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.

Well, thank goodness that, in his search for the new and newsworthy, JR Absher of the Outdoor Pressroom has located Rutt Wipes!

Don’t get shot with your pants down!

You need survival essentials in the woods, including hunter-safe toilet paper. So why are you flashing white toilet paper in the same anatomical area you would find a white deer tail?

“Rutt Wipe” is the orange toilet paper you need to protect your assets. It’s biodegradable, non-toxic and soothing for your outdoor hygiene needs.

That’s right, HogBlog readers!  You NEED survival gear, and having blaze orange toilet paper waving behind you so you no longer look like a whitetail deer in the bushes is exactly the kind of survival we’re talking about! 

Seriously, it’s not a bad idea… even if it may be a little over-the-top.  The biggest problem I see with it (besides the possibility that some folks are allergic to the dyes), is that too many lazy losers don’t bother to bury what they leave behind.  It’s one thing to see little white kleenex flowers blooming behind the bushes at every trailhead… now those flowers will be blaze orange and visible from much further away.  That’s just crappy.

Summertime.  Queue the Miles Davis solo now…

I was reminded during my last couple of trips back to NC that this time of year, high summer, was once my favorite season.  During the calmer days, I’d be offshore chasing king and spanish mackerel, or diving the many wrecks in the warm, generally clear water.  If I close my eyes and try real hard, I can still smell the coconut scented breezes that greeted me on the return to the inlet… an olfactory reminder of the masses of tourists, beach bums, and sun worshippers cluttering the white, sandy strand. 

But I’m not in NC anymore.  The ocean over on this coast, while it still exerts its pull on my soul, simply doesn’t offer the same allure.  The water is cold, murky, and generally rough.  The beach is rocky, kelp-covered, and often obscured by chilly fog.  It’s pretty enough, in a distant, photographic kind of way… but it doesn’t mean “summer” to me.  It just reminds me that I’m not in NC anymore. 

So what’s a guy to do on a long, summer California day?  Well, Cabela’s has just resolved that for me… I just received my hard-cover catalog!  Pages and pages of  gear, gadgets, and stuff… just waiting for me and my credit card.  With a handy 800 number, or a website where I can just log on and start spending, they’ve made it easy as ever to load up on all the hunting gear I might possibly need.  How cool is that?  Except, well, I have scanned the book from one end to the other, and honestly can’t find a single thing I need!  Is that a good thing? 

But it is a nice book.  It’s almost a shame to toss it in the recyle bin.  I guess I could keep it on the coffee table… if I had a coffee table. 

All that aside, this is a great time to start checking your hunting inventory.  While I realize that everyone isn’t planning to set out for the A-zone archery opener this coming weekend, the regular seasons aren’t that far away.  In less than two months, most of the country will be shooting doves, and early archery deer seasons will be right behind the dove season. 

Two months is time enough to break in new boots, try out new loads, zero in the new scope, and work the rough spots out of a new action.  So do the economy a favor, and break out those credit cards!

I sure missed her, but it sounds like she had a really great time.  She’s nearly convinced me to go back to see Munich with her sometime.  I wonder if boar hunting season and Oktoberfest coincide?  Any magazine editors out there need a good piece about hunting wild boar in Germany?  I bet we can work out a good deal.

On a totally different topic…

Albert Quackenbush, over at the SoCal Bowhunter blog, sent me an email regarding a big promotion over at the Thermacell site.  I have written about Thermacell insect repellent units a time or two, including this old gear review post.  I’m a huge fan of this gadget.  The damned thing works. 

Anyway, Thermacell is giving away a lantern every day for the merry month of May (hey, a rhyme!).  Go sign up and win one for yourself.  And, when you go to the site and sign up, there’s a spot where they ask if you were referred by a friend.  Check the box, and enter Albert’s reference code, FXSLPC.  Let’s see if we can give him a boost toward winning the most referrals prize (I think it’s a $300 gift certificate to Bass Pro)!

I am a big fan of the rangefinding binoculars.  I have to admit I’m always intrigued by (if somewhat skeptical of) new gadgets, but combining a rangefinder and binoculars was one of the best ideas I’d heard in a while.   It just makes too much sense. 

A few years back I decided to take the plunge and buy the Bushnell rangefinding binos.  The unit did what I wanted, but it was heavy, clunky, and the glass wasn’t really that great.  I was never really happy with them.  This year, Bushnell has totally redesigned their rangefinding binoculars, and while I did have a chance to look them over at SHOT, I haven’t really put them through the paces.  They are a definite improvement over the ones I bought, and I hope to have a chance to field test them in the near future.

A year or so later, due to my positive financial situation at the time, I decided to spend the money on the Leica Geovid 42EF.  They weren’t cheap, but I was immediately impressed with the quality.  The glass was superb (of course, we’re talking Leica here), and the rangefinder would lock on a 1000 yard target in the blink of an eye.  It was everything I’d hoped for.

Well, it was everything I’d hoped for until last season.  On a hunt at the Hedgepeth Ranch, the rangefinder wouldn’t lock on a target.  Later the same trip, it worked again.  I replaced the battery, and it seemed to work fine again until the hunts up at Coon Camp Springs.  While trying to range a deer for the client, I couldn’t get a reading.  After several failures, I finally got the distance.  The problem continued to be erratic until my last trip to Tejon Ranch.  Finally, the rangefinder refused to return a measurement at any distance. 

At first I got angry, because I hate when an expensive piece of equipment fails.  But then, since I killed the pig anyway, I decided this would be a good opportunity to see just how good Leica’s customer service is.  I had a pretty high expectation, of course, and I can say now that they did not let me down!

First, I emailed a service representative to ask about the return procedures.  He replied almost immediately, and let me know how to send them in.  He also set my expectations reasonably, telling me that it could take up to six weeks to get my glasses back.  I was a little afraid of that, and bummed that I wouldn’t have them for the Texas trip… but I accepted it and sent the binos in to Leica’s service center in New Jersey.

In the package, I included a note explaining what was going on.  In the note, I mentioned that I am a guide and I rely on my equipment.  With hog hunting season coming on full-bore, I told them I needed these fixed ASAP. 

Well, they didn’t get them back to me in time for Texas (I sent them the day before I left), but they had the unit cleaned, purged with nitrogen, and checked out before I returned from the 10-day trip.  They were waiting for me when I got home. 

I haven’t had them out in the field yet, but playing around the neighborhood, everything looks great!  They even replaced the eyecups where I’d worn them out with use. 

If there’s anything lacking, you’ll be hearing about it (as will the folks at Leica), but right now, I couldn’t be more satisfied!

So my answer, in short, is that I don’t write reviews off of press releases and product labels.  I don’t sit and turn something around on my desk until I’m struck by the product review muse with some glibly positive commentary.  If I am going to review something, I intend to use it, try it as it’s intended to be used, and then I’ll write about it. 

For example, if it’s ammo, I will shoot it.  Ideally, I’ll use it on game, but at the very least, I’m going to see how it performs on targets and in my guns.  Is it accurate, does it chamber and cycle, and does it kill cleanly?  If it’s a knife, I’ll cut something with it.  How’s it hold up on a hog skin (if it can handle skinning hogs, it can handle anything)?  Does it keep an edge, and can I resharpen it easily? 

I’m not going to test optics by looking across the living room or out the back door.  I need to take them in the field, under real conditions.  I don’t have one of these high-tech testing labs either… I’m not measuring exit pupil or light gathering capacity.  I want to know if I can clearly see what I’m looking at.  How’s it handle rain, fog, or 100-degree heat? 

If it’s clothing, I’ll wear it… not just around the living room, but in the field.  Is it tough, waterproof, or whatever else it’s advertised to be?  Before review, I’ll read the book or view the video.  And so on…

Point is, all of this takes a little time and time is a precious commodity.  I’ve got a good-sized stack of things to go over, and some more that should be in the mail.  Included are the new, lead-free .22lr cartridges from CCI, some great new boots from RedBack (which I love so far), several hog calls (this is for you, Rex), a couple of books and videos, and some new “scent-blocking” clothing. 

There are a couple of exceptions to my rule, though… for example, some things are just great ideas that I want to share. 

One example is the “Shotkeeper“.  It’s a shadow-box designed to hold a photo from your hunt, with a special cutout to fit the shotgun or rifle shell used to make the shot.  You can get them for 2″x3″ or 4″x6″ photo sizes.  Simple, I agree, but it’s a really cool idea and a nice way to commemorate a hunt.  They also make a similar display, called the “Lurekeeper“, for fishing (a photo and a cutout for a special lure or fly).  I didn’t get a good photo, but check their site. 

So hang tight, as some reviews will be forthcoming over the next couple of weeks.  Others will take longer, but should be coming as my spring hunting kicks into high gear.

What I have experienced, particularly on public land (but also on private) is that if you stand out visually in the field, you’re going to get looked over.  That, in itself is normal enough.  If you spot something out of place in the field, it’s perfectly natural to want to get a better look.  Unfortunately, way too many of the idiots out there do their looking with the rifle scope instead of binoculars.  It’s happened time and again to me, and with that in mind, I’ve consciously chosen to try not to draw attention to myself by wearing orange or other bright colors.  I’d rather not be seen than to have some yo-yo looking down the rifle barrel at me. 

Yeah, I called them idiots, and if you, dear reader are one of the individuals that uses the rifle scope to glass unidentified objects in the field, then this applies to you as well.  It’s a stupid, dangerous, thoughtless move, and it’s totally unnecessary.  For my own part, I get angry and usually offer the one-finger salute to anyone I see scoping me in the field.  But I know other guys who will return the favor by aiming back at the offending party… and that creates a pretty dangerous situation, even if it is all a bluff. 

Fortunately, it’s easy enough to change your ways. 

A pair of binoculars should be a standard piece of gear for any big game hunter.  While quality binos are better, and generally worth the higher cost, a reasonable pair can be had for under $100.  Even a $20, Wal-Mart special will help you identify the odd-colored shape down in the canyon without pointing a deadly weapon at it.  Better to have something than nothing, especially in the open country of the western states. 

I’m not going to run through a comparison of all the various glass on the market right now, because the list is pretty exhaustive.   If you’re shopping, I would recommend buying the best you can afford.  All of the major brands make some pretty good glass.  For most western hunting, I’d go with something in the 10x power range, with a 40 or 50mm objective.  If you get much over 10x, you’ll need to consider a tripod, because it’s difficult to hold high-powered optics steady. 

But again, if you can’t afford real quality glass, at least get something.  And when you see a shape, color, or movement downrange, use those binos to identify it BEFORE you put the rifle on it.  Do yourself, and the other hunters in the field a favor.

I’ve made a policy here on this blog to only review products and services I’ve actually put my own hands on.   It’s just the way I want to do business.  I get press releases and product updates all the time, and I appreciate being in the know about what’s going on in the industry… but before I review something, whether I’m recommending it or not, I want to put it to work. 

(If there is an exception to this, it’s when it comes to gear at a trade show, such as the SHOT Show, when I’m spotlighting new or innovative products.)

Anyway, this came up again today when I read about the new ruling from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding “endorsements” and product reviews.  Under the new rules, bloggers and celebrities who receive free or discounted products or services in exchange for a review must disclose that relationship. 

In other words, if Mathews sends me a new bow to try out (I wish!), I must tell you that they sent it to me in exchange for the review.  I can’t just pretend like I’m doing this review out of the blue. 

The rationale, of course, is the same as with print and television endorsements.  Consumers have a right to know if someone is being compensated in exchange for their promotion of a product or service.  There’s always a risk of the quid-pro-quo arrangement between the reviewer and the company, and folks should read this kind of review with their eyes wide open. 

I don’t really have a problem with the law from a practical perspective.  I know, for a fact, that there are people out there using their blogs as paid advertisements for various companies, and I think that’s just wrong.  But then, I put a lot of value on honesty and integrity.  Not everyone does.

Theoretically, the law will extend the “truth in advertising” ideal to the blogosphere.  Theoretically, folks looking for product reviews will be able to distinguish between the “paid commentary” and the honest reviewer.  The blogsites set up as false fronts for advertisers will be unmasked.  It will force bloggers and product reviewers to accept accountability for what they write.  Consumers will be able to educate themselves if all the cards are on the table.

But that’s all theoretical. 

In reality, nothing is really going to change. 

One only needs to look at television ads these days to know that the marketing and advertising industry is way ahead of these puerile regulatory controls on truth and honesty.  For every rule, there’s a loophole, and these guys are masters at finding them.  If the FTC can’t even control television and print media, what the hell makes them think they’re going to be able to get a handle on the blogosphere? 

This is another toothless effort by the Feds to appease angry consumers without actually changing any process or procedure.  The FTC is not assigning new agents to monitor and prosecute violators of the new law.  They’re not even setting up any kind of cohesive program to enforce it.  In short, it’s a waste of energy and tax dollars. 

Look folks, Caveat emptor  does not mean “empty cerebral cavity”! 

As consumers, we are all responsible for our own protection.  There’s a wide variety of fact and fiction out there, much of it masquerading as “truth”.  It’s up to the individual to pick through that miasma and double-check the facts before buying… whether you’re buying a product, a service, or an ideology.  We shouldn’t be expecting the federal government to play nursemaid over our shoulders.

Anyway…

For my part, I’ll continue to do as I have.  I’m always open about who sent me a product to try out, and I’m also always honest in my reviews.  Sometimes the folks who sent me the product might be a little sorry they did, because I’ll not hesitate to pan it if it’s no good. 

So if you’re a reader here on the Hog Blog, that’s my commitment to you.  And if you’re a company with a hunting or outdoors product to promote, I’d be glad to talk to you about doing a review… but be prepared to send me a sample, or invite me out to try your service. In return, you’ll get an honest critique here on this blog.

The problem with those early headlights was that they were usually big and bulky, with huge battery packs and traditional bulbs.  Wearing one for any amount of time was guaranteed to give you headache.  But they were powerful and bright.

Technology moves fast and seems like everything gets smaller and smaller (have you seen cell phones these days?), and headlights are no exception.  The arrival of the “micro” bulbs and halogen meant that flashlight and headlight bodies could get smaller and smaller.  To keep things small, tiny batteries were implemented.  Unfortunately, the bulbs in use still burned through the juice pretty fast. 

Then somebody figured out that LED lights could be just about as good as traditional bulbs, were much smaller, and they barely drew any juice.  I’ve got a couple of old LED headlights right now that are several years old and still going strong on the same AAA batteries! 

Smaller headlights certainly made it nicer to use them for all the standard tasks, but one limitation always bugged me.  These little lights are cool, but they simply don’t work so well for blood-trailing and tracking.  I made it a mission to look for a small headlight that provided enough light to follow a tough blood trail and pick out tracks on a dark night. 

So far, I’m still looking, although I saw a couple at the 2009 SHOT Show that were promising.  Unfortunately, getting test samples didn’t pan out in the months following the SHOT Show, and I sort of put it off for the time being.  I simply don’t have the funds to go out and buy all of these things myself, so I’ve been making due with my Princeton Tek Aurora, and a couple of others I’ve acquired over the past couple of years.  When I need to trail, I break out the big MagLight just like I’ve always done.

Well, a couple weeks ago I got an email from Steve Remington, the fellow who pays the bills to keep this blog running as part of the Skinny Moose network.  The folks from Energizer wanted to know if a few of us bloggers would be willing to try out their new, 4-LED headlight and provide a little write-up.  Well, heck yeah! 

I received my light, ripped open the box, and started playing with it.  The very first things I noticed, as you’d expect were the physical features.  The profile is sort of clunky, but the unit is reasonably lightweight.  Like most headlights, the body is hinged to allow you to aim the light where you need it, and it has a single, adjustable, elastic strap.  Nothing outstanding here, but nothing to complain about either. 

Now anyone who’s ever read one of my reviews knows I don’t get all wrapped up in the technical and theoretical stuff.  So when I look at a light, I don’t really spend time testing the lumens and all that stuff.   The info on this light says it produces 28 lumens, which isn’t outrageously powerful (compared, say, to the SureFire “Saint” at 100 lumens), but at a suggested retail price under $20 (compared to $185 for the SureFire), you shouldn’t expect a pocket-sized solar flare. 

Point is, if they say it’s 28 lumens, I’ll take their word for it.  What I want to know is how that translates in the field. 

The light offers two operational modes, a red lamp which is good for preserving your night vision (and supposedly won’t spook game) and the white spotlight mode.  I was immediately impressed that there are not 20 different functions for the single switch.  I hate those lights that do something different every time you touch the button, but never do what you wanted.  This one does three things.  One push turns on the red light.  Another push turns on the white.  And then it turns off. 

Both light modes seemed pretty good to me when I fired it up in a darkened room, and just as good when I took it outside.  The red light was particularly bright, and seemed to provide a lot more light than the red mode on one of my older headlamps.  I can see where that would be handy for fixing gear and such.  Some of the other red lamps I’ve used are too dim to see that kind of detail. 

The white light was pretty good too, and it definitely provides plenty of light for most tasks.  While I haven’t been lucky enough to use it for this yet, I’m pretty sure it’d be perfect for field dressing in a dark canyon, or for finding dropped gear on a midnight ridgeline.  There’s no question that it’s plenty bright enough for finding your way in the dark.  I’ll definitely be putting it to work in the marsh when waterfowl season finally opens up. 

However, I don’t know that it’s going to suit the need for a blood-trailing light.  Sure, it’s bright enough if you have a trail that looks like someone dumped a bucket of blood on the ground, but the beam simply isn’t bright or sharp enough to pick out the finer elements of a track or to spot tiny droplets in the duff. 

The only other shortcoming is that this light is “weatherproof”, but not waterproof.  That’s not the end of the world, of course, but I have ruined more headlights than I can count by dropping them in the duck marsh while setting or picking up decoys.  I don’t know much about the manufacturing requirements for these things, but it seems to me that it shouldn’t take that much to make the light body waterproof without jacking up the retail price… but that’s just me. 

Criticism aside, this is a pretty good headlight.  It will work very well for most purposes, and the price is right for any hunter’s budget.  For all practical purposes, it’s every bit as good as some of the more expensive headlights I currently own, and if I were shopping for an inexpensive, replacement headlight, this one would definitely be a good pick.

If the video doesn’t work, trust me… I really like this jacket!