I've seen a few video reviews, but never actually put my hands on them. They are touted as a "game changer", but I'm not convinced.

First, they are expensive($4,000). Second, they are quite heavy(41 oz). The notion of carrying one piece of equipment instead of two sounds good, but the combined weight of my Swarovski 10x42 binoculars and a Leupold RX-5000 is essentially the same. Quality binoculars rarely go bad, but technology moves fast. It seems like you could end up with some really expensive binoculars housing an obsolete rangefinder in a few years.

Am I missing something?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MNSIG,

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
It seems like you could end up with some really expensive binoculars housing an obsolete rangefinder in a few years.

An interesting question that I have pondered myself.

The advantage binoculars like that offer is speed, and that appeals especially to precision rifle competition shooters. Sometimes. And also sometimes to hunters.

It’s not necessary to find the target with a spotting scope or binoculars, then put it down and then try to locate it again with the rangefinder. That can be difficult in itself, particularly as the optical quality may not be as good and/or the magnification not as high as with the optic. Then third, put the obtained distance into our ballistics calculator. Many such devices like the Leupold include ballistic solvers that give the scope setting necessary along with range: essentially one step rather than three; far faster and more convenient.

The obvious question we must ask, though, is Do we need that capability? I have a very good Swarovski spotting scope and binoculars as well as a very good rangefinder, the TruPulse 200X by Laser Technology. I don’t know how the binoculars could be better optically, and the rangefinder has features that most devices marketed toward shooters don’t have. Nevertheless, when the Vectronix Shooting Solutions Vector X rangefinder binoculars were introduced some time ago I was very tempted. Not only are they made by a company that produces top tier military rangefinders, they use the Applied Ballistics solver, which is my preferred ballistics calculator. (The Leupold uses a Hornady solver; I have no reason to believe it’s not good, but I have no experience with it.)

But the Vector X temptation was mostly driven just by the idea of having the device, not because I needed it for PRS competition or even hunting. Fortunately, though, the unit has a couple of minor features that I don’t like and that killed the temptation.

Could the rangefinder of the Leupold become “obsolete”? Perhaps if we look at some particular feature, but in its role of finding ranges? That I think is probably not likely, at least not in the sense that it would become useless.

I have a Leica LF1200 rangefinder that I believe I purchased as much as 20 years ago, and there are countless more advanced units available today and for far less money than the Leica cost me. But is it obsolete? When I ranged a house about 730 yards away with both the Leica and the TruPulse, both gave me the same distance reading. The Leica won’t give readings as far as the TP, and that could matter if I were trying to get a reading from a deer’s hair at 900 yards, but I would never need to do that.

If I really felt the need for binoculars with rangefinder and ballistics solver, I would be more concerned about the latter feature, i.e., the calculator.

The Applied Ballistics solver that I have on my phone, my computer, and in a couple of Kestrel weather monitors uses the usual ballistics models for G1 or G7 ballistic coefficients, but also can use “custom drag curves” of specific bullets such as a Hornady 0.264" 140 grain ELD-M. They are developed by using Doppler radar to track the bullet’s actual flight through the atmosphere. That is touted as being a more accurate way to model the trajectory than just using mathematics and specified ballistic coefficient. (Perhaps a company like Hornady does something similar for their bullets, but I don’t know.)

But despite the availability of custom drag curves for many different current bullets, the Applied Ballistics Quantum app I have on my phone still permits “truing” trajectories based on actual observed results that the individual shooter gets with his load and gun. That means that the solution I get by plugging my favorite 6.5 Creedmoor load into my app or Kestrel with exact environmental data and chronograph-obtained muzzle velocity may not be precisely correct.

I have no way of knowing, but I wonder if ballistics solvers will become more accurate in the future. Various solvers are used in different devices such as rangefinding optics, but are they the best that is possible? What will they be like even five years from now, much less in the ~20 year age of my Leica rangefinder?

Anyway, a good question.

My local Scheels got a pair of the BX-6 in stock and I got to look through them the other day. I'd say the optics are on par with my Swarovskis (20 year old SLC), the display is very nice, and they generally have a solid feel.

The RX-5000 rangefinder that shares the same map pinning features was on sale at Midway, so I decided to give that one a try with Onyx before spending big money on the BX-6.

The physical size is a bit larger than my older Rx-1200i. The display is very similar with segmented LEDs. Magnification is 8x vs 6x, but that actually is a negative for me. Lining up a monocular on target can be challenging, and more magnification makes it worse.

On to test the pinning. Leupold's YouTube videos stress the importance of compass calibration and keeping it away from magnets when in use. That makes sense since it has a magnetic compass on board.

The epic fail is the reliance on the phone based app to initiate the pin drop. You basically need to tap "pin" on the app and then get the phone several feet away before firing the rangefinder. At that point, it takes the azimuth and distance and applies it to your location determined by your phone's GPS.

We've all seen how iPhone location can zip around and drift when looking at Maps, Onyx or any other location map. There is no integral GPS on board the RX-5000 or the much more expensive BX-6. If your phone location drifts while you are taking a measurement, the pin will be "dropped" off target. As you can imagine, if the assumed starting position is perpendicular to the target direction, your angular error can be quite large.

If you want a new rangefinder or a rangefinding binocular, the new units might be worth considering. I absolutely would not buy either one if accurate map pinning is an important feature for you. The system just isn't ready.

I'll be returning the RX-5000.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
The system just isn't ready.

Good grief! Thanks for that report.

I have never given too much thought to a location “pinning” feature other than to think that it could be useful. It never occurred to me, though, that it would be necessary to involve a phone app in the process. There was a tragic incident some years ago in which an Air Force controller used what was essentially the same pinning process with a target identification and rangefinding device to call a bomb hit close to his location by mistake. That device evidently has its own GPS locator built in, and I guess I assumed they were all like that.

Just reminds me not to make assumptions. Thanks again; very useful to know.