Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Question About Rangefinder Cost and Technology.

Hunting optics have always been a "you get what you pay for" product, and I get that. And though while the sport optic companies may have kept up with the times, I bet most folks who paid good money for a pair of swaro (or another high end brand) binoculars fifteen years ago are still happy with the quality.

My question is about rangefinders and whether the cost will go down like other electronic devices. Will we be able to get quality rangefinders in a few years for a lot less than today, or will the optics hold their value?

From my own perspective, I have trouble paying for top notch electronic optics like the RF. It is usually outmatched by something new in 2-3 years. Example - the optics in many RF's has come a long, long way. Most good ones can be used as a monocular should you choose.

However, it is an electronic. It can, and will fail. And this is why I have trouble convincing myself to by the Bino RF combo from Swaro and the like. Just my take.

You're already getting good quality at good prices, since they've been on the market over 20 years already.

My old Bushnell 400 from the mid 90's still works like new

There are models now in all price and distance ranges

You'd probably have to define your idea of "a lot less" than today. As noted above, these are electronics based, and the tech changes every year. The initial models were limited in size (big) and range (less), the unit size has decreased as the ability to range has increased.

Wild Game Innovations has models at $100 or less.

The Bushnell Scout series are pretty steady at $200-ish.

Leupold models are $300-400 and have dropped a bit.
Nikon runs in this range, but has lower end models as well.

Leica are $500 and above.

So, while the "last years" model is generally discounted, they work just fine. The new models are usually marketed as better, but how much is jut the new wrapper, or the trade name logo?

I went down the Leupold road, with the RX-III. It's a big block, but it ranges just fine. 13 reticules - really? Sounded cool, but used only one. The display lighting was present, but non-functional in the field.

I went to the Bushnell Scout, smaller and capable, but no lighting in the display.

Went back to Leupold when the TX series came out, and haven't switched since. The optics in the TX at 6X are almost enough to not need a set of binos with me when East Coast archery hunting.

The old RX-III works just as well as the new TX, it's just big and harder to read in low light. With the TX, I'm paying for three reticules that I actually use, and an adjustable light display works at dawn/dusk, and mid-day.

What I can tell you is that over the years we have not seen any significant price reduction in LRF's. For the most part when a new model is released it is at or slightly higher priced than the model it is replacing

The biggest tech change I've seen on rangefinders has been the inclusion of inclinometers and software to automatically adjust the "estimated range" for degree of angle.

Yes, the big boys (Leica, Swaro, Zeiss) are more money and have more power (arguably). IMO, does it really matter if the shot is ranged at 1600 meters?

To me, I'd almost rather have the RF flash "too far to shoot" instead of "787 yards".

500 yards, in my book, is plenty of range. Beyond 200 I actually have to think carefully "wouldn't it be better to try and get closer?".

Angle though - there's value in that to me. I didn't need it on my goat hunt (got lucky) but I can see the value in it.

You might get more for your money a few years from now, but how much time ranging your shots have you given up? If you want a rangefinder, buy one now and use it until it breaks. I think that we've reached "sufficiency" with LRF's in that, outside of some specialized features, the majority of LRF's are sufficient for the uses of the majority of shooters. So pick one in your preferred price range and go shooting. Factor into your decision the "opportunity cost" of foregoing having a rangefinder today, on the speculation that you may save money at some unspecified point in the future.

My Leica 10x42 BRF are now 10 years old, I bought them new. They work as well today as day one. Will they ever fail? Who knows, perhaps, perhaps not . . .

My goal was to replace having to deal with another piece of equipment and still have decent binoculars. They have fulfilled their end of the bargain. They are not safe queents, been many trips all over the world and still going strong. If they ever break will buy another set no questions asked.

Now if you just want to range and don't need a quality binocular there are plenty of much cheaper rangefinders.

bkmcdani,



This is balonie! You get what you shop for. If you take time to compare optics side by side outside the store you will discover you don't get what you pay for in scopes. Maybe this works with binoculars, if you don't mind paying three or four times as much for something, but not with scopes or range finders. The more expensive are not any better in lots of cases.

I have a basic Leupold rangefinder from years ago but I want an upgrade. I rarely get readings over 300 yds (even on reflective things) plus it's hard as heck to read the display in the early morning and later in the afternoon. I think I can spend just a little more than I did the first time but get a lot better product.

I'm one of the guys in the "you get what you pay for" camp when it comes to optics but in rangefinders they all work pretty much the same and as good as the other one. Granted there are some that range further than other and some that have incline technology but the optics are mediocre at best in all of them because honestly optic quality is not that important in them. I have a Leica LRF and it's a little clearer than my Nikon PS7 but it doesn't matter. If you're using one of the Leica or Swaro binos with the range finder in them then it's a different story. Personally I would not want a long term investment like high end binoculars to include electronics though.

The rangefinding capability does indeed continue to improve. I had an older pair of Leica Geovids and they worked quite well. I shot a lot of critters using them. I recently sold them and bought a really nice pair of used Leica HD B s. The power of the rangefinder is quite literally 3 to 4 times better. Does that let you "shoot farther?" Probably in some instances. What the HDBs have allowed me to do is pick up ranges that, due to flat ground, or bright conditions, were hard to pick up with my old rangefinder. I got a coyote on flat ground a while back at 450yds, that I am pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to get before because of flat bright conditions. Got a range the first try with the new HD Bs. For me, its definitely worth the extra if you can swing it. The glass in both pair of binos is excellent.

I'm also one who's struggled with figuring out how to evaluate the value of a LRF for my particular circumstances. I've often attributed much of this to the electronic nature of these devices and my belief that the LRF's integrated electronics results in it having a much more perishable value than straight optical devices. As a result, I've chosen to apply purchasing strategies similar to the ones I use when purchasing electronic gadgets rather than those I use for purchasing optics. I chose the term "electronic gadgets" as opposed to something like "electronic instruments" as in my particular situation the LRF does not get enough use or the kind of use to justify paying for instrument grade precision. I need a device that will work within a few yards, at ranges under 600 yards, in open fields and dense forests. Ideally it would come in a small package, work quickly, provide consistent results, and be durable enough to withstand the kind of abuse that comes along with being used in harsh environments without excessive coddling. The idea of "need" is weighted heavily because of the rapidly diminishing value that I attribute to electronic gadgets. For instance I'm much more likely to buy more than I "need" when purchasing items with durable values-- this being due to my belief that the purchase is more like an investment in so far as less perishable items will retain a considerable portion of the value over time. This value can presumably be converted down the road by applying toward an upgrade, swap or cash out. At the end of the day this has meant, in my case, that rather than own a military grade LRF or ultra pricy alpha lass binoculars with integrated range finders, I currently make do with a Leupold RX-1000i with TBR and DNA that I got on clearance at a Big Box Store.

On a related note, I can't agree with Ringman more. With optics these days...

[/b] You get what you shop for.[/quote] [quote=Ringman

There are so many options out there on both the new and pre-owned markets that not only is it necessary to make sense of the market's diverse offerings, but shopping can really pay off. Along these lines, I'm still hoping Doug and CL raffle an all expense paid trip down to their new digs on L.I. for the ultimate optics shopping experience!

I don't see it as electronic first but optical first myself.

Just my opinion - the marginal cost of adding rangefinder electronics to the optics will go down. The cost of the optics will not - that is the optics will "hold their value" in the sense of quality optics will continue to be pricey. I haven't seen any brand name laser rangefinder doesn't work anymore binoculars discounted in the classifieds so I doubt it's a big problem.

What I see in the market place is successive generations of laser range finding binoculars have improved electronics with every generation but always at the same or higher prices.

I have settled for Bushnell level range finding binoculars and adding a Leupold pocketable range finding monocular for EDC wandering around and getting a better feel for exact distances on familiar ground.

Sort of on topic:
The advertising person who first dreamed up the phrase "You Get What You Pay For" was a genius who should receive royalties from every product sold since he came up with it.

Sort of off topic:
Anyone have experience with one of those old "turn the two images into one" range-finders that you could aim at a cow in the pasture and find that was either 163 yards away, 41 yards away, or 587 yards away, depending upon which of the three results you cared to use?

I have four different range finders bought as I went up the scale with newer and better. A Bushnell failed to be replaced by a Leupold which was marginal. The non-scan Leica LRF1200 has worked well since and does all I really need.

The Vortex was bought to compare... its warranty puts it in the game for all but the most demanding users. No other LRF has a lifetime warranty.

My take is that a decent lrf has made me a better shooter via knowing the distance and not guessing. My 1st and current lrf is a Bushnell Arc 1600. It is 6x w/ OK optics but accurate as to range and trig.. I trust it to 500 yards + which works for me.

Great optics are their own reward but I can accept less if the range is accurate.

In my world any accurate lrf is better than none. Let your bank account be your guide.


mike r

just buy a Leica.....buy once/cry once

Just like everything else from cars to washers, they'll continue to make them more complicated, with more features, and more specialized. Niche niche niche. Money money money.

Someday soon we'll all be crying, "Why can't I just get something that tells me how far it is to the target?"

Don't need a 10" satellite TV system with your RF, tough sheit. $1700.

Good post!