Laser Rangefinding scope

kowloon

So I'm looking for a rangefinding scope as recommended, but they all seem to be made for longer range than I need.
What should I be looking for to mount on a .22?
I want to hit the rabbit, not the flea on his back.

CJhaughey

I could be wrong but isn't any sort of laser/NV type scope falling into the restricted category? Many people use handheld rangefinders, you can start cheap and work up to very expensive Leica models, then again you can also find them for handy money in the US.
I don't think you need anything more than 4x scope on a .22lr 32-40mm would be as big as I would go.

kowloon

I think the rangefinder scope would be okay as the rangefinder is similar to what the fellows in justice use on the golf course whereas laser sights, holosights etc. are used by evil ninjas hellbent on world domination and the destruction of all things good. Or something like that .

I was looking for the rangefinder built into the scope on the basis that I won't need 5 hands to manage the lot only to find out after all the fumbling that dinner has moved on to the next county.

Jonty

bushnell do one. its about €700. Its an ignorant looking scope though. For .22 I wouldn't bother. Set the scope 1" high at 50 and it'll be good for 80yds point blank.

You could set up targets at 25, 50, 75 and 100yds just to confirm where the bullet is striking.

a 3-9 x 40 scope is ideal for a 22

Perhaps something in a mildot reticle might suit

kowloon

I definitely don't want to look like one of these lads who thinks he's going into 'nam and not out down the fields for a bunny or two, on the other hand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmU_q5xrnto

johngalway

Who recommended ya a rangefinder scope?

Why not just buy a hand held rangefinder?

€700 would buy you a Leica crf 900 with change.

Slug chucker

The Burris isn't great, they all only go up to 12X mag. They are quiet clunky and require weaver/picatinny rail for fitting. The optical clarity is about as good as a cheap BSA (no offence to BSA owners but for €700 I expected more)
It is handy for its bullet drop reticule and it's really fast to range a target, push the remote select the correct reticule and bang (once it's calibrated)
A lot of pro's and a lot of con's on this one.
For a .22 I wouldn’t bother, I’d personally buy a hand held laser rangefinder like the rest of the guys recommended. Some even calculate elevation angles into bullet drop.
Cheers,
Slug Chucker

Jonty

:Dto avoid all this scope nonsense buy a 17hmr. flat to 100yds

johngalway

Jonty wrote: »

:Dto avoid all this scope nonsense buy a 17hmr. flat to 100yds

Where's the fun in that though :P

(HMR here I come... hopefully )

buckshotbrolan

Jonty wrote: »

:Dto avoid all this scope nonsense buy a 17hmr. flat to 100yds

+ one on that!!!:D Would recommend one over a 22 any day!
Check out youtube, 22 vs 17hmr.

kowloon

Won't the shots take ages switching between the rangefinder and the rifle?

sfakiaman

Jonty wrote: »

bushnell do one. its about €700. Its an ignorant looking scope though. For .22 I wouldn't bother. Set the scope 1" high at 50 and it'll be good for 80yds point blank.

You could set up targets at 25, 50, 75 and 100yds just to confirm where the bullet is striking.

a 3-9 x 40 scope is ideal for a 22

Perhaps something in a mildot reticle might suit

Couldn't agree more. Spend half the the difference in price on practice ammo and there won't be a bunny safe within a hundred yards.

ivanthehunter

CJhaughey wrote: »

I could be wrong but isn't any sort of laser/NV type scope falling into the restricted category? Many people use handheld rangefinders, you can start cheap and work up to very expensive Leica models, then again you can also find them for handy money in the US.
I don't think you need anything more than 4x scope on a .22lr 32-40mm would be as big as I would go.

Yep!
you'd be wrong-
these items have nothing to do with the restricted list.

Even at that I'd say you're being over cautious in your take of the legal side of this.

Firstly any and all issues around this issue revolve around the words light beam, even though the distance measuring devices us a laser its safe to say that this is not a typical light beam as seen on Sic-fi movies:)

Anyway a 4 mag scope is a bit small imo:rolleyes:

Sparks

Ivan, a laser is a light beam by definition.
Please don't go advising people they don't need to worry about licences, especially when the statute is very explicit on this particular point.
Scope with laser rangefinder - licence or authorisation mandatory. End of discussion.

CJhaughey

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Anyway a 4 mag scope is a bit small imo:rolleyes:

Small for what .22lr? You have to be joking, 4x is perfect for rimfires, sure you could get a 3-9x but they are a lot more expensive and I don't shoot much past 100m with my Anschutz anyway.
None of the many late rabbits ever complained that 4x was too small.

deerhunter1

kowloon wrote: »

So I'm looking for a rangefindint practice you need a bit more field crafg scope as recommended, but they all seem to be made for longer range than I need.
What should I be looking for to mount on a .22?
I want to hit the rabbit, not the flea on his back.

What the hell would you want a range finder for with a 22. You are talking maximum on the outside 100yds. If you need a range finder for 22 you need a bit of field craft training

clivej

deerhunter1 wrote: »

What the hell would you want a range finder for with a 22. You are talking maximum on the outside 100yds. If you need a range finder for 22 you need a bit of field craft training

I Could not agree with that statement.

Know your distance.
Know your drop.

Even more so with the 22lr.

Its a clean kill the hunter is wanting - not just the hit and hope that many people seem to have.

I use a range finder and drop chart and dial in the drop on the scope I can head hit rabbits @120m.

meathshooter

found this browsing http://www.retrevo.com/s/Leica-7x42-BD-Binoculars-review-manual/id/21051bh248/t/1-2/ has to be in the money $480 I use a leica 900 myself if I'm unsure of distance.also great crack guessing the distance and then using the range finder to see if your right

kowloon

deerhunter1 wrote: »

What the hell would you want a range finder for with a 22. You are talking maximum on the outside 100yds. If you need a range finder for 22 you need a bit of field craft training

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055719877

I'm not sure I can judge distance anymore.

homerhop

I have always found it hard to judge distance unless there was something near by that I could compare size against. In places I used to hunt often, I would often walk and step out land marks along ditches to have an idea of the range.

Jonty

one could use a mildot reticle for ranging

boc121

Hey there kowloon have one for sale
Cheers.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62904217#post62904217

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Scope with laser rangefinder - licence or authorisation mandatory. End of discussion.

Afraid in this case I have to disagree with you .

Bushnell’s Yardage Pro rangefinders use an invisible, eye-safe Class 1 laser beam (as classified by the FDA), which is “bounced” off distant objects with the press of a button

So an invisible light beam that is only active for a very brief length of time is not a 'light beam' as described in the act. Being invisible and all

Sparks

There's nothing in the act about duration of the light beam nor its specific characteristics (other than it being a part of the scope). It's a laser - by definition it's a light beam, whether that definition is statute-based or based on physics. There's no such thing as a laser which is not a beam of light. I mean, that's what the name itself actually means - Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

Arguing that a laser isn't a light beam under the act is taking the mickey on at least two seperate levels and any solicitor or barrister worth his pay would crucify you for it if you tried it in court.

kowloon

A stand alone rangefinder, even if used in conjunction with a rifle, would be fine right? Or could it be seen as circumventing the law by using essentially the same device but detached?

rrpc

kowloon wrote: »

A stand alone rangefinder, even if used in conjunction with a rifle, would be fine right? Or could it be seen as circumventing the law by using essentially the same device but detached?

No it's not a problem, but notwithstanding Sparks' contribution I would still advise that a laser rangefinding scope is not what is considered under the act. It may not say it specifically, but the spirit of the definition refers to sights that are designed to operate in the dark as opposed to other uses of a laser.

Otherwise you'd also be in trouble if you strapped your cd player to your rifle.

chem

Sparks wrote: »

There's nothing in the act about duration of the light beam nor its specific characteristics (other than it being a part of the scope). It's a laser - by definition it's a light beam, whether that definition is statute-based or based on physics. There's no such thing as a laser which is not a beam of light. I mean, that's what the name itself actually means - Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

Arguing that a laser isn't a light beam under the act is taking the mickey on at least two seperate levels and any solicitor or barrister worth his pay would crucify you for it if you tried it in court.

I wandered into my local airsoft shop, last week. They had laser sights for the airsoft pistols etc.....

So is it only against the law when attached to what is classed as a firearm? Or is it a case of them been illegal to own full stop??

Sparks

So is it only against the law when attached to what is classed as a firearm?

The DoJ advised the IAA (the airsoft NGB) that it wasn't an issue if strapped to an airsoft as they're not firearms. If you had laser grips for your CF pistol though, I reckon you'd hear a different take on things.

rrpc, if you strapped a cd player to your firearm, it wouldn't be designed to work with the firearm so it wouldn't be a component part - you'd really have to have p'd someone off to get that kind of case taken against you. But a laser rangefinding scope is pretty much the solid incarnation of what the legislation says in part (g) of the definition. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole without something in writing from my local Super, it's just not worth the hassle.

Cass

Can either of you (Sparks or rrpc) put up the part of the act that deals with this issue.

Sparks

From Section 1 of the Act as amended, which is where all the definitions are (or most of them anyway):

“firearm” means—
...
(g) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:
(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

kowloon

Are you telling me I can never own that CD player/microwave combo gun from Beverly Hills Cop III? :eek:

Cass

telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device,

Seems to cover laser, night vision or infa red devices only when mounted to the firearm, not when used in conjunction with a firearm.

Are you telling me I can never own that CD player/microwave combo gun from Beverly Hills Cop III

It Serge not Surge, it sounds like a detergent

Sparks

Agreed ezri - there's never really been any issue made of laser rangefinders or NV goggles, it's always been stuff that clamps to a rifle that came under the act.

Sparks

kowloon wrote: »

Are you telling me I can never own that CD player/microwave combo gun from Beverly Hills Cop III? :eek:

Nope Which is sad, because it makes it harder to reheat soup at a distance while listening to music

kowloon

Sparks wrote: »

Nope Which is sad, because it makes it harder to reheat soup at a distance while listening to music

I can deal with waiting a year for a shotgun, I can do without a semiauto, I understand why the rifle can't be black or have a threatening shape, but it gets cold in the winter mornings; how can I be expected to take to the field without my oxtail? The extension lead isn't long enough on my George Foreman grill and that beercan-holder stock from the picture thread isn't large enough to accommodate a pot noodle. :mad:

Sparks

I know. It's a trial.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

The DoJ advised the IAA (the airsoft NGB) that it wasn't an issue if strapped to an airsoft as they're not firearms. If you had laser grips for your CF pistol though, I reckon you'd hear a different take on things.

As far as I know, the sights that are used on airsofts are 'red dot' rather than laser sights and they are not a 'light beam' sight whatever about the yoke they're fixed to.

rrpc, if you strapped a cd player to your firearm, it wouldn't be designed to work with the firearm so it wouldn't be a component part - you'd really have to have p'd someone off to get that kind of case taken against you. But a laser rangefinding scope is pretty much the solid incarnation of what the legislation says in part (g) of the definition. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole without something in writing from my local Super, it's just not worth the hassle.

It says 'designed to be fitted' not designed to work, so if your CD player has mountings that fit to a picatinny rail then it's designed to be fitted and is a firearm by your strict definition.

Not mine mind

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

The DoJ advised the IAA (the airsoft NGB) that it wasn't an issue if strapped to an airsoft as they're not firearms. If you had laser grips for your CF pistol though, I reckon you'd hear a different take on things.

rrpc, if you strapped a cd player to your firearm, it wouldn't be designed to work with the firearm so it wouldn't be a component part - you'd really have to have p'd someone off to get that kind of case taken against you. But a laser rangefinding scope is pretty much the solid incarnation of what the legislation says in part (g) of the definition. I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole without something in writing from my local Super, it's just not worth the hassle.

Could you elaborate on strapped, and who made this contradictory statement? A statement like this flies in the face of the law.

What we need is some clarity on this issue! This law was IMO original targeted at criminals who were stashing guns by breaking them down in to parts ETC ETC.

IMO the this law was never designed to target legitimate law abiding shooter (that my opinion) but there was never any distinction made between them and criminals in the statute:mad:, .
Even if the government's original intention was to control the use these items (covered under section (g)) by legitimate shooters i believe that the inclusion of Distance measuring devices is only caused by a lack of proper definition.
If one was to take the law at face value then one would also require similar licencing to that that of a NV scope to be applied to a simple torch:P
This could be extended to a single 1" scope mount ffs its bloody ridiculous.

Others here have spoke about the issue of seeking written permission by the local Super for the use of such items as NV and Light beams:rolleyes: because the are covered in the same section as silencers! But are you then also then going to seek the same written permission for a 1" scope mount!!! Don't make me laugh!

A statement on www.justice.ie ,similar to the one which was recently removed, would help to put a lot of this over kill issue to bed.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

As far as I know, the sights that are used on airsofts are 'red dot' rather than laser sights and they are not a 'light beam' sight whatever about the yoke they're fixed to.

It wasn't the red dot sights they were asking the DoJ about, but actual laser sights, built to fit a picatinny rail (though not rated for an actual firearm, whose recoil would make a mess of them very quickly). DoJ said they weren't strapping them to a firearm, so they didn't mind.

It says 'designed to be fitted' not designed to work, so if your CD player has mountings that fit to a picatinny rail then it's designed to be fitted and is a firearm by your strict definition.
Not mine mind

Yup, true enough (never said this stuff was particularly well-written!).
I've not actually seen a CD player with a picatinny rail mounting though - and that mount for the iPhone that clamps to a stoner rifle doesn't count as it's a third party aftermarket adapter, not a part of the original design!

rrpc

It doesn't say who it's designed by either. It might be enough if you designed it to do that.

After all what's the purpose of designing something for a particular task if not to use it for that task?

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Could you elaborate on strapped

Strapped in this case being shorthand for "attached via a dedicated mount to a picatinny rail"

and who made this contradictory statement? A statement like this flies in the face of the law.

You'd have to ask the IAA for the specific person's name; I was only told the response came from the DoJ. Try asking in the airsoft forum.

What we need is some clarity on this issue! This law was IMO original targeted at criminals who were stashing guns by breaking them down in to parts ETC ETC.

And to control the importation of firearms piece by piece.

IMO the this law was never designed to target legitimate law abiding shooter (that my opinion) but there was never any distinction made between them and criminals in the statute:mad:

Legislation doesn't work like that - you can't define a law for a group of citizens who are identified by their non-adherance to that law! (you can define punishments for that group that way, yes, but not the actual law itself - how would you word it, "you're not allowed to do X if you do X"???)

Even if the government's original intention was to control the use these items (covered under section (g)) by legitimate shooters i believe that the inclusion of Distance measuring devices is only caused by a lack of proper definition.

Nobody said that the law was well written... and most of us have said the opposite, many of us to people in the DoJ and Gardai.

If one was to take the law at face value then one would also require similar licencing to that that of a NV scope to be applied to a simple torch:P

Under the letter of the law, yes, you would. Or to an M4 hex bolt, which is a component part of a firearm, only missing the action, barrel, bolt, sights and trigger (and that's been pointed out to the DoJ before now).
Fact is, the Act is really badly written in parts. We all know that. But we're not going to get it fixed in the next few years, there's no political will to do that. So we have to figure out the best way to work within it, and if some parts can't be worked with, what parts they are and what way is the easiest to fix them, and push for that.
Simply ignoring the law where it's daft is how we got here - so poking fun at it is amusing, but not really productive.

Others here have spoke about the issue of seeking written permission by the local Super for the use of such items as NV and Light beams:rolleyes: because the are covered in the same section as silencers! But are you then also then going to seek the same written permission for a 1" scope mount!!! Don't make me laugh!

Hey, if you think "don't make me laugh" counts as a legal argument, go right ahead and test that theory. Just give the rest of us a few minutes to step back a few yards, would you? :rolleyes:

A statement on www.justice.ie ,similar to the one which was recently removed, would help to put a lot of this over kill issue to bed.

A statement similar to the one you and others rightly criticised for being incorrect and not in keeping with the legislation even before that legislation was changed (and which was doubly wrong after the legislation was changed)? I can't see that helping matters. Look at the fuss the Commissioner's Guidelines are causing for anyone going for a pistol licence for pete's sake.

And yes, it would be nice to get this cleared up. But bluntly, there are bigger problems than clarifying whether or not you need an authorisation to use an NV scope (especially when the legislation seems pretty clear on that point). Frankly, I'd happily let that stand for the next few decades if it got us solutions to more difficult problems like pistol licencing, or the OMOL system, or any one of a number of other major issues. You're making Everest from a somewhat underimpressive molehill there Ivan.

chem

Ah sure who needs NV or laser sights, when my new thermal imaging scope will do the trick:D

No beam, no electronic light amplification device or an infra-red. All only at the cost of a small home in south Dublin:D;)

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

It doesn't say who it's designed by either. It might be enough if you designed it to do that.
After all what's the purpose of designing something for a particular task if not to use it for that task?

Tell that to the guys who wrote the Microsoft EULA so that you couldn't control a nuclear power plant with Microsoft Windows (and thank them from me while you're at it ).
Either way, I think you'd have to have the fine detail of the specific case aired in front of a judge to get a definitive answer about the iPhone. The transcripts would be entertaining reading, methinks

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Ah sure who needs NV or laser sights, when my new thermal imaging scope will do the trick:D
No beam, no electronic light amplification device or an infra-red. All only at the cost of a small home in south Dublin:D;)

Erm, chem... how exactly do you do thermal imaging without infrared? That'd be sortof like having a rifle without rifling...

kowloon

Do iPhones have a vibrate setting? :eek:

Sparks

kowloon wrote: »

Do iPhones have a vibrate setting? :eek:

Hmmm. You thinking about an auto-aim app?

if (!onTarget) {
    vibrateBarrelLeft();
}

chem

Sparks wrote: »

Erm, chem... how exactly do you do thermal imaging without infrared? .

Bloody engineers!! Alway coming up with reasons why physics wont allow it:mad:

Yiz will all be eating your word, when I build my perpetual motion machine:D

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Fact is, the Act is really badly written in parts. We all know that. But we're not going to get it fixed in the next few years, there's no political will to do that. So we have to figure out the best way to work within it, and if some parts can't be worked with, what parts they are and what way is the easiest to fix them, and push for that.

It's always instructive to actually have a go at rewriting the bit of law that annoys you because it's 'badly written' and try and keep the original intention intact.

It's a lot more difficult than it seems. It's easy to see the problem, fixing it without bringing the structure down is a lot more difficult.

In fact we should always try and do it within our criticism so that we get a feeling for the problem and a better understanding of what the solution should be.

Sparks

The thing is rrpc, my rewriting of g(i) and g(ii) would be to drop them completely and leave (g) looking like this:

“firearm” means—
...
(g) except where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs without which said article would not be capable of discharging its projectile

In other words, I'd drop the requirement to licence any form of sight or silencer. There's little point to it in the firearms act at all. As Ivan pointed out, you still need a licence under the wildlife act to use them when hunting game, and frankly if you want to show up to the range with an NV scope during the day and shoot, well, that's grand, I could use a good laugh

And I take the view that silencers are just being polite when shooting fullbore, not to mention a health-and-safety measure.

And I don't think it should be any component part - personally I say use the US system where the receiver is the actual firearm and everything else is a spare part. Control the receiver and the rest will follow (obviously it's not the receiver in the case of pistols and shotguns, but the general theory seems sound enough to me).

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

The thing is rrpc, my rewriting of g(i) and g(ii) would be to drop them completely and leave (g) looking like this:

In other words, I'd drop the requirement to licence any form of sight or silencer. There's little point to it in the firearms act at all. As Ivan pointed out, you still need a licence under the wildlife act to use them when hunting game, and frankly if you want to show up to the range with an NV scope during the day and shoot, well, that's grand, I could use a good laugh

And I take the view that silencers are just being polite when shooting fullbore, not to mention a health-and-safety measure.

Except you see the firearms acts as purely there to regulate us when in fact it's there to regulate all firearms and their use.

So if your average crim can walk into a shop and buy NV and moderators, we should say: "good luck with that, nice to see the criminal classes are concerned with health & safety issues"

Except of course it would only be their health and safety

Sparks

Actually, I've no problem with that because right now we have that in quite a few parts of the country where some dealers have "not lost sleep over paperwork details" and sold moderators that they shouldn't have. And you can buy NV gear over the counter legally anyway. And frankly, I'm more worried about a criminal having a firearm than I am about the silencer or the laser sights or the night vision kit.