Starting to plan for a hunt in 2016 in which I will need a range finder and a set of Binos in the 10x range.
Do I get two separate units or reach deeper in my pocket and get a combination unit
Thanks

You will most likely want two separate units if you want the best of both worlds. What is your budget?

If money is no object (3000 € / 3400 $) and only quality counts, your choice should read Swarovski EL Range 10x42 .

If weight is a consideration something like the suggested Swarovski EL Range 10 x 42 might be the way to go. My son uses this combo bino/rangefinder = 1.067 kg. I use the Swarovski SLC 10 x 42 ( 0.976 kg )and for ranging the Leica Rangemaster 1600 ( 0.267 kg ), so by comparison total weight is a bit more with my tools. Both ranging units read within a metre or two of eachother out to 1000 metres. Some think that binos with inbuilt rangefinders have slightly compromised optical quality but with my son's Swarovskis I can't tell.

Any one look at the new Leica Geovid HD-B 10x42??
Lots of money.. the technology is very alluring...
Is looking thru one unit vs two worth that price???

I like to keep my binos and rangefinders separate. The technology for rangefinding seems to improve at a much faster rate than optical quality.

If you plan to hunt with a Drilling and use a Leatherman Multitool to field dress your game, then you'll probably like the combination instrument.

However, if you hunt with a scoped repeating rifle and use two different tools for dressing game and installing a water heater, then a separate quality instrument for each purpose will be more useful to you. And will cost less.

I have owned and used both combined and separate units.

On balance, for my usage, I agree with Biebs, and that is the setup that I use. There is also the consideration that the R/f is more likely to fail than the optics.

The combined units are wonderfully convenient to use, particularly if you are spotting for a another hunter.

I am very conscious of weight, but in this case, I think the other considerations are more important.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
I like to keep my binos and rangefinders separate. The technology for rangefinding seems to improve at a much faster rate than optical quality.

This^^^^^^. Also if the range finder has problems and needs service the bino is also out.

Good stuff thanks..
What range finder??

If you want the best in rangefinders with real optical quality, then Swarovski again :

Exactly what I use, Andre.

I've used it in rain, snow, and mud. The battery lasts much, much longer than predicted. It also serves as a crystal clear 8x30 monocular while on the move.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
I like to keep my binos and rangefinders separate. The technology for rangefinding seems to improve at a much faster rate than optical quality.

This^^^^^^. Also if the range finder has problems and needs service the bino is also out.

I'm with these guys.

I am with these guys too.

You do a lot more glassing than ranging. In a pinch you can estimate ranges, and in many cases it wont be so critical in a hunting situation.

But if you cant see and identify the game then the rest of the issues lose importantance quickly in the field.

I've got various binoculars and an el cheapo 'Remington' range finder, which works fine, but I find managing additional stuff (or even remembering it when game pops up) problematic.

Therefore, if it were important to me, I'd get the combined bino-rangefinder simply because the rangefinder is there at your eye when you see the animal you want and the display just might remind you of its presence.

sambarman338,

That's exactly what I thought. Got good binos, got a good rangefinder, did not always have time/use the rangefinder. Got another good bino with a rangefinder built in. Like this setup much better.

The best rangefinder is the G7 BR2. Has the best ballistic solutions (you input muzzle velocity, BC, zero, etc.). I have tested most of them and this is the best.

Would love to try a combined unit but THE COST!!

I use some older Leica Trinovids and a Leica 1200 LRF. Reason for the Leica range finder vs. Swaro or G7 is size only. Fits in your chest pocket, works like a charm.

They get used at least 40 weekends a year and they work for me. However, lanyards for a GPS, coyote call, binos and range finder...gets kind of choke-y.

Personal opinion: in big game hunting situations the usefulness of ballistic calculators in range finders are overblown. If you're at a range or doing long range varmint shooting, where the target is small and not moving, they're great. Again, just personal opinion.

I've played with and field tested various range finders. I tried cheap ones as well as and expensive models and was surprised to conclude that most range finders were comparable in accuracy but that cost was directly related to optical quality. E.g., the Swarovski LG was compared with a cheap Bushnell rangefinder. Optical quality of the Swaro was bright and sharp, right up to the brand's reputation, while the Bushnell was foggy and lacked definition, at best. However both range finders showed identical measurements...

That came off snottier than I intended.

As to the question at hand, I'd prefer not to mix the two. It would seem the glass is top grade for a generation, where the technology is top tier for a season.

Good for you Stokes. But very, very, very few shooters can accurately estimate range beyond 300 meters. Many will tell you they can but I have seen enough try against a rangefinder and fail miserably to be able to tell you they just don't know how bad they are. A little bit of range misjudgment at 200 yards is meaningless. At 300 yards it can make a difference in placement. Much beyond that it can equate to a total miss. Estimating range is especially difficult where there are few reference points. The desert, plains, and tundra regions of Alaska come to mind.

Lets use a Federal cartridge in .30-06 with a 180gr softpoint bullet for example. If you estimate the target is 250 yards away but your target is actually 200 yards away you will hit about 3" high. If the target is actually 300 yards away you will hit almost 5" low. But it quickly gets worse as the distance increases. If you estimate the target is 400 yards away but your target is actually 350 yards away you will hit over 6-1/2" high. If the target is actually 450 yards away you will hit more than 9" low.

Shooting a flatter cartridge can help make up for some range estimation error but, conversely, shooting a big bore can make the error worse. Shooting a .375 H&H Federal 300gr soft point at a 450 yard target that you estimated is at 400 yards will result in a hit, or miss, 12" low.

If you think 50 yards off at 400 yards is a big number then I challenge you to test it yourself. Most shooters cannot reliable estimate within 50 yards at 300.

My 2 longest shots ever on game were 385 and 375 yards ( 2 different situations ). Had it not been for my Rangefinder I would never even have attempted the shots. But knowing the loads trajectory I shot successfully and bagged the game. The Rangefinder has made me a more confident, successful and ethical hunter at shots longer than 200 yards. I used to think my range estimation beyond 200 yards was OK but testing against my Rangefinder showed how hopeless I was. I don't always use the Rangefinder but now I never hunt without it.

To each their own, been using the Leica 10x42 BRF for 10 years and works great. Mucho better than having two separate items to fumble with. You're glassing and looking, and if interested in the range just push the button, bingo . . . happy camber here

Both arguments have value. Personally, I prefer the "all in one" (preferably a Swaro EL range). Much less to fumble with :

*seize bino's (scan, spot, assess, range), put down ;
* shoulder rifle, take aim and voilà...

quote:

Originally posted by mt Al:
Would love to try a combined unit but THE COST!!

I use some older Leica Trinovids and a Leica 1200 LRF. Reason for the Leica range finder vs. Swaro or G7 is size only. Fits in your chest pocket, works like a charm.

They get used at least 40 weekends a year and they work for me. However, lanyards for a GPS, coyote call, binos and range finder...gets kind of choke-y.

Personal opinion: in big game hunting situations the usefulness of ballistic calculators in range finders are overblown. If you're at a range or doing long range varmint shooting, where the target is small and not moving, they're great. Again, just personal opinion.

I disagree; when you are faced with steep angles, you need something to compensate for that. Ditto for higher elevations. It does make a difference.

I used to use two separate units. After having to lug a GPS, camera, game call, bino. harness etc... as has been eluded. Donning equipment on and off became a pain.
One of the reasons I shied away for a long time from a combined unit was the warranty. The electronics warranty was way shorter than the individual bino. warranty.
I currently use a Swaro. 8x42EL RF and could not be happier. Life is simpler, optical quality is exceptional, Ballistics due to angles is covered. I used to think I was good in range estimation until I hunted Alaska. The air quality is so good compared to the lower 48 that I misjudged distance greatly. It basically cemented the idea of carrying a rangefinder no matter what.
I would go to a large store such as Cabela's and look at the alpha combined units and compare. Pick what YOU like best. Since you have time, take your time and find a good deal. Doug at Camera land has excellent deals. Be ready to jump on it when available on sale.
If you opt for seperate units. Get a quality range finder. Some have optical quality of such low grade that when you spot your target with the bino. you can't find it with the RF. You'll have to guess around a spot near it. With depth perception and murphy's law you will defeat the purpose of carrying the RF. Personally I favor the Leica brand it is exceptional and equal to Swaro's at half the cost. The choice is always yours. Good luck to you.

While it is useful to know what the horizontal distance would be for a steep-angle shot, things are not as simple as those readings suggest.

Imagine you were aiming down at something 200 yards away but only 50 yards out in horizontal terms. Using the reading of 50 yards, in most calibres you would shoot straight at the critter only to discover you've missed over top or grazed its back.

Consider this. Most bullets, even from flat-shooting rifles, drop about an inch at 100 yards; most scopes are about 1.5 inches above the bore; and many of us set our rifles up to shoot 2.5 inches high to zero them at 200 yards. Those figures added together give a scope that is looking down five inches at 100 yards and 10 at 200. Even if you subtract the 1.5 inches (since the lines cross at about 25 yards) that steep 200-yard shot could go 8.5 inches high if you shoot straight at the animal.

Im not impressed with the new Geovid I had. Poor performance in fog and rain.
I went back to my Swarovski bino and Leupold rangefinder.
I have not bought the Swarovski EL Range bino yet but I was not impressed with 1st and 2nd gen Swarovski range finders I had.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
While it is useful to know what the horizontal distance would be for a steep-angle shot, things are not as simple as those readings suggest.

Imagine you were aiming down at something 200 yards away but only 50 yards out in horizontal terms. Using the reading of 50 yards, in most calibres you would shoot straight at the critter only to discover you've missed over top or grazed its back.

Consider this. Most bullets, even from flat-shooting rifles, drop about an inch at 100 yards; most scopes are about 1.5 inches above the bore; and many of us set our rifles up to shoot 2.5 inches high to zero them at 200 yards. Those figures added together give a scope that is looking down five inches at 100 yards and 10 at 200. Even if you subtract the 1.5 inches (since the lines cross at about 25 yards) that steep 200-yard shot could go 8.5 inches high if you shoot straight at the animal.

Not sure what you are saying here Sambar, but if you are saying you don't just hold for the horizontal distance, I totally agree. The BR2 will tell you either the effective horizontal distance (that is not the true horizontal distance) or the MOA correction. I tested in at 625 yards on a steep mountain a few years ago. In addition to going way up in altitude, the angle down was significant. I think it said to hold for 550; whatever the number, it worked perfectly. I also love the fact it tells you the wind drift at various wind speeds (but doesn't measure the wind).

quote:

Originally posted by Andre Mertens:
I've played with and field tested various range finders. I tried cheap ones as well as and expensive models and was surprised to conclude that most range finders were comparable in accuracy but that cost was directly related to optical quality. E.g., the Swarovski LG was compared with a cheap Bushnell rangefinder. Optical quality of the Swaro was bright and sharp, right up to the brand's reputation, while the Bushnell was foggy and lacked definition, at best. However both range finders showed identical measurements...

So what you are saying is that if money is an issue better to go with top quality binoculars and any cheap range finder. After all you really only need the rangefinder just before taking a shot where binoculars need good quality for spotting and assessing game where clarity, colour definition, brightness, etc, are the important or necessary factors.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
While it is useful to know what the horizontal distance would be for a steep-angle shot, things are not as simple as those readings suggest.

Imagine you were aiming down at something 200 yards away but only 50 yards out in horizontal terms. Using the reading of 50 yards, in most calibres you would shoot straight at the critter only to discover you've missed over top or grazed its back.

Consider this. Most bullets, even from flat-shooting rifles, drop about an inch at 100 yards; most scopes are about 1.5 inches above the bore; and many of us set our rifles up to shoot 2.5 inches high to zero them at 200 yards. Those figures added together give a scope that is looking down five inches at 100 yards and 10 at 200. Even if you subtract the 1.5 inches (since the lines cross at about 25 yards) that steep 200-yard shot could go 8.5 inches high if you shoot straight at the animal.

Not sure what you are saying here Sambar, but if you are saying you don't just hold for the horizontal distance, I totally agree. The BR2 will tell you either the effective horizontal distance (that is not the true horizontal distance) or the MOA correction. I tested in at 625 yards on a steep mountain a few years ago. In addition to going way up in altitude, the angle down was significant. I think it said to hold for 550; whatever the number, it worked perfectly. I also love the fact it tells you the wind drift at various wind speeds (but doesn't measure the wind).

What I was getting at was that the horizontal distance is only part of the problem. I'm interested to know your range finder took everything into account and assume you have to tune it to your calibre, somehow.

When matters like this really affected my thinking I made up a little tool based on a photocopy of a half-circle protractor, with a wire 'plumb bob' hinged on it. Using info based on the concept mapped out above, extrapolated for the 270WSM (shooting just 1.2 inches high at 100 yards), I entered drop (and climb) figures at 15-degree spacings and 100-yard distances out to 500 yards.

With the different ranges color-coded, and the paper laminated, it was a bloody work of art

Trouble is, when that bull tahr appeared high above me, I thought nothing about either the rangefinder or my little gadget. When the first shot went over top, the penny still didn't drop to get out the technology. I shot about a foot lower and he came tumbling down the slope.

This in part explains why I think the combined bino-ranger-finder is a good idea. If you glass something and there is some kind of reminder of the range-finder in view, you might at least remember to use it.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
So what you are saying is that if money is an issue better to go with top quality binoculars and any cheap range finder. After all you really only need the rangefinder just before taking a shot where binoculars need good quality for spotting and assessing game where clarity, colour definition, brightness, etc, are the important or necessary factors.

That's how I see things, indeed. What you expect from your RF is knowing the distance to your target and that's it. Top optical quality in your RF is a (nice) luxury but not a necessity as a monocular will never take the place of binos. While picking up a predeterminated (via binos) spot is ok with a RF, attempting to scan a large remote area with one will be convincing.

I have second generation Leica combos in 8.5 power and really like them. I could not find a rangefinder at the time that was optically sharp enough in low light conditions. The Leica is optically really sharp to my eyes. Plus, it is one less thing to lose, drop or forget.

The combo is my top choice too but I prefer the Swaro EL Range, though. My only objection being the 3000 € / 3400 $ they cost...

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
While it is useful to know what the horizontal distance would be for a steep-angle shot, things are not as simple as those readings suggest.

Imagine you were aiming down at something 200 yards away but only 50 yards out in horizontal terms. Using the reading of 50 yards, in most calibres you would shoot straight at the critter only to discover you've missed over top or grazed its back.

Consider this. Most bullets, even from flat-shooting rifles, drop about an inch at 100 yards; most scopes are about 1.5 inches above the bore; and many of us set our rifles up to shoot 2.5 inches high to zero them at 200 yards. Those figures added together give a scope that is looking down five inches at 100 yards and 10 at 200. Even if you subtract the 1.5 inches (since the lines cross at about 25 yards) that steep 200-yard shot could go 8.5 inches high if you shoot straight at the animal.

Not sure what you are saying here Sambar, but if you are saying you don't just hold for the horizontal distance, I totally agree. The BR2 will tell you either the effective horizontal distance (that is not the true horizontal distance) or the MOA correction. I tested in at 625 yards on a steep mountain a few years ago. In addition to going way up in altitude, the angle down was significant. I think it said to hold for 550; whatever the number, it worked perfectly. I also love the fact it tells you the wind drift at various wind speeds (but doesn't measure the wind).

What I was getting at was that the horizontal distance is only part of the problem. I'm interested to know your range finder took everything into account and assume you have to tune it to your calibre, somehow.

When matters like this really affected my thinking I made up a little tool based on a photocopy of a half-circle protractor, with a wire 'plumb bob' hinged on it. Using info based on the concept mapped out above, extrapolated for the 270WSM (shooting just 1.2 inches high at 100 yards), I entered drop (and climb) figures at 15-degree spacings and 100-yard distances out to 500 yards.

With the different ranges color-coded, and the paper laminated, it was a bloody work of art

Trouble is, when that bull tahr appeared high above me, I thought nothing about either the rangefinder or my little gadget. When the first shot went over top, the penny still didn't drop to get out the technology. I shot about a foot lower and he came tumbling down the slope.

This in part explains why I think the combined bino-ranger-finder is a good idea. If you glass something and there is some kind of reminder of the range-finder in view, you might at least remember to use it.

Sambar:

With the BR2, you enter up to five ballistic profiles, to include MV, BC, sight height above bore, zero range, etc. You then select the ballistic profile you want (eg, .308 win) and when you range, it gives you the either the effective range of the MOA correction. In the case above, moving higher and aiming at a steep angle both combine to create an effective range a lot shorter than the actual range.

Your plumb bob story does remind me of an experiment I did some years ago to measure the effects of canting a rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

Your plumb bob story does remind me of an experiment I did some years ago to measure the effects of canting a rifle.

Yes, cant can take you into funny places, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Andre Mertens:
Both arguments have value. Personally, I prefer the "all in one" (preferably a Swaro EL range). Much less to fumble with :

*seize bino's (scan, spot, assess, range), put down ;
* shoulder rifle, take aim and voilà...

I completely agree.

I use a pair of 10X42 Leica HD-B........the range finder is a little stronger than the Swaro's I found (a friend and I compared them side by side).

Expensive and worth every Euro!

the more pieces of equipment you buy, the better a hunter you will be.

When you get a hernia putting your backpack on, you have achieved Nirvana.

It is important that you purchase the latest models and upgrade, because being able to measure distance in 1/2yard increments out to 1500yds guarantees a much higher quality total experience than being stuck with old school stuff that only calibrates to +/- 1 yard out to 1200.

Am I being a bit facetious? Absolutely.

Most guides won't let you take a shot much past 300-400yds. Consider that, along with the fact that wounding an animal means your hunt is over; whether you recover that animal or not.

The Geovids are a very good package.

one more vote here for the Leicas.

I studied and tried all of the top end units.

I went with the Leica Geovid 10x42mm HD combination binocular rangefinder.

Very happy with my choice.