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

Thanks Jeff.
Yeah, I had my doubts about this turning out good for me. My jaw about dropped when I got two repetitive readings @ 1797 yards on those spruce trees.

 

[T3-OleMan]

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

Congrats Paul. You worked it through and the reward is great. Give us the skinney on some of them badboys you bust this winter up there. Glad you didn't quit.

 

[gbmaryland]

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

Thanks Jeff.
Yeah, I had my doubts about this turning out good for me. My jaw about dropped when I got two repetitive readings @ 1797 yards on those spruce trees.

I can say I was bothered when I called them up and they said there was nothing wrong with their units, but suggested that I see if the store will let me take a bunch of them outside and range distant targets (if there are any that far away).

 

[Broz]

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

Thanks Jeff.
Yeah, I had my doubts about this turning out good for me. My jaw about dropped when I got two repetitive readings @ 1797 yards on those spruce trees.

Well, it looks as it is doing exactly what you wanted it to do and that is awesome. This was a good thread, I feel we have proven that there are good and bad ones for sure. The Swaro's had some of the same issues and also the freezing problem that required R & R of the battery. Out of the 5 I owned one was definatly better that the rest. But, Swaro's problem was not nearly as prevalent as the Leica 1600. Paul, I feel you own a top notch Swaro that is better than any I have owned. I have a CRF1200 that is a great unit and my son just bought a used one off this site that is equal to it. I remember your last Leica 1200 did not cut the mustard either. My point is, for years on here we have all reported our experiences testing RF's. Bottom line is, try before you buy, or buy with a reputable dealer, and test, test, test.

For what it's worth, anyone considering buying a Vectronix PLRF10. I field tested 5 units side by side and took notes logged to their Serial number. They all were equal and ranged to 2990+ yards in full light. Not one would give me 3000 yds though. I have a feeling their price might be related to the laser quality and maybe some other components used. The result is high quality and all units are equal.

Jeff

 

[Good]

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

This thread was utterly awesome. I am hopefully going to buy a Leica soon and I appreciate you guys detailing your experiences. gun)

 

[Pdvdh]

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

I can say I was bothered when I called them up and they said there was nothing wrong with their units, but suggested that I see if the store will let me take a bunch of them outside and range distant targets (if there are any that far away).

I understand where you're coming from. Whoever answers the phone for Leica is obviously delivering 'the company line'. There's no way that Leica's technicians can possibly be unaware of the fact that the performance of their CRF 1600 units is inconsistent and variable. Their final QA/QC testing needs to include more than - does the unit turn on and range a distance.

Like I said, there was about a 400 yard difference in the ranging capability of the two units I tested. The first one didn't measure up for a LRF advertised as a 1600 yard unit. The second one does.

Test drive first. Then purchase.

 

[gbmaryland]

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

I understand where you're coming from. Whoever answers the phone for Leica is obviously delivering 'the company line'. There's no way that Leica's technicians can possibly be unaware of the fact that the performance of their CRF 1600 units is inconsistent and variable. Their final QA/QC testing needs to include more than - does the unit turn on and range a distance.

Like I said, there was about a 400 yard difference in the ranging capability of the two units I tested. The first one didn't measure up for a LRF advertised as a 1600 yard unit. The second one does.

Test drive first. Then purchase.

Just to add to this... this is what I've played with so far:

1) The Bushnell Fusion ARC Binocs (huge, heavy, and range great, optics sorta suck)

2) The Bushnell Elite ARC 1600 (same size as the Swaroski, ranges well, lots of options [target vs brush], angle, etc. Best reading on an NON-HAZY day, 1801 yards. Very senstive to ranging from a bright surface area (think sunny day with white stone roof, white sandy area, or newer white concrete surface). Lifetime warranty on Elite labeled products. Optics OK, much better than the Fusion Binocs.)

3) Swaroski Laser Guide (the "gold" standard. No extra options (like the two bushnells or the Leica). Best range was 1836 yards. DOES NOT HANDLE RANGING THROUGH CLOSER TARGETS WELL [e.x. ranging through two trees with the LRF reticle anywhere near the trees gives you range to the trees, not the distant object behind them]. Senstive to ranging from a bright surface area (think sunny day with white stone roof, white sandy area, or newer white concrete surface). Lifetime recalibration from Swarovski(!). Optics are excellent.)

4) Leica CRF 1600 ("Great when it works." Small laser apperture; able to range in between distant objects, as opposed to having a bush mode. Gives you usable information, such as barometric pressure, angle, MOA/MIL info. Need to buy an adapter to use it with a tripod. Optics are excellent. Unfortunately, you need to test the unit prior to taking it home, and the distance must be over 900 yards to know that you likely have a good one. Even then, as with the one I got, it would report a range of 1200+ yards, but google earth would show it was wrong... If you can find a reliable vendor that will pretest for you... do that.)

 

[T3-OleMan]

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

Thanks Jeff.
Yeah, I had my doubts about this turning out good for me. My jaw about dropped when I got two repetitive readings @ 1797 yards on those spruce trees.

Hey Ya'll,
I might be the only dude in the world that's got one of the GOOD Leica CRF 1600 Rangemasters
that has never (to my knowledge) had the barometric pressure, angle, MOA/MIL info. activated in the unit.

Here is the $64,000 question! Is it possible that when my 'SUPPER UNIT' goes into that progranning mode to give me those other items it may revert to the level of those other less quality units. With my zeiss-victory-diavari-4-16x50-t-fl _ Z-800 I don't click up to shoot I have run the Zeiss Bal. Prog and made my card up so I just need LOS distance and do a little KY windage for the COS stuff - Adj. my power level to the card choice and shoot that yd + hair. So since I don't need the angle, should I go there and gamble....... Anyone know or is smart enough about the internal programming on these toys to make a informed GUESS. I would appreciate it tremendously. I really got the LOS stuff dicked and don't want to screw it up.
Thanks

 

[Broz]

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

T3, I would advise you to go do some actual field testing and see what is "Spot on" at different distances. Write it down and then play with the RF at home to see what lines up with field data best.

"Proof is in the pudding" and it builds confidence.

Jeff

 

[gbmaryland]

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

Hey Ya'll,
I might be the only dude in the world that's got one of the GOOD Leica CRF 1600 Rangemasters
that has never (to my knowledge) had the barometric pressure, angle, MOA/MIL info. activated in the unit.

Etc.

You from greater Spartenburg? I've got a ton of family down there...

Anyway, you bring up a good point.

My issues with the Leica was that it would range tree lines out to 1200 yards (I used a TVS-5 Gen 3 scope to watch the beam strikes at night...) Interestingly, this was when it was completely dark.

I then took I to the range and there are light/blue-gray high tension towers at 450 and 800 yards... and it would range the 450 unit, but not the 800 unit. That was went I knew it had to go back.

A little more reseach, and I found out they have problems... and that the only really rock solid unit is the Swarovski.

So I picked up that unit and the Bushnell 1600 Elite ARC...

I never thought to disable the extra functionality on the Leica.

I have noticed that while none of the manuals for any of the LRFs I've been playing with are outstanding technical and detailed, the Bushnell one specifically indicates limitations that you need to be aware of. Such as atmospheric issues, object color, daytime brightness, etc.

I think that both the Lieca and the Bushnell indicate issues where the ballastic programs are only usable to specific distances. (...they don't work past so many yards.)

Who knows what the software would report if turned on? You should do so and let us know if something turns up...

Being of German decent, I was a little put out when a Chinese device worked generally better than two germanic units.

Gerhard

 

[Ernie]

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

Had the Swaro and the 1600 out yesterday, both ranged to 1700+ yards.
Faster readings from the Leica-Both were impressive

 

[Pdvdh]

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

Hey Ya'll,
Here is the $64,000 question! Is it possible that when my 'SUPPER UNIT' goes into that progranning mode to give me those other items it may revert to the level of those other less quality units.

I really ... don't want to screw it up.
Thanks

I used the temperature, station pressure, and angle of inclination features on my 'good' unit repetitively before taking it out and ranging a spruce tree twice at 1798 yards. I wouldn't worry about it.

I didn't design or program these units, but I'm confident the range feature would have nothing to do with these other functions. If the computer processing chip fails, all features will probably all fail at once. But other than that, I wouldn't worry about it. You could call Leica and attempt to talk to one of their research and development staff if you're losing sleep over it. I'd use that sucker for all it's worth...

 

[gbmaryland]

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

Had the Swaro and the 1600 out yesterday, both ranged to 1700+ yards.
Faster readings from the Leica-Both were impressive

The thing that I have an issue with the Swarovski is that I'm aiming at targets that are ~2000 yards away, and the aiming reticle clearly is NOT close any of the nearer targets. However, it still nails things that are ~450 yards away... refusing the nail the ~1800+ target I'm trying to get. (Which is a LARGE white church steeple.)

Can anyone speak to that aspect of the unit. Seriously, it's NICE and works, but that was a little annoying.

...especially given that you can get a cheap(er) Bushnell 1600 ARC Elite Monocular that has a mode to tell it to ignore closer targets.

Now, in so far as having the Leica AND the Swarovski... at that point I'd probably get the low end Vectronix for another $1000.00.

 

[Ernie]

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

I just recently bought the Leica.
Wanted to do some comparing of the two, to decide which one I am going to keep.