Spotting Scope

[Alleycat72]

What do you use at 1000 yards? I've heard everything from $75 ebay scopes to $2000 scopes. I just want to score F-class. I would rather have a clear 30 power than a milky 60 power, as long as I can see the scoring disk clearly. I would rather spend no more than $350 to $450.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't know that application, but you wouldn't want too-small an objective diameter if you plan to shoot on overcast days or near sunup/sunset. Smaller objective scopes will be pretty dim at high mag, except on bright days.

Just on general principles I'd be looking at 80mm or 100mm refractors, to crank the mag up good enough to count bullet holes that far away.

If you can afford to "baby" the scope a little bit and it doesn't have to be ultra-rugged, an astronomical-type 100mm to 150mm catadioptric or maksutov might be useful. That is a compact design that is fairly lightweight and can have pretty good quality vs price. The biggest problem for some terrestrial use with cats and maks, is that they can have fairly narrow field of view. But you probably don't need a wide field of view for looking at paper targets.

Ferinstance, Orion is kinda like the radio shack of telescopes, so maybe something else would be slightly better or cheaper. Just examples only, though these might be as good as any. These two links don't appear to include accessories--

http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Spotting-Scopes-Monoculars/Orion-Apex-102mm-Maksutov-Cassegrain-Telescope/pc/-1/c/1/sc/16/p/9823.uts A 102mm scope that would have 52X mag with the included eyepiece.

http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Spotting-Scopes-Monoculars/Orion-Apex-127mm-Maksutov-Cassegrain-Telescope/pc/-1/c/1/sc/16/p/9825.uts A 127mm scope that would have 61X mag with the included eyepiece.

[RWF]

+1 on the objective size, but becareful of going cheap. i bought a Tasco that was a 20 x 60 with a 80mm objective if i remember correctly. and since you have meet us both, it was, i would truthly say it was the closest we came to parting ways. the glass was piss poor. We now have a Konus with a 100 mm objective got it on sale for about $200 and a C.E.D. heavy duty tripod and are still happily marreid.

i will say that the Konus is heavy but it is clear.

[RWF]

also will have the video you posted anywhere?

Edited March 31, 2012 by RWF

[Jonnin]

1000 yards, put a video cam off to the side and pipe it back to your laptop or phone.... Takes a pretty powerful scope to see a bullet hole that far off. I can't do it at 60x --- that takes me to like 400, 500?

[DaveTN]

What do you use at 1000 yards?

An ATV.

Just kidding… I would be interested in hearing what the pros have to say also. I was looking for something to use at 300 yards, and the price got up there pretty quick. I would think you would need some serious hardware for 1K yards.

[Alleycat72]

There's no way to see a bullet holes @ 1000 yds on a black target. The scoring disk is white and 3 inches in diamater. I can see it easily with my 14 power rifle scope. With my 42 power Nightforce I can see everything. I need a spotting scope for scoring duty.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yeah my eyes are bad and maybe folk with better eyesight don't need as much magnification. But ferinstance if you needed 15X to clearly see bulletholes at 100 yards, wouldn't you need 150X to see em equally well at 1000 yards? OTOH if somebody can see bullet holes good at 8X at 100 yards, then maybe 80X would do at 1000?

Bird watchers and such terrestrial observers rarely use much more than 100X because heat waves make the image so wobbly at high mag.

As the magnification increases, terrestrial or astronomical, you need progressively sturdier tripods and mounts, or the scope wobbles so much you can't see squat, and good steady mounts can get spensive. If a scope has high power, an AltAz type mount comes in handy for terrestrial and "quick'n'dirty" astro work. They will have coarse-adjustment pointing capability, and also fine-adjustment vertical and horizontal knobs. Getting up around 100 X and higher, it can become real frustrating to aim without the fine-adjustment knobs.

The excellent spotters are extra-expensive because they are ruggedized. That is why, if you think you can keep the scope from getting knocked around too much, a non-ruggedized scope can give better image quality for the money. In addition, the specialized spotting scopes typically use proprietary eyepiece sockets, so you are limited on the brand and styles of eyepieces you can use.

The astro type scopes (smaller versions of which are also good for terrestrial) all take the same size eyepieces so you have hundreds of models and at least a dozen major good brands to mix-n-match choose. The two standard sizes are 1.25" barrel eyepieces and 2" barrel eyepieces. For this purpose it is certain that you can get all the selection you will ever need if the scope will accomodate 1.25" only. But any scope that will accept 2" eyepieces will also accept 1.25" eyepieces just fine with a cheap aluminum adapter.

[RWF]

An ATV.

Just kidding… I would be interested in hearing what the pros have to say also. I was looking for something to use at 300 yards, and the price got up there pretty quick. I would think you would need some serious hardware for 1K yards.

it was at 300 and 400, that i was talking in my first reply. and the konus with the CED heavy tripod is great. but you still really need to something other than black to see the bullet holes clearly. we mostly use white poster board from the dollar store, if white is not availble then a bright color will work.

a black target with a black grease ring is just making hard on yourself.

and as stated the scoring disk are easy to see with a low power scope.

Allycat you did not answer the question about were the video would be posted. i really would like to see it when you do your match.

[DaveTN]

What power spotting scope would be required to see a target any more clearly than a 6.5-20X40 Leupold VXIII?

[Morpheus]

I shoot 1,000-yard F-Class and Prone. The most common scope I see at 1,000-yard matches (and what I have) is the Kowa 821N (82mm objective), typically with the 27x eyepiece with long-eye relief and the angled eyepiece. This specific model makes up about 50-75% of the scopes I see people using, both for F-Class and long-range prone. Trouble is, they don't make it any more, but Kowa has a replacement for it:

http://www.creedmoorsports.com/shop/KOWA_TSN-82SV_82MM_SPOTTING_SCOPE.html

Get the best scope you can afford, with a 60-80mm objective, 25-30 power, and an angled eyepiece configuration. In my opinion, more than 25-30 power is not necessary. Sure, there's plenty of other options, and someone will certainly chime in with a contrary idea, but this is what most people end up with once they get more match experience. The main functions are to score for others, and to read mirage when you yourself are shooting. Some people use their scope when they are actually shooting their strings in F-Class, some don't. All sling shooters use the scope while shooting (except during team matches).

The ability to read mirage is what separates a mediocre scope from a good scope from a great scope. Since at 1,000 yards, the game is all about reading the wind, it's worth spending the money since you typically get what you pay for. If you are serious about competing, this is not a place to try and do it on the cheap, since you will most likely end up wanting a better scope anyway. Besides, you can also use it for astronomy. We were just looking at Jupiter and it's moons last weekend - very cool.

PM me if you want more advice, or just talk to me at the 1,000-yard F-Class match we are running at AEDC next weekend.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What power spotting scope would be required to see a target any more clearly than a 6.5-20X40 Leupold VXIII?

Hi Dave

I never had a Leupold but the USA made Leupolds are held in high regard even by amateur astronomers. They have a fine reputation, along with Nikon and Zeiss among the spensive ruggedized spotters. I have read a lot of user comments that the Leupold Sequoia line are import scopes that do not compare in optical or mechanical quality to the USA Leupolds. Maybe that is wrong, but it is what many reviewers have said. Just repeating the hearsay in case it is interesting.

There are several brands of small, expensive, ultra-high quality telescopes that are not armor-plated but people use em anyway (with care) for terrestrial viewing. Wouldn't necessarily be good choices for backpacking or taking into a war zone.

When you crank up the magnification the image gets dimmer. If you have excellent eyes then maybe that isn't a big deal for daylight viewing. So the solution for the dim image is a bigger objective, which makes the scope more spensive, bigger and heavier. And a big heavy scope requires a heavier-duty mount and tripod or it will wiggle too much.

Using surface area = pi * r^2, a 40mm objective would have about 1257 mm^2 surface area, and an 80mm objective would have about 5027 mm^2 surface area. Doubling the objective diameter gathers quadruple the amount of light. However, the eye perceives light on a log scale, so it would look brighter to the eye, but would not look "four times as bright" to the eye.

Assuming excellent optics, any increase from your 40mm objective will make it better for higher power, but probably something on the order of 80mm or better wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Most spotters are refractor designs, with a front lens array and a back lens array, with a few odd models also having a middle lens array. Virtually all less-expensive refractors, and even some very-good-quality refractors use achromat objective lenses. That is almost always a pair of lenses in a cell, which is designed to minimize color aberration. Nowadays nothing but the cheapest kid toy telescopes have a single element objective.

The problem is that as you increase the power, the chromatic aberration becomes more noticeable. Red, green, and blue focus at different settings of your focuser knob. You can't focus all three colors simultaneously. So in severe cases you will see every object outlined in little color bands. Or another symptom might be a kinda-crisp object with some "color fuzz" around it.

Chromatic aberration is just hopeless with a single lens. With two lenses, chromatic aberration is reduced but not eliminated. You can have crummy achromat lenses and excellent achromat lenses, but even the excellent ones will have some color aberration, and as you crank up the power, the aberration makes the image fuzzier than you would like, because only one color of the image is truly in focus.

So, the next step up is an apochromat, which typically has three lenses, though sometimes manufacturers can get very close to apo performance with two elements of expensive exotic glass. You can crank up the mag much higher on an apo without a blurry image from color fringes. But then again, you can buy crummy apo lenses and also spensive apo lenses that are incredibly precise, hand-tuned by expert opticians.

http://en.wikipedia....Achromatic_lens

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Apochromat

When I was looking at the Leupold product line a year ago, they sold a few pairs of models identical in every way, except one model had an achro objective and another model had an apo objective, and the apo model costed maybe $1000 more or whatever.

Just sayin, the super-preemo refractors either ruggedized spotters or non-ruggedized scopes, can get crazy expensive. It is not a complete conspiracy, because there are many brands of near-perfect expensive scopes, and there are many less-expensive scopes that are really good for the money. But there are no mass-produced cheap scopes that are near-optically-perfect. If it was possible to make something near-perfect for cheap, then somebody would be doing it.

That is the reason I mentioned Maks or Cats-- They are compact and use one lens and two mirrors. The good ones are nearly as color-free as a $5000 apo refractor, and you can get a pretty good one for not a lot of money, though you are gonna spend some dough on an excellent one. The link I posted above-- Lots of the brands come from the same factories, and maybe there would be something slightly better/cheaper from the same factory with a different brand name, but I wouldn't be afraid of buying this one. Might shop a little more before pulling the trigger, but this guy would probably be "decent" quality for the bucks. Not the finest telescope built, but a purty good small cheap scope.

http://www.telescope...c/16/p/9825.uts

Now here is a little scope I've never owned, but I've never talked to anybody who had one and didn't like it (within its limitations). It is smaller and would be dimmer than that 127mm Mak. You couldn't crank the mag up as high. But smaller can be an advantage lotsa times. Owners just love this thang and I've been tempted to get one on numerous occasions. The "ED" mentioned in ads, refers to the fancy-glass 2 lens "almost apo" I mentioned above. Two good places for Astro-Tech scopes are astronomics.com and optcorp.com They come in many colors and if I ever get one, will most likely be fire-engine red.

http://www.astronomi...oduct_id/AT72BL

Edited March 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Morpheus]

Keep in mind that an angled eyepiece is very necessary if you want to use it while shooting (as opposed to astronomy, birdwatching, etc). Come to one of our F-Class matches and check out what everyone is using, ask questions, and see if they will let you look through them yourself (I am guessing most competitors will).

Edited April 1, 2012 by Morpheus

[DaveTN]

Thanks for that information Lester. I wondered if a lower cost telescope could be used vs. a high dollar spotting scope. But I didn’t know if a telescope could focus at such short distances.

[Alleycat72]

Allycat you did not answer the question about were the video would be posted. i really would like to see it when you do your match.

I don't know if I will video the match or not. I do know that my gunsmith came though and the 308 will be in the safe on the 7th. The 6.5 Redding however will not.

[RWF]

DAMN, you are not screwing around! NICE!

[RWF]

1000 yards, put a video cam off to the side and pipe it back to your laptop or phone.... Takes a pretty powerful scope to see a bullet hole that far off. I can't do it at 60x --- that takes me to like 400, 500?

i have seen one of Allycats 1000 yard video's he's like a semi pro movie producer. if he was a pro he could edit out the mirage!

[RWF]

Keep in mind that an angled eyepiece is very necessary if you want to use it while shooting (as opposed to astronomy, birdwatching, etc). Come to one of our F-Class matches and check out what everyone is using, ask questions, and see if they will let you look through them yourself (I am guessing most competitors will).

Allycat has been there at your match at least once before, he did not shoot (i do believe) but had fun laughing at me along with Steve.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Keep in mind that an angled eyepiece is very necessary if you want to use it while shooting (as opposed to astronomy, birdwatching, etc). Come to one of our F-Class matches and check out what everyone is using, ask questions, and see if they will let you look through them yourself (I am guessing most competitors will).

+1

Thanks for that information Lester. I wondered if a lower cost telescope could be used vs. a high dollar spotting scope. But I didn’t know if a telescope could focus at such short distances.

Apologies discussing generic solutions. It borders on being off-topic. Most likely for this application you would just bite the bullet and fork out the bucks for whatever everybody else is using and getting good results with. Am merely explaining if the budget is limited and you can make do without armor-plated waterproof nitrogen-atmosphere fogproof, then you can get better (and more flexible) optics for less money, though it will still cost a little bit.

Generic telescopes good for astro or terrestrial will focus "pretty close" out of the box. The spec is often listed. Am guessing that almost all of them should focus down to 10 yards, and 5 or 10 feet minimum focus is not uncommon. Not every design is amenable to an eyepiece extension tube, but many designs can focus crazy close if you add an eyepiece extension tube, which is just a rigid blackened aluminum tube that moves the eyepiece further away from the objective. That is a beauty of "generic" scopes compared to specialized spotters, in that you can diddle with them in all sorts of ways using off-the-shelf accessories from numerous suppliers. Though with a preemo spotter, if the company doesn't make an accessory you want, then you probably can't find a third-party part that will fit. Not picking on Nikon, but ferinstance if you buy a Nikon spotter, then if Nikon doesn't sell the exact eyepiece you want, then you will probably have to make do with whatever Nikon does sell.

One slight disadvantage of Mak or Cat mirror scopes for terrestrial use-- Some of the expensive ones use a focuser which moves the eyepiece, but most of em have a focuser knob that turns a screw which moves the mirror in the housing. So for instance if you are birding and want to gander a bird 100 yards away, and then gander another bird 10 yards away, you may have to turn the focuser knob several revolutions to change focus. Am guessing this would not be much problem if the dedicated use is scoring targets, but maybe am guessing wrong.

The nice focusers such as on that AstroTech small scope I mentioned, have gross and fine knobs, with the fine knob usually having a 10:1 ratio. So you can focus pretty quick with the gross knob and then get real good focus with the fine knob.

Most scope designs where the eyepiece "comes out the back" can accept a variety of diagonals from a variety of manufacturers. You can get 90 degree and also 45 degree, and a few 22 degree diagonals are available.

Without a diagonal the image is typically upside-down and left-right reversed. A mirror diagonal (at any angle) will be rightside-up but left-right reversed. The diagonals sold for terrestrial use typically contain erecting prisms rather than mirrors, though it would be possible to construct an erecting diagonal with multiple mirrors. The erecting prism diagonals display correct left-right and up-down. You can also find straight-tube erecting prisms which can be placed in-between focuser and eyepiece in a side-exit newtonian scope, or used in-line without a diagonal if you are hand-holding a small scope spy-glass style.

For astro use, people typically expect it to be left-right reversed and depending on design also upside-down. Sometimes if I use a mirror diagonal for terrestrial, I don't care if it is left-right reversed as long as it ain't upside-down, but most folks would want to just use an erecting prism.

There are factors I could bore you with about numerous reasons people usually don't use erecting prisms for astro work. But all binoculars and spotting scopes contain prisms to do the image inversion, as far as I know. It is just built-in and you don't notice it as a separate piece.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Lester Weevils