First Impressions: Sig Kilo 2000 Vs Leica 1600

FISMA.

Just removed the Sig Kilo 2000 from the box today and decided to take it for a quick test drive to see how it compared to the Leica 1600.

The Match-Up
Sig Kilo 2000 - $500 – brand new.
Leica 1600 - $800 – 7 years old.

I use rangefinders almost exclusively for hunting with the odd time at the range. Both the Sig and Leica range far beyond my needs.

Concisely, the Sig Kilo is probably the best range finder in its price range and one of the best overall. It excels at follow-up ranging times and should be more than enough for any hunter or shooter.

Round 1. Carry Case Design: Leica > Sig.
The carry case seems trivial. But if you’re like me, you want to keep your glass and coatings as clean and safe as possible.

For some reason, Sig designed a case that was open at the bottom. Just the opportunity to allow dirt, moisture, and the elements to access the objective.

Round 2. Ranging Speed: Sig > Leica

The Sig is fast, real fast. Perhaps, the single most important buying point.

Ever try to laze a target and miss, or want a second for confirmation? On such occasions, my Leica has left me waiting in the breeze. On the Leica, I can range about once every three seconds. On the Sig, I can get three ranges in a second!

Round 3. Scan mode.
Both have scan mode allowing the user to track an object in motion by holding the button down. Perhaps, this makes up for the slower response time of the Leica above.

Round 4. Size.
The Sig and Leica are about the same size, however, the sloped front of the sig causes my little finger to have nowhere to sit on the frame. Personally, I like the size of the Leica.

Round 5. Reticle: Leica > Sig.
I’ll give the Leica the slight edge here. I don’t know why manufacturers don’t give us a crosshair, dot, or the like. The Leica’s square is smaller than Sig’s circle, hence the slight advantage.

In reality, if you’re ranging deer at short-mid range, say 300 or 400ya and they are grouped together, you’re getting an average. Not too bad if the group is close together, however, could be a problem if you’re getting the big fella that is actually 20, 30, or more yards behind.

Round 6. Angle Adjust
If you’re shooting at steep angles and don’t feel like studying up the auld trig, both the Leica and Sig will take care of your angle modification.

Round 7. Temperature and Pressure: Leica > Sig
At the push of a button, the Leica will give you the current temperature and pressure. The sig does not.

Round 8. Auto Display Adjustment: Sig > Leica
Although, I have never had a problem with the Leica’s reticle being to bright at night or dim in the day. The Sig will automatically adjust the brightness of the display to match conditions.

Units of measurement for either the Sig or Leica may be viewed in yards or meters. Both are accurate. The Sig offers more precision, as it reads tenths of yards.

I'm not sure what to think of precision down to a few inches. Maybe, I'll grow to appreciate it. As a hold-over shooter, I round to the reticle. Maybe the tenths will be handy for the ballistics calculator lads.

Both range as stated. I have lazed shiny objects with my Leica farther than 1600ya and deer out to 900ya, which is the farthest I can reach on my permissions.

The Sig claims to be able to laze shiny objects at 3400ya, trees at 1500ya, and deer at 1200ya. I haven’t had the opportunity to test those claims yet, but take Sig at their word.

Sig offers a 5 year Warranty on their unit – nice! Not sure what I had with the Leica. However, it's 7 years old and never a problem.

Lastly, both have easy access to the battery. The Leica has a coin fitted lot whereas the Sig has an lift and twist hinge.

Again, the Sig is a great buy at a great price. Leica is going to have to step up their game. Looking forward to their next rangefinder.

Vegeta

Thanks for the detailed review. When you get a chance to stretch the legs of the Sig I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I've seen too many range finders which fail to return a range, even well inside their own advertised working range.

Cass

Great review FISMA, thanks.

What are your thoughts on the measurements of the SIG? You say it goes to tenths of a yard. How useful is that? I mean most rifles, even air rifles at shorter distances don't need individual yardage let alone tenths of a yard. As you said about lads using BCs, again no BC i know would "waste" time giving you distances in tenths of a yard as the variance over a yard, not to mention tenths of one, are so small as to be completely ignored.

I like the quick scan though and if it's accurate as you say then it's a big point over the Leica. I have a Leica and as you mentioned the time from when you press the button to get a reading may only be a couple of seconds, but if the few scenarios when those seconds count its important. Its why i find myself using the scan mode more than individual/separate readings.

Thanks again for the review and as Vegeta said i'd be interested to see the true yardage of the ranging. I know it counts of reflectiveness of the item being scanned, but side by side it would be ggood to see any differences.

FISMA.

Had a few minutes today and decided to head out for a quick test.

I decided to go to the power lines, figuring that would be my best chance to get a long range. The conditions were overcast and about 7.5C. I'll try and get some more ranges soon.

Anyhow, here's the view.

First test is the closest pole, not shown above, as the camera is zoomed. Pole 2 is more than 3 football fields away from my position.

Note: all units are in yards, the rangefinder was hand-held, and there was a nice cold breeze.

I think both range finders performed well and that some discrepancies are either my fault or actual values of different edges of the poles.

Pole 1.
Leica: 98, 98, 99, 98, 99.
Sig: 98.7, 98.7, 98.7, 98.7,98.6

Pole 2
Leica: 355, 355, 355, 355, 355
Sig: 356.1, 354.7, 354.5, 354.5, 354.6

The Leica was great at this distance. However, this is my "practice" range. The range I normally shoot at on my permissions.

Pole 3
Leica: 658, 658, 660, 660, 660
Sig: 656.7, 656.3, 656.4, 655.6, 656.4

Note: at pole #3, the Sig had a lower standard deviation, but the Leica was getting and returning results faster.

Pole 4
Leica: 877, 877, 876, 876, 877
Sig: 876.1, 875.2, 875.0, 875.3, 875.7

Note: at pole #4, the Sig was returning results nice and fast.

Pole 5
Strange. Neither Rangefinder wanted to range pole #5.

Pole 6
Leica - no return readings.
Sig: 1741.5, 1741.3, 1741.3, miss, miss, 1741.3, 1741.6, 2056.3

Note, the Sig was returning results, but there were a few misses. Also, I threw out the outlier as it was probably my fault. Again, I am ranging by hand and not off of a stand.

If you look way off in to the distance, at #7, there was a power station, or something. I tried to range that. The Leica returned no results.

After many tries, the Sig returned 2777.6.

After a few more tries, I seemed to get locked on to something and the Sig returned several more readings give or take 10 yards.

Clarity
Both were clear. I may give a slight edge to Leica under these conditions.

The Sig has a definite blue color when viewing. Perhaps, this will help at dusk and dawn.

Vegeta

Excellent report FISMA, looks like a bit of moisture in the air too which is a great test for a range finder.

Sig looks like a real competitor to the Leica.

FISMA.

Cass wrote: »

Great review FISMA, thanks.
What are your thoughts on the measurements of the SIG? You say it goes to

It's kind of annoying at first. Perhaps, I'll appreciate it later. But as you say, it's precision most shooters do not need.

I'm wondering if the decimals could be handy for slower calibers or say 22lr shooters at short distances?

Cass wrote: »

I like the quick scan though and if it's accurate as you say then it's a big point over the Leica.

The Sig is definitely fast, for both single readings and scan.

Push the button on the Sig, and the reading is there. Keep pushing and it keeps on coming.

When you want to get in to scan mode, just hold the button down and the readings are there. Unlike the Leica, which takes a bit of effort to get into scan mode.

Bad weather here at the moment. Waiting to do a reflective test and angle modification. Hopefully, by the end of the week.

Vegeta wrote: »

Sig looks like a real competitor to the Leica.

Right now, if I had to choose between the Leica and the Sig, given what I paid for the two, I would choose the Sig.

However, would I sell the Leica to fund the Sig? Probably not. That said, one should go.

FISMA.

3.89C and pouring rain on the way home from work today. Decided it would be a great opportunity to see how the beams from the RF's made it through the weather.

Went home, got the rain gear, and by the time I was at the powerlines, the rain was a light drizzle. Better than nothing, but not quite a soft rain.

Decided the warm car was the place to be and lazed the poles out the passenger side window. This may add a few feet to the totals, by comparison to the previous data. More importantly, I had a better hold since I was resting on the center console.

Pole 1
L: 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 - perfect score for the Leica.
S: 101.3, 101.3, 101.3, 101.2, and 101.3.
Someone is off here. There's no way I was a yard and a half off at this distance. I had same aim-point for both RF's.

Pole 2
L: 357, 357, 357, 357, 357
S: 356.7, 356.1, 356.2, 356.1, 356.3
Again, a perfect score for the Leica and a nice tight group for the Sig. I'll accept some of the deviation here as the pole is more than three football fields away. My aim could be a few inches off from shot to shot.
Interesting - putting the Sig in to scan mode and moving it up and down the pole returned the increase and decrease in distance that would be expected.

Pole 3
L: 659, 657, 658, 658, 658, 658
S: 657.0, 657.3, 657.8, X, 657.7, 657.3
The Leica excels at this distance. It's easier to acquire the aim point and results are returned fast.*
The Sig misses one - I'll take the blame for that. Both tight, Leica reading about 658ya and the sig 657 and change.

Pole 4
L: 877, 879, 877, 879, 877
S: 878.3, 877.3, 877.6, 877.6, 877.8
Neither the Leica or Sig had a clean round: both had a few misses. However, once I got on target, both returned results fast.

Pole 5
L: 1142, 1141, 1142, 1142, 1141
S: 1140.3, 1142.3, 1141.6, 1141.3, 1141.7

Last time, neither range finder want to test this distance. This time, the Leica was screaming: clean round, no misses, accurate, and precise.
The Sig was accurate and precise, but didn't have as clean a round as the Leica.

Pole 6
L: 1417, 1419, 1420, 1414, 1420 (a few misses)
S: 1418.5, X, X, X, X, (Sig just not happy)
Both range finders had trouble. Actually, probably my fault. Pole 6 and 7 are far from each other, but from my point, appeared side by side. Both had misses, however, the Leica was able to return the most data. The Sig was picking up pole 7 more often that the Leica. Perhaps, I am not used to centering Sig's larger reticle...

Pole 7
L: 1949, 1948, 1976, 1976, 1976
S: 1947.0, 1947.1, 1946.6, 1975.5, 1975.8
Again, the Sig wasn't returning the ranges as well as the Leica. The Sig was having a bit of trouble keeping up with the Leica. Neither had a clean round. Both had misses.

Pole 8
L: 2058.6, 2057.9, x, x, x
S: 2058.6, 2057.9, 2058.0, 2056.8, 2058.4, 2058.9
The Leica returned two readings and was done for the day. The Sig seemed to find its second wind. With some effort, it returned accurate and precise data. Both had several misses.

Farthest Distance #7 in Post #4's image above
L: x, x, x, x, x
S: 2778.0, 2778.2, 2775.5, 2776.4, 2776.2
Note: neither the Sig or Leica returned data in point and shoot mode. The Sig only returned very spotty data in Scan mode.

In fairness to both RF's, there's no one surface at that distance and a lot of stuff, like wires, transformers, towers, and an array of beams, in and around the target area.

There were trees/bushes in the area that I tried to scan, but could not.

I'm wondering how much of the Leica's advantage today was due to years of use and familiarity with the product.

*One thing is definite, the Leica's reticle makes you "aim small." I think that factor was the major reason for Leica's success today.

Also, I liked Leica's optics better today. The Sig's blue hue, although maybe better at dusk or dawn, did nothing for me. However, again, this may just be due to familiarity with the Leica.

Two great rangefinders. You cannot go wrong with either.

[edit]Note: there's a discrepancy in Pole 6's data between days.

On the first day, there were initial readings at 14xxya which then settled in at 17xxya.

Today, however, with a better rest, there were initial readings at 17xxya, that then settled in to 14xxya.

I'll have to check if something is obstructing the line of sight. But for right now, Pole 6's Hand-held data is out!

Have to try for some shiny objects far away and angles next!