binocular or spotting scope

[ExtremeX]

You guys can see bullet holes on paper at 100 yards with sub $100 binoculars?!

I can't... unless I am using some shoot&see targets. The standard targets they give you at Angelas shooting range, even at 20X on my Barska I cant see the holes that land in the black areas of the target due to the excessive Chromatic aberration.

I have better luck with my $150 10x fixed binoculars than my Barska at 20x when dealing with stuff like that.

When dealing with small holes, .223 size, bad optics can just wash out all the detail... no amount of magnification is going to help.

If anyone isn't familiar with Chromatic aberration, heres a picture example from Wiki.

[LikeAllGuns]

[LikeAllGuns]

You guys can see bullet holes on paper at 100 yards with sub $100 binoculars?!

Not Me

[NeilM]

You'll find that this scope has a very small eye relief. You'll pretty much have to take off your shooting glasses and put your eyeball almost right at the ocular lens just to get a good picture.

[ExtremeX]

You'll find that this scope has a very small eye relief. You'll pretty much have to take off your shooting glasses and put your eyeball almost right at the ocular lens just to get a good picture.

I have the same spotting scope from Big5, and that's a pretty accurate statement. You can get away with it at 20x, but anything past that and your eyeball almost needs to be touching the glass! I cant even use it at the range anymore because I get yelled at for removing eye protection.

At the bare minimum, I would consider this spotting scope.

http://www.redfield.com/spottingscopes/

This is what I use now, replaced the Barska that I still have.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/alpen-20-60x80mm-angled-waterproof-spotting-scope-45-eyepiece-788.html

[bombadillo]

My personal experience with Barska spotting scopes have been fuzzy.... Literally! I wouldn't recommend one at all to anybody trying to see a .22 caliber round at 200 yards clearly. Sure you CAN given conditions right but at 40x and up on the power, eye relief sucks, optics suck, and you tend to get a LOT of mirage. For the money, I found a Redfield Rampage 20-60x60 with a sunshade that pops out, lens cap with a little retainer, screw-off eyepiece protector, and a scope coat that stays on while mounted on a tripod. I got a Sunpak tripod that was only like $18.00 at Amazon which has served me really well for the exact same kind of shooting. I looked side by side with this next to a Pentax 20-60x80 scope that is a $1400 scope and there was VERY little difference surprisingly except the Redfield has better eye relief. I'll sell you the Pentax for $800 if you want, but thats probably out of your range at this point.



This was it

http://www.chucksguns.com/scopes-mounts/spotting-scopes/6079-redfield-rampage-spotting-scope-20-60x-60-black-67600.html?ref=googlebase

I'm not endorsing this site, it was the cheapest I could find shipped though at about $175 or so. I think its by far the best bang for the buck you can get.

Also, I've heard really good things about the Konuspot 80 but I don't have any personal experience with it so I can't give an honest review.


Edit: And for reference on the clarity, I was using a Truglo Infinity 6-24x44 riflescope and seeing holes at 200 better than my Barska spotting scope could. I can't tell you enough to avoid it like the plague and save up just a few more pennies for a slightly better one.

[ExtremeX]

P. Charm, I'm sure most people here will agree, binoculars wont be the right tool for what you are trying to accomplish. Any anything with enough magnification (binos or spotting scope) will greatly benefit from some type of stabilization. In some instances its almost mandatory to get a usable picture.

If you go cheap on the spotting scope, invest in some shoot&see targets. It makes a world of difference.

What type of rifle are you shooting, and what type of optics are you using?

[Black Majik]

For spotting holes, a spotting scope is ususally most ideal. Glass isn't cheap though, you'll have to do better than a BIG 5 special for it to not be a total waste of money. On top of a good quality spotting scope, a good quality tripod will make a world of difference. A good spotting scope isn't just for spotting holes however, you can use it to also read wind condition down range and read mirage.

A good quality lower magnification scope is always better than a high magnification mediocre glass quality scope.

Funny someone mentioned chromatic abberation, I've used CA in my favor spotting holes on white paper with my Nightforce. That purple fringing worked great around those black holes on white paper. LOL.

[ExtremeX]

Edit: And for reference on the clarity, I was using a Truglo Infinity 6-24x44 riflescope and seeing holes at 200 better than my Barska spotting scope could. I can't tell you enough to avoid it like the plague and save up just a few more pennies for a slightly better one.

Nice to see another happy Redfield owner. I am actually using their Rebel10x42mm binos and my experience was same as yours. I looked at a $500 pair of Vortex binos and I could barly tell the difference. The Vortex has better color retention and thats about it. If im on a budget, Redfield is pretty hard to ignore from a bang for the buck standpoint.

Before the Alpen spotting scope, I started using a Millet TRS-1 4-16x scope which did a better job of seeing holes than the Barska spotting scope. The Alpen main perk is the objective size and the exit pupil is pretty large, very easy on the eyes.

If you look at the picture example I posted, that's what you can expect from the Barska... take some time to inspect the photo, and tell me if you can actually count the pillars on the top of the building... Its hard to pick out smaller details. Smaller holes just blend into the fuzz.

[ExtremeX]

Funny someone mentioned chromatic abberation, I've used CA in my favor spotting holes on white paper with my Nightforce. That purple fringing worked great around those black holes on white paper. LOL.

Haha, I learned about CA from my camera days, and you are right, good glass doesn't come cheap. Being numbed by the cost of camera lenses I wasn't surprised to see scopes cost what they do.

CA is most apparent in high contrast environments. The purple fringe you see is because of the black hole on a white target, which you used to your benefit. If you actually hit a target that was black, like I did, then your results would have been different. Even good glass can have CA, but its takes a combination of things to produce excellent optics. From the manufacturing process, polishing, AR coatings, and all that good stuff that usually increases the cost a bunch.

[razr]

You'll need an 80, look at Pentax PF-80ED, or buy cheap and upgrade later.

[Black Majik]

You'll need an 80, look at Pentax PF-80ED, or buy cheap and upgrade later.

Great call, I had a PF65EDII for a while and it did really well even for a 65mm scope. The Pentax is often overlooked but their resolving capabilities was really, really good with the XW and SMC eyepieces. 1.25" eyepieces also allowed the use of telescope eyepieces as well. I kinda wish I still had my 65mm Pentax sometimes, it had so much performance in such a small scope.

[ExtremeX]

65mm objective is a great compromise between size and performance. Vortex also makes some awesome spotting scopes, with many 65mm and 80mm option with their flagship line using an 85mm objective

Now I am gonig to derail this thread haha...

Id love to get one of those... I use my spotting scopes for more than just shooting, so its eaiser to justfity getting something nice. If you are into photography you can also Digiscope with a good spotting scope; the optical clarify is amazing, and rivals camera lenses in the $7000+ range. Makes a $1600 spotting scope a bargin. I bet those .223 holes would be lookin pretty good at that point.

[silverandblackrr]

i used this one on saturday worked good for up to 100 yds

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Simmons-Blazer-20-60X60-Spotting-Scope/19417508

[23's Dad]

Don't overlook a vintage scope

There is some reasonably priced vintage glass that will serve your purposes much better than some Chicom import.

You give up clarity and CA to modern ED lenses, but in your price range, you could consider older equipment.

I have a mid-60's Bausch and Lomb Balscope Zoom 15-60x. The eye relief is fairly good, and it is a very usable scope at 45x and below. It was a top scope in it's day. You get some CA and fringing at the highest magnification, but your going to see that in ALL sub 1K scopes.

I use this scope for smallbore and highpower. You can see .223 hole in the white at 300 yds very easily. I can also observe mirage and trace with it.


I keep my eye protection on when I'm using my scope, and can see the full view in my scope without having my lens touching the eyepiece. I've compared it to the modern Redfield at Turners and a Leupold SV-1, and I found that these two scopes offered less eye relief and no real optical improvement.

Basically I'm going to save my $$$ for a Kowa 821.

If you're not willing to risk getting a used scope, you may want to consider the 62mm at Creedmoor sports. I haven't examined it, but the stats on it look pretty good

http://www.creedmoorsports.com/shop/Creedmoor_62mm_Spotting_Scope.html