Nikon 1200 vs. Leupold 100 vs. Leica 1200

F

fat but funky

CGN Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi Guys,

So, considering a laser rangefinder. Considering Nikon 1200, Leupold RX-1000 and the Leica 1200. Everything I have read says the Leica is the best one in terms of performance.

That said, the prices I have seen put the Leica something like 30% more than the other two. So what I am asking is the Leica so good that it is worth the extra cash?

This would be for rifle only (no bow hunting). Looking to range deer, rocks, trees out to 500 yards reliably say 10 yard acceptable variation in precision. Would also want to use it to range gophers (or their mounds) out to 400 yards in the summer.

Interested also in weight, size, durability, clarity, ability to function in the cold (say down to -10C), and ease of warranty work.

Thanks for you opinions

Fat
 
Nikon. Try all 3 in the store. The Nikon consistently ranges faster which is due to faster electronics. This results in less frustration at long distances. Lasers all travel the same speed, and that's where Nikon has it. Don't get me wrong, both the others are good, and will make you happy. But only with the Nikon can I range over 800 while standing, free hand and get a reading almost every time.

While Leica and Leupold make great scopes, Nikons been making high end cameras, and have the electronic know how. And their glass is just as good to the human eye.
 
fat but funky said:
So what I am asking is the Leica so good that it is worth the extra cash?
Click to expand...

Yes, without a doubt. I was in the same boat some years ago, and trust me, you will eventually hone your skills and wish you had a range finder that worked farther out than what you're considering now. That is why I recommend you get the Leica 1600 and not look back. I played with a bunch of different RF's, and decided the Leica LRF 1200 was the best (besides the Swaro), and now I'm thinking about selling it and upgrading to the 1600.

You'll be dollars and hassle ahead if you just get the best right from the start. You'll also be glad to have the Leica CRF1600 for ranging shorter distances, too. The 1600 will more easily give you a range reading at 600 yards when there is snow on the ground and the light is terrible than any of the other options.
 
"Some years ago" the Leica would have held a marked difference, which is not the case with today's offerings. I think the Leica is still the best of those three but i don't think it's worth the extra money you put out for it.

The modern Leupolds and the Nikons are very close and may be superior in some respects in some conditions. None of them are perfect in snowy bright light although you can get readings on all 3. None of them are perfect on smaller objects like varmints so you have to range the mounds or nearby objects. Light transmission and clarity is very good on all 3. There's really not much difference.

I was told by an outdoor store clerk in Anchorage that they seemed to be getting a dispropotionately high rate of failure with moisture problems with the new Leupolds than they saw with older models. He wasn't sure if it was coincidence or a real problem but something to watch for. I don't think any of the rangefinders m are water-proof and they won't stand being submerged.

I don't think you could go wrong with any of them.
 
I have an older Leica LRF 900 and I wouldn't trade it for anything(except maybe a newer Leica:p). Among the rangefinders used in my hunting group the Leupold is by far the most frustrating(POS!). The Bushnell 1500ARC actually ain't bad. I have no experience with Nikon.
 
Always buy the Leica dam it.

I have put my 1200 up against more expencive range finders and made my friends mad that they couldn't pick up the tree line but I could, I told them I had fresh batterys but they were actually 3 years old... Just trying to make them feel better. Leica for sure and you can't beat the size.
 
I have a leica 1200 hunt in all weather snow falling or fog is a bummer wouldnt even look at a leapold.Swarovski is a good unit but almost 600. more havent used the nikon .By the way a friend sells leapold but he brags up leica another friend has a 12 yr old bushnel better than any leapold i have personally tried happy with my 1200 leica. for what its worth
 
The leica works. Plain and simple.I have owned more rangefinders than most, and leica is where it is at.
compact, SIMPLE, fast, rugged, and it WORKS. EVERY TIME.
The swaro's turn me off because of their size and their slow processor speed.

The Leica 1200's have dropped in price big time too. I bought one last year for over $700, this year I picked one up for a buddy under $600.
 
The processor inside the Nikon is the fastest out there, this allows you to range further distances much easier as you don't have to hold still for as long with the finder. With hard object I've had mine in the 1400yd range. Ours is weather proof, although I wouldn't suggest you toss it into a lake.
 
fat but funky said:
Hi Guys,

So, considering a laser rangefinder. Considering Nikon 1200, Leupold RX-1000 and the Leica 1200. Everything I have read says the Leica is the best one in terms of performance.

That said, the prices I have seen put the Leica something like 30% more than the other two. So what I am asking is the Leica so good that it is worth the extra cash?

This would be for rifle only (no bow hunting). Looking to range deer, rocks, trees out to 500 yards reliably say 10 yard acceptable variation in precision. Would also want to use it to range gophers (or their mounds) out to 400 yards in the summer.

Interested also in weight, size, durability, clarity, ability to function in the cold (say down to -10C), and ease of warranty work.

Thanks for you opinions

Fat
Click to expand...

Find an older Leica 800 or 900, it will do what you're looking for. There's no rangefinder out there that I can hold steady at a deer sized animal at over 1000 yards, let alone gophers. Unless you want to range houses at 1500 yards, you won't need a more powerful one. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom