Even things like high temperatures and humidity can affect scopes, especially less expensive scopes. Without side by side, the whole thing just doesn't work. 
Surfaces in the shooting area can also affect the scope, with mirage from concrete or stability of the surface the base is sitting on. Lots of variables to cause changes.

Quote:

I made a test paper that says "Times New Roman 72 point.", from 72 to 10 point. The font is times new roman. It fits on one piece of copier paper.
If you will, please make one of these and take it to the range. Set it up at 100 yards and see the smallest print that you, and hopefully some others, can read. Please record the "light" as either 
bright sunny
cloudy
cloudy dark

I've got this running on three forums, have yet to see any description of an anternative test. "Invalid" is popular, as is "there are just too many variables".

Bullet holes would be good, but that the background makes all the difference. On a clear day with snow on the ground behind the target you can see termite holes in the target frames.

The dollar is interesting, I've been looking at one for a while. Care to expand on that?
I'd like any suggestions you have, and of course "invalid" and "impossible" are always welcome.
joe b.

Quote:


Another side by side guy. When you test rifles for accuracy, do you do it with 2 rifles side by side? What do you mean, valid? 

How about if 245 people report that they can read the 18 point line with scope A, and 354 people report that they can only read the much larger 36 point line with scope B? NO side by side tests. Do you think that there is ANY reason to suspec that scope A is "better" than scope B?
There are problems with the test as proposed, substantial ones, but side-by-side ain't one of them.
How about if I offer a prize for the poster of a REAL problem?

Quote:

I think that you are a very nice person. I don't think that you've thought this thing through very well. If you can devise a test involving bullet holes, I'd like to hear about it.
Optical devices are tested using test targets of various designs. Searching on "test optics" or "test lens" will show you the wide selection of information available.
Now hunting scopes are tested with test targets, yet we never hear the hunters complaining that they don't want to look at sets of precisely spaced bars, they want to look at animals.
We don't hear the astronomers making the same complaint.
It is common to find test methods that do not mimic the article's use. Measuring vacuum with a temperature probe, and underground testing of nuclear (or nucular if you're the president), devices leap to mind.
So don't get upset, just put on your thinking cap and write that test procedure using bullet holes. I want that money!!
joe brennan

Joe, there is an easier method, probably more useful to shooters. Take a target with a large bull and put a series of holes  of different size 1"-2" apart in the black. Start with a 45 or 50 cal. and go down to a .22 or .17. You will determine everything you will ever need in seeing how small a hole a scope can pick up at 200 and maybe 300 yards. Black print on target paper is deceptive, a hole in black paper without backers is probably of  more practical use IMHO.

Hi Tim,
I think I've already said something like that, twice. 
I have tried to inform Joe B. that this test will be  highly flawed if some type of control or standard isn't maintained, for the test to be useful everyone has to be looking at the same thing as far as paper color goes such as target paper, you just cant tell guys to use copy paper. 

Example: 
I have three different colors of white on hand right now, # 84 white, # 92 white, and # 97 white, just setting here looking at the three different ones I can see the difference. Now which   # do you want me to use ?, or do I have to go get a different #.   Like I have said, I don't mind participating or helping but it seems that you don't have your test platform together at this time.  I still like the bullet hole idea, they are pretty universal all over the world, a 22 is .224, a 30 is .308, etc. but will do it your way when you get your test platform down so that everyone is using the same thing. Otherwise we will all be wasting our time on this.
  Shooter

I will agree that the paper stock will have a major impact on resolution. Ink too.

Biggest variable will be ambient conditions, This is were I have seen the same scope go from wonderful resolution to terrible in a few minutes.  At Asheville when the sun is coming up against you not a scope on the line will resolve 32 cal holes at 200 yards. Walk up and down and look through all of them and the most expensive are just as bad as the cheap ones.  Sun gets to the right angle and it's like your tv set coming into focus as it warms up. Holes pop right out at you.  Still a sunny day just the angle of light changes.

You can put scope shake to ambient too.  The spotter I use the most is small and light. On a large camera tripod with a fluid head when spotting Silhouette is resolves pretty well.  Out to 500 meters. if the light is right you can see 30 cal bullets in flight.  45 cal BPC bullets you can follow the strike most of the time Use the same scope when shooting Schuetzen offhand mounted on a bipod and it shakes when the rifle next to me goes off. Resolution goes sour fast, Same scope on a concrete bench rest table top mounted in a  tripod that's sturdy it's like a different scope. At Froggys last match when the wind came up and was moving he bipod around, I took it off the long staff and sat it on the bench in order to resolve holes at 200 yards. 32 cal holes.

Boats

SixBits every time I get a little extra cash I think about one of the Kowas.  Problem is my Little 25x50 mm fixed power Leopould works pretty good and fits in my shooting bag nice.  I know going to 77 or 82 mm would be an advantage but avoid it due to the size and something else to carry. Plus all I am doing is looking for 32 cal bullet holes at 200 .22's at 100, not a severe test of a scope.

Funny thing though Leopould made that scope in 20 & 25 same size body and 30x longer.  I bought mine used so had no choice when it came to power.  I put it side by side with one identical except 20 power.  The 20 resolved better than my 25, to my eye that is.

I do think price for performance the Kowas are the scopes to have.   

Boats