Sig 3000BDX Review

[catorres1]

​

Introduction

When Sig released their BDX line, I was pretty excited by the capabilities of the 2400, especially in terms of it's connectivity and price point. Shortly after, I learned that a bino version was coming out, but I was not all that interested, figuring the cost would be entirely too high to make the investment a smart one for someone in my tax bracket. While I could see the speed and utility of a bino/rf combination, the thought of all my funds tied up in one object that could not be upgraded and could break and end up an overpriced set of binos just did not work for me.

So I was surprised when I saw the price point. Sig told me that these binos were not a competitor to Leica's HD-B's in terms of optical quality, but that they were decent binos with a killer RF integrated, at a price point making them accessible to more people.

Unfortunately, I did not get hold of a set until after my last hunt for the 2018-2019 season, so I was not able to use them extensively in the field like I was able to do with the 2400 or my Leicas last year. Nonetheless, I started testing them and I actually had most of my review on them completed some time back, including using them during a precision rifle course, and under a great number of conditions so as to be pretty confident in their ranging and optical capabilities. However, I really felt like I would not be completely confident in how they would fare until I had the chance to actually run them in the field, so I chose to hold this review until this season when I had an opportunity to use them for their intended purpose. While this season was not as successful as last in terms of game opportunities, I still feel like I got a much better feel for the binos, especially in terms of optical performance and workflow, than I had before using them hunting. So I apologize for the delay, but I felt like I needed real field experience with these for this review to offer its full value.

Out of the Box

When I first checked out the 3k, I was looking at them along side a set of Zulu 5's and Zulu 7's. They feel distinctly different than either of those. They are more weighty and thicker, ostensibly to make room for the RF electronics and battery system. On my scale, including a set of butler creek objective covers and a vortex eye piece cover, they weighed 2 lbs 3 oz. For comparison, with the Zeiss supplied eyepiece and objective covers, my FL's weighed 1 lb 13 oz. So they are a bit heavier in the hand and around the neck. Nonetheless, they fit my face just fine, and there is sufficient eye relief for me, which is notable as I have deep-set eyes that make some optics' eye relief too short for my use.

One thing I noticed is the lack of covers for the objective or eyepiece lenses. The binos do come with a harness (though I did not get one as mine is a demo unit), but, judging by how many different bino harness designs are on the market, it seems there is a great deal of disagreement about what a harness should look and work like. On the other hand, I think most people would like a straightforward set of covers to protect the lenses, and these are not included, nor are they available from Sig. I did try a set for some Vortex Fury's, but they did not fit right on the objectives, finally settling on a set of Butler Creeks that work okay, but not perfect. Regardless, considering the general disagreement about harnesses, I think replacing the harness with some solid covers would be a good idea.

A set of Butler Creek flip up covers worked fine for the objectives, though they do sometimes come loose and a little black tape is a good security aid. For the eye piece, most any set of eye piece covers work, I used a set I got from Vortex​

The focus from lock to lock seems pretty short to me, even compared to my Zeiss FL's, but it works fine, just took a little getting used to.

There are two diopters that must be adjusted, in addition to the center focus wheel. The diopter on the right is for adjusting the RF display, and the one on the left serves the traditional purpose of the diopter. The thing I immediately noticed was that the diopters do not lock. And while the focus control on my 2400 was sufficiently stiff so it never moved on its own, the diopters on my unit moved pretty easily, such that I was concerned they would move inadvertently. While they have proved to be okay, if not ideal, on my unit, I know others have had them be able to be moved quite easily, so much so that the community has come up with a solution by adding a rubber gasket between the body and the diopter to increase the tension. This apparently has worked pretty well, and I meant to implement this before our trip to Colorado, but never got it done. Ultimately, I wish I had, as ours had some self movement when we got up in the 10-11k elevations, which apparently is seen in some of the early models that were over purged. Mine is a pre-production demo unit, and I understand that new units do not exhibit this problem. Ultimately, it was not a problem we could not work around, and we were able to work with the diopters well enough, but I understand that newer units seem to be a bit tighter out of the box. Still, from a user experience perspective, for something like this that will be a hard use item, the diopters should lock, or at least be designed to be quite stiff.

The diopter on the right is used for focusing the reticle and rangefinding display. The one on the left performs the traditional diopter function. These could definitely be improved by adding a lock function, or by greatly increasing the friction so that they do not move easily​

However, other than that point, from an interface perspective, they work like any other binos, and the electronic control system will be instantly familiar to anyone that uses Sig's other RF's. It's simple, well thought out, and provides a lot of user control without being over complicated. For example, when you range a target, it continually cycles through your elevation and wind holds until it times out, so if you miss a piece of information, just wait a second and it will come back. Simple things like this, and how the app is setup, shows that Sig has put a lot of time into creating a user interface that is user friendly and efficient while being full featured.

Connectivity and Tech

The 3k carries over all the connectivity functionality of the 2400 BDX. I did a review of the 2400 HERE, so I won't rehash that information, and another covering the scope integration HERE. Suffice it to say, it works just as well as the 2400, connecting quickly to either the app or the Kestrel, and with the rare exception, staying connected. In terms of connection distance, that can vary, but I was able to get about 10 yards from the scope before connectivity dropped off, however, that only worked if there was clear line of sight between the two. If I placed my body between them, connectivity distance decreased. Likewise, in terms of environmentals and onboard ballistics, the 2400 BDX and the Sig 3k are virtual twins. Again, check out the 2400 BDX review, but basically, environmentals and your custom curve are uploaded to the RF via the app, with ballistics solutions being handled by the onboard AB ultralite software out to 800 yards. Alternatively, you can connect to the Kestrel via bluetooth, where all the ballistic and environmental work is handled by the Kestrel and the solution is displayed in the RF to as far as you want to shoot. Sig basically carried over the same functionality suite from the 2400, the only difference that I have discerned in this respect is that the 3k lacks the 2400's different reticles.

The 3000BDX carries over most of the user input design that Sig users are familiar with, including the standard two button user interface​

Ranging

Where the 2400 and the 3k are essentially equals in the overall connectivity tech department, the same cannot be said when looking at their ranging capabilities. While the 2400 is certainly a capable unit, the 3k takes it to the next level and is a substantial improvement over the 2400. Divergence is published as 1.5 mils wide by .3 mils high, whereas the 2400 was 1.5 round. Even my Leicas are running 1.5x.5, so Sig's specifications are very impressive.

 

[catorres1]

Sig 3000 BDX Review continued

One note, all of the following testing was done hand-held, usually braced, as I lack a bino tripod mount. The 3k does come equipped for a screw in mount, but I don't have one. I hope a couple items from Outdoorsmans are in my future, but at the moment, I make due.

Sig has included a socket for mounting the bino's to a stud (not included). Simply unscrew the front cover on the hinge and screw in the stud of your choice​

Regardless, combined with a very strong laser and the (relative to the 2400) large objective, I have been able to hit some very impressive targets with the 3k. Of course, its reflective performance is very high, which has been something of a hallmark for Sig's rf's. With targets like these, 4-5k is absolutely doable in ideal light, often with shocking ease. But as not many of us hunt stop signs or water towers, I was more interested in seeing what the performance is like on more realistic targets for hunters and shooters.

As usual for where I live, finding an animal that would cooperate at extreme distances was a problem, but I was able to find some cows and range them in full sun at over 1300 yards pretty easily (braced, but hand held). I was also able to range some swans at 905 yards, which was particularly impressive because it was under full sun, on a hazy day on choppy water, which resulted in a lot of very bright light pollution such that ranging many things with all the RF's I had with me that day became challenging. Nonetheless, the 3k was able to cut through the glare and haze and still return off the white feathers at that distance. Despite that, I was nonetheless hoping to find game or at least cows at over a mile, but was unable to find that situation.

So, not having much luck finding animals at extreme distances, I began testing on skylined targets at the ranch we recently moved to. All of these were chosen because it was either hit or sky, so no false positives due to objects in the background or foreground. During multiple testing periods, I found that dark wood telephone poles could be picked up consistently 11-1200 yards under full sun, and when the sun went down (but still within shooting light) I was able to stretch that to over 1900 yards. Powerlines too, could be picked up at over 800 yards at mid day, and over 1000 yards at the end of the day.

As usual, I also tested at the rifle range where we take courses periodically, and the 3k easily hit all of the targets out to the farthest plate at 1391 in full sun.

Power, while a key requirement, is not the only thing that defines an RF's performance, and in some areas, while still excellent, the Sig takes a little working with to reach its full potential. The key issue concerns the overall precision of the laser in relation to the reticle. My sensor actually extends beyond the confines of the reticle, being basically split by the bottom line of the reticle in the 5 to 6 o'clock position, and this meets Sig's requirements for sensor positioning. To some degree, once you have mapped your sensor, this is okay, and in my case, allows me to use the line of the reticle as a somewhat precise aiming point. But it's hard to remember exactly where the sensor is on the circle, and worse, where it ends outside the circle. So when trying to range very distant targets of modest size, this lack of precision can make hitting your target more challenging than it should be. Nonetheless, once you have mapped your sensor and worked with your RF enough to know where the sensor lies, this can be overcome, but the need to do this is very important for new owners. I suspect there are quite a few buyers that may not realize the necessity of mapping their sensor, and because of this, find that they are not hitting the small distant targets with the consistency they should, and understandably become disappointed or believe their unit is malfunctioning.

Another interesting issue lies in the divergence and gating. As I mentioned, the advertised divergence is a very impressive 1.5x.3 mils. To compare, I tested against my Leica 2800 and shot through rings in trees at targets behind. Generally speaking, on Sig's default 'best' mode, the Leica did a better job at getting through the foreground objects than did the 3k. The difference was not dramatic, but definitely favored my Leica. However, unlike the Leica, the Sig gives the user an option to switch gate modes from 'best', which generally returns the distance from the most reflective object, to 'last' which favors the farther target returns. When setup this way, the 3k actually did a little better than the Leica at poking through holes or shooting over brush and grass. I did find that the Sig wanted to ignore fairly close objects, unless it was aimed very distinctly at them, but overall, I have found that I prefer using the 3k in 'last'mode, as most of my targets are either very distinct, or are through or past some sort of obstacle, so 'last' seems to work best for me. As I understand it, the difference in how the two RF's handle the situation has to do with how the different manufacturers setup their software to decide what to read back and what to ignore. Leica has a well refined method for choosing what to display and what to ignore, and it seems to be a very well balanced approach. Sig has chosen to provide the option to the user to choose between one mode that favors strong but clear returns, and another optimized a bit more towards very distant returns that might be in some part obscured. Either way, you have that choice available to you, and I found it to be quite useful, depending on the conditions.

Overall, in terms of ranging performance, this is the most powerful and capable RF unit I currently have. I have not run into any situation where another of my RF's could get a read and the 3k could not. But there have been many situations where only the 3k could get a return, and I don't mean on reflective targets only, and the gap between the 3k and my other RF's only increases as the light goes down. Granted, it takes a little homework to make that happen, and that's the biggest area where I think Sig should focus on improving their RF's. But as I said, it's manageable, and once you've got it mapped, the 3k is an extremely capable rangefinder.

Glass

As I mentioned previously, in my early conversations with Sig about what to expect from the 3k before it was released, they described it to me as pretty capable glass with a very impressive rangefinder at a relatively modest price point. I was told to expect the glass to be in the Zulu 5 range, which is probably similar to Viper HD's, and not to expect that, from an optical standpoint, it would compete with Leica HD-B's. Fair enough, considering the price, that would be an unrealistic expectation. Looking through them briefly next to Zulu 5's, Zulu 7's, and Viper HD's, at a glance, I felt like their description was accurate. When I finally got a set to test, I tested them against the only thing I have on hand, which are my Zeiss FL's. At least they are both the same power.

Not exactly the fairest comparison in terms of glass and coatings, but illuminating nonetheless
​

I actually had a hard time with this part of the review. When I look through the binos, I can tell they are not the same. Somehow, the FL's are just better. They are nicer to look through, as they should be, there is a feeling of crispness and color balance that is evident, but I don't know how to measure it. Similar to when I compared the 2400 to the Leica 2800, there is just something there with that higher end glass that is apparent, but I can't quantify in numbers.

When looking at very long distances, as in 1.5-2 miles, it becomes more quantifiable. For example, I watched 'something' on the top of a building that was well beyond 2500 yards, and I could not tell quite what it was with the Sig's. With the FL's, I could just make out enough to tell that it was a group of workers on the roof. Likewise, looking at an oblique speedlimit sign at 1100 yards 30 minutes before sunset to 30 minutes after sunset, the FL's kept going for a few minutes longer than the Sigs, and even before they went down, the FL's were just easier to pick out the details.

That was the best of the testing I was able to do until hunting season this year, and that is where the difference really showed itself. In one case, we had located a group of elk who were hiding out in a treeline by a meadow. It was right at the end of shooting light, but we decided to stay and see if they came out so we could identify if there was a bull. As the light went down, probably right at 30-40 minutes after sunset, I could not make out the elk with the 3k's at all. They were about 600 yards away on the inside edge of some dark timber, but the image just broke up in that little light. However, with the FL's, I was able to continue seeing them for at least another 15 minutes until they wandered deeper into the timber and out of sight. Keep in mind that I have corrected vision that does not do well in low light, but I think the comparison holds true, which is no matter what you can see with the Sigs, the FL's are going to be clearer, and this becomes especially evident in low light situations.

 

[catorres1]

Sig 3000 BDX Review continued

The 3000's are a little shorter than the FL's, but are quite a bit thicker. In terms of weight, the 3000's weigh about 6 ozs more than the FL's, probably due to the addition of the rangefinding hardware​

The other thing I noticed is during long periods of glassing, the FL's were easier on my eyes. I did not get eyestrain from the Sigs, but the FL's were just easier to look through, the image was more 'right there', like looking through a window, where the Sig's felt like it was not quite as 'real' somehow. It's hard for me to describe, but during long periods of glassing, the difference in the image quality becomes apparent between the two. This is not to say the Sigs are poor, they worked through to the end of shooting light very well, the image is crisp and colorful, the contrast is good, I really have no complaints at all. But yes, higher end glass does have some real benefits that come with that price tag, and my time actually hunting with both sets of binos was useful in demonstrating, at least for me, where the Sigs lie in terms of glass performance. I'd say, considering the price point of the package, they are impressive and very capable, but as one should expect, they lack the special something that is found in high end glass.

In terms of coatings, I have not experienced any flare problems like I did with the 2400. From early morning through end of shooting light, I have not had a situation where the bino's flared out. Likewise, where as the 2400's exhibited a distinct blue color cast, I find that the 3k is fairly neutral. Sort of. They achieved this, it seems, through a clever combination of casts to trick your brain into seeing a neutral view. At least in my unit, the right barrel, where the RF is, has a distinct cool cast when viewed individually. Conversely, the left barrel has a somewhat warm cast. However, when you through the binos with both eyes, the combination of both inputs gives you a balanced color cast in the 'binocular' image. Overall, to my eyes, it is quite neutral.

All that is to say, yes, the alpha glass is better, as it should be. There are quantifiable differences, along with a quality that is hard to describe exactly. But that said, I personally find the glass on the Sig's to be a lot better than I was told to expect, frankly, I was impressed. They are sharp, flare is very well controlled, unlike on the 2400 I had, and their low light performance is easily sufficient for identifying game to the end of shooting light. In my review of the 2400, I described the glass as sufficient to get the job done. In the case of the 3k, at least for my eyes, it well exceeds that benchmark, and I was in no way disappointed nor have found myself feeling handicapped by the glass or coatings on the 3k. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying these are Leica level in terms of glass, but at least in my experience using them in the field, I found them to be every bit up to every hunting task I put them to up to the end of shooting light.

From alpine country in Colorado to far South Texas on the border, the 3000BDX binos performed well for us under all conditions, suffering some abuse along the way, but never failing nonetheless​

Workflow

Overall, the things that especially stood out about the 3k vs the 2400 BDX really apply to any RF bino vs the CRF. One thing I found myself liking about a CRF with really nice glass, like my Leicas, is that it is quicker and more convenient for me to pull out the CRF and use it as sort of 'pre-glassing' device to quickly scan an area for game, and then pull my binos from my chest rig when I am settled in to glass for a bit. In that sense, I personally like that workflow a little better. However, when you consider what you need to do to evaluate game, get the range and get on the shot, the binos are faster. Add in that no matter how good the glass, the (relative to the CRF) huge objectives of the bino and binocular vision are simply better for seeing than a CRF. Especially as the light goes down, the binos have a huge advantage. Add in the workflow speed of the BDX, and you have a strong argument for the bino solution over a CRF, despite the slight inconvenience of having to deploy a bino vs a CRF when you just want to take a quick look. Still, it's a personal thing, it can go both ways, but having never hunted with an RF bino, I found it an interesting consideration.

Summary

Overall, I am really impressed with the 3k. The glass was surprisingly good, much better than I expected, and was 100% capable of whatever tasks we put it to in hunting conditions. The RF is outstanding, and of course, the BDX tech is impressive, especially considering how fast and stable it is. In terms of tech, it takes everything good about the 2400, but ups the game with better divergence and more powerful ranging. Like everything else, it does have its negatives that I would like to see Sig address, but overall, if you like the workflow of a bino RF, the 3k is an impressive performer and definitely worth a look, especially at its price point.

Positives

• Outstanding ranging performance in terms of power and speed
• The smaller divergence makes ranging small targets more accurate
• Optics punch above their weight when overall pricing is considered
• Like the 2400 BDX, the connectivity capabilities are innovative, well executed, reliable, and fast
• All of the strong points of the BDX system have been maintained, making this an incredibly fast hunting solution when used with a BDX scope

Negatives

• Diopters do not lock and move too easily
• Sensor to reticle alignment should be improved
• No covers. Sig should be including eye piece and objective covers for these rather than the bino harness

 

[C.O. Shooter]

Crushed it Catorres1!

 

[catorres1]

Thanks! I felt bad sitting on this so long, but really felt the field time was needed in this particular case. Hopefully it's not too late to help some folks make some decisions on these!