Nikon Laser Prostaff 440   Edward Frank   Nov 20, 2006 13:01 PST  ENTS, Do any of you have a Nikon Laser Prostaff 440 rangefinder? How wee does it work? Are there any problems with it? I see that it only measures down to 10.5 yards, and uses cr2 batteries rather than AA rechargables like some manufacturers equipment uses. Ed Frank RE: Nikon Laser Prostaff 440   Will Blozan   Nov 20, 2006 15:02 PST  Ed, I have one and love it. I have left my Bushnell in the office since the day I bought it. I find its narrow beam exceptionally tight and accurate. Jess and I tested it against a tape and it was 6 inches or less off. I have not tested it against a tree but the ones I have measured that have been climbed have been within 10-12 inches of a tape drop of ~170'. I purchased mine thru OpticsPlanet.com and it was delivered to the door for less than $200. Will RE: Nikon Laser Prostaff 440   Robert Leverett   Nov 21, 2006 04:10 PST  Ed,    I've posted a number of e-mails evaluating the Nikon Prostaff 440. I've sent some spreadsheet information on its accuracy versus the Bushnell 800 nad the new TruPulse 200. I swear by the Prostaff 440. So does Will Blozan. So does Gary Beluzo. Yes,it measures down to only 10.5 yards, but shoots through small openings to hit distant twigs. It is a very good buy. Bob More on the Nikon Prostaff 440    Robert Leverett    Nov 21, 2006 07:35 PST  ENTS,    Since around 1997, I've owned a number of lasers and clinometers of several brands. The early Bushnells were very good. However, like virtually every modern gadget, there comes the explosion of extra features, cutsie designs to satisfy the dilettantes and quality starts to go down the toilet. When my old Bushnell 800 dies I will probably gold plate it. It is accurate to under a foot. My Nikon Prostaff 440 is also very accurate - perhaps to a foot and shoots through tiny openings in the canopy. It is my favorite laser. I'd be lost without it.    I own a pricey TruPulse 200, which is accurate to under a foot - probably under half-a-foot. However, it is virtually useless in a dense, closed-canopy forest. It just won't shoot through the holes to catch the top twigs. Even when a hole is large enough to shoot through to the crown, its broad beam will tend to catch a closer twig. It takes a lot of work to measure the most distant crown points to see if they are the highest. However, it has an accurate clinometer, which is better than the Suunto. It is also the instrument of choice to a tree trunk when the target can be hit. Tree trunks are where a reflector per Don Bertolette's suggestion really comes in handy.       Bob          Home