Range Finder / Ballistic Weather Meter

[Full Otto Tactical]

New to precision shooting. Looking for advice on a good range finder for long distance/hunting. Also, Ballistic weather meter, should I get one, if so which?

I saw a Bushnell combo kit that appeared to be a decent price. However I have no background in this.

 

[_Windrider_]

The Bushnell combo you speak of is a good starter set. You can upgrade the range finder as you find it necessary. Lots of threads on it in the equipment forums.

 

[culater]

Get the Leica 1600 B new or used if you can find one it will be more than enough for what you need for years to come

 

[Deleted member 113831]

New to precision shooting. Looking for advice on a good range finder for long distance/hunting. Also, Ballistic weather meter, should I get one, if so which?

I saw a Bushnell combo kit that appeared to be a decent price. However I have no background in this.

Take this for what you will, but here is my opinion.

Get a good laser rangefinder, and get a G-Shock watch that gives you absolute pressure, get the cheapest kestrel to give you wind and temp. That's it. Then you can use AB app on your phone, or Strelok, or Hornady 4DOF....whatever. They all work plenty well enough to 1000 yards if fed good info.

The "Good" info part...there is the rub. There are legions of people posting on this site, looking for help to unfuck thier Kestrels, thier wind meters, et al. Don't get anything that fucking bluetooths or connects to your phone or to some other signal. Collect your environmentals from reliable instruments separately, and put them in yourself. This will not only help you learn what factors actually make the most difference, it will allow you to actually shoot and collect usable data without worrying about unfucking your shit because the last update grenaded all the data in your device.

All these "shooters" are looking for a plug and play magic box to tell them what they should already know. Don't be that guy.

 

[tadawson]

I respectfully disagree . . . Watching a lot of the threads here (and not to point this at anyone in particular), but sometimes the weak link isn't the technology, it's the user. For instance, I see a lot of folks griping that wind direction on the Kestrel is wrong, and finding out that it's reported relative to DOF, not absolute . . . clear evidence that the docs have either not been read (or not understood). Yeah, simple is harder to screw up, but if that is the case, why don't we all drive 4 cylinder carbureted cars with a manual choke, and a manual transmission? Most of this stuff works fine once the user fully understands it, and that's not a fault of the product . . . It's a clear tendency in the latter years of folks just plain not wanting to take the time to bother to learn anything . . .

And if all else does go tits up, the stuff with connectivity works fine manually - there really isn't a down side (perhaps other than cost).
The *upside* is, though, is that the technology is faster, and you can't mis-enter values while rushing.

IMHO . . .

- Tim

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I respectfully disagree . . . Watching a lot of the threads here (and not to point this at anyone in particular), but sometimes the weak link isn't the technology, it's the user. For instance, I see a lot of folks griping that wind direction on the Kestrel is wrong, and finding out that it's reported relative to DOF, not absolute . . . clear evidence that the docs have either not been read (or not understood). Yeah, simple is harder to screw up, but if that is the case, why don't we all drive 4 cylinder carbureted cars with a manual choke, and a manual transmission? Most of this stuff works fine once the user fully understands it, and that's not a fault of the product . . . It's a clear tendency in the latter years of folks just plain not wanting to take the time to bother to learn anything . . .

And if all else does go tits up, the stuff with connectivity works fine manually - there really isn't a down side (perhaps other than cost).
The *upside* is, though, is that the technology is faster, and you can't mis-enter values while rushing.

IMHO . . .

- Tim

Learning to run your equipment wasn't the thrust of my argument. The point is the information uptake portion of it. If your device is collecting absolute pressure, temperature, firing azimuth and wind speed, and it is doing it automatically and spitting out a number for you; then what are you learning?

We have very quickly gone from the dark ages, when most of this stuff was voodoo to all but the most experienced shooters, to a level of automation that has skipped right over competent proficiency with the individual elements involved in a firing solution.

I'm only against the use of tech when it actually impedes understanding rather than furthering it.

I could actually make the same argument for some of the rifles used. Maybe some people think that free recoiling an 15-18 pound super wind cheater 6mm makes them a marksman, or even a good shot. I don't think so. I recognize others disagree, that's OK.

 

[tadawson]

Well, not rudimentary typing and brainless transfer of number X from screen A to device B, that's for certain. Manual or automatic, nothing to be learned there . . . If you are advocating doing the calcs/holdovers/wind estimates manually, that's another thing. All I heard was use the devices that force you to transfer information between them by hand, which is a no-brain required operation, just a time sink . . .

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Well, not rudimentary typing and brainless transfer of number X from screen A to device B, that's for certain. Manual or automatic, nothing to be learned there . . . If you are advocating doing the calcs/holdovers/wind estimates manually, that's another thing. All I heard was use the devices that force you to transfer information between them by hand, which is a no-brain required operation, just a time sink . . .

If you think of that time spent as mindless data transfer, then you would have a point.

Keeping track of environmentals individually and inputting them in manually gives opportunity to actually think about the trends and patterns observed, to anticipate the changes.

There are people that can literally ask you the BC of your bullet, the muzzle velocity and the temp and altitude in which your rifle was zero'd and pull dope and a wind call out of thier head and put you within a couple of tenths at 1000+ yards. I know a couple of them, and I've watched them do it over and over again with many different calibers and bullets.That is a true understanding. That is what I strive for. I'm not that good, but that is my goal. It's not everyone's goal, I get that. But how many "shooters" these days even know thier baseline dope by heart?

If this is just a game, then it doesn't matter. If it is a life skill, a potentially critical life saving skill, then it deserves so much more attention and respect than it is being given.

I know you will probably disagree, that's OK. I've said my peace, and I'll not harp on it anymore today.

Good shooting,

 

[tadawson]

Nah, can't argue, and it's what I was thinking. When you suggested just getting basic devices, I took that as 'get the same data, input it yourself' . . . nothing more.

But then again, a purist could probably do it with a sock on a pole and a wet finger