G7 vs. 1600B vs. Swaro EL...

[geo4061]

The week spot of the 1600 is it's ballistics. It ranges in yards or meters and gives you the shot angle. You have to enter these in your ballistic calculations ( Kestrel 4500AB or your phone app). That gives you your firing solution in moa or mils.
I picked the 1600 and Kestrel AB because of the learning experience. They are small shirt pocket size. I carry one or both with me a lot of time when I am not hunting. The 1600 to learn ranges and the Kestrel to learn weather and wind.
The people that have the G7 love it. Every other day I think about switching. Then I remember it is just too big for me to carry it around and use it like I do the others. What a wonderful thing it would be to have both.

 

[bill123]

Since we're comparing g7 to 1600 +AB Kestrel has anyone compared the ballistic solution between g7 and the ab? Can u true with the g7?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

The dog house is gonna be crowded tonight... I just ordered a 1600B.... If I had gotten the G7, it'd likely mean moving into the dog house.... Permanently.

I sold an Aimpoint Comp M4s to cover some of the cost of the 1600b.

 

[geo4061]

The AB app allows you to adjust any of your in puts to match your verified drop. Such as BC and velocity. I have checked a couple of the drops in my Kestrel AB with the G7 calculator on the Gunworks site. They matched or were very very close.

WARNING WARNING WARNING----- Continue reading this site and you will sooner or later be in that Dog House. I stay there,however,I am smilin'.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I researched for a couple weeks before buying anything...For me, it came down to the Zeiss PRF or the Leica 1600b...the G7 was never an option for me, as Shawn Carlock states in some of his RF reviews...I'm just a "3 digit" shooter...and given that, the G7 doesn't do anything to justify its cost to me...If I was regularly shooting past 1200 yards I "might" have gotten the G7...maybe.

I've read every word Shawn Carlock, Ryan Avery, Sam Millard, and Broz (and a few others) have written on rangefinders...thats a lot of words...I tend to agree with Broz and his stance on beam divergence (smaller is better)...thus, I got the 1600B.

In the coming days...I'm gonna be doing a direct side by side comparison of the Leica 1600B and my Bushnell G-Force 1300 ARC (first model...not the DX)...the little $400 Bushnell has been surprisingly good to me for the couple years I've had it but I know its no Leica, I'm curious to compare them though...just to see how it turns out.

The Leica optics were as much a selling point to me as the ranging capabilities were...I wanted one that could take the place of binos...which brings something to this thread nobody has talked about much in regards to the G7...how good is the glass?

Good glass in a RF is essential I think...ya can't range it if ya can't see it...and, I'm an admitted scope snob...I like good glass.

EDITED TO ADD: I will not be using the ballistics provided by the 1600B, I use look angle with line of sight distance (Applied Ballistics app)

 

[Rich Coyle]

Ridgerunner665,

Really curious what you come up with when you compare them. I have a trouble free 1200, but the 1600 does sound good.

 

[Greyfox]

The optical system of the G7 is as good if not better then the Leica to my eyes. I think the larger lens size also plays a role not only with optical quality, but laser beam sending and recieving as well.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

The info below is comparing the Leica 1600b to the Bushnell G-Force ARC 1300 (first model, not the DX...if there is a difference)

The Bushnell just failed miserably on what I thought would have been a pretty easy task...not just failed...but failed miserably.



The sign in the distance is the target, it is directly above the W on the tanker trailer....the Leica 1600b ranged it every time at 858 yards, no misses, no fussing...

The Bushnell will not range it no matter what I do...it will range the trees to the left of it if I'm careful with it (732 yards)...when I aim the Bushnell at the sign it ranges the tanker trailer (41 yards)...I tried bringing the beam down onto the sign from above, no joy...no matter what I do it won't range the sign....the beam is too big...it goes from the tanker to the trees.

That should give you an idea of the effect of beam divergence...look how wide that gap is...and the Bushnell beam won't fit in there.

I know we don't generally use these things to range signs...but I'm a truck driver...and I'm testing these while I work, so I gotta improvise a little.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

A post from a few days ago that I forgot to put in here...below copied and pasted from another forum, it is my post though.


Some more observations on beam size.....offhand ranging.

Put simply...smaller IS better...most of the time, and depending on how you use it

Sitting here ranging some horses at 656 yards...they are 10 yards into the trees...no matter what I do the Bushnell will not range the horses, its ranging the trees (646 yards)..the 1600 beam will fit between the trees.

Ranging a street light at 334 yards is easier with the Bushnell...the 1600 will range it just fine...if you can hold it still.


As I have seen it said before...beam size is a trade off...you can either have speed or precision...there could be an argument made both for and against either one.

I'm still happy with my lil $400 Bushnell G_Force 1300 ARC, for the money it is a good starter rangefinder (it was my first)...it will still serve a purpose for me, but I now know that even though it will range some things at 1,300 yards in the right conditions...it is primarily a 400 yard rangefinder, past that its beam is pretty **** big and hard to get on small targets...and its optics are decent but the 1600b optics makes the Bushnell seem like something that came out of a cereal box.

Its easy to get spoiled on good optics...

For those that are not likely to shoot over 400 yards or so...beam size isn't nearly as important...but glass quality IS.

Thats how I ended up choosing between Leica and Zeiss!!!

 

[Rich Coyle]

For many years I have had Leica 1200. Recently I thought I would upgrade to the Bushnell 1300. What a joke! I pick a tree line about half mile away across the pasture. The 1200 did just fine. The 1300 didn't give a reading at all . After several tries I gave up and figured a sample of one, although that's how many 1200's I used was unfair. I returned the 1300 and ordered another. Same test same results.

If I upgrade I have to go with the 1600.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

For many years I have had Leica 1200. Recently I thought I would upgrade to the Bushnell 1300. What a joke! I pick a tree line about half mile away across the pasture. The 1200 did just fine. The 1300 didn't give a reading at all . After several tries I gave up and figured a sample of one, although that's how many 1200's I used was unfair. I returned the 1300 and ordered another. Same test same results.

If I upgrade I have to go with the 1600.

My Bushnell 1300 will range trees with leaves at 900 yards all day long...maybe they're not all created equal...

The Bushnell isn't necessarily "bad"...but it isn't much good past 400 yards in general use...its great for archery.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Some good reading...

How Do Rangefinders Work? | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

 

[Ridgerunner665]

In the pic below...over the truck you can see the light fixture just barely sticking up over the fuel island canopy (center of picture)...the fuel island canopy is 61 yards, the light fixture is 515 yards


The Leica 1600b has no trouble getting over the canopy and ranging the light fixture, no trouble at all...the Bushnell 1300 ARC will not do it, I either get the canopy or nothing.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Finally...rain!

Going back to the original target (the sign in the fist pic, 858 yards)...the Leica will range it even in that rain you see, every time....the Bushnell, won't range a **** thing past 120 yards.

When I took this pic, it may not have been raining at the sign...but it was when I did the ranging (only got 2 hands)