Leica.

[fastshooter03]

I'm trying to sell my Leup RX-IV camo since I don't use it enough. The Bushnells I've seen work pretty decent.
Heck, just get the scope with the built in rangefinder and you'd be set


Nick

[gose]

In general, would matches allow you to range targets?

[Religious Shooter]

Yes, they allow you to range targets.

I have a Leupold RXIII. It sucks. Don't get it.

[blackstone]

I use a Swaro Guide.
It is superior to the Leica for ranging.
It works fast and accurate.
Each only provide a monocular field of view.

[kgunz11]

blackstone, on Dec 13 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

I use a Swaro Guide.
It is superior to the Leica for ranging.
It works fast and accurate.
Each only provide a monocular field of view.

How do you quantify that statement? Comparing what models? I've actually done some tests and found the size of the projected laser on the Swaro to be entirely too large to get accurate readings on small objects at distance. They both read the same distance when you can get the Swaro to hit, but that can be the troublesome part.

Try hitting a telephone pole at 800 yards with the Swaro and then try with the Leica CRF1200. You'll see the difference then. The size of the aiming circle on the Swaro at 800 yards is 160" and the Leica is 16"... 10 times smaller for more accuracy in hitting the intended object which in results provides for a much quicker reading and arguably more accurate. Now mind you it is light and small and harder to hold steady, but with a good rest it will provide accurate readings faster than the others. We also tested the Leica against a military version of the Vector. We got verified readings on the Leica out to 1400 yards shooting a water tower. At mid day, the Leica would give a return on a tree line 700 yards away and will work in almost total darkness.

For the OP, I don't know what's in your budget, but the Leica is impossible to beat for the money. I also use mine as an 8x monocular when hunting and I can see through it way later than I can with my naked eye.

[Chris]

OK so what's "not pricey" mean? I'm sure you have some $500 bottles of wine stashed away somewhere?

[spd522]

I have a Bushnell 600. It's several years old but works well. Deer I have ranged to around 460 but 400 is more the norm. Longest range was a rock bluff in CO at 776 yards.
I do plan on upgrading to one that will hit 1000 yards or better.

So I got a Leupold RX-IV. What a POS. Too many settings to have to scroll through to get what you want. And then the best reading it would ever get was on a metal building at 560 yards.
It got sent back to Cabelas.

I have had such good service out of my Bushnell, I am considering a 1500 yd model with ARC. But the Leica and Swarovski are still the best units, although more costly.

Craig

[bgary]

Quote

I've actually done some tests and found the size of the projected laser on the Swaro to be entirely too large to get accurate readings on small objects at distance. They both read the same distance when you can get the Swaro to hit, but that can be the troublesome part.

I had *exactly* the same experience.

Plus, the Swaro had some sort of circuitry that auto-adjusted the brightness of the reticle based on ambient light. The only problem was, if you were standing in shade (eg, under a shelter or tree) and ranging something in broad daylight, it would "think" there was low light and turn down the brightness of the reticle... making it really hard to see against a bright background. Conversely if you were in direct sunlight and ranging something in the shade, it would adjust according to the "bright sunlight" and turn up the brightness, totally overwhelming your ability to discriminate objects in the shade. There was no [apparent] way to defeat this feature.

Between those two tidbits, I chose the Leica.

B

[John Dunn]

Quote

How do you quantify that statement? Comparing what models? I've actually done some tests and found the size of the projected laser on the Swaro to be entirely too large to get accurate readings on small objects at distance. They both read the same distance when you can get the Swaro to hit, but that can be the troublesome part.

Try hitting a telephone pole at 800 yards with the Swaro and then try with the Leica CRF1200. You'll see the difference then. The size of the aiming circle on the Swaro at 800 yards is 160" and the Leica is 16"... 10 times smaller for more accuracy in hitting the intended object which in results provides for a much quicker reading and arguably more accurate. Now mind you it is light and small and harder to hold steady, but with a good rest it will provide accurate readings faster than the others. We also tested the Leica against a military version of the Vector. We got verified readings on the Leica out to 1400 yards shooting a water tower. At mid day, the Leica would give a return on a tree line 700 yards away and will work in almost total darkness.

For the OP, I don't know what's in your budget, but the Leica is impossible to beat for the money. I also use mine as an 8x monocular when hunting and I can see through it way later than I can with my naked eye.

I own 3 Leica models (I think the 900, 1200 and the 10x binocular one) and the Swaro guide. I use them primarily to range low reflectivity targets (i.e. sagebrush) out to 1,000 yds both in practice and the ITRC match. In my experience the Swaro guide performs better, especially in bright sunlight. I've tried them side by side...no read on the Leica, good read on the Swaro. On the telephone pole I'd range the ground at the base of the pole or a bigger object at a similar distance. If I'd been happy with the Leica's performance I would have quit there.

I'd love to try a Vector or a non eyesafe LRF, if anyone has a line on these.

[HRider]

Religious Shooter, on Dec 5 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Yes, they allow you to range targets.

I have a Leupold RXIII. It sucks. Don't get it.

Digging up an old thread here. What sucks about your Leupold RXIII?
Hurley

[SDM]

I was given an Opti-Logic at work. I was skeptical at first because of the name and the fact I hadn’t heard of them. I’ve had no problems after about a year of daily use.

[Religious Shooter]

HRider, on Feb 15 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

Religious Shooter, on Dec 5 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Yes, they allow you to range targets.

I have a Leupold RXIII. It sucks. Don't get it.

Digging up an old thread here. What sucks about your Leupold RXIII?
Hurley

The RXIII is slow. The Leica I have and other rangefinders I've used pretty much given an instant reading. The RXIII requires a couple of seconds to give a reading.

The farthest reading I got using the RXIII was ~400 yards. I took it out to a bolt match and I couldn't even range the 500 yard targets. When I got home I changed the battery and tried to range stuff around me. Same thing, it wouldn't range past 500 yards.

I still have the RXIII and keep it with my 3 Gun back pack.

The inclinometer feature isn't really needed for 3 Gun as the targets that are used in 3 Gun are relatively huge. The angle has to be extreme for it to make a real difference. It will work for 3 Gun matches. But for games with longer distances the RXII is no good. I got caught up in the name. I thought Leupold=good. But for LRF's it isn't.

I bought the Leica 1200... it's a step up from the RXIII. I've gotten readings during matches for 500+ yards. But I had to do it a couple of times. It wouldn't give me a reading the first couple of times.

[HRider]

Thanks, I was just wondering. I have been satisfied with my RXIII, but I don't use it often and don't have the opportunity to range things beyond 400 either. Since you have mentioned it, I will try to get farther readings just to see if it will.
Thanks, Hurley

[jtischauser]

Any updates here? I'm going to buy myself a RF for Christmas. I'm not about to drop $500 plus on on Swaro or Leica. So far what I've taken from this thread is that the less expensive rangefinders won't range smaller targets like we shoot over 400 yds? Is that right? Are there any sub $300 models that will work for 3 gun?

[kgunz11]

One thing most never learn about using a laser range finder is you do NOT have to range the target. Sometimes the target might be obscured by brush that might give a false reading. Sometimes the target might be small and missing it will give a false reading. You have to learn to pick out objects in close proximity to the target to range also to give you solid readings. What IS important in a laser range finder is one that is rated 1/2 the distance farther than you plan on using one. If you're going to range to 500 yards or so on average, you need AT LEAST a range finder rated to range 750 yards. When testing the LRF's they use ideal scenarios and very reflective items when ranging. The farther that item is the more reflective it needs to be. My Leica will range trees at 1000 yards and a little beyond, but it will range a water tower or other reflective object much farther than that.

Learn HOW to range, and get the best you can afford. Buy once cry once. It would be easy to be a lesser expensive RF that was poor quality and essentially being throwing the money away.

[sparks40]

jtischauser, on Nov 24 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Any updates here? I'm going to buy myself a RF for Christmas. I'm not about to drop $500 plus on on Swaro or Leica. So far what I've taken from this thread is that the less expensive rangefinders won't range smaller targets like we shoot over 400 yds? Is that right? Are there any sub $300 models that will work for 3 gun?

Jesse, I just picked up a Nikon Monarch 800 at Academy for under $300. I will bring it to the next match and you can give it a try.

[spd522]

jtischauser, on Nov 24 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Any updates here? I'm going to buy myself a RF for Christmas. I'm not about to drop $500 plus on on Swaro or Leica. So far what I've taken from this thread is that the less expensive rangefinders won't range smaller targets like we shoot over 400 yds? Is that right? Are there any sub $300 models that will work for 3 gun?

I use my older (1998 mfg) Bushnell 600 for 3 gun. It has worked for me so far. Just yesterday deer hunting I got a 500 yd reading off a bush in the field. Not a good reflective target by any means. For a low price unit that works, I would look at Bushnell.

I do plan on getting one that ranges much farther in the future but so far, there is very little this one couldn't handle for hunting or 3 gun.

Craig

[smokshwn]

Butch,

The article Scott posted is a great read and primer for range finder use. Bobby's advice is also spot on. I couldn't justify the $$$ for either a Swaro of Leica CRF so I just kept my eyes open for a good deal on a used Leica LRF in the want ads at Snipershide. Also check and see if there is some old stock with the photo/optic dealers on the web. The LRF is slightly bigger than the CRF but it is still not obtrusive and it reportedly uses the same lasing/software as the CRF thus its performance is excellent.

[RufDog]

I have a bushnell yardage pro 1000, supposed to range a grand..... Unless lighting is right etc etc 400yds is a crap shoot you absolutely cannot count on it in field conditions. I cant get telephone poles like the leica. For the money I spent on that I could have bought a hi point, some ammo and shot myself in the head. Thats how I feel about the bushnell. Now the leica, I have used and I was happy with it.

[Avezorak]

sparks40, on Nov 24 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

jtischauser, on Nov 24 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Any updates here? I'm going to buy myself a RF for Christmas. I'm not about to drop $500 plus on on Swaro or Leica. So far what I've taken from this thread is that the less expensive rangefinders won't range smaller targets like we shoot over 400 yds? Is that right? Are there any sub $300 models that will work for 3 gun?

Jesse, I just picked up a Nikon Monarch 800 at Academy for under $300. I will bring it to the next match and you can give it a try.

+1 on anything Nikon. The Monarch is great. You can order from Cabelas. I dont like Bushnell. They eat batteries.

[spd522]

RufDog, on Nov 24 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

I have a bushnell yardage pro 1000, supposed to range a grand..... Unless lighting is right etc etc 400yds is a crap shoot you absolutely cannot count on it in field conditions. I cant get telephone poles like the leica. For the money I spent on that I could have bought a hi point, some ammo and shot myself in the head. Thats how I feel about the bushnell. Now the leica, I have used and I was happy with it.

I thought you already shot yourself in the head............ You mean you have always been this way?


I think like most things, you can get a good one or bad one in anything. I must have gotten one that works. Battery life has been good too. I think it's on battery #3 in 10 years.

Craig