Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game How helpful is slope compensation in a rangefinder (hunting mountains)

So I've been looking to get my first rangefinder for hunting and have pretty much settled on a Nikon. I've been looking at either the 800 (good to 800 yards) or the rifleman (good to 550 yards and capable of compensating for slope).

I do hunt some mountainous areas. I would be using the rangefinder in Ak for Caribou and black bear and this year I'd like to get out to WY for Antelope. The farthest I would shoot game if I knew the range would be 400 yds (I do practice at that range 1-2 times a week although, I've never actually shot game past 350).

Would I be better off with the model that compensates for slope or the one that is good to 800 yds. I don't intend to shoot game that far. On the other hand, it seems like since rangefinders are tested under ideal conditions, you can cut the manufactures claims in half in which case the 800 yard model would be about right and the 550 would struggle a bit if I got a 400 yard shot. On the other hand, I do sometimes shoot on steep slopes.

Basically, is the slope compensation useful enough to sacrifice some range. What would you guys recommend?

At 400 yards max range, slope won't make all that much difference. Even at a 1/1, or 100% slope, which over that distance is extremely steep, and unlikely, a 400 yard apparent distance is very near 300 yard horizontal distance.
I would think that it would suffice to know that either uphill, or down, the distance is shorter than measured, and mentally adjust accordingly.
I would go with the 800, because under adverse conditions, many rangefinders are accurate to only half their rated range on non-reflective (hair) objects.
Just my thoughts, and worth what you paid for them.

I use a Leica 900 that does not have slope compensation.
I am not going to replace it until it wears out... BUT if I was going to buy a new rangefinder I would get one with the slope compensating feature.

I'd buy the 550 and test it out way before the season started. If it didn't work at the ranges you need (400 yards give or take) I would take it back.

I used the Nikon 800 last year and found it tough to range much further than 400 yard. If I did get a reading over 400 it took a long time and never saw a true 500 yd reading.
Just bought a 1200 CFR Leica. Night and day difference in light transmission, instant readings $499 for cert pre owned and $599 new from cameraland

Well, if you have a slide rule.... Actually, your sight picture is also compressed when you're shooting angles, unless you have a clear shot at a bowling ball. There's a reason for the advice of keeping an angled shot short. Uphill, you're losing velocity at a greater rate than when shooting level, so the wind affects your shot more.

You never know what you'll run into when hunting. In AK I had an 802 yard shot that had to be adjusted on the fly as it was very steep uphill. IT worked just fine, but a compensating rangefinder would have made it a bit quicker.

I'll take the longest ranging/best rangfinder I can get my hands on. Even my Leica 900 is hard pressed to range to 900. Any of my old bushnells where about exactly half of what was advertised. Have a Bushnell 1000 sitting beside the computer, its good to maybe 500-600 yards best case. Though it hasn't been used in years.

Jeff

Many people consider the maximum range of a rangefinder only based on the longest shot they might take. That really limits the utility of it. Assume you see an animal at a distance of 900 yards. Too far to shoot? OK. However, there is a ridge 600 yards ahead of you. If you can get to the ridge, you'll be within 300 yards. I've used a rangefinder many times to plot a stalk, and I know in advance how close I'll be when I get to a certain location.

Now THAT is the first time I have heard anyone express this concept, which I have held in mind for some years.

I'm assuming the 802 yard on-the-fly sentence in another post is an April Fool's Joke. If it isn't, it should be...

I've found in the 3 years I've owned a "440" Nikon rangefinder, that it is all I've needed to range "benchmarks". It has been a convenience, not a necessity.
Have yet to use it on an animal... but something of longer range would indeed be valuable to know how much distance to close...

Under ideal condition, I've found the rangefinder to be accurate to advertised ranges - even beyond. Remember, they need a "reflective" target. I've found a single large or clump of birch tree(s), or the sun reflecting off a bank of alder leaves or large rock to work quite well.

I've yet to have the oportunity to range a "non-reflective" moose or caribou... before they are DRT... I did range that last caribou at 180 yards, where he lay after the shooting was done. Before he wakjed up over the ridge, I'd earlier ranged the rock outcropping beyond him at 208 yards.

The rifle seemed to agree...

"Slope compensation" (except for bow-hunters) is largely a gimmick to sell you their product.

Under field conditions, one can just not hold tight enough to make up for the fractions of an inch difference in POI, at reasonable ranges, except, perhaps, at very extreme angles of 45 degrees or greater at distances of greater than 150 yards or so..

Thanks for the help, I ended up going with the 800 based off the fact that it would work more reliably to 400 yards. It seems to range whatever I point it at to 400 and works on birch trees to 650. Reflective targets like buildings have actually worked out to 950!

My relative experience with the 440 also. Good choice. If I ever get another, it weill be an 800 or better, for the reasons stated above. I'm comfortable to 400 yards - 500 if I push it and conditions are good... the rifles are good to farther.

As JJHack likes to say, 100 things can happen beyond 300 yards, and 99 of them are bad...

In my opinion, a LRF should be used to let you know when you are within your true skill/comfort range, NOT to attempt a hail-mary shot holdover to the range...

Jim Shockey uses this concept with his ML hunting - If it isn't within 200 yards, he doesn't shoot...

Um.....huh?