First off, I want to make it clear that my intent in posting this is not to seek advice for myself.  But if you have VALUABLE advice to offer for readers, I’m sure it will be welcomed.  I’ve done the research and have narrowed the decision down to two, possibly three scopes and thought I’d share the information.

So, to start and based on comments from several experience shooters, I decided on a scope with at least an 80mm objective lens, preferring 100mm if possible.  True or not, the general consensus was, a spotting scope with at least an 80mm objective lens was required to provide sufficient light gathering to successfully see and determine the changes in the mirage.  In addition I set a maximum budget of $500, hopefully less (not including a tripod).  Hence, my budget eliminated higher priced models from suppliers such as: Leica, Zeiss, Nightforce, Leupold, Kowa, Vortex and even Vanguard, leaving a couple of 100mm scope suppliers (Celestron Ultima 100 #52252, 22-66x100mm, Konus (Konuspot 100) #7122, 20-60x100mm) and several 80mm suppliers including the Bushnell LEGEND ULTRA, HD 20-60x 80mm 45°, with BaK-4 prisms and ED (Extra-Low Dispersion) glass.  In my estimation it’s the highest quality of the ones I considered.  BTW, having used spotting scopes with straight eyepieces and 45 degree angled eyepieces, I prefer an angled eyepiece and the ability to rotate the scope on the tripod mount to use for both offhand and prone.  As an example, the Leupold 20-60x80mm SX1 Ventana did not make the list since it cannot be rotated on the tripod mount.

The Celestron #52252 is around $260, the Konus approximately $300 and the Bushnell Legend is listed on Amazon for $435.  Other than the size of the objective lens and glass/light transmission quality, all three have almost identical specification.  All are waterproof, have identical eye relief (a concern since I wear glasses) & the weights are very close.  The exit pupil is determined by the magnification & objective lens diameter, therefore the 100mm scopes have a slight advantage.  If I was a “birder” and very accurate color transmission was of high importance for viewing and photography, I’d pick the Bushnell Legend or even a more expensive scope with HD (High Density) extra-low dispersion glass & BaK-4 prisms.  But in my estimation, for BPCR target shooting, the Celestron & Konus models discussed are more than adequate for the task.  BTW, all have lifetime warranties. 

Wayne 

I have a Konuspot 100.  I wanted the angled eyepiece, and all the light gathering ability for seeing bullet holes in targets at the maximum distances possible.  Can see them on a standard WSU Scheutzen target at 300 meters if the mirage isn't bad and of course a Shoot-N-C is good for at least another 100.

On the cheapo scope I have (and still use sometimes) I can't do any good dialing the magnification up beyond about 30 power, even though the eyepiece goes up to 60.  The magnification happens, but the resolving power is not there; the image looks like a grainy newspaper photo, even without the mirage effect.  On the Konus, I can get up to almost 40 before the diminishing returns kick in.  Bullet holes are all about resolving power, and superior resolving power costs big bucks.  No way around it, you must pay.

It is a big heavy mother, though. The tripod supplied with it is barely adequate for a shooting bench out of the wind.  I'm trying to fit it to a Freeland scope stand and find the thing will overcome the friction nut holding it horizontal and it will dip down independently of the vertical adjustment at the wrong moments.  It also needs weight on the base so the scope doesn't tip over.  I added the weight but need to get in there and block it up so it can't sag down.  It's definitely a good enough scope to be worth buying a good tripod for, one that doesn't shiver in the breeze.  I have a bigger tripod I will adapt it to also; hopefully that will solve that problem.  I have a gun cart with room for hauling stuff around, so it isn't as much of a problem as it would be if I had a small shooting box.

For silhouette it is probably overkill as one can see dust puffs around and splatters on the targets with a much more compact scope.  It's basically what you need and what you are willing to trade off and put up with.  I can't see that the optics in scopes have any better resolving power than the Konus until they're up near the $1000 mark.

Here's what I think, and can't prove any of it.

Spotting the # 1 factor is objective lens size. Larger the better. # 2 is mounting must be solid. 3 is lack of complication, variable the worst offender, LER & angled less so and may be worth loss of resolution to obtain usability. 

Beyond these 3 quality of the lens is what you are buying. Some of the less expensive Asian Scopes can be very good but, my experience has been they vary from individual to individual. More expensive scopes are more likely to resolve well, no doubt due to quality control. 

Last and a theory I can't prove is a link between power and objective lens size. Too much power can overwhelm a smaller objective lens. Ratios in well known good performers is a good guide. Kowa 27x77 mm Unertl, 24x63 mm, many older scopes 20x50mm.

Boats

Buy the best you can afford and pay once. I like Kowa.
Kurt

Burris Landmark is the best spotting scope for the money, by far.  According to Midway, it has been discontinued, if so, its too bad. You can spot a .22 hole at 200 yds with it which is all we need. Joe S

Being a "new" BPCR shooter that needed a spotting scope just to let his bum eyes see hits when scoring, and also 32-44 caliber holes on paper at 200M, and various other uses, I took a friends advice and got a variable with "smaller" lens diameter. For me it has worked great for all uses I have. I really get little advantage from using "best" spotting scope.

At BPCR shoots the limiting factor is mirage, not resolution or brightness of my Leupold Ventura 16-45X60mm, at least in "hot" weather (above 25C). Given all my degraded and malfunctioning body parts, this scope is as much or more than I can use for what shooting I can still do. Do wish I had better scope on my rifles, better triggers too -- but even those may not provide much better scores.

Grisen

I was all set to buy a Konus 100 spotting scope because I had looked through one at 200 metres and could see 22 bullet holes in the black or in the case of my club in the red.
Then a Leica 20 to 60 Televid 77 has come up on line locally. Looks in good nick and I was wondering if this Leica was the way to go as at the moment it is only a few hundred dollars more than a new Konus 100.
Anybody used one of these?

Well that Leica spotting scope went for well over a thousand dollars and I didn't want to spend that sort of money if I couldn't see 22 bullets holes with it at 200 metres.
I had years ago a Swarovski 20 to 40 rubber armoured draw tube spotting scope for spotting in the mountains that was ok for seeing bullet holes in the white of a target but not in the black at 200 metres so I sold it when I was too old to climb mountains any more and didn't want to repeat this with this Leica. Which was why I asked if anybody had used this model.
So back to the big 100 Konus spotting scope purchase for a lot less money.
I also tried the binocular way with a 20 power Konus thinking two eyes are better than one but it was not successful.
Perhaps tired old eyes didn't help.