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

Pete;
I just received a Harrel Schuetzen measure and Sinclair measure stand along with a couple of extra bottles.

Nice jewelry for shooters!

Dale53

I know every year I buy myself one present from the Sinclair catalog. This year it was the stand. 

40 Rod

Pete;
Take anything here with a grain of salt as I have had powder in the Harrel for a total of "one" time.

However, I have examined the Harrel carefully. When the Harrel's handle is up (talking only about the Schuetzen model as that is the only one I have) you have a perfectly readable micrometer. It reads in "tens" instead of "twenty-fives" but still a micrometer. It also has clicks in between the numbers. These clicks will allow you to make VERY small changes with assurance (if you need that). You can "graph" it as easily as any other measure. Now, it may give you different values at different ends of the scale (haven't tried that) but within a few grains up or down, it (shape of the cavity) should make no difference at all. It also, depending on the operator as does any other measure, allows you to be VERY accurate.

There is no doubt that the Redding Bench rest measure is an excellent measure and a good value. However, the Harrel's "Jewelry Value" has it all over the Redding  ( I can't believe that I said that).

Bottom line, if money is a problem (and it can be for most of us) then buy the Redding. If you want the ultimate in snob appeal, then buy the Harrell {there, I did it again }.

Dale53

I have had the Harrell measure for a couple of years now. what I like about it is it's absolute repeatability. Once I get a setting I can sit at the range and drop the same charge all day. With a 32-40 I can get an extream spread of 3 to 7 fps over 10 shot sring. I could never get that kind of repeatability from any other measure.   
On my measure with Accurate No 9 or H 108  I get a drop of .2 grains for every 3 clicks. 

40 Rod

Pete
You'll get no argument from me on that. The B&M is hands down the best for Black. The BR3 is a good measure for the money.
What I love is that at a match if I decide to change guns all I have to do is go to the correct setting in my book and I will get the same drop that I got last week or last month. For ball powders is is the best that I have found. 
I will also tell you that for stick powders I use an Precision rifles bench rest measure. I feel that the meater area on it is better designed for stick powders like 4759 or 5744.

Pete 
I havn't tryed the Swiss but it stands to reason. As you know Black is very hydroscopic a consistant moisture content is a must for consistant performance. In Phil Sharps he talks about keeping Black in a humidore is it can't dry out.

40 Rod

40 Rod,
  Brents right. I think where the misconception comes in is that BP fouling "IS" highly hygroscopic. BP itself is not especially so, and doesn't seem to be any more than smokeless.

  As I understand it BP does not have several lots blended like like they do with smokeless in order to get a consistent lot to lot burning rate. It's one of the things we have to live with when shooting BP, and was why I was wondering if you'd had experience with 2003 lot, and if the web sites info was correct.

PETE

Temp and humidity might affect exterior ballistics but it will not affect burn rate in a cartridge gun if using fixed ammo since the air in the case is not going to change significantly while waiting at the line to be ignited.  In a muzzleloader, there might be more of an effect in that the air that is mixed with the powder will be of a different consistency and hence, could burn at a different rate.  But, I think the big issue is just the density of the air as the bullet pushes it aside.   

Perhaps the oldtimers fell victim to a few myths too.  No reason they should be any more immune to them than we are.  And, certainly, there are many more myths to uncover.

Brent

40 Rod & Frog,
  Have either of you looked over the experiments that Ed Stutz and myself performed? Please do so. You will find my work on my web site at

          (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

which will then direct you to Brent's site where Ed's work is published and Brent's analysis of the results is given.

  The reason the old timers kept track of temp. and humidity was not because BP attracts moisture, it was because temp. and humidity affect the bullets flight. The longer the range the more critical this is and at the Creedmoor matches the shooters even kept track of barometric pressure.

  During some testing Ed did one Summer here are some coclusions he came to regarding the effects of temp. and humidity on MV's using BP..

As humidity decreases velocity increases 2 fps per 1% change

  As humidity decreases wt of powder drops .1gr per 1% change

  Velocity increases 1.8 fps per 1 degree increase in temp.

  I hope this will clarify some of your thinking!

PETE

DonH,
  Good question, and not sure I can answer it to your satisfaction.

  Roughly.....The ingredients in BP are ground together into almost a dust like consistency, mixed with water and pressed into a "cake". When it is dried to a certain point it is broken up and put into polishing drums which harden the surface of the individual grains. Part of this process is the addition of graphite.

  What you have when you get done is almost the equivalent of a coupla coats of varnish on that wood door you mention. Like the door, if the powder has been properly treated it will resist the absortion of moisture.

  I assume you have looked at the tests run by myself and Ed Stutz. Those are FACTS!! If people wish to disbelieve them and except long standing myths then that's their perogative.

  Since there doesn't seem to be any interest I won't carry out an experiment I had in mind to further prove, or disprove, this point.

PETE

Pete;
Just an added thought. If that "door" is exposed to the elements ( or sometimes even in interior space) it takes a highly impervious "varnish" coating 360 degrees to prevent moisture absorption. Not an easy nor a casual thing.

BTW, I am always a hard sell when someone comes up with something new which no one ever thought of before.

DonH,
  Don't blame you for finding it hard to believe, but if you will look the evidence of the tests over it's hard not to believe. Plus there is nothing says you can repeat the experiments to see for yourself.

  If you will look at my message detailing what Ed found out were the changes in MV with changes in temp. & humidity you will see a discrepancy that was one of the reasons we did the test. I thought sure someone would pick up on that and try to use that as a counter to the experiments. Guess I'll have to bring it forward myself. The original idea for the test was a thread on BP-L about just this moisture absorbing myth and how many of the top shooters would open a new can of powder every day of a match. This didn't seem quite right to me and thus the experiment.

  Like all of you Ed thought that BP absorbed moisture and thought my experiment was flawed in some way so he figured he'd do a repeat in his part of the country to prove the results wrong. He didn't, as you can see from the results of his work.

  To answer you latest question tho, the reason the BP granules don't absorb moisutre is as I stated. Think about it. The grains are rolling arond in a polishing barrel with a great deal of other grains. I forget what a charge weghs but there is quite a bit of wgt. bearing on each grain. This wgt. tends to compact the surface very tightly. This tightness is one of the factors that differeniate sporting grade powder from musket and rifle powders. The longer you leave the powder in the polishing barrel the harder and thicker this surface becomes. Then when you add a slight coating of graphite this only adds to the imperviousness of the grains to moisture.

  An experiment I was thinking of running if some positive replies had been given was to take a given wgt. of powder and put it into an open top pan and leave it exposed to atmospheric conditions on a shelf in the garage for an extended period of time. I'd weigh it every day to see what the changes in wgt. were, and to see if at some time in the future it actually did pick up moisture/wgt. I'd report the results every few days or so, so you all could keep up with things. At the end of a month... six months... whatever was agreed upon..... the charge would be put in the oven at 150 degrees F. and allowed to dry out, and then weighed. Would have made and interesting experiment!

PETE

Brent,
  Wondered about that. But the house is air-conditioned and the temp. and humidity in the basement stay pretty constant. I have a dehumidifier down there for keeping the lathe and other tools from rusting. The garage was the only place I could think of offhand to put it.

  But since there doesn't seem to be any interest there's not much sense doing it. I don't plan on leaving a can open longer than a 24 hr. period anyway, nor do I think anyone else is either.  But thought it might be of interest to see just how long it does take for BP to deteriorate to the point where it might absorb moisture. Probably just one of those useless bits of minutae (inside joke) that would rattle around in your head.

PETE

Charlie,

 Ahhh! You've caught the "fly" in the ointment.

 Yes, the part of Ed's work says what you think. The problem is, is that it was written under the same assumption we all had prior to the testing we did. As you might notice in the message I addressed to DonH you will see where I address this, altho in a roundabout way. I wanted you, or someone else to "discover" it.

 When I did the test as outlined in the message to Brent there were some questions in my mind as to why some shooters would open a new can of powder each day of a match. I figured that BP couldn't be THAT hygroscopic! After I did the test and posted it on BP-L Ed didn't really believe it so thought he'd do it himself. Which he did and found out exactly what I had found out. Brent did the statistical analysis to see if there was enuf evidence to, however small, to show that possibly the BP sample did pick up some moisture. His conclusion was that statistically there was no evidence that it had.

 Now both experiments only covered a 24 hr. period, and satisfied the question about the sample absorbing moisure in that time frame. Another experiment I did following this, but which I dont have on the web site, was putting the sample in the oven, under Bill Knights directions for a period of time to dry it out. This was to see, again, if the sample had picked up moisture we couldn't detect. After drying the sample was weighed as fast as posibble after removal from the oven. No detectable change in wgt. was noted.

 You are right about fouling being a whole 'nother kettle of fish. But we didn't have a way of really getting a sample directly after firing, weighing it, and then repeating the experiment along the lines of unfired powder. This would probably be useless since everyone can easily provide anecdotes proving this.

 As for doing the experiment in your basement... be my guest. I for one would be very interested in what you find out over an extended period of time. Offhand I would assume that somewhere along the line moisture will penetrate the "skin" and the sample will pick up wgt.

 As you say... the more input we have the more we all learn.

 On the electronic scale.... Personally I wish you would use a standard beam balance. My experience with electronic scales shows most of them as being of limited use and not as sensitive as the other type.

 Powder..... I don't suppose it would make any difference other than I used Elephant. Forget now what Ed used. Just make sure you take your sample from a new unopened can so the experiment will be as unbiased as possible.

 If you decide to give it a try possibly we can get Josh to split off all the messages dealing with this and put it under a new thread. What do you think?

PETE

Well, you guys will just have to do your own experiments I guess.  I imagine a month or two in a mushroom cellar might lead to greater moisture absorption.  I have no idea what the utility of that information might be however.  If you spend a month in a mushroom cellar between shots, perhaps there is something to it.  But the issue that started this was the "need" to adjust measures in the middle of a match due to atmospheric variation in humidity causing changes in gunpowder.  And for that, the Pete-Ed-Brent experiment is pretty tough to argue against.  Not that you guys seem to lack for ambition in that department though.  So, have at it.  Me, I'm moving on to another myth.  I used to keep track of all the bp-fables I heard when I started this game and how many of them were absolutely gospel and now, how many of them have fallen?  There is a good article or three in there for someone to write I think. 

Brent

Brent,
  One of the big myths in BP shooting is that you must fill the case with powder. You must not have an air space! Yet if you read the loading articles in Shooting & Fishing there are literally dozens of references to just the opposite being done.

  Also I've done some experimenting along this line and nothing disastrous happened. I will say tho that I didn't get better accuracy than I would get with a full case under some compression.

  With the .28/30 I'm playing with now I'm breechseating and the best powder charge only fills the case about 2/3rds full. On top of that I put a 1/16" cork wad. There must be pretty close to 3/4" of air space in there and I've fired a coupla hundred rounds with nothing unusual happening. I was getting terrible results doing it the "excepted" way until I started thinking outside the box! 

  A very big part of the problem with shooting BP is that a lot of these myths are what is holding us back from getting the same results as the old timers got. Due to expensive or unavailable material on the subject we have been re-inventing the wheel these past 20 yrs. or so.

PETE