rangefinders

I own a Nikon 600 and a leupold rx1000. I am in the market for a new longer range one. I noticed a huge price difference in the "golf" vs "hunting" rangefinders. Is there really a difference.

Anybody

I have this one. The glass is, well Swarovski, therefore great! The reticle, is a little larger than I would like. I have bounced it off a house at a mile +20 yards though.

http://swfa.com/Swarovski-8x30-Laser-Guide-Rangefinder-P2956.aspx

Heard good things about this one.

http://www.eurooptic.com/leica-crf-1600-rangemaster-compact-laser-range-finder.aspx

This one is the daddy of em all, but few of us can afford it.

http://www.eurooptic.com/vectronix-terrapin-plrf-brown.aspx

The leica is more in my price range but even that hurts

I think the difference in golf is shorter ranges, and some don't focus as narrow of a beam, meaning they need larger surfaces?

i have a buddy who has the swaro for sale for 750 but he will take 700. it is in new condition. pm me if intrested he is getting ready to put it on ebay.

Go with Leica you will be glad you did. They are well built and they have a small reticule for ranging deer and smaller sized game at much great distances. Very accurate to close ranges to very long ranges. They will read the distance that quoted for them. I have owned a Swaro and it was great but the reticule was horrible. Way to large. I sold it and when I got my Leica Geovids.

I bite the bullet a few years ago and purchased one..never thinking that even when I hunted Colorado and took extremely long
shots, and some that I should've that I usually zero'd my rifle about 2 1/2 in or so high when shooting range which pretty much gave me a "put it on hair shot" to 400 or so yds w/a 300 Wthrby.
Since purchasing...and I hunt now w/a 308 Win..I've only played w/it..some..I've not had a shot over 400 yds..DD