I went with the Sig Sauer KILO10K 10x42 combo rangefinder/bino. I also have a pair of Swarovski 10x42 (bino only) and like the clarity and feel of the Sigs better. I've had several friends with Swarovskis compare side by side and they agree.
Rangefinder binos
- Thread starter westcoasthunter
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Sig must have updated there glass because the one's I had I sent back because the glass seem dark to me. Good to know.
I have the Revic bino's with rangefinder and don't find any major issues with the glass. Are they as clear as my Swaro's were, no they are not. Are they good enough for 99 percent of the hunting I do, yes I believe they are. If you miss something it is not going to be because of the quality of the glass in the Revic bino's. You yourself stated you are not a sit and pick apart a hill side kind of guy. The Revic's are perfect for that kind of hunting and the rangefinder is fantastic. I couldn't agree more with with some of the comments, if you have the money the NL Pures and the BR4 rangefinder would be the ultimate set up, its just more glass than I need for the type of hunting I do and they come at a super premium price. If your spending hours and hours behind them and your well is deep, then that combo is definitely the way to go. If your looking for good glass with a great rangefinder you can't beat the Revic's. JMO
Elk Hunter 338
Official LRH Sponsor
Leica Geovid pro 10x42 AB+.. that's it!
I just received the new Vector X range finding binos and am very impressed. I have the Revic blr10bs as well and really enjoyed them, but the Vector X glass is far superior. I think these are the two top units available right now for ranging/ballistic solving binos. I like the ability to Bluetooth to Kestrel with the Vector X as well.
I imagine there will be some good deals on used Revic BLR10Bs here as more of the initial orders of the Vector Xs get into people's hands.
I imagine there will be some good deals on used Revic BLR10Bs here as more of the initial orders of the Vector Xs get into people's hands.
highfinblue
Well-Known Member
I like my Sig's, and I always have my EL 10x42's handy as well. I don't do super long hikes anymore, so an extra bino is no burden. The range finder in my Sig is an easy button out to 1500, I'm probably not shooting past that even at steel.
OP or anyone else I'm running a group buy for Alaska shooters on the vectronix vector x binos. I can open it up for out of state folks if there's enough interest. I'll probably start another thread. FWIW I'm currently using the swaro el range ta, but will likely switch over to the vectors. If anyone is interested please send me a pm so we don't jam up the OP's thread.
I have owned both Swaro and Revic. As a hunter, the Revic is by far the better range finding bino. The Revic ballistic engine, when paired to my rifles' ballistic profiles have been accurate at all ranges to 1/2 MOA.
The Swaro was more comfortable in my hands and better in the lowest light. I have experienced last light challenges with my Revic and I decided to pass up the shot because Revic's ballistic solver requires a certain amount of light to function properly and provide a shooting solution.
For me, the bottom line is first shot accuracy. I sold my Swaro, Leica and Vortex binos and decided in 'last light' conditions to begin the hike back to camp.
DocUSMCRetired
Well-Known Member
Yes they did, the new Gen 2s got a glass upgrade and some other new features.
azarcher10x
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 264
The best glass out of all of them are the Zeiss. Swaro's use Zeiss glass, as do others. That's why they're comparable. My Zeiss RF's will consistently range soft targets to 2500 yards. The only issue I have with them is very short yardage (under 80 yards) for archery, etc. 20 reads 22, then 40 reads 39. My theory is the laser engine is to strong for the processor to process the close range, but for that much money, a bow mode would be nice! Other than that, they have all the bells and whistles- bluetooth, but in weather station, etc.
DocUSMCRetired
Well-Known Member
"Too Powerful" is not how LRF logic works when figuring out range. It is more likely just averaging out multiple returns and then giving you the average.
905 lasers work by sending out thousands of pulses. Because they have to use a weaker laser (to be eye safer, and eye safe doesn't exist) they compensate by sending out thousands of pings. As you wobble around those get spread out. 905nm lasers are extremely close to our visual range (380nm - 700nm). This is the near-infrared wavelength. 650nm - 900nm is the range used for cold laser therapy and other medical devices due its penetration depth into the human body. Not good for eyes to say the least. So these are legally reduced in power. To compensate they range like this:
1550 lasers (more expensive range finders) are able to send out one single high energy pulse. Which is why they are both more accurate, and can range further. 1550nm is further from our vision and the energy is absorbed and dissipated in our eyes. Which greatly reduces the chances of causing harm.
The last issue to think about is the diode. These can be low or high quality. High quality tend to be more round and polished. Lower quality (cheaper) tend to be more rectangular. Which has an impact on your ranging quality. As you can imagine, getting a return on things around what you are lasing has to be filtered out by the algorithm in use. If the system is averaging to find "best" then some of those returns will be from objects around your intended target. Now couple that with the wobble from your hand as you push the button (no one is rock solid) and you can imagine what the system is having to do. More objects that around "the same" distance being averaged in.
If we are talking about targets further away, then the mass of that target will be significantly more different in range. Hitting grass, trees, and bushes behind a deer at 600 yards, can give you an easy 10 - 20 - 50 yard different for the algorithm. Hitting grass, bushes, trees, 2 - 3 yards behind the object would make it harder to discern those as "not intended" by the algorithm. Looking down at a deer from a tree stand, the difference in yardage from the deer to the background is only 1 - 3 yards. Looking out at a deer across a field, they can easily be 30+ yards and filtered out.
If Swarvo Pures are Zeiss glass then Zeiss screwed up and gave Swarvo the best glass or coatings they have. I can't see that at all.
Zeiss needs to reposition their buttons and their app sucks.
