Does anyone happen to know what calibers are programmed into the 1600 for the ballistic compensation?......308 168gr and 175gr in fgmm mabye?
Rifle Scopes leica crf 1600
- Thread starter chadg
- Start date
Re: leica crf 1600
The Leica 1600 CRF actually has 12 preprogrammed ballistic curves. Leica have a table in the manual that will show you the programmed curves and you match your load based on your ballistic data to the curve. The rangefinder then factors in pressure and temperature to get a more accurate reading for you. Probably the finest rangefinder ever made.
Trevor B
OpticsPlanet
The Leica 1600 CRF actually has 12 preprogrammed ballistic curves. Leica have a table in the manual that will show you the programmed curves and you match your load based on your ballistic data to the curve. The rangefinder then factors in pressure and temperature to get a more accurate reading for you. Probably the finest rangefinder ever made.
Trevor B
OpticsPlanet
Re: leica crf 1600
What range do the ballistic curves go out to? I know the Zeiss RF is only programmed to 500 yards. Heard the Leica can only give about a 10 MOA correction. That would be about 500 yards too? Not useful for a 1600 yard RF then.
What range do the ballistic curves go out to? I know the Zeiss RF is only programmed to 500 yards. Heard the Leica can only give about a 10 MOA correction. That would be about 500 yards too? Not useful for a 1600 yard RF then.
Re: leica crf 1600
All the tables are listed in the manual, you can download a PDF of it here:
http://en.leica-camera.com/sport_optics/rangemaster/crf_1600/
Trevor B
OpticsPlanet
All the tables are listed in the manual, you can download a PDF of it here:
http://en.leica-camera.com/sport_optics/rangemaster/crf_1600/
Trevor B
OpticsPlanet
Re: leica crf 1600
The 1600 CRF is great, but the ballistic program leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't even feed distances beyond 500 yards (when a ballistic program is really needed).
For hunting inside of 500 yards where accuracy of a couple of MOA is needed, the ballistic program is certainly better than nothing, but if you have a smart phone, I would use one of the programs that are out there for more accurate results that you can customize to your particular bullet and MV.
Play with it and compare it to JBM online and see for yourself if you are satisfied with it.
The 1600 CRF is great, but the ballistic program leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't even feed distances beyond 500 yards (when a ballistic program is really needed).
For hunting inside of 500 yards where accuracy of a couple of MOA is needed, the ballistic program is certainly better than nothing, but if you have a smart phone, I would use one of the programs that are out there for more accurate results that you can customize to your particular bullet and MV.
Play with it and compare it to JBM online and see for yourself if you are satisfied with it.
Re: leica crf 1600
Trevor,
From page 29 of the downloaded manual:
<span style="color: #FF0000">• Holdover corrections for ranges above 500m are not shown due to the overall uncertainty factors.</span>
The rangefinder may be great, but would you please explain what good a ballistic program is, that only goes to 500 yards, in a rangefinder that goes to 1600 yards?
Trevor,
From page 29 of the downloaded manual:
<span style="color: #FF0000">• Holdover corrections for ranges above 500m are not shown due to the overall uncertainty factors.</span>
The rangefinder may be great, but would you please explain what good a ballistic program is, that only goes to 500 yards, in a rangefinder that goes to 1600 yards?
Re: leica crf 1600
It would be of use to hunters. The average hunter, (not Hide members) wont be shooting past that.
That said, I wish the CRF1600 didnt even have it, I have no need for it, personally.
I bought it for the LRF and I am becoming convinced it is the best I have owned.
(I cannot afford the V's.)
It would be of use to hunters. The average hunter, (not Hide members) wont be shooting past that.
That said, I wish the CRF1600 didnt even have it, I have no need for it, personally.
I bought it for the LRF and I am becoming convinced it is the best I have owned.
(I cannot afford the V's.)
Re: leica crf 1600
I've got to honestly say that the 1600 CRF really doesn't work well in daylight.
I just got rid of mine because it couldn't range road signs at 40 yards.
You just get "---" consistantly.
Neat concept, great glass, poor implementation.
...and using google earth, I was finding it was sometimes spot on, and other times... not so much.
I resorted to trying the 1600 CRF in the dark using NV to identify the targets and then watch for the IR laser to hit the target. That worked great...
...but in day light, it really sucks on (oddly) highly reflective road signs [3x3 feet at 40 yards], highly polished reflective black surfaces (at 20 yards; side of new polished black Jetta), roof tops, etc.
So.... onto the next range finder.
I've got to honestly say that the 1600 CRF really doesn't work well in daylight.
I just got rid of mine because it couldn't range road signs at 40 yards.
You just get "---" consistantly.
Neat concept, great glass, poor implementation.
...and using google earth, I was finding it was sometimes spot on, and other times... not so much.
I resorted to trying the 1600 CRF in the dark using NV to identify the targets and then watch for the IR laser to hit the target. That worked great...
...but in day light, it really sucks on (oddly) highly reflective road signs [3x3 feet at 40 yards], highly polished reflective black surfaces (at 20 yards; side of new polished black Jetta), roof tops, etc.
So.... onto the next range finder.
Re: leica crf 1600
Yours was defective.
Yours was defective.
Re: leica crf 1600
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hydro556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yours was defective. </div></div>
Is that common?
It ranged tree without any issues...
Here is what I posted somewhere else:
Save your money, I just returned a Leica 1600 CRF becuse it can't range things well in day light:
- road signs (3x3ft) at 40 yards
- highly polished black car at 20 yards
- grey high tension poles (the BIG ones) at 500 yards
- tree lines at 1000 yards
- roof tops (at any distance, pretty much)
I really expected more... but I will say the glass is awesome.
Interestingly, I was able to range the crap out of anything AT NIGHT. Using a NV scope I was able to see the IR beam strikes from the Leica 1600 and then aim them onto the targets I wanted, without a tripod... and I got results. What Google Earth is indicating are that my results may have been pretty off.
So I don't know if I got a bad range finder, or if this was typical for the Leica? However, previous comments for the 1200 CRF indicate that daylight ranging issues could well be normal. One person did indicate, in some review or something, that he though that the 1600 CRF was really a 1200 CRF with a little more power pumped to the laser diode. (This is not substanciated, just a guess on his part.)
I'm really kinda annoyed, because functionally wise, it's a neat little unit. [glass is great, the reticle is bright and easy to read, it tells you angle and barometric pressue, reads either in meters or yards, and will adjust for certain ballistic curves (though that functionality is very limited in its usefullness)] It just doesn't deliver in daylight.
I'm going to compare the Leica to the Elite 1600 ARC (non-fusion) and see how things work out.
I was, btw, using a tripod for all of those measurements... (They make a tripod adapter, and it's free with the purchase of a CRF from 6/1 to 7/30/2011)
GB
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hydro556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yours was defective. </div></div>
Is that common?
It ranged tree without any issues...
Here is what I posted somewhere else:
Save your money, I just returned a Leica 1600 CRF becuse it can't range things well in day light:
- road signs (3x3ft) at 40 yards
- highly polished black car at 20 yards
- grey high tension poles (the BIG ones) at 500 yards
- tree lines at 1000 yards
- roof tops (at any distance, pretty much)
I really expected more... but I will say the glass is awesome.
Interestingly, I was able to range the crap out of anything AT NIGHT. Using a NV scope I was able to see the IR beam strikes from the Leica 1600 and then aim them onto the targets I wanted, without a tripod... and I got results. What Google Earth is indicating are that my results may have been pretty off.
So I don't know if I got a bad range finder, or if this was typical for the Leica? However, previous comments for the 1200 CRF indicate that daylight ranging issues could well be normal. One person did indicate, in some review or something, that he though that the 1600 CRF was really a 1200 CRF with a little more power pumped to the laser diode. (This is not substanciated, just a guess on his part.)
I'm really kinda annoyed, because functionally wise, it's a neat little unit. [glass is great, the reticle is bright and easy to read, it tells you angle and barometric pressue, reads either in meters or yards, and will adjust for certain ballistic curves (though that functionality is very limited in its usefullness)] It just doesn't deliver in daylight.
I'm going to compare the Leica to the Elite 1600 ARC (non-fusion) and see how things work out.
I was, btw, using a tripod for all of those measurements... (They make a tripod adapter, and it's free with the purchase of a CRF from 6/1 to 7/30/2011)
GB
Re: leica crf 1600
You definitely got a defective one. I have trouble with cars sometimes, but it is due to some of the laser penetrating the window and not getting bounced back. Broadside, it really isn't an issue.
I have bounced a 36" round railroad crossing sign at 800 yards without issue. High tension poles should be no issue. Roof tops can be an issue at longer distance just because the angle will tend not to reflect the beam back, but anything 500 yards an under it will bounce.
Tree lines can be difficult just because of the "texture" of the tree line. I have better luck shooting for a specific tree.
By the sounds of it, yours is messed up. This can happen. I have heard that sometimes the beam is not "aimed" right, and as a result, it doesn't bounce back very well. I have also heard that the early units from Leica of these were hit and miss. I would call them and I am sure they will send you a new one no questions asked. I have really enjoyed my unit.
You definitely got a defective one. I have trouble with cars sometimes, but it is due to some of the laser penetrating the window and not getting bounced back. Broadside, it really isn't an issue.
I have bounced a 36" round railroad crossing sign at 800 yards without issue. High tension poles should be no issue. Roof tops can be an issue at longer distance just because the angle will tend not to reflect the beam back, but anything 500 yards an under it will bounce.
Tree lines can be difficult just because of the "texture" of the tree line. I have better luck shooting for a specific tree.
By the sounds of it, yours is messed up. This can happen. I have heard that sometimes the beam is not "aimed" right, and as a result, it doesn't bounce back very well. I have also heard that the early units from Leica of these were hit and miss. I would call them and I am sure they will send you a new one no questions asked. I have really enjoyed my unit.
Re: leica crf 1600
I'll call them up and see what they have to say. I've already returned the unit, but it would probably be good to tell them it's probably bad.
We'll see what reaction I get!
I'll call them up and see what they have to say. I've already returned the unit, but it would probably be good to tell them it's probably bad.
We'll see what reaction I get!
Re: leica crf 1600
Haven't called them, but I did recieve the Bushnell 1600 Elite ARC monocular LRF.
Thing is larger by comparison... and the glass is certainly not as nice. ...and unlike the Fusion binocs, it's made in China.
BUT, it does range things quite well, even if not as eligant as the Leica CRF 1600 or 1200.
The glass is the huge difference, and the fact that it actually works.
Haven't called them, but I did recieve the Bushnell 1600 Elite ARC monocular LRF.
Thing is larger by comparison... and the glass is certainly not as nice. ...and unlike the Fusion binocs, it's made in China.
BUT, it does range things quite well, even if not as eligant as the Leica CRF 1600 or 1200.
The glass is the huge difference, and the fact that it actually works.
Re: leica crf 1600
Anyone have experience with the Swarowski 1500?
Anyone have experience with the Swarowski 1500?
Re: leica crf 1600
Road signs have a funky reflective coating, it may have been messing with the LRF.
I've got a Leica CRF 1200 and love it. General rule of thumb, if you want to range critters at 500 you need a LRF with a number in the name greater than 1000. At longer ranges a lot of the problem is that you need a steady hold. Free holding it on smallish targets at 500 yds doesn't work.
Road signs have a funky reflective coating, it may have been messing with the LRF.
I've got a Leica CRF 1200 and love it. General rule of thumb, if you want to range critters at 500 you need a LRF with a number in the name greater than 1000. At longer ranges a lot of the problem is that you need a steady hold. Free holding it on smallish targets at 500 yds doesn't work.
Re: leica crf 1600
You dont need info on ballistic curves if you spent time behind your stick, use the data that is in your (DOPE) book. sorry not trying to be a dick but put all your eggs in one basket.
You dont need info on ballistic curves if you spent time behind your stick, use the data that is in your (DOPE) book. sorry not trying to be a dick but put all your eggs in one basket.
Re: leica crf 1600
I certainly had a bad unit... The bushnel elite 1600 arc monocular kicks the leicas but.
Re: dopeing.... I've got three sticks and three loads. That complicates matters. Nothing the lrf alone will solve, but is part of.
I certainly had a bad unit... The bushnel elite 1600 arc monocular kicks the leicas but.
Re: dopeing.... I've got three sticks and three loads. That complicates matters. Nothing the lrf alone will solve, but is part of.
Re: leica crf 1600
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GBMaryland</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've got to honestly say that the 1600 CRF really doesn't work well in daylight.
I just got rid of mine because it couldn't range road signs at 40 yards.
You just get "---" consistantly.
Neat concept, great glass, poor implementation.
...and using google earth, I was finding it was sometimes spot on, and other times... not so much.
I resorted to trying the 1600 CRF in the dark using NV to identify the targets and then watch for the IR laser to hit the target. That worked great...
...but in day light, it really sucks on (oddly) highly reflective road signs [3x3 feet at 40 yards], highly polished reflective black surfaces (at 20 yards; side of new polished black Jetta), roof tops, etc.
So.... onto the next range finder. </div></div>
You should have sent it back to Lieca. I had problems with my first one and sent it back. My replacement reads consistantly to just under 2000 yards. For a pocket size unit it's one of the best on the market IMO.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GBMaryland</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've got to honestly say that the 1600 CRF really doesn't work well in daylight.
I just got rid of mine because it couldn't range road signs at 40 yards.
You just get "---" consistantly.
Neat concept, great glass, poor implementation.
...and using google earth, I was finding it was sometimes spot on, and other times... not so much.
I resorted to trying the 1600 CRF in the dark using NV to identify the targets and then watch for the IR laser to hit the target. That worked great...
...but in day light, it really sucks on (oddly) highly reflective road signs [3x3 feet at 40 yards], highly polished reflective black surfaces (at 20 yards; side of new polished black Jetta), roof tops, etc.
So.... onto the next range finder. </div></div>
You should have sent it back to Lieca. I had problems with my first one and sent it back. My replacement reads consistantly to just under 2000 yards. For a pocket size unit it's one of the best on the market IMO.
Re: leica crf 1600
For sure send it back….. it is far from functional piece
For sure send it back….. it is far from functional piece
Re: leica crf 1600
For giggles I picked up a Swaroski to see how much better, if at all it is, than the bushnell 1600 elite w ARC.
So far I haven't been able to get that unit to hit stuff and return decent consistent ranges.
So I'm thinking a work leica would be nice, so long as I can reach out beyond 1600 yards with it...
For giggles I picked up a Swaroski to see how much better, if at all it is, than the bushnell 1600 elite w ARC.
So far I haven't been able to get that unit to hit stuff and return decent consistent ranges.
So I'm thinking a work leica would be nice, so long as I can reach out beyond 1600 yards with it...
Re: leica crf 1600
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GBMaryland</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've got to honestly say that the 1600 CRF really doesn't work well in daylight.
I just got rid of mine because it couldn't range road signs at 40 yards.
You just get "---" consistantly.
Neat concept, great glass, poor implementation.
...and using google earth, I was finding it was sometimes spot on, and other times... not so much.
I resorted to trying the 1600 CRF in the dark using NV to identify the targets and then watch for the IR laser to hit the target. That worked great...
...but in day light, it really sucks on (oddly) highly reflective road signs [3x3 feet at 40 yards], highly polished reflective black surfaces (at 20 yards; side of new polished black Jetta), roof tops, etc.
So.... onto the next range finder. </div></div>
You should have sent it back to Lieca. I had problems with my first one and sent it back. My replacement reads consistantly to just under 2000 yards. For a pocket size unit it's one of the best on the market IMO.</div></div>
So are you saying that you HAVE gotten ranges at 2000? If so, what? A rock, highway sign?
I have the 1200 CRF, and went to Sportsman's Warehouse. They let me take the 1600 Fusion binos outside. The glass on the Fusions was god awful, they are heavy, the display was cheap and not very bright. Having said that, for the RF they smoked my Leica. I am convinced that the reason why is that it is easier to hold binos steady.
Also I compared my CRF to the 1600 monocular. Mine was better.
Until now, I havn't heard of anyone getting good range that far with the CRF 1600. I guess I need to check those out now.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GBMaryland</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've got to honestly say that the 1600 CRF really doesn't work well in daylight.
I just got rid of mine because it couldn't range road signs at 40 yards.
You just get "---" consistantly.
Neat concept, great glass, poor implementation.
...and using google earth, I was finding it was sometimes spot on, and other times... not so much.
I resorted to trying the 1600 CRF in the dark using NV to identify the targets and then watch for the IR laser to hit the target. That worked great...
...but in day light, it really sucks on (oddly) highly reflective road signs [3x3 feet at 40 yards], highly polished reflective black surfaces (at 20 yards; side of new polished black Jetta), roof tops, etc.
So.... onto the next range finder. </div></div>
You should have sent it back to Lieca. I had problems with my first one and sent it back. My replacement reads consistantly to just under 2000 yards. For a pocket size unit it's one of the best on the market IMO.</div></div>
So are you saying that you HAVE gotten ranges at 2000? If so, what? A rock, highway sign?
I have the 1200 CRF, and went to Sportsman's Warehouse. They let me take the 1600 Fusion binos outside. The glass on the Fusions was god awful, they are heavy, the display was cheap and not very bright. Having said that, for the RF they smoked my Leica. I am convinced that the reason why is that it is easier to hold binos steady.
Also I compared my CRF to the 1600 monocular. Mine was better.
Until now, I havn't heard of anyone getting good range that far with the CRF 1600. I guess I need to check those out now.
Re: leica crf 1600
So it sounds like anything reflective that is angled, the leica has trouble ranging? I also have a yellow pedestrian crossing sign that's probably angled around 45 degrees to the right. Both my leica 1200 crf that i used to have and now the 1600 crf won't range it at all, but i can range rooftops 900 - 1300 yds away.
maybe the reflective signs have to facing you more to range them? I don't really range signs but i figure it's a good test. I just wish there was a more definitive way to figure out if ya have a "defective" one or not. BTW, i got mine from cameralandny Certified Pre-Owned.
So it sounds like anything reflective that is angled, the leica has trouble ranging? I also have a yellow pedestrian crossing sign that's probably angled around 45 degrees to the right. Both my leica 1200 crf that i used to have and now the 1600 crf won't range it at all, but i can range rooftops 900 - 1300 yds away.
maybe the reflective signs have to facing you more to range them? I don't really range signs but i figure it's a good test. I just wish there was a more definitive way to figure out if ya have a "defective" one or not. BTW, i got mine from cameralandny Certified Pre-Owned.
Re: leica crf 1600
Yeah,
I checked out the Fusion Binocs and they were heavy and I didn't like the glass.
The Bushnell 1600 Elite ARC MONOCULAR has better glass and I've been able to range up to just shy of 1600 yards with it.
(On a 90+ degree day with about 75% humidity...)
The Leica, as we've all discussed (1600 Rangemaster) I had was probably defective. I could not range a yellow crossing sign that I was perpendicular to from 40 yards or so in daylight.
The Bushnell crushed it. (The monocular... not the binocs)
My opinion on the Swaroski, which I just picked up is still out. However, I will say that all these wonderful ranges over 1500 meters I'm not seeing. ...but it's 100F out, 90+% humidity, and so on.
Pros:
Bushnell - Price / performance (it can't be beat), fairly easy to configure, lots of options (target mode, brush mode, standard mode), built in 1/4 inch treading for tripod. Uses CR123a battery. Elite units have lifetime warranty.
Leica - easy to use, buttons in good locations, easy to configure, GREAT reticle, GREAT glass, decent options. Very compact. Uses CR123a battery.
Swaroski - Easy to use and stabile, simple to operate, GREAT glass, supposed to be the best distancing LRF. Units have lifetime calibration warranty. Uses CR2 battery, which it turns out that rechargable versions are volts and mAh compatible with store bought non-rechargibles. (sp)
Cons:
Bushnell - Minimum 4 week turn around time on broken units. Lots of items showing up in the reticle simultaniously (sp). Made in CHINA (as opposed to Japan, like the Fusion Binocs). Suspect that they are limited via software to 1600 yards (have yet to get it to range over 1600 yards...)
Leica - Bad run of inital units. Hard to stabilize for distance ranging; typical of a small unit. No integrated tripod mount (you need to get one separately for about $100.00).
Swaroski - Uses CR2 battery. (These are harder find in stores.) Reticle brightness is not great. Difficult to take readings through other objects [e.g. shooting through two trees to get to a tower results in the range to the trees, not the tower. Especially true in situations where larger distance is involved. Suspect larger beam size that other two units, but have yet to veryfy this.
Yeah,
I checked out the Fusion Binocs and they were heavy and I didn't like the glass.
The Bushnell 1600 Elite ARC MONOCULAR has better glass and I've been able to range up to just shy of 1600 yards with it.
(On a 90+ degree day with about 75% humidity...)
The Leica, as we've all discussed (1600 Rangemaster) I had was probably defective. I could not range a yellow crossing sign that I was perpendicular to from 40 yards or so in daylight.
The Bushnell crushed it. (The monocular... not the binocs)
My opinion on the Swaroski, which I just picked up is still out. However, I will say that all these wonderful ranges over 1500 meters I'm not seeing. ...but it's 100F out, 90+% humidity, and so on.
Pros:
Bushnell - Price / performance (it can't be beat), fairly easy to configure, lots of options (target mode, brush mode, standard mode), built in 1/4 inch treading for tripod. Uses CR123a battery. Elite units have lifetime warranty.
Leica - easy to use, buttons in good locations, easy to configure, GREAT reticle, GREAT glass, decent options. Very compact. Uses CR123a battery.
Swaroski - Easy to use and stabile, simple to operate, GREAT glass, supposed to be the best distancing LRF. Units have lifetime calibration warranty. Uses CR2 battery, which it turns out that rechargable versions are volts and mAh compatible with store bought non-rechargibles. (sp)
Cons:
Bushnell - Minimum 4 week turn around time on broken units. Lots of items showing up in the reticle simultaniously (sp). Made in CHINA (as opposed to Japan, like the Fusion Binocs). Suspect that they are limited via software to 1600 yards (have yet to get it to range over 1600 yards...)
Leica - Bad run of inital units. Hard to stabilize for distance ranging; typical of a small unit. No integrated tripod mount (you need to get one separately for about $100.00).
Swaroski - Uses CR2 battery. (These are harder find in stores.) Reticle brightness is not great. Difficult to take readings through other objects [e.g. shooting through two trees to get to a tower results in the range to the trees, not the tower. Especially true in situations where larger distance is involved. Suspect larger beam size that other two units, but have yet to veryfy this.
Re: leica crf 1600
I have a Leica 1600. Its one of the first one's. I was on a List for ever, to get it.
I range, 10" 12" 18" steel plates w/stands out to...1,170/ 1,200yrds.
and cars/tucks while putting up targets out to 1,500/1,600+yrds.
I have never used the other stuff on it, other than temp. and slope deg.
I have never had any probs.
LOBO 151
I have a Leica 1600. Its one of the first one's. I was on a List for ever, to get it.
I range, 10" 12" 18" steel plates w/stands out to...1,170/ 1,200yrds.
and cars/tucks while putting up targets out to 1,500/1,600+yrds.
I have never used the other stuff on it, other than temp. and slope deg.
I have never had any probs.
LOBO 151
Re: leica crf 1600
I may pick up another leica, but I'm going to put the swaroski through it's paces.
I may pick up another leica, but I'm going to put the swaroski through it's paces.
Re: leica crf 1600
good luck with your rangefinder hunt. I didn't even know bushnell came out with an elite 1600 - that's cool. I'll try ranging that pedestrian crossing sign straight on tomorrow and see if it ranges it. I'm only 122 yds away from the base of the sign at least
good luck with your rangefinder hunt. I didn't even know bushnell came out with an elite 1600 - that's cool. I'll try ranging that pedestrian crossing sign straight on tomorrow and see if it ranges it. I'm only 122 yds away from the base of the sign at least
Re: leica crf 1600
Here some INFO on the Bushnell Fusion.
http://www.cstactical.com/Magazine/Blog-...n-1600-ARC.html
Mike @ CST
Here some INFO on the Bushnell Fusion.
http://www.cstactical.com/Magazine/Blog-...n-1600-ARC.html
Mike @ CST
Re: leica crf 1600
well, i just took my leica 1600 out at night and from my deck i have a 4 way stop all at about 45 degree angles from where i was standing and about 112 yards away, i have a couple cars about 15 yds away.
It didn't range the fronts of any of the stop signs but it ranged the backs. As for the cars in the driveway next to me, it ranged the wheels at about 15 yds away, would not range the car/windows etc at all. Ranged some rooftops and windows at about 938 yds away though. It also ranged moving cars around that 4 way stop too.
I do have a bushnell pinseeker that i had for golf... it ranged all the stop signs, cars etc... but had trouble ranging the same rooftops 900+ yds away. funny stuff. hmmm.
Update: just talked to leica tech service, and they said it should range stop signs etc... they told me to send it in.
well, i just took my leica 1600 out at night and from my deck i have a 4 way stop all at about 45 degree angles from where i was standing and about 112 yards away, i have a couple cars about 15 yds away.
It didn't range the fronts of any of the stop signs but it ranged the backs. As for the cars in the driveway next to me, it ranged the wheels at about 15 yds away, would not range the car/windows etc at all. Ranged some rooftops and windows at about 938 yds away though. It also ranged moving cars around that 4 way stop too.
I do have a bushnell pinseeker that i had for golf... it ranged all the stop signs, cars etc... but had trouble ranging the same rooftops 900+ yds away. funny stuff. hmmm.
Update: just talked to leica tech service, and they said it should range stop signs etc... they told me to send it in.
Re: leica crf 1600
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SSGN8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You dont need info on ballistic curves if you spent time behind your stick, use the data that is in your (DOPE) book. sorry not trying to be a dick but put all your eggs in one basket.</div></div>
+1
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SSGN8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You dont need info on ballistic curves if you spent time behind your stick, use the data that is in your (DOPE) book. sorry not trying to be a dick but put all your eggs in one basket.</div></div>
+1
Re: leica crf 1600
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CSTACTICAL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here some INFO on the Bushnell Fusion.
http://www.cstactical.com/Magazine/Blog-...n-1600-ARC.html
Mike @ CST </div></div>
Just to be clear, that review is for the BINOCS, not the MONOCULAR.
The binocs are supposed to be fairly good at long distances, but I'm primarily comparing the:
- Leica 1600 CRF
- Swaroski Monocular LRF
- Bushnell Elite 1600 ARC MONOCULAR
So far Leica wins on size, Bushnell wins on cost, and Swaroski is supposed to win of distance.
I did get the Swaroski to range a church steeple (sp) this AM 1 time out of 30, and it came back with 1876 Yards. (google earth reports the distance as 1879 yards!)
(I was using a tripod...)
The beam devergence seems to be rather large, as it just can't help ranging closer objects... even objects outside the reticle.
The Lieca didn't do this.
The Bushnell has settings for ignoring brush, etc.
GB
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CSTACTICAL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here some INFO on the Bushnell Fusion.
http://www.cstactical.com/Magazine/Blog-...n-1600-ARC.html
Mike @ CST </div></div>
Just to be clear, that review is for the BINOCS, not the MONOCULAR.
The binocs are supposed to be fairly good at long distances, but I'm primarily comparing the:
- Leica 1600 CRF
- Swaroski Monocular LRF
- Bushnell Elite 1600 ARC MONOCULAR
So far Leica wins on size, Bushnell wins on cost, and Swaroski is supposed to win of distance.
I did get the Swaroski to range a church steeple (sp) this AM 1 time out of 30, and it came back with 1876 Yards. (google earth reports the distance as 1879 yards!)
(I was using a tripod...)
The beam devergence seems to be rather large, as it just can't help ranging closer objects... even objects outside the reticle.
The Lieca didn't do this.
The Bushnell has settings for ignoring brush, etc.
GB
Re: leica crf 1600
FYI:
I contacted Leica and asked if there was a range of serial numbers that they knew to be bad. They were VERY friendly and helpful.
The guy I spoke with indicated that they did not have a bad run of the units. Thought they did have some issues...
Basically, if you buy a new on and it doesn't range past several hundred yards on a light colored target, then you need to call them so that they send you a new one.
GB
FYI:
I contacted Leica and asked if there was a range of serial numbers that they knew to be bad. They were VERY friendly and helpful.
The guy I spoke with indicated that they did not have a bad run of the units. Thought they did have some issues...
Basically, if you buy a new on and it doesn't range past several hundred yards on a light colored target, then you need to call them so that they send you a new one.
GB
Re: leica crf 1600
Ok, just to hog the frigging thread:
I read on another board that a fellow had to test 9 Leica CRF 1600s in order to get one that would range properly past 1600 yards...
Ok, just to hog the frigging thread:
I read on another board that a fellow had to test 9 Leica CRF 1600s in order to get one that would range properly past 1600 yards...
Re: leica crf 1600
update again: i got my replacement leica in the mail yesterday and started ranging:
1) still doesn't range the stop sign or pedestrian crossing sign... might be at bad angles - i'll have to get perpendicular.
2) now it won't range rooftops 700+ yards away where my other one did no problem in the daylight. However, will range trees and windows over 1000 easily.
3) ranged a inverted corner of a house 1900 and 1700 yds away (at least that's what the rangefinder said) did it free hand - pretty tough to keep steady!
So i really don't know what to think?!
update again: i got my replacement leica in the mail yesterday and started ranging:
1) still doesn't range the stop sign or pedestrian crossing sign... might be at bad angles - i'll have to get perpendicular.
2) now it won't range rooftops 700+ yards away where my other one did no problem in the daylight. However, will range trees and windows over 1000 easily.
3) ranged a inverted corner of a house 1900 and 1700 yds away (at least that's what the rangefinder said) did it free hand - pretty tough to keep steady!
So i really don't know what to think?!
Re: leica crf 1600
I am trying to decide between the Leica CRF 1600 and the Bushnell elite 1600 arc monocular. I am going to be using it to range 2 ft. by 2 ft. steel targets up to 1000 yards in the open. Is either one better for my situation or should I save the money and get the Bushnell?
I am trying to decide between the Leica CRF 1600 and the Bushnell elite 1600 arc monocular. I am going to be using it to range 2 ft. by 2 ft. steel targets up to 1000 yards in the open. Is either one better for my situation or should I save the money and get the Bushnell?
Re: leica crf 1600
completely forgot to update, got my 3rd leica a little while ago, they had set one aside for me personally. It ranges out past 1300 at least, that's all i really have around my area so far. It still doesn't range that pedestrian sign 110 yds away... but oh well. I hear the bushnell makes great stuff, the fusion arc binos or monocular. Somebody had posted a beam divergence url that compared the vectronix, bushnell, swaro, leica. If i find it, i'll post it.
If you get a good leica (quality control-wise) they're pretty damn good! I'd say from what i read, the bushnell binos range farther, but with the "blu-ish" tint to the glass
completely forgot to update, got my 3rd leica a little while ago, they had set one aside for me personally. It ranges out past 1300 at least, that's all i really have around my area so far. It still doesn't range that pedestrian sign 110 yds away... but oh well. I hear the bushnell makes great stuff, the fusion arc binos or monocular. Somebody had posted a beam divergence url that compared the vectronix, bushnell, swaro, leica. If i find it, i'll post it.
If you get a good leica (quality control-wise) they're pretty damn good! I'd say from what i read, the bushnell binos range farther, but with the "blu-ish" tint to the glass
Re: leica crf 1600
Yeah, the bushnell elite arc 1600 is very good. The features of the Leica are what I like, and the glass is outstanding.
The bushnell above (monocular) cannot be beaten for the price.
I didn't like the glass on the binocs.
PLEASE POST A LINK TO THE BEAM DEVERGENCE ARTICLE!
Yeah, the bushnell elite arc 1600 is very good. The features of the Leica are what I like, and the glass is outstanding.
The bushnell above (monocular) cannot be beaten for the price.
I didn't like the glass on the binocs.
PLEASE POST A LINK TO THE BEAM DEVERGENCE ARTICLE!
Similar threads
