I stated that side-by-side testing was the better way to do this testing, long before any of you even thought about it. See the chapter in the book.
I'm the one who wrote Jesse Miller, told him the story, and got his reply.
I completely understand the paper color issue.
I'm testing in Miami, the BPCR guys are testing in different places, three guys are testing in the midwest. 
Charlie has proposed a s=b=s test at the matches.
Dan Willems has proposed s-b-s testing at CBA matches.
I'm testing again tomorrow.
Don't you realize that most match activity is over in the frozen north, that s-b-s testing with lots of scopes is not going to happen till spring?
Don't you realize tha doing some testing now will maybe help us design the testing to be done next year?

Respectfully yours;
joe brennan

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

GEEZE yawl boys shore make some things more difficult than they need to be but this is an interesting discussion going here and it'll be even more so when yawl finally find out which scope yawl think is best.  That is, if you do.  This is sorta like the discussion about the best deer rifle being a 30-06 or a .270.   There are no winners in these things, but it sure does make for some interesting reading.

Joeb your observation about good strong stands is right on the mark and those heavy tripod camera stands that have cross braces on the legs are great because you can set a sand bag or bags on them and REALLY add stability in windy conditions.  It's something I find that comes in handy about this time every year here in the mountains when that wind comes down the range and shakes your spotting scope.  If you don't have a good tripod scope stand, it does not matter about the quality of the scope because you aren't going to be able to see anything through it anyway.  So whatever scope yawl finnaly decide is best, get a GOOD stand with cross braces on the legs so you can anchor that sucker down when the wind kicks up.  It doesn't take much shaking, especially that  magnified by high power scopes, to ruin any effort to see bullet holes.

I've only spent about 3 minutes behind a Unertl Team Scope...
One fine piece of glass, to be sure!

I have to wonder, though, if given the used-market price of them, if a team of crack telescope makers couldn't hand grind a nice set of lenses and fit and test them cheaper...
Or build a very nice short tube Maksutov-Cassegrain with the same resolving power and field of view.

The Unertls have gotten awfully rare, and awfully spendy...

Paul F.
(armed with an impractical idea, off to re-read a couple telescope making books...)

The last (and maybe ONLY ) Team Scope I have seen for sale was nearly $10,000 
Now, whether they GOT that price, I don't know...

But I can buy some mighty fine quality optics for that in an astronomical telescope that MAY well be fully the equal of the Unertl.  For sure? Beats me...

I'm so out of practice with optics, I'm sure I'd do a miserable job... but it would be interesting to runs some numbers comparing the resolution of a modern 'scope to John Unertl's masterpiece...  Of course, it wouldn't have the Master's touch, but ten grand can buy some approximation of it, perhaps

Paul F.

2700 for a team scope is a bargin.  I thought I had a slant on one ebay listed some time ago when I found it was in a shop nearby. Went to look at it in person before bidding and it was top notch.  I backed out at over 3K and it went for a lot higher. Only thing that would worry me is condition in a sight unseen auction.

Not to complicate Joe's test even more but has anyone ever used the Binocular spotters.  There are some Silouette shooters using a mount that holds two Kowa 82x27 x scopes side by side making a binocular out of them. Precise adjustments for alignment.  Mounted on a very heavy tripod they are amazing in resolution.

Never looked at a paper target with one but on steel the binocular makes a very large difference.

Boats

     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. 

On 12/8/07 we tested John Austin's Kowa TSN821M with 27X eyepiece, his Konus Konusport 80 with 20-60X eyepiece, and my old Bushnell Sentry 50MM 20 X.
There were some patches of clouds rolling by, so I tested the Konus and Bushnell scopes in both cloudy and sunny conditions. Clouds went away for the Kowa testing.
The Konus, at 40X, tested -2, #5 in sunny light, and -1, #1 in cloudy light. I checked this a second time. This is a 2 step smaller target in cloudy light than in sunny light.
The Konus tested better at 40X and 60X than did the Kowa, however the Kowa at 27X tested better than the Konus at 20X.
The old Bushnell Sentry tested equal to or better than the Konus at 20 X and almost equal to the Kowa with both John and me testing
(-2 is larger than -1, #1 is larger than #2 is larger than #3 etc.)
Konus      20 Cloudy Joe B      -2, #2
Konus      20 Sunny Joe B.      -2, #2
Konus      20 Sunny John A.      -2, #2
Konus      40 Cloudy Joe B.      -1, #1
Konus      40 Sunny Joe B.      -2, #5
Konus      40 Sunny John A.      -1, #1
Konus      60 Cloudy Joe B.      -1, #3
Konus      60 Sunny Joe B.      -1, #3
Konus      60 Sunny John A.      -2, #6
Kowa      27 Sunny Joe B.      -2, #4
Kowa      27 Sunny John A.      -2, #4
Bushnell 20 Cloudy Joe B.      -2, #3
Bushnell 20 Sunny Joe B.      -2, #4
Bushnell 20 Sunny John A.      -2, #2


I'm keeping all the information about this topic on the book site. You'll have to sign in, but it's easy and free. If you don't want e-mails, just set it up such.

go to:  (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
click on: FILES
click on: WORK IN PROCESS
click on: SPOTTING SCOPE TESTING

joe brennan
joeb33050@yahoo.com