Rangefinder arc

robm1093 · 09-02-2008, 06:11 PM

Dus the arc rangefinders work for bow hunting or is it Bs ?

balle006 · 09-02-2008, 09:41 PM

id honestly say if your not hunting in extremely steep terrain, and i mean extremely steep they are not worth the added money for bowhunting, maybe long range they are nice but they are within a a yard of each other in bow range and if a yard is messin you up that much id say hang up the bow, im getting reasy to buy the nikon 550 pro staff, you can pick them up from gander mountain.com for 199.99 they actually range a deer farther that the bushnell 1000 arc which is 259. just my opinion but thats a suggestion

crenshaw · 09-05-2008, 08:13 AM

I have the Leopold RX-2 that does the same thing as the ARC. I turned it off on mine. If you think about it logically asballe006 said, it doesnt make that big of a difference at all. I have an old Nikon that doesnt have it and the new Leopold and they read the same, even though one has the arc. Its just another thing to get you to buy it. A laser is doing the same thing as your arrow or bullet is going to do if you think about it.

M.Magis · 09-05-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

A laser is doing the same thing as your arrow or bullet is going to do if you think about it.

What? That's nottrue in the least.
For most bowhunting it's problably not needed. However, trigonometry 101 tells me that the more angled the shot, the greater the difference will be. If the cost difference is significant and you only plan to bowhunt, it's probably not worth it. For many people it would be.

crenshaw · 09-05-2008, 09:36 AM

ok, for bowhunting i dont believe its worth it, and unless your using a lumpy shotgun trying to shoot 200 yards its not worth it. My .300wsm they way i have it sighted in doesnt make a lick of difference. I shoot out to 400 yards out west, and if the range finder tells me its 420 but its really on 385 its such a small adjustment with that rifle that im still hitting in vitals and that bullet is still going to make a mess. granted i might take it more seriously if i was trying to be some of those guys shooting 800yards ridge to ridge, but im not. The difference is small with a reasonable shot. On the Leopold i turn it off and on all the time to see the difference, its usually only 5 or 6 yards difference at 200 yards

robm1093 · 09-07-2008, 08:39 AM

I cant hit a deer from a tree stand. I gave up and went to the grownd and got4 deer . I cant practis from a tree standy. so I think thats whyI mis. I sight in from the grownd.I have no conferdince from a tree.

balle006 · 09-08-2008, 08:21 PM

im totally opposite, im pretty decent on the ground but when im in a tree i see to shoot better knock on wood, what i have found to be the key is to aim a little low not a lot but slightly down and it seems to nail them pretty good i so far havnt had one run more than 20 yards, but why havnt you ever gotten in a stand and practice shooting. just a suggestion, i find it easier to not be seen when im in a tree.

WCWade · 09-11-2008, 09:59 AM

ORIGINAL: M.Magis

Quote:

For most bowhunting it's problably not needed. However, trigonometry 101 tells me that the more angled the shot, the greater the difference will be. If the cost difference is significant and you only plan to bowhunt, it's probably not worth it. For many people it would be.

Dead on statement. Except for the cost of all the "arc" rangefinders.
The ArcherRange does it and is dead on accurate for only $49.95
Read the reviews at www.ArcherRange.com.
There is a lot of skeptisism about it, but as MM said above, it's just simple Trig.

Geronimo · 10-01-2008, 07:34 AM

I have one and it has given me more confidence to aim low and compensate for elevation and distance!

WCWade · 10-13-2008, 11:22 AM

Thanks Geronimo!!