Sig kilo2400 vs. 3000 or Leica 2800.com

[plamia2]

Hello, hide!

I hunt and shoot for fun, mostly 800-1500 yards in hunting places, there are no reflecting targets.
For the last few years I have been using the RF Leica-1600, in general it is sufficient, but in bright sunlight it does not measure further than 1100-1200 yards. When the sun is low, there are no problems with trees and boulders up to 1500 yards.

The calculation of the corrections is done through the Kestrel 5700 or the garmin 701, entering the range manually.
I need a range finder that can confidently measure up to 1,500 yards in the bright sun and pass the range to a cestrel or a garmin 701.

Unfortunately, my budget does not allow to take PLRF))).
I expect to spend up to $ 1,200 and now choose between a kilo 2400 BDX and a kilo 3000 BDX.

Kilo 2400 like that it is smaller and lighter, which is more convenient on the hunt.
A kilo of 3000 measures further than 2400, but it is heavier, moreover, I already have hunting binoculars.

The SIG tell that the difference in the measurement of trees between 2400 and 3000 is only 200 yards.
I found this video, from which it follows that 2400 in the sun hardly measures 1400 yards:


I also looked at Leica 2800.com, but 2800.com does not work with the garmin 701.
In addition, the hide guys wrote that 2800.com slowly works with Kestrel and often “falls asleep” at the wrong time.

Question to guys who have the opportunity to compare these RF:
1. Does 3000 really exceed 2400 in the measurement range?
2. Does this superiority matter when measuring up to 1500 yards?
3. It can be expected that the watering can 2800.com will be programmed to work with the garmin 701 and “not to fall asleep while on the move”? ))

Thanks for your advice and opinions!

 

[Changed]

Sig Kilo 3000

The kilo is lightning quick. Does that ability matter? Well that’s a whole separate argument. However at market price it’s the best thing going.

Hell yes it exceeds 2400.

 

[azred33]

If 1500y is all you need the 2400 bdx will range that, is small and easily carried and has excellent interface with the Kestrel. However it is not far from the cost of the 3000 bdx which will allow you to view the field with decent glass, range much longer distances and most importantly, see you holds in the 3000 because of the 2-way interface. You can leave your Kestrel in your pack, just range and go to your rifle.

 

[triatleta]

Sig kilo 3000

 

[Sixfivesavage]

Something else to keep in mind is the beam divergence if your ranging smaller targets.

 

[Soulezoo]

I've been looking at the 3000bdx. How is the glass? Say in comparison to Meostars or even Meopros? I'm going to assume that the glass is not as good as the 2800.com.

 

[gr8fuldoug]

I'd say better than a Meopro, not quite a Meostar.

 

[OverWatching]

We use a lot of rangefinders at work. I got a Sig a few months ago and everyone has been super impressed. It's not a Terr X, but it's a great for the money. I have consistently out ranged my co-workers in multiple locations and times of the day. I will say the glass is fine, but nothing to write home about.

 

[triatleta]

We use a lot of rangefinders at work. I got a Sig a few months ago and everyone has been super impressed. It's not a Terr X, but it's a great for the money. I have consistently out ranged my co-workers in multiple locations and times of the day. I will say the glass is fine, but nothing to write home about.

Are you talking about sig kilo 2400 or kilo 3000?

 

[OverWatching]

Are you talking about sig kilo 2400 or kilo 3000?

Sorry I should have been more clear. I personally use the 2400ABS and love it. However you were talking about the glass and I thought you meant the 3000 so I was writing about that one. I own the 2400, but I have used the 3000 enough to comment on the glass itself.

 

[catorres1]

Plamia,

I have, or have had, all three you are looking at, plus the 1600. I have reviews on the 2800 and the 2400 BDX on this board, currently working on one for the 3k. Check those out for more details, but in terms of raw horsepower, the 3k wins. I have ranged some absurd things at absurd distances with it. While it is certainly not perfect, it is the strongest in terms of pure ranging power, there has never been anything it can't range that my 2800 can, but the same cannot be said in reverse. The only downside to it's ranging is the large reticle and imprecise sensor alignment standards. But once you test and locate where your sensor is, you are good to go. As far as glass goes, it's probably Vortex Viper level glass. Certainly not alpha, but it gets it done.

In terms of ranging power, the 2800 is next, probably due partially to Leica's excellent quality control in terms of sensor alignment vis a vis the small reticle, which makes it easy to get on target. Leica also has years of know how with LRF's, and their capabilities in this area really make the 2800 perform.

The 2400 BDX brings up the rear, not that it is bad, it's just not quite as strong as the others and has the largest divergence.

Of course, all three connect to a Kestrel and display hold information back into the RF. At this time, only the Sigs will connect to the Foretrex. Will Leica add Foretrex connectivity? That was one of my recommendations during the pre-pro process....I certainly hope they do, but I have received no promises

Were I you, I would choose between the top two, personally. My son runs the 3k's now, I run them sometimes, but sometimes I prefer to run my 2800 along with my Zeiss FL's...I like the better glass for these old eyes.

In terms of integration with the Kestrel...the Sigs are faster and more secure. Sig has a little more experience with connected devices and their lead in that area shows in how well the connectivity functions an how fast it is.

However, what the Leica communicates is more complete....DOF is automatically communicated from the onboard compass, which is great, and two sets of wind holds are displayed. In addition, it has full onboard environmentals, which makes it the best of the three for standalone (no kestrel) use.

By all means, if you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to reach out. Glad to help if I can.

 

[plamia2]

Sig Kilo 3000

The kilo is lightning quick. Does that ability matter? Well that’s a whole separate argument. However at market price it’s the best thing going.

Hell yes it exceeds 2400.

View attachment 7101100View attachment 7101101

Damn! 3250 yards on the water is cool. Thank you!

 

[plamia2]

catorres1,

Thank. I carefully read your reviews on Leica and Sig and am very grateful for your answer.

My eyes are also not very good, but I looked into the vortex viper and did not break them . If a kilo of 3000 is not worse, then this is a deal.
Compactness and low weight is good, but it will not matter if you cannot ranging the target.
If my rangefinder falls asleep when I need a range, its good glass will not matter at this moment.

I begin to lean toward 3000.

 

[seansmd]

Did some testing this evening with the Sig 3000 bdx next to the leica2800.com. @Diver160651 has the leica and I just got the sig.

The sig was reading targets much farther and more consistantly, the leica was better through tight spots or vegetation. We proved this after dusk by looking at the size of the laser break using his night vision scope. This is at 25yards and the sig is 4x the size which explains why it struggled through tight spots, it's also significantly more powerful, it was reaching out past 4000 yards after dusk, and hitting trees at 2900 yards in full sunlight.

 

[Diver160651]

Below is a screen capture from above. We were handholding so we were bouncing all over. The red reticle is SFP on the NV so it is NOT to scale— see, yet another reason not to get SFP.

The black dot is 1.3mil or 1.17” the math worked like this:
1mil at 100y = 3.6”/ .1 = .36 / 1.3mil x .36” or 13x.36”= 4.68” // 4.68 divided by 4 (25yards) = 1.17”

Both units, reticles seemed lined up.

The Leica beam is about 1/2 as tall as it is wide so it helps to know when to turn the unit. Maybe .6 mils vertical

The Sig beam seems to be about 6x larger than the vertical beam of the Leica. And about 3+ times the 1.3mil square or close to 4mils. That’s close to 14 MOA.

We did lase through small loops handheld and in many cases, the Sig had trouble. Sean was better than I was at getting returns with the Sig, but it still was a struggle. I’ll go out in a lime and say that “if” you plan on using these to verify dope on small targets you need to use prudent care to range the foreground and background then the plate to make sure you have the proper return.

The glass on these was surprisingly good. We compared them to Swaro SLCs 15x56. With the Sigs 3000s even at a retentively close in the 300-600y range, where might be hard to identify things under shrubs or in this case, when we thought a structural element was a shack, the Swaros could easily make out more detail. The shake was actually a decks railing; but then back on the Sig, it was oh ya, that’s what it is... kinda thing. Wind was 3ish and viewing across a cannon on even ground and air temp shimmer was almost nonexistent, but again the Swaro could find some better than the Sigs.. Again, we are talking small differences.

Swaro and leica

FWIW I have about 4250 we can range from my backyard, then a big jump to the mountains we you’d need a V21 type to get a read.

Edited to add: We don’t know if Sig is using some sort of IR receiving gate (sure they are) but the beam is way outside listed size. Interesting note that while it was not my intent to look towards the IR laser, I could easily see the red inside the binos with the naked eye, before quickly closing my eyes and saying something.

 

[catorres1]

Very interesting indeed, nice info. According to Leica, divergence is about .5 tall by 1.5 wide, more or less. The 2400 from sig is supposed to be 1.5 round IIRC, but the 3k is supposed to be .3 by 1.5 IIRC, so this is a very interesting result. I too find my 2800 easier to 'thread the needle' with than my 3k, while the 3k is able to hit absurd things at ridiculous distances. This picture explains some of the odd things I have seen in my testing so far.

 

[jetsurgeon]

Wow very interesting results you found. So far I'm loving the Leica 2800.com unit I got, but I've only had it now for a day.

 

[Soulezoo]

I just broke down and got the 2800.com. it better suits my purpose. I don't like it disconnecting from bluetooth as reported, but am hopeful that a future software upgrade may rectify this. And then it may not.

 

[Soulezoo]

I'd say better than a Meopro, not quite a Meostar.

Thanks Doug for helping me out today with the 2800.com

 

[catorres1]

Chatted with Sig about this today. They are taking a look at these results, I'll post up what I hear back. It's odd because I have had some things getting a return that should not have in the foreground, but on the other hand, I have been able to hit very small targets at very long distances precisely, while discriminating from nearby targets. So not sure what is up here, but as I hear more, I'll post what I learn.

 

[Diver160651]

Chatted with Sig about this today. They are taking a look at these results, I'll post up what I hear back. It's odd because I have had some things getting a return that should not have in the foreground, but on the other hand, I have been able to hit very small targets at very long distances precisely, while discriminating from nearby targets. So not sure what is up here, but as I hear more, I'll post what I learn.

My experience with the Sigs are that they seem to be tuned to incredibly reflective targets to provide long max range to satisfy the market. As an example, if the target is reflective PAST were the natural surroundings like a grassy knoll are read, you'll get a good return on the target. But it falls a bit short on the rolling weedy hills at a relatively close range.. When it is close enough to range everything, this is where you'll end up having a harder time knowing exactly what you are ranging. Of course the high scan rates helps you navigate some of the Sig's pitfalls.

Signs, rear tail lights, metal towers and flat metal flashings on homes, provide amazing returns with the Sig. Sometimes the things providing the returns are actually hidden. My main issue with the Sigs are in the normal shooting ranges; where the big Sig beam pick up just about everything.. thats where you might struggle to be sure of the actual return. Honestly, MAX range is not ultra important once you go into ELR distance, especially if loops thru trees and rolling terrain cause issues in side normal hunting or PRS ranges.

That's just my thoughts and personal experience owning a Sig and testing it a bunch, until I understood what I was seeing and why I like the Terrapin or Leica 2800 much better..

 

[catorres1]

Sigs definitely hit reflective targets at crazy distances. Even the 2400. And I have seen the same thing with the 2400 that you mentioned...that is I could hit a cliff wall at 2750, but hitting a 12" white target, it cut out at around 1150 or 1200 IIRC, where my Leicas went further. But the 3k has been totally different. I have been able to test it with my 2800, 2700 and the 2400 when I still had it. Telephone poles, telephone wires, bushes, trees, fence posts....all skylined so it was hit or sky, no chance of hitting in front....and it has been the most powerful RF of the bunch on all targets I have tried, even shooting under full sun, over choppy water. I still feel it lacks the precision of my 2800 in terms of the reticle and it's alignment, but once I figured it out, it is very effective, but it does seem to take a bit more work to get the best out of it.

But every now and again, I'll pick up something odd that seems like it should not be reading...like if I am trying to shoot through a hole in the trees. TBH, I have had it happen with my Leica as well, but not as often. IIRC, when talking to Leica, they have the RF setup to function in what is basically 'farthest' mode all the time in their algorithm. It's not exactly the same, but more or less. I recently switched my 3k to that mode from best and so far, I think it helps with it not accidentally picking up the nearer targets, but does not make it go away entirely.

 

[seansmd]

Sigs definitely hit reflective targets at crazy distances. Even the 2400. And I have seen the same thing with the 2400 that you mentioned...that is I could hit a cliff wall at 2750, but hitting a 12" white target, it cut out at around 1150 or 1200 IIRC, where my Leicas went further. But the 3k has been totally different. I have been able to test it with my 2800, 2700 and the 2400 when I still had it. Telephone poles, telephone wires, bushes, trees, fence posts....all skylined so it was hit or sky, no chance of hitting in front....and it has been the most powerful RF of the bunch on all targets I have tried, even shooting under full sun, over choppy water. I still feel it lacks the precision of my 2800 in terms of the reticle and it's alignment, but once I figured it out, it is very effective, but it does seem to take a bit more work to get the best out of it.

But every now and again, I'll pick up something odd that seems like it should not be reading...like if I am trying to shoot through a hole in the trees. TBH, I have had it happen with my Leica as well, but not as often. IIRC, when talking to Leica, they have the RF setup to function in what is basically 'farthest' mode all the time in their algorithm. It's not exactly the same, but more or less. I recently switched my 3k to that mode from best and so far, I think it helps with it not accidentally picking up the nearer targets, but does not make it go away entirely.

Wait, you can change the setting on the 3k from near to far? Did it change the dispersion? How do you change the setting?

 

[theLBC]

Chatted with Sig about this today. They are taking a look at these results, I'll post up what I hear back. It's odd because I have had some things getting a return that should not have in the foreground, but on the other hand, I have been able to hit very small targets at very long distances precisely, while discriminating from nearby targets. So not sure what is up here, but as I hear more, I'll post what I learn.

how much does "Last" vs "Best" help to ignore foreground vegetation? does it affect range?

 

[seansmd]

how much does "Last" vs "Best" help to ignore foreground vegetation? does it affect range?

My understanding of last vs best, is what it returns when you hold down the button and scan, it updates 4x per second, and in best mode should return the strongest result vs the most recent right before the button is released.

 

[catorres1]

When you hit the secondary button and toggle through all the choices , like mode selection, brightness setting etc., one of them is target selection, which lets you choose between last vs best. It does not change the dispersion, it has to do with how returns are processed and which are selected for display, as it was explained to me.

Last and best is for all modes, from the manual ..."BEST Target can be used for most situations, however, when hunting through foliage or in high grass the LAST Target is recommended. "

It does not change the range the RF works at, it simply makes it give more 'attention' to the farther return rather than a return that may be stronger, but also is much nearer.

As I understand it, this is basically how Leica's are hardwired, it's not user selectable. There is a lot more to it, Leica's knowlege of algorithms and signal processing is very mature, but generally, this is the way they set their RF's up AFAIK.

 

[seansmd]

When you hit the secondary button and toggle through all the choices , like mode selection, brightness setting etc., one of them is target selection, which lets you choose between last vs best. It does not change the dispersion, it has to do with how returns are processed and which are selected for display, as it was explained to me.

Last and best is for all modes, from the manual ..."BEST Target can be used for most situations, however, when hunting through foliage or in high grass the LAST Target is recommended. "

It does not change the range the RF works at, it simply makes it give more 'attention' to the farther return rather than a return that may be stronger, but also is much nearer.

As I understand it, this is basically how Leica's are hardwired, it's not user selectable. There is a lot more to it, Leica's knowlege of algorithms and signal processing is very mature, but generally, this is the way they set their RF's up AFAIK.

I just tried both modes in my back yard through loops of vegetation that was short 15-20 yards and a good solid surface 40-50 yards away. No benefit from either mode.

My effective response is scanning and hunting through the loop and having good knowledge of what is the right distance. This is easy at short distance that your naked eye can verify.

 

[theLBC]

When you hit the secondary button and toggle through all the choices , like mode selection, brightness setting etc., one of them is target selection, which lets you choose between last vs best. It does not change the dispersion, it has to do with how returns are processed and which are selected for display, as it was explained to me.

Last and best is for all modes, from the manual ..."BEST Target can be used for most situations, however, when hunting through foliage or in high grass the LAST Target is recommended. "

It does not change the range the RF works at, it simply makes it give more 'attention' to the farther return rather than a return that may be stronger, but also is much nearer.

As I understand it, this is basically how Leica's are hardwired, it's not user selectable. There is a lot more to it, Leica's knowlege of algorithms and signal processing is very mature, but generally, this is the way they set their RF's up AFAIK.

it just seemed to me that using LAST would help with the foreground issue you were reporting.
for example, if i am ranging a nearby tower (with my 2400abs), i often get hits from some pine branches about 3/4 of the way out to the tower in BEST mode, but not as much in LAST mode unless i really have the reticle pointed at the branch or needles.

 

[Diver160651]

The issue to me is that we keep coming back to “radio towers”, buildings and other things that have little real world applications in competition field shooting or hunting.

I’d like to see it shoot through loops 800 yards away at an animal or plate maybe 850 or any other type real world application as a litmus test between them.

 

[Huskydriver]

The issue to me is that we keep coming back to “radio towers”, buildings and other things that have little real world applications in competition field shooting or hunting.

I’d like to see it shoot through loops 800 yards away at an animal or plate maybe 850 or any other type real world application as a litmus test between them.

^^^this. I need to be able to reflect off a yote, or 21" wide steel torso at 2k. Could careless about hitting anything bigger than that farther. The 2800 does this easily and through a narrow window. Love it... Now if they could speed up the hand off to from the kestral and make it more constant.

 

[seansmd]

^^^this. I need to be able to reflect off a yote, or 21" wide steel torso at 2k. Could careless about hitting anything bigger than that farther. The 2800 does this easily and through a narrow window. Love it... Now if they could speed up the hand off to from the kestral and make it more constant.

Have you looked at the kestrel sleep time, in trying to optimize batteries it might be causing the connection drops?

I have the Leica coming to replace the sig3k for the same reasons you articulated.

 

[northshorelumber]

I purchased the kilo 3000 because I wanted bino's and the published beam size sounded great. At first I used it in wide open spaces and was thrilled. Then I started using it in areas with tall grass and tree branches. I was getting what I thought were erroneous readings, much closer that the item I was lasing. Reading this thread tells me I'm having the thread the needle issue. Very dissapointing, the only erroneous reading appears to be Sig's published beam size.

 

[Diver160651]

^^^this. I need to be able to reflect off a yote, or 21" wide steel torso at 2k. Could careless about hitting anything bigger than that farther. The 2800 does this easily and through a narrow window. Love it... Now if they could speed up the hand off to from the kestral and make it more constant.

I think some of the issue on top of the sleep, are scrolling in the Kestrel and not being in the proper spot -- ie target or scrolling thru and the Kestrel is not in the correct reconnected state.

I really like the combo.. But It makes me nuts that the drop after wind 1 and wind 2 are displayed is NOT cycled back to.. It would be suck a nice fix to have the wind occupy less time and the drop to be either held longer or ideally cycled back to one last time to the drop solution..

 

[theLBC]

I purchased the kilo 3000 because I wanted bino's and the published beam size sounded great. At first I used it in wide open spaces and was thrilled. Then I started using it in areas with tall grass and tree branches. I was getting what I thought were erroneous readings, much closer that the item I was lasing. Reading this thread tells me I'm having the thread the needle issue. Very dissapointing, the only erroneous reading appears to be Sig's published beam size.

were you using the Last setting or did it also not help as advertised?
I saw some vid where the guy found the reticle wasn't accurately representing the beam at long distance, so he scanned slowly to find out at what point in relation to the reticle display he started to get hits from the closer object.

 

[Diver160651]

were you using the Last setting or did it also not help as advertised?
I saw some vid where the guy found the reticle wasn't accurately representing the beam at long distance, so he scanned slowly to find out at what point in relation to the reticle display he started to get hits from the closer object.

FWIW I've owned the 2000, 2400 and now tested all three with Sean's 3000. I tried Dow's 3000 as well, all have less ability to to work in loops thru brush and trees than lets say the TerrapinX or Leica 2700/2800 and nowhere in the league of the mil grade stuff in terms of discriminating beam.

Read post #15. look at the image, it should answer most your questions. Sean's sole purpose was to confirm beam and reticle. The reticle and beam line up. He had it on a RRS tripod for the alignment test, his intention was only to see why tight spaces seemed to be tougher than expected. We then hand held the two PLRFs to give a realistic visual comparison with the NV on the tripod. Figure an image was worth the proverb.

I do not think anything is wrong with the Sigs, it is just how they are tuned.

@northshorelumber and other are all experiencing results 100% consistent to what we found.. In context these things are amazing for the price, especially if getting a super return on a structure is your goal or maybe you aren't using it in tight cover. If you are using it where your target might in amongst rolling hills, brush or other items that create dead space or loops in and around your target you need to be super aware of the returns you're getting.. Scan mode and a few reads, is probably your best bet..

 

[theLBC]

FWIW I've owned the 2000, 2400 and now tested all three with Sean's 3000. I tried Dow's 3000 as well, all have less ability to to work in loops thru brush and trees than lets say the TerrapinX or Leica 2700/2800 and nowhere in the league of the mil grade stuff in terms of discriminating beam.

Read post #15. look at the image, it should answer most your questions. Sean's sole purpose was to confirm beam and reticle. The reticle and beam line up. He had it on a RRS tripod for the alignment test, his intention was only to see why tight spaces seemed to be tougher than expected. We then hand held the two PLRFs to give a realistic visual comparison with the NV on the tripod. Figure an image was worth the proverb.

I do not think anything is wrong with the Sigs, it is just how they are tuned.

@northshorelumber and other are all experiencing results 100% consistent to what we found.. In context these things are amazing for the price, especially if getting a super return on a structure is your goal or maybe you aren't using it in tight cover. If you are using it where your target might in amongst rolling hills, brush or other items that create dead space or loops in and around your target you need to be super aware of the returns you're getting.. Scan mode and a few reads, is probably your best bet..

oh, i trust your experience with the different units.
i am just wondering if he he getting the most from what he has before he decides it just won't work for what he needs and has to sell it.
he would not be the first owner to misunderstand or ignore using that Last mode.

 

[Diver160651]

oh, i trust your experience with the different units.
i am just wondering if he he getting the most from what he has before he decides it just won't work for what he needs and has to sell it.
he would not be the first owner to misunderstand or ignore using that Last mode.

BTW you can up the game and get these from @NoLegs24 https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/wts-vectronix-vector-21-aero.6926483/

 

[catorres1]

So my experience with the 3k and the 2800 and 2700 differs a bit. I tested the 2800 and the 3k both this evening looking for loops to shoot through. I just moved out to a ranch so there were quite a few opportunities, as the pastures are broken by thin treelines on the fencelines, that then open into rolling pastures. Setting the 3k on best and trying to thread the needle it was common to hit the treelines and not get a read off the field behind. The distances for the treelines ranged from 75 to 350, with targets behind ranging from 250 to 975. The size of holes were roughly 2 mils and under, based on comparison to the reticle in my 2800.

In this mode, the Leica would read through as long as no part of the reticle hit the leaves or branches. However, if there was even a stray branch , it would pick it up, and it would not read through the holes that were slighly smaller than the reticle. But if the reticle was clear, it would read right through.

The 3k had a harder time reading through the holes. If I got it aligned just right, and I'll get back to this later, it would do it, but not terribly consistently, it mostly wanted to read the closer trees.

Switching to the last mode, was a whole other experience. In that mode, I was able to read through much smaller holes, many, my 2800 would not read through. I was surprised when I'd get reads because I could clearly see that perhaps there were some stray leaves or branches that I expected it to read off of. But it would read through, no problem. I surmise that it is getting a strong enough read off the grassy hills behind the treeline and comparing it to the read it gets off the leaves, and in this mode, chooses the farther to display. But switching to last definitely made a dramatic difference with my unit.

One thing that is an issue that I have mentioned to Sig and in reviews of the Sigs, and may be coming into play here, is that Sig's 'acceptable alignment error' for the sensor vs the reticle is much higher than Leicas. For Leica, the whole of the sensor must be within the reticle or it will not pass. That means that if you put the windage edge on anything, you are into the sensor. Elevation, one of my units is high, one low, one centered, but they are always within the reticle and windage is always perfect.

Not so much with the Sigs. For them, as long as some part of the sensor is within the reticle, its considered acceptable. That is something I would like to see them change, no doubt. In practice, it means you must map your sensor positioning in relation to your reticle to get the best use of their RF's. This can work to your advantage, I suppose (mine is on the line, so I can use the line of the reticle as a precise aiming point), but this is something that I think causes some issues with people missing targets etc., and I really want it demarcated where the sensor for sure ends. Right now, I know for sure where it is, but have a hard time remembering where it ends because it extends into 'space'. The precision placement of the Leicas just seems to make ranging easier and this something that Sig should take notice of.

But all that is to say, at least with my unit, by mapping my sensor and running it in last mode, I can very easily thread through brush etc., and get reads off of rolling pastures. That is not to discount your results, clearly, some folks are not having that experience. What I am wondering about is what Sig has to say about that NV testing you did, and I wonder if those results have anything to do with what you are seeing with your unit.

Trying to get ahold of some NV from a friend so I can see if my laser looks different than yours and how it compares to my Leicas, I suspect it is different, but hopefully, we'll see.

 

[Diver160651]

But if the reticle was clear, it would read right through.

absolutely agree.. it is however easy to see if you are going to have a problem.

remember ~ I am NOT concerned with close range tiny loops but rather far loops with the targets close to those loops

 

[catorres1]

absolutely agree.. it is however easy to see if you are going to have a problem.

remember ~ I am NOT concerned with close range tiny loops but rather far loops with the targets close to those loops

Roger that, I'll reach out tomorrow and get an idea how you are testing yours. Not sure I can find the same setup you are testing on, most of my treelines are in the 500 range max, with just grass after that. But I'd like to see if mine is acting different than yours under the same circumstances, so maybe I can get something setup to duplicate your circumstances.

 

[briscoetab]

@catorres1 @Diver160651 catorrea1, as far as the sigs go my experience is similar to what you are describing. I’ve only had them for a couple of weeks and really only played with them a little but from the start I noticed it was having issue with hitting close targets when I was trying to get something behind it. So I switched to the last mode and figured out where the beam was, once I did this performance improved dramatically.

Understanding where the beam is was the biggest issue and I knew it may be before I got them due to what I had already read about that. Also, when ranging something closer and what I found at first it appeared the beam was just at the bottom of the circle on my unit. So I tried shooting thru branches further away (200-300yds) knowing that and was still having issues but quickly realized I would get the correct reading by moving the circle up even further. I would say my beam is close the being a 1/4 of the circle below the actual circle or slightly less. It makes a big difference on farther targets but not so much closer up is what it seems like to me.

 

[Diver160651]

FYI I am not trying to make Sig owners feel less than fulfilled with their excellent value

My entire point here is lean your PLRFs behavior, learn when it is going to try to fool to you. Even the $30K units I've used will not always tell you what your eyes see.

Don't think a 2 level distance gate is perfect, much less a random best (near) and Farthest (weakest) gate.. The better range finders have a user settable distance gate + show/provide a 3 level read (gate) for near, mid and far; basically 2x what the Sig is offering with a beam many times smaller. Even then, you have to know what you are shooting at and what to expect.

As an example, there are few almost universal items that make range finders work hard. Range a Hilux pointed towards you, laze the radiator and it might seem like a ghost. You'll have better luck on the damn guy standing next to the radiator with his legs together. Range a pile of a bunch of porous BLACK lava rocks far away and it can seem like your batteries are low, just as it might be a supper hairy animal with black fur. Then we have distant loops or worse yet, rolling elevations that provide lots of dead space and hard to pick up with the eye..

Work at knowing these these things and don't get so excited that your finder can ping a smoke stack, stop sign, power pole, tail lights or what ever the f, at ranges further than you can shoot with an acceptable CEP on a normal sized target..

Spent to much time in this thread. Hopefully, it's helpful, if not no worries. Not here to make anyone feel bad about their purchase.. hell it is hard to go wrong these days.

 

[briscoetab]

@Diver160651 Don’t worry I wasn’t taken it like you were say it was a bad purchase, I was just sharing my personal experience because it seemed to pertain to both the issues that y’all were talking about. I’m happy with the sigs, they do everything I need them to do.

 

[triatleta]

With my kilo 3k I hit a wooden telephone pole at 1500 meters without problems

 

[Diver160651]

With my kilo 3k I hit a wooden telephone pole at 1500 meters without problems

Missing the point

 

[briscoetab]

This is the best example that I could do right now, I know it is not the exact size of loop hole we are talking about but it is rather small aiming area. I really need a better setup to take picture, this is resting on the window in my truck hitting the furthest pool in the triangle between all of the supports. The picture isn’t actually where I aimed to hit the pole, it is slightly lower but trying to hold still and take picture on phone one handed is hard. The hole that you have to aim through is smaller than the circle and there are actually 5 objects that you have to distinguish 4 are labeled in the picture and then there is a power line between 709 and 909 that actually block the 1109 pole and you are still able to pickup the 1109.

It was difficult to distinguish between 1109,909 and the electric line between them but everything from 909 in was easy.

I was looking for some brush to shoot through but couldn’t find something that would work real well will keep my eyes open for something better. For me I doubt I would ever shoot through anything or need to range anything through a smaller hole than this at that distance and without knowing where the laser is in regards to the recticle it would be almost impossible to know what was getting ranged at this distance.

 

[briscoetab]

Just posting so people know what to expect performance wise, not trying to dispute what other people are having issues with but to reinforce what I am seeing.

 

[Diver160651]

Nice work.

I think if you look at the rolling brush, you have what I am talking about. Place a 1/2 hidden (peaking up slightly out of the brush like you might see at an Taylor set match) IPSC, near where your 709 arrow starts, so that you have brush leading up and away in that 900 yard zone so that you have more objects much closer to the target, without a relatively clean background (more object closer to the target distance) and you'll get a more realistic feel.

 

[northshorelumber]

were you using the Last setting or did it also not help as advertised?
I saw some vid where the guy found the reticle wasn't accurately representing the beam at long distance, so he scanned slowly to find out at what point in relation to the reticle display he started to get hits from the closer object.

I have mapped my beam so that is not an issue. However, I was not using the last setting but the best setting. Thanks to this thread I will switch to the last setting and see if I have better results. Hopefully with some practice and the appropriate setting my experience will improve.

 

[Glassaholic]

Is that a custom plate you had made? That would be great for the range to hold Kestrel, LRF and binos, also, whose mount are you using on your 2800.COM, sweet setup by the way.