i'm looking for a set of good, not ultra excellent, binocs that i can use to calc distance as well as view through.  i can't afford the $1750 Leica Geovids.  i'm sport shooting and ranging at various distance.  i want a combo.  when i use a single monocular or monocular rangefinder my unused eye goes blurry.  i try to use both eyes open as often as possible.  when looking through my riflescope, i just do the best i can.

i'm primarily interested in the Newcon LRB 7x50 and the IOR/Valdada 7x40's or 10x50's.  Newcon is a laser and the Valdada is going to require a couple more braincells as it is used with the mil concept.  both of these are in the $550 to $700 range.  snipercountry.com had a review on the valdada's that looked favorable.  i haven't found anything on the newcon.

please give me your thoughts.  if there are some units i have overlooked or should consider, please let me know.  i may spring for the ultimate pair in future years, but for now my budget requires something more middle-of-the-road.

thanks.

I recently bought a pair of the Leicas, and the 8X is $1500 and the 10X (my choice) is $50 more with full Leica warranty and fast shipping.

Skip the Newcom, the Burris, and maybe look at the Nikon if you want something cheaper I was told, especially if laser rangefinder performance is important to you.

I was actually very interested in the Leica optics, which are superb, and chose to by the Geovid instead of separate binoculars and rangefinder.

The other day, I successfully ranged construction workers at  819 yards (they were standing on a hill, I guess it could have been the hill, but I was in scan mode coming down from the sky), and my furthest reading was 1284 yards, a dump truck, all hand held but braced.

Quoted: I recently bought a pair of the Leicas, and the 8X is $1500 and the 10X (my choice) is $50 more with full Leica warranty and fast shipping. Skip the Newcom, the Burris, and maybe look at the Nikon if you want something cheaper I was told, especially if laser rangefinder performance is important to you. I was actually very interested in the Leica optics, which are superb, and chose to by the Geovid instead of separate binoculars and rangefinder. The other day, I successfully ranged construction workers at  819 yards (they were standing on a hill, I guess it could have been the hill, but I was in scan mode coming down from the sky), and my furthest reading was 1284 yards, a dump truck, all hand held but braced.

dude...  work with me here.  i specifically said i couldn't afford the leicas...  if i break out the credit card for these, i'll blame you and note your post to my wife as i beg for forgiveness...  hanks!

Having used everything up to and including the new and old Geovids, the sleeper is the BURRIS.

Its optics suck and it's bulky, but it ranges GREAT.

With it, we've ranged stuff out to 1300 yards reliably, where an old Leica LRF1200 (non-scan) could not range.

ETA: with the Leicas under discussion, the new 10x42 Geovids absolutely ROCK, but they're also like $1700.

-z

Did you look at the Bushnell Pro Quest Laser ?

$429 at Cabelas

Quoted: Having used everything up to and including the new and old Geovids, the sleeper is the BURRIS. Its optics suck and it's bulky, but it ranges GREAT. With it, we've ranged stuff out to 1300 yards reliably, where an old Leica LRF1200 (non-scan) could not range. ETA: with the Leicas under discussion, the new 10x42 Geovids absolutely ROCK, but they're also like $1700. -z

what model?  

-mikes

Quoted: I recently bought a pair of the Leicas, and the 8X is $1500 and the 10X (my choice) is $50 more with full Leica warranty and fast shipping. Skip the Newcom, the Burris, and maybe look at the Nikon if you want something cheaper I was told, especially if laser rangefinder performance is important to you. I was actually very interested in the Leica optics, which are superb, and chose to by the Geovid instead of separate binoculars and rangefinder. The other day, I successfully ranged construction workers at  819 yards (they were standing on a hill, I guess it could have been the hill, but I was in scan mode coming down from the sky), and my furthest reading was 1284 yards, a dump truck, all hand held but braced.

i forgot to ask you earlier...

why skip the Newcon's?  did you have a poor experience?  

let me know.  thanks.

-mikes

Quoted: Quoted: Having used everything up to and including the new and old Geovids, the sleeper is the BURRIS. what model?

I think they just have 1 model.. the 7x40, 1500 yard?

Quoted: i forgot to ask you earlier... why skip the Newcon's?  did you have a poor experience?

I only found one person with experience with the Newcom, talked to him at a gun shop, and he had to send his in twice to get the laser repaired, the ranging was poor, he had battery drain problems, and optically they sucked in his opinion.  He finally got a refund he said.  Figured I wouldn't chance it.

Zak reported positive experience with the Burris's rangefinder, my experience was the opposite, they couldn't range anything at all over 400 yards with any consistency, and the optical performance was very poor.



I'd like to see the Nikons, but they are half of the Leica's price ($1500 or $1550 for the 10X) and have obviously inferior optical performance.

There are some pretty good binocs out there for 4-5 hundred, and good rangefinders can be had for less than that, so it seems somebody should be able to put a competitive product on the market for under a grand, and maybe Nikon has, but since you can buy the Leica for $1500, I'd just build to that.

Most people mistakenly think the mil scale reticle pattern in binoculars are for range finding.  There there to determine deviation from an aim point in order to adjust fire.  They aren't well suited to subtend angles for range finding.

IOR
www.valdada.com

I bought the IOR's the first ones he imported. My neighbor had just spent over twice as much on Swarovski's. At dusk/ twilight the IOR's were beter.

these are the ones I have (but black)

www.valdada.com/vn/ior/01i


excellent clarity/resolution and they're not made in china!!  

If you don't already have a laser range-finder (which it sounds like you don't)-- GET THE LASER.

Ranging with mils takes a long time, is error-prone, and requires a lot of practice.  Even then, it will be slower than zapping the laser.  A lot of objects are not of known size, which makes mil ranging extremely difficult.

Randing with mils IS a good skill to have.  Get the LRF first and use it to cross-check your milling during practice.   If you're milling stuff, you'll have no way to "check your work" without the laser (outside of a KD range anyway).

-z

Quoted: If you don't already have a laser range-finder (which it sounds like you don't)-- GET THE LASER. Ranging with mils takes a long time, is error-prone, and requires a lot of practice.  Even then, it will be slower than zapping the laser.  A lot of objects are not of known size, which makes mil ranging extremely difficult. Randing with mils IS a good skill to have.  Get the LRF first and use it to cross-check your milling during practice.   If you're milling stuff, you'll have no way to "check your work" without the laser (outside of a KD range anyway). -z

+1

Quoted: If you don't already have a laser range-finder (which it sounds like you don't)-- GET THE LASER. Ranging with mils takes a long time, is error-prone, and requires a lot of practice.  Even then, it will be slower than zapping the laser.  A lot of objects are not of known size, which makes mil ranging extremely difficult. Randing with mils IS a good skill to have.  Get the LRF first and use it to cross-check your milling during practice.   If you're milling stuff, you'll have no way to "check your work" without the laser (outside of a KD range anyway). -z

you raise a good point.  i suppose i'll have to spend the extra cash and buy the leicas...  

when you say that using the mils is error prone, how much error can i actually have?  10%?  20%?  most of the range i'll be shooting at will be 800 meters or less.  from 600 and closer i can live with a small error.  when i say small i mean less than 10%...

i have a couple mil dot scopes i've been trying to use more and more, and i'm not too bad, but i'm also using them against known ranges to double check my judgement.  i've talked to a lot of folks who were pro mil dot and of course they recommend them.  

as far as STLRN was saying above...  he's too smart for me.  subtend angles, deviation, what kind of talk is that?  just kidding.  i think i knew that, or something like that, but it's nice to be reminded that mils were for long and medium range artillery originally and for adjusting fire.

i get the jist of it.  from what i read from you guys, i take away this:  i can't be as precise with mil dot as laser.  i can't buy performance optics under $1500.  i'll have to spend a ton of money to have something that works really well...

somehow i knew all along it might come down to this...  i really like the feel and glass on the valdada's...  i might buy them regardless, and have a pair for home.  i guess i'll start shopping the net to find competitive pricing on Leica.

any other suggestions and comments are certainly welcome.

thanks!

-mikes

Quoted: www.valdada.com/vn/ior/01/10x40r.jpg these are the ones I have (but black) www.valdada.com/vn/ior/01i excellent clarity/resolution and they're not made in china!!  hr

how much were they?  what do you use them for?  have you looked through them along the edge of the glass to check for aberration?  how close can you get before the aberration is apparent?  do you use them routinely for ranging and if so, how well have you performed?

let me know.

thanks.

-mikes

Quoted: you raise a good point.  i suppose i'll have to spend the extra cash and buy the leicas...

Not at all.   There are some "budget" laser rangefinder choices, which will serve very well.   I suggested the Burris as the "sleeper" (poor glass, big, but ranges well).  There are some others in that same category.  You could find an old used non-scan Leica 1200, probably.   The Leica Geovids combine top of the line binoculars (ie, equal to my Ultravids) and a laser.  But for most people, they would be a luxery choice, not a "need it" choice.

when you say that using the mils is error prone, how much error can i actually have?  10%?  20%?  most of the range i'll be shooting at will be 800 meters or less.  from 600 and closer i can live with a small error.  when i say small i mean less than 10%...

You can have 100% error, or very little error.   Ranging with mils is a mental process involving math, which is error prone in the field, especially if you are in a hurry.   I'm an engineer, and I shoot with machinists, etc, -- people who work with numbers and math all the time.  Virtually all of them agree that any process you have to do with math or figurin' stuff in the field is error prone.   I've seen people turn windage knobs the wrong way, subtract 3.5 from 15 and get 10.5, etc.  

But even if you can do the math correct every time, you need to accurately know the object size, and be able to visually make out its size in the optic relative to the reticle features.  This is not as easy as you'd think, with optical imprfection, mirage, movement of the optic (ie, it wiggles as you hold it, which makes it hard to observe both "sides" of the object at once relative to the reticle).   And if you don't know the size of the object accurately, you are SOL.  Is that box 40 or 50" tall?    

Let me relate a story.  At the 2005 TACPRO sniper match, there was a stage where ALL you had to do was range two targets whose locations were pointed out to you.  You had something like THREE MINUTES to look through your scope and do whatever you wanted. At the end of the three minutes, you had as much time as you wanted to "do math" (by hand, with a mildot master, or calculator).  They even told you the exact dimensions of the targets beforehand.  Over 2/3 of the competitors had mistakes.

i have a couple mil dot scopes i've been trying to use more and more, and i'm not too bad, but i'm also using them against known ranges to double check my judgement.  i've talked to a lot of folks who were pro mil dot and of course they recommend them.

Mildots are useful when you cannot LRF something because of IR observability, or there is something about the target that makes a LRF not work on it.   Otherwise, I don't see any reason to not use the LRF.  It will be WAY faster and more accurate.

Zak hit the nail on the head.  Making observations in the field accurate enough to have workable numbers is the limiting factor.  When artillerymen do subtense (determining range by measuring an angle and either looking up the distance from a table that pre-solves the distance or use the formula of distance equals ½ base divided by ½ Tangent angle, converting mils to degrees by dividing instrument reading by 17.7778) in the field to lay our howitzers, we set limits to the max range we can accurately relay on subtended angles.  Using a somewhat survey instrument, aiming circle, to turn angles we set a limit to how far from the instrument the measured item can be, with a M16A2 the max distance is 125 meters and a 2 meter bar is 225 meters, the limit is set because beyond those distances you start to get more than 1 meter error for that sized object by the average observer.  

In the field there are numerous factors that affect the ability to accurately subtend.  The first being knowledge of the exact size of what they are subtending. Second, the object has to be at zero aspect angle to the measuring instrument, because any angle can make the object appear to be smaller than it really is. Third, both object and the observer have to be relatively stable at the time of the observation, because movement of either can make the reading less than accurate. Fourth is that ambient conditions have to be favorable; shadows, back drop and less than ideal light can make it hard to determine the actual edges of the object being observed.  

A good rule of thumb used for observers using mils to subtend angles is that you are accurate to plus or minus 10 percent of range as range goes beyond a couple of hundred meters, sure if are good you can get allot more accurate.

By the way most people also forget to divide by 1.0186.  The mil relation formula, width equals range (in thousands) divided by mils measure, determines the distance but is the distance of the curve between the two point.  The 1.0186 compensates for the strait line distance between the two cords within the curve.  

Excellent post, STLRN.

ok.  i can see that the laser is the way to go if given the opportunity.  

mils aside, have you any experience with the springfield 3rd gen scopes with the bracketing system?  i don't know if it's actually called a "bracketing system" but that's what i've heard it referred to.  i have one calibrated for the .308 in 168gr.  it has a series of boxes, squares, and crosshairs.  like you said, if you hold still, your target holds still, and you know the size of your target i've done really well ranging out to 700 meters or so.  i haven't tried much more than that with success, mostly due to motion.  i do like that concept in place of mils, but i'm not aware of many binocs or any for that matter, that offer such a thing.  sounds like the laser is easier all the way around.  

thanks for all the info!  i actually understood the majority of it!

-mikes