range finder recommendations?

[wileynet]

drew a ML elk tag, last tag i drew was in 1977 so i dont want to mess this up! searching reviews on the internet almost all are written by the  people who sell them, first off i dont have unlimited funds so keep that in mind, what are you using?

[PowPow]

I have a Bushnell Yardage Pro 450.
Great price.
Accurate if you have a bright fairly big object to reflect off of.
Haven't used anything else to compare it to.

[Graybeard]

All I've ever owned have been Bushnell and I've been happy with them. I'd not get one with a 450 range on it tho as that number is never what it will do on game. The first I had was the original 400 and it would do that on trees and buildings but not even on cattle.

These days they have some compact enough to fit a shirt pocket that claim to be 1000 yard units and that's what I have now. It seems to really do a great job and from my house here there is nothing visible far enough off that it can't be ranged using it.

Still if I were gonna buy another I'd buy the Bushnell 1500 and I likely will some day if I ever go west again. It's not as compact and won't fit a shirt pocket but if you see an elk and can't range it with the 1500 it's way too far to be shooting at. Really I believe that would apply to the 1000 compact unit I have now as well. I was ranging prairie dogs with it out to about 600 yards and if there was something with a bush or tree nearby it ranged out beyond a thousand even.

[Ladobe]

Back when I used them it was for long range predator and varmint hunting, I never felt the need for big game hunting.  I used a Bushnell Yardage Pro 1000 and Leica LRF 800.   They both had there good points and uses, always came back within a yard or two of each other, but the BYP was far more versatile and would score on targets the Leica wouldn't.   For my use the BYP's 6X verses 4X magnification mattered, as did the abilty to mount the BYP on a tripod.    The BYP also had far more op modes, some of which I never bothered with.   Cost wise the BYP was a better deal at the time than the Leica.   I did come very close to buying a Leica Geovid as well, but they had recently changed their system to one not as good as previously, and I only wanted a brand new old model for that much money (and couldn't find one).
 
I'm years out of touch now on LRF's, doubt the BYP like I had is still made, maybe not the basic Leica either.  for comparison...
 
Refurbished BYP 1000 like I had...
http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=BH201000R
 
And a used Leica LRF 800 on Ebay...
http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Leica-LRF-800-Rangefinder-/70273472

[Lloyd Smale]

keep in mind that that actual usable range of one is about a 1/4 to a 1/3 less then whats claimed. That been said i wouldnt even fool with one that wasnt at least a 1000 yard unit. My 1000 yard bushnell will work out to around 650-700 yards. I feel that if its to far to range its to far to shoot for sure. Now with a 450 yard unit that runs out of steam at 350 to me anyway its about a waste. I could care less if a deer is 250 or 350. Most of my guns are sighted in to hold dead on at those ranges anyway. Its when you get out past 400 that you really need a rangefinder.

[Catfish]

I have owned Bushnell, Nicon, Leupold and Lica. Of the ones I have had the Lica 1200 is the best by a good ways. One thing you should know is that when it comes to rangeing game none of them are good for more than 1/2 the distance they claim. Many time you have to range something close to the game that is large enough to get a reflection from.

[Ladobe]

Well, for me they did range close to their listed range when varmint hunting, sometimes well beyond it on a good target.   But then for that use they were also ranging bright mounds, rocks, fence posts, well heads, or other implements and not fur in otherwise plant covered CRP and AG fields.   IOW much easier targets than a game animal, even a large one.   One of the negatives with the Leica is it didn't read highly reflective targets in full sun worth squat at any range, and the BYP did.  FWIW

[wileynet]

any thoughts on a simmons, reading the posts, what i need to be doing is ranging the objects around where im shooting, then put the thing away, almost like using ranging stakes

[Lloyd Smale]

Ive allways preached to buy the best you can afford but have used lecias and ziess rangefinders and didnt see them outperforming the bushnells. Id be a bit leary about buying a simmons though. Not that i really know as ive never used one but most of the products i have used werent top shelf.

[Dave in WV]

I don't have a need for a range finder so I don't own one. That said if I had a need for one it would have an inclineometer built into it unless all I was going to hunt was flat land.

[Empty Quiver]

any thoughts on a simmons, reading the posts, what i need to be doing is ranging the objects around where im shooting, then put the thing away, almost like using ranging stakes

I have an old model it is relatively weak, and this is exactly how I use it. I will back up my findings with the GPS on occasion as well. The GPS really does a good job of demonstrating the effect of extreme uphill and downhill shots on range estimation.
 
If you are hunting the same drainage daily you can use the range finder a bunch the first couple days then it all starts to sink in and then you'll be using it much less

[FPH]

i

[Sourdough]

I have and carry two.  A Bushnell yardage Pro 1000 and a Leupold RX 1000 w/TBR.  Sometimes one will range an animal but the other one won't.  It varies.  Both have trouble sometimes ranging beyond 800 yards.  I am looking at a 1500 yard unit.

But back to your need for a rangefinder for use with a muzzleloader.  I would not go with anything less than a 400 yard unit.  Yes your shots will be much shorter than that, but they don't range as far as they claim either.  Find someone that has one and give it a try before choosing your unit.  Not in the back yard either, but out in the woods where you can use trees and rock faces as well as animals.  Try ranging cows out in a meadow, or sheep.

[wileynet]

guy down the street had a NIB simmons lost his job ans sold it to me for 50 bucks, used on my elk hunt and a recent mule deer hunt, my caller for the elk was using a leupold mine was + or Minus 2 yrds with his to about 200 yards, shot a elk at 74 yards, just killed a nice muley that ranged 163 using translating that to my konus BDC holdover at 175 nailed him, really kind of happy with it. ranges quicker than my sons bushnell, don't know if ill get another one though, happy with this one for ML and bow

[tomtomz]

I use the MOA reticle and estimate based upon the size of the animal. On my favorite scope, I know that if the dot exactly covers an adult deer in profile, then that deer is 300Y away.  If I double the power, and then it covers the deer, then I know the deer is twice as far away.

I figure a bullet drop and fire away. Animal drops dead.

This works better for me, since I invest in optics for the rifle and not
in a rangefinder.

Bushnell Banner in 4-16x40 has a Bullet Drop Compensator Reticle that
can also be used. The horizontal lines have vertical ticks on them that
approximate the width of a pair of deer ears (different on Mulies and Whitetails.)

If you have spent time on the range and learned which bullet drop to use, you are golden.
It has more limitations than the MOA reticle, but it can be used effectively.

[FPH]

When my depth perception was good I was fairly accurate on my guestimation out to 600 meters.  I have never used a range finder either.  I have been around folks that got false readings from them all to often.

[tomtomz]

I also prefer to estimate. Computer rangefinding is not something I trust.

[jager]

I recently purchased a 550 Redfield range finder for around $150 with a $50 mail in rebate that is good until 12/31/12. I took it on a Mule deer hunt (successfully, I might add) and it worked as good or better than the Nikon "Yardage Pro" it replaced. The Nikon was an "obsoleted" model they no longer serviced and it quit working after about 5 years of use. The Redfield is both smaller and lighter than the Nikon and did survive snow and drizzling rain on the hunt; and the "price point" made me decide to try it. I believe it to be a real bargain!

[Lloyd Smale]

Problem is when shooting out past 400 yards a misjudging of only 50 yard can mean the differnce between a complete miss and a good hit. Ive practiced my ranging for years and still fall way short of the accuracy of a rangefinder.

I also prefer to estimate. Computer rangefinding is not something I trust.

[FPH]

Problem is when shooting out past 400 yards a misjudging of only 50 yard can mean the differnce between a complete miss and a good hit. Ive practiced my ranging for years and still fall way short of the accuracy of a rangefinder.

I also prefer to estimate. Computer rangefinding is not something I trust.

I grew up in West TX before range finders.  I also had an abandoened Military 600 M range to practice on.  We set up every 100 M until we reached the 600 M mark.  I also shoot very flat cal. usually.  I am very familiar with the site picture thru the scope out to 600 M.  To be honest, I haven't shot any thing over 365 yds in years.  Most of my shots I keep to 100 M or less.

[tomtomz]

I guess it depends on the rifle and the shooter. A 22-250 with a 4-16 power scope
 and the right bullet makes the elevation correction much simpler. Same with my
 257 WBY. Both have the MOA reticle to aid in estimation. And I've been at it
for 40 years.

[Sourdough]

I got false readings with mine till I learned how to use them.  The false reading comes from the user not the range finder.  Few people can hold one steady enough to range out beyond 200 yards, you need a rest of some type.  I use my shooting sticks or a tripod.  Your wiggling around where you cross a branch or a bunch of grass that is closer than what you think you are ranging, will give you the range to the branch or the grass.  That is not a false reading, it's correct, just the wrong item being read because of the user, not the Range finder.

Reminds me of something I read, I believe here on Graybeard.  A guy was trying to range something, and kept getting a reading of three feet.  he was getting upset with the range finder, because it would not give him the proper range.  finally when he was reaching his top frustration level, his Grand Son in the back seat quitely said, "Grandpa, roll down the window".  OOOPS!

Some of us are technologically challenged.

[hedgehoghunter]

I have to agree with Sourdough on this 1 . Being able to hold the rangefinder steady enough to get accurate reads is a need . I used Leica 900 CRF for a few years having issues with holding still .I now see Leica has a holder for this model that fits on tripod which is a nice + . As time progressed so did my distances at the present time I use  Leica Gevoids 10 x 42 HD not because I had the extra cash because they work .