Rangefinders
- Thread starter Gatehouse
- Start date
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
Tod, I have a friend who dropped one just past 700 yrads ( ranged) two years ago with a .338Lapua ,, I think he waqs usong a 225 grain bullet.
It was a bang flop neck shot......
Cat
It was a bang flop neck shot......
Cat
- Location
- calgary alberta
This 1 took it in the lungs, bone shards cut up the liver pretty good as well, the shot ended up 2 inches lower than I had aimed for. I was wanting to touch the lower 1/2 of the spine. When hit she just stood there probably thinking , damn that hurt, what was that, oh well maybe I should leave, its noisy here now. 3 steps and down she went. Then the work REALLY began, 2 guys with a moose is far too much like work! :mrgreen:
Bullet used was a 200 gr Wildcat bonded bullet, left a 1" exit hole
Republic of Alberta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- ,location, location
Ya, I get REAL #####y when I am out by 2 INCHES :shock: at 925 yards WOW :!:
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
Ya gotta love dem Alberta Wildcats!! 
I wish richard would get my bondeds finished for my 6.5WSM so I can use them on something!
Cat
I wish richard would get my bondeds finished for my 6.5WSM so I can use them on something!
Cat
- Location
- calgary alberta
I have certainly been doing some of my best shooting since switching to Richards bullets.
Me too, 2" off is NOT what I want to see EVER, I can only think that I missed my mark ,as I forgot to adjust for the colder temperature of the morning. Zero wind condition though, which was good. :mrgreen:
I feel out of place here, I don't have a range finder and I don't shoot over 400 yards and that depends on the piece of iron I am packing.
I did the same with my kids live out in the country learned to judge distance by estimating compared to the width of a 1/4 section, 80 acres the nieghbors acreages never felt that I need a piece of machinery to tell me distance. My grandson is 8 1/2 years old and can judge distance damn good out to about 250 yards or 200 meters to him (which is a nother pain in the arse thank you mister Truedeau rest in piece you arse pipe) but it is like driving you learn you use you don't forgret.
925 yards Rick good going I don't think I could tell what the heck I was seeing at that distance.
Ken
I did the same with my kids live out in the country learned to judge distance by estimating compared to the width of a 1/4 section, 80 acres the nieghbors acreages never felt that I need a piece of machinery to tell me distance. My grandson is 8 1/2 years old and can judge distance damn good out to about 250 yards or 200 meters to him (which is a nother pain in the arse thank you mister Truedeau rest in piece you arse pipe) but it is like driving you learn you use you don't forgret.
925 yards Rick good going I don't think I could tell what the heck I was seeing at that distance.
Ken
kodiak1 said:
200 yards is easy to judge by eye. 300 is getting there. 400 is hard to judge except that you think the animal is "out there"
Frankly, if you dont judge distances to animals often (and I man all the time) it's hard to jude past 300.
I( have used my rifle scope, but it's not exactly exact! :wink:
- Location
- calgary alberta
Ken Don't feel out of place at all. My hat is off to all that respect the wildlife enough to NOT take shots they do not feel comfortable with, this is the sign of a responsible hunter. Long ago I was taught to use a mildot reticle for range estimation, and with some practice this system works very well, now with technology making small handheld rangefinders not only damn accurate but nearly affordable , this enhances the potential of making longer shots possible. The higher quality optics with the better repeatability has also enhanced the possibilties of success. Still if the rifle/optics is not up to the task or if the shooter is not used to shooting long distance, the range finder is just another thing to lug around.
I strongly advocate NOT taking long shots unless the shooter can consistantly hit the mark at the longer ranges, to do so will give hunters in general, another black eye so to speak.
To accurately estimate distance is an artform unto its own, but it can be difficult to "guesstimate" accurately enough to be certain of hitting where 1 aims. An error of 5% at 1000 yards will likely mean either a miss or worse a wounded animal.
Wide open terrain where these extreme long shots are most often possible can make accurate estimation very hard as many times there is nothing to reference to , ie tree , fence posts etc.
For those of us that shoot many thousands of rounds yearly at extreme long range, the feat is really not all that difficult. Yes there are more variables ( wind, temperature, mirage to name just a few) than shooting 200 to 300 yards, but driving at 200 mph is no big deal to an Indy driver who spends how many hours a week at that speed, its all relevant to your experience and comfort level. To be totally honest I can shoot fairly well but am NOT a great hunter anymore, walking and standing are demanding now, and did not used to be with youth, therefore I compensate with accuracy at distance, backed up with as much technology as I can afford. Not many guys I know take their laptop hunting, I do. :mrgreen:
I strongly advocate NOT taking long shots unless the shooter can consistantly hit the mark at the longer ranges, to do so will give hunters in general, another black eye so to speak.
To accurately estimate distance is an artform unto its own, but it can be difficult to "guesstimate" accurately enough to be certain of hitting where 1 aims. An error of 5% at 1000 yards will likely mean either a miss or worse a wounded animal.
Wide open terrain where these extreme long shots are most often possible can make accurate estimation very hard as many times there is nothing to reference to , ie tree , fence posts etc.
For those of us that shoot many thousands of rounds yearly at extreme long range, the feat is really not all that difficult. Yes there are more variables ( wind, temperature, mirage to name just a few) than shooting 200 to 300 yards, but driving at 200 mph is no big deal to an Indy driver who spends how many hours a week at that speed, its all relevant to your experience and comfort level. To be totally honest I can shoot fairly well but am NOT a great hunter anymore, walking and standing are demanding now, and did not used to be with youth, therefore I compensate with accuracy at distance, backed up with as much technology as I can afford. Not many guys I know take their laptop hunting, I do. :mrgreen:
J
JoeP's old business account
Guest
Well I've had a few of the Leica's, and have seriously thought of buying the Swarovski 8x30 guide which I feel is an upgrade on the Leica 1200.
Having given it more thought and pained by carrying two devices around, I think the next step will be the Leica BRF laser/binocular.
Does anyone have one and if so, what are your thoughts?
Joe
Having given it more thought and pained by carrying two devices around, I think the next step will be the Leica BRF laser/binocular.
Does anyone have one and if so, what are your thoughts?
Joe
- Location
- calgary alberta
Had a chance to use 1 last year REALLY nice but heavy and the concern I have is if the LRF has trouble, you are also missing your binocs while being away getting fixed. Highly doubt the binocs would ever give greif, but LRFs have been known to. :mrgreen:
J
JoeP's old business account
Guest
The Leica Rangemasters or LRF models I had neer did have any problems and actually I haven't heard of any reported ones. Their laser wavelength was much smaller which apparently helped or was the reason it was able to out perform other lasers on small objects and go out to 1200 yards.
I don't know if the BRF (called again the Geovid) uses the same laser system as the 1200. I would doubt it, but you never know. Did you know anyting thing about this Rick?
Most Leica binoculars are heavy but tank tough. I've already got a set of Lecia 8x42 binoculars which will be a spare set, so the worry of a failed laser ruining my day isn't an issue. The convenience of one device far outways the risk. Hell you coud buy a cheap new Bushnell 1500 as a back up for $4i00ish.
I personally didn't find the new BRF to be heavy but I've been using the 8x42BN binos for years and to compliment that, I started back into working out again so. :lol: :lol: I'm losing the baby soft look :shock: :lol:
Were you using the 56mm ones - 45oz? Or the earlier first generation geovids?
BRF 32 oz.
LRF 11.3 oz
binculars same objective 31.4 to 27.9 oz now down to 25oz..
I don't know if the BRF (called again the Geovid) uses the same laser system as the 1200. I would doubt it, but you never know. Did you know anyting thing about this Rick?
Most Leica binoculars are heavy but tank tough. I've already got a set of Lecia 8x42 binoculars which will be a spare set, so the worry of a failed laser ruining my day isn't an issue. The convenience of one device far outways the risk. Hell you coud buy a cheap new Bushnell 1500 as a back up for $4i00ish.
I personally didn't find the new BRF to be heavy but I've been using the 8x42BN binos for years and to compliment that, I started back into working out again so. :lol: :lol: I'm losing the baby soft look :shock: :lol:
Were you using the 56mm ones - 45oz? Or the earlier first generation geovids?
BRF 32 oz.
LRF 11.3 oz
binculars same objective 31.4 to 27.9 oz now down to 25oz..
range finder
If you are going to take shots that are what an average hunter will take stick with a bushness or the lecia lrf 900, it will work for 90 % of hunting situation, if you are going to take longer shots say over 700 yds go with the leica lrf 1200, if you must have the greatest ranging go with the swarovski, i cannot justify the price difference between the leica and swarovski , unless you are taking really long shot. The Leica lrf 900 will handle most situations up to 500 yds on deer and the optics are definately better than the bushnell, their new 1500 is solid as well
If you are going to take shots that are what an average hunter will take stick with a bushness or the lecia lrf 900, it will work for 90 % of hunting situation, if you are going to take longer shots say over 700 yds go with the leica lrf 1200, if you must have the greatest ranging go with the swarovski, i cannot justify the price difference between the leica and swarovski , unless you are taking really long shot. The Leica lrf 900 will handle most situations up to 500 yds on deer and the optics are definately better than the bushnell, their new 1500 is solid as well
J
JoeP's old business account
Guest
I was very surprised to see Bushnell locate their battery portal/cover at a corner. On the 1500 unit, during use I would be worried about the cover flicking open and possibly damaging the cover or worse the unit. :shock:
The Swarovski monocular actually has a decent eyepiece and ergo contour and tripod mount. I would also think it is structurally stronger then the box design of the Leica 1200. I'd also give the Swarovski the optical edge which is one step closer to the real binocular.
The Swarovski monocular actually has a decent eyepiece and ergo contour and tripod mount. I would also think it is structurally stronger then the box design of the Leica 1200. I'd also give the Swarovski the optical edge which is one step closer to the real binocular.
