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