Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaster

[Pdvdh]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Jeff,

You may be right about my Swaro being better than their average unit. I can almost always range the hillside next to the game animals where I hunt. It's a very rare occasion when I might need to range an animal on open flat lands.

I purchased my CRF 1600 from Doug at Camera Land, and he says I can return it if it doesn't perform to my expectations, I haven't filled out the warranty form, and it's in good shape. So I believe I'll package it up and return this unit for a refund. I may be out some shipping costs.

From what I've read and researched on this Forum prior to purchasing, I think most Leica CRF 1600s perform more like the one you just tested. And that ranging performance would have been acceptable for my uses. Perhaps it was just my luck of the draw...

Anyhow, thanks again for taking the time to help me sort out the relative performance of my unit.


Paul

 

[SBruce]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Paul,

Are you sending the unit back for replacement? or just a total refund?

I got a replacement from Leica within a couple of weeks and the 2nd one seems to work as it should.

I agree with Jeff that some units are simply better than others, and I believe I got a good, possibly better than average 1200 too.

Cottonwoods may not reflect the same as evergreens, but I tried freehand on two different cottonwoods in evening light the other day. a very small and sparsly leaved (partially dead) tree gave +/- 1590 yd readings about 1 of 4 tries. Another large and fully leaved tree gave +/- 1740 yd readings 100% no problem at all, no missed readings.

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

I returned my unit for refund. I purchased it from CameraLand in NY and returned it to them for a refund.

If I could get a unit that performed like yours, the one Jeff tested, or the one that was tested in this thread http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/buying-insurance-timber-accurate-range-73823/ then I'd prefer to have the CRF 1600 over the Swaro. CameraLand said they would test my returned unit out to see if it was defective or not, but if they test it only for operational function, it will pass. Everything seemed to work that I tested. It just didn't range as far as many others are reporting their CRF 1600s capable of.

If you returned yours directly to Leica, then I have no doubt that Leica technicians are aware that some of their CRF 1600s substantially outrange others that they sell. They could certainly test some units and return a top notch performer, in replacement. I can't know if it's a quality control problem, or if Leica makes more money by selling the less capable units along with the more capable units. I think they need to start performance testing their units side by side, if they want to perform some true Quality Control / Quality Assurance on their products prior to shipping them for retail sale to the public. Perhaps if I had returned mine to Leica, they would have sent me a unit which they knew ranged another 300 yards farther than the unit I received.

Dunno. If I could get one of the good ones, I'd be happier than with my Swarovski in all ways other than the Swaro does have the notably superior optical quality. But the CRF 1600 is smaller, lighter, easier to see the readings, etc... as I mentioned in my prior post. If I get the opportunity to test a couple CRF 1600s side by side at a retail store, then maybe I'll purchase one sometime in the future. But where I live in Alaska, that type of outside-the-store testing may be difficult to find.

Thanks for sharing the information on your replacement CRF 1600. It just helps reaffirm what has already been reported multiple times. The ranging capabilities of laser rangefinders - units of the same brand and model - are quite variable. Some take your breath away, while others simply disappoint and take your money away. In these situations, one of the best ways to get informed is through a Forum like this one, with Members that are willing to share their own experiences - or even test a unit and report back like Broz did. Very helpful.

Paul

 

[kdvarmint]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

PINE TREES??? Great info guys. Anyone have any "testing" for us varmint hunters?lightbulb I'm very interested in the 1600, and would like to know how it does on something like a groundhog in a flat open green field at 1000 yards. Any feed back is greatly appricated.

Thanks, kd.

 

[SBruce]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

PINE TREES??? Great info guys. Anyone have any "testing" for us varmint hunters?lightbulb I'm very interested in the 1600, and would like to know how it does on something like a groundhog in a flat open green field at 1000 yards. Any feed back is greatly appricated.

Thanks, kd.

I've gotten prarie dog mounds out to about 800 on a slight upslope. Deer out to a little over 1000. I don't know about whistle pigs in a flat field. We dont have any of those critters here. Just guessing, but I'd think it would have trouble on a ground hog at 1000 in a flat field. Ive been able to get just grass/ground at over 1000, but there was a slight angle too.

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Anyone have any "testing" for us varmint hunters?lightbulb I'm very interested in the 1600, and would like to know how it does on something like a groundhog in a flat open green field at 1000 yards. Any feed back is greatly appricated.

Thanks, kd.

If you figure out how to range a groundhog at 1000 yds on the level, rather than the surrounding grass, can you share your standard operating procedures? You'd better hope for BIG groundhogs... or a nearby pine tree...

 

[kdvarmint]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

If you figure out how to range a groundhog at 1000 yds on the level, rather than the surrounding grass, can you share your standard operating procedures? You'd better hope for BIG groundhogs... or a nearby pine tree...[/QUOTE
Don't find many pine trees in open fields. I know what your saying, I'm just asking.

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Based on my experiences with laser rangefinders, I would recommend ranging those 'open fields' you intend to hunt with range-able objects prior to your hunting/shooting of the groundhog. Have someone stand in various locations in the field holding a large (larger than a groundhog) reflective target, sign, etc... Then range the distances to that person and record those ranges for future use. Reference those notes and interpolate as necessary to the location of the groundhog wherever he sticks his nose above the grass.

Either that or place a fake Christmas tree at a variety of desired locations and range those distances. Record the notes and interpolate to estimate a distance to the little critters - wherever they happen to appear - from your recorded ranges.

Your scenario helps explain why I range evergreen trees when comparing the ranging performance of laser rangefinders. There's no reasonable way to compare their performance while ranging field rat or groundhog-sized objects on a level field that's void of any prominent topographic relief.

A boom truck like the electrical lineman use to work on overhead power lines would be ideal. You'll need to increase the angle of the shot on any extremely flat ground surface in order to expect repeatable ranging on tiny objects - because what you'll really be ranging is the surrounding ground surface rather than the groundhog. And the shallower the angle of the rangefinder shot onto a flat ground surface - the greater the inherent error in the yardages ranged.

 

[SBruce]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

+1

I doubt I could see a deer at 1000 yds over the grass/mirage on perfectly flat ground, much less a groundhog. Not without having some elevation or topography/angle difference between myself and them.

I know some guys that are 1000 and 1500 yd club members in the VHA. They did it on my property on prarie dogs. They went out ahead of time and ranged certain spots in the dog town and then drove in wooden surveyors stakes. They recorded the distance to these stakes on a piece of paper for reference later. They did it in a town that had a long slow upslope too. That way they could see all the stakes and had a better idea of how far between each stake the dogs were.

I know on perfectly flat ground, the Leica 1600 or 1200 start having trouble with prarie dogs way closer than 1000 yds........sure, we can get a dark patch of grass or a small sagebrush or even maybe the mound they're standing on out quite a ways, but the dog itself is very hard to range.

Even with the small beam divergence of the Leica or the Vectronix, IMO it's not small enough to ensure we're getting the actual dog and not some grass behind or in front of the dog. Heck, last fall we were shooting a friends Edge at 700 to 950 yds on cardboard. The cardboard was about 2' wide X 3' tall. At the 700 yd mark, the cardboard was at an angle, so we would sometimes get the dirt berm behind the cardboard instead of the board itself. Swarovski, Leica, it didn't matter which; both would occasionally give a 5 yd further reading due to the board not reflecting enough back.

 

[Broz]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

+
Even with the small beam divergence of the Leica or the Vectronix, IMO it's not small enough to ensure we're getting the actual dog and not some grass behind or in front of the dog.

I would say ranging a larger object would sure be easier too. But with the beam divergence of a PLRF10 at .3 x 1.5 mils , or in plain terms, a beam of 10.8" tall by 54" wide at 1000 yards. You give me a ground hog that is not obstructed by grass and I will go prone with sand bags and I feel I could range him. as long as he is the tallest object between me and him or with in 5 feet left or right of him.

I play with and study laser RF's quite a bit. I feel one of the big problem with mostof them is, the users need more practice learning how to use them and how they work. Off hand is for close stuff only. Lets say 700 yards and shorter. Off the elbo's you can probably get to 1000 depending on the target size and quality. But past that they need to be rested very solid. Even more so with the smaller beam units. Heck even with a projectile size of 10" x 54" I doubt I could hit a small bush or even a deer at 1000 yds hand or off my elbo's no matter how good my rifle is.

Jeff

 

[SBruce]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

Howdy Jeff,

a beam of 10.8" tall by 54" wide at 1000 yards.

My apologies, I was thinking the vertical dispersion was .5 mil and would be 18" at 1000 yds. I knew the horizontal dispersion was quite a bit more than the vertical though.

More so, that being said; I was worried about the horizontal. My thoughts being that a prarie dog is only about 4" wide Maximum. In my mind, there's a good chance that the nearly 5 foot wide beam would catch grass on either side of the dog that is closer or further than the dog itself. Much more area to catch and bounce back a reading outside and both sides of the dog, especially on relatively flat ground.........The beam on both sides of the dog would still "be out there searching" for something.? What are your thoughts on that?

I've tried the Leica's on wooden telephone pole tops against the skyline. It was tough to get consistant readings much beyond 800 yds, even on sandbags. Of course, the pole is more vertical than horizontal, so again, in my mind; I am thinking that most of the beam is in fact missing the pole and shooting past it out into space. And, the pole is round so it's not reflecting much back anyway, just as a chuck or dog is round.

Would like to hear your thoughts on this.

I'll get to see the Vectronix in action side/side to a Swarovski and my Leica 1600 this fall, excited to see the results.

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

A military laser rangefinder that both ranges and smokes a hole through the groundhog - and thereafter lights the ground on fire out the back side is called for...

Then we'll have confidence we've ranged the little rodents!

 

[royinidaho]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

A military laser rangefinder that both ranges and smokes a hole through the groundhog - and thereafter lights the ground on fire out the back side is called for...

Then we'll have confidence we've ranged the little rodents!

If I had one of those, why would I ever need a rifle. Besides it be quiet. Big and heavy but quiet....

I'm in the market for something by next spring. My dream list is getting quite expensive. The list includes a pickup, an ATV w/Trax and a LRF of extreme capability. Any donations will be happily accepted.

 

[Broz]

Re: Rangefinder Field Test: Swarovski 8x30 Laser Guide Vs. Leica CRF 1600 Rangemaste

SBruce, Sorry, I forgot you were talking about PD's. I stated a ground hog and pictured him up on is rear once in a while. And like I said , he would need to be clear of other close objects. Definatly with PD's I would lase the mound.

I have ranged poles too and feel they are a very good way to test your RF for reticle alignment. I had a Swaro Laser guide that you needed to hold left of the center of the pole about a foot or two to get a reading. Once I learned the beam and reticle were not aligned the unit worked alot better for me. Never thought of the round surface though. Not sure if it makes a difference or not.

I had the pleasure of seeing a big miltary unit in action once. I think the farthest we ranged anything was like 25 miles on a rock bluff. No fires though. Just met the guy out shooting. Not sure what it was or where he got it. But it sure was impressive.

Jeff