Bushnell Legend 1200 ARC Rangefinder

[roadrider]

Has anyone here had any experience with various brands of laser rangefinders and how they might compare to the new Bushnell Legend 1200 ARC?

I know some people say the Leica models are the best but they are much more money.

If you have had the opportunity to use the above Bushnell and others, please share your experience.

RR

[elkhunter11]

Leica is definitely superior.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Leica is definitely superior.

The Leica has no ability to calculate angles or holdover so yes, it may read further distances but I'm not sure I'd say it's superior. It has far less functions. If you are looking for a rangefinder that does calculate angles and holdover, I'd give the Leupold a look.

[elkhunter11]

The Leica has no ability to calculate angles or holdover so yes, it may read further distances but I'm not sure I'd say it's superior.

The Leica is marketed as a rangefinder,not as a holdover calculator or angle measurer.As a rangefinder,it ranges further,the beam is narrower making it easier to be sure of what you are ranging,and the red LED is easier to read than some rangefinders.
Personally,I don't find the angle calculators necessary for my hunting,and I know my holdovers from actual shooting,which is more accurate than having some calculator tell me where to hold based on a ballistics table,that isn't likely to be based on the exact bullet that I am using,and the exact muzzle velocity that my gun produces with that bullet.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Leica is marketed as a rangefinder,not as a holdover calculator or angle measurer.As a rangefinder,it ranges further,the beam is narrower making it easier to be sure of what you are ranging,and the red LED is easier to read than some rangefinders.
Personally,I don't find the angle calculators necessary for my hunting,and I know my holdovers from actual shooting,which is more accurate than having some calculator tell me where to hold based on a ballistics table,that isn't likely to be based on the exact bullet that I am using,and the exact muzzle velocity that my gun produces with that bullet.

Well considering that the OP was asking about the ARC, it seemed that those features might be important to him....ugh Just because you own something doesn't always make it best for everyone else.

And the Zeiss is superior to the Leica but I didn't mention it because it doesn't do angle calculations either. The Leupold does both angle and ballistic calculations, and IMHO opinion does it better than the ARC and I know it does it better than the Leica because the Leica doesn't do it. Back to the OP....if you are looking at the ARC because of its ability to calculate true balistic distance on angles, then I'd suggest that unless you are just using it for bow hunting that the Leupold may be a better option.

[elkhunter11]

Well considering that the OP was asking about the ARC, it seemed that those features might be important to him....ugh

Actually he asked

Has anyone here had any experience with various brands of laser rangefinders and how they might compare to the new Bushnell Legend 1200 ARC?

I know some people say the Leica models are the best but they are much more money.

He asked about "various brands" of laser rangefinders,as well as the Bushnell,and he did specifically mention Leica.And as you know Leicas do not calculate angles.

To the OP....


The Arc is a great unit for the money but its angle calculation has very limited range. I have no problems reading the read out on mine. It's true ranging distance is likely around 500-600 yards. If you are on a budget, then yes, it's a good choice.

If long range angle calculations are important to you, then I'd suggest the Leupold but it does cost more but it is worth the money if that feature is important to you.

If you are just looking for a rangefinder that just displays distance then the Leica is a good option but I think the Zeiss and Swaro are both superior.

The first thing you need to figure out is what options are important to you you. My Zeiss for example has a built in balistic calculator that displays hold over at various ranges. This is very handy when shooting a scope with turrets as it lets you know how far to turn the turrets for the distance.

[double gun]

Originally Posted by roadrider

...I know some people say the Leica models are the best but they are much more money. If you have had the opportunity to use the above Bushnell and others, please share your experience.
RR

I have used both the Bushnell and the Leica. Optically the Leica crushed the Bushnell, it's also faster, and easier to read the readout....oh and its tiny. On the other hand the Bushnell IS cheaper, and it also works fine. I would suggest buying the best one you can afford. Check out places like Cameraland in the states, with our dollar where it is and them clearing out of the discontinued Leica crf 900's the price difference is less than one would think. The Swaro is a good product with great optics, but it is still higher priced and is like carrying another set of binos - they are so big. I havent seen the Zeiss yet, but their other products are very nice so I have no reason to think their rangfinder wouldnt be.

[elkhunter11]

To the OP

Be aware that the ballistic calculators will determine a holdover based on a specific ballistic co-efficient of the bullet,and based on a specific muzzle velocity.If your load uses a different bullet,which is quite likely,or your load produces a different muzzle velocity,which is extremely likely,the calculated holdover will not be correct for your load.If you are buying a laser rangefinder because you want to do precise shooting at longer ranges,do not depend on the holdovers displayed by the rangefinders that offer this feature.You will be much more accurate if you shoot your loads at the various distances to determine the actual trajectory of your load,in your gun.

[whitetailsheds]

To the OP
Buddy just finished taking that exact one back to Corlanes here in Dawson. The LED digits were not completely being displayed. Had not been dropped, no moisture...unbelieveably, used only a couple times. Put new batteries in and didn't change a thing. Awaiting, verdict from store as to replacing.
Sure this can happen with other brands, but, you brought up this one.

[CNP]

This is Bushnell's selling point for their "ARC" feature:




In order to sell you on this they provide a scenario where the "true" distance is 23 yards and the line of sight distance is 32 yards. This is a very meaningful distance to archers; a 9 yard error equates to a miss or non-fatal wound, or worse a fatal wound where the deer is never recovered. But hold on here: the Bushnell scenario, conveniently leaves out the vertical height you are above your quarry. In their scenario the archer has to be 22.2 YARDS (67 FEET) higher than the deer for the math to work. This is not a typical scenario. The most common scenario would be that an archer is 20 feet higher than his quarry and shooting a distance of 20 yards measured from the base of the tree (true distance). In this situation the line of sight distance is 21 yards. If you want to stretch out the distance (while still shooting from 20') ....a 30 yard true distance becomes 30.7 yards line-of-sight.....a 40 yard true distance becomes 40.6 yards line-of-sight....a 50 yard true distance becomes 50.3 yards line-of-sight. So, all this to say, if you are shooting from a treee stand and you are 20' higher than your quarry...............forget about ARC......it isn't really meaningful.

One more comment. Bushnell's illustration creates an extreme high angle shot for archers. If you intend to shoot through both lungs, you have to shoot high on the back and the window to achieve this is very small. Treat high angle shots as you would quartering shots. You wouldn't shoot an extreme quartering angle so why shoot an extreme high angle shot? ARC is more hype than substance.............for archers.

[blacktailslayer]

I have a brand new one, paid $369 and I love it!! I have no trouble ranging over 700 yards. The farthest I have had it read in the sun is 830 yards. The biggest thing with bushnell rangefinders is make sure to keep the batteries fresh. If it's not ranging as far replace em. I really like the bullet drop function in it too.

Originally Posted by ehntr

This is Bushnell's selling point for their "ARC" feature:




In order to sell you on this they provide a scenario where the "true" distance is 23 yards and the line of sight distance is 32 yards. This is a very meaningful distance to archers; a 9 yard error equates to a miss or non-fatal wound, or worse a fatal wound where the deer is never recovered. But hold on here: the Bushnell scenario, conveniently leaves out the vertical height you are above your quarry. In their scenario the archer has to be 22.2 YARDS (67 FEET) higher than the deer for the math to work. This is not a typical scenario. The most common scenario would be that an archer is 20 feet higher than his quarry and shooting a distance of 20 yards measured from the base of the tree (true distance). In this situation the line of sight distance is 21 yards. If you want to stretch out the distance (while still shooting from 20') ....a 30 yard true distance becomes 30.7 yards line-of-sight.....a 40 yard true distance becomes 40.6 yards line-of-sight....a 50 yard true distance becomes 50.3 yards line-of-sight. So, all this to say, if you are shooting from a treee stand and you are 20' higher than your quarry...............forget about ARC......it isn't really meaningful.

One more comment. Bushnell's illustration creates an extreme high angle shot for archers. If you intend to shoot through both lungs, you have to shoot high on the back and the window to achieve this is very small. Treat high angle shots as you would quartering shots. You wouldn't shoot an extreme quartering angle so why shoot an extreme high angle shot? ARC is more hype than substance.............for archers.

Well if you want to use the new math...you make a good point....

Angle calculation is definitely more critical for rifle hunters shooting at long ranges but I know I played with the ARC last year while with a buddy on an archery sheep hunt and there was an application there but I agree that for treestand hunting, the application is limited if not questionable.

[CNP]

Well if you want to use the new math...you make a good point....

New math, not so much new lol, you would have to have been in school during the 60's to know that their was old/new math. Numbers are my 8-2-4 job

[elkhunter11]

As to the value of the angle calculation for rifle hunters,unless the angles are extreme,or you are shooting a round with terrible ballistics,with an inappropriate zero point,the angle is not critical even at 400 yards.

Even with a 25% grade over 400 yards,which certainly isn't a common shot scenario,(the shooter is 300 feet above or below the target)the difference between the straight line distance,and the horizontal distance, would be less than 15 yards.
At a 40% grade over 400 yards,which would be quite a rare shot outside of the mountains,and not even all that common in the mountains(the shooter 480ft above or below the target),the difference would be about 30 yards.

Using my 7mmstw as an example,I sight it in 2-3/4" high at 100 yards,and it is 6" low at 400 yards,and 18" low at 500 yards.So if I used 430 yards to estimate my holdover(the distance indicated on my rangefinder for the 40% grade over 400 yards),I would hold about 8" high instead of 6" high,a difference of 2".If I was 2" high on my lung shot,I would hit the middle of the lungs instead of the heart,which would still result in a clean kill.
And that is on a 40% grade over an actual 400 yards of horizontal distance,which is certainly not a common shot for most people.

I have shot sheep at well over 40% grades,but the angle was so steep,that the actual horizontal distance was under 100 yards,so I ignored the angle and just held dead on which resulted in a clean kill.

Ya, I was refering to long-range shooting.

[elkhunter11]

Ya,I was referring to ranges that more than 1% or 2% of hunters should be shooting at game animals.