Review: Sig Kilo 2200MR vs Leica 1600

[Ledd Slinger]

I've been waiting for the new and improved version of the Sig Kilo 2000 to hit the market as I wasn't very interested in the Kilo 2400 ABS. Just couldn't justify paying nearly $1K extra for ballistics software. Well my new Sig Kilo 2200MR finally arrived and I ran it through a few paces on a sunny day up against my tried and true Leica 1600 (non-B model).

They performed almost identical in every way. Both had no issues picking up trees at 1600 yards in bright sunlight. Both had small enough beam divergence to range over 1150 yards through a small opening in tree branches.

Both are rated for 7X optics and were very crisp and clear in both units. However, this is where the Leica shined a little brighter. The Leica gave a much truer color rendition and absolutely stunning contrast between the colors, as is commonly known by all who have used Leica glass. Definitely some of the best glass out there. I tried to capture the clarity of the optics in both units, but it was hard when holding my smartphone up to the LRFs mounted on a tripod. I did my best, but the pics are a little fuzzy in spots. But I think it's plan to see that both units have very good optics. I will test further when the sun goes down to see what they can really do in low light.

First off a size comparison. Again, almost identical. The Leica is a littile thinner, but also a little longer. The Leica uses a carbon fiber reinforced plastic housing where the Kilo 2200MR uses magnesium. Both are very lightweight, but the Leica seems just a little lighter.








As you can see, the Leica requires a screw driver or perhaps a coin from your pocket or other similar tool to remove the battery cover. The Sig Kilo 2200MR cover employs a very handy flip up lever design that does not require any tools to change the battery.





Ranging review and photos to be continued in comments as I can only upload 5 photos at a time...

 

[Ledd Slinger]

First up in the ranging test during sunny conditions is the Sig Sauer Kilo 2200MR. It performed very well in my tests.

Mountain top with cell tower from my front deck in an attempt to capture the optical quality. There's a little bit of a bluish tint to the optics, but they are very crisp and clear. Definitely not as bright of a picture as the Leica in sunny conditions, but I've read in other reviews that the despite the darker daylight picture, the Sig Kilo's perform very well in low light.




Rock face on the same mountain side. Sunny day.


Ranging the trees on the top of the mountain next to the cell tower. Sunny day.


Ranging a rock face through a small gap in the branches of a tree about 25-30 yards in front of me. Aiming straight towards the sun.




Again, I'm sorry that some of the pics are a little blurry. I tried my best to capture the photos for you. All in all the 2200MR performed very well. I was able to pick up a couple 1700+ yard readings on trees in scan mode, but it wasn't consistent. A little over 1600 yards is all it seemed to want to range consistently in the sun. Still very impressive. Although in the next comment section, you will see that the Leica 1600 was easily able to range all of the same points despite being rated at 600 yards less than the Kilo 2200MR

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Next up my Leica 1600 (non-B model) ranging test in the same sunny conditions.

Mountain top with cell tower. Notice the big difference in color rendition and the beautiful contrast. Can't beat top European glass. This is one of the reasons it costs so much more than other optics. Simply stunning view. My crappy pictures do it no justice.


Same rock face on the same mountain side. Sunny day. Yardage reading was 14 yards different than the Sig Kilo 2200MR.



Ranging the same trees on the top of the mountain next to the cell tower. Sunny day. Was hard to capture a picture of the LED readout for some reason. It appeared to be 'blinking' in the camera, but was perfectly fine when looking through it with my eye. The range reads 1639 yards which was 31 yards different than the 2200MR. Different readings are expected on trees, not so much on solid rock faces.


Ranging a rock face through a small opening in the branches of a the same tree 25-30 yards in front of me. Read 1173 yards. 22 yards different than the 2200MR. Aiming straight towards the sun.


As it always has for me, the Leica 1600 performed flawlessly in sunny conditions. Easily meeting and exceeding it's 1600 yard rating even while in sunny conditions and on NON-reflective targets. Even more impressive was the fact that my Leica 1600 could range everything the 2200MR could range, but is rated for a 600 yard less powerful laser. Hard to say which one is better or which one is giving the correct range readings. Though I have relied on the Leica to make successful long range shots for a handful of years now, so I do have a lot of faith in it. However, at ranges getting towards the top end of its rated performance, the accuracy of the range readings may be falling off. So who knows.

I know I can hit 2000 yards with my Leica in low light using scan mode so I will compare it to the 2200MR in those conditions when the sun goes down. Will also compare the low light performance of the optics. I expect the Leica to win that match up as Leica glass is renowned for some of the absolute best low light performance, but we will see. To be continued.....

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I continued the test in lower light conditions as promised. The Leica glass was not a lot 'brighter' but the color contrast and rendition really made a big difference in the light left over from a setting sun. Much easier to differentiate the objects on the mountainside. The Kilo 2200MR still had that blue tint which was now more prominent. The view was still nice and bright, but the color rendition and contrast was very poor in my opinion. So for me, the Leica glass was far superior...as was expected.

Sig Kilo 2200MR in lower light viewing the mountain side


The Leica 1600 viewing the same mountain side in the same lighting conditions. The picture isn't the best, but it's plain to see the superiority of contrast and color rendition in the glass.




Now for the low light ranging test. I actually was very surprised with the results. They were NOT what I expected, at least not with the Kilo 2200MR...

The Kilo 2200MR actually performed WORSE in low light. It gave me pretty consistent readings at 1400 yards +/-, but I could not get any reading over 1600 yards as I did in the sunny conditions. I had the unit mounted on a tripod so it was steady and was holding it in scan mode at all kinds of different points on the mountain side. Trees, flat faced cliffs, rocks, etc. I even tried the trees on the top of the mountain that I had ranged at just over 1600 yards earlier and I could not get a reading on them in scan or any other mode. The absolute best reading I was able to get back was 1559 yards. This absolutely is not what I expected in low light with a rangefinder rated for 2200 yards...Because of this, I did not even take any pictures of the range readings I received.

MY Leica 1600 performed admirably as it always does. Readings at 1600-1800 yards easily came back to me with every single scan beam on trees or anything else it was aiming at. Just a solid steady read out. Didnt even need scan mode out to about 1840 yards because the readings were so consistent. I tried to hit the farthest target I could since I claimed that I have seen 2000 yards before. Well I couldn't quite find a target to give me that, but while in scan mode in an area that had given me multiple readings just barely over 1900 yards during the test, I finally picked up a reading of 1952 yards. The rest of the targets behind this area must have been well over 2000 yards so I wasn't able to read them. Here's a picture of the 1952 yard reading on trees with my Leica 1600. Kinda blurry because I was hurrying to take a picture of the range reading.


I like a powerful rangefinder that will pick up non-reflective targets at long distances. In this respect, the Leica 1600 has a far superior laser compared to the Sig Kilo 2200MR.

So for those of you looking for a good rangefinder that will give you consistent long range readings in all conditions, the Leica 1600 is definitely a superior device to the Kilo rangefinders. Although the Kilo is rated at 2200 yards, it will not even range a mile (1760 yards) on non-reflective targets. The Leica 1600 will EASILY accomplish consistent readings over a mile in low light conditions and come pretty close even in sunny conditions. After seeing these unexpected results with the Kilo, I would also be willing to bet money that my Leica 1600 would even outperform the Kilo 2400 ABS in low light conditions.

However, I will keep the 2200MR even though its glass and laser is inferior to the Leica 1600 because it still a very impressive rangefinder and a heck of a deal for only $499. Tho it will likely just serve as a backup to my Leica or see use from my son who will be hunting with me this fall.

I hope this review helps to shed some light on the Kilo 2200MR when compared to one of the industry's top rangefinders. As usual with optics...you get what you pay for

 

[Egg]

Great in depth review. ...thanks for your time!!!!

 

[Ledd Slinger]

One thing I forgot to show was the 3 different reticles in the Kilo 2200MR. I will probably never use them so I forgot to even mention it, but they are nice if you plan on using it for milling targets.

I also just went out in pure darkness and the Kilo still wouldn't range very well past 1400 yards. The Leica picked up ranges much farther with ease as it did before in the low light test.

Brightness between the two in dark street shadows at 50 yards was actually about the same, but the Leica still seemed to have the edge due to a little bit sharper image and better color.

The one thing I really like is the auto dimming display on the Kilo. The brightness was just right for the complete darkness. The LED light did not bleed at all. It was just right. The Leica was a little too bright in darkness and the light bleeding off of the LED readout was washing out the view a little bit. I really like the auto dimming feature of the Kilo. They set the brightness levels perfectly.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Heres a picture from the Kilo 2200MR owners manual talking about the ranging characteristics in different ambient light. This is what I expected, but is not what happened...

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Well I called Sig Sauer today and questioned them about why my 2200MR would not range vertical rock faces past 1600 yards. I told him about all my tests and how the performance actually got worse in low light. Etc...

He stated "2200 is just the model number. That rangefinder is rated for 1600 yards on trees, and up to 2 miles on reflective targets. If you were picking up 1600 yards on trees, there's nothing wrong with it."

He couldnt explain why the performance got worse in low light while my Leica performance increased. I told him I couldn't even range vertical rock faces (which Sig considers a 'reflective' target) at more than 1600 yards and he had no explanation for that. He basically focused on my one comment when I told him I picked up trees in sunlight at 1608 yards and wanted to 'politely' blow me off after that.

Sig claims the Kilo is the highest performance 'compact' rangefinder on the market, but my review comparing it to the Leica 1600 clearly showed this claim to be FALSE. I wasn't thrilled with the fact that they weren't even willing to check out the unit, let me try a different one, or even perhaps give me some testing tips or exercises to ensure it was performing correctly. The Kilo 2200 should easily pick up a vertical rock face at over 2000 yards. So to add to the review, I found their customer service to be DEFENSIVE rather than helpful. This is not what I like to see for support. I've dealt with Vortex and Leica customer service in the past and it was night and day. Vortex and Leica will bend over backwards to make sure your optics are in peak performance condition and that the customer is completely satisfied. I did NOT get that feeling with Sig Sauer. Perhaps it was just that one representative, but it wasn't the best first impression for me.

I recall having an issue with an eye cup on a pair of Vortex new gen 10x42 Razor HD binoculars a few years ago. One call to Vortex from the dealer and they told the dealer to give me a brand new pair of binoculars off the shelf and get me out the door and Vortex would cover any costs icurred to the dealer. No questions asked. Thats what i call top notch customer service.

Sig claims to have this same type of customer service and warranty, but my first experience with them makes me believe that this is yet another FALSE claim

 

[cruzr]

Great in depth review, and the comparison photos were very well done. Thanks for the time and effort spent.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

You're all welcome. It always seems to take so long for new products to get reviewed. I generally wait for reviews before purchasing, but I had been waiting for the new Kilo LRFs long enough and l figured I would be one of the first ones to do a full review this time. Glad you fellas have found it useful and informative.

I actually had my Leica 1600 listed for sale on this site prior to my review figuring i could recoup my costs for the new Kilo 2200MR. After the results of my review, I removed my Leica from the classifieds. My Leica isn't going anywhere. I now realize its just too nice to let go at this time.

 

[Gary O'Neal]

I've been waiting on a real world un biased comparison of these two. Thanks a lot!!

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I just realized why the range readings were differing between the two rangefinders...I'm such a tool

My Leica is the non-B model so it will show me the angle if I want it to, but will not correct the range reading. The Kilo 2200MR has angle compensation built into the reading. Since I was aiming UP at points on the mountain, that would explain why the Kilo showed lesser range on the readings.

 

[dkhunt14]

Maybe you got a Rep that had a bad day. Some companies operate with good service and some dont. Matt

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Maybe you got a Rep that had a bad day. Some companies operate with good service and some dont. Matt

Maybe.

When the rangefinder manual, Sig Sauer website, and all advertisements for it state that it can range reflective targets at up to 3400 yards, then that's what I expect it to do. A large vertical rock face will reflect a laser really well. Certainly it should be able to read it at more than 1600 yards in low light.

This is a picture straight from my manual. It specifically states "The Kilo can range past 2000 yards on reflective or semi-reflective targets such as houses, ROCK FACES, or other bright objects."



The product is NOT performing as stated and I think customer service should have at least offered to inspect and test my unit. This is why I deemed it poor customer service. I will test the unit further tomorrow on rock faces and buildings that I can pick up at 1900-2000 yards with my Leica. If the Kilo fails again, I will contact customer service and try to talk to someone else.

 

[DT]

Would be more interested in at what distance it will range game animals.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Would be more interested in at what distance it will range game animals.

Agreed and good point. There is an elk farm not far from my house. They generally hang out in a large flat field and the road leading up to the farm is fairly long. I should be able to get some pretty long ranges on animals in the field with nothing behind them. I will drive up there tomorrow and see what I can come up with. If anything else, I should be able to find some cattle to range in large fields.

 

[kolob10]

great review! Thanks for the time and effort.

 

[hogpatrol]

Good nuts and bolts review and a whole lot better than the ones you get on sites that have a biased and vested interest in products they review and peddle.

 

[longshot406]

Agreed and good point. There is an elk farm not far from my house. They generally hang out in a large flat field and the road leading up to the farm is fairly long. I should be able to get some pretty long ranges on animals in the field with nothing behind them. I will drive up there tomorrow and see what I can come up with. If anything else, I should be able to find some cattle to range in large fields.

I was considering upgrading to the sig 2400 from my original 1600 now I'm having second thoughts! I struggle ranging in my meadow past 800 yards if there is a skif of snow on flat ground! Has there been an upgrade to the 1600 in recent years that I missed ? Sounds like yours is really working !

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I was considering upgrading to the sig 2400 from my original 1600 now I'm having second thoughts! I struggle ranging in my meadow past 800 yards if there is a skif of snow on flat ground! Has there been an upgrade to the 1600 in recent years that I missed ? Sounds like yours is really working !

No upgrades that I know of. My Leica 1600 is the very first original model that hit the market. Bought it as soon as they came out. A year or two later, Leica released the 1600B, which had angle compensated range readings. My Leica 1600 does not have that feature, but it has always been able to range much farther than it is rated.

The reason I bought the Kilo, was because my Leica is worthless in any sort of precipitation or fog. Will not range through even the slightest rain or fog. I wanted a rangefinder of equal or better performance with the ability to range through precipitation and fog. The Kilo is close in power, lesser in optical quality yet similar in low light performance, but I have not had any weather to test it in yet. Looking forward to seeing how the Kilo does in light rain or fog...I was gonna say snow too, but we had so much snow this year I don't even like mentioning the word. Lol

I didn't get a chance to drive out to the elk farm because my best friend wanted to go fishing. So we took my boat out today and I laid into this monster on a rare day where the water was like glass. It's a 38" lake trout. Landed it on 10 lb test line. Good battle playing the drag