How accurate are typical rangefinder readings?

[TaperPin]

I’m happy if all goes well extending my max range from 450 to 600 yards. Looking a little farther, drop every 25 yards once you get way out there is pretty significant, like more than 1.5 moa per 25 yards for many cartridges - that’s a complete deer miss if you range +/- 25 yards.

What kind of rangefinder accuracy are you guys getting at 600-800 yards? Not the burm at the shooting range, but animals out there in relatively flat country.

My crappy old Leupold definitely needs to be upgraded soon, but this accuracy requirement has me wondering how realistic it is be nearly dead nuts at distance.

 

[Shortschaf]

EDIT to include yardage and pricing:
everything Ive used that was manufactured within the last 8 years and was more than $300 has been within 1 yard of eachother out to ~1200 yards. Ive never had a reason to suspect the range was incorrect.

A much more real problem is the end user misranging something. Not all rf's are created equal, and some are easier than others to "hit" your target.

 

[squid-freshprints]

Crouched low, flattish country, heart pounding, I always range perfectly.... A bush right in front of me, or ridge 80 yards past the critter, and end up lasing something with a good return and comparing its distance to concealed the target. (also ranger on tripod=money, I try to pre-range likely spots, know quarry in mils, check rangefinder range accuracy, horizontal/vertical accuracy, and inclinometer.)

 

[RWT]

I cant comment. I am still using a Leica 800. Seems to work as well as my buddies new Maven out to 300 yards.

 

[rayporter]

shooting dogs in Texas once and the property owner had a set of military RF. stolen of course. my old Bushnell's were real close to his. he could pop a p dog at 350 with them, i could not get a hit past 150.
a bud had bought a high dollar deal that were supposed to be super duber accurate. this was before Leica's. i just cant remember the name of them. any way the Bushnell's were with in a yard or two but they had to have a solid target to bounce off of.

another story...
i built a concrete bench and had a target at 100 yd measured with a 150 ft tape from the front of the bench.

a bud came over and sat down and says," bet a quarter that is less 100 yd" he proceeded to set BEHIND the bench and rest his elbows on the bench to get a reading with his RF. bang, 101YD
his quarter still lays there.

 

[TaperPin]

My gut is telling me the biggest variable for long first shot hits isn’t wind as many have said, but accurately ranging. Interesting. Sounds like the cost of a reliable long distance range finder will be much higher than expected unless I can find deer that stand next to stop signs, or antelope that stand next to a big rock.

 

[Shortschaf]

My gut is telling me the biggest variable for long first shot hits isn’t wind as many have said, but accurately ranging. Interesting. Sounds like the cost of a reliable long distance range finder will be much higher than expected unless I can find deer that stand next to stop signs, or antelope that stand next to a big rock.

I wouldnt go that far. Rangefinding is a skill that requires a little practice to be proficient, but its far easier than reading wind. Not even close. I pretty much take elevation adj as a given anymore.

Some rf's have tighter beam dispersions than others, meaning they can ping slightly smaller surfaces, or are able to squeeze through smaller gaps in trees/branches and reach your animal. Lots of info out there on what to expect with different models.

I think the best thing you could do is try out some rf's to see the capability for yourself. FWIW, I wouldn't hesitate to pull a $500 monocular Vortex Razor rf off the shelf on day 1 of the season and expect it to be perfect inside 1000 yards.

Don't know your budget I guess

 

[TaperPin]

I wouldnt go that far. Rangefinding is a skill that requires a little practice to be proficient, but its far easier than reading wind. Not even close. I pretty much take elevation adj as a given anymore.

Some rf's have tighter beam dispersions than others, meaning they can ping slightly smaller surfaces, or are able to squeeze through smaller gaps in trees/branches and reach your animal. Lots of info out there on what to expect with different models.

I think the best thing you could do is try out some rf's to see the capability for yourself. FWIW, I wouldn't hesitate to pull a $500 monocular Vortex Razor rf off the shelf on day 1 of the season and expect it to be perfect inside 1000 yards.

Don't know your budget I guess

I probably misspoke when asking for accuracy and should have said what RF can make difficult readings.

The budget is as little as possible and as much as necessary to stay ahead of my nephews when we each get one shot competing to hit something, and I end up getting to fist pump and say, “old guys rule.” *chuckle* If a $500 model will make a tough read at 600 yards that would be great, but if it takes 2x or 3x the money it is what it is.

Most of the RF information I’m seeing so far assumes a good target - a really good target. A good amount of our shooting is in the sage flats, prairie dogs towns in short grass, or an animal on a knoll, with very little in front of or behind for the RF to reflect off of.

 

[Macintosh]

I use 4 rangefinders frequently (mine, the wifes, plus friends/family), plus several more at the range “in the moment” with squad partners. A sig 1200 monocular from 2017 I think , a newer 2400, a set of gen2 furyhd’s and a older Leica monocular, as well as a newer vortex (their mid priced model from 2022,dont recall name) most frequently. At the range theres a lot of sig monocular as well as fury’s and the sig rf binos. I have found as much variation in ease of hitting targets (assuming within range) between units of the same brand and even model, as I have between the various brands and models, so on average I dont feel there is a lot of benefit in splitting hairs between brands at those price points. The biggest difference will be strength of the laser, ie you’ll get noticeably easier readings off small/soft targets with the units designed for longer range. I think a lot of the nuance in ranging in the conditions you described is technique. Its super easy to get a reading off tall grass well in front of or behind the actual target. Reading off ANYTHING you can be fairly certain of what your rf is getting the reading from (a nearby rock, tree, bush, another animal with clearer view, etc) is helpful to check. I also try to get several consecutive readings to check consistency of my readings, and intentionally range grass in front and behind. when you get 3 readings in a row the same, grass in front is less and grass behind is farther, (all in a few seconds, its not as cumbersome as it sounds) you can have pretty high confidence in your range.