Spotting Scope Testing as of Nov. 11, 2007
Steven Dzupin on Cast Boolits clued me in to
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links), 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??, Some mirage???, -2, #4, Dan W.
19. 11/6/07???, Burris Landmark 80MM, 20-60X, Sunny, Some Mirage???, -2, #3, Dan W.
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, Dan W.
23. 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.
24. 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.
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 th