Today's events got me wondering, how do you all range in the field? Me and the boys shot this morning and after lunch were doing some range-E. The targets were below our roof top and the land rises away from the river so I thought we would get decent readings but the LRF gave false readings and no readings on some targets so when we were done mil'ing we drove to each target and lased the building with no problems. From roof to target did not always result in a range that matched the one from target to building(and there was not enough angle for it to matter). However, my estimation from mil'ing(done on the roof) was never off by more than 10m, all the way out to 900m, from what we got from target to building via LRF.

So, how do you range and how confident are you in your LRF? Obviously game animals present about as good a reflective target as silhouettes do. Do you just range the deer with an LRF and hope for the bests or do you range some relfective target to help you estimate range? How many of you use some sort of ranging system using mils or minutes? Combination of the two?

I usually take shots of features around me with the LRF as a quick reference to check myself then mil a target several ways taking the average of the ranges I mil. Then that range is what I apply my DOPE and calculations to.

Which LRF?

i shoot the animal then count paces to the corpse.

Hit the animal 2-3 times and scan both sides. If your LRF is capable.

Always better to have another hunter with a LRF too.

If not see 1st sentence.

Thats too far for me to walk.........

Leica 1200 Scan...hasn't let me down yet.

A fresh battery is a plus.....

Most of my lasers r Leica LRF/CRF's/Geovid.

I also calculate reticle-rangefinding (including point blank range rangefinding) for any game (avg. back to brisket) i may be after with any multi-stadia reticle i'm using at the time. I get a lot of opportunity to range antelope and deer where i hunt coyotes, and we're running about 3-5% error out to ~500 yds. with most reticles. We r almost always within 3% on hard targets all the way out to ~1000.

The system i use is based on the most basic form of the mil-ranging formula. As an example i have a 6-18x Nikon Buckmasters mil-dot, but i don't "mil" at the cald. power of 12. I use 18 where it becomes more accurate at a subtension of 2.4 inch per hundred yds. Here's a description of the formula--
www.ottllc.com/specialtypistols/sp20.pdf -- Item C) Reticle Rangefinding

sscoyote,
We also calculate quick references based on average object sizes. None of our rifle optics(leupold and nightforce) go above 10x but any of the reticles break down into .2mils to help range more accurately. I was using the standard army mil reticle instead of the TMR or for my range-e. Even though my spotter has a mil reticle I usually only use it to spot trace.

The reason I asked about sport optic type LRF's is two of our guys had Bushnell and Leupold LRF's they like to carry for quick reference and they were not giving accurate ranges on the bobs we were ranging. Earlier in the day, on the range, they gave good readings from the roof to the backstop on our range. I was just asking because i can mil more accurately, but not necessarily faster, than those sport LRF's can on small targets.

That's your problem, right there. You need to swap those Bushnells and Leupolds for a pair of Leicas, Swaros or Zeiss's, and you'll be in business.

I also have problems with ranging small targets even with all my Leicas, but they are the best out there besides maybe the Swaro.

I also use the TMR reticle as it allows for .02 mil rangefinding accuracy. Great reticle for that app.

I use a LRF1200 scan, always use the scan and range the critter alond with targets around it. I suck at judgeing range past about 300 yards so if my LRF wont get a range I dont take the shot.

Jordan,
The Army has really good range finders but they are big and I don't always feel like hauling it around since my kit already fills an assault pack. I buy enough gear that a Leica or Swaro is not going in my kit bag. As long as we can see a target two of us behind optics can come up with a consensus on range pretty fast, and I was only off by 1.11% at 900m. An LRF cannot always come through depending on conditions. That is why I was asking what your alternate plan is?

That is very true. An LRF definitely is not infallible, and at times it doesn't come up with a reading at all. If I'm ranging a shot at an animal when the LRF fails, I use the ballistic reticle in my rifle scope to gauge how far away the animal is. If it's further than 400 yards, and my LRF won't give a reading, I don't shoot. Even an error of only 1.11% at 900m is enough to completely miss the vitals of a big-game animal.

If it's an inanimate target, I take a sighter-shot and adjust from there.

http://www.authorizedoptics.com/swarovski-range-finders.html
Never go wrong again. I have 3 flippen range finders and this is the keeper. Don't buy 3 of them over 10 year period and end up buying what you were avoiding to buy because of price.
Remember you will miss 100% of the shots you don't take.. LOL

Yes, an error of 1.11% translates into about 6" for that rifle at 900m. Personally, I limit my shots on a hunt between four and five hundred (and only that far if the wind isn't blowing more than 10mph) even though my personal rifles are quite a bit more effective. None of them are set up to shoot beyond what can be acheived "holding on hair."

I use turbo accelerator bullets out of my 300 magnum. Not only do they have flesh seeking tips, they accelerate to compensate for ranges beyond my zero range of 300 yards. They're expensive, but they work.

I have the flesh seeker tip too, but it doesn't fit in any rifle I know of. LOL

For LR work I run a Leica RF.

To back that up I run mildot optics. My two most used LR guns have the same 6.5x20 MKIV Leupolds on them. I actually keep a small calculator in my pack. The formula is: Size of the target in inches x 27.77 divided by # of Mils read equals distance to the target in yards. Then I dial it and send it.

That 27.77 factor is really the key to reticle rangefinding. I remember years ago when i was investigating the mil-dot i tried to figure out where that factor came from. I finally realized it's what i refer to as the "subtension unit" factor. It comes from this simple equation--100 yds. / 3.6" = 27.77. When i discovered that hugely important concept, i thought hey, why not see if it'll work with a plex reticle or ballistic reticle stadia that subtend a different measurement? Sure enuf it worked, oftentimes even more accurately than the mil-dot itself. Now all my multi-stadia reticles became improvised mil-dots.

That's the beauty of the system--all rangefinding with reticles (even downrange zeroing as well) are based upon the most basic form of the mil-ranging formula as noted above. Once every variable in the "mil-ranging" formula is understood it really is quite fascinating what can be accomplished with it.

Here's the rangefinding dope in a Butler Creek Blizzard objective cover that i use with Darrell Holland's HUMR reticle on an 11" back to brisket coyote using a more accurate 1/2 mil system (subtension factor becomes 100/1.8=55.56)--

I got the Leica 1200 scan and I like it but sometimes get faulty readings, like when there is fog and such.

I stuffed all the mildot math into my head, then it all fell out as other stuff got pushed in.

I wish I could afford a really good LRF but I am not sure what it would be. Seems like the really good stuff is unavailable for civilian purchase.

You can always fall back on making a sketch, pacing distances, using topo's etc

LRF/crosshair intersection.

Because nothing is more precise................

While Milling works well on targets of a known fixed size, you don't have that luxuary with deer or other game...

For many years I used the older Leica LRF 1200 and found it to be very reliable at giving readings in difficult conditions. The only thing I dislike is that it lacks a thread to mount it on a tripod, but thats only a minor issue.

Regards,

Peter

There's numerous aftermarket routes,from which to realize a tripod socket.

I like using it from my hindlegs...and have slummed the Leica 1200 LRF from inception.................

I hunt coyotes frequently during the winter out here in So. CO, and get the opportunity to reticle-range antelope quite often with many ballistic and rangefinding reticles. According to my notes i'm running right around 90% success (within 3% of lasered range) out to between 400 and 500 yds.

Here's a quote of the point blank range rangefiding system that i calculate for all my reticles. I used it once only in the field for coyotes and it worked--

"Here's an extremely good example of how reticle-ranging could've helped a buddy get his buck antelope a couple years ago. He'd put a long stalk on a bedded antelope when the buck caught his movement and jumped out of his bed alerted (couple days into the season when they're always a bit touchy). My buddy was using a 6.5-20x Leupold with the fine Duplex reticle. Now if i were using that optic i'd have calcd. a power that the optic could've been turned down to while hunting where he could use the plex post tips as a quick point blank range rangefinding tool. If the buck gives u a quick shot just bracket it and if it fits, aim dead center and shoot or hold a little high--whatever. So instead of having that little A-I-T-H up his sleeve my buddy tried to range it from the prone position with his laser, but he couldn't get a reading. He finally had to sit up and get a reading then lay back down and take the shot. He thought the buck was 300+ yds. away from prone looking thru the grass. As it turned out it was only about 1/2 the distance. Can u believe that buck didn't spook? It didn't, and he killed it. But he was really lucky with that animal 3 days into the hunt. They usually don't wait around that long. Had he had a 250 yd. +/- (whatever it was for his load/tgt. size) point blank range reticle rangefinding system established with the reticle he would have seen that it would've been way bigger than the gap and he could've gotten the shot off in a tenth the time he did using the laser."

There is some viability to the stuff, tho applied very infrequently in the field since the lasers came out. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's waayyy better than guessing.

There is some satisfaction in knowing how to apply the optic to it's greatest potential, if a shooter needs to. While investigating reticle rangefinding, i'd often thought that it should also define downrange zeroing as well, since a tgt. size is really the same sort of dimension as a trajectory. Sure enuf it works perfectly. The mil-ranging formula is just the geometric formula that defines the law of equal triangles, and is used for many angular calculations.

A "Testimonial" by an idiot,ain't much of a Sales Pitch.

Few could confuse 150yds for 300..................

pale white cracker sure sounds familiar....

I reckon he prolly shoots a bit and sandbags even more................

Obviously the quickest way and if it works, (and it will most times) no problem...But when the distance really stretches out, and seeing as your spotting scope already has a tripod, that bushing would allow the possibility of a bit of extra precision if needed..Not a deal killer because it's missing, but a nice added touch if it were there...

If you can recommend ony particular "after market" solution, I'd be very interested..

I got one of these this fall. Works very, very, well. Before the Swaro I used my scope. Actually worked fairly well too. The scope is a nightforce with the NP R2 reticle. The reticle is divided in MOA multiple increments, I use a laminated cheat sheet.

Poor Boy fix? JB weld a nut to the housing.

There are numerous nylon/velcro wraps that wear a socket,if you'd prefer...............

Ranging at great distance is difficult without tripod or something to lean it on.
I have the latest Swaro and it is tripod friendly.
Not sure how this quizmo works but if you move just a little bit you don't get areading. You have to hold steady for what seems an eternity sometimes to get that range reading.

I'm on my 5th LRF now,upgrading all the while as new releases were unveiled.

Have yet to want to drive one from a tripod,but I do not suffer Palsey.................

Probably not Big Stick, but the 1 thing u do suffer from is the uncanny ability to piss people off. U know the 2 bravest places in the world r the telephone and the Internet, because u don't have to stare people in the face when u confront them. They make a wimp a gladiator.

7mmfreak I don't know what unit you're with, or if you are issued them, but if I had to choose between a leupold spotter and the Vector 21 with the attached power booster and everything else you can do with it I'd leave the leupold at home. MELIOS is way to big I agree.

I'm much better in person and have long put on countless LRF displays from the hindlegs.

Very old news....................

Not to change the subject...

I am still on a quest for a fairly affordable LRF that is proven and reliable to one honest mile. Perhaps someone already mentioned one but I must have forgotten or missed it.

LRF's are getting better and pricing is coming down.

In another 5yrs,it'll be rather amazing.................

The technology is out there now, but companies are limited by various laws as to what strength laser they can use on products meant for the civilian market..

For me at least, my ballistics have outrun my optics and instrumentation! LOL

But seriously; Bruce Baer up the road a piece, shot a deer at one clean mile about three years ago. He told me about it and it just kinda stuck in my mind. But its the optics and ranging that scares me off of the quest so far. In all honesty I am only comfortable with my optics out to 800 yards for now.

When the wife ain't looking sometime next year.... A nightforce and some kind of rangefinder is on my radar screen.

Heres a couple of links that might interest those looking to laser beyond a mile:

Leica Vector

POCKET LASER RANGEFINDER UPDATE

Note the date on the second paper; things have certainly moved on since then!

Hey! Thanks for the links!

Great link and I see they advertise with a tripod. So much for the Palsy comment from the troll PaleWhiteCrackhead.

Getcha a cough silencer too,so as to compliment your butt plug and a slap chop.

There's one born every minute................

I will not be as childish as you to belittle myself to hurl insults back. We have ignore button for people like you.

Practice will take you places,you've never dreamed of.

Give it a whirl and get back to me..............

Why are you such a dickhead? You seem like and intelligent kinda guy that could fit nicely into this family of hunters and riflemen but no you have to antogonize and piss everybody off. Try to be more polite. Everyone will just ignore you and I don't think that is what you want. If that is your goal, I feel sorry for you. You can learn alot of things here about various products, how to shoot better and blah blah blah. Right?

My trouble is,I'm not stupid and I'm coordinated...so many things are apparently very,very easy for me,in which you seemingly find great associated difficulty.

The dumbest sorts,are the first to poke their heads in the sand and perhaps someone will take the time to explain that correlation to you........................

PaleWhiteCracker,
You are being rude. My question, and original post, was not about you abilities or prowess. Or about how those touted strengths of yours make life easy for you. I asked a question about how guys range? I observe, range, and shoot for living and as a result of lots of practice both come fairly easily for me as well. Stop being an ass.

I went down to OK and met Suttles and Whittington and got on their unknown distance course. I simply could not discern 1/10th of a mil and I think I misjudged a 680 for a 620 yard shot... something like that. Right then and there I could see,(or not see) that I would never be a mildot man. Just ain't got the eyes for it.

I might try an MOA reticle someday soon though.

Try a Mil reticule with hash marks instead of dots and I think you'll find it easier to read accurately...

With either system, get the reticule in the same units as the turret adjustments: a Mil reticule with MOA turrets is just making things more complicated than they need to be..

I hear ya on the same same for the reticle and turrets, but MOA combinations are rare. I only know of two, the Nighforce and some new off brand I can't remember what it is called.

I think in minutes, judge come ups in minutes, read wind in minutes... why even stumble over the mils at all I am thinking. And the MOA grid is finer in the reticle. O course you folks on the other side of the pond with your metric stuff...

The tangent of the angle of one miliradian is 1? something like that so the trig is called, "elegant" by math dudes. You metric dudes got that going fer ya!

http://www.sightwonders.com/wotac.html

This is the budget scope with the MOA reticle. Some obscure reference I found on snipers hide said the Falcon line would have MOA reticles this year but I can't find them

What don't you understand.

What words I used,were too big?................

DixieFreedomz,

I understand what your saying about changing, and I could never understand why MOA reticule didn't become popular.

In laymans terms, a Mil is the angle subtended by "1 at 1000" that could be 1m at 1000m, or 1" at 1000" or 1yard at 1000yards, the actual linear units don't matter.

Imagine taking a shot at a longish range and seeing it drop short and left...using your reticule you judge its dropped 2.4 Mils short and 1.7 Mils left. On your scope turrets, you therefore add 2.4 Mils of elevation (24 clicks) and 1.7 Mils of windage to the (17 clicks)...The actual range and real linear drop doesn't matter...

The only time it gets complicated is if your trying to use reticule to determine the range of targets using their known size , but I think its probably just as complicated doing that in MOA, except people have become acustomed to the Math...

Regards,

Peter

I believe it's Vortex but not 100% sure Dixiefreedom

Pete i don't understand how the math is actually easier. I milled this 12" target yesterday that was sitting at 300 yds. I got 1.15 3.6" subtension units. That calculates using the basic mil formula (" to yds.) as--

12 x 100 / 3.6 /1.15 = 289.9 yds.

Knowing that 100/3.6=27.78 (the subtension unit factor) eliminates 1 computation then u're left with 3 variables. Show me how the metric system is easier.

A couple more for you:

USO. Wide selection of FFP MOA reticles.
March. MTR-1 reticle similar to Nightforce's NP-R2.
Vortex. Their Razor Tactical will be available with an MOA reticle soon.
Premier. MOA knobs already available (user interchangeable), and will have an MOA reticle soon.

Of course if you give Mils a try, you'll find them much easier to work with anyway.

Alright, i think i see it. In the example above 12"=30.48cm, and there's 10cm in 100 meters for a mil subtension, so that eliminates 1 comp. or--

304.8m/1.15=265m

I always thought when the US was considering switching to the metric system that we should have as it does make things a bit easier.

If you think working with subtention unit factors, base 12 units (inches) and base 3 units (yards) is easier than just working units which are all base base 10 (metric & Mils) I think your deluding yourself...

The basic formula for Metric Range finding would be:

Size of the Target (measured in meters) X 1000 / Size of the target in Mils

So using your example it would be :

.3m x1000/1.15 = 261M (rounded up)

No subtension units, or worring about 12" to the foot and three foot to the yard, all nice base 10 units...

The main problem with working in metric, is not the math, thats more straight forward, its just many people are not familar with the units and can't visualize them as easily ...everybody knows what a foot is, but when I say .3m, thats not so easy/instinctive.

I grew up using mostly Imperial measurements, and was taught metric almost as an after thought so I do understand why people are reluctant to change..

Edited to add, if you prefer Imperial measurements just work in yards all through and its just as easy...In this case the calculation would be

.333x1000/1.15= 289.5 yards

Given that the 12" plate was actually at the 300yard point, if you work it backwards, you can see what your error in reading the Mils : .333x1000/300= 1.1 Mils

Regards,

Peter

That�s a good way to do it. Don�t measure your target in inches, measure it in Centiyards. Then the math is exactly the same and people never get confused. Cause math is hard.

12� = 33.3 Centiyards.

33.3/1.15 X 10 = 290 yds.

If one knows how to do it �metric� then he knows how to do it like this with no change in technique or proceedures or additional training or practice required. This basically removes the �difference� from the ranging process and puts it beforehand when obtaining target sizes.

"Centiyards"??? That would confuse the hell out of a redneck!

Its a *long* time since I did "Mil-Math" as its not something I find very useful for hunting...It is applicable to Military and LEO's though as they operate in an environment where there are more likely to be objects of "known height"..For hunting, the lazer range finder is king....

Regards,
Peter

The Metric System is the "offical" unit of measure for the USA, and has been since 1866, and was confirmed, again, in 1988.

R.

RIGHT, I noticed that when I got gas tonight. I thought I would get a few gallons of gas, but instead they were trying to sell me Liter's and some french guy trying to sell me Litres.
still not makin' any sense.
RC828

It is quite a spectacle,when folks go to great lengths,to add difficulty to simplistic matters...............

Yep

Of course it is, that goes without saying. I only consider ranging with the reticle for backup/sanity-check use. 90% of the utility I have for a good reticle (Mil or MOA) has nothing to do with ranging. But that doesn't mean I have to forget about that last 10%.

I don't see any advantage to carrying around a tool without knowing how to use it.

Exactly--which is the reason for my "subtension unit." That allows me a world of flexibility way beyond the mil-dot, whether metric or not. Understanding the "SU" concept allows ranging with any reticle subtension (simple plex, ballistic and 2FP rangefinding at any power, even archery sight pins if one were so inclined), sometimes way better than the MD. Here's another photo of that same 12" disc now at 18x and an SU of 100/2.4=41.67--



...so 12 x 100 / 2.4 / 1.7 (the bottom of the disc is ~a tenth below the center of the line) = 294

IMO, understanding every variable allows for more flexibility in the reticle-rangefinding process (as well as understanding that the formula defines trajectory reference with reticle or turret also).

Couple years ago we calcd. the size of a 1000-yd. target (reverse milling) to within .3" of it's true dimension using a mil-reticle recald to a different (more accurate) subtension unit at the optics highest power.

A while later a doe antelope loped thru the town at a slight tangent to us and i attempted to mil-range it while on the move. It calcd. to 362 and lasered at 370. This stuff does work to a somewhat better degree of accuracy than guessing.

Besides all this, heck i've already made some $ on these concepts.

Very good info fellas and many thanks.

Wow............

What a self absorbed prick.

BTW PeteE, Leica makes a bracket with a tripod adapter for the LRF models. I have one and its usefull for longer ranges

Counting on your local gas station for historical data probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but whatever floats your boat.

R.

Cheers for that...I've see if they have them here in the uk..

Rman,
I guess you just dont get it, I was being SARCASTIC. since you live in Canuckland mabey you did not realize that your statement about the Metric system being the "offical" unit of measure for the USA.....NEVER HAPPENED. we still drive miles not kilometers (except in southern AZ so that the illegals know how far to free lunch). we still buy our lumber in 2"x4" measurements not milimeters, my Big Gulp is still 32oz. and my football field is still 100yards and YES we still sell gas by the gallon.

On the other side of this my FORD truck has a 5.4 liter engine with half metcic and half SAE fasteners,but the odometer still reads in miles not kilometers, my bottled water comes in 500ml and 2 liter sizes also gallon jugs. a beer comes in a 12oz can and a 1 liter bottle.
I guess you would have to be an American to get the humor. saying the Metric system is the "offical" unit of measure for the USA is like saying ENGLISH is the "offical" language of the USA either is laughable, with the french thing you have going up there mabey you can understand.
RC828
p.s. we also have a 7mm Remington Magnum and a 280 Remington, saying that anything is "offical" unit of measure in the USA is incorrect.

Mackay,

I find it curious that you feel compelled to brag about being so far behind the curve.

Practice laddy,practice and thank me later..................

I was wondering if you were going to off on a half corked rant about this. Maybe instead of thinking you�re right, and I'm wrong, you could take a minute or two to find out for yourself. Your government has twice passed acts adopting the metric system as official measurement. Look it up. Just because it is not enforced, like it was here, does not mean it is not the measurement system adopted. Care to guess which system your military uses? Educate yourself, and get back to me after you've done a little reading.

R.

I will range with the mildots in scope and them verify with my LRF. It makes for great practice for when the LRF goes OTS.

Everybody knows that the metric system was invented by the Illuminati and the Rockefellers and the Trilateral commission to bring about the subversion of America. Dang commie meters...

Rman,
You still dont get it, I will make one last attempt to enlighten you. I dont dispute that the metric system is the "offical" measurement. but what you claim is "not enforced" is not even on the radar. Our "official" immigration laws are not enforced but the people and the government at least talk about change, you mention our military the "official" round is a 5.56x45mm NATO the same round for civilians is "official" also it is called a 223 Remington, while you might be "right" about the metric system being the "official" measurement you need to understand that it is of no significance, meaningless and completely irrelevant.
The measures system in the USA is a mis-matched mess, has been for decades and will continue to be that way for decades to come "not enforced" is an epic understatement if you cant see my point you need to go suck on a hockey puck and try and fix your own country's problems.

To the origional question: How do you range
I range with my Swarovski(in yards) out to about 1 mile or (1760 yards), past that range I use my WILD optical rangefinder(in meter's) out to about 5000 meter's then get out my calculator and convert it back to yards.
RC828

Put your crack pipe down and read what you wrote.

Quote:
the Metric system being the "offical" unit of measure for the USA.....NEVER HAPPENED

That sounds like a dispute to me. (fixed the spelling, too)

All I did was state a fact. I didn't call you any names, or insult you, or your country, in any way. Now you are going to take it upon yourself to "enlighten" me. The only thing that you have "enlightened" me to is poor grammar, sentence structure, and a boat load of your ignorance. I'm sure there is more than a few that would argue about it's significance (please note spelling), but that would be completely lost on the likes of you.

I can't see your point at all, as all I said is that the metric system is the official unit of measure for your country. This is a fact. There is nothing to agree or disagree on.

My countries (please note spelling, again) problems as far as measurement systems? We really don't have a problem, the metric system works well for us, and for the most part, the rest of the world.

Maybe you should go back to that gas staition you mentioned, and see if they can help you out about being such an ignorant F&*k.


R.

Good sir!

Do you have a link to the one mile Swarovski? Is it consistent and fairly reliable?

What is a WILD? Got a link to that too?

Thanks.

I'm not whatshisname, and probably not a good sir, but here is some info:

I haven't run a Wild, but I hear great things about them from two guys that have them.
Wild Info Link

I do run a Swarovski, and find it amazing. It is bigger than a Leica, but I feel it has an edge in performance. It is very consistant in all types of conditions, and is very reliable. The only time I have had it fail to read is on objects or game that are over 2000 yards. I have ranged cattle in ideal conditions to just over 2000 yards.
Thier website isn't that great for info, but here is the link.
R.

Deutche (sp?) optic don't have the wild or the barr and stroud either anymore.

I'd love to have one or the other.

Vector IV (Vectronics)

I ran the Leica until the Swaro came out. No comparison, especially out past 800 yds. I have ranged out to 1992 yds with the Swaro. The Leica never would read out past 8-900 unless I was ranging a mirror, and that is the consensus with every one I have ever seen. The consistent accuracy in the 800-1400 yd range was what sold me on the Swaro, even though it is thicker and a little heavier than the Leica.

Plus 1.........

Show off...

I meant to thank you for this information but didn't get to it. Thanks a bunch neighbor!

I am assuming the Vortex would be the only one on my affordability list. (spoke too soon! $2499- OUCH Nightforce at those prices...)

Thanks for the heads up. Do you have a specific model number or a link to the exact model you have. Source for purchase?

It's the Swaro Laser Guide, they only make one model