Revic BLR10b Rangefinding Binoculars

[Schmo]

Kinda like others have asked: Upgrading from Vortex Fury 5000 AB. Was considering Leica Geovid R, but seems maybe a nice pair of the Revic Gen 1s would be a better buy than the Geovid R?

 

[Aaron Davidson]

Was wondering if some folks who have more hours and applications behind the Revic Gen 1s and Gen 2s could comment?

I’m using them both side by side the last couple days in the far north of Minnesota.

This morning in particular has been intermittent blowing snow drifts of 15-25 mph.

While the data set is small, and the application somewhat niche for how most hunt and shoot, I seem to be consistently getting more “short laser strike readings” on the gen 2s than the gen 1s.

Basically… Both units on a tripod side by side, ranging the same rocks/trees/targets with ranges from 210 yards to 856 yards.

During heavier snow drifts, the Gen 1s seem to give correct ranges to the targets more often than the Gen 2s. I am seeing easily double the amount of 45-65 yard snow drifts readings on the Gen 2s versus the Gen 1s.

Has this been field tested or validated in any fashion for some real data? Is the “new laser” more susceptible to this niche application while being faster and more accurate in more ideal/normal conditions?

@Aaron Davidson @Formidilosus @Ryan Avery ?

The new laser is very different from gen 1. There is significantly more power. You will definitely need to use the targeting modes.

Think of Near and Far in std ranging mode as your go to settings. I generally run on Near unless a scenario indicates that Far would work best (eg fog, snow, rain, vegetation obstruction, standing dead timber, etc). The algorithm works very fast in std ranging mode.

For really difficult shots, use the Long Range Mode. We slow the algorithm down and use multiple data packets to ident real targets. It will continue to sample as long as you hold the fire button (up to 5 sec), unlike std mode with sends a single sample triggered by the range button.

Since we pioneered the smart rangefinder market back in 2011 with the G7 BR2, targeting modes have been a significant feature that is worth really understanding. I'll drop the words QUICK KEY to point you in a good direction. The Manual is available through the app.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Here is my problem. I just picked up the blr10bs and love them. Used them hunting this weekend…. But I love the so much now I just want to buy the BR10s.

 

[Okie_Poke]

The nicest pair of binos I’ve owned are the non-ranging leupold bx4 10x42. The eurooptic sale on the gen 1 blr10b has me sorely tempted. From a glass standpoint, is the gen 1 revic a move up, down, or sideways from the $400 leupolds? I’m assuming a modest step up but am curious. Thanks.

 

[Marty]

The nicest pair of binos I’ve owned are the non-ranging leupold bx4 10x42. The eurooptic sale on the gen 1 blr10b has me sorely tempted. From a glass standpoint, is the gen 1 revic a move up, down, or sideways from the $400 leupolds? I’m assuming a modest step up but am curious. Thanks.

IMO, the Gen 1’s (and now Gen 2) are significant upgrade from the BX-4.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

The nicest pair of binos I’ve owned are the non-ranging leupold bx4 10x42. The eurooptic sale on the gen 1 blr10b has me sorely tempted. From a glass standpoint, is the gen 1 revic a move up, down, or sideways from the $400 leupolds? I’m assuming a modest step up but am curious. Thanks.

The BX4s are a bit “slept on” optically if I’m being honest. They definitely punch above their price point with good Japanese glass. They would be on par with the Gen 1s and probably a bit “clearer” and “brighter” to most.

However, the Gens 2s would be a step up optically from the BX4s, plus all the obvious bonuses of the on board ballistics with very reliable engine.

With the Gen 2 revics there is no need to carry “alpha” glass with a separate range finder. I still bring my NL pure 14s in the pack for detailed and long range glassing, but the Revics on a tripod have done the heavy lifting.

 

[Mike D Texas]

I have no experience with the Leupold BX4 binos.

I considered the glass on my gen 1 Revics average at best but usable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Okie_Poke]

IMO, the Gen 1’s (and now Gen 2) are significant upgrade from the BX-4.

The BX4s are a bit “slept on” optically if I’m being honest. They definitely punch above their price point with good Japanese glass. They would be on par with the Gen 1s and probably a bit “clearer” and “brighter” to most.

However, the Gens 2s would be a step up optically from the BX4s, plus all the obvious bonuses of the on board ballistics with very reliable engine.

With the Gen 2 revics there is no need to carry “alpha” glass with a separate range finder. I still bring my NL pure 14s in the pack for detailed and long range glassing, but the Revics on a tripod have done the heavy lifting.

I have no experience with the Leupold BX4 binos.

I considered the glass on my gen 1 Revics average at best but usable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

My thought process is that since I don’t know what alpha binos look like, the Gen 1s will look great to me. I get along just fine with my leupy bx4s but I don’t sit behind them all day either.

 

[benconfused]

The BX4s are a bit “slept on” optically if I’m being honest. They definitely punch above their price point with good Japanese glass. They would be on par with the Gen 1s and probably a bit “clearer” and “brighter” to most.

However, the Gens 2s would be a step up optically from the BX4s, plus all the obvious bonuses of the on board ballistics with very reliable engine.

With the Gen 2 revics there is no need to carry “alpha” glass with a separate range finder. I still bring my NL pure 14s in the pack for detailed and long range glassing, but the Revics on a tripod have done the heavy lifting.

How would the Gen 1s compare to Viper HD 10x42s?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

How would the Gen 1s compare to Viper HD 10x42s?

No clue.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

My thought process is that since I don’t know what alpha binos look like, the Gen 1s will look great to me. I get along just fine with my leupy bx4s but I don’t sit behind them all day either.

I just spent hours behind the Gen 1s hunting coues deer for 7 full days. Zero issues.

I’ve also spent countless 8-10 hour days as a spotter/wind caller behind them. Zero issues.

 

[Okie_Poke]

I considered the glass on my gen 1 Revics average at best but usable.

Can you give me a non-ranging comparison for what "average" is in your world?

 

[43.6N]

Can you give me a non-ranging comparison for what "average" is in your world?

Kind of a hot take on a bino review thread, but I think the market has misled a lot of people with the idea of NEEDING optical perfection. I say this as someone who owns NL pures and the newer BR10. Hear me out:

in my mind there are 3 solid tiers.
1. Low tier. Where the optical quality gets in the way of the primary function.
2. Functional tier. Where the optical quality is super good enough. You will spend all day using them without a second thought as to the image. Because the image is not getting the way of your primary purpose.
3. Alpha tier. When you look at them, the image smacks you with how good they are. The viewing “experience” is immediately obvious. They make you want to keep looking and looking and looking.

Rifle scopes are a good example of this. My Swfa is super good enough. My Atacr smacks me with how good things look. But I’m not hitting any more frequently because of it.

Binos and spotting scopes are obviously more dependent on the image quality because their primary purpose is finding game. But even then, consider the following comparison:
The gen 1 sigs with the blue tint: the blue got in the way of the image.
The gen 1 BLR10b: super good enough.
The gen 2 BR10: even more super duper good enough.
The added advantage of having an immediate ballistic solution cannot be understated. It may approach an ethically unfair advantage because of how immediately effective it can make a trained shooter. Whatever compromise you are making optically is worth having the immediate ballistic solution.

 

[Okie_Poke]

Kind of a hot take on a bino review thread, but I think the market has misled a lot of people with the idea of NEEDING optical perfection. I say this as someone who owns NL pures and the newer BR10. Hear me out:

in my mind there are 3 solid tiers.
1. Low tier. Where the optical quality gets in the way of the primary function.
2. Functional tier. Where the optical quality is super good enough. You will spend all day using them without a second thought as to the image. Because the image is not getting the way of your primary purpose.
3. Alpha tier. When you look at them, the image smacks you with how good they are. The viewing “experience” is immediately obvious. They make you want to keep looking and looking and looking.

Rifle scopes are a good example of this. My Swfa is super good enough. My Atacr smacks me with how good things look. But I’m not hitting any more frequently because of it.

Binos and spotting scopes are obviously more dependent on the image quality because their primary purpose is finding game. But even then, consider the following comparison:
The gen 1 sigs with the blue tint: the blue got in the way of the image.
The gen 1 BLR10b: super good enough.
The gen 2 BR10: even more super duper good enough.
The added advantage of having an immediate ballistic solution cannot be understated. It may approach an ethically unfair advantage because of how immediately effective it can make a trained shooter. Whatever compromise you are making optically is worth having the immediate ballistic solution.

Dammit. I’m probably going to order these. I was supposed to choose between them and a thermal. I “chose” the thermal. Looks like I’ll be asking my better half for forgiveness . . . This is a foreseeable consequence of posting for confirmation on a forum of enablers, but I’m still blaming someone else.

 

[Bluumoon]

Dammit. I’m probably going to order these. I was supposed to choose between them and a thermal. I “chose” the thermal. Looks like I’ll be asking my better half for forgiveness . . . This is a foreseeable consequence of posting for confirmation on a forum of enablers, but I’m still blaming someone else.

An enabler would encourage you to go the S2H course instead of buying the other two things. Since you already committed to the other two things you should def just double down and go to class.

 

[43.6N]

Dammit. I’m probably going to order these. I was supposed to choose between them and a thermal. I “chose” the thermal. Looks like I’ll be asking my better half for forgiveness . . . This is a foreseeable consequence of posting for confirmation on a forum of enablers, but I’m still blaming someone else.

Ha! What a great description. A forum of enablers indeed

 

[Okie_Poke]

An enabler would encourage you to go the S2H course instead of buying the other two things. Since you already committed to the other two things you should def just double down and go to class.

A class is on my list, but probably not for 2026.

 

[Okie_Poke]

I let them sit in my cart for 10 days, but I ordered them today. I've never spent that much money on any optic but I'm excited to try these out.

 

[Okie_Poke]

The nicest pair of binos I’ve owned are the non-ranging leupold bx4 10x42. The eurooptic sale on the gen 1 blr10b has me sorely tempted. From a glass standpoint, is the gen 1 revic a move up, down, or sideways from the $400 leupolds? I’m assuming a modest step up but am curious. Thanks.

IMO, the Gen 1’s (and now Gen 2) are significant upgrade from the BX-4.

The BX4s are a bit “slept on” optically if I’m being honest. They definitely punch above their price point with good Japanese glass. They would be on par with the Gen 1s and probably a bit “clearer” and “brighter” to most.

My Gen 1 Revics came in. I don’t have extensive use behind them yet, but I did sit behind my shop at dusk this evening going back and forth between the Gen 1 and the BX-4 leupold looking at hay bales and trees 1100 yards away. @mxgsfmdpx hit the nail on the head, I think. To my eye, they are very close optically. Different, but close. The Leupy image did seem a bit brighter/lighter. The Revic image seemed just a tish softer and dimmer, but I wouldn’t have noticed it without going back and forth directly from one to the other. The Leupolds might have hung on a couple minutes longer in low light but honestly I don’t think I can call that. They were very close. The only other thing I noticed optically is that when I had a bright light on behind me from the shop, the Revics would pick up a little stray glare (red) if the shop light hit it wrong. I assume that has to do with coatings for the laser and the way the light was coming in from behind. But in general, I would say they are very close. Which is what I was hoping for: as good of glass, no distractions, just works rangefinder and ballistics.

Note: this is only 20ish minutes in rural Oklahoma by an untrained optics rube. They might be drastically different and I can’t tell, or my opinion might change as I use them more. The BX4s are what I’ve used for several years and so my eyes are very used to them.

Other impressions: the Revic is half a pound heavier (expected). It took me a bit of fiddling to get the diopter set and I have to keep the barrels a little closer together than I’m used to in order to see only one image. But I’ve got it set now and they look great. The laser is fast! They fit in my bino harness no problem.

I’ll spend some time watching videos on the buttons and playing with them and the settings some more, but I think I’ve got my NRL Hunter rifle’s ballistic profile loaded and ready to go.