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

CB posted this 09 November 2007

Then I think that the reports should include this information

Date

Scope brand,model,fixed or variable, power

Light: bright sunny, cloudy, dark overcast-three choices

Mirage:none, some, a lot-three choices

"I could clearly see the xxxxth largest target set, target n (1-6) “We're seeming to be in the third and fourth largest target sets at 100 yards.

Remarks

Name of the tester

Looking for comment, what did I miss. In the testing world it's much better to collect too much info, avoids the “Now we have to go back and ask if the testers wore glasses, dammit.” problem later on

BIW, I wear trifocals and cannot see through most spotting scopes with glasses on. The eye relief? isn't enough?

joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 09 November 2007

Joe,

If you look at the AF target you'll see the what you call 3&4 rows that have a -2 and a -1, but if you want to call them 3&4 ok. 

GLASSES: The two of us tested on Day 1 wear glasses, moderate vision. We both seen practically the same thing. I usually always take off my glasses and re-focus when having problems. That helps by just one line, maybe. I'm glad Ric noted his vision enhancing sunglasses that helped. :cool:

CHEATING:  I'd say it doesn't do any good to have the test target in hand to study while doing the 100yd test. Either you can read it at 100yds or not, not what you can make out from what you're holding in your hand!  I can't believe anybody would stand there with the test target in their hand__makes no sense :X

Oh ya, I had set our Variable scopes on 25x for testing at 100yds.  Increasing power on bad days is worse, but better under good conditions.  I'd suggest that if you want to set test criteria that you make a test form with the multiple choice options you want answered..................Dan

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 09 November 2007

Joe, You are correct, the ones next to the smal square on the inside. Ric

Attached Files

CB posted this 09 November 2007

I'll try to get a sheet made and to you, but shooting tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow night.

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 09 November 2007

Joe, I'm going to try and make it to the range this weekend. Which of the two (or both) of the charts would you like me to use

Attached Files

CB posted this 09 November 2007

Here's the/a input sheet. I keep stuff like this in an EXCEL file. First names are fine, location helps separate the “Johns". Ric and Dan, please tell me what you got using this sheet. If you want to call with mirage one thing, and without mirage another, fine.

George, the cite for downloading the target is given on the input sheet and elsewhere.

Thanks;

joe b. 

Attached Files

CB posted this 11 November 2007

Spotting Scope Testing as of Nov. 11, 2007

 

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.  All testing was done using the AF target.

 

1. 11/7/07, B&L 20X, Sunny, No Mirage -2, #6, John

2. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #6, Tony

3. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Joe B.

4. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.

5. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Tony

6. 11/7/07, 20X Bushnell Sentry, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.

7. 11/7/07, Kowa TSN821, 27X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #5, Raoul

8. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #4, Louis

9. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #3, Joe B.

10. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #2, Joe B.

11. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #2, Luis

12. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -2, #6, Joe B.

13. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #1, Louis

14. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #1, Joe b.

15. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #1, Louis

16. 11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy???, Mirage???, -1, #2 with Veralux eye glasses, Ric B.

17.  11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy???, Mirage???, -1, #3 with plain glass eye glasses, Ric B.

18. 11/6/07, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny, Mirage, -2, #4, Dan W. & Gerry

19. 11/6/07, Burris Landmark 80MM, 20-60X, Sunny, Mirage, -2, #3, Dan W. & Gerry

20. 11/7/07, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny, Some mirage, -1, #3, Dan W.

21. 11/7/07, Bushnell Spacemaster with 20-60 X eyepiece, Sunny, Some mirage,-1, #4, Dan W.

22. 11/7/07, Simmons #1220 55MM, 25X, Sunny, Some mirage, -1. #2, 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 under poor conditions, Dan W.

23. 11/6/07, 10” Compact Kowa 60mm 25x Sunny, Mirage,  Compact Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W. & Gerry

24. 11/6/07, 8” Kowa Compact 50mm 20x, Sunny, Mirage, Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W. & Gerry

25. 11/10/07???, old Pentax 500R at 40X, Dark and overcast???, No mirage, -2. #2, I was able to barely make out the “set-2, subset 2” at 100 yards, overcast day, no wind. , dyzenco86 on MSN BPCR.

 

 

Light conditions, for now, are:Bright and Sunny or Cloudy or Dark and overcast

Mirage choices are: None, Some, Heavy

 

The question marks indicate what I think you said. Please advise!!!

 

Some things are getting clear.

The mounts. Yes, we all know that a steady mount is best. We know. But, I haven't found one yet. There have been mounts from a flimsy table top tripod to a serious looking camera tripod to a clamp-on bench spotting scope holder. I thought I had a good one, clamp-on.

All of them vibrate in the wind, making seeing difficult. More X, more vibration. Now it might be nice to test scopes set in concrete, but that ain't how they are used.

The Winchester scope and table top tripod, with canvas bag and stuff, all in a nice hard case, cost $60, I'm told. This tripod worked as well as others, at similar powers, as long as you weren't touching it. Hard to adjust, but as steady = vibration amount as most any other. Doesn't mean it was good, just that all mounts allowed vibration in the wind. The wind blows in South FL from Haloween to Memorial day, so there wonm't be much mirage.

 

The power. I'm trying the variables out at lower powers to see if I can see better, and I can't see the target better, yet, with any scope at a lower power. EX: Redfield 20-45X, I can't see a smaller target at a lower power than 45, BUT, regular targets with bullet holes are “easier” to see at lower power. I can see “better” at 45X, but I can see well enough to see 22 holes at 100 yards at 20X.

 

The Range. The LARGEST smallest target that can be seen so far is -2, #3. The SMALLEST smallest target that can be seen so far is -1, #5. This is a range of 9 steps. I'm not sure that that's enough.

 

The Range. All I have is 100 yards. I'm not sure that testing at 100 yards is correct.

 

The lies, or call it “wishful thinking". I can see testers trying to see smaller targets, testers who are in a competition, even right after I explain that smaller ain't better and that we want the “smallest target you can comfortably see". And I still see myself straining to see smaller targets. The only way I can think to beat this is with an eye chart kind of target,"read it to me!". This separates wishful thinking from reality.

 

The time. If I wait long enough, until there's a lull in the wind, and my eyes are working best, and everything is great-I can see smaller targets. I can't wait like that to see bullet holes in an offhand match.

 

The Translation. We're testing against a resolution/size target, and we want to know the “ability” of a scope to see bullet holes. I'm not at all sure that these are the same, or how to make the translation.

My experience is that spotting scopes have a threshold, some just don't do the job, then there are a lot that do meet the minimum requirement and vary in “goodness". Somewhere out there are the $1200 scopes. My definition of the threshold is the ability to see “most” 30 caliber holes in the black at 200 yards in less-than-perfect conditions. May be arbitrary, but I've used it for many years, looking through a lot of scopes. Certainly the red ASSRA targets are easier to see bullet holes in, but some prefer the black target.

 

I'm starting to think that a cheap scope in a good stand is a better deal than an expensive scope in a lesser stand.

 

John Astin is bringing big Kowa and Konus scopes to the range Wed., we should know more then.

 

Looking for helpful comments or suggestions, and clarification where I've got the ????s

Thanks;

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 11 November 2007

I went to the range today and did the test at 1:00PM on an overcast day with high clouds. No sun breaking thru at all, but not a dark day. That's the day I want to really check the telescope out on.

Today with an Alpen 80mm 20x60 power with the scope set on 60x I was able to see the little 6 at the endo of the -1 line and then the “1” t5hat's to the left of the 6. But I think both those numbers are almost same size.

This was at 100 yards.

Attached Files

CB posted this 12 November 2007

billwnr wrote: I went to the range today and did the test at 1:00PM on an overcast day with high clouds. No sun breaking thru at all, but not a dark day. That's the day I want to really check the telescope out on.

Today with an Alpen 80mm 20x60 power with the scope set on 60x I was able to see the little 6 at the endo of the -1 line and then the “1” t5hat's to the left of the 6. But I think both those numbers are almost same size.

This was at 100 yards.

This works for resolution by seeing which of the sets of black lines still show as sets of lines, with the white lines showing between the black lines. As the targets get smaller, eventually the sets of lines start to look like black fuzzy squares. The smallest target where the black and white lines are visible is the “reading” for the telescope/power.

So, which was it?

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 12 November 2007

well... then I saw them at an even smaller number. I'll let the board know after I do my next trip to the range.

I thought the test was to be able to read the number and know be able to recognize which one it was.

Attached Files

CB posted this 12 November 2007

My understanding, and what we've been doing, is identifying the number of the smallest set of black lines that we see as black/white lines-the last before they turn into black fuzzy squares. 

joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 16 November 2007

All testing was done using the 1951 Air Force resolution target at http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html>http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html

The object is to identify the smallest target where the black and white bars are seen, before the bars look like a blurry black rectangle.

Light conditions choices are:"Sunny", “Cloudy", “Overcast" Mirage choices are: “None", “Some", “Heavy" Targets seen at 100 yards are in the -1 and -2 columns. Smallest target is -1, #6; largest target in the series is -2, #1 Tests below are sorted from smallest target seen to largest.  There are surprises.

  1. 11/7/07, Kowa TSN821, 27X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #5, Raoul

  2. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #4, Louis

  3. 11/12/07??, Konus 80 @ 60X, Sunny, no mirage, -1, #4,
  4. 11/14/07, Bushnell Spacemaster 20-45X @40X, Sunny, Some mirage, -1, #4 Dan and Gerry
  5. 11/7/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 20-60 X eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???,-1, #4, Dan W.

  6. 11/14/07, Kowa TSN-1 90MM 25X, Sunny, Some mirage, -1, #3, Dan and Gerry

  7. 11/7/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -1, #3, Dan W.
  8. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #3, Joe B. 17.  11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy, No mirage, -1, #3 with plain glass eye glasses, Ric B.

  9. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #2, Joe B.

  10. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #2, Luis
  11. 11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy, Some mirage, -1, #2 with Veralux eye glasses, Ric B.
  12. 11/7/07???, Simmons #1220 55MM, 25X, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -1. #2, 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 W.

  13. 11/14/07, Saturn (old) 25X, Sunny, Some mirage, -1, #1, Dan and Gerry

  14. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #1, Louis
  15. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #1, Joe b.
  16. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage,  -1, #1, Louis

  17. 11/7/07, B&L 20X, Sunny, No Mirage -2, #6, John

  18. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #6, Tony
  19. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage,  -2, #6, Joe B.

  20. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Tony

  21. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Joe B.

  22. 11/6/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -2, #4, Dan W.

  23. 11/13/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.

  24. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.

  25. 11/7/07, 20X Bushnell Sentry, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.

  26. 11/6/07???, Burris Landmark 80MM, 20-60X, Sunny, Some Mirage???, -2, #3, Dan W.

  27. 11/13/07, Bushnell Sentry 20X, Sunny, No mirage, -2, #3, Joe B.

  28. 11/10/07???, old Pentax 500R at 40X, Dark and overcast???, No mirage, -2. #2, I was able to barely make out the “set-2, subset 2” at 100 yards, overcast day, no wind. , dyzenco86 on MSN BPCR.

  29. 11/6/07???, 10” Compact Kowa 60mm 25x Sunny, Some Mirage??? Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W.

  30. 11/6/07???, 8” Kowa Compact 50mm 20x, Sunny, Some Mirage???, Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W.

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 18 November 2007

billwnr wrote: I went to the range today and did the test at 1:00PM on an overcast day with high clouds. No sun breaking thru at all, but not a dark day. That's the day I want to really check the telescope out on.

Today with an Alpen 80mm 20x60 power with the scope set on 60x I was able to see the little 6 at the endo of the -1 line and then the “1” t5hat's to the left of the 6. But I think both those numbers are almost same size.

This was at 100 yards.

Another gray day here in the Pacific Northwest.  No sun seen at all today.  At 1:50PM on an severely overcast day I was able to se down to the 1 alongside the 6 at the end of the -1 line.  I could see numbers past that to 3 but any lines past 1 blurred together.  Things might be different on a sunny day.   This was with my Alpen 80mm 20x60 with the scope set at 60x.

Attached Files

CB posted this 19 November 2007

billwnr wrote: billwnr wrote: I went to the range today and did the test at 1:00PM on an overcast day with high clouds. No sun breaking thru at all, but not a dark day. That's the day I want to really check the telescope out on.

Today with an Alpen 80mm 20x60 power with the scope set on 60x I was able to see the little 6 at the endo of the -1 line and then the “1” t5hat's to the left of the 6. But I think both those numbers are almost same size.

This was at 100 yards.

Another gray day here in the Pacific Northwest.  No sun seen at all today.  At 1:50PM on an severely overcast day I was able to se down to the 1 alongside the 6 at the end of the -1 line.  I could see numbers past that to 3 but any lines past 1 blurred together.  Things might be different on a sunny day.   This was with my Alpen 80mm 20x60 with the scope set at 60x. Trying to understand.

Right top of target there is the second largest set of targets, going from “1” on top to “6” on the bottom.

Left of the "6" there's a “1” that's ~ 7/16” tall

OR

Center, right of the target theres a column of targets headed with a “-1", going from “1” to “6"-top to bottom.

Just to the left of the bottom “6” there's a “1” that's about 3/32” tall

Which is it?

Thanks;

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 19 November 2007

The small one. And I can see numbers past that to number 3....just not the black/white lines as beyond 1 they blur together in yesterdays weather.

Attached Files

CB posted this 19 November 2007

billwnr wrote: The small one. And I can see numbers past that to number 3....just not the black/white lines as beyond 1 they blur together in yesterdays weather. Thank you. This is two steps smaller than the next scope on a sunny day.

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 19 November 2007

I want the best spotting scope I can get for the money. I feel I have it without having to throw lots of $$$ at it.

Also, don't forget my comment (and Jessie's) that not all eyes are created equal. I may have a good shooting eye. Can't say that for the other one as I had a detached retina in 2006 and am still recovering from that.

Attached Files

CB posted this 22 November 2007

            One of my interests outside of guns and shooting is about this: There are recorded many statements from responsible individuals, frequently scientists, that are absolutely untrue. Sometimes they're telling a lie, but often enough they believe what they say. From this we see that there is something happening in their brains, that they see what is expected and the unexpected is invisible.

            Examples include kitchen table cold fusion, police officers arresting the wrong guy, criminalists providing scientific proof implicating the wrong guy and prosecutors getting the wrong guy convicted.

            I used a number of these examples to suggest to students that competition sometimes leads to unfortunate outcomes.

            I've been asking other shooters with various spotting scopes to allow me to test them on the AF 1951 target at 100 yards. Yesterday I got to test a Swarovsky 80MM scope, and a Barska 20-60 X  60 scope.

            I like to do the test myself, have the owner test, and get another person to test if possible.

            The Barska scope was not a top flight spotting scope.

            I could clearly see the -2, #6 target, nothing smaller.

            After the -2 set, as they get smaller, there are the -1 set, 0 set, and the 1 set. The smallest target seen to date is the 0, #1 target.

            The owner of the Barska, Armando, and his friend Ralph, both claimed to be able to see all the 0 targets, down to #6. This after I explained what we wee doing, how to pick the smallest target you could see, and that smaller was not better-this isn't a competition.

            I do the test with a copy of the target in hand, so the tester can point to his smallest target.

            I talked to them, had them look again, talked, looked, all to no avail. Armando claimed 20-20 eyesight, no glasses, no problem. Ralph said the same.

            I have not an iota of doubt that neither of these very friendly and cooperative guys could see the targets claimed.

            Something was going on, but it wasn't truth. joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 24 November 2007

Joe,

How did the Swarvosky 80mm do?

Since this mostly concerns the CBA military competitors who shoot only with iron sights and 6x scopes, remember we have to be able to see holes in the black bull. I think seeing clearly between the bars is important.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 24 November 2007

you don't need to worry Dan... your scope is good enough

Attached Files

Ken Campbell Iowa posted this 25 November 2007

Hi Guys... just want you all to know what a joy it is to follow along this thread.

I guess the Holy Grail here is to see all of the .22 caliber bullet holes in the Black at 200 yards, and further ” all of the time.  “   A high bar indeed, especially considering $$$$ budget.

Kinda like the judge said ... I can't describe pornography exactly, but I can sure know it when I see it ... (g)...


.... and I agree with the one poster who mentioned different results even with the same Model, Brand, etc. etc.  When the Weaver 36T ( shooting scope ) first came out, it was such a good price that many of us bot them and were always comparing them at the range ( 50 yards, .22 holes )... all of course could see those holes, but the difference amongst scopes was very large ... some were rejects, and were returned to Karen ( then ) at Weaver service, who agreed they were subpar, and replaced them at N/C .. ... Others were deemed the brightest and highest resolution of anything at the matches, including the Leupolds, Burris, etc. etc.

Some trivia::  the very finest, astounding, amazing, brightest and highest resolution shooting scope I have seen at the matches was a Nightforce ... made me cry, and have wondered if they are all that good, or some not so good.


Something optical I would like somebody to try, on a sunny day, is to ” stop down” the objective lens, ie put a pinhole filter ( piece of plastic with a smooth pinhole would be ok ) over the objective ... the edges of a lens tend to refract slightly out of focus.. that is, not hitting the focus target perfectly ...  this COULD result in a higher res/sharper image, just as a good camera lens might do.

I am guessing the compromise diameter of the pinhole would be maybe 1 mm  per power .. for a 20X try a 20mm or about 3/4 inch  hole ...  as well as some really small ones...

Burris I think actually had or has such an adjustment in some hunting scopes ....


I am thinking the real answer to seeing the target is a remote digital camera placed right at the target, transmitting wireless or even a long cable ( shielded wire is cheap enough ) to a laptop.  this would even beat Mirage (g).... 15 years ago I bot a surveilance b&w camera and software for under $300 ( ComputerEyes ), probably some stuff out there right now that would do the job ok.

but that is another thread, and this one is showing signs of being useful.

Just a thought ... ken campbell deltawerkes

Attached Files

CB posted this 25 November 2007

Dan Willems wrote: Joe,

How did the Swarvosky 80mm do?

Since this mostly concerns the CBA military competitors who shoot only with iron sights and 6x scopes, remember we have to be able to see holes in the black bull. I think seeing clearly between the bars is important.

Dan;

Seeing the black and white bars on the smallest target is the test. When the black white turns into a black burr, one larger is the test result. If -1,#4 bars blur, then -1,#3 is the smallest that can be seen clearly.

I took all the question marks out.

Here's where we are.

No.

Date

Scope

Sun

Mirage

Series

#

32

11/18/2007

Konus 80MM 20-60X @60X

Dark

No

0

1

35

11/21/2007

Swarovski AT80 20-60X @60X

Sunny

No

-1

6

7

11/7/2007

Kowa TSN821 @27X

Sunny

No

-1

5

34

11/21/2007

Swarovski AT80 20-60X @60X

Sunny

No

-1

4

27

11/14/2007

Bushnell Spacemaster 20-45 @ 40X

Sunny

some

-1

4

26

11/12/2007

Konus 80 @60X

Sunny

No

-1

4

21

11/7/2007

Bushnell spacemaster 20-60X eyepiece

Sunny

some

-1

4

8

11/10/2007

B&L  variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, old, 60X

Sunny

No

-1

4

28

11/14/2007

Kowa TSN1 90MM 25X

Sunny

some

-1

3

20

11/7/2007

Bushnell spacemaster w/25XSimmons eyepc

Sunny

some

-1

3

17

11/8/2007

1950s vintage B&L 30X

Cloudy

No

-1

3

9

11/10/2007

B&L  variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, old, 60X

Sunny

No

-1

3

22

11/7/2007

Simmons #1220 55MM 25X

Sunny

some

-1

2

16

11/8/2007

1950s vintage B&L 30X

Cloudy

No

-1

2

11

11/10/2007

Nikon Spotter XL Variable 16-47X@47X

Sunny

No

-1

2

10

11/10/2007

Nikon Spotter XL Variable 16-47X@47X

Sunny

No

-1

2

29

11/14/2007

Saturn (old) 25X

Sunny

some

-1

1

15

11/10/2007

Redfield 20-45X @45X, old

Sunny

No

-1

1

14

11/10/2007

Redfield 20-45X @45X, old

Sunny

No

-1

1

13

11/10/2007

Winchester 15-45X60 @60X

Sunny

No

-1

1

33

11/21/2007

Barska 20-60X @ 60X

Sunny

No

-2

6

12

11/10/2007

Winchester 15-45X60 @60X

Sunny

No

-2

6

2

11/7/2007

Simmons 20-60X60 @60X

Sunny

No

-2

6

1

11/7/2007

B&L 20X

Sunny

No

-2

6

5

11/7/2007

30X STS

Sunny

No

-2

5

3

11/7/2007

Simmons 20-60X60 @60X

Sunny

No

-2

5

30

11/13/2007

30X STS

Sunny

No

-2

4

18

11/6/2007

Bushnell spacemaster w/25XSimmons eyepc

Sunny

some

-2

4

6

11/7/2007

20X Bushnell Sentry

Sunny

No

-2

4

4

11/7/2007

30X STS

Sunny

No

-2

4

31

11/13/2007

Bushnell Sentry 20X

Sunny

some

-2

3

19

11/6/2007

Burris landmark 80MM 20-60X

Sunny

some

-2

3

25

11/10/2007

old Pentax 500R @40X

Dark

No

-2

2

24

11/6/2007

8” Kowa Compact 50MM 20X

Sunny

some

 

 

23

11/6/2007

10” Compact Kowa 60MM 25X

Sunny

some

 

 

 

joe b.

Attached Files

CB posted this 25 November 2007

Joe Brennan wrote: Dan Willems wrote: Joe,

How did the Swarvosky 80mm do?

Since this mostly concerns the CBA military competitors who shoot only with iron sights and 6x scopes, remember we have to be able to see holes in the black bull. I think seeing clearly between the bars is important.

Dan;

Seeing the black and white bars on the smallest target is the test. When the black white turns into a black burr, one larger is the test result. If -1,#4 bars blur, then -1,#3 is the smallest that can be seen clearly.

I took all the question marks out.

Here's where we are.  

joe b. I can't get this forum thing to read .doc files. Attached is the file.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 25 November 2007

Is this list complete?

Attached Files

CB posted this 26 November 2007

billwnr wrote: Is this list complete?

Unless I missed something. What's missing?

joe b.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 26 November 2007

Well..... I see no Alpen data.

Attached Files

CB posted this 26 November 2007

billwnr wrote: Well..... I see no Alpen data.

Sorry, had you with a KONUS for some reason??????

fixed now;

joe b.

Attached Files

EDG posted this 21 December 2012

Testing spotting scopes and understanding the results of the tests requires a little understanding of the basic physics.  All this is is simple physics.  Test all scopes under the same exact conditions. To get optimum results out of an outstanding spotter you don't just crank it to max magnification. The best magnification has to be found for the lighting conditions.

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 21 December 2012

Was the Carl Zeiss Victory DiaScope 85 T*FL considered? The BPCR silhouette guys place a lot of value on a scope that can identify mirage accurately.

Attached Files

norm posted this 21 December 2012

  “All this is simple physics” I did not know physics was simple.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 22 December 2012

Ken Campbell, Iowa wrote: I am thinking the real answer to seeing the target is a remote digital camera placed right at the target, transmitting wireless or even a long cable ( shielded wire is cheap enough ) to a laptop.  this would even beat Mirage (g).... 15 years ago I bot a surveilance b&w camera and software for under $300 ( ComputerEyes ), probably some stuff out there right now that would do the job ok. Just a thought ... ken campbell deltawerkes

I know nothing about cell phones/cameras, but could a cell phone/camera be set up to look at the target, and be turned on and off from the line? joe b.

Attached Files

joeb33050 posted this 22 December 2012

I gave up on this test because to do it right I'd need/any tester would need a set of scopes/mounts set up, targets for each, a set of viewers, and testing over different conditions. Otherwise the data has more noise than signal. I started with the notion that a “pretty good” 20X spotting scope will do 98% of what a multibuck scope will do up to 200 yards. Bushnell Sentry vs Kowa. I still hold that notion. LRBP shooters have other needs, so I got an article from Kenny Wasserberger to cover LR scopes. Scopes that will handle most up-to-200-yard needs are many and inexpensive. And that's where most of us do most shooting. I went to a flea market with grandkids and couldn't turn down a Carl Zeiss Jena set of binoculars in one of those leather cases. I think I detected “E. Rommell” scratched inside the leather cover. The binocular/s was/ere in perfect shape, and $25. Back in FL I compared the Zeiss with the $35 Tasco binocular that SWMBO uses to watch crocodiles across the street at canals in the golf field. Tasco beat Zeiss, hands down. No room for discussion. Progress has been made in the last 60 years! (I enhanced the Rommell scratching and delighted an EBay person.) Scopes are more better and cheaper than hen I started shooting. joe b.

Attached Files

72coupe posted this 22 December 2012

I have spent almost my entire adult life looking through  high quality telescopes. I am a land surveyor. The best piece of glass I have ever looked through is on a Wild T2 theodolite. It was made in Switzerland in 1968. It has the absolute minimum number of lenses to get the job done. It doesn't have an erector lense and everything seen through it is upside down.

This theodolite is 32 power and is spectacularly clear. The later models with the erector lense are noticeably less clear.

I shoot highpower rifle on a reduced 100 yard course that has the worst light conditions of any place I have shot. The range faces East.

I have a Kowa 80mm scope with the 27 power long eye relief eye piece. It is about as good  as you can get without spending $5000. Even with this fine scope there are times I can't see my bullet holes.

I haven't tried the T2.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 22 December 2012

Tom, When the testing was being assembled, no participating shooter owned one of these scopes. Joe assembled the individual results (and responses) from a number of different shooters.

I had just bought an Alpen 20-60 and had good results spotting bullet holes at Puyallup on dark rainy March and April mornings.

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 22 December 2012

1951 USAF resolution test chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951USAFresolutiontestchartThe 1951 USAF resolution test chart is a resolution test pattern conforming to ... Number of Line Pairs / mm in USAF Resolving Power Test Target 1951 ... 1951 USAF Glass Slide Resolution Targets | Edmund Optics www.edmundoptics.com/testing-targets/test-targets/resolution-test-tar...Items 1 - 8 of 8 ”€œ Resolution test slides with the 1951 USAF test pattern are available in either positive (chrome ... 1951 USAF Hi-Resolution Target, 2” x 2” Positive ... Pocket USAF Optical Test Pattern | Edmund Optics www.edmundoptics.com/testing-targets/test-targets/resolution-test-tar...2012 Holiday Schedule Our Barrington, NJ and Tucson, AZ offices are closed on Tuesday, December 25th and Tuesday, January 1st for the holidays. Thorlabs - R3L1S4N Negative 1951 USAF Wheel Pattern Test ... www.thorlabs.com ”º Products Home ”º Life Science & MicroscopyThorlabs' R3L1S4N is a negative 3” x 1” resolution test target made from plating chrome on a glass substrate. The 3” x 1” wheel pattern targets have 9 USAF ...

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

Attached Files

Balhincher posted this 23 December 2012

Ken Campbell, Iowa wrote: *** I am thinking the real answer to seeing the target is a remote digital camera placed right at the target, transmitting wireless or even a long cable ( shielded wire is cheap enough ) to a laptop.  this would even beat Mirage (g).... 15 years ago I bot a surveilance b&w camera and software for under $300 ( ComputerEyes ), probably some stuff out there right now that would do the job ok.

but that is another thread, and this one is showing signs of being useful.

Just a thought ... ken campbell deltawerkes Ken, I was thinking about the same approach a few weeks ago.  The remote camera I mean.  If a remote camera exists that could send pictures of the target to a monitor or computer could it be used in a match?  Are there rules about spotting scopes that would preclude using a remote camera to spot bullet holes?  Does the spotting scope have to be an optical device located at the firing line?

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 23 December 2012

A quick search of the internet says you can get a wireless coded color camera system for $169.00

Attached Files

4570sharps posted this 5 days ago

I'm looking for a moderately priced spotting scope to use for 1000 yard  BPCR shooting. Any ideas/experience?

Attached Files

beltfed posted this 4 days ago

45-70sharps,

From experience:

For long range BPTR, you do not need a scope that will see bullet holes.

You need a scope that can read MIrage well.

I can tell you that most if not many of the better shooters are using a KOWA 821.

Same goes in HI Power competition. Kowas, and sometimes really high end Zeiss.

 

beltfed/arnie

 

Attached Files

Close