Laser vs. scope range finding

[9245]

Do you generally prefer using a laser range finder, or doing the math in the scope to find range?

I was looking at laser range finders and noticed a number of things, first good ones, meaning ones not geared towards hunters that rarely shoot beyond 300 yards, are stupid expensive. Second, that even the good ones kind of suck when you realize that their quoted maximum range is based on a reflective target under ideal conditions and that the actual maximum range is maybe half of that. Third, most are comparatively low powered magnification and aiming precisely with one can be challenging and at long range can easily give ridiculously incorrect readings because it ranges off of the wrong thing. Fourth, even if you aim it perfectly the range finder itself tends to give inaccurate measurements because at very long range multiple targets are actually reflecting back to it and it takes a best guess which one you are actually aiming at. Fifth, even the expensive ones tend to have issues of not being weather proof. But when they do work they are simple and precise.

Scopes have none of those issues, but take more time and require you to manually do math and be reasonably good at estimation.

So what method do you do and why?

 

[_Windrider_]

Lasers because I understand that I need to know how to do it the old way but want to do it the better and faster way. The LRF is like your gun. The more you use it the better you understand its limits and the more accuracy you’ll get out of it.

 

[longrange772]

I have a pretty nice range finder but don't use it that often since the range is marked off. For field hunting, use MBPR for first 300 y and tend to use speed drop after that. Obviously using scope you need to have some reference point, generally target size, to use. I have found this tool pretty helpful.

Amazon.com

And there is also the classic Mildot Master.

 

[Taylorbok]

It's pretty much impossible to be even close to as accurate with the reticle vs a LRF. sig makes some really decent units for relatively cheap. $350 for the 3k.

Range on Deer	Up to 1500 y
Range on Trees	Up to 1800 y
Max Reflective	Up to 3000 y

 

[stanley_white]

I have a pretty nice range finder but don't use it that often since the range is marked off. For field hunting, use MBPR for first 300 y and tend to use speed drop after that. Obviously using scope you need to have some reference point, generally target size, to use. I have found this tool pretty helpful.
View attachment 8507023

Amazon.com

And there is also the classic Mildot Master.

Ordered!

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

-Stan

 

[9245]

Ordered!

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

-Stan

I’m also planning to pick one up. I have an Amazon credit loading later tonight, now I know how to use it.

 

[roostercogburn98]

Burris eliminator 6? Best of both maybe?

 

[Aftermath]

Try this...and take as much time as you need to be as accurate as you can possibly be...

Look out across your pasture, or the neighbors or the BLM land or whatever. Choose a "target" and calculate distance with your reticle. Do it again. Write it down, show your math.

Now, laze that thing.

Repeat for many more targets.

My money says that once you are out past about 400 yards/meters, you are off enough to create doubt about actually humanely killing a big game animal. Especially if you have a 100 yard zero instead of a max pbr.

Now...gather all your tacticool buddies and you all go range various stuff with your reticles. I bet there won't be any 2 with the same range to target. And NONE of you will be within that bubble of being to able to say you would humanely kill a big game animal.

Sure, go shoot plates or paper or beer cans or enemy combatants using your reticle to range but use that LRF if you are going to shoot stuff that breathes.

BTW, I'd use the LRF if I thought a miss might result in a 2 way range.