A Data-Driven Approach To Precision Rifles, Optics & Gear
Home / Optics / Binoculars / Rangefinder Binoculars Reviews & Field Tests: Overall Results Summary

Rangefinder Binoculars Reviews & Field Tests: Overall Results Summary

Welcome to the largest and most comprehensive field test & review of laser rangefinder binoculars ever conducted. I tested virtually every pair available in a variety of real-world scenarios, to see which had the best performance in the field in terms of both optical clarity and ranging capabilities.

This post is the executive summary of the results. I’ve already written other posts in this series of articles, which include exhaustive details about the ranging tests and results, as well as the optical tests and results. But, I’ll try to hit the highlights here.

These results are based on over 10,000 data points collected from the field over 3 months of testing.


6 of the models tested were binoculars, and the other 2 were monoculars. I included a Leupold monocular for reference because a lot of shooters have a similar 1,000 yard rangefinder, and it should let them see how it stacks up to the rest of this group. I also included the Vectronix Terrapin model as my control for ranging performance, because it is known to be an extremely accurate rangefinder (spoiler alert: it is).

The Swarovski EL Range is the only pair of rangefinding binoculars I’m aware of that wasn’t included … but it wasn’t for lack of effort. I talked to Swarovski multiple times trying to convince them to be part of this. I spent hours explaining the comprehensive line-up I’d compiled, and even detailed the field tests I was planning to run through with each pair. I answered every question they asked, and they still declined to be part of it. It’s a shame.

Ranging Performance

Rangefinder Binocular ReviewI used each model to range 500+ times in a variety of targets and scenarios from 25 to over 30,000 yards. My tests showed all of these models had similar performance at close and mid-range targets, but at 600 yards their performance started to diverge … so that is where most of my testing was focused.

The chart below summarizes the ranging performance I found on the test targets in ideal conditions, which was from a tripod, at sunset, with 10+ mile visibility. The exact target shape and surroundings varied, but the targets were all approximately 2 MOA wide, highly reflective, and perpendicular to the rangefinder. I provided a lot of details on the actual target dimensions, view from the ranging position, and target surroundings in the detailed ranging performance results post.

Rangefinder Binoculars Review Ranging Performance Under Ideal Light Conditions

In bright light conditions, radiation from the sun can cause interference and limit the range and resolution of readings a rangefinder is able to gather. This obviously has a negative effect on performance. The chart below shows how each model performed 3 hours before sunset. Once again, this testing was done from a tripod, with visibility of 10+ miles on 2 MOA, reflective targets.

Rangefinder Binoculars Review Ranging Performance Under Bright Light Conditions

The two previous charts show how far the models could get an accurate range, but that doesn’t give you the whole story. For example, if a rangefinder gave you correct readings half the time, and incorrect readings the other half … how would you know what to believe? An incorrect reading is completely different than a “no read.” I’d prefer rangefinders not give me a reading at all, rather than give me an incorrect distance. So the chart below shows how accurate each rangefinder was from 600 yards up to it’s max range. It shows what percent of the time it gave a reading that was within 1% of the actual, known distance to the target, as well as how many times it gave a reading that was incorrect by more than 1% and how many times it gave a “no read.” The red blocks are what you really want to avoid.

Rangefinder Binoculars Review Ranging Accuracy Within Max Range

And finally, I tested offhand ranging performance and the main problem with offhand ranging performance was the slight vibration/wobble induced from an unsupported position caused many of the rangefinders to give an even higher number of “no reads,” even with proper technique and in what felt like the most stable position possible. So the chart below illustrates how many “no reads” each model gave when ranging 3’ x 2’ bright, white targets offhand at 600 and 800 yards. The sample size for the chart below was 40 ranges with each model.

Rangefinder Total No Reads At 600 & 800 yards

This is really just a high-level summary of the ranging results, and you can check out the full details on the Ranging Performance Results post.

Vectronix Vector 23 & Vectronix Terrapin

Vectronix is the leader in the rangefinder industry, and that was confirmed once again in these tests. While many manufacturers are overly optimistic in the max ranges they advertise, Vectronix is different … they are an under-promise, over-deliver type company. Both the Vectronix Vector 23 and the Vectronix Terrapin outperformed the manufacturer’s advertised max range by a wide margin. The max range of my test targets was 2,000 yards, which many consider the practical limit of shoulder-fired, small arms rifles (yes, I know your cousin’s friend shot a deer further than that one time). The Vector 23 didn’t even break a sweat by 2,000 yards. I actually had to drive 100 miles to find something far enough for me to be able to max out the Vector 23 … 31,612 yards (that’s 18 miles). I was able to get consistent readings for that distance on a hillside 18 miles away (and that was in bright, midday lighting conditions). In low-light conditions, the Terrapin rangefinder was able to range the opposite side of the canyon shown in the photo, giving consistent readings of 4,950 yards. Both easily ranged my 2000 yard 2 MOA target in ideal conditions, although the Terrapins could only range to the 1 mile target in bright conditions.

Keep in mind that the Vectronix Terrapin is a monocle … not a binocular, like most of the other models. But the bottom line is, if you are buying a rangefinder purely for ranging targets 600 to 2000 yards, and have no plan to use it for observation or finding targets … you should buy a Vectronix Terrapin … period. It is surgically precise. When you just have to know the range beyond the shadow of a doubt, I’d put my money on the Vectronix Terrapin every time.

Leica Geovid HD-B

The new Leica Geovid HD-B had outstanding ranging performance as well. In ideal conditions, it was able to get accurate readings on a 2 MOA target that was 1 mile away over 90% of the time, and it could range to 1,950 yards over 50% of the time. Even under bright conditions, it could still occasionally get a reading on the 1 mile target. One thing about the Leica Geovid HD-B is it rarely gave you an incorrect reading. At those long distances, the Leica rangefinder might give you a “no read” … but it wouldn’t display an inaccurate distance, which wasn’t true for most of the models. The Leica Geovid HD-B was a top of class performer offhand as well, and handled some of the toughest ranging scenarios with ease (like those with brush or tricky inclines in front of or around the target). Almost all of my tests were on target-sized objects, which are relatively small … although I was able to get a distance reading at just over 2,400 yards on a distant plateau in ideal conditions.

Zeiss Victory RF

The Zeiss Victory RF could range up to 1,200 yards with 90% accuracy, and even reached out to 1,600 with 50% accuracy in ideal, low-light conditions … which is well beyond Zeiss’s claimed max range of 1,300 yards. They had one of the smallest beam divergence of any model tested (only behind the ridiculously small beam divergence of the Vector), which allowed them to handle the tough ranging scenarios. The distances the Zeiss rangefinder gave were very accurate.

The one big drawback with the Zeiss Victory RF was a relatively high number of “no reads” when ranging offhand. From an offhand position, it struggled to provide a reading on the 600 and 800 yard target. This was surprising after experiencing how reliable it was off a tripod, but the facts none the less. This could be related to the tight beam divergence (see the How Rangefinders Work post for an explanation of when tight beam divergence can hurt performance). Only the Leupold RX-1000i monocle had worse offhand performance (and it is almost 1/10th the price of the Zeiss binoculars).

Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile

The Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile binoculars were amazingly great rangefinders. In ideal conditions, they could range all the way out to the claimed max range of 1 mile with over 50% accuracy … and that is on 2 MOA targets. That is impressive for any rangefinder, but astonishing for the price point of the Bushnell 1 Mile binoculars. It is an extreme value for the ranging capabilities.

When ranging offhand, the Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile binoculars gave the most accurate readings of any of the units tested. This has a lot to do with the advanced ranging modes Bushnell has integrated into the unit, which allow the user to give the rangefinder hints about how to interpret the readings to increase the odds that this distance it displays is for your intended target. This is an innovative feature that I hope other manufacturers start to implement, because when ranging offhand or even in tough ranging scenarios … it’s a game-changer. To learn more about these advanced modes and how they can help, read the How Rangefinders Work post.

Leica Geovid HD

The Leica Geovid HD rangefinder binoculars had dismal results compared to the rest of the class. I actually thought I must have had a bad pair, but after testing two units, the results looked almost identical. Although the optical clarity in the Leica Geovid HD is outstanding, they just couldn’t range 2 MOA targets much beyond 800 yards.

Bushnell Fusion 1600

The Bushnell Fusion 1600 binoculars had the worse ranging performance off the tripod, and it didn’t do much better offhand … although the advanced modes did still help some. I’ve talked to some people who question my results for the Bushnell Fusion 1600, and they thought I might’ve had a bad unit. But, the unit I tested was brand new and had never been used in the field before these tests. So if it was in fact a bad unit, it simply indicates poor quality control on Bushnell’s part. They were certainly tested at the same time and under the exact same conditions as all of the other models.

Leupold RX-1000i TBR

The Leupold RX-1000i rangefinder was very accurate to 600 yards in any lighting condition. In ideal lighting conditions, it gave readings out to 800 yards just over 50% of the time. I never got a single reading at Leupold’s claimed max range of 1,000 yards. Remember that was on 2 MOA, reflective targets, and off a tripod. Offhand, the Leupold rangefinder struggled to get readings on 3’x2’ targets at 600 yards, and we were only able to get one reading at 800 yards out of 20 attempts. Like most other rangefinders of this class, you can just find the max range the manufacturer claims and chop off 25% for the max range you could expect on real-world targets.

Optical Performance

Rangefinder Binoculars Review Optical QualityI came up with an objective, empirical approach to testing optical performance, which was placing eye exam charts from 600 to 1,400 yards and then recording what size of letters two different people could accurately read. These were virtually identical to the eye charts doctors use to assess visual acuity by determining how much detail and definition a patient can make out at a particular distance. I combined all that data into a single score for each model so they can be ranked in terms of how much detail my two testers could make out. I provide a lot more detail about how the test was conducted, and compare other optical specs in The Optical Performance Results post.

Rangefinder Binoculars Review Optical Quality

Both the Leica Geovid HD-B and the Leica Geovid HD performed stunningly, with the HD-B and it’s completely new, Perger-Porro prism design earning the top spot in terms of optical clarity. When you consider the ranging and optical performance of the Leica Geovid HD-B, you have a clear winner. Leica has definitely hit a home-run with this new product.

The Zeiss Victory RF came in third with a very respectable score. I consider it to be in the same class of optical clarity as the Leica models, but it just wasn’t quite as sharp.

The surprise in the optical tests was how well the Bushnell Fusion 1600 binoculars performed. Maybe we had a “ringer” set of these binoculars, but regardless … they were spectacular performer in these field tests, and were only edged out by Leica & Zeiss (both well over 3 times the price).

Vectronix Vector 23 Rangefinder Binoculars-011Vectronix glass is amazing, and you can tell that from the first time you look through either the Vector 23 or the Terrapin models. However, the Vector 23 binoculars only have 7x zoom, but Vectronix was kind enough to send us a $2,600 accessory attachment that mounts to the binoculars to magnify them to a 10x zoom. Although they appeared to have good clarity even with the external glass attached, the testers simply couldn’t make out the same level of detail with them as we could with some of the other models.

The Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile simply wasn’t in the same class of optical clarity as the other binoculars we tested. But when trying to meet a price point, you sometimes have to make trade-offs and that is likely what Bushnell had to do to be able to provide a rangefinder binocular for under $2,000. They obviously improved the ranging capabilities tremendously, so that might have required that they cut some costs optically and they’re just hoping the market agrees with them on the balance they’ve struck. They still have great optical clarity when compared to other binoculars in the $200-$500 price range … they just don’t compare optically to names like Leica & Zeiss.

Keep in mind that the Terrapin & Leupold rangefinder models are both monocles with only 5x and 6x zoom respectively. They were still held to the same standard as the binocular models with 10x zoom for these scores. I have a good reason for that, which I explain in the full optical test results post.

Best Rangefinder For The Money

The models I tested cover the full gambit of price points … from $400 to $24,000.


There are really two aspects to assessing the value of a unit: ranging capability and optical clarity. Both are important, but the weight someone puts on one or the other can vary … so I’ll split it up and look at them independently here. We’ll start with ranging, because you probably wouldn’t be reading this article if that weren’t at least a little important to you. The chart below illustrates how much each yard of ranging capability costs you. It is essentially takes the street price of each model (as of Nov 2013), and then divides that by the maximum range each model was able to get an accurate reading for at least 50% of the time in ideal, low-light conditions on 2 MOA targets from a tripod. I limited this to a max of 2,000 yards of ranging credit, since many see that to be the maximum practical range for shoulder-fired rifles.

Best Rangefinder For The Money Price Per Yard

If you are only ranging objects under 800 yards, the best value is still a little $400 pocket rangefinder like the Leupold RX-1000i TBR. If you need to go beyond that, then the best value hands-down is the Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile rangefinder binoculars. It would be hard to imagine anyone providing more bang for your buck than what you get with the Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile.

Best Rangefinder For The Money Price Per Optical Point

Optical clarity usually comes with a premium price, and these are no different. But, the Bushnell Fusion 1600 binoculars were a clear stand-out in terms of the optical quality they provide for the price you pay. They weren’t that far behind names like Leica and Zeiss, and even scored slightly better than the Vectronix Vector 23. If you could combine the optical quality from the Bushnell Fusion 1600 with the ranging performance of the Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile … you would have something special.

Overall Ratings

The chart below summarizes the field test results for the major aspects you should consider when purchasing a ranging binocular. It doesn’t include the two monocular models. The overall performance is a weighted score:

  • 40% based on optical performance (you can’t range it, if you can’t find it … and most people spend way more time looking than ranging)
  • 20% based on ranging distance (out to a max of 2000 yards)
  • 20% based on ranging accuracy (an incorrect range is worse than not having a rangefinder)
  • 20% based on size, weight, & ergonomics (if it weighed 80 lbs. and was hard to use, would it still be the best?)

Rangefinder Binoculars Review Overall Ratings

Based strictly on the empirical results, the best ranging binocular is the new Leica Geovid HD-B 10×42 … hands-down. They were #1 in the optical quality tests, and were the runner-ups behind Vectronix in rangefinding performance off a tripod and offhand.

If you are just looking for a super-accurate rangefinder … go with the Vectronix Terrapin. It doesn’t get better than the Terrapin, at any price. If you need to range beyond 2,000 yards, you are probably in the military and already using a Vectronix Vector … and if not, you should consider one! I try not to make dogmatic statements, but this one you can take to the bank: When it comes to rangefinding, Vectronix has this thing figured out … period.

In terms of pure bang for the buck, nothing comes close to the new Bushnell Fusion 1 Mile ARC 10×42. The optical quality isn’t great compared to these other models, but the ranging performance more than makes up for it. They are a steal of a deal at $1,200 … and even outperformed some models that cost twice that.

Other Posts in this Series

This is just one of a whole series of posts related to this rangefinder field test. Here are links to the others:

  1. How Do Rangefinders Work? From Basics To Advanced Features
  2. The Models & Specs
  3. Optical Performance Test Results
  4. Ranging Performance Test Results
  5. Overall Results Summary

While performing the field tests I used each model to range 500 times on average … so I used them a lot. I also asked two of my close friends to use them, and I took notes on what we did or didn’t like about each of them. I transformed those notes and the test results for each model into comprehensive reviews for each model. I also took a bunch of high-res pictures of each model and have a photo gallery of each posted along with the review. Check them out:

Enjoy this type of data-driven information? That’s what this website is all about. Sign-up to receive new posts via email.

About Cal

Cal Zant is the shooter/author behind PrecisionRifleBlog.com. Cal is a life-long learner, and loves to help others get into this sport he's so passionate about. His engineering background, unique data-driven approach, and ability to present technical and complex information in a unbiased and straight-forward fashion has quickly caught the attention of the industry. For more info on Cal, check out PrecisionRifleBlog.com/About.

Check Also

Barrel Test in Modern Advancements In Long Range Shooting

Barrel Field Test Featured In Modern Advancements Volume 2

Lots of people have asked what I’ve been working on, and I’m excited to finally ...


  1. Hi, Great article. Please do a review of the Leica Rangemaster CRF 1600-B Rangefinder. Thanks a lot! Kind regards, Adriaan

  2. Thanks for a very informative review. It’s a shame the bushnell 1600 were a bad pair, I have some and we have tested them to 880 yards and they were only 1 or 2 yards out. It does show better quality control is needed.

  3. I am also interested in your findings for the Leica 1600B’s

    Kindest Regards

  4. Hope you will review the 1600-B also. I’m considering one of those soon.

  5. I would also like to see a test of the Steiner M50 LRF Military 10×50 LRF binoculars, you missed them on your list.

    • You’re right. I wasn’t even aware Steiner made a ranging binocular until I was at SHOT Show a couple months ago. I wish I would’ve known when I did this. I don’t have immediate plans to conduct another field test at this point on rangefinders, because I’m focusing on the upcoming scope field test, and they’re very time consuming. But I might come back around to this at some point, and if I do I’ll try to include the Steiners. From my limited experience with them, they seem to be in the same class as these others.

  6. Have you checked out the G7-BR2 LRF yet?

    • I haven’t. Several have asked about it, so it must be a pretty hot item. I was only focused on rangefinder binoculars at the time, and haven’t made it back around to testing more rangefinders.

  7. Is there a reason you didn’t include the Swarovski ELs in this review?

    • Yes, I would have loved to include them, but Swarovski declined to be part of the test. I actually spent more time talking to them than anyone. I explained all the tests I’d be running in detail, and answered all their questions … and they still declined to be in the comparison. They’re the only company that I’ve dealt with so far that was that way. It seems like if you were confident in how your product performs compared to your competitors … you’d jump all over this kind of data-driven testing.


  8. I wouldn’t buy Bushnell, as they claim to be a great American Company, but only sell Chinese products. I ask them about it and they got really upset.

  9. Najmur Rehman Khan

    Great work done m8. It’s really informative but what about the test in temperatures below -5 to -30 degree centigrade? I came empty handed from a Himalayan Ibex first time in my life just because in 9 attempts we were unable to reach the trophy within 600 yards and Leupold Rx-1000i gave no readings beyond 400 yards.

    • Wow, that is a sad story. I didn’t do any tests below freezing. I have used my Leica HD-B’s below freezing (bought them after this test), but no formal testing. Sorry to hear about your bad luck, and sorry I couldn’t be more help.


      • Najmur Rehman Khan

        How did you find Leica HD-B below freezing? Now I am confused b/w Leica HD-B and Zeiss Victory T* RF. I would be looking forward for a suggestion from your end but being a hunter I would appreciate any of them if they can hit till 800 yards.

      • I didn’t find any unusual behavior with my Leica HD-B’s below freezing. Now I was NOT at -30° C (equivalent to -22° F), but closer to -5° to -10° C (23° to 15° F). I bet the manufacturers would be able to tell you what the operating temperature range was for each of the models. I’d be surprised if they didn’t know exactly what that was.


  10. Do you think the Leica HD-R 56 would be comparable with the Leica HD-B?

    • I talked to a Leica rep at SHOT Show a couple weeks ago, and I think he told me the HD-R rangefinders have a simplified menu and ballistics system. I believe they are targeting the bowhunters and typical hunters with that product, and not us long-range rifle nuts. On their website, it says this about the HD-R: “In order to guarantee an easy-to-use product we’ve simplified the functions and menu right down to the ballistic basics.” But under the HD-B’s it says “The newly developed ABC® (Advanced Ballistic Compensation) allows hunters to determine the point of aim more easily especially when shooting longer distances. The precise parameters needed for a particular reticle or click adjustment are available in a split second. And all this taking the ammunition specifics, angle, temperature and barometric pressure into account.” I bet the HD-R doesn’t have those environmental sensors, which helped them hit a price point $300-500 under what the Leica HD-B’s are selling for.

      Honestly, I don’t use the ballistic functions on my Leica HD-B rangefinders. I don’t trust them as much as my dope card or the JBM engine on my phone (which is surprisingly accurate). For the modern VLD bullets I shoot, I feel like the predictive ballistics engine needs to support the G7 BC to yield accurate results for long-range shots. It probably doesn’t make a difference under 800 yards, but it will as you start stretching it out there further. I just say that because I’m not sure how much value that provides. Now I’m not sure it uses the same rangefinding hardware internally, so it may or may not function as well as the HD-B. Unfortunately I can’t speak to that.

      I’ve emailed the rep I know at Leica, and if/when I hear back from him on this I’ll post another comment here.


  11. Thanks for the reply. I also do not use the ballistic functions. I was mainly interested in the optical performance, ranging accuracy and ranging distance comparison to the HD-B. I would be grateful to hear the Leica rep’s answer. Thanks in advance, Jim

  12. Cal: Your original work in this post is still my go-to point of reference as a baseline/guide/spec summary for evaluating rangefinders – nothing like independence to create the possibility of objectivity (maybe you could use that as a tagline). I still haven’t pulled the trigger on a Rangefinder because I was hoping that there would be some new releases/revisions from the manufacturers that would have come out during or after SHOTSHOW. In case I missed something or you have any forward looking Intel gleaned along the way, I wonder if you would have any commentary these areas of interest:
    – Leica GEOVID HD-B expanding the full distance spectrum of the ABC functional range of 1000 yards (the ABC software which is my understanding is sourced from Gseven) to match the Gseven G7 BR2 functional range of 1500 yards)
    – Gseven G7 BR2 offering in MIL instead of JUST MOA
    – does Vectronix have any plans to expand their consumer line to fill the gap left by the Terrapin
    PLRF25C (they left quite a gap in the market since the PLDF25C is $7,640.00)

    The HD-B would appear the be the current best functional choice at somewhat of a reasonable price. Duly noted is your deference to not using a BP with your HD-B but there is something to said for the benefit of quicker BC computation in a hunting environment out to 1500 yards of the G7 BR2.
    Thank you,

    • Hey, Ranger. Sorry, I haven’t tested any additional rangefinders since this field test. I figured this was pretty exhaustive, so I probably won’t come back around to this topic for some time. There haven’t been many new products introduced since this, at least not enough to justify the time to do all this again.

      I’m not sure if Leica’s software was sourced from Gseven. That is actually the first time I’ve heard that. I do know the Leica HD-B’s are outstanding binos and a great rangefinder as well. They are what I personally ended up buying out-of-pocket after doing all these tests, and I’ve been running them for over a year now. They’re excellent. They aren’t as precise as the Vectronix rangefinders, but they don’t leave me wanting … and the glass is absolutely best of class. When hunting, I could actually scan through my binos before I can see anything with my naked eye. I had never experienced that with any binos before my Leica HD-B’s.

      I can speak both mil or MOA, but since most of the long-range market is mil-based … I’ve decided to personally standardize on that. There isn’t an inherent advantage to either system, as I explained in this post on MIL vs MOA. But, I’d just say it should match whatever your scope is, and it’d be great if you could just switch it like a setting so you aren’t committed to one or the other in terms of hardware.

      I haven’t heard Vectronix make any announcements about any new low-cost models. However, the Vectronix PLRF10 is priced at $3,195 … so that is a lot less than the $7k model you mentioned. Vectronix says the PLRF10 has the ability to range out to 2500 meters, and based on experience with Vectronix … I bet that is conservative. That seems like plenty of distance. Just in case it isn’t, the Vectronix PLRF15 is priced for $200 more and it can range to 3000 meters. The PLRF25C is rated to up to 4000 meters, which seems excessive for small arms … but it is more compact, which would be nice.

      I agree that the HD-B seems like the best value. That’s what I personally bought, so I can’t give it a bigger vote of confidence than that! I’m very skeptical of ballistic computers, and only trust a couple out there (JBM and Applied Ballistics). I have a degree in Computer Science, and have written my own ballistic engine. It is HARD, and there is 1,000 ways to do it. That’s why most suck. They make approximations which have little consequence at short to mid range (what most people use them for), but diverge at long range and the error compounds the further out you get. I see a ton of guys use a crappy ballistic engine, and when it doesn’t align with what their bullet does out in the field … they essentially write off the idea of being able to accurately predict their trajectory mathematically. They start to only trust their dope cards, and the problem is those shots were made in very specific environmental conditions and don’t always translate to the shot I’m about to take. So they get caught in a vicious circle of frustration … because they can’t trust ballistic engines, but their dope is sometimes wrong … or is it their rifle, or is their ammo running hotter, or maybe their scope isn’t perfectly zeroed. I’ve been there … it is really, really frustrating. This game is hard enough without throwing the curve ball of a poor ballistic calculation in there.

      I have an iPhone app that is based on the JBM engine that I trust, and it’s always with me. It’s called Ballistic AE, and I use it all the time … especially for running ad-hoc ballistics to see how different cartridges compare.

      I also bought an Applied Ballistics Kestrel when they were announced last year at SHOT Show. That thing is really cool. It is a handheld weather station that has the Applied Ballistics engine built-in, so it’s able to integrate variables like wind speed, temperature, pressure, altitude, direction of fire, etc. into your calculations. If you’re trying to get first round hits … you should think about one of these.

      For both competitions and hunts, I never like to solely rely on electronics … I always print out a dope sheet, and have it in my pocket. That doesn’t seem to slow me down in competitions, and some of those are pretty fast. I just have had electronics of all kinds fail me in the field, so I like having a backup plan that isn’t battery powered.

      At some point, I’m going to do an in-depth comparison of different ballistic engines, but I just haven’t got to that yet. Until then, I’m sticking to these engines. I’m not saying the G7 BR2 is wrong … I just know first-hand most ballistic engines are. Most work great up to 1000 yards, but beyond that … only a couple that have earned my trust.

      Hope this helps!

      • I joined the list of disappointed buyers that found the Terrapin no longer available. However, EuroOptics put me on to this alternative which was priced in the $1800 range. It’s specs sound a similar the PLRF10. Same laser wave length, 2500 meter range etc. It is the Laser Technology’s Inc Trupulse 200X. I have tested it out to 2000 yds on a 48″ square reflective panel. I also ranged a 1 mile on a Accuracy Plus painted target. We also checked a Leica LRF 1600B it would handle a 1387 yard reflective target bu not 1 mile or longer. If you have any questions just drop me a note. LTI provided laser technology to Bushnell so they don’t market in the Shooting world, just in the laser measurement world. Accurate to 1.5″ for most distances but falls off to 1 ft. for hard to range targets. They show an indication for the accurate measurements with the range. A bunch of other features including bluetooth. I hope to compare it to a Terrapin if I find somebody who has one.

      • Hey, Hubert. I appreciate the info! I think my brother-in-law recently bought that same model: TruPulse 200X Laser Rangefinder.

        I think that is the same company that makes the Gunwerks G7 BR2 Rangefinder, which a lot of people love.

        And I’m one of the guys on the list of people disappointed that the Terrapins aren’t around anymore. The replacement seems way more expensive. But Vectronix is something else. Man, they’re accurate. I’d love to know how the Laser Technology rangefinders stack up in terms of accuracy.

        I appreciate you sharing the info.