Diagnosing long range errors: Bad RF?

[JakeC]

GPS is not a good reference. GPS is accurate but the average gps is only accurate to 16 ft. At best. It can get worst.

As far as brush, you'll only know if you try it on between 1st and second priority. If you have it on the wrong mode, it could thing some stick out there is you primary target.

Are you using a tripod?

yeah I've had surprisingly bad gps results in the past, I use it weekly with my dog. What about after the fact using a mapping system? No matter how I gerrymander the locations I can't get them as low as I ranged them. When I use 2 different mapping systems to measure, I get a distances the same as my trajectory results with all 3 rifles: 35y short at 790 and 50y short at 600.

In either case, 16 ft would be way more accurate than what I was experiencing. I would feel more okay about an obstruction if I wasn't getting extremely repeatable readings and it wasn't happening at 2 locations. on a wide open hillside. Not ruling it out, just think it's less likely than something else I'm ignorant about. It's definitely on the list. No tripod but I was still steady and again, results were checked and rechecked for hours.

 

[dfanonymous]

yeah I've had surprisingly bad gps results in the past, I use it weekly with my dog. What about after the fact using a mapping system? No matter how I gerrymander the locations I can't get them as low as I ranged them. When I use 2 different mapping systems to measure, I get a distances the same as my trajectory results with all 3 rifles: 35y short at 790 and 50y short at 600.

In either case, 16 ft would be way more accurate than what I was experiencing. I would feel more okay about an obstruction if I wasn't getting extremely repeatable readings and it wasn't happening at 2 locations. on a wide open hillside. Not ruling it out, just think it's less likely than something else I'm ignorant about. It's definitely on the list. No tripod but I was still steady and again, results were checked and rechecked for hours.

16 ft at best. Meaning it could be more. Depending on said mapping software, gps modules, elevations and a few other things that I don't really care to get into. Even a 10 digit grid using mrgs is only accurate down to the meter, for those in the military who also delve in that. Like for calls for fire.

How's it at closer range?
Do you have a known short distance like a 100y that you can measure out with like an engineer tape or something? Verify the accuracy of the rangefinder. Like someone said earlier…having a second one to compare it too would be the quick way to check if it's off…

 

[JakeC]

16 ft at best. Meaning it could be more. Depending on said mapping software, gps modules, elevations and a few other things that I don't really care to get into. Even a 10 digit grid using mrgs is only accurate down to the meter, for those in the military who also delve in that. Like for calls for fire.

How's it at closer range?
Do you have a known short distance like a 100y that you can measure out with like an engineer tape or something? Verify the accuracy of the rangefinder. Like someone said earlier…having a second one to compare it too would be the quick way to check if it's off…

Oddly it's harder to use at close range, even though it works. It works okay for archery but it may or may not want to pick up a bag. But I suspect that's a normal problem because the range users diligently apply a duct tape square to all the bag targets. Long distance you tend to get no signal and then strong, emphatic signals when it hits something it likes. Closer it's like using a cheap digital thermometer, it wanders back and forth on most objects so you gotta kinda average 67.3 and 64.9, depending on conditions. that kinda thing. In the woods it's pretty close to useless. It's on far mode (hunt mode vs golf mode) and i verified that with phone poles today. but it does not like to read targets that are close to interfering. Again that could be normal.

Yeah I need to get ahold of a second one. Don't work with any hunters but you never know.

 

[dfanonymous]

Oddly it's harder to use at close range, even though it works. It works okay for archery but it may or may not want to pick up a bag. But I suspect that's a normal problem because the range users diligently apply a duct tape square to all the bag targets. Long distance you tend to get no signal and then strong, emphatic signals when it hits something it likes. Closer it's like using a cheap digital thermometer, it wanders back and forth on most objects so you gotta kinda average 67.3 and 64.9, depending on conditions. that kinda thing. In the woods it's pretty close to useless. It's on far mode (hunt mode vs golf mode) and i verified that with phone poles today. but it does not like to read targets that are close to interfering. Again that could be normal.

Yeah I need to get ahold of a second one. Don't work with any hunters but you never know.

I for one do not (as in never have had) have that problem at close range. The cheapest rangefinder I own is an old vortex ranger 1800 or something. I got it for archery some time ago because it was the only rangefinder at the time that had a 2.5 magnification for archery distance but could still reach out to 800 easy enough for the stalks.

It's within a half yard at all distances.

The second cheapest I own is a leupold 2800..and it's accurate to the yard from like 10y to over a mile.

It might very well be your unit.

Let us know. I'd be interested in knowing what the problem is.

Like I said, I have no personal feelings about the Athlon and haven't seen or heard anything one way or the other about its reliability. I heard they have good customer service though….

 

[JAYgs8163]

Buy another RF!

 

[Laelkhunter]

How about finding a straight stretch of highway that has the highway mileage markers at every 1/10th of a mile. If you can range from one to the next, or have a friend drop you off at one and then drive your car to the next and range your car. 1/10th of a mile is 176 yards or 528 feet.

 

[lancetkenyon]

Buy another RF!

The more I read on this post, ^ is my growing opinion too.
Or send it in to get looked at.

 

[R. Cram]

The issue is usually user error. Specifically in the reticle vs back drop if you have one.

Go find a telephone line and get some distance. Like 600y or more. You want the sky as your backing. Then aim directly at the line. If it doesn't read anything, then try all 4 quadrants of the reticle. Chances are it will be true in one of the those quadrants. That's your true aiming point.


If it's not that, and you have obstacles such as brush, then your RF might being picking that up through beam divergence. I'm not familiar with your particular unit, but there should be an option for first or second reading. You'll have to get spin up on that, if you're not already familiar.

If it's none of those, then it's just a garbage rangefinder. To explain, the rangefinder shoots a laser and reads the reflection back on a timer. It happens in microseconds, but if all else is well, and your rangefinder is still off then, that's a design flaw in the computer….

I think the 4 quadrants of the reticle aiming point has great merit, my hunting partner and I were getting different readings often with two range finders so last Highpower match I asked 4 people to bring there rangefinders to compair at a 600 yd target and they were all within a yard so possibly my hunting buddy and I were not placing the reticle correctly on the target

 

[anwahs]

Have you checked the battery in the RF? I have seen a Sig RF give consistent short readings with a battery that was low. Serious design flaw in my opinion. It should either work correctly or not at all. Put a fresh battery in and give it a try.

 

[Frog4aday]

Another consideration - is your LENS clean? Clean the front of your rangefinder (alcohol pad and a microfiber cloth work great for this.) Any debris is going to scatter the laser and interfere with the return of that beam, too.

And finally, where was the sun? Where you shooting the RF into the sun? Sun glare can screw with your rangefinder. If the sun was from your back or way off to the side (or directly above) then it shouldn't have been the issue, but if any of the sun was shining DIRECTLY into the RF...well, it won't like that.

 

[JakeC]

Have you checked the battery in the RF? I have seen a Sig RF give consistent short readings with a battery that was low. Serious design flaw in my opinion. It should either work correctly or not at all. Put a fresh battery in and give it a try.

Bought one to try, definitely worth knowing about that.

Another consideration - is your LENS clean? Clean the front of your rangefinder (alcohol pad and a microfiber cloth work great for this.) Any debris is going to scatter the laser and interfere with the return of that beam, too.

And finally, where was the sun? Where you shooting the RF into the sun? Sun glare can screw with your rangefinder. If the sun was from your back or way off to the side (or directly above) then it shouldn't have been the issue, but if any of the sun was shining DIRECTLY into the RF...well, it won't like that.

I had not cleaned it. Even though I have the zeiss wipes
I'm paranoid about damaging lenses by rubbing them, I should get one of those pen brushes. Can that scattering cause consistent but bad results?

Sun was relatively direct, at about 2:30 at the start, 2:30 at the end (relative to me). And about 4 hours from sunset.

 

[lancetkenyon]

What I usually do in Flat land scenarios with an object on a plane, is set my LRF to "Near" and shoot over the target and slowly pan down. Yardages will continue to change until you hit the target.

Also, mounting the LRF on a tripod makes a HUGE difference. Only way to go when hunting pronghorn.

View attachment 574877

FYI...There IS a dead pronghorn in the distance of this photo.

 

[JAYgs8163]

.

 

[FireFlyFishing]

I was listening to a podcast the other day on the subject of RFs. They were talking about an RF that had been dropped and the reticle shifted causing bad distances as the poi of the laser was different than poa of the reticle. Something to consider and test as well.