For use on deer and hogs with max range 250 yards. Low light with shadows part of the equation. Clarity of the lens important with aging eyes involved Suggestions?

The one I use most of the time is much more of a unit than what you need, but the one bit of advice I offer on the subject is to not be misled by whatever maximum range the rangefinder is rated for by the manufacturer. That max distance is almost always based on an ideal reflector, and not something like a hairy animal. I.e., if you anticipate your max hunting distance to be 250 yards, get a finder that’s rated for at least twice that distance.

As with sigfreund, the LRFs I use are built for great accuracy at extended distances, and thus may be more costly than what you want.

So....let's start with a budget.
Next, you're probably looking at a monocular design -- binos will be more expensive and probably be overkill.

Lasing out to 250 yards isn't very demanding, even with non-reflective targets. I find that LRF units actually work better in lower light than in bright sunlight.

If you can, visit a local sporting goods store and fondle their LRFs. And of course, gun shops. Visit both hunting and golf counters, as some of the LRFs marketed for golfers are virtually the same optics and electronics as the hunting models -- just without the camo shell.

I’ve been using a Leica 2400, it’s the nicest rangefinder I’ve had.

My spouse bought me a Nikon Prostaff 440 about 15 years ago and it is on its 2nd battery now. Still tells me it is 329 yards from my front porch to the entry gate. It was a bit over 200 bucks back then. I think the Prostaff line is pretty good.

I use a refurbished Nikon Monarch, I think it was $160 on fleabay. It works fine for me.

Ive nee really happy with my Sig Kilo 2400. Probably dont need to spend that much but you never when you may want to go from 250 to 1k.

Out to t 250 Id probably go with whichever major manufacturers you can get the best deal on.

From what I've seen at steel matches, the less expensive Nikon and Sig units should be more than adequate for ranging critters at 250 yards.

I'm on my 3rd one over many years. Take a look at the Nikon Monarch 2000 you can get them for around $250 very happy with this one so far.

I have one you might be able to use. Please email (in profile) if interested. Thanks.

I have a Bushnell and a Leupold. Both are fine. That isn't long range, and almost anything will work fine at those ranges.

Do you need angle compensation? Link

I recently upgraded to a Nikon with angle compensation and image stabilization. The read out is red - much easier to use in lower light. I'll try to remember to look up the model number.

If you happen to be around Raleigh NC you can try out both my old and new rangefinders

Mine is a Nikon Prostaff 550. It's done everything I need a range finder for. Admittedly I've used it more for golf than hunting.

Jim

Thanks for the advice, will now check catalogs.

quote:

Originally posted by SR:
Do you need angle compensation?

Compensating for shooting up or down at steep angles can be an issue, but it’s important to know the realities, and not just theory or campfire anecdotes.

The linked article is mostly about bow hunting. There are several practical differences between hunting with a bow and with a rifle, the most important being the characteristics of the respective projectiles. Arrows travel much slower than bullets and the effects of atmospheric drag, especially at close ranges, are much greater.

One of the examples in the article is a target that’s 70 yards line of sight from the hunter, but only 23 yards horizontal distance. As the example indicates, that’s shooting from a tree stand, but what it doesn’t spell out is that the stand would be 66 yards, or nearly 200 feet, up in the air*, and the downward shooting angle would be 71 degrees! Is it possible a rifle shooter could find himself in that situation? Sure, but it’s pretty unlikely, and if so, he would be mostly concerned about the offset between barrel bore and sight(s).
* (And that is totally unrealistic even for bow hunting. This article says on average treestands are placed 17 to 20 feet above ground, and ideally no higher than 25 feet. If, for example, a hunter were shooting standing on a tree stand 18 feet above the ground at a target about 150 feet away, the difference in distance between the line of sight and horizontal distances would be less than 2 feet!)

There are rifle training courses that teach shooters to engage long range targets at extreme up or down angles, but they are conducted in rugged mountainous terrain or from aircraft. Very few hunting situations involve such distances or angles. And as the linked article itself points out, that’s what’s necessary for rifle shooters to start worrying about angle compensation.

As another example, I have calculated what a police sniper would have been faced with if he were trying to engage the Las Vegas murderer in a high rise hotel from the ground where most of the victims were located. I won’t go into all the details of the calculations, but the height of the target would have been about 100 yards, and the sniper located about 400 yards from the base of the hotel. Even in that unusually extreme situation, that would have resulted in the line of sight distance being about 412 yards and the shooting angle being about +15°. And the effect of shooting up at that angle with a common LE sniper load? Less than 2 inches point of impact difference than if the target had been at a horizontal distance of 400 yards. Two inches at 412 yards is less than 1/2 MOA; if a sniper and his rifle are capable of that level of accuracy and precision while engaging an active killer, he probably doesn’t need to be told about shooting angle compensation.

Furthermore, for accurate long range shooting at extreme angles, it’s not just enough to know the actual horizontal distance to the target rather than the line of sight (angled) distance. The reason is that although gravity acts on the projectile for only the horizontal distance, air drag affects the trajectory for the entire line of sight distance. That is, in the 70/23 yard example cited above, if we assume that the trajectory will be as if the projectile traveled only 23 yards, but ignore the atmospheric drag for the 70 yards of actual flight distance, the projectile will hit low.

What’s necessary to truly and accurately compensate for extreme angle and distance shooting is a good ballistics calculator like the one by Applied Ballistics or JBM. There is also a way of estimating the effects of shooting at an angle known as the “Improved Rifleman’s Method,” but that relies on knowing the trajectory data for the actual line of sight distance to the target and the cosine of the shooting angle. Simply knowing the horizontal distance isn’t enough.

I strongly suspect, based on what little we know about the OP’s hunting intentions, that no angle compensation will ever be necessary, and that he will be more concerned about marksmanship and firearm precision.

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

I have a Leupold TBR-1000 that works well. It’s especially good at the come ups for shooting uphill/downhill angles.

+

My wife won a Cabella's 1600 intensity range finder at the Bass Pro members night. It's currently on sale for 169, marked down from 249. I have not had a chance to try it other than the yard so far.