Rangefinders.....are they worth buying on a budget?

Just me but, cheap glass is cheap glass. Doesn't matter what they put it in.

I picked up a Nikon rangefinder to use with my crossbow. I was surprised at how bad I was at range estimates after using it. That being said, out to 150-200 yards most centerfire rifles shoot flat enough that a rangefinder shouldn't be necessary. If you are in the market for one though I recommend the Nikon as a good value.

I bought a Leupold for right at 200.00. I love it and it's very accurate out to 600 yards.

I've got a Leupold that was also around $200, pre -owned but never used. It's most excellent

Yes they are:



Shot the above 10pt at 267 yards earlier this year, before I "zapped" him I was guessing further and would have put the round into his spine (or over). I can shoot out to 760y on my place and have steel hung at varying distances. One of our favorite games is to drive around in the UTV, stop and shoot targets wherever we are. We'l try subtense using the mil dots, then verify with a laser. It's surprising how far off you can be using a mil dot and basic math.

My normal thing to do when stand hunting is to build a "range card" as soon as the sun comes up. I laze key terrain, trees, rocks, etc so if something comes in quickly and I don't have time to laze them I've got reference points.

Chuck

They certainly have there place. Where I hunt, don`t need one. Shots are always under 100 yds.

I have this one

http://www.cabelas.com/product/LEUPOLD-RX-I-TBR-W-DNA/2288391.uts?slotId=0

I've seen it on sale for $250ish which is what I paid. It is a very good rangefinder that I'd highly recommend

I also have an older Leica that I bought used for about the same price.

I've never used anything any cheaper, but would be concerned. Even the good ones tend to be best at about 1/2 the range they are rated for. My Leica is rated for 800 yards, the Leupold 1200. I have no problem getting them to work at around 1/2 that range. Beyond that conditions have to be perfect and even then I've never been able to get a reading beyond 600 yards with the Leica and about 800 with the Leupold.

For hunting, you really don't need one inside 300 yards and I'd bet a cheap one rated for 750 yards would probably be useless past 300.

Here is a good place to look:

https://swfa.com/

At the top of the page click on "Sample List"

They have used optics for sale. Many of them have never been sold, but are store display models they sell at discounted prices. If you keep your eyes open I'm betting you can find a good new or used rangefinder at a good price.

I think it's well worth having a range finder, most folks (myself included) are terrible at estimating range for a quick shot on an animal, doubly so out here on the front range. That said, if you really don't have anywhere that you might shoot game over 150yds, it would be easy to just set up a high powered rifle scope for a 200yd zero and hold on the vital zone for all your shots. I'd personally lean towards the Sig Kilo series for a good value on a rangefinder, the 850 is available for $149, and a week or two ago, the 1250 was $198 on Amazon (but has since gone back up a bit).

I second that they work best at about half there rated range. A cheap 600 yard will only read at 600 yards if your ranging off something like a house. I don't bring one hunting, there is no use for one where I hunt. There is no place to see over 200 yards and in most places 100.

The cheaper brand LRF's use a rather wide beam divergence, even in their class, which makes them quicker and more reliable than their software might otherwise allow, BUT it also makes them more prone to false readings, AND much more prone to read failings on small targets. What you pay for in higher priced models is the beam divergence and signal filtering, collectively meaning the ability to range quickly and reliably on smaller targets.

The Sig Kilo models are all good, and the lower end models are VERY affordable. I have a 2000 and a 2200, both are phenomenal, and frankly, I use them far more often than the Leica 1600. A student of mine brought a 1250 to a rifle class, I'm hard pressed to say there was a difference for 0-800yrd shooting against the 2000/2200. Also at a budget friendly price point, the Bushnell Scout 1000 is an LRF I've used for about 10yrs and with which I have been incredibly happy as a low budget, 0-500 hunting tool. If you get creative on ranging trees and ridgelines, you can stretch this one out to about 650-675, but like any of the non-Sig lower priced models, your "deer sized target range" capability will be somewhere around 400-500yrds, depending on light conditions.

My brother-in-law has a Nikon and a Leupold, wanna say the 650, handful of years old, can't say I've been impressed with either, but not necessarily disappointed either - until the Sig's came on the scene. The Sig's really did raise the bar for what $200-400 can buy in an LRF.

I've got a cheap Bushnell; seems to be accurate at everything I've tried it on.

I have a bushnell Gforce DX that i bought on sale last year for 250ish. Its effective to about 350-400yds on pretty small animals like our goats. Easily picks up the larger lighter colored axis deer at that range, havent tried farther on them. Trees are good to about 800-1k depending, and largish reflective stuff farther.

I also have a cheap simmons 600 some odd, and thats good to about 400 on trees or large rocks. Animals its spotty out side of 100-200yds.

Buddies got a little Redfield that i think is about 150, and thats better than my simmons, but not by alot. He still has issues on animals inside of 300 or so sometimes.

The Sigs ive played with have been excellent, and ill probably buy one of the nicer ones when i can afford it and use my Gforce as backup.

I am on the fence on this topic. Have been hunting for more than 50 years before rangefinders were invented. Longest shot I did was about 500 to 530 on a pronghorn. Just guesstimating of course. I believe that technology is useful but can hinder as well. Learn to range by using your mil-dot scopes. Once you master it than get a rangefinder to confirm your distance. But do not go cheap, because the cheaper you go haze, fog, and non reflective areas will render your rangefinder useless.

I use mine for work and for a toy around the house. I like to measure to the neighbors roof, the water tower, cars down the road and stuff like that. I use it at work (insurance adjuster) to measure runs of fencing damaged by hail or blown over by wind. I have a base model from Cabelas and after about 350 yards it will not always read what you point it at. I put it on the side of a tractor/trailer 18 wheeler at an estimated 450 yards and couldn't get a reading of any kind.

But where and how I hunt its not needed. And where I hunt you take too much time and your shot just walks back in the trees. You need to make sure you want the animal and get the shot off. All of my kills are under a 100 yards. Some as close as 13 yards for my closest kill.

Me too on the Bushnell Scout. I've had mine for 5 years or so, I use it and trust it often. They can be fun around friends. Get then to estimate a distance and then prove them right or wrong what ever the case may be. Mine has been very accurate when distance verified with surveying equipment and measurements. Within one or two percent. It was a budget unit. I'd just about bet all the range finders use the same theoretical laser light frequencies and algorithms to do all the calculations etc. Just how many bells and whistles you want to spend money on.

just my thoughts
'loose

JeffG said:

Thanks for all the replies. Things are pretty much as I suspected. I would put one to use for range card type situations, and quick ranging on the move. With most of my hunting situations, a rangefinder would not be needed. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't range a specific animal that I've spotted, but rather terrain and field trails where an animal would appear.

Click to expand...

Thats generally how i use mine when gun hunting. The only places i generally take long shots, and by that i mean 400-450yds, I range something on the trail, or opening, im watching.

I use it alot when bow hunting with my compound, goofing at the range, and sometimes for work stuff like ratshooter does.

"...400 yards with 308 and 243..." Actually too far for bullet drop for either of 'em. Both of 'em drop like bricks past 300. About 10" between 300 and 400. However, if you know where both rifles shoot, the remaining energy gets to marginal at 500 for a 165 grain .308 and a 100 grain .243.
Trick is being able to tell 300 from 500. You may or may not have time to fiddle with a range finder. Problem is that most of 'em are 'calibrated' for deer sized game. That's about 18" shoulder to brisket. Porky isn't built like that. And there's still the time issue.
Also, like any optical device, you get what you pay for.

If you are inside of 150 yards, and zero your rifle at 100 yards- you don't need a range finder from where I'm sitting. I made very good use of some very high end ones in afg. (mountainous desert) not only for shooting rifles, also for mortar gunnery and calling in artillery and air strikes. As a civilian, the overwhelming use of my range finder has been in connection with archery hunting.

Might check out the Sig Kilo 850. I've seen them on Amazon and other places for $129-$169 range. I just sold mine as I replaced it with the Sig Kilo 1350 model.

https://smile.amazon.com/SGSOK85401...8&qid=1513457219&sr=8-1&keywords=sig+kilo+850

Had a cheap Bushnell ages ago which worked fine for archery then switched to a Leupold and never looked back. The two are nearly identical inside 100 yards but the illumination on the Leupold makes it far easier to read under all conditions. Now some of you have me wanting to read up on the Sigs.

While some people don’t think they’re a necessity for rifle hunters inside 200 yards, I can assure you that they have their place for those of us stuck with a choice of shotgun or muzzleloader on deer, straight wall pistol cartridge for youth.

I can read to around 250 in most terrain with a fair amount of accuracy sans electronic assistance but not so my 13 year old. On his set-ups we use orange streamers tied to brush which helps with wind readings as well.

I have a Nikon that I use more for archery than for my rifle, although I did range and kill a doe at 357 last year. Like others said, if your rifle is sighted in correctly you should be able to bust a doe out to 300 yards without any holdover. Sighted in 3" high at 100 yards will put most calibers on at 250-275 yards. Hot rounds like 257 Weatherby, 7 mm Mags and such will be closer to 300. My 257 was 7" low at 400 yards with this sight-in.

Skylerbone said:

While some people don’t think they’re a necessity for rifle hunters inside 200 yards, I can assure you that they have their place for those of us stuck with a choice of shotgun or muzzleloader on deer, straight wall pistol cartridge for youth.

Click to expand...

Another good point, we use them alot during muzzleloader. While goats arnt particularly spooky, getting inside of 100yds on big billys can be difficult on open lava flats, so shots will sometimes be 150-200yds. When we hunted lanai, shortest shot i got was 160yds, which i hit mostly thanks to the rangefinder.....
Thats in and of itself is worth a couple hundred bucks.

For what you are looking to use range finder for at the distances specified. Usually the issue is with ELR is where beam divergence becomes an issue. Hence why vextronic terrapin was a gold standard. However for 500y and in, there’s a few range finders that will do fine.