• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Leica HD-B ballistic function

lennyo3034

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 18, 2010
3,065
932
39
USA
Does anyone use this and how well does it compare to a kestrel elite?

If I can replace binos/rangefinder/kestral with just one unit I'll do it. But I don't know how powerful or accurate the ballistic function is in the HD-B. Anyone have experience?
 
Bump, no one is using these?

I called Leica but they couldn't help. I asked if the HD-B could output drops in mils or if it was MOA only.
 
Do you have these already or are you looking at buying a new model like the HD-B 3000? I don't have HD-B's, but I am pretty familiar with Leica ballistics capabilities, especially vis a vis a kestrel Elite. But it depends which set you are referring to.
 
Okay, so a basic rundown on Leica ballistics. Basically, it takes temp, pressure and angle of shot into account to give you a shooting solution. On all Leica B models, you choose your sight in distance and then choose from 12 different presets...these are limited IMO, and I found them only useful to about 600ish yards, after that, things started to diverge. This will vary depending on how far from the closest preset curve your curve actually is....mine was almost right in the middle of two curves, so it had maximum error...so YMMV depending on your ballistics.

However, on the newer B models, like the 2200, you can also input an SD card with a custom curve that you generate on their site. In my experience, accuracy improves dramatically in terms of your solution by using the custom curve, even though it uses G1's only. When using a custom curve, it will give you a solution out to 1000 yards, and the new ones (including the 2200 IIRC) will do it in MOA if you like.

So how does it compare to a Kestrel Elite...in my testing, I found that the base data was very close....that is....pressure readings and temperature agreed....initially. Temperature was the problem, and the drift is exhibited with all of these devices....Sig, Leica, Kestrel etc. That is, if you are in a warm car and get out into the cold, your reading will be wrong for a while, quite a while in many cases. Conversely, if you take your device out of your pack and hold it in your warm hands or set it in the sun or whatever, your reading will climb and be wrong. I have sat and watched the readings climb and climb until they were 10-15 degrees off of the initial reading. Others have reported even higher disparities. With the Kestrel, they know this already, so they instruct you to clear the sensor by swinging it around by the lanyard and then immediately lock the reading. Easy and quick. But the RF/weatherstation combo devices don't have this clearing capability, (though you can lock, but not clear, your reading on the 2400 ABS IIRC, but it's not easily done IMO and useless if you are going from a warm truck to the cold, for example).

How much does it matter....depends how far you are shooting and just how extreme the difference is.....stepping out of an 75 degree truck into 10 degree weather...and quickly taking a loooong shot....yeah, that might be a bit of an issue. Likewise, sitting out in the sun for an hour letting the thing heat up...could be an issue. Whether that matters to you, I can't say, but it is a consideration. All in all, it means that if you are shooting very long where a temp disparity might matter to you so you want the temp to be absolutely right for your solution, the Kestrel is the best choice at this time for that role.

That aside, the other thing Leica's current ballistics don't do, and one reason they limit the distance for their solution, is that their solver will not take into consideration higher level forces like coriolis, aero jump, spin drift etc. In this way, it is just like the AB lite solver in the new Sigs, which also limits the distance of your solution. At mid ranges, this isn't really an issue to me, but some don't like this.

So as far as accuracy of your solution, if you are in a situation where these forces are insignificant (either due to distance or conditions/direction of shot etc.) and that temp has not drifted or has drifted equally, Leica's solver is actually pretty much right on (assuming the use of a custom curve of course). When I tested mine against my Kestrel, which was loaded with a custom drag curve, they were within .1MOA of each other all the way out to 1000 yards, with the before mentioned stipulations.

I would say the best way to understand Leica's ballistic system capabilities is to consider that has been around for a while, and is geared to the hunter that shot long when long was not as long as we think of it now. It is good at what it was designed to do...provide a fast, solid solution to what many would now call mid range shots in hunting conditions, and this, IME, it does very well. However, if you are looking to use it for long range, a Kestrel will provide better ballistic info at those distances.

I feel your pain about the multiple devices...I run binos/a 2700b/Kestrel Elite. When out hunting, it's all in an AGC pack on my chest, so no biggie carrying it all, but man, it would be nice to have one device to range, read, dial. Just one. Thats a great workflow. But honestly, when it comes to hunting, I am kinda there with my 2700....that is...I find it's ballistics, even with the temp issue, being plenty fine for the length of shots I personally would take. Coriolis etc really is not a factor at my personal hunting distances. Other people, that's not the case....but in those circumstances, I think you have plenty of time, so the separate device workflow is not really much of a factor. There is one other thing to consider with the 'all in ones'....and this may only apply at my modest tax bracket...and that is....electronics fail or are superceded a lot faster than optics performance. If I can split out the breakable/or 'will become obsolete' electronic portions...then I only need to replace that one part instead of all of them.

That said, if you got the money to upgrade/replace as needed/desired...there is no arguing with the speed and superior workflow of an all in one.

TMK, at this time, there is no one device that can actually do it all at top shelf levels....that is, no one has a bino with full integrated AB. Sig has a bino coming that will pair to a Kestrel, offloading the heavy lifting there when you want the full suite, but having a lite version (akin to what Leica currently has) onboard if you leave your Kestrel behind. I would bet Leica will not be far behind with a similar bino, but that is supposition on my part.

Hope that helps, if you have any other questions, glad to try and answer or get answers for you. BTW, still on the table to spend some time chatting with them about their products, plans, philosophy etc for a short write up sometime, hopefully!, in the next month or so, so if you have any questions, toss 'em my way and if it comes off, I'll add it to the list and ask.
 
Thank you for the very detailed explanation.

That answers almost all my questions. I have one more though, will it output drops in MILs?
 
Do you have these already or are you looking at buying a new model like the HD-B 3000? I don't have HD-B's, but I am pretty familiar with Leica ballistics capabilities, especially vis a vis a kestrel Elite. But it depends which set you are referring to.
Thanks for all your post on the Leica crf’s. Just like the OP I’m looking at the option of picking up a Bino/rangefinder combo. There are some deals out there on the 2200 hd-b which range wise would exceed my needs for ranging distance. The 3000 hd-bs are slowly trickling out and my question to you is I believe the ranging reticle and the display have seen some changes, I’ve read they are an improvement over the previous Leica crf’s and Bino’s Can you explain to me the difference and would you pay more for that and why. Thanks.
 
The big difference is 3000 yards of ranging and a beam divergence only HALF the size. So it should be much easier to range critters at long range, I had the original 8x42 HD-B and it would only range a yote to about 600 yards. With the new crf 2700B guys are ranging yotes over 1000 yards. That is huge to longrange varmint hunters like me.
 
Devildog,

So what I know about the changes comes from using the CRF's...1600b in the past, now the 2700b, and a fair amount of conversation with Leica. The reticle itself, honestly, I don't think it's all that big a deal change from what I remember about the old one. The new one is smaller and the display gives distances to the decimal under a certain yardage...the old reticle, IIRC, was larger and the display would not give decimals. Both of these things, to my mind, are meh....

However, the reason that the reticle size has changed is significant, and it is because, the 2200 and earlier bino RF's had a beam divergence of 2.7x1 MILS...the newer 3000 is the same as the 2700b....1.2x .5. So significantly smaller. When I talked to Leica about this last week, they told me that the width of the beam (1.2 MILS) is supposed to be matched with the inside edges of the new reticle. To me, this change is significant. That smaller divergence really starts to pay off as the distances stretch and targets shrink. And Leica is smart in that it is wider than taller, so you are less likely to hit things in front of or behind the target. Incidentally (or not), the new Vec X has the same beam divergence....as we know, there is a partnership there with some sharing of tech. How much we don't know, and Leica has steadfastly refused to share much with me in that regard.

Anyway, from my memory of the old display, yeah, it's nice to have a finer aiming point, but what good is that if your beam is larger. The new one's real improvement, in that regard, is that the beam is much smaller, with a correspondingly smaller reticle. Would I pay more for it....mmmmaybe, depends how much more. But another thing to consider is you are getting more horsepower, more than 1/3 more. Which means your headroom for difficult conditions gets higher. What I mean by this is that every Leica I have personally tried has hit their 'number' under decent conditions....that is the 2700 will hit 2700 yards under decent conditions with the right target, 2800 plus under ideal ones. But you can't pull those numbers all the time. Knock the goal number down a bit....say 2000 yards, and it'll do that much more easily, under many more conditions and really fast. Okay, my 1600 was almost exactly the same....scaled down. 1600 yards in decent conditions, 1700 plus in ideal conditions, and like 1200 more easily.

So if I'm spending someone else's money on an all in one, and it would have to be someone else's money in my tax bracket!, here is how I would go about it. The optics are going to be great and they will be not be much superceded for a very long time. Assuming the electronics don't crap out, the only other thing I would be concerned with is the tech curve...and as I don't want to replace these any time soon, I want to be as I high up on that tech curve as I can afford so that I can be as close to cutting edge, in terms of performance, as possible for as long as possible. Glass between the ones you are considering is all the sameish. But in the 3000 you get a stronger laser with a smaller divergence and the corresponding smaller reticle. Those are good upgrades to my mind if you can swing it. I say that, but then I am spending your money here, not mine. A quick look and it looks like 2200's can be had in the 2250 ish range, and maybe less if you were getting them from Doug or whatever, I don't know. 3000's are close to 2950. $700 is a lot of coin. That said, if you were to pay 2250 for a 2200, that's $1.02 per yard or ranging. A 3000 at 2950 is .98 a yard. Plus you get the better divergence. OTH, I bet you can find a better than 2250 deal for the 2200.

Sorry to make it so convoluted. The short answer would have been, yeah, the reticle is a little different and the display is a little different, but the beam divergence is definitely a step up along with the obvious power increase. Whether that is worth it to you, well, I'm too poor to answer that question objectively!

But I hope that helps you decide!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devildog
The big difference is 3000 yards of ranging and a beam divergence only HALF the size. So it should be much easier to range critters at long range, I had the original 8x42 HD-B and it would only range a yote to about 600 yards. With the new crf 2700B guys are ranging yotes over 1000 yards. That is huge to longrange varmint hunters like me.
Thanks for the heads up I missed that detail, the 3000 beam divergence is half the size of the 2200. I called Leica and they told me the only diffence was the ranging distance. They mentioned nothing of beam divergence or the new display guess I spoke to the wrong rep.
 
Devildog,

So what I know about the changes comes from using the CRF's...1600b in the past, now the 2700b, and a fair amount of conversation with Leica. The reticle itself, honestly, I don't think it's all that big a deal change from what I remember about the old one. The new one is smaller and the display gives distances to the decimal under a certain yardage...the old reticle, IIRC, was larger and the display would not give decimals. Both of these things, to my mind, are meh....

However, the reason that the reticle size has changed is significant, and it is because, the 2200 and earlier bino RF's had a beam divergence of 2.7x1 MILS...the newer 3000 is the same as the 2700b....1.2x .5. So significantly smaller. When I talked to Leica about this last week, they told me that the width of the beam (1.2 MILS) is supposed to be matched with the inside edges of the new reticle. To me, this change is significant. That smaller divergence really starts to pay off as the distances stretch and targets shrink. And Leica is smart in that it is wider than taller, so you are less likely to hit things in front of or behind the target. Incidentally (or not), the new Vec X has the same beam divergence....as we know, there is a partnership there with some sharing of tech. How much we don't know, and Leica has steadfastly refused to share much with me in that regard.

Anyway, from my memory of the old display, yeah, it's nice to have a finer aiming point, but what good is that if your beam is larger. The new one's real improvement, in that regard, is that the beam is much smaller, with a correspondingly smaller reticle. Would I pay more for it....mmmmaybe, depends how much more. But another thing to consider is you are getting more horsepower, more than 1/3 more. Which means your headroom for difficult conditions gets higher. What I mean by this is that every Leica I have personally tried has hit their 'number' under decent conditions....that is the 2700 will hit 2700 yards under decent conditions with the right target, 2800 plus under ideal ones. But you can't pull those numbers all the time. Knock the goal number down a bit....say 2000 yards, and it'll do that much more easily, under many more conditions and really fast. Okay, my 1600 was almost exactly the same....scaled down. 1600 yards in decent conditions, 1700 plus in ideal conditions, and like 1200 more easily.

So if I'm spending someone else's money on an all in one, and it would have to be someone else's money in my tax bracket!, here is how I would go about it. The optics are going to be great and they will be not be much superceded for a very long time. Assuming the electronics don't crap out, the only other thing I would be concerned with is the tech curve...and as I don't want to replace these any time soon, I want to be as I high up on that tech curve as I can afford so that I can be as close to cutting edge, in terms of performance, as possible for as long as possible. Glass between the ones you are considering is all the sameish. But in the 3000 you get a stronger laser with a smaller divergence and the corresponding smaller reticle. Those are good upgrades to my mind if you can swing it. I say that, but then I am spending your money here, not mine. A quick look and it looks like 2200's can be had in the 2250 ish range, and maybe less if you were getting them from Doug or whatever, I don't know. 3000's are close to 2950. $700 is a lot of coin. That said, if you were to pay 2250 for a 2200, that's $1.02 per yard or ranging. A 3000 at 2950 is .98 a yard. Plus you get the better divergence. OTH, I bet you can find a better than 2250 deal for the 2200.

Sorry to make it so convoluted. The short answer would have been, yeah, the reticle is a little different and the display is a little different, but the beam divergence is definitely a step up along with the obvious power increase. Whether that is worth it to you, well, I'm too poor to answer that question objectively!

But I hope that helps you decide!


Thank you that helps a lot, I have a 1600b and they have been great. I need a good set of binos plus the 7x magnification isn’t enough for my aging eyes. With this new understanding of the differences for me it’s worth the extra $. Thanks for your time and efforts to reply. This helps to settle my decision.
 
Last edited:
I ended up ordering the 2200, based on the info presented here. Thank you very much.
 
@catorres1 So how does the beam divergence on the CRF2700-B compare to the HD-B 3000 binos? And the CRF has the same ability to have the custom curve on a SD card correct?
 
@catorres1 So how does the beam divergence on the CRF2700-B compare to the HD-B 3000 binos? And the CRF has the same ability to have the custom curve on a SD card correct?

The divergence on the 2700 and the 3000 are (effectively) the same. I say effectively because in some literature, you will read 1.2x.5 and in other literature 1.25x.5 for the binos. My contact at Leica says they are effectively the same.

As for the card, yes, the CRF 2700 takes a card like the HD 3000. It is worth noting that the 2700 is the only CRF in Leica's lineup that takes the card at this time. For me, if you are buying a Leica CRF, it's the one to have, if only for this ability.
 
I got the 2200 HD-B and got it set up.

Within 800 yards it measured with 1yard of my kilo2200.

I put a custom curve into the Leica website and uploaded it onto an SD card. I used the AB app and custom curve on my phone to come up with the G1 for a 140 hunting VLD at 2750. Drops were within .1 mil out to 1000.

So far everything I've range has matched the AB software, but I've only tested out to 300 or so, doesn't mean much.

The longest shot I plan to take on this rifle is 800 and even then that will be under ideal conditions when I have absolute confidence in the shot.

I'm going on a hike this weekend and with bring it along with kilo/kestrel/phone combo and compare the two systems.
 
Lenny,

I just posted an update to my review on the 2700b which might be useful to you because I learned some interesting stuff about how Leica's software interacts with seriously VLD bullets. Check it out for more detail, but long and short, the farther you get from a 'G1' form factor bullet, the less accurate it becomes. Fortunately, the fix is easy and I was able to bring my returns to back within .1 MOA with a little tweaking. So if you see some discrepancy, there is an easy solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CDNsldr
Lenny,

I just posted an update to my review on the 2700b which might be useful to you because I learned some interesting stuff about how Leica's software interacts with seriously VLD bullets. Check it out for more detail, but long and short, the farther you get from a 'G1' form factor bullet, the less accurate it becomes. Fortunately, the fix is easy and I was able to bring my returns to back within .1 MOA with a little tweaking. So if you see some discrepancy, there is an easy solution.

Thanks. I tinkered with the BC a little to get it close but did not mess with velocity. I will try both.

I ended up with .589 G1 for the 140 VLD which seems a bit low.
 
Lenny,

I just posted an update to my review on the 2700b which might be useful to you because I learned some interesting stuff about how Leica's software interacts with seriously VLD bullets. Check it out for more detail, but long and short, the farther you get from a 'G1' form factor bullet, the less accurate it becomes. Fortunately, the fix is easy and I was able to bring my returns to back within .1 MOA with a little tweaking. So if you see some discrepancy, there is an easy solution.

Thanks. I tinkered with the BC a little to get it close but did not mess with velocity. I will try both.

I ended up with .589 G1 for the 140 VLD which seems a bit low.

Im hoping you guys can shed some light on my issues with Leicas ballistics...

I created a new thread here > https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/leicas-abc-set-up-problems-vs-ab-elite.7079694/

I’ve got massive tragectory differences between the app and AB.

Are you guys comparing the data shown in leicas app (trajectory) to AB data?

For example my 300 yard drop in real life (and on AB) is around 25”. Leicas trajectory is showing 12”. That’s a huge margin of error.

I feel like I’m banging my head off the wall trying to get Leicas ballistics to even come close to Applied Ballistics.

37B1CBAA-3A1D-4BA4-B1F8-BD28E94FEDCA.png
 

Attachments

  • 7F3787C7-AB6E-4B29-B7B7-3C5318D40C2A.png
    7F3787C7-AB6E-4B29-B7B7-3C5318D40C2A.png
    816.9 KB · Views: 36
25” at 300 yards does not sound right. You sure that’s not your 400 yard drop?
So this is kinda adding to my confusion. My kestrel calls for 4.01moa at 300 yds, but when I go to the “ballistics” menu it says there is 25.53” of drop. 4.01moa at 300yds = approx 12.6”

So why is my kestrel telling me there is 25.53” of drop?
 

Attachments

  • 211B5566-8E7D-4842-85F8-CCD88ED5DEAA.jpeg
    211B5566-8E7D-4842-85F8-CCD88ED5DEAA.jpeg
    516.3 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
So this is kinda adding to my confusion. My kestrel calls for 4.01moa at 300 yds, but when I go to the “ballistics” menu it says there is 25.53” of drop. 4.01moa at 300yds = approx 16.8”.

So why is my kestrel telling me there is 25.53” of drop?
Drop in the ballistics menu is not your holdover. It is the amount it drops from the highest point in it's flight. That is not what you want to dial. The 4.01 MOA is your elevation solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CDNsldr
Drop in the ballistics menu is not your holdover. It is the amount it drops from the highest point in it's flight. That is not what you want to dial. The 4.01 MOA is your elevation solution.
So that makes total sense! I had a feeling it was something like that.

So I guess the easiest way to compare Leica data to AB is to change AB output to inches (or cm if you’re metric), as Leica only gives hold over as a measurement in the app.
Thanks again!
 
Im hoping you guys can shed some light on my issues with Leicas ballistics...

I created a new thread here > https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/leicas-abc-set-up-problems-vs-ab-elite.7079694/

I’ve got massive tragectory differences between the app and AB.

Are you guys comparing the data shown in leicas app (trajectory) to AB data?

For example my 300 yard drop in real life (and on AB) is around 25”. Leicas trajectory is showing 12”. That’s a huge margin of error.

I feel like I’m banging my head off the wall trying to get Leicas ballistics to even come close to Applied Ballistics.

View attachment 7635230
In terms of the drops coming from Leica, MOA being 1.047", they are very close. The Leica app is calling for 12.36 inches at 300, whereas 4.01 MOA equates to 12.59". If I am doing my math right (always a big if!), that equates to a .07 MOA difference. That said, yes, I always check my data against my Kestrel data, which I true at the range. AB has always been pretty much spot on for me if I pay attention to the details. Though you are on at 300, I would run the numbers out, as usually disparities show either in the midrange (600-750ish) or at the end of Leica's numbers...1kish. Depending on what you find, you may need to tweak your BC and/or velocity to get them to match....which probably won't be exact but usually .1-.2 MOAish.
 
So that makes total sense! I had a feeling it was something like that.

So I guess the easiest way to compare Leica data to AB is to change AB output to inches (or cm if you’re metric), as Leica only gives hold over as a measurement in the app.
Thanks again!
Yes, that's the easiest way...AB calls it 'shooters MOA'.

But you also need to make sure of the following....
Coriolis and Aero jump are set to 0...Leica cannot calculate these. Depending on the range, the effect will be small, if you are trying to get to the .1MOA range of agreement out to 1kish, they matter.
Pressure and temp are locked to the same settings as you put in the Leica. Again, could be small difference (or large depending on where you are at the moment), but tolerance stacking is what we are looking at here, which matters when trying to get as close as possible to agreement between your solutions.

My son ran off to Idaho to hunt bears with most of my stuff, including my Kestrel and one of my Leicas, so I won't have them on hand for a few weeks. But feel free to PM me with your phone number if a phone call would be useful and i'd be glad to try and help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CDNsldr
Yes, that's the easiest way...AB calls it 'shooters MOA'.

But you also need to make sure of the following....
Coriolis and Aero jump are set to 0...Leica cannot calculate these. Depending on the range, the effect will be small, if you are trying to get to the .1MOA range of agreement out to 1kish, they matter.
Pressure and temp are locked to the same settings as you put in the Leica. Again, could be small difference (or large depending on where you are at the moment), but tolerance stacking is what we are looking at here, which matters when trying to get as close as possible to agreement between your solutions.

My son ran off to Idaho to hunt bears with most of my stuff, including my Kestrel and one of my Leicas, so I won't have them on hand for a few weeks. But feel free to PM me with your phone number if a phone call would be useful and i'd be glad to try and help.
AB also has an option for output in inches, as well as SMOA.

Thanks for the held Hide!

After a couple minutes of tinkering I got Leica's app to match AB with less than 1 inch diffence out to 950 yds. Just had to lower BC from .697 to .619.