Nomercy448

From what I understand about them, the 2200 LRH (Long Range Hunter" was a Cabela's Exclusive, base model of the 2200.

I own both a 2000 and a 2200, one of my 2000's spit the bit, Sig replaced it with a 2200MR. The 2200 has a smaller reticle, AND of course, the "MR" feature is nice for those of us who like graduated reticles to read impact corrections.

What I can say - I don't think you gained much of anything by trading the 2000 for the 2200. It's the exact same chassis, just with a different reticle. If yours doesn't have automatic brightness as an option, then you need to send it back to Sig, as that IS a listed feature for the 2200 LRH. The 2200 is reported to be faster, but honestly, I cannot tell the difference between the two, Against my Bushnell 1-Mile and my Leica 1600b, the Sig's are both the fastest, and frankly, if I said I could perceive a difference in their speed, I'd be lying. Both the Kilo 2000 and 2200 have "deer" ranges of 1200-1300, non-reflective of 1500-1600, and max readable range on reflective targets at 3,400yrds. The 2200 has a beam divergence published at 1.3mrad, whereas the 2000 was 1.4 or 1.5mrad (have seen both published). Either way, we're not talking about a huge difference, say, compared to the Leica with a .5x2.5mrad divergence, or the Terrapin with the 0.3x1.5mrad - 1.4 vs. 1.5 really doesn't make a difference, it's 3" on a 47" beam at 1,000yrds...

Effectively, you got the exact same thing back, but with a smaller reticle.

For the purpose of the thread - I'll admit, after having this time to play with my 2000, and now my 2200 too, the Leica does give me longer range reads on non-reflective targets more reliably and more easily. Not a big issue, and I have to get past about 1,400yrds before it becomes an issue, but I can notice it. I wouldn't pay more for the Leica just for that unless I were doing a lot more ELR shooting than I am, which is already a lot more than most guys ever do in their life, so I'm still very happy with the Sig's. Both seem to read equally well in low light, but I get a better image in the Leica than the Sig as well - like most optics, the Sig gets a bit of a weird blue hue in the evenings which the Leica doesn't pick up. It's still a great image, very good resolution, it's just a coatings issue - the Leica obviously uses better IR/UV coatings.

I'll also note, I got the Bushnell 1mile Conx for a song, so I picked it up this summer. I have not used the ConX feature as of yet. It's a big ol' chunky thing compared to the Leica or Sig, but it has done very well for me on ranging so far. The downside for it is the large beam divergence, which is 1.5x3mrad!!! It's huge, so you get a lot of bad readings on small targets. It's fast, way faster than my other Bushnell LRF's, but it's big, and for the money, a guy is really buying the ConX option, not any great feature of the rangefinder itself. With the option to link it to a smart Kestrel and use the AB ballistic solver, it's probably the cheapest opportunity to get into a combo LRF/ballistic computer, but I think a guy would be better served, personally, by owning a Sig or Leica, connecting the smart Kestrel directly to their smart phone, and using the AB mobile app, instead of using the Bushnell Elite 1 mile. I got it so cheap, I don't really have anything bad to say about it, but if I were talking street prices, the Sig is the better LRF for the money by a long stretch.