There's a suggestion on the BPCR forum about testing spotting scopes to make comparisons.
I wrote this and sent it to Jesse Miller for his input. 
We're looking for an objective, repeatable way for a lot of people in a lot of places with a lot of different spotting scopes to "measure" them. Wouldn't it be nice if we found a $100 scope that did the job? 
Keep in mind that I know close to nothing about optics.
I  typed a sentence in WORD, Times New Roman, and copied it four times, so there's a column of sentences. Top is 12 point, then I changed them to 11, 10, 9 and 8 point. 8 point is small. I printed it. 
I propose that we set up a paper at 100 yards with a certain sentence in sizes from maybe 16? down to 8 point.
The rule is, look through the spotting scope and decide which sentence you can read easily-no guessing.
Record the size, ex:10 point, and record the conditions of the light, maybe 
bright sunny
bright cloudy
cloudy
overcast
or 
bright
cloudy
overcast
and then start collecting these for various spotting scopes. If everybody uses white paper, the same sentences in the same font in the same sizes, then maybe we'll have some objective data to look at.
Maybe a not on mirage too.
This is a start at least.
??
joe brennan

Hi Guys, 
Wouldn't the scope power have a lot to do with what you see and how good you see it ?.

Hi Froggie,
I agree, I know that magnification is power and that resolution is how clearly a person sees the image, but I think that with a low power ( magnification ) scope such as a 20 X,  even if it has high resolution you may still have a problem seeing small bullet holes at 200 yds. or even at 100 yds if shooting 22's. I always used Unertl spotting scopes and considered 24 X 63 to be minimum for rifle,  and 20 X 54 for 50 yd. pistol shooting, sure you can use a lower than 24 X for rifle shooting and maybe still see holes in the white but you may "lose" them in the black, especially at 200 yds. I think it takes both power and high resolution and if you have good quality glass it seems that the bigger the objective the better, up to a point.  I also still have a 24 X 100 Unertl Team scope, I don't use it much because it's to much for me to "carry" but I can see a difference between it and my other Unertl 24 X, both the same power but the Team scope has the 100 MM objective, believe me, there is a difference between the two.
Shooter

Boats,
The warranty is one thing I don't have to worry about, I bought my 24 X 63 around 1965 and the Team scope in the mid 1970's. I'm sure the warranty is long gone. In fact the original factory is long gone.
  Shooter

Birders probably pay more attention to quality optics than any other group.  Try googeling  "Better View Desired" and check out the spotting scope tests on the site.  A lot of good info there.

Jerry Liles

I don't disagree with anything said here so far, and hope that we can get some testing done before and at next year's matches. 
However, the can-you-read-the-print test, or something similar, allows testing of one scope with at least some information, common, gathered.
Here's the first:
Yesterday, 3 November, 2007, at the Trail Glades Range in Miami, I put a piece of white paper to the 100 yard target. On this paper, in Times New Roman, were sentences in 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8 point type. 16 looked pretty big to me, in person.
It was a bright, sunny, windy day. No to few clouds.
Nobody who looked could read even the largest sentence using the following:
Lyman 30X STS
Simmons 20-60 X 60
Leica Televid 62, 15-60
NC Star 20-60 X 60
joe b.

Hi  Guys, 
Just a suggestion,
Reading sentences in different point type and serial numbers off a dollar bill may be fun for some, but don't you think the proper size bullet holes in the paper such as, 22, 25, 30, 32, and up to 45 etc.,  would be a better test of a scope,  put them on the proper color target paper, a series of them in the "white" and a series of them in the "black", after all,  what we are interested in seeing is bullet holes. I think most may be surprised at what you can an cannot see. 
Shooter

My object is to design a test that is usable by anyone in the world, with any spotting scope. 
I'm doing it, hope you'll help.
I'm aware of the 1951 AF resolution standard/s.
If you'll look at my chapter on this, you'll see that I believe that side-by-side comparisons would be better. Many things would be better.
However, an objective, common, easy test is the first step on this project-I'm going to bigger type next.
Looking for ideas, feasible, possible, relatively easy test method.   
There are roughly 1.46 zillion spotting scopes available. Under the best of cases we'd need months and lots of folks to do a side by side test, and then years to rank order the results.
Do the birders have any numbers, or is it just A better than B?
Anyone?
joe b.

Well I'm not interested in reading fine print at 100 yds, or watching birds, but I am interested in seeing bullet holes of different calibers and how good other scopes can see them sounds interesting.  If you need my Unertls for the test I'm willing to participate. 

If your dead set on using sentences you may want to consider sending all the guys involved the test sentences and all on the same color paper, there are differences in the color white and if it's going to be a useful test that type of thing has to be controlled,  that's why I recommended target paper,  no matter where I've shot,  even in Russia,  the target paper is pretty much the same, when I asked about it I was told they do it because if the Olympic games, same color paper no matter what part of the world you shoot in,  paper color is very important, especially on a bright or overcast day,  otherwise the test will be highly flawed. 

I think that's why Boats recommend a "new" dollar bill as a control, everyone usually has one or can get one,  and there all the same color and size. Sounds to me that Boats has been involved in some type of military testing, same as I have.
Shooter

Side X side is the only valid test I know of, for one of the best reasons there is. It allows the only person that counts to see what works for him.

That's why I own the scope I use, do to a side by side coparison at different matches, Yes, seeing bullet holes at two hundred yards is a real life test, that counts.

Maybe, just maybe we don't see things the same! Is that possible? I don't remember in the 50 years I've shot competitively, reading print at any yardage. Or having any need to do so. Now seeing bullet holes during a match , seems I've had that need. 

I only have a need to please myself, no others need apply. Seems like I anti-collectivism all the way around, come to think of it.

When my vision was 20/10, I wondered why people thought they needed any optical help at all?

Of course I know there is no money to be made for someone that wants to write and sell a book or magazine  article. But then again I don't much care what those kind of people have to say anyway.

I guess I'm just not a vary nice person. That should not come as a surprise to anyone here.   

Not to be argumentative, but when you test a rifle, you have an objective, measurable result that can be compared then and as long as you preseerve the target or an image of it.  There is no such preserved image for a scope comparison unless you take a picture, and then you have a variation in the quality of the digital or film image.  What the shooter sees is a subjective thing and can only partially be quantified, and then only for that shooter in that condition.  I have also had experience where the same scope gave different results on different days, depending on very slight changes in conditions.  Same scope, same bullet holes in same targets, but different ability to resolve the image on different days.  I use the scope that does the best for me on the most days.

     Your project is admirable, but I would maintain that your results will have to be interpreted subjectively and even with the massive participation (599 shooters using just two scopes) your later postings suggest would be coming, they will still only be suggestive at best, sort of like which scope the birders like best.  If it shows the fine markings of a Transylvanian Vulture, it will show the difference between a single and a double on the target... maybe.  The shooter will have to try it.

JMHO, but it's your project, so rock on! 
Froggie

The most valid test is ruled by the law of natural selection

The Scope most seen on firing lines is the Kowa large objective with a 27x fixed power eyepiece.

It's not what I use but all those shooters can't be wrong.

Boats

How about if I offer a prize for the poster of a REAL problem? 

OK Joe,
I gave you a real tip about the paper color, and if not controlled will be a BIG problem.

Did I win the Prize.
Shooter

Quote:


I don't think that is fair Boats, I use the Kowa because it works for me. I'm not trying to sell them, "Not only am I the President of Hair Club for...

Whoops, I got carried away with myself there for a second.

My problem with doing anything but bullet holes. Please name all the shooters that don't want to know if they can or can not see bullet holes with their spotting scopes.

Name all the guys that want to read the news paper at two hundred yards. Not counting the guys with arms two hundred yards long that can turn the pages.

Of course use standard target paper, how or why would you want to use anything else?

What is a valid test anyway? I would think it would have to be a test that more than just one guy could preform and get similar results.

Yes, I too remember reading years ago that Questar made a scope that you could read a news paper from a mile away.

I use Kowa as well, but I have two, 1 real good one and one not so good. Both are 20x 60 eye pieces. The good one is a straight scope with floride lens. The not so good is a 45 degree eye piece (some loss I think from that) and regular kowa glass (some more loss I think). Both are 77mm scopes.  Good scope I can see .22 holes 200 yards most any day (as long as my mount is solid). The not so good the light has to be just right. Varibles are going to exist no matter what you do. Any good test you try to minimise the varibles between tests otherwise you are guessing.

You know the really odd thing about spotting scopes seems to be that there is all kinds of trade offs. When you get into these big scope, you know it's not going to be the scope you pack into the Alaskan range for your sheep hunt. However it works great to leave in base camp after the bush plane flies you and your gear in.

The Leupold scope is just the ticket for that climb after the sheep.

That's what I mean by trade offs. When it comes right down to it, we try and use the best we can for the job at hand.

Many a guide in this state carry the Leupold spotting scopes and think that for weight and size they offer the best performance. These are not a class of people that will compromise on gear.

Indeed, Alaska is the place that puts gear to the worst kind of tests. I got this big old Kowa when I was doing a lot of bench rest shooting and my Son was just getting into High power shooting. The other good thing the Kowa does vary well, it allows me to hall the summer visitors out, set up the tripod along side the highway so they can look at sheep, goats and whatever else happens along the way.

You are right about the power factor in scopes, you are less effected by mirage at the lower power range of eyepieces.
That is why you don't see to many people going over 27X even in the bigger scopes.

When I got this big old Kowa, I was shooting a lot of .224 at two hundred and need to be able to see my bullet holes, it was much easier to judge the group size with the spotter at 27X than it was to judge the group through my 36X rifle scope. Until I got the scope I always thought my group were bigger. Coming off the line, people would ask about my group and I always thought they were from .100 to .200 bigger than they proved to be when scored. Other shooters got to thinking I was lying to them.  

P.S. It's a bad thing for people to think you are sand bagging them. They don't trust you when the money gets down on the table.

While I'm in complete agreement with your method of testing and think it shows nothing but wisdom. I don't believe this is what Joe B. is looking for. He has vary definite ideas of how these tests must be conducted, please withhold common sense methods, that do nothing but distract shooters and would cause irreparable harm to the entire shooting community.

Perhaps you just forgot that common sense, is uncommon in today's America.

Do not feel to badly, we are all guilty of this same slip once in a vary great while.

Please do not feel this post was in anyway, in other than given in any spirit, but of the most gentlemanly sort! 

Right after I got my Nikon Sky and Earth 80mm 20 to 60x, I was spotting a bud shooting his new .20cal BR, at 200 yds That was a good test.

I spotted all his shots that got to the target even in the black, and the Nikon was only about 450 bucks or so.

A scope is only as good as the last lens it goes through and that is the atmosphere.

To an earlier reply;

THere's nothing magic about the Kowa's. Yes, they're good glass... and "everyone" uses them in Highpower Rifle (and probably other sports also).
There are other scopes that are mighty fine glass too.

I have a (discontinued) Mirador fixed 28x that spots holes up with the Kowa TSN821...
A guy I shoot with has a Nikon 60mm (I think) that is some of the clearest glass I've ever seen... I think he has a 24x fixed, but he can spot holes in lousy mirage when we can't see s***.

Sure, you MOSTLY get what you pay for... I wouldn't expect a $150 scope to be quite as good as a $950 Kowa... But there ARE some scopes in the sub $300 range that are quite a bit better than you might expect FOR THE MONEY.  We put a new Konus next to a Kowa TSN-1 and were quite impressed by the Konus... and the Konus cost $189.
Sure, this is all anecdotal.... but I've stopped jumping to conclusions about "cheaper" scopes before I have the chance to look through them.

I agree with the premise that a good objective side by side test is important to be able to accurately judge a scope. One scope one day, and another the next isn't going to tell a guy how the two scopes compare, only how they did on their respective days.
The "reading text" test would be good as a measure of resolution.   

IMHO of course..
Paul F.

Quote:

It started, for me, on the MSN BPCR forum. It's running there, on the CBA forum, and on Cast Boolits forum, and here. So I guess that's four. As usual, the Cast Boolits forum has helpful posters, and not so many critics/experts as there are here. Anyhow;
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. Note that the right hand of the three targets is composed of lines of print. Nyah, nyah!!
I downloaded these into a .pdf file as recommended, and printed the AF target. It certainly looks good to me.
Thanks, Steven, I'll keep working on it.
Anyone willing to do some testing, please make a copy of the AF target, and try it out. Record the scope make and model and power, and the light conditions, for now 
Bright, Sunny
Cloudy
Dark, overcast
Thanks;
joe b.
PS, someone her said he owned a Unertl Team Scope. Wuould you be willing to run a test to give us a benchmark?
Thanks again;
joe b.

4227, I'm hoping that we can spend more time together @ E-G this year rather than missing each other as we did last time.  I should be there for the whole gig this year.  Maybe we can get together on the end and set up a "stop by and take a peek" stand with a couple of scope stands to compare other folks scopes side by side with the "Unertl Gold Standard."  In spite of protestations to the contrary side by side would be the most valid and easily judged comparison.  JMHO, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it! 

Froggie

Boats, the varibles I was talking about are induced varibles that you want to avoid in you test setups not the scopes.

You sure have an open invitation to it's use. I like the idea of anyone that is looking for a scope to be able to look through as many scopes as possible.

I live at the foot of a mountain, with mountains all around. Many times folks come to the house and get into comparing binos, rifle scopes.

It's sure been interesting how peoples minds change about what they think was really good before the side X side comparison. 

I was told by a fellow that shot a lot of magazine cover photos one time, that a truly great lens is one that cuts through the haze. I've never found his words to be untrue. 

Spotting Scope Testing
Nov. 7, 2007
The bidding to date:
Jesse Miller, 11/2/07, responding to my message. Jesse is a retired eye doctor.

Joe:  Several factors to consider:
    The brightness of the paper may have some effect.
    Mirage and the other factors you listed all may at times have an effect on the results.
    Also, yes the eyesight of the person doing the testing will affect the results. People with eyesight problems will not score any scope as highly as a person with good eyesight.
    So I will recommend that all of the afore mentioned conditions be recorded with the results.
    It would seem to me that the tests should only be done when two or more scopes can be tested at the same time under the same conditions. This would work even better if two people can independently test the same scopes. This whole thing will require some cross referencing, or maybe quite a bit. The more data you can get the more definitive your results will be.
    One way to tighten the controls would be to use a limited number of testers and then have them test a number of scopes at the same time, under the same conditions. 
    Hope this is a help. Jess.

I made a test target with a sentence in Times New Roman, sizes of  72, 48, 36, 24, 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 11 and 10 points. These are the sizes available on my computer.

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. 
I downloaded these into a .pdf file as recommended, and printed the AF target. It certainly looks good to me.

On Nov. 7, 2007 we did some testing.

     First, the 72 to 10 type script target doesn't work. The problem is that there's nothing between 36 and 24 point, and some of us needed another choice.

     Second, three people lied during the testing.
(This is one of my strongest interests and research subjects: the lies/inaccuracies and their invisibility to researchers.)
     I explained how to do the tests for both targets.
     Get focused on the target.
     Fiddle with the power if variable, get where it looks the best.
For the type script, 72 to 10 point target, tell me the smallest line you can comfortably read. 
For the AF target, tell me the smallest target on which you can see the bars and white spaces between. I had a copy of the AF target in hand for them to point at.
Two testers claimed to be able to read the 24 point line, one read it as ">>>27 point", the other as "....21 point", and I queried them. 
I lied to myself, claiming that I could read the 24 point line.
I KNOW it isn't a competition, the other testers know. We have this "compete" gene.

Here are the results, after explanation and negotiation:

Bright and sunny conditions

B&L 20X, 36 point, #6 on the 3rd largest set, John
Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, 36 point, #6 of the 3rd largest set, Tony
Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, 36 point, #5 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.
30X STS, 36 point, #4 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.
30X STS, 36 point, #5 of the 3rd largest set, Tony
20X Bushnell Sentry, 36 point, #4 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.
Kowa TSN821, 27X, 36 point, #5 of the 4th largest set, Raoul
(The Kowa was in one of those blankies, Raoul isn't real good at English. I read "TSN821" off the scope, there may be more info under the blankie.)
This is an imposition on people at the range, responses varied from "sure" to "no".
     Nobody even claimed to be able to read script smaller than 24 point, nobody could read 24 point, some fibbed but were caught.
My script target is out. I'd like another script target with finer graduations in sizes, and different words-to catch the guessers.      

Anyone willing to do some testing, please make a copy of the AF target, and try it out. Record the scope make and model and power, and the light conditions, for now, are:
 
Bright and Sunny
Cloudy
Dark and overcast

Thanks;
joe b.

Yeah.. after all, no conclusions he prints after putting in the time to collate the data could POSSIBLY be useful to anyone else, right?

Paul F.

We need a symbol for scratching of the head, or maybe I'm all alone, and the only one that doesn't get it?

Quote:


Tom;
Most everything I do in the gun business has to do with writing down experience and experimental results in a public location for all to access. 
The first edition of "Cast Bullets For Beginner And Expert" was ~100 pages, and was published by the CBA.
The second edition was completed in May. 
Times have changed.
The second edition, ~500 pages, with ERRATA = everything we've written since May, is available at (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links), in FILES, free for all, no copyright. Readers must sign in, but that's no chore.
The book is available on CD for $5, and in a hard copy for $27. Delivered. This after months of work by Dave Goodrich and Todd Wolf getting it into .pdf format and so that it worked at cafepress. Thank God for those guys, they not only had opinions, they wrote articles for the book and actually HELPED.   
We've offered John Merz anything in the book to be printed in the Journal; I've sent John a CD. Our deal with John is that if he prints an article, and if he's paying for articles, then the $$ goes to Rudi for the archives.
I sent Rudi a CD and a print copy.
The cost of the CD and the book is slightly less than the price. All records are open. All excess money from CD and hard copy sales will go to Rudi for the archives. 
So, Tom, yes it's leading somewhere, and yes I want free research, and yes, it's for an article I plan to write unless I can get somebody else to ramrod this project.
Thank you for your interest.
joe brennan

Shooter, JoeB has had problems with this board in the past. I agree that he is attempting something very commendable; he usually is, whenever he asks us and others for help. And I don't believe he's in danger of making any personal big bux out of this or any of his other quests.

But I hafta agree with you about his approach. I spent lots of years counting various kinds of beans in the nucular bidness, and have been repeatedly confronted with the obdurate attitudes of some desk-bound 'experts', but sometimes JoeB's approach is mystifying even to me.

'Apples to apples' is the term I remember from my salad days, which is merely one way of saying that any proper experiment will allow only one variable at a time; everything else must remain the same if the data is to be useful in any meaningful way. This automatically eliminates any variable except the scopes, in any test, meaning that even if the paper and ink and size and definition was exactly the same, you still have the unquantified variables of individual eyesight and optical conditions at various times and locations.

Ain't no way to overcome those two variables except by comparing scope against scope side by side with the same viewer under the same conditions. Enough of these comparisons will yield a ranking, ultimately, if enough data are correlated and reported properly.

Anything else is, IMO, a pipe dream.
Good luck JoeB, Joe

I was very hesitant to post anything about this being the  "new guy"  but I've been in the "game" many, many years and could see the mistakes being made.  Like J. D. Steele said,  there are more than enough variables that cant be controlled such as individual eyesight,  optical conditions at various times and locations, etc., certain things like that can not be controlled, but when you have the opportunity to set a control such as Paper it should be done, if for no other reason than to eliminate as much as possible a variable. 

The real bottom line is what 3sixbits and some others have said,  it's up to the individuals eye as to how good he or she sees something,  every year at the Camp Perry National Championships many of the new spotting scopes are set up side by side by some of the vendors on commercial row,  you can look at things from 50 yds out to 1000 yds., if a shooter is that serious about a spotting scope they should do all the homework it takes and get to places like Camp Perry, take a look at what's there and buy what works for them. Of course I realize that not everyone can make the trip to Camp Perry so this test would be the next best thing, if it was carried out with the least amount of variables.
  Shooter

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
 
 

Quote:

I think it's way too early for me to conclude anything. I find it interesting that the Konus, Kowa and Bushnell were so close.
I've had the Bushnell Sentry for many years, shot offhand at 200 yards in the winter league for many years, looked through any available scope during those years, and never found a BIG difference. The Bushnell allowed me to see most 30 caliber holes in the black at 200 years in often cloudy to dark conditions.
I don't know how to translate the resolution target into bullet-hole-seeing ability.
I'm starting to think that side-by-side testing is a problem, it's hard to get set up and focused and comfortable with a spotting scope.
The mount or tripod is a big problem, specially in the wind. I'm working on a better design for mounting on a bench. I think the "point" mount of a screw is part of the problem.
Still getting tests from others.
joe b.

Some time back there was a discussion of spotting scopes on C. Hamilton's CB-L, and Tom Slater impressed me and us with his iknowledge of telescopes and optics. I corresponded with Tom and asked him to write an article on spotting scopes for the book. He agreed, but unfortunately passed away recently. 
One can find and read the whole discussion on the CB-L in the archives. I've gone there and have selected and copied and edited a bit, and here is what I ended up with. Everything below, declarative, by Tom Slater.   
     



I can easily spot .22 cal holes at 200 yards with any of my Unertl 24X scopes. A guess....20X would work for spotting .22 holes. Naked eye conditions.... 20 X .22" = 4.4" and I think a 4.4" hole would be naked eye visible at 200 yards.
C-90 Celestron.... perhaps the finest 90mm spotting scope on the market today. It is the Maksutov Cassegrain design and compares favorably to the $7000 Questar.
Hello List: (the subject of spotting scopes comes up often)
I have posted many replies on spotting scopes, and scopes in general, because I deal with so many of them and repair my own scopes. No, I don't grind lenses but, over the years, have learned to replace/repair crosshairs, reticules, elevation/windage tubes and those itsy-bitsy threaded components in the elevation/windage controls. Hey folks, it ain't rocket science. Those scopes were built by mortals, just like you and I, and any one of you can repair a scope. All it takes is attention to detail and a few dollars worth of small tools, most of which tools you can make yourself.
What do those numbers mean on optical things? On a conventional spotting scope the likes of Zeiss, Nikon, Burris, Pentax, Kowa etc....
These scopes are often, (usually), listed with a number that is supposed to be meaningful, like a 65, or an 80 or 90 or some such. This number is the diameter, in millimeters, of the objective lens element at the front of the telescope. Rather than call the lens elements something
like "front lens diameter" & "eyepiece lens diameter" manufacturers like to try to impress you with the words "objective" and "ocular." Oh well, it makes them feel important. The first number is often followed by another set of numbers which is somewhat intuitive, like 16-36X, or 20-48X, which represent the magnification range. Almost all modern spotting scopes are equipped with zoom eyepieces which is indicated by the range of numbers in this number series. Fairly straightforward.
But what is the significance of the first number? That silly 65, or 80 or 90, and sometimes even 100? --->The bigger the number the more light the optical system can gather is the significance!<--- A 65mm front opening is fine for daylight target and game spotting but will fall on it's face when the light is fading. The person with a 90mm scope will be able to effectively spot game long after you are headed to camp. And the person with a 100mm spotting scope will be able to use that scope effectively for astronomical observing, but a 100mm scope is getting big, sorta seriously big. (I have a 100mm Celestron spotting scope and it requires 28" of storage space and a stout tripod for use.) If you will be using your spotting scope under fading light to spot game avoid the smallest 'objective' openings like 50mm, 60mm and 65mm and go for the 75mm or 80mm.
And what in hades is that thing called "focal length"? That is the overall length from the front lens element of a telescope to the point that the image is formed at the eyepiece. This number is not generally listed for conventional spotting scopes. But this number will be listed for any scope that utilizes interchangeable eyepieces and is a vital number. When you are armed with the telescope focal length, and the focal length of any eyepiece, you can calculate system magnification. Let's say you have a 400mm focal length telescope and place a 40mm eyepiece in the holder. The overall system magnification would be 10X because system magnification is determined by dividing the focal length of the telescope by the focal length of the eyepiece. In this case it is 400/40 = 10X. In another case, starting with the same telescope, we might have 400mm telescope focal length divided by a 32mm eyepiece focal length. 400/32 = 12.5X. A 28mm eyepiece would supply 400/28 = 14X Figuring out focal lengths and magnifications can be confusing so if you have a problem please email me and we will solve that riddle somehow.
Names and preferences: Any of you that have followed my posts on spotting scopes are aware that I prefer catadioptric telescopes. Huh? Whatthehadesisthatword? Catadioptric = "folded light path" and is found in two common telescope designs, the Schmidt Cassegrain and the Maksutov Cassegrain telescopes, the SCT and the MCT. These two telescopes utilize a primary mirror to gather light and this mirror is at the back of the telescope. The light from the
primary mirror is reflected back to the front of the telescope where it strikes the secondary mirror.
The light from the secondary mirror is again sent toward the back of the telescope where it goes through the center of the primary mirror and is reflected by a flat mirror into an eyepiece. Complicated, huh?

Tom,
I need a spotting scope. What would you recommend?

Any magnification above ~60X can be difficult to use because of thermal instabilities in the air. Everything is fine until ~9:00 a.m. and then your next look seems like the view through lobster stew. At high noon in New Mexico, (or around Houston, TX), it is nearly impossible to use 16X because of this air instability problem.
I have no interest in 'Hands on Optics' but use this merchant for all my optical needs. It is run by a competent bunch of people that truly stand behind the products they sell. Gary Hand, and his wife Sherry, are good people.
My preference in a "conventional" spotting scope is a Celestron shown here...
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
A series of scopes from Meade is also part of the stock at 'Hands' and shown
here.... (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
And these are Maksutov Cassegrain Telescope, (MCT), type and will require additional eyepieces for different magnifications. I own and use a Meade ETX125 Astronomical Telescope on a fork drive and have found it to give good performance. It does not match the contrast and sharpness of a LOMO, but nothing else will.
Now we will take a look at Pentax spotters but sheeesh are they expensive!
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) And note the Pentax eyepieces shown in this section. Pentax eyepieces are what I use for astronomical observing. Pentax eyepieces are
considered the finest in the world.
You want a Zeiss? Arguably nothing
finer..... (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
And last but not least the lowly LOMO that I enjoy and use. Ultimately, my all-around
spotters and astronomical telescopes. I do not have any LOMO on any type of astronomical 'drive' so I must touch up the position of any of these telescopes to track objects in the heavens. Again, I absolutely >>defy<< anyone to show my finer optics in any MCT type telescope. (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) The handiest size of the bunch is the "Astele 70" which is ~6" long and 3" dia. And honesty is best here because it will be necessary to purchase different eyepieces for different magnifications. But do not discard the little "Astele 60" because it is not as pretty as some of the larger scopes. I do not own a 60 but have used one at the 'Hands on' shop and found it gives superb views.
Now let's talk about eyepieces. The simple 'Plossl' eyepiece will do everything that you could ever want and is commonly available for ~$25 and sometimes a little bit less. As long as you stay at 12mm and longer, (bigger number), they eye relief is, (how close your eye must be to the eyepiece), is very adequate. At 9mm eyepiece focal length with a 'Plossl' your eyelashes will begin to touch the eyepiece and most people find this annoying.
Go here for a look at the used market. I purchase many items from this site. It is a great service to hobby optical users. (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Or simply visit (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) for a complete list of many items offered by 'Anacortes Telescope and Wild Bird' under their 'astromart' banner. Select the 'Classifieds' tab and it will take you to a list of bunches of categories.
Why don't I recommend a Kowa? I have absolutely nothing against that fine spotter but feel they are overpriced, just like a Pentax or a Zeiss. If you have your heart set on a
conventional spotting scope you won't go wrong with Kowa, Pentax, Zeiss and the like,
but I would recommend a 'Celestron' as my preference in a conventional style. I am not putting down the Kowa, Pentax, etc.....I simply feel that there are complete equals, and a few superior
products, on the market for less money. I can quickly convert other shooters to 'Celestron' or
'LOMO' products by giving them a look through what I use. When other shooters look through my tiny LOMO 70mm MCT the next question is always "where can I get one of these?"
You asked about the mirrors. I have never seen a problem with the mirrors in any of the products I use, but optical mirrors must be treated with care. An optical mirror is a 'first surface' mirror and unless you pay for 'dielectric' coating, (verrry expensive), the mirrored surface is unprotected. Any attempt to clean an unprotected 'first surface' mirror will result in disaster. Use only >>>clean, dry<<< compressed air to remove dust from 'first surface' mirrors.
And don't turn down a trip to Cabela's to check their stock. I have visited the Cabela's
stores in Dundee, Michigan and Wheeling, West Virginia and have seen some great bargains in spotters at their optical counters. A $120 Browning spotter is good stuff. Oh yeah, Burris has some good equipment also. Check Cabela's.



Russian optics
The very smallest LOMO scopes have a non-removable eyepiece built in.
A fair price comparison must include one additional eyepiece for ~$25. I have an assortment of over 50 different eyepieces, (worse than collecting guns), and use only 3 of them on a regular basis. And the same 3 eyepieces are used in all 5 telescopes, including the 14"
Celestron.
Is the LOMO line tough enough for outdoor mountain work? I have watched Jim Cheng drop his 95mm LOMO on the floor at "Hands on Optics" on three different occasions. LOMO scopes are built like tanks! A Questar MCT telescope is built with 1/16" aluminum tube, the 95mm LOMO is built with 1/4" aluminum tube.

The 1951 USAF resolution target

The smaller -1

Joe i drive down to the target-take a look pat my own back and go home to the shootin house.