What is the actual difference between the Kilo 2000 and 2200?

[TheGerman]

I have a 2000, and while I like it, the huge ass circle makes ranging at distances on targets that aren't a deer or a shed or something a bit of a guessing game as to if you actually hit what you were wanting, or the berm 40 yards behind it.

What's the actual differences between the 2200 and the 2000? Tried to search online and its just a ton of half reviews with no pictures of the reticle or a page full of 'I ranged a cow at 1674 yards!'.

Is the reticle/circle drastically smaller? Any other upgrades?

 

[quietmike]

According to the brochure on my 2200 it has the same specs of the 2400, just without the atmosperics and AB add ons.

I've never used the 2000, so I can't give a direct comparison but I had no issue ranging individual steel targets from full size silhouette to a 4'x4' at 1250 yards at the range,except for trying to hold it steady.

 

[atxhorn4425]

I owned a 2000 and swapped it for a 2200 when they came out. Supposedly the circle is smaller, but the difference doesn't seem that large to me though I didn't look through them side by side. The 2200 is supposed to have slightly increased range (specs say 1300 vs 1200 for deer and 1600 vs 1500 for trees) and adds the option to use a milling reticle. Beam divergence is the same at 1.3 MRAD.

Honestly, I got a steal on the 2000 and paid full price for the 2200, so I probably shouldn't have swapped them. The 2200 has a couple of minor feature upgrades but wasn't worth the extra $150 I paid. Both are great rangefinders for the price - using them side by side with my buddies Leica 1600B, the difference in speed is night and day. I can get five measurements from the Sig in the time it takes to get one from the Leica - and that's not using the scanning mode.

 

[MilDot1960]

Tried to search online and its just a ton of half reviews with no pictures of the reticle or a page full of 'I ranged a cow at 1674 yards!'.

Yep I agree 100% and I am about to post something about that issue.

John.

 

[TheGerman]

Yep I agree 100% and I am about to post something about that issue.

John.

Waiting

I like the 2000 for <1000 but past that, especially given the huge circle at that range, its unreliable in the fact that I'm not sure WTF I'm actually ranging.

 

[MilDot1960]

Waiting

I like the 2000 for <1000 but past that, especially given the huge circle at that range, its unreliable in the fact that I'm not sure WTF I'm actually ranging.

From what I have seen with the sig LRF's the aim point of the circle is right at the very base of it or just below it,

I found the same lack of info available regarding the Bushnell Conx, and that many reviews are just copy and paste with the authors preloaded greetings being the only difference. I have since been in contact with Bushnell and forwarded any info to them, It seems that many of these LRF's make it to market with very little info to help the user get the best out of them which is why so many people have mixed reviews of them,

Field testers appear to be preoccupied with listing the Common well known features but know very little about the product it's self,

John.

 

[cschaub]

​​​Just like the OP I too was happy with the range capabilities of the kilo 2000, but absolutely hated the hoola-hoop size aiming reticle. When I heard about the new Gen 2200mr I tried to get info on just how much smaller it was.
I contacted a hide member who was selling the 2200mr if he could help with a comparison. Basically the I.D. for the aiming circle on the 2200mr is 2.4 mil in dia.
I bought one and recieved yesterday. Here is a pic showing the diff. Target was @100yds with two 8.5x11 card stock paper attached

I was able to range deer@ 800yds last night. At those ranges the deer filled up reticle nicely. Definitely an improvement over 2000 model.

 

[cschaub]

Well the picture sucks, so.... If you are really curious, PM me your number and I'll send you the pic

 

[Nik H]

From what i have read, the only real difference is the laser. The 2200 uses a class 3R versus a class 1 in the 2000. A class 3R CAN have significantly higher power (5X) but it doesn't mean that it does. I have read that it also has a smaller and easier aiming reticle but can't really substantiate that part of it. The higher power laser may account for the slight improvement in ranging that is being claimed.

The 2400, aside from the sensors and AB solver, also has glass optics (lenses) whereas the 2200 and 2000 use plastics which also should account for some improvement in the 2400s ranging.