I own the Sig Kilo 2000, 2200, Leica 1600, and Bushnell Elite 1 Mile. I also have a Bushnell Scout 1000 and ARC 1000, I forget which is Cabela’s branded. I have had a Leupold 650 and a Nikon 600, and a Vortex 1500. Out of anything I have owned or used, the Sig and the Leica are the only two I would buy again.
For my money, the Sig 2200 or 2000 are the best. The Leica is a very close second, and only because it costs more. The Leica does have the best beam divergence of any on this list. The Bushnell 1 Mile is good enough, and the ability to connect to your phone or kestrel is awesome, but it’s big and bulky, and it’s just not quite the piece of equipment which are the Sig and Leica.
At a match yesterday, I had my Sig 2200, I loaned my Leica to another shooter, and our squad Mom had his own Bushnell 1 Mile. We had some confusion on a few stages about which targets in the field were the right ones for our stage, so we had to range them. All 3 were able to get readings on the ground near JC products steel hog targets past 1000yrds, and all 3 were able to ping the ground to range IPSC targets past 1200. The light was very high - I was surprised to come home and realize got a pretty wicked sunburn on my face. (High light kills Rangefinding range). I regularly range 66% IPSC targets on a rack with my Sig’s out to 1000. It’s really a game of pinging the ground at the foot of the target, as even the smallest divergence of any of them will be WAY larger than the largest of targets at those ranges. So all of these would be considered “non-reflective” ranges.
You absolutely have to find a way to stabilize yourself to get a reading past about 500-700yrds. I can usually tuck tight enough kneeling to get a reading at 800, but need to brace against my bipod rifle or set it against my spotting scope on the tripod for anything longer.
For really small stuff in flat ground, the Vortex 1500 has the smallest beam divergence at 0.3 x 1.5mrad, but I believe they went too small for their circuitry, as I missed a lot more readings with it than these other 3. The Leica is the best for small target, non-reflective, as it has a 0.5 x 1.5 mrad beam divergence, but still has the processor and sensor power to resolve the returned signal. The Sig will fool you into thinking it has a small divergence, whereas it actually has a 1.3mrad round beam, but it hits remarkably small targets and penetrates obstructing brush remarkably well. It is also blisteringly fast - I believe it has the best onboard computer works of any of them, as that is the only way it could deliver these results with such a large beam (meaning it will read more often and in harsher lighting than the others, but can also resolve brush and small targets internally better). The Bushnell 1 Mile will almost always read, but it is the hardest to use to pinpoint smaller targets, as it has a big 1.5mrad round beam. A big beam kicks back a lot to the sensor, so it needs more computing power to resolve smaller targets - but it doesn’t do as well as the Sig in this regard. The Bushnell much larger than the other two as well. Nice if you’re a guy who loses things, not nice if you’re trying to fit gear into a field pack or coat pocket...
The Sig Kilo 2200 is an upgrade over the 2000, but only a slight upgrade. It incorporated a smaller reticle, plus a selectable option for mil-hash stadia in the reticle, and it shrunk the beam divergence from 1.5mrad in the 2000 down to 1.3 in the 2200. If it were not for the milling reticle and the model number printed on the front, I would be lying to say I can tell the difference between the two in the field. I don’t even bother to look which one I grab from the shelf when I go out, I grab a Sig and whichever it is when I get there will work.
I highly recommend the Sig Kilo 2200/2000 and the Leica 1600.
