Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX, Part 1a

[catorres1]

​

This first review will cover the Sig 2400 BDX, it’s general function, optics, and it’s ranging performance. The second review will look at the Sierra 3 scope in the BDX platform and its integration with the RF, as well as provide some thoughts on how the 2400 BDX stacks up vs the 2400 ABS option.

For many years, with a very few very high-end exceptions, Leica had the ‘mostly top shelf’ spot locked up for itself. As is usually the case when that happens, someone notices that there is plenty of room on that shelf for a good competitor. Enter Sig Electo-optics. I think it is safe to say that heads were turned when they released their Kilo series of rangefinders that could compete with Leica, and were doing so at a lower price point.

Since that time, it’s been a race, and Sig has been going full bore. Their iteration schedule has been extremely aggressive, which has allowed them to innovate at a high rate. The 2400 ABS is a great example of this, combining significant ranging power with arguably the best ballistic solution on the market. While not perfect in everyone’s eyes, and perhaps out of reach financially for many shooters, it is definitely a flag in the sand.

Ballistic Data Exchange

For many people, though, this solution was not all they wanted it to be. Sig recognized this some time ago and have been working on a solution that, while not as integrated, is more flexible for some people and solves some issues that some, but by no means all, shooters were concerned about. To round it out, Sig wanted to take it to another level, offering another form of integration that would appeal particularly to hunters.

The 2400 BDX comes with a lanyard, battery, carrying pouch and quick start card. Most instructions are accessed online, along with the app and a lot of video content about the system​

This all came together in the BDX (Ballistic Data Exchange) line of rangefinders, and now, integratable scopes. The BDX line has several rangefinders to fit the budget of most hunters. Up to the BDX 2200, they differ from the previous Kilo line via capabilities enabled by their Bluetooth connection ability. This allows the user to input ballistic and environmental data from an app on their phone to the RF so that when they range the target, they receive a ballistic solution out to 800 yards., via the onboard AB Ultralite software. AB ultralite differs from the full AB suite (such as what is loaded on the 2400 ABS) in that it does not consider higher level forces like coriolis, spin drift, etc…Ostensibly, this is why the data return is limited to 800 yards. While BDX RF’s do not have on board environmental sensors (like the ABS does), the ballistic and environmental data is stored in the RF once it is uploaded from the app, but if the RF and the app are left connected, and if there is cell signal, the app will continually update the environmental data based on what it pulls from the nearest weather station. If there is no cell service or they are not connected, it defaults to what was last loaded into the RF.

The top RF in this line at this time, the 2400 BDX, takes connectivity one step further. It takes all of the capabilities and choices of the rest of the BDX line and adds connectivity with full AB Suite devices like the Kestrel Elite, and now, the Garmin Foretrex. For shooters that opt for the 2400, they gain the ability to connect in real time with one of these devices, so that when they range, the distance and angle is transmitted to the AB device, and a full AB solution (same as one would get on a 2400 ABS) is transmitted back and displayed in the rangefinder (both distance and wind hold). The distance is only limited to what you can range with the RF, so the solution is the complete package.

The BDX system offers users a lot of choice. One of it’s most powerful configurations comes via wireless integration with AB Elite devices like the Kestrel 5700 and the Foretrex 701​

So in summary, you have three ways you can run the 2400 BDX with ballistic returns (you can also run angle modified range only for bowhunting etc.). First, you can load your environmental and ballistic data on the RF via phone, and then run it stand alone with ballistic returns. Second, you can keep it connected to your phone while in the field so that environmental data is updated in real time where there is cell signal, or manually if not. And third, you can run it connected to an AB Elite device, allowing the AB to do all the environmental and ballistic work, which will display on screen in both the 2400 and on the AB device.

The other major difference between the Kilo and BDX lines is the connectivity capability with BDX scopes. Essentially, when the two are connected, the scope displays both wind and elevation holds automatically in the scope via illuminated dots. So the shooter only needs to range the target, and if the scope and RF are connected, the proper aiming point will be illuminated in the scope based on the ballistic and environmental data loaded in the RF. I’ll cover the scope and RF combo working together in a follow-up to this review, but so far, I am more impressed with the utility of this package than I thought I would be.

There are some other tech features that I’ll skip over, but suffice it to say, Sig is hitting their stride in the electro portion of Electo-Optics, and in the BDX line, they have created a solution that allows the user to decide just how far they want to go. From stand alone RF all the way to a fully integrated system, shooters can decide how much tech, and how much money, they want to put into their shooting system. It allows configurability and an upgrade path to fit any budget and timeline.

Ergonomics

The 2400 BDX follows in the same line as previous Sig’s in terms of build. It is pretty much identical to the 2400 ABS, which is to say a bit wider than a Leica, with a distinct feel of robustness, due to it’s metal body and rubber armor. The eyecups twist out to adjust for eye relief, and the diopter, though it does not lock, is very stiff and very unlikely to move.

The diopter ring can be hard to turn, but it’s stiffness ensures it does not move accidentally. There is also a great deal of adjustment in the eyepiece. When fully retracted, it worked fine for me even with my glasses on​

I particularly liked the battery cap, which has a flip up portion to make removal very easy. It is o-ring sealed as well, helping the 2400 achieve its IPX-7 rating.

The flip up lever on the battery cap makes battery changes quick, even with gloves on​

The one thing I found that could be improved on is the ranging button, which is slightly recessed to prevent accidental actuations. It works fine with warm hands, but I found actuating it with numb fingers inside gloves sometimes difficult enough so I would remove my gloves to get it done in some cases. A little taller button would strike a better balance between usability and protection, at least for me, but YMMV. But overall, like the 2400 ABS, this is a well made, very solid piece of kit that feels good in the hand and seems built to take some abuse.

 

[catorres1]

Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1b

Setup

No way around it, Sig has done a great job making connecting their RF to a phone or to a Kestrel easy. I am not much of an instruction reader, but I had the RF connected in minutes and had ballistics loaded and good to go. Soon afterward, I handed it to my 15 year old, and he had it ready for his gun in half the time. Easy. Likewise, connection to the Kestrel was hard to mess up. Connection was sure, with only very rare instances where a solution did not feed. Mainly, it occurred when I re-ranged repeatedly and very rapidly, and sometimes no solution would be displayed at all. I would expect only the last range to get a solution, but that sometimes did not happen. From what I could gather, it appears that the Kestrel or perhaps the connection could not keep up when I hit the button 10 or 15 times in rapid succession. When that happened, I would just re-range on the last target (made easy by the Sig’s re-range speed) and a solution would display immediately. This did not occur when using scan mode, so my guess is only the last range is transmitted for processing by the Kestrel.

In terms of automatic reconnect, if I had the Kestrel running but the RF was asleep, all it took was one button press to wake the RF up and within 2 seconds, we were connected and good to go. My experience with the connectivity was excellent, probably more reliable than the laptop I am currently using! In terms of workflow, this means you could conceivably keep your Kestrel running all the time (battery permitting). When you see a target, just wake the RF up, range, and go. The RF will display distance, followed by your hold based on the selected rifle profile, and a wind hold. The only time you need to touch the Kestrel is if you want to take or enter a new wind reading and/or to set direction of fire, which is only necessary for shots long enough where Coriolis etc. come into play. In those cases, you have the time to do that, but for shorter range affairs, it’s probably not necessary. However, for a more streamlined workflow, I do wish Sig had incorporated a compass in the BDX, as they have done on the ABS, and were passing that automatically just as the distance and angle data is passed.

Optics

Depending on how you use your RF, optical quality may or may not be all that important to you. However, in the very least, if you cannot see your target, you can’t range it. I have used RF’s that, once the sun started to dip, became unusable at appreciable distance due to poor optical performance, so it holds some importance for everyone. In addition, I often use my RF’s as observation devices, sometimes making pulling the binos out unnecessary, so my personal criteria differs from some users who are only looking for the ability to range an already determined target, not find one. While RF’s are generally not intended for this purpose, I’ll try and describe the 2400’s applicability for both roles.

The 2400 has a 7x magnification, a little more than some of the BDX line. At first glance through the 2400, and second to be honest, I was underwhelmed. The glass has a distinct blue cast, is fairly low contrast, and sharpness falls off quickly towards the edges though the center appeared reasonably sharp. So I was a little concerned about how it would fare in terms of sharpness tests and low light usability.

To test sharpness, I set up a standard eye chart at 100 yards and tested off a tripod in full sun, and then pretty continually from 30 minutes before sunset until 30 minutes after. On a standard eye chart, reading from the center of the RF where sharpness was at its best, at 100 yards in full sun, I could read down to the fourth line and most of the 5th line as well. Thirty minutes before sunset, I could still read the 4th line, but less than half the 5th line. By sunset, I was down to just the 4th line, and within 10 minutes, I was down to the 3rd line. Twenty minutes after sunset and on, I could only read to the second line of the chart. Keep in mind, I tested on a day with full sun, and on my street which has consistent lighting.

I have tested a few RF’s in these same conditions, so have a pretty good idea about what to expect and frankly, I was surprised by what I found, which is despite first impressions, the 2400 performed quite well. This test must be understood as what it is, limited to resolving a black and white (high contrast) image at distance, under consistent lighting that may or not coincide with particular conditions of the day. So it does not tell me if you will be able to see a deer 20 minutes after sunset at your favorite hunting spot. What it does tell me, however, is that in terms of clarity and the ability to resolve, contrary to my expectations, the optics on the 2400 were pretty much right in there with other competitive offerings. Based on my first glance, I definitely did not expect these results. Though the view appears a bit dim in broad daylight, this is probably due to the fact that the optics present a distinct blue cast which, to my eye, lowers overall contrast. As my other optics have a much warmer, natural hue, I found the cast to be quite noticeable, and contrast levels effect our perception of sharpness. In use, however, the 2400 turned in a surprisingly competitive performance on the eye chart.

Of course, an eye chart test only tells one part of the story. In finding targets to range in daylight that I had already found with my eyes or through other optics, I found it took me longer to locate them in the 2400 than through my other optics because the color and contrast cues I was looking for to identify a previously selected target were off, so I had a hard time finding my way back on target at times. But looking into deep shadows at night in places I test, I was able to make out the details I would expect to see, so was surprised again that the 2400 performed as well as it did.

Everyone’s eyes are different, so your mileage may vary, and I definitely prefer a more natural hue in my glass with more contrast that matches what my eyes see, and I want that consistently across my optics. But I did find myself adapting at least somewhat after a while, and when the sun went down, the hue was no longer perceptible to me as the colors cooled at the end of the day. Night performance was better than I had expected, and peering into shadows and darker areas provided me with plenty of vision to range a target up to the end of shooting light.

Speaking of light, one area where the RF struggled was in flare control. The coatings on the Sig did not handle flare as well as I’d like. In some cases, depending on the angle of the sun, I found as much as one third of the viewfinder to be covered in strong enough flare that details could not be perceived. For the most part, I could still find my target, or was able to shade the RF enough to block the sun from the lens, but I would like to see improvement here.

Overall, the optical performance was a surprise for me. Everyone’s eyes are different, so your mileage may vary, but when I look through the 2400, compared to what I am used to, the color cast and lack of contrast gives the perception of a lack of sharpness. Coupled by noticeable softness on the edges, and I was wondering just how these would far as the light went down. But in use, I was very surprised. In terms of using it as an RF, the 2400 was not merely sufficient, but more competitive than I expected. Don’t get me wrong, for an observation device, I definitely prefer a more natural hue in my glass with more contrast that matches what my eyes see, and I want that consistently across my optics because these qualities help me initially find and identify game. The 2400’s optics lack that pop and clean feel that you get from rich but true life colors and strong but natural contrast which, in turn, helps you identify a deer hiding in a thicket. But in use as a ranging device, they are completely up to the job. The viewing experience is not as vibrant and lifelike, which does have some downfalls, but they absolutely get the job done outsized to what I expected based on my first impression looking through the viewfinder. The notable exception was the flare issue, but otherwise, in the role of an RF viewfinder, I’d characterize the 2400’s optics as delivering a solid, dependable yeoman’s performance.

 

[catorres1]

Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1c

Ranging Performance

Not a lot of street signs on this West Texas ranch where I tested the 2400, but there is a big mule deer buck in there somewhere….​

Before we get into the performance numbers, one note on these results. According to Sig, the 2400 will hit over 3000 yards on reflective targets, 1800 on trees, and 1400 on deer. I have heard anecdotally from others that they have hit the range limit both nearer and farther, and I don’t doubt it. Through all the testing I have done, I have found all RFs’ performance to be pretty dramatically affected by the conditions of the day. Sun, haze, dust, moisture in the air, and of course the nature of the targets, really effect the results. A clear day in the city I live in gave much shorter results than those achieved at 10,000 feet in Colorado or out among the Guadalupe Mountains in West Texas. So to really get a feel for how an RF performs, I test them over and over in many conditions, times, places, and against various targets, and I run these tests against a well known control at the same time so I can get an idea of how the conditions and the target might be affecting performance. I do this both hand-held and tripod mounted. Only by doing it over a long period of time in tandem with a control can I really get an idea of what the true performance capability of the RF is.

So your mileage may vary depending on the environmental and target conditions you may encounter, to say nothing of unit to unit variation (which should be much less pronounced). The results below should be seen as an assessment of the average performance as demonstrated across a broad spectrum of conditions over an extended time. In some situations, a particular unit may perform better than what I have documented, or worse. But overall, I think what I have experienced is a fairly representative view of what you can expect from the 2400.

Two other data points of significance that affected my testing. In distance testing the 2400, I initially had some inconsistent results. The aiming circle on the 2400 is approximately 3.5 mrad, while the laser divergence is 1.3 and round. So for small targets at long distance, you could conceivably be barely on target, or even slightly off target. In addition, while ideally the laser would be aligned directly in the middle of the circle, it is not on my unit, and in talking to others, this appears to be a common situation, and not just with Sigs. Subsequently, I found the same issue on another RF I am testing by another manufacturer. Accordingly, I tested using an antenna pole and found that the sensor on my 2400 is right of center, and very slightly low, but still within the aiming circle.

Ranging and optical performance were tested both hand-held and tripod mounted​

The other point to note is that of the divergence of the beam. That, coupled with the size of the reticle and placement of the sensor, made it easy to miss the target (and think the RF ran out of gas) or hit the wrong target at times. For those longer range targets, there is a setting to help ensure you are hitting the farther target rather than objects close to the RF. But sometimes, it was hard to tell if you were reading off a tree at 300 yards, or a target at 385 just beyond it. Generally speaking, if I were to change anything in this regard, I would recommend going to a shape and size similar to what Leica uses. That beam is about the same width of the Sig’s (which is 1.3 mil round), but less than half the height and rectangular, making miss-hits on closer range targets less likely. That, and/or knowing right where the sensor is in relation to the reticle (either by testing for placement, or by a combination of a smaller reticle and more precise sensor placement within the reticle) would be helpful in ensuring you are ranging what you want with the 2400. Once I determined where my sensor was placed and adapted to its shape and size, I re-ran my ranging tests with much more consistent results and was able to get returns on small targets at much longer distances.

Testing took place in Central Texas, North Texas, Colorado, as well as out in West Texas, Michigan and Northern Indiana. Some of these locales have a lot more long range targets and weather conditions available to me than where I live, particularly in terms of rain and snow conditions. Testing took place under controlled conditions, as well as in actual field use hunting elk, mule deer and Aoudad sheep.

Range testing took place in multiple locations including Colorado, Central and West Texas, Palo Duro Canyon, Indiana, and Northern Michigan. Conditions ranged from full sun to snow, at all hours of the day.​

Natural Targets

More often than not, I find myself ranging trees and bare hillsides when I am hunting (assuming there is no game to range, which sadly seems to be my lot this year!), so that is the standard I use to see how an RF will do. Generally, with RF’s, after thousands of actuations, I usually find they have a ‘consistent’ distance, where they are very strong and can generally be depended upon to return off of an average target in most conditions. Very bright light will lower this number, but I can usually find a shaded portion that will return even in those conditions. Then there is the ‘stretch goal’, so to speak….which are targets which will only return periodically in full sun, but much more often at the end of the day just after sundown or under cloudy skies. These tend to represent the limits of what the RF will do on that category of target, often with the use of scan mode.

Trees

For the 2400, it was a pretty solid performer out to 1800 yards, even in sun. There were some trees it would not range at 1600 and there were one time hits at 2300 or a bit more, but the RF was generally fairly solid and fast at the 1800-1900 yard range. As the sun went down, I very occasionally got hits as high as 2330 on trees, but those were few and far between and I never saw 2400 or higher show on my unit when ranging a tree. Sig claims 1800 on trees, and I think that is a fair, if not conservative, estimate, depending on conditions, with a stretch goal being in the 23-2400 range. Keep in mind, this is on trees, not on reflective targets.

Cliffs and Hillsides

As strong as the 2400 is on trees, it really excelled on stone outcroppings and hillsides, especially when they were lighter in color. While Aoudad hunting in Palo Duro Canyon, where there are a lot of cliffs and some long distance opportunities, while briefly testing at the end of the day I was able to hit out to 2787, and perhaps could have gotten further with a tripod mount, which I was not carrying due to trying to cut pack weight. In these conditions, the RF really seemed to be able to stretch its legs and appeared to want to approach its reflective target range. On reflective targets, Sig claims over 3000 yards, which anecdotally, I have heard is accurate. I don’t have consistent reflective targets to test, though I could sit by the highway and shoot road signs, but I don’t find that particular data point all that useful so I have not gone out of my way to do that. But considering that near 2800 was achievable on white rock cliff walls, I suspect that 3k on a reflective target is entirely reasonable, just as Sig claims.

Range Targets

Private range where I can test on steel out to 1390​

Concerning steel, I did get to try the 2400 at a range I use to test RF’s and optics, and they recently added a 24” x 48” plate at 1390. The plates are all painted yellow and red, so not exactly reflective and certainly not white, and the plates at 1125 were about 20 inches in diameter, so just under 2 MOA. The conditions were basically bright, full sun in the afternoon, testing off a tripod and continued until a little before sunset. Under these conditions, I was able to hit a 24”x48” yellow and red plate at 1390 yards, though reticle alignment had to be just right (biased towards the right). I could hit the 20 inch plate at 1125 pretty easily with less concern for alignment and more consistency.

 

[catorres1]

Sig BDX System Review: 2400 BDX Part 1d

High center, you can see the plate 24”x48” yellow and red plate at 1390
​

Subsequently, while in Northern Indiana and under more favorable conditions (heavily overcast skies, but no rain or mist), I tested on 12" and 18” white square targets made of cardboard that were set up skylined in a rolling corn field. By using scan mode, I was able to read the 12" plate out to 1135 yards. On the 18" target, I reached 1281 before the wind ripped it off the target frame. At 1281, I was able to hit the target the first time using the standard mode (not scan). As I have found that the 2400 is able to reach “so far” using standard mode, and then additional distance can be measured by utilizing scan mode, and since the 2400 hit the 18" plate at 1281 on the first ranging attempt in standard mode, I am confident that it would reach a bit farther under those conditions. Unfortunately, the weather would not cooperate for the rest of my visit, so I was not able to push it to the max range I had available, but my guess is that 1600-1700 yards would be achievable under ideal conditions using scan mode. Unfortunately, I don’t currently have access to a range with those kinds of distances with appropriate space for testing on targets. If I find the right place, I hope to try the 2400 a little further out and will update this review if that occurs.

Game

Sadly, as much as I would have liked to, I did not get the opportunity to really test the 2400’s ability on game at long range. Black cows at 900 yards is about the longest I was able to come across unfortunately. Based on the 2400’s performance vs Sig’s claims, I would believe large deer or elk at 1400 is entirely reasonable, but I cannot say for sure. I have been planning to make my own ‘deer’ using an old pelt and a 3d target so I can be more consistent in testing RF’s on game. When (if) I do, I’ll try and update this review with that result.

Precipitation

Precipitation performance is a bit tricky to test because the conditions can change literally second to second, so it is harder to get a baseline and a fair comparison, and consequently, hard to express the capabilities of the RF. But overall, in several hours of testing in the rain, I found that by at least one measure, the 2400 was particularly strong in its rain performance. RF’s generally respond in three ways to precipitation: they will either read as normal; they will fail to give a range just as if you were pointing at the sky; or they will give what I call a malfunction reading, usually a reading of 40-50 yards even though the target is much more distant. This last reading appears only when rain, snow or fog is particularly heavy, so heavy that I believe that the beam is being diffracted so as to fool all the RF’s I have tested into believing the target is in that 40-50 yard range. In terms of the first two, the 2400 did about as well as other RF’s I have tested, give or take. However, on the occasions where the rain was really pouring down, the 2400 was the last to display the ‘malfunction reading’. While I cannot give exact percentages, I can say that I tested the 2400, cumulatively, for several hours in the rain and found it's advantage in these conditions to be consistent. Why this is so, I cannot say for sure, but my guess is that Sig's utilization of a class 3 laser, as opposed to the class 1 laser used by competitors, is probably the reason for its strong performance in the rain. The 2400's laser has roughly twice the raw power of some of its competitors, and while raw laser power is only one component of an RF's ranging performance, I suspect in this case, and in the case of the 2400's reflective target performance, the extra power is making the difference.

Ranging Summary

I am working on a multiple model direct comparison for later this spring, but at this time I will say the 2400’s ranging capabilities are competitive. The only difficulties I found revolve around the size of the aiming circle and the uncertainty of just exactly where the censor is within that circle, which can cause some difficulty in precisely ranging very small targets at distance. While this can be overcome to a great degree with some personal testing about where the placement and boundary of the ranging sensor lies within the aiming circle, nonetheless, I’d love to see the circle size decreased and the sensor placed in the center for easier precision ranging. However, once I got the hang of how my RF was setup, I found ranging to be very good, strong and very fast. And that last is something to note. When you range with a Sig, if you miss or you get no reading, you can range again immediately. The unit is blazing fast, so when your hand shakes and you miss or you hit a tree in front of you instead of the deer behind it, there is no wait time, the 2400 is immediately ready.

​

Conclusion

Strengths

Robust build
Powerful ranging
Immediate re-ranging capability, the unit is super fast, allowing for quick followups
Strong performance in heavy precipitation
Outstanding integration with external devices, more of which will be discussed in part II.

Could be improved

Optics coatings, particularly in terms of flare suppression
Reticle size/sensor placement for easier precision ranging
Ranging button can be hard to actuate with gloved hands
An internal compass would make integration with a Kestrel more complete

Overall, I have to say I am very impressed with the 2400. Truth is, I thought it was pretty cool when I got it, but the more I have used it, the more I am impressed, especially once I figured out where the ranging sensor lay within the reticle, and additionally, once we got to use it pretty extensively while hunting. While it is nothing new in terms of ranging power or optics (the 2400 ABS, which shares the same ranging engine and optics, has been out for quite some time), its ability to connect and execute bi-directional data sharing with external devices is particularly noteworthy. Being able to connect with the phone and, more importantly, the Kestrel or Foretrex, and to have that data feed back in with wind holds included, is very nice. The option to use the RF without a Kestrel, relying on the phone for environmentals, gives the BDX added flexibility. But the optional connection to the BDX line of scopes takes the system to the next level for those that want to go there. That integration and how it well it works, as well as how the BDX theoretically stacks up against the ABS, is what I’ll explore in more depth in part 2.

 

[skierhs]

Great review, I just saw it over on Rokslide. I’m not sure if it made my choice any easier on what to keep but I’m definitely gonna pick one up just to compare and test out the foretrex connection myself.

 

[catorres1]

Yeah, there is so much great stuff coming out. I am actually really interested in trying out the 3000bdx and pairing it with a foretrex and the Sierra 3 bdx scope we have for review. The scope worked great with the 2400, but I am imagining finding and ranging combined in the binos, and then just picking up the rifle where the hold is already illuminated, I can't think of anything faster. Add a Foretrex, and you have that same ability past 800 yards with the exception of having to designate DOF for the really long shots.

Though I wish they have put the compass in it like Leica has on the 2800 and like the ABS, has, I still think this would be soooo fast. It already was with the 2400 BDX, so rolling in binos....man.

Don't know if I'll be able to swing it though...we'll see what I can get my hands on!

 

[skierhs]

Yeah, there is so much great stuff coming out. I am actually really interested in trying out the 3000bdx and pairing it with a foretrex and the Sierra 3 bdx scope we have for review. The scope worked great with the 2400, but I am imagining finding and ranging combined in the binos, and then just picking up the rifle where the hold is already illuminated, I can't think of anything faster. Add a Foretrex, and you have that same ability past 800 yards with the exception of having to designate DOF for the really long shots.

Though I wish they have put the compass in it like Leica has on the 2800 and like the ABS, has, I still think this would be soooo fast. It already was with the 2400 BDX, so rolling in binos....man.

Don't know if I'll be able to swing it though...we'll see what I can get my hands on!

With how fast technology is moving I’m hesitant to get a ranging bino at this time. I’m running a 338LM with a 7-35 atacr so I like the extended range with the bino over the handheld LRF but am not sold on it yet. Since you ran the 2800 Leica and the 2400 sig which did you prefer glass wise?

 

[catorres1]

Glass wise, for sure the Leica. The colors are, to my eyes, very true. Contrast is also correct for what I see. And edge to edge sharpness was better. I do understand different people see differently, but that's what I see.

That said, as I mentioned in the review, the 2400 performed far better than I expected. The optical chart test particularly was surprising. As an RF viewfinder, using it even at night hunting coyotes, they worked just fine. While I prefer the Leica as an observation device, IE to actually find game I have not seen, the 2400 does the job for RF viewfinder tasks.

As to your comment on tech moving fast, I totally am with you. I am still working on part II of the review, focusing on the scope integration, and also how the ABS and BDX stack up. If I can swing it, I want to throw the 3000 into that mix, and then maybe do another on it alone. That integration and resultant workflow is so fast and efficient, but as you point out, it has a cost. Optics last a LONG time, but electronics....not so much....both in terms of longevity and obsolescence.

So I am really torn. For sure, I am not someone who could buy alpha glass with electronics in it...that's just too much to replace for my tax bracket. But considering the price point of the 3kbdx....mmmmmaybe. My son needs a new set of binos AND a new RF this year not matter what. On the other hand, if I split the expenditure, in the future, he can upgrade only the part that needs to be replaced, not the whole thing. Decisions. I hope to get my hands on the 3k and see if I can't figure out the best way to go...maybe provide some data points for others to use in their own decision process as well.

 

[skierhs]

Very true, and the challenges with keeping a kid geared up as well ads to that price tag real fast. I’ll be at the western hunt expo and will make sure to stop by the sig booth with a hope of getting a feel for the 3000. Not saying it wouldn’t put me in the poor house but even if I could figure out how to get alpha glass with electronics in it im not sure it would be worth it now that there is a rangefinder(s) that have connectivity to the foretrex.

 

[catorres1]

Yeah, I checked them out at DSC last weekend. But inside, it's really hard to get any kind of feel for the quality of the glass. Everything looks good enough inside under those lights. If you get a chance to check them in some dim areas or whatever, be very interesting to see what you think.

In talking to one of the Sig guys, he told me it's probably Vortex Viper level glass. Wish they would put them in Zulu 7's instead of the Zulu 5's, but then I guess the price would be prohibitive for me if they did that.

I think it would be an upgrade for my son regardless, as right now, he is using my 20 plus year old Nikon Monarchs. They are no longer functioning entirely correctly, so it's time for an upgrade for him. That and his old RF, he outshot in 6 months. So that's gotta be replaced too.

 

[skierhs]

Yeah, I checked them out at DSC last weekend. But inside, it's really hard to get any kind of feel for the quality of the glass. Everything looks good enough inside under those lights. If you get a chance to check them in some dim areas or whatever, be very interesting to see what you think.

In talking to one of the Sig guys, he told me it's probably Vortex Viper level glass. Wish they would put them in Zulu 7's instead of the Zulu 5's, but then I guess the price would be prohibitive for me if they did that.

I think it would be an upgrade for my son regardless, as right now, he is using my 20 plus year old Nikon Monarchs. They are no longer functioning entirely correctly, so it's time for an upgrade for him. That and his old RF, he outshot in 6 months. So that's gotta be replaced too.

That’s really good to know about the glass level. I run a pair of 10x50 viper HD right now that are going on thier fifth season this upcoming year. Looks like the handheld will suite me best most likely as it wouldn’t be a upgrade in glass clarity all that much. Good luck getting your son outfitted. You may just have to upgrade to the 3000 and give him your set up haha

 

[EchoDeltaSierra]

Thank you for taking the time to write and post this information. I do have a question; is the Sig 2200BDX ABLE or NOT ABLE to connect to the Kestrel 5700 Elite?

Thanks for any guidance.

 

[catorres1]

That’s really good to know about the glass level. I run a pair of 10x50 viper HD right now that are going on thier fifth season this upcoming year. Looks like the handheld will suite me best most likely as it wouldn’t be a upgrade in glass clarity all that much. Good luck getting your son outfitted. You may just have to upgrade to the 3000 and give him your set up haha

He is the one who probably should get the best, he's the only one killing anything, I just wonder around with a useless rifle it seems! Ha!

 

[catorres1]

Thank you for taking the time to write and post this information. I do have a question; is the Sig 2200BDX ABLE or NOT ABLE to connect to the Kestrel 5700 Elite?

Thanks for any guidance.

The 2200 cannot connect to the elite. At this time, only the 2400 BDX and the 3000 BDX can connect to the Elite. I suspect that will change, but not for the 2200 at it's price point.

 

[skierhs]

He is the one who probably should get the best, he's the only one killing anything, I just wonder around with a useless rifle it seems! Ha!

Fair enough, I’m probably having a sheep tag this fall so I feel your sentiment about going hiking with a rifle just wandering around. Never hunted the unit before.

 

[kriller134]

Nice review. Let’s say prices being equal, I’m really torn between the 2400 bdx and the Leica 2400. Based on performance only (glass and ranging) which one would you go with?

 

[catorres1]

Kriller,

I have to say that I don't own nor have I used a Leica 2400, so I'm not sure I am all that qualified to remark on that RF. I have talked to a few guys that have it, guys I trust from another board, and by all accounts, it does what it does very very well. The glass will be the same as the 2700/2800's that I do have, and the ranging, I am told, hits Leica standard practice....so expect at least 2400 yards on decent trees under decent conditions, probably a little bit more. But again, I have not personally tested it, so that is an important thing to note as you read the following.

That said, glass, Leica. How much that matters depends on how you use the RF. As noted in my review, the glass on the BDX has a blue cast that I don't care for and edge clarity is not as good, but the center is sharp. The Leica is super nice glass, very natural in hue. Low light on an eye chart, surprisingly, is a wash between the two for me, with the Leica having the edge. However, if you are just using it as an RF, not as an observation device, they will both get the job done. As a 'find unseen animals' device, the Leica glass pulls ahead due to it's natural colors and overall quality.

In other terms (including ranging power), the BDX. Keep in mind here, the fair comparison would be the 2700 or 2800 vs the 2400 BDX, because unlike the Leica 2400r, these three all provide custom ballistic solutions. The 2400R just gives you range (LOS and Angle Modified). In addition, the three all should outrange the Leica 2400 somewhat (again, I have not tested personally, just going on specs and feedback from others who have). And then there are the additional connectivity capabilities of the 2800 and BDX 2400.

So Leica 2400 vs BDX 2400, you are really looking at two different tiers of products. The Leica 2400...excellent glass, solid ranging up to 2400 plus, LOS and angle modified ranges only, no ballistics, connectivity or other capabilities. Price point, I think, is lower than the BDX.

2400 BDX....glass sufficient for an RF, but not as good as Leica's. But vs L 2400, (should be) stronger ranging, AB ultralite ballistics loaded, connectivity to multiple devices for expanded capabilities in terms of environmentals, displayed wind holds, expanded ballistics, and scope connectivity.

That's how I see it shaking out at a high level. Without knowing exactly how you are planning on using the RF, I would not hazard to make a strong recommendation specifically for you. But in a nutshell, between these two choices, the Leica has the glass, Sig has the higher functionality.

Hope that helps!

 

[northshorelumber]

Tag for part 2.

 

[dgheriani]

I'm curious to hear what you think of the integration. I've been running a Kilo 2400BDX and Kestrel 5700 setup for only a couple months now(have had the Kestrel for a while, BDX is new). The integration is great, it's basically like having a 2400 AB but you can also use the Kestrel, get dope without ranging, etc. I have been having issues with the 2 devices "disconnecting" at times and having to re-connect them or sometimes ranging something and only getting a range and then having to range again to get a ballistic solution.

 

[catorres1]

I'm curious to hear what you think of the integration. I've been running a Kilo 2400BDX and Kestrel 5700 setup for only a couple months now(have had the Kestrel for a while, BDX is new). The integration is great, it's basically like having a 2400 AB but you can also use the Kestrel, get dope without ranging, etc. I have been having issues with the 2 devices "disconnecting" at times and having to re-connect them or sometimes ranging something and only getting a range and then having to range again to get a ballistic solution.

The integration for me in my testing has been great. I have never had them come disconnected and have to reconnect them. However, I have had it where I ranged and the communication did not happen and I had to re-range. This usually happened when I ranged several times in fast succession. It seems the data stream between the kestrel and the 2400 can get backlogged, so to speak, and I have to range again. It may have happened once or twice in a few thousand actuations when this was not the situation, but otherwise, it only happens when I re-range over and over quickly.

I am also testing the BDX scope integration and I noticed that it happens easier there. That is, with just the RF and Kestrel, I really have to hit it fast and over and over. With the scope added in, it is easier for the scope to not receive the info....it still takes multiple repeated rangings, but the interval where there is a failure to communicate is smaller. If I just use the RF to the scope, it has not failed me yet, though i imagine if I tried hard enough and fast enough maybe it would overload. But that all leads me to believe that the communication from RF to Kestrel back to RF can exhibit data overload if you push it too fast....and RF to Kestrel to RF to scope adds another layer of time lag that can cause a communication break.

My solution is to range a little slower when using all three devices together so as not to overload the data feed. To put that in perspective, my Leica 2800's re-range speed is slower than the sigs...if I run the sig at that same speed, it never misses a beat. I do expect there to be some missed communication now and then, that is the nature of tech and to me is no big deal. But so far, at least, it's pretty rare and can be avoided by slowing down just a bit.

Overall, very impressed with the system. So much so that after using it, my son actually sold his current scope so he could switch over to the entire BDX system. Still doing testing on the system, having a bit of scheduling conflict on getting access to the 1390 yard range I use to test, but hope to get that arranged in the next few weeks here so i can finish the eval and share it.

 

[azred33]

Regarding Leica 2400 v Sig 2400 BDX. I used them side by side a few days ago. Both hit 1.5 mil steel at 1380 but no further in full sun. First impression was that they had similar glass, nothing noticeable that made one better than the other while using. The big difference was the connection to the Kestrel Elite. Solutions show on both the Kestrel and Sig and they seemed to keep up with rapid ranging. Big price difference $450 or so v. $900 (I see a sale listed in the optics section today). I liked them both equally, but they do different things.

 

[catorres1]

I have not tested the L2400, but under full sun conditions, I am not surprised that the two 2400's are close. I ranged about the same distance as you did on a steel plate, but it was smaller, but conditions have such an impact, sounds like in ranging, they are very close or on par.

Like you say, the Sig has a lot more to offer vs the 2400 in terms of its connectivity, sig has really upped the game here, and it really competes with the 2800.com. If you run it with the BDX scope, for hunters, it goes to the next level. We have some time under the belt with the system at this point, including taking some rams, and I am impressed. I'd love to see the system rolled out to higher end glass, but TBH, the current scope is a lot better than I expected. Currently trying to finish the next part of the review to cover the scope integration, but testing on an eye chart till 30 minutes after sunset, against an HD5 and a VX6, I was impressed at it's price point.

As you mention, the sig 2400 BDX can be had quite cheaply right now, in the 650 or under range, as you mention, but I just saw a sale on the ABS somewhere yesterday (maybe Europtic) ...$850 IIRC. That's a steal. There are some things I personally prefer about the BDX model, no doubt, but the ABS definitely has some advantages of it's own...and considering you would not need a Kestrel with the ABS...that's a good deal right there.

 

[AbbyKatt]

Regarding Leica 2400 v Sig 2400 BDX. I used them side by side a few days ago. Both hit 1.5 mil steel at 1380 but no further in full sun. First impression was that they had similar glass, nothing noticeable that made one better than the other while using. The big difference was the connection to the Kestrel Elite. Solutions show on both the Kestrel and Sig and they seemed to keep up with rapid ranging. Big price difference $450 or so v. $900 (I see a sale listed in the optics section today). I liked them both equally, but they do different things.

Besides price...you don't really say what the difference is between the Sig and Leica...

 

[AbbyKatt]

Will the Sig ABS or BDX build a Target Card on the Kestrel?

 

[azred33]

The only difference to me was the Leica does not connect to the Kestrel and the BDX does. Yes, you can range each target in the multiple target card on kestrel but there is no compass in the BDX so you will also need to capture DOF. The data is then available in the Kestrel multi target screen and also in the Kestrel app if you Pull Targets From Kestrel.

Sorry I mixed up the prices, Leica 2400 no Kestrel connection about $450, Sig 2400 BDX $650 or so and will connect to Kestrel, Sig 2400 ABS no need to connect because it runs full AB solver, now on sale $899.

 

[AbbyKatt]

The only difference to me was the Leica does not connect to the Kestrel and the BDX does. Yes, you can range each target in the multiple target card on kestrel but there is no compass in the BDX so you will also need to capture DOF. The data is then available in the Kestrel multi target screen and also in the Kestrel app if you Pull Targets From Kestrel.

Sorry I mixed up the prices, Leica 2400 no Kestrel connection about $450, Sig 2400 BDX $650 or so and will connect to Kestrel, Sig 2400 ABS no need to connect because it runs full AB solver, now on sale $899.

But...but...BUT...the Leica 2800.com DOES connect to the Kestrel! Not sure why you could not make it do so. I'm really confused.

 

[AbbyKatt]

Oh...sorry. I'm the one getting myself confused. You're talking 2400, not 2800. That's what I get for following too many similar threads.

 

[azred33]

I understand, lots of information here, this is a 2400 bdx thread. I have not tried the Leica 2800.com but it sound like something in my future.

 

[catorres1]

AbbyKatt,

I was one of the prototype testers for Leica on the 2800.com, so have a review up on this board, but its based on a prototype unit. I have a production unit here now, but need some additional time to see where changes were made, but between the review on this thread and the 2800 review should give you a fairly good view of the differences between the two 2800 and 2400 bdx

Some highlights....both connect to a Kestrel and display the Kestrel's ballistic solution directly in the RF. 2800 has an internal compass, so DOF does not have to be set manually.
2400 can also connect to the Foretrex
Standalone, 2800 uses Leica's legacy ballistics solution, and it includes onboard environmentals, solution provided to 1k in standalone mode.
2400 standalone use AB ultralite, does not have onboard environmentals...these must be sourced via continued connection to the mobile app, or entered manually via the mobile app when there is no cell coverage. Solution provided to 800 yards in standalone mode.
2400 can also connect to BDX scopes, displaying wind and elevation holds in the scope
2400 running in the 650 range at the moment. 2800.com is 1099.
These are just a few of the ones that come to mind, there are others, but these are the highpoints.

HTH!

 

[pugnado]

Can the compass in the Leica 2800.com be calibrated to the compass in the Kestrel or vice versa?
(It's important that they both agree on exactly where north is.)
Do both account for True North (important for Coriolis effects) rather than magnetic north?

 

[parshal]

So, I have a 2400 ABS. I use it for hunting mostly and a bit at the range. I'm not a competitive shooter. I have a Kestrel 5700 Elite with Link. I have a 2400 BDX on the way to test.

I don't plan on shooting game over 1000 yards and, more likely, under 800. I don't like the fact that the BDX doesn't have a compass. I really don't want to have to touch the Kestrel for DoF. I realize it won't matter much at my hunting ranges but I also don't want to have another step if/when I do shoot at longer ranges.

I guess I'll have to play with them both and see what I want to do. First world problems I suppose.

 

[catorres1]

So, I have a 2400 ABS. I use it for hunting mostly and a bit at the range. I'm not a competitive shooter. I have a Kestrel 5700 Elite with Link. I have a 2400 BDX on the way to test.

I don't plan on shooting game over 1000 yards and, more likely, under 800. I don't like the fact that the BDX doesn't have a compass. I really don't want to have to touch the Kestrel for DoF. I realize it won't matter much at my hunting ranges but I also don't want to have another step if/when I do shoot at longer ranges.

I guess I'll have to play with them both and see what I want to do. First world problems I suppose.

Parshal,

I really like the BDX system, especially when you use all the parts (the scope) together. That being said, unless you are using a scope, don't see you gaining much if anything with the BDX system over the ABS. At a very 'off the top of my head', quick breakdown:

BDX and Kestrel over ABS (no including scope integration):

Separation of temp data (solution for drift, if that matters to you)
Easier/different solution for wind (again, if that matters to you)

ABS over Kestrel:
Fully integrated AB Elite, so no need for bluetooth connection. No need for a Kestrel, DOF automatically set....etc. etc.

They share the same ranging engine/hardware, so performance in terms of divergence and overall ranging ability under various conditions is the same.
Glass is the same.

All that is to say, other than the two things mentioned (which many people don't care about), I am not sure what you get with BDX unless you are looking to get the whole system, which includes a scope. But very interested in why you purchased one to try, was it just out of curiosity, or is there something with you ABS that you feel you are missing? I noticed you also have a 5700, what was the ABS missing that you wanted the 5700 as well?

Thanks!

 

[parshal]

I don't like the wind meter with the ABS. I have a couple of Kestrel Drops that I use at the range to capture DA. Having it all in the 5700 is easier. Yes, it's more expensive than one of the cheaper units that does DA but I like backup options.

I want to play around with BDX and see how the AB Lite works for my shooting. To be honest, it's just something to play around with and see what I might like. It was only after I ordered the BDX that I realized the compass function wasn't there. If it had that I see no reason to have the ABS if someone already owns the 5700. You'd have a one-fire solution.

 

[catorres1]

I don't like the wind meter with the ABS. I have a couple of Kestrel Drops that I use at the range to capture DA. Having it all in the 5700 is easier. Yes, it's more expensive than one of the cheaper units that does DA but I like backup options.

I want to play around with BDX and see how the AB Lite works for my shooting. To be honest, it's just something to play around with and see what I might like. It was only after I ordered the BDX that I realized the compass function wasn't there. If it had that I see no reason to have the ABS if someone already owns the 5700. You'd have a one-fire solution.

Thanks for sharing that with me, really interested in how other people interact with these devices.

I am kinda in the same camp. I prefer the Kestrel's working system, especially in setting wind direction etc. The temperature drift issue, to me, is important as well, I like that you can clear and lock the Kestrel very quickly, whereas the ABS cannot be cleared, and locking is a not as easy as it is on the Kestrel.

On the compass, agreed, that's one thing I wish Sig would have included, but I am guessing based on a price point and maybe competition with the ABS, they held it out. The other is that I wish the reticle were smaller and sensor alignment was more precise. If they were to address these items, that would be awesome, especially when you add in the capabilities of the 3k BDX with it's additional power and smaller divergence.

I'll tell you that with AB lite, it's great and all, but it has not been as accurate for us as AB Elite. Obviously, without coriolis etc, that is to be expected, but even excluding those differences, AB Elite via Kestrel, so far, has been right on, where in some cases, I had to tweak AB Lite. Might be user error, but if so, I can't find where I erred.

 

[parshal]

I played around a little bit with the BDX. I'm surprised at how fast it comes back with dial info. It's faster than I expected.

I was leaning toward the BDX so I'd have only one place to keep ballistics data; on the Kestrel. With the 2400 ABS I have to keep profiles in two places and that's more chance of an error in one. However, I really wish there were one setting for ranging on the BDX. I'd like it to use the Kestrel when paired and default to AB Lite when not paired. This is likely the deal breaker for me. I can see if I'm using this for hunting, which is the main use for me, where the Kestrel gets disconnected and I've got no ballistic calculation when I range a closer target.

 

[catorres1]

Parshal,

That's a good thought, it would be cool if it would automatically switch instead of having to be manual. That might take a bit of tech and might get fiddly in terms of the system switching back and forth, plus it would need to very clearly designate which data source it was coming from so the shooter is well informed. But if they could make that work, that would be cool. Same on the Leica....be nice if it would provide a solution from it's internal ballistics while it's re-establishing the connection after sleep.

 

[Dbike73]

Thanks for posting such an in-depth review. Im new to the discipline and still trying to figure out what workflow would work best for me and what equipment is worth my limited (wife) funding.

 

[catorres1]

You are welcome, don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions I can answer. Glad to PM or jump on a call if I can help.