Roskoe

I finally think I figured out that my trusted Lieca rangefinder, while it works great for distances critical to long range rifle shooting, seems to be a little off at normal archery ranges. There is a regular archery range at the local state park, where the stations were set with a long tape measure. My rangefinder show these distances to be less than the tape. Like I get a 47 yard reading at the 50 station - and a 53 yard reading at the 55 yard station. Almost like it is reading meters instead of yards - but it is set for yards.

Is there a qualityrangefinder made for accurate readings from, say, 10 to 90 yards? I would think such a rangefinder would be smaller and less expensive than one made to giveyardages at ten times the distance. Are the Bushnell ones any good?

ken3g

Leupold RX 2,aiso has true ballistic measurements. Used a friend's, worked great.

Roskoe

Thanks. One of my buddies got a RXIII and says it agrees with the tape measure at bowhunting ranges. I sent Leica an e-mail today asking if this was normal or if I needed to send it in for re-calibration.

jdbowhunter

Hey, Roscoe. I have had several rangefinders over the years from Busnell to Leica to Leupold. All of them have worked very well. However, I have had a couple that would read a yard +/- different than the others or to measured distances such as your archery range. However, when I am going to hunt with a range finder, I zero my bow with it - problem solved. One thing I would pass on to you - I have a Leupold RXIII which gives true ballistic distance. It works great but it eats a battery every weekend of hunting if you use it much at all. I don't know if they are all like that, but mine is. Good hunting.

Roskoe

Thanks. My wife had the same suggestion: just do all your practicing with the rangefinder and when it says "50" you will putting the 50 yard pin on the target - even if it is actually 53.

I wound up getting a Bushnell Scout this week. It is lighter and smaller than the Lieca, and I tried it out yesterday against measured distances and it was within 1/2 yard. I understand these are also a little thirsty on battery power, so I will need to carry spare batteries. Appreciate the tip.

jdbowhunter

I think you did well. My wife uses a Bushnell Scout and I can't get her to use anything else. For what it is worth, her Scout is not hard on batteries.

KodiakArcher

My RXII has been on the same battery for over a year of above average use and still reads a full charge. You might want to check your RXIII for a short or send it in for service before the season starts again.

jdbowhunter

Thanks for the feedback, Kodiak. I probably will send it back. Since I have a Leica that works great, I just have not used the RXIII. I sort of assumed they all ate batteries. Thanks again. I know from past experience that Leupold will make it right if there is a problem. By the way, I haven't been on here for awhile. Did you get your Moose last fall?

idahoelkinstructor

Have any you guys used the RX IV? How doLeupolds compare to the new Bushnell Scout with the ARC system? For you guys that do own Leupolds do you have trouble getting readings? I have asked around about Leupold Rangefinders for about a week now. One common response/problem that a few people have mentioned is it only reads about half the time? Even on my thread here in the optics fourm here in hunting net a fellow said the same thing. Myfriend has the RX II and loves it, he admits it was tricky to get used to and learn how to run it at first but now he wouldn't give it up. My brother has theRXII as well but he doen't really huntand hasn't used his much since owning it. I have played with his and it seems to work good around the countryside. But for a true test I would like to try it out side by sidewithmy Leica andthe new Bushnell Scout out in the mountains. One last questionis the RX III and RX IV that much better over the RX II? Other than the RX II not being waterproof and notcapableas long as rangeI don't see much difference between that and the RX IV.