So you’re thinking about a range-finder?

A little while back, a friend of mine was asking for my input on buying a new rangefinder.  He’d scanned the BassPro and Cabelas catalogs, and he narrowed his list to a couple of top-of-the-line models.  At first glance, that’s not a bad way to go.  Laser rangefinders are, despite their high-tech gadgetry, optics.  And I’m one of the first to tell you, when you’re thinking about optics, you generally get what you pay for.

As we talked, however, I started thinking about that position… at least as it pertains to rangefinders.

When it comes right down to it, what is a rangefinder supposed to do?  You’re not using it to spot game at first or last light.  You’re not using it to differentiate a trophy boar from a sow at 300 yards.  And it’s not going to help you pick apart the chemise to locate a bedded buck.  Those are tasks better suited to your binocular or spotting scope.  All your rangefinder needs to do is tell you how far away a target is. 

Before I go too much further, let me derail a detour.  There are a couple of manufacturers that do offer rangefinders integrated into other optics.  Zeiss, Leica, and Bushnell offer an integrated binocular/rangefinder, for example.  This is a good, efficient way to go, and it was the path I chose when I decided to get a rangefinder.  I tried a couple of units before I settled on my Leica Geovid 10×50, and I really like them.  It’s a combination of Leica glass and a powerful laser, and it cost me accordingly (in excess of $2000).  The Zeiss Victory RF is really nice too, and retails in the same neighborhood as the Leica.  The latest Bushnell offering (the Fusion) will run you a little less than half the cost of the Leica or Zeiss, but still offers really good glass and a field-proven laser rangefinder.  If you think the combination unit is right for you, then go with the best you can afford. 

Likewise, there are a couple of companies, like Burris, that offer a rangefinder/riflescope combination.  Honestly, I haven’t spent a lot of time with these, but when it comes to a riflescope, again, I always recommend getting the best you can afford.  Optics are a critical piece of a hunter’s equipment, and worth every penny when you’re presented with the shot of a lifetime. 

But my friend, like many hunters, already has some really nice optics.  He didn’t need new binoculars or a rifle scope.  He just wanted a rangefinder. 

I asked him how he planned to use it, and if it would be primarily for rifle hunting, or if he planned to start hunting with a bow.  They even make laser rangefinders for golf, but I didn’t bother to ask if he’d be measuring the distance from his lie to the pin.  Pretty sure that wasn’t applicable… or if it were, he wouldn’t be asking me for advice.  Point is, though, it’s pretty important to know what you’ll be doing with the device in order to make sure you get the right one for your needs. 

For rifle hunting, I’d argue that a rangefinder has limited value… at least to the average hunter.  If you’re shooting so far that you need to determine a laser-accurate range, you’re probably shooting too far.  The dictum to “hold on hair” should take most of us to the edge of our marksmanship limits, and even then, I’d generally say to get closer. 

Nevertheless, there are times when a rangefinder can be helpful… even if only to let you know that the target is too far for an ethical shot.  I’m the first to admit that I’ve been fooled by distances out here in the west.  Sometimes 500 yards looks like 200, and vice versa.  It happened to me the first year I hunted in CA, and I emptied my rifle at a deer that turned out to be well over 400 yards away.  I’ve also let animals walk, only to find out later that the “distant” ridge was only 200 yards from where I’d been sitting.

The other thing, as much as I dislike it, is the fact that hunters are commonly shooting at longer ranges these days.  Maybe it’s TV, or maybe it’s the marketing campaigns, or maybe it’s the increased competition or game on public lands.  I could lay blame all over the place, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a trend that’s probably not going away.  If you’re shooting long range (say, 300 yards or more), a laser rangefinder provides critical data and absolutely should be part of your gear.  There are some folks who’d argue that gadgets like rangefinders encourage long shots, and I won’t dispute it.  However, that doesn’t change the fact that for shooting “way out there”, you really need to know how far “out there” is.  The only accurate way to do that is with a rangefinding device.

When it comes to bowhunting, on the other hand, I can’t stress enough how valuable a laser rangefinder can be.  With archery, a few yards can make a huge difference, and a miscalculation can mean a missed opportunity or worse.  While there are still some traditionalists and “purists” who look down their noses at electronic gadgets, from a practical perspective, it doesn’t make sense (to me) not to use them.  A basic rangefinder doesn’t have to cost a fortune, especially compared to the expense of other, quality gear. 

So it doesn’t cost a fortune.  It’s versatile.  It’s accurate. Why not run right out and buy one?  

I couldn’t agree more, which brings me back to my buddy and his request for help deciding which one to buy.  He’d be hunting initially with a rifle, but he has plans to bowhunt as well.  He’d want a rangefinder that works well for both activities.  There are a lot of options out there.  Wouldn’t it be best to run out and get the fanciest, most expensive one on the market? 

That’s one of those fine-edged questions.  As I said when I started, when it comes to optics, the best is usually the most expensive.  And, for the most features and functions, you’ll also pay a premium.  But if you take a more practical look, you really don’t need the Cadillac of rangefinders.  In fact, some folks probably don’t need much more than the Yugo. 

There are a bunch of web sites out there that can offer some pretty detailed comparisons of laser rangefinders.  They’ll break it right on down to wavelengths and diffractions and lord knows what all.  When they’re done, they’ll confuse the hell out of most average hunters.  It’s not that hunters are stupid or slow, but not many of us are walking around with a PhD-worth of knowledge about laser technology… and I’d argue that we don’t need to be.

So let me offer the layman’s, non-technical, generic point of view.

The basics are simple enough.  The rangefinder emits pulses of a tightly focused, high-speed beam of light.  When that beam hits an object, it bounces back to the emitter which measures the time it took each pulse to go and return.   A rapid calculation takes place and results in the distance between the emitter and the object.

Pretty much any laser rangefinder on the market today is going to perform this basic function quite handily.  Do some do it better than others?  Perhaps, but the biggest differentiator is going to be the power of the laser and the speed of the emitter’s pulses.  These factors affect the ability to range longer distances and return faster results with less margin of error (although even the cheapest unit I could find on the market offers less than 1 yard margin of error). 

The calculation method may vary a bit as well, and most of the newer rangefinders include a calculation that compensates for the angle from the emitter to the target.  What’s the point of this?  It’s a point of basic ballistics that every marksman should understand.  To really aggravate the physics majors out there, let me explain it like this: 

Imagine the earth as a perfectly smooth sphere.  From where you’re standing, it would look like a flat, planar surface extending out to the horizon.  Gravity pulls relatively evenly all along that plane, down toward the earth’s core.  A bullet or arrow begins falling to earth from the moment it is launched.  This is caused by gravity pulling on the projectile as it passes along the plane. 

Stick a target out there at 20 yards and zero your 20 yard pin to be dead-on.  What this means is you’re adjusting the arc of your arrow across your line of sight, so that it passes through that bullseye on its way back to the ground.  Now dig a hole between yourself and that target, until the target sinks straight down, say, 20 yards.  If you pulled a string from your bow to the new target, you would need a little better than 28.28 yards of string (thanks, Pythagoras). 

But here’s the thing.  Gravity hasn’t changed just because you’re shooting downhill.  As far as gravity is concerned, you’re still shooting out across that level plane, which means that your arrow is only fighting gravity for 20 yards… not 28.  If you adjust for a 28 yard shot, you will shoot over the target.  You’d get exactly the same result if you raised that target on a 20 yard pole.  It doesn’t matter if you’re shooting uphill or downhill, the effects of gravity are almost exactly the same. 

The angle compensating rangefinders calculate that difference for you, eliminating the need to guess or second-guess your aiming point.  While this may not be particularly significant to rifle hunters (it takes a pretty substantial angle and distance to affect hold-over for a rifle), this is a really useful feature for bowhunters… particularly those hunting from tree stands, or hunting in the steep canyon country. 

So for my friend, and for any bow hunter, I’d recommend looking at a rangefinder that incorporates the angle compensation feature.  You don’t need it, but it’s so common now that it’s almost difficult to find a rangefinder that doesn’t offer it.  Since it definitely is an asset, why not go ahead and get it?

What about maximum range?  The high-end hunting rangefinders can return readings off of reflective surfaces in excess of 1500 yards away.  Then there are some, often made specifically for bowhunters, that will barely bounce past 500 yards.  With these, on non-reflective surfaces such as trees or a deer’s hide, you’ll be lucky to get a range beyond 200 yards.  That’s a lot of variation.  Isn’t it best to get one that offers the longest range?

I’d say it’s not that critical.  Honestly, how many of us are going to be taking shots outside of 1000 yards?  For that matter, how many of us are going to be shooting 400 or 500 yards (I know what the answer to that should be)?  Then why do you need a rangefinder that returns those sorts of distances.  Note that I’m not saying not to get a unit that ranges into the next zip code… only that I don’t think you need it.

Once again, because I personally find rangefinders most useful for bowhunters, let’s consider this a little more closely.  For a bowhunter, a difference of five yards can become critical.  However, no bowhunter in his right mind is going to be shooting 100 or 200 yards at game.  What’s most important to the archer is the target inside of 50 yards.  Traditional archers might cut that distance in half.  There’s not a rangefinder on the market that won’t range game at that distance. 

There’s another side of that conversation, though.  What about close shots?  To an archer whose shots may well be inside of 10 yards, it’s still very useful to know the range.  At 10 yards, your 20 yard pin is going to hit pretty high.  At 10 yards away and 20 feet up a tree, it can be a little tricky indeed.  Pick up a rangefinder and try to get a read on a target at 10 yards… at five yards. 

What you’ll find is that most of the really high-powered rangefinders don’t read very well at all inside of 10 yards.  Check the specs, and you’ll see that their “minimum range” is 11 yards (Leica, Nikon Rifle Hunter and ProStaff, BUshnell Fusion, etc.).  Sure, sometimes you’ll get a reading, but sometimes you get an error or a row of dashes.  (This, of course, is the point where the traditional, instinctive shooters will laugh in their buckskin sleeves.  When the target gets that close, they just point and shoot.  They don’t need no stinking pins.) 

There are rangefinders marketed specifically to archers that address this concern.  The Nikon Archer’s Choice, for example, offers a minimum range of 5 yards.  Closer than that and you don’t need the bow anyway, since you can just reach out and stab the critter with an arrow.  If you’re primarily interested in bowhunting, check the specifications for the rangefinder you’re looking at, and see what it offers for a minimum range.  If it’s more than 10 yards, you may want to consider a different model.

Speaking with my buddy, we bounced around some of the other options that are available.  For example, it’s best to get a unit that has a rain/fog mode.  Because the whole principle of the laser ranging system is reflection, there’s always a risk that raindrops, dense fog, or snow will return bad measurements.  Several of the mid-range and high-end rangefinders address this in various ways.  Read the specs and see if rain/fog are addressed. 

Many rangefinders offer different ranging options, such as a Scan feature that allows you to move the rangefinder across ground and get a continuously updated read as things are closer and further away.  I can see where you might use this, especially if you’re ranging from a vehicle or horseback, but it doesn’t seem especially practical.  I’ve got it on all of my rangefinders, and haven’t used it since I figured out how it works. 

Color is important to some people, and no so important to others.  Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to get small pieces of equipment like a rangefinder, GPS, or cell phone in camo patterns or natural colors.  It just makes them easier to lose.  If they made rangefinders in bright yellow or hunter orange, that would be my preference. Unfortunately (to me), the majority of rangefinders marketed to hunters are either camo, or a dull, earth tone. 

As far as size, the majority of available rangefinders are pretty similar.  Most are about the size and weight of a compact camera, and fit easily into a shirt pocket. 

We wrapped up the conversation talking about the Nikon Rifle Hunter 550 that I’ve been using a lot since September.  It’s a relatively inexpensive unit ($289.00 at Cabelas) that offers reasonable ranging capabilities (500-600 yards or more) with a decent, 6x magnification in a waterproof housing.  It incorporates the angle compensation feature that we both agreed could be useful when he starts bowhunting.  The only minor negative is that the minimum range on the unit is 11 yards.  However, we both decided that this is a pretty small consideration. 

In the end, he went one step up and purchased the Nikon Rifle Hunter 1000, which offers an additional 500 yards or so of ranging ability.  At a retail of about $350, this was less than half the price of the unit he’d initially considered, but it offered everything he needed in a rangefinder and then some. 

I guess that’s all a really long way of saying… if you’re looking for a rangefinder, it doesn’t hurt to do your research.  But don’t get too wrapped up in the technical gobbledy-gook, or in something that will let you range the individual rocks on the moon.  Keep in mind how you’ll be using the tool, and what it’s really intended to do.  This is one piece of equipment where more expensive may not necessarily mean more better.

Related Posts