I use a 25X LER on the Kowa.  I have 44X and even 77X eye pieces but no matter what you use they are hard to see.  It is a matter of clarity rather than magnification.  If you make the image bigger, you also increase the problems with mirage.

I have researched the possibility of using a wireless camera setup but haven't been able to justify the cost.  The quality you need to resolve a .22 hole exceeds what you can buy at Sam's Club.  I haven't given up on the idea but it is on hold for the time being.

My vision is poor so my results are poor.  My not so secret weapon is Cloudy Day, she still has 20/15 vision.  I believe that is the real answer.  The better you can see to start with the better you can see through the scope.

Corky

Don,
  I'll agree with the other guys. Atmospheric conditions are the determining factor in seeing .22 holes at 200 yds. The stronger the mirage the less you'll see.

  Like Dale I have a Kowa 82mm lensed scope, but I have the 20 - 60x zoom eyepiece. If conditions are good for seeing 20 - 30x will see the holes ok.

  When buying a scope always go for the largest objective lens you can afford. That's the one out front if you didn't know. This is the lens that gathers the light and the bigger the better when viewing small objects at at long distances.

  The Kowa is considered by the bird watchers to be the best bang for the buck in this regard. Of course we would all like a Leica or Swarovski but at twice the price, plus, of a Kowa they don't give twice the resolution.

PETE

Don, Whatever scope you use, make sure you use a good solid steady tripod or scope stand.  It doesn't take much of a breeze to get a scope vibrating a little which really messes things up. 
At EG last weekend I never bothered even looking through my spotting scope----of course with my sighting in problems on Sat, and the wind on Sunday, I never bothered trying my luck on the 200 yard targets.  I was having too much "fun" trying to hit the ones at 100.
Another technique some folks use ius to put a red photo filter on their scope which cancels out the red on the target, leaving the bullet holes easier to see.

40 Rod,
  Sinclair does make a nice bench mounted scope stand, but a little pricey considering you can make one yourself very similar to it a LOT cheaper.

  What I've done is get a set of Pony Clamps and some black pipe long enuf to be able to clamp on any bench around here. Get a piece threaded on both ends. The Pony clamp goe on one end and a reducer on the other. Drill and tap that for a pipe the diam. that works with your scope mount clamps. Make that any length you want.

  The only problem with these setups is that the longer the this small pipe is the wobblier it is. About the time you get it long enuf for offhand a regular tripod is a lot better. This is why I think the regular Sinclair bench mount is so short. Works good for shooting off the bench tho.

  For real spotting work after I'm done with a target, or spotting for someone else, I have a regular surveyor type oak tripod I made. Short of a hurricane it's steady as a rock.

PETE

Thanks guys;
This amounted to some brain-picking, I guess. I just wanted to hear some of the thoughts of others on the subject. I'm using a 22x eyepiece and may try a 30 but I'm thinking my stand just isn't solid enough and I do know that makes a difference. Have to work on that.

Don

40 Rod,
  That's good to know! From looking at it in Sinclair's catalog it does look like it takes a bigger "bite" on the bench, but no one around here has one so we can see how much better it is, and we all to cheap to buy one to see! 

  Am wondering...... What thickness of bench are you restricted to, or is it just a question of how long the rod is? Around here we run anywhere from the thickness of a 2x12 to 6" concrete tops.

PETE

Pete;
I neglected to warn you - that Sinclair catalog is addictive!! I am an authority on that!!

Dale53