Leica Geovid HD-B Rangefinder/Bino

venatic

venatic

Active member
Anyone tried these or gotten any feedback from someone who has field experience.
I have not been too impressed with the G7 Rangefinder from Gunwerks when I have played with it.
 
Yes I have... The G7's are not on the same level as the HD-B's... I've had no problem ranging trees to 1500 with the Leica's, Glass is crystal clear, and you may want to look a little deeper into the option of inputting your own ballistics, you can, but it's not what you think, or not what I initially thought...

NOW holding the 10X42 HD-B's in prone position, ranging steel @ 1200 and glassing the countryside, and also holding the 10X42 Swarvoski EL's laying prone ranging steel and glassing the countryside... Both are very good, ergonomically. Ranging power goes to the Swarov's I've nailed trees over 1900. Glass goes to the Swarov's HANDS DOWN, trust me, I looked through both sets multiple times in shadows, in low light, and Swarovski has it made. Reticle, I like the HD-B's it reminds me of my Vector IV's and it's just something I prefer.

Either way, your looking at something incomparable to the G7's, starting off with the Glass quality.
 
I had a buddy testing the very same binos last week and said almost the exact same thing about the two of them PLSS said the swarvoski would range through glass on a vehicle in the leicas would not. but love both of them
 
Thanks guys
So is the SD card for putting your personal ammo ballistics something that does actually work as advertised?
 
Originally Posted By: venaticThanks guys
So is the SD card for putting your personal ammo ballistics something that does actually work as advertised?

It does, but it also has it's limitations.
 
Originally Posted By: skinneyOriginally Posted By: venaticThanks guys
So is the SD card for putting your personal ammo ballistics something that does actually work as advertised?

It does, but it also has it's limitations.

Skinny,

Can you elaborate on what some of those limitations may be? I have been looking pretty hard at the Leica HD-B, and would like to know all I can before dropping that kind of money. I have also been considering the Swaro's, but liked the added ballistic ability of the Leicas. You mentioned that the Swarovskis take the edge on clarity, but do you feel that what you give up in slightly less clarity with the Leicas is offset by the ballistic abilities of this rangefinder. Thanks for your input.

Mark
 
I would be interested in that info as well.

If it's possible to input good dope on an SD card and the Leica will actually gather current conditions and give quality data then I am OK with glass that is just really good not excellent.
I have Swaro bino's currently and love them but I have used Leica and they are quite good too.
 
Just like anything, You'll need to equate certain variables that it can not, but it looks to be a great piece of gear... My buddy has the HD-B's and we were trying to input his custom ballistics, but when we tried to break the MOA down to quarters, it only went to 1/3rds or full MOA measurements... To me this didn't sound right, and I haven't taken the time to read up or try and figure his out (since I'm running the new EL's), so take that info very lightly...
I actually just chatted with him on the phone this a.m. and he told me he hit a rock pile in Idaho over 2Kyds which is phenom. Once I mess with his a bit more I'll try and keep you posted.
 
I have a set of both. Swaros and HD-Bs. Also have a G-7. As far as binos go, the Swaro has a slight edge on edge clarity and light gathering. However the HD-B Leicas have a wider field of view, slightly less clear, clarity is more like my SLC Swaros not HD Swaros. However the rangefinder hands down goes to Leica HD-B. Read well out to 2000 yards vs 1500. And the time of the reading on the HD-B Leicas is incredibly faster than Swaros.

Balistc computer part of HD-B is ok for MOA users. Custom balistics only goes to 1000 yards and only gives MOA not 1/4 or 1/3. It also can spit out the amount of clicks you need for that dope. It goes off Bare Metric not temperature and altitude like most people are used to.

It is unreal in custom turret mode and real world shooting solutions.

If you use m-rad it is phenomenal to 1000 yards. Example: solution came out to 5.6 or exact dope every time. In MOA it would read 16 when exact dope was actually 16.25. And if read 16.51 it would round up to 17 MOA. Conclusion-if you are a MOA user, G-7 is a little more accurate if you hit the target right when ranging. I have had a few problems with the G-7 spitting out wrong information due to near and far background errors.

Bottom line. I have a a set of Swaros EL Rangefinder Binos 10X42s that my brother is making payments on and a G-7 rangefinder. The G-7 stays home. The Leicas are the only thing I take hunting now. I prefer mil adjustments instead of MOA.

Thanks
Cody
 
Originally Posted By: 204farr

Balistc computer part of HD-B is ok for MOA users. Custom balistics only goes to 1000 yards and only gives MOA not 1/4 or 1/3. It also can spit out the amount of clicks you need for that dope. It goes off Bare Metric not temperature and altitude like most people are used to.

It is unreal in custom turret mode and real world shooting solutions.

If you use m-rad it is phenomenal to 1000 yards. Example: solution came out to 5.6 or exact dope every time. In MOA it would read 16 when exact dope was actually 16.25. And if read 16.51 it would round up to 17 MOA. Conclusion-if you are a MOA user, G-7 is a little more accurate if you hit the target right when ranging. I have had a few problems with the G-7 spitting out wrong information due to near and far background errors.



Thanks
Cody



This is what I was after... Great write up.
 
Originally Posted By: 204farrI have a set of both. Swaros and HD-Bs. Also have a G-7. As far as binos go, the Swaro has a slight edge on edge clarity and light gathering. However the HD-B Leicas have a wider field of view, slightly less clear, clarity is more like my SLC Swaros not HD Swaros. However the rangefinder hands down goes to Leica HD-B. Read well out to 2000 yards vs 1500. And the time of the reading on the HD-B Leicas is incredibly faster than Swaros.

Balistc computer part of HD-B is ok for MOA users. Custom balistics only goes to 1000 yards and only gives MOA not 1/4 or 1/3. It also can spit out the amount of clicks you need for that dope. It goes off Bare Metric not temperature and altitude like most people are used to.

It is unreal in custom turret mode and real world shooting solutions.

If you use m-rad it is phenomenal to 1000 yards. Example: solution came out to 5.6 or exact dope every time. In MOA it would read 16 when exact dope was actually 16.25. And if read 16.51 it would round up to 17 MOA. Conclusion-if you are a MOA user, G-7 is a little more accurate if you hit the target right when ranging. I have had a few problems with the G-7 spitting out wrong information due to near and far background errors.

Bottom line. I have a a set of Swaros EL Rangefinder Binos 10X42s that my brother is making payments on and a G-7 rangefinder. The G-7 stays home. The Leicas are the only thing I take hunting now. I prefer mil adjustments instead of MOA.

Thanks
Cody



Thanks Cody that is very helpful. I am running mostly Mil now so I may have to give the HD-B's a try.
 
I just had the leica rep over tonight. I also use mill more now. I can get you his # if you need more info. He has set us up with a few demo in the past and is willing to help out if he can.They just picked up a gun and they just ordered another. They will be doing a few demos throughout the year all over.
 
I had the leica hd b . They would not consistently range cattle a 1000 yds. I used these with my swaro binocs and repeatedly would switch to the swaro to get definition the leica hd b could not deliver. I talked to leica factory tech and swaro factory tech and got the same answer. You give up optics to put ranging in the binocular. The ranging consumes part of the sweet spot of the lenses andcannot be compensated for at the price point. Leica even said they were not surprisedby my swaro optics outperforming the rangefiding optics.I went to the leica 1600b rangefinder and got rock solid repeatable results.. If you want the best optics use a binocular stand alone, if you want the best rangefinder use a stand alone rqangefinder . It all depends on what you are willing to give up .If you need rangingand optics in the same unit either willdo an adequate job of both. Myself i have a hard time comprimising optics for ranging. To each his own
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: smokemI had the leica hd b . They would not consistently range cattle a 1000 yds. I used these with my swaro binocs and repeatedly would switch to the swaro to get definition the leica hd b could not deliver. I talked to leica factory tech and swaro factory tech and got the same answer. You give up optics to put ranging in the binocular. The ranging consumes part of the sweet spot of the lenses andcannot be compensated for at the price point. Leica even said they were not surprisedby my swaro optics outperforming the hdb optics.I went to the leica 1600b rangefinder and got rock solid repeatable results.. If you want the best optics use a binocular stand alone, if you want the best rangefinder use a stand alone rqangefinder . It all depends on what you are willing to give up .If you need rangingand optics in the same unit either willdo an adequate job of both. Myself i have a hard time comprimising optics for ranging. To each his own

I would beg to differ, I can see where you are coming from regarding glass and optic quality from the HD-B's, because I was not impressed either, but if you haven't ran the Swarovski EL's Ranges then your missing something... The EL Ranges, have the same glass quality as the EL's, I actually prefer my 10X42 EL Ranges compared to my 12X50 EL's, hands down.
 
Not to hijack this thread but seems to be a lot of range finder knowledge here. What range finder would consistently range a coyote at 800 yards? I have friends that have various model Bushnell's Nikons Leupolds and none of them will give consistent results out to 600 let alone 800 on a yote. Don't really want to spend $3k but if that's what it takes I'll start saving now. Thanks RR
 
skinney ,the reason i do not own the el range is because i found them to be slow to acquire range and the digits wash out in certain light conditions. I never cared for the stand alone swaro rf either. I am a big swaro fan, have had five pair in 20 years.i was always suspicious that one might give up optics for rangefinding when in the same binocular.Two different swaro reps and a leica rep as i said ,all told me you compromise the sweet spot in you lenses when you insert rangefinding even though you are looking thru the same glass. May not always be noticeable but does exist.Good yours work for you. We all have different expectations and perceptions.
 
Last edited:
Roadrunner, i had a set of leica 1200 that would do a mailbox at 1108 repeatedly,given you can hold still, ..leica are the most dependable a ever used.
 
Smokem you are not saying coyote fur and a mailbox have the same reflective values.
Road runner think about that deer hair and coyote hair are not the same. How can a mailbox and coyote fur be a useful comparison.
 
Originally Posted By: smokemskinney ,the reason i do not own the el range is because i found them to be slow to acquire range and the digits wash out in certain light conditions. May not always be noticeable but does exist.Good yours work for you. We all have different expectations and perceptions.

I don't find mine to be slow on the range, but I understand and agree with what you are saying.
thumbup.gif
 
Back
Top