Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Rangefinder Binoculars Field Tests

Anybody who has used the 1 Miles want to take a stab at what "class" of glass they are comparable to?

I did not see where the rangefinders ability to calculate absolute ballistic holdover or distance was discussed. Some do and in a shooting situation is all that matters. The hd b leica take into account temperature,barometric pressure and angle to give a holdover in metric or imperial, can be programmed to your custom loads or just be rangefinding only. As far as features they are probably hard to beat and easy to program. I did not see warranties discussed either.

I have a set of swaro 10x42 slc ,side by side i could give the optics edge to the old swaro altho by a very slight margin. I expectsd the
new leica to blow the old swaro away, did not happen. Twilight factors i believe were both 20.5.
For me i do not want to give up optics for internal rangefinding. Most of us don't need ranging to distances further than we want to shoot, but need repeatable accuracy,comfort,. These days quite a few options will do,
i would have the swaro range if they have offered the built in and progammable holdover compensation. Great review by prb and good food for thought.

I missed your hands-on review post of the 1 Mile model. I'm sure it was insightful.

I bought the Fusions for a truck bino, and a "What's that, [bleep] a coyote, how far?" bino, as well as for PD shooting.

As soon as I got them , I compared them with my 8x32 EL's, a new set of Vortex 10x32 HD and 10x42 HD Talons. I did a fair, I thought, late afternoon to dusk to dark test a couple of times.

The blue tint of the Fusions didn't bother me, but I was wondering if it cut into low light performance, and it was, it seemed, to be a non issue. Now, with my 59 YO eyes, and wearing contacts, I just couldn't see a whole hell of a lot difference in the four. I thought I was going to wear the coatings off them switching back and forth non stop. Just when I thought I had a winner, my opinion changed, again, and again, and again.....

I tested the rangefinder capability against my Leica 1600 (not B). The first day I was pretty impressed. But after giving them all day, on and off, tests, for multiple days, I decided I preferred the Leica.

Some times the Fusion would give me a reading, and the Leica wouldn't, as in one time a deer was out around 500 in bright sun. There was also a ground blind at 750, that I couldn't get a reading during the day with the Leica. It looked like a cheaper model that was made out of more like a vinyl material, with the corner facing me. I could get a reading on a round bale next to it, but not on the blind. Maybe because there was no flat surface facing me. Other times, the Fusion wouldn't read, and the Leicas did. All in all, I trusted the Leica over the Fusions.

Now for two other issues. The button was hard to push. You needed to be supported, or kinda hold to the side a bit, as you would "twist" the unit off the target trying to get a reading. And after using it for multiple hits, 15/20/30 times, your finger would actually get tired. And probably the worst was you couldn't hold directly on the target. A round bale at distance, the top of the circle would have to be about where the bottom of the bale meets the ground. On deer, at their feet just below the belly. Half the circle on the belly would still shoot over. Many times I didn't know if I was short, long, or actually on the target, until I shot it with the Leica. On one hill side, I could most times get a reading, but the Fusions would struggle, although it was at 1750+.

In the end, I sold the Fusions, sold my EL's, returned the 10x42 Vortex, and kept the 10x32 Vortex's and the Leica's. I prefer the size and weight of those two optics, and decided if I was going to upgrade anything, I would go with the Terripins for a rangefinder, keep the 10x32 Vortex for an all arounder, and maybe jump to a 12 or 15x50/56 don't-carry-it-far binocular.

I still can't believe that anyone could look thru the fusion 1600 and the 1 mile and come away thinking the 1600's were better optically.

Have held both in my hands and using them in lots if conditions there is no point at which the new one mile optics were not much better!

I agree. I don't have a bunch of time on the 1 Mile versions, but the view is noticeably better than the 1600's. The 1600 Fusions that I have used (3 pair extensively) have all had just "adequate" clarity, brightness and resolution, however the rangefinder has destroyed the Leica Geovids and 1600's when used side by side.

The blue tint sucks and the glass is kind of a let down (at least in the 1600's) but I still would choose to use them over fantastic glass and a separate rangefinder for almost all uses.

Is this an Eremicus type opinion or have you actually had the 1 mile version in your hands ?

Exactly how I feel as well.

I got to use one of the 1-miles for several days a couple of weeks ago. The immediately apparent difference over the 1600's was the glass. It seemed to be about like the better "affordable" roof prism binoculars available right now, such as the pre-ED Meoptas, but that's just an impression, since there weren't any other binoculars around to compare it to. Will know more when I get a sample in to thoroughly test here at home, which is supposed to happen soon.

The rangefinder of the 1-mile seemed to be more accurately "aimable" than the one in the 1600. As aalf mentioned, the reticle in the 1600 sometimes doesn't seem to match up well with where the laser reads, but in the 1-mile I used it did. Again, will know more when a test model comes in that I can play with more.

I never have had any difficulty using the rangefinder button on two 1600's, or the single 1-mile tested, so am guessing aalf's problems there were due to the individual binocular.

Not what I found at all. I kept my Leicas for a reason.....

To me, they were similar to non-ranging binoculars in the $200 to $500 range, like those by Nikon, Leupold or even Bushnell in that price range. It is essentially like they put a $400 pair of binos with a $400 rangefinder, and you pay a fraction more because they had to combine them into a compact package. The optical clarity isn't "bad" ... it just doesn't compare with names like Zeiss or Leica. I've personally used Bushnell glass hunting and shooting for years (actually until about 2 weeks ago), with no complaints. In fact, I used the Bushnell 1600's in the Steel Safari competition this year and they were rugged and provided me all the performance I needed, except for ranges on about 2-3 of the 100+ targets. My friend was using a pair of Leica Geovid HD's, and they gave him a ton of problems at the same event on the same targets. That is actually what sparked this whole field test. I wanted to really try to quantify the field performance you could expect.



I actually call that "equivalent horizontal range", but it goes by a lot of names. It is essentially the distance that gravity is going to act on and whats important in ballistics. I agree that it is one of the most critical features for long-range shooters, and unfortunately most of the models don't have it.

Both Bushnell models technically do provide the "Equivalent Horizontal Range Function", but only when in "Bow Mode" and under 100 yards. I talked to Bushnell on the phone about this in-depth.

The HD-B's do have the "Equivalent Horizontal Range Function" and they also take temp, pressure, and incline into account. Plus they allow you to input custom ballistic curves ... which is a huge advantage. But they still only allow you to use a G1 BC, which is a limiting factor for shots beyond 1000 yards. They have options to display the adjustment in inches or MOA ... but not MIL!

I did compare all the warranties, and all the ballistic features in "The Models & Specs" post. I essentially wrapped it all up in one big PDF to try to make side-by-side comparison really easy. Most manufactures make it very tough to compare their product to others out there. So, I spent days searching websites, user manuals, and calling/emailing manufacturers (several times each) to gather a complete set of detailed specifications and put them in a format that allows easy side-by-side comparison. There are almost 40 different specs, including actual measured weights, dimensions, and the max ranges found in my field tests for each model (which can be very different from what the manufacturer claims). Some manufacturers list this specs in metric units and others are in U.S. standard units � I�ve converted everything to the same units to make comparison easy. I also read through each of the manuals to see exactly what each one does or doesn�t have in terms of advanced features like equivalent horizontal range, and ballistics functions. Some of the specs I even measured or calculated myself, because they weren�t available anywhere or were specs manufacturers are notorious for exaggerating.

Here is a link to the PDF containing all the specs, including which models have the ability to display the equivalent horizontal range, and all the warranty info including how long it is and if it's transferable to a new owner.





I definitely hear what you are saying, and I'm not arguing against it. Several people have said something similar, so I have to believe that on average a pair of 1 Miles may be better optically than a pair of 1600's. I actually thought the Bushnell 1 Miles were more clear when I first opened the box. But one of my first impressions was also that the 1 Miles felt a lot lighter than any other pair, but after weighing them ... that wasn't the 1600's were slightly lighter (by 0.4 ounces). Even side-by-side it would be hard for me to say that the Bushnell 1 Mile's are clearly worse optically than the 1600's. But, when reading the eye exam charts ... the two independent testers could both read smaller letters with the 1600 than the 1 Mile. That doesn't mean every aspect of optical quality on the 1600 is better than the 1 Mile ... it just means we could see more detail in our tests using the pair of 1600's we had than using the pair of 1 Mile's we had. The 1 Mile's might be brighter, have better contrast, be clearer edge-to-edge, and have truer color than than the 1600's. In fact, it doesn't even mean every pair of the 1600's is better than every pair of the 1 Mile's. It is just that we could see more detail using the models we tested.

I actually think the discrepancy is likely due to Bushnell's quality control standards than anything. We may have tested a pair of 1600's that happened to be really good compared to the average pair, and the pair of 1 Mile's I tested might have been really poor compared to the average pair. Bushnell actually sent them to me for testing, so that was a very poor decision if that is the case ... but it certainly could be. Bushnell simply can't enforce the same level of quality control that companies like Leica, Zeiss, and Swarovski can because they are aiming at a different price point. I'm not saying Bushnell is bad for doing that, I think its great that there is a choice for around $1,000. And honestly, I'd still recommend them to most people. That is why in the article I said "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 [like the Leica and Zeiss pairs], 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."

Ultimately my goal was just to test the units in the field under the exact same conditions, write down exactly what happened, and post the results in a way that is easy to understand and compare. I specifically wanted to avoid any bias or preconceived ideas I had, and really didn't even want to "interpret" the results. I just wanted to provide people with the hard facts, so they could make an educated decision based on more than what the manufacturers were claiming.

I'm not arguing that my tests were perfect, but it was the best idea I could come up with to objectively test optical clarity. I even ran through it with multiple people in order to mitigate the risk of bias skewing the results. If anyone has better suggestions, I'd be open to it. I'm likely going to do a similar test with high-end rifle scopes at some point, so if we could come up with a better empirical approach ... I might use it for that field test.

Have been using my swar 10x40slc along with the leica hd b. all day today i went back to the swaro to more clearly define the object i was viewing.. The leica seem to wash the image slightly, the swaro semed to transmit slightly more vivid color. The swaro is more comfortable fits my face better and focuses quickly..
I adjusted diopters several times to see if i could improve the leica . Just didn't quite do it. Rangefinder did well to about a 1000 yds, snow white cold ground aggravated the readings somewhat.
I do not like the fact the holdover value is only to the whole number.. Their charts are to the decimal, the binoculars are not..
They are easy to program and operate the menu.
The objective lens covers are shallow and do not stay on under the slightest movement. Everytime i pick them up the cups are off.
That said i do really like the leica hd b just diappointed in the glass.