Testing spotting scopes

  • 18K Views
  • Last Post 4 days ago
CB posted this 02 November 2007

There's a suggestion on the BPCR forum about testing spotting scopes to make comparisons. I wrote this and sent it to Jesse Miller for his input. We're looking for an objective, repeatable way for a lot of people in a lot of places with a lot of different spotting scopes to “measure” them. Wouldn't it be nice if we found a $100 scope that did the job? Keep in mind that I know close to nothing about optics. I  typed a sentence in WORD, Times New Roman, and copied it four times, so there's a column of sentences. Top is 12 point, then I changed them to 11, 10, 9 and 8 point. 8 point is small. I printed it. I propose that we set up a paper at 100 yards with a certain sentence in sizes from maybe 16? down to 8 point. The rule is, look through the spotting scope and decide which sentence you can read easily-no guessing. Record the size, ex:10 point, and record the conditions of the light, maybe bright sunny bright cloudy cloudy overcast or bright cloudy overcast and then start collecting these for various spotting scopes. If everybody uses white paper, the same sentences in the same font in the same sizes, then maybe we'll have some objective data to look at. Maybe a not on mirage too. This is a start at least. ?? joe brennan

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Ed Harris posted this 02 November 2007

Joe,

I would recommend using the standard USAF resolution test target so that you are comparing line-pair resolution instead of somebody's subjective judgement. That may be OK when you are trying to Identify Friend or Foe distinguishing between helmet shapes, the silhouette of an AK vs. M4 or trying to tell a Chicom cammo pattern from Army ACU, while wearing full NBC gear and GenIII night vision goggles, but when looking at targets, use the established methods. This is well plowed ground.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 02 November 2007

Pick the worst possible day for a shooting match and use that as your minimum. Also pick the longest distance being shot. Holes in the white are easy to see. Use hits in the black.

20x scopes don't hack it. I don't care who made them.

The Nikon 15x-45x will show bullet holes at 200 yards on dark, rainy Puyallup mornings.

The short answer is if you can't spot where your bullet hit, you can't make a sight adjustment. You can't make a sight adjustment you aren't gonna win the match. 

Attached Files

CB posted this 03 November 2007

Ed Harris wrote: Joe,

I would recommend using the standard USAF resolution test target so that you are comparing line-pair resolution instead of somebody's subjective judgement. That may be OK when you are trying to Identify Friend or Foe distinguishing between helmet shapes, the silhouette of an AK vs. M4 or trying to tell a Chicom cammo pattern from Army ACU, while wearing full NBC gear and GenIII night vision goggles, but when looking at targets, use the established methods. This is well plowed ground. Ed;

One of the BPCR guys mentioned the USAF 1951 resolution test target. Investigation, however, leads me back to the WORD sentences. And I'd guess it would discourage most. Here's a catalog quote-the least expensive charts I have found are $129 plus shipping for 5.

"The USAF 1951 test chart is available in many sizes and frequencies. Also available in custom density levels for different contrast ratios. Please see the charts listed below and look under engineering notes section of the website for the resolution conversion chart for this target."

joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 03 November 2007

billwnr wrote: Pick the worst possible day for a shooting match and use that as your minimum. Also pick the longest distance being shot. Holes in the white are easy to see. Use hits in the black.

20x scopes don't hack it. I don't care who made them.

The Nikon 15x-45x will show bullet holes at 200 yards on dark, rainy Puyallup mornings.

The short answer is if you can't spot where your bullet hit, you can't make a sight adjustment. You can't make a sight adjustment you aren't gonna win the match. 

7.5 SPOTTING SCOPES

            Spotting Scopes are used to see bullet holes in targets at ranges up to 200 yards. (I've never seen conventional a spotting scope that would reliably show 30 caliber bullet holes at 300 yards or over.) For offhand shooting you must be able to see 30 caliber bullet holes in the black at 200 yards under most conditions. This is the threshold requirement for a spotting scope, and spotting scopes either do the job or don't.

            There are many cheap spotting scopes for sale that don't do the job. Don't buy one; you'll be disappointed.

            I have two Bushnell Sentry spotting scopes, and I'll buy a better spotting scope when I find one. I've been looking through every spotting scope I can for a long time, and haven't found a better one yet. 

            Walter Deane (a very knowledgeable caster and reloader, most fondly remembered for inadvertently shooting a 44 caliber bullet through an entire closet of clothing), told me a long time ago that 20 power was all the magnification needed or usable in a spotting scope. Some days 30 power eyepieces do a better job, but for all around use, without changing eyepieces, Walter was right.

            Since I wrote the above, I've read about some very good and very expensive spotting scopes such as Howa. These spotting scopes are reported to be wonderful. They cost in the neighborhood of $1000, a neighborhood that I don't visit very often. 

 

For many years I shot in an offhand match every Sunday from Nov-Mar, from a heated shooting house, at 200 yards. Old Colony, Pembroke MA.

We use spotting scopes and look at/for every shot.

Most of the time I could see most of the holes, down to 30 caliber, in the black.

Most of the time I could see 22 holes in the white, many in the black.

Sometimes I couldn't see 45 holes in the white, and many holes smaller than 45 were not seen-black or white.

All with my 20X Bushnell Sentry

At this match, and whenever I've shot, till today, I ask to look through any spotting scope I'm not familiar with.

I'm still of the opinion that a 20X fixed power spotting scope is going to do the job as well as any other scope, most of the time.

Mirage will hurt any view, at any power I've looked through, even on cold days with a foot of snow on the ground. Everything wiggles around.

I don't know anything about seeing holes at ranges greater than 200 yards.

Spotting scopes I'm talking about must be in the feasible set. This specifically excludes the Unertl Team Scope and other scopes that are either very big or very expensive. There are Kowa scopes for $1200 or so, not feasible for most of the folks I know.

In order to do a comparison, it is necessary to set up a pair or more of scopes at the same range on the same day when there's a lot of mirage-start in the morning before the mirage, and have a set of folks look through them.  

There has been a lot of talk on the CB-L about astronomical scopes, seems like both reflector and refractor.

But less a comparison = test, I don't know that any of these is “better” than another.

On a clear, calm, cool, sunny day without any mirage; my Sentry will allow me to count 22 holes at 200 yards-pretty well, and to accurately count 30 caliber holes. I suspect that many spotting scopes will allow the same.

 

But let it get dark or miragy and things go awry.

On bright sunny 90 degree days in Miami (last Wed.) I have a bit of trouble seeing 22 holes in the black at 100 yards!

 

I think that for now I'll stick with my story, since my opinion is based on 20+ years of observation of other scopes on the same day at the same place. And that opinion is:

A 20X Bushnell Sentry or ?? does the job most of the time, up to 200 yards, that any scope will do.

More expensive (Kowa) or ??maybe reflector?? scopes will do a better job some times. 

The mount, keeping the spotting scope still, is extremely important. Keeping the scope steady requires a mount such as a good camera tripod or one of the Al Freeland foldable-unscrewable mounts. From the bench, various home made clamp on arrangements work well, as do the bought (expensive) clamp on mounts. The scope has to be still!.

 Variable power scopes seem to lack eye relief, and don't work as well as fixed power scopes.

20X is all you need, most of the time.

 

 

            Ned Roberts, in “The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle", (written in 1940), writes about spotting scopes. Here are some quotes from the chapter “Accessories and Equipment", page 124:

"I have yet to see any prism spotting telescope that can be purchased for $150 or less that gives as fine definition of the target at 200 or 220 yards as can be obtained with a high-grade draw-tube telescope having as power of 50 to 70. The English made “Lord Bury” telescope in 50 power is the finest spotting telescope that I have yet owned, and gives most excellent definition at all ranges.”

 

A lot of years have gone by, the draw tube telescope is an instrument of the past, but I am interested in his comments about power of spotting scopes.

Roberts goes on to talk about a quote from “The Improved American Rifle", published in 1848, about a spotting telescope with a power of 77 times that allows seeing the head of a pin at 220 yards.

I've never tried to look at the head of a pin at 200 yards, or any such small thing. I think the background and light would have a lot to do with how well it could be seen. I have looked for and at 22 holes in the black and in the white on targets at 200 yards, and find that no matter the power of the scope, very favorable light and mirage conditions are required to see ALL of maybe 10 22 caliber holes in the black at 200 yards.  And good light and mirage conditions must exist to see ALL of maybe 10 22 caliber holes at 200 yards, some of which are touching the lines.

I think that any telescope much above 30 power needs a very stable mount, and that probably a concrete bench or an extremely stable tripod must be used. Certainly the amateur astronomers must have mounts or tripods that would do the job.

Anyhow, this is what Ned said almost seventy years ago about spotting scopes.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 03 November 2007

Joe, some of the info in your book is close...but not the best answer. You need to be a bit more flexible and realize when the answer you are getting is better than the one you have.

I've tried a couple of times to tell you that a 20x or a 25x spotting scope doesn't hack it when shooting early on a dark, rainy morning.

A recreational shooter won't go out at that time or he will wait until later in the day when the conditions improve.

A person shooting in a match doesn't have a choice. If the shooting starts at 9AM and the rain is coming straight down or the fog is making the targets hard to see the shooter still needs to fire shots downrange. That's when the better glass looks lots better than the usual 20x or 25x piece.

Last year the Nikon 15-45x was sold by Midway for $219. The Alpen 20-60x sells around $300. Both of them meet my criteria as I've used them both.

People who shoot in the CBA military rifle class are limited to no more than a 6x scope on their rifle. 6x doesn't show bullet holes so the military rifle competitor must make up for that with a spotting scope. If they can't see the holes they can't make the sighting adjustments necessary to center the group on the 10 and x ring. Another thing to consider is spotting a “double” where you just hit one of your other bullet holes. The lower level optics might show where the shots are but it won't let you look at all the holes and see which one is slightly out of round.

Consider this match level info on spotting scopes, similar to the match level reloading info you currently have.

Just my “humble” opinion.

Attached Files

CB posted this 03 November 2007

billwnr wrote: Joe, some of the info in your book is close...but not the best answer. You need to be a bit more flexible and realize when the answer you are getting is better than the one you have.

I've tried a couple of times to tell you that a 20x or a 25x spotting scope doesn't hack it when shooting early on a dark, rainy morning.

A recreational shooter won't go out at that time or he will wait until later in the day when the conditions improve.

A person shooting in a match doesn't have a choice. If the shooting starts at 9AM and the rain is coming straight down or the fog is making the targets hard to see the shooter still needs to fire shots downrange. That's when the better glass looks lots better than the usual 20x or 25x piece.

Last year the Nikon 15-45x was sold by Midway for $219. The Alpen 20-60x sells around $300. Both of them meet my criteria as I've used them both.

People who shoot in the CBA military rifle class are limited to no more than a 6x scope on their rifle. 6x doesn't show bullet holes so the military rifle competitor must make up for that with a spotting scope. If they can't see the holes they can't make the sighting adjustments necessary to center the group on the 10 and x ring. Another thing to consider is spotting a “double” where you just hit one of your other bullet holes. The lower level optics might show where the shots are but it won't let you look at all the holes and see which one is slightly out of round.

Consider this match level info on spotting scopes, similar to the match level reloading info you currently have.

Just my “humble” opinion.

Bill;

I don't know much about optics.

Anyone who wants to know about spotting scopes should go to the CB-L, the Chas site, and search there. Tom Slater either knew, or fooled a lot of people. There's a great deal of good stuff about spotting scopes that he wrote, unfortunately he's passed away.

Telescopes have three things about them. First is the power, the magnification. We all know what that means. Next is the size of the objective, a measure of the amount of light that gets squoze down and put into the viewer's eye. Third is the quality of the scope, lenses and coatings or mirror-the quality.

Now you can buy a high power cheap scope and it doesn't work-power ain't the answer.

You can look through a very good quality small objective scope like the Lyman 30X STS, and you can see 22 holes in the black at 200 under great conditions, but let a cloud go over the target, let it get a bit dark, and the STS no longer works.

You can buy big objective high power scopes without the quality and some won't work, just won't do the job.

Everything I've read on the topic tells me that variable power scopes lose something, that fixed power scopes, all else equal, work better.

We've got power, resolution and light-gathering ability. And bucks. Something tells me that a $1200 Kowa scope, after the strides in manufacturing and technology made, is an example of “If we make the price high enough they'll think it's great and buy it!!", known in the high fidelity world as “The Bose Principle".

We've all got our opinions, but I don't believe in opinions in a matter subject to test and analysis. I think that experiment and testing will tell the story.

I'm working on an objective, repeatable testing, maybe ranking method, to let us know if ZZ is better than XX, and maybe to find that YY is a wonderful bargain.

I don't know much about optics.

joe brennan  

Attached Files

CB posted this 04 November 2007

I don't disagree with anything said here so far, and hope that we can get some testing done before and at next year's matches. However, the can-you-read-the-print test, or something similar, allows testing of one scope with at least some information, common, gathered. Here's the first: Yesterday, 3 November, 2007, at the Trail Glades Range in Miami, I put a piece of white paper to the 100 yard target. On this paper, in Times New Roman, were sentences in 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8 point type. 16 looked pretty big to me, in person. It was a bright, sunny, windy day. No to few clouds. Nobody who looked could read even the largest sentence using the following: Lyman 30X STS Simmons 20-60 X 60 Leica Televid 62, 15-60 NC Star 20-60 X 60 joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 04 November 2007

Joe Brennan wrote:  "If we make the price high enough they'll think it's great and buy it!!", known in the high fidelity world as “The Bose Principle". Then you mean, “The Kowa Principle” in the scope world. :)  The Kowa principle is to make a superior product with high quality components, but most of all with high quality assembly.

With the economically priced spotting scopes you are wanting to test like the Simmons, Lyman, Bushnell, Tasco, Burris, etc. there is differences in the quality out of the box. I was told by a big store camera salesman to pick the economically priced model I want to purchase and ask to look at 5 new models out of the box. He said more than likely you will be able to detect one that is better than the others and to buy that one. In other words, what cheap scope is good for one person may not be good for another 4 people who go out and buy the cheap product.

I never tested scopes, but personally I've seen some really bad scopes in a few brands. In the optical world they have a thing called resolution and I think that is what you're looking for Joe. I also “don't know much about optics", but this is what I've found out..................I've never seen a bad Kowa that I looked through.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 04 November 2007

Joe Brennan wrote: We've all got our opinions, but I don't believe in opinions in a matter subject to test and analysis. I think that experiment and testing will tell the story.

Joe, what I gave you was facts based off my observations.   Test all you want and then find someone who has the models I mentioned and test them.

Also, remember not all eyeballs were created equal so you will have to calibrate that data also.  Some people have superior eye sight.  I have met a few and have been left in amazement.    Others don't have eye sight as good and need a magnifying glass just to read what is on paper in front of them.  I know two and wonder what the limitations are on their drivers licenses.

The Alpen was the top rated mfgr in an Outdoor Life test a coupla years back.  Best for price and resolution.

Attached Files

CB posted this 04 November 2007

billwnr wrote:   Some people have superior eye sight.   Bill,

Yah, That 's what the Windhill guys say that Ed Doonan used to do. He could see holes no one else could find. Now days Stan can really pick over the targets and see holes the rest of us can't.

Wouldn't it be great if we could line up several scopes at the Miltary National Tournament 2008 next year and have everyone there that wants to look and grade the scopes? We could test early in the morning, miday and then late in the day and then sope the moon at night just for kicks as long as you don't start howling!  :)

Attached Files

CB posted this 05 November 2007

Bill and Dan;

I have a piece of copy paper with “Times New Roman 72 point.", from 72 to 10 point, 72, 48, 36, 24, 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 11 and 10 are the steps my computer has.

The number, of course, is changed to be the point.

It's attached, I hope

Would you make one of these, take it to the range, put it up at 100 yards and see the smallest print that you, and hopefully others, can see?

This is certainly not the best test, but it might get us on the road.

Dan, Froggy on the ASSRA site mentioned doing testing side-by-side at his matches, as you did. Maybe we could have a good test worked out by the spring, and could get volunteers to ramrod the test at matches.

Thanks;

joe b. 

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 05 November 2007

In comparison tests of sniper scopes we did at MCDEDC, Quanticio, VA in 1988-1989 the best quality optics won out over higher magnification every time, in every scenario. Give me a 10X which resolved 40+ line-pairs over a 20X which resolves less than 30 line-pairs any time. BTW, the test engineer for this project wasn't a shooter, but was a USAF recee tech whose expertise was in satellite imagery for intelligence assessment. Sometime you need to thinbk outside the box.

And Joe, yes, sometimes you have to spend a buck to do it right. You might ask some of the scope manufacturers and major distributors to help. Those who were involved in the military sniper scope selections have already done this and might share their data if you asked nice.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

CB posted this 05 November 2007

Ed; I'm not averse to asking mfrs for help, they are generally responsive. But, there's little interest here, and few volunteers.

There are many, make that MANY spotting scopes available today. Maybe too many. I can't reasonably ask for scopes.

To do any test, we need a good test target, lot's of scopes, volunteers. I'm not going to spend $129 for a set of test targets absent the scopes and volunteers.

If you have a proposal as to how to perform this test, I'd be happy to hear it; and if you'd like to take over this project, I'd be happy to relinquish my (lack of) control.

 

Your pleasure?

joe brennan

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 05 November 2007

Joe,

I'm not trying to take this over.

I'm just saying that you don't have top re-invent the wheel. Manufacturers may share data they already have. I'm NOT suggesting that you solicit scopes for evaluation to duplicate work which has already been done. I AM saying, due dilligence. Conduct a literature search of what is already out there. There may be open-source engineering reports manufacturers may let you see.

It costs nothing to ask. The report I assisted in writing was unclassified, but witheld from publication at the time because it contained proprietary information which was deemed “competition sensitive.” Enough time has passed now this is probably OBE. I don't have the time to do this. I still work for a living.

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

CB posted this 05 November 2007

Ed;

I'm not accusing you of taking this over, I WANT someone to take it over. I said a year ago that I'd be done with the book in May, and sort of was. But WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!!  Right now I'm working furiously on

How to tell random variation in group size from a variable change

The relationship between mold size and weight, bullet weight and shape, and speed of casting. And I can't get any of these guys to measure some molds for me.

A protocol for load development. At least on Cast Boolits there's some response. One guy suggested the Creighton Audette “ladder testing", I did it, posted it, asked for volunteers to try some and get bubkus. Yes, bupkus!

John Bischoff is finding BCs with 20 yard chronograph spacing, I need to get this written, to badger him

A poster on Cast Boolits finds that leaving cast balls in a metal container so they can roll about makes the sprue thingy go away. I need to get this down, and find out how long with what procedure; and if it makes a difference to accuracy

 

Now; Charlie Shaef on the ASSRA forum and you and Dan Willems here have shown some interest in this spotting scope test.

I'd be delighted to turn this over to the three of you or any combination. But, I want to see some results of the which-line-can-you-read test so we have at least a starting point.

I'm ready to relinquish control of this or any of these projects, but they WILL get done somehow.

So, how about it?

joe brennan

Attached Files

CB posted this 06 November 2007

What happened to Ed?

joe b. you said: "I've got this running on three forums"

 Will you let us know the three forums that this is running on so we can see what the opinions of others are ?.  You mention the BPCR forum so I checked the BPCR forum and did not find anything about testing spotting scopes, the last message I found that had anything to do with spotting scopes was from March of 2006, that's almost two years ago ?, and that message had nothing to do with testing.  Shooter It started, for me, on the MSN BPCR forum. It's running there, on the CBA forum, and on Cast Boolits forum, and here. So I guess that's four. As usual, the Cast Boolits forum has helpful posters, and not so many critics/experts as there are here. Anyhow; Steven Dzupin on Cast Boolits clued me in to http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html>http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html, where there are downloadable copies of scope-testing targets, including the 1951 Air Force resolution target. Note that the right hand of the three targets is composed of lines of print. Nyah, nyah!! I downloaded these into a .pdf file as recommended, and printed the AF target. It certainly looks good to me. Thanks, Steven, I'll keep working on it. Anyone willing to do some testing, please make a copy of the AF target, and try it out. Record the scope make and model and power, and the light conditions, for now Bright, Sunny Cloudy Dark, overcast Thanks; joe b. PS, someone her said he owned a Unertl Team Scope. Wuould you be willing to run a test to give us a benchmark? Thanks again; joe b.

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 06 November 2007

Joe, I printed the target and will test on Thursday. Ric

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 08 November 2007

Joe,

Bright day at the range, temperature 50 degrees, with high overcast and no glare.

My scope is a 1950's vintage B&L 30X.

With my glare reducing veralux eye glasses, I could clearly read the “2” line in the vertical row under the “-1". The “3” lines were fuzzy but I think I could have seem a bullet hole with a light background.

With my plain glass eye glassess, I could read the “3” line below the “2", and the “4” was fuzzy. You can bet these will be the eyeglasses I use shooting from now on!

Ric

Attached Files

CB posted this 08 November 2007

Day 1: Set up 5 spotting scopes at my buddy's place.  10” Compact Kowa 60mm 25x - 8” Kowa Compact 50mm 20x - Bushnell Spacemaster 20-60x - Burris Landmark 80mm 20-60x - Simmons #1220 55mm 25x.  Temperature 45degrees. Sunny. Wind gusting to 10mph.  Two of us checked the test sheet for 2 hours on and off.  Mirage was bad with the wind gusting in and out.

The Bushnell Spacemaster was barely the best.  Under these conditions, the 25x eye piece from the Simmons on the Bushnell worked the best, line4 and maybe line5 under the -2 column.  Burris was 2nd reading line3 to line4 under -2 column. Simmons could read line2 to line3. Mirage was constantly changing in and out.  Both compact Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting.

Day 2: Set up the Bushnell and the Simmons. Temperature about 50degrees. Sunny. Wind gusting 12mph. Better conditions today.  When the wind stopped line3 to line4 could be seen under -1 column with the Bushnell with the 25x eye piece.  With the 20-60x eye piece line4 to line5 could be read under -1 column, but the wind had to quit moving the mirage to see it.  Simmons was slightly less in performance having difficulty reading line2 to line3 under the -1 column.   I consider a straight 30x or maybe a 40x eye piece to be a big improvement over a variable eye piece on the same scope body..............Dan

Attached Files

CB posted this 09 November 2007

Ric and Dan;

We need to be clear on which line you guys are talking about.

If you look at the AF target, you'll see that there are 4 concentric copies of the same thing. First biggest starts at he bottom right corner with “1", clockwise to left hand vertical column “2” through “6", then right hand vertical column “1” through “6". All going sort of clockwise. Then look inside, a smaller version of the same. Then look inside that, yet smaller version. Then see the teeny inside version.

Let's call them the “largest", “second largest", “third largest” and “fourth largest” sets of targets.

Ric; I think you're talking about the fourth largest set of targets.  

Dan: I think you're talking about the third and fourth largest set of targets.

I was sure that I put up the tese we did Wednesday, but I can't see it here. Something's going on, this is the third post I put up that then disappeared here it is, another try

Spotting Scope Testing

Nov. 7, 2007

The bidding to date:

Jesse Miller, 11/2/07, responding to my message. Jesse is a retired eye doctor.

 

Joe:  Several factors to consider:

    The brightness of the paper may have some effect.

    Mirage and the other factors you listed all may at times have an effect on the results.

    Also, yes the eyesight of the person doing the testing will affect the results. People with eyesight problems will not score any scope as highly as a person with good eyesight.

    So I will recommend that all of the afore mentioned conditions be recorded with the results.

    It would seem to me that the tests should only be done when two or more scopes can be tested at the same time under the same conditions. This would work even better if two people can independently test the same scopes. This whole thing will require some cross referencing, or maybe quite a bit. The more data you can get the more definitive your results will be.

    One way to tighten the controls would be to use a limited number of testers and then have them test a number of scopes at the same time, under the same conditions.

    Hope this is a help. Jess.

 

I made a test target with a sentence in Times New Roman, sizes of  72, 48, 36, 24, 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 11 and 10 points. These are the sizes available on my computer.

 

Steven Dzupin on Cast Boolits clued me in to http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html, where there are downloadable copies of scope-testing targets, including the 1951 Air Force resolution target.

I downloaded these into a .pdf file as recommended, and printed the AF target. It certainly looks good to me.

 

On Nov. 7, 2007 we did some testing.

 

            First, the 72 to 10 type script target doesn't work. The problem is that there's nothing between 36 and 24 point, and some of us needed another choice.

 

            Second, three people lied during the testing.

 (This is one of my strongest interests and research subjects: the lies/inaccuracies and their invisibility to researchers.)

            I explained how to do the tests for both targets.

            Get focused on the target.

            Fiddle with the power if variable, get where it looks the best.

For the type script, 72 to 10 point target, tell me the smallest line you can comfortably read.

For the AF target, tell me the smallest target on which you can see the bars and white spaces between. I had a copy of the AF target in hand for them to point at.

Two testers claimed to be able to read the 24 point line, one read it as “>>>27 point", the other as “....21 point", and I queried them.

I lied to myself, claiming that I could read the 24 point line.

I KNOW it isn't a competition, the other testers know. We have this “compete” gene.

 

Here are the results, after explanation and negotiation:

 

Bright and sunny conditions

 

B&L 20X, 36 point, #6 on the 3rd largest set, John

Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, 36 point, #6 of the 3rd largest set, Tony

Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, 36 point, #5 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.

30X STS, 36 point, #4 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.

30X STS, 36 point, #5 of the 3rd largest set, Tony

20X Bushnell Sentry, 36 point, #4 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.

Kowa TSN821, 27X, 36 point, #5 of the 4th largest set, Raoul

(The Kowa was in one of those blankies, Raoul isn't real good at English. I read “TSN821” off the scope, there may be more info under the blankie.)

This is an imposition on people at the range, responses varied from “sure” to “no".

            Nobody even claimed to be able to read script smaller than 24 point, nobody could read 24 point, some fibbed but were caught.

My script target is out. I'd like another script target with finer graduations in sizes, and different words-to catch the guessers.    

 

Anyone willing to do some testing, please make a copy of the AF target, and try it out. Record the scope make and model and power, and the light conditions, for now, are:

 

Bright and Sunny

Cloudy

Dark and overcast

 

Thanks;

joe b.

 

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Close