Hi fellas,
I'm not sure which section to ask this question, but I thought I'd try here first. My shooting range only allows paper targets and the 100-200yd range is all hill and valley. It's getting harder and harder for me to walk back and forth checking my targets without sliding/falling down one of the hills. With budget in mind, which optic size scope and maybe which brand would work for me? I'm not a competitor except against myself! I'd be happy with a used one as long as it works. I know squat about optics.

Any assistance would be appreciated and if this is in the wrong place, please forgive me.

Thank you!!!
Dave in PA

You can spend hundreds to thousands for a spotting scope. I bought this one, which works just fine for 100-200 yard shooting. Good scope for what you pay IMO. The tripod is kind of cheap, but you can get a much better one for about $25.
This one is currently out of stock, but the one below is essentially the same scope for the same price.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020449785?pid=748850

__________________
What could possibly go wrong?

A friend of mine is a big Athlon fan and the spotting scope above looks like a lot of scope for the money.

I am a Vortex fan for many reasons but a big one is because of the lifetime warranty, but looking at Midway, the cheapest Vortex is $400. My shooting buddy and I split the cost on this one, Vortex Optics Viper HD Spotting Scope 20-60x 85mm Angled Body. At our local range we can shoot to 565 yds and it is easy to see hits and misses with the clarity of it.

My experience with cheap spotting scopes is that they work great until they don't. They tend to be fragile. If I were trying to stay on a cheaper budget, I would look for an older, nice spotting scope, maybe a Bausch & Lomb or similar, rather than buying a new, super cheap scope.

Tim

__________________
SWCA #3463
SWHF #970

I have the angled version of the Leupold SX-2 HD 20-60x80 spotting scope. Great optics, smooth focusing, durable, and priced around $429.



It’s priced about the same as the similar sized Vortex Diamond Back, but it has much better focusing and optics and is on par with the Vortex Viper series scope in the similar 20-60x85mm format. I don’t recommend the Vortex Diamond Back series to anyone.


——

A really good tripod and a smooth tripod head is vital to making a good performing spotting scope truly usable. Don’t skimp on quality and get one rated for at least 2-3 times over the actual weight of your scope.

I rarely have the opportunity to shoot over 200 yards at a range, and almost all of that is in broad daylight. I've had a Tasco variable for over 20 years. If on a bench, I have a simple 6" 3 leg tripod. If sitting in a chair, spotting for someone else, I just use a basic camera tripod.
Now if you want a spotting scope for spotting game at hundreds of yards out west, that warrants hundreds or thousands of dollars. Simple close range target work out to 200 for sighting, $100 spotting scopes will do it all day long.
And I'm not a cheap scope guy. My hunting and target guns have a minimum of Leupold VX2. Most have VX3 or 4's. There's a big difference between squeezing the last few minutes out of an end of season twilight hunt and sighting in on a bright Saturday.

__________________
Chris
SWCA #2243 SWHF #292

Thanks everyone, very much. Is a Herter 20 60x60 scope any good and would it suit my needs for target shooting 100-200yds?
Dave

Thats why I am a Leupold guy and are on all of my guns. They really perform well with low light conditions.

I need a spotting scope myself,wonder if Leopold spotting scopes are great in low light also.

I have found that my best bang for my buck is used quality optics from a manufacturer with a lifetime warranty. I am on several firearm forums, and check the classified frequently. I know a deal, and I know a steal. Always have been happy. And some red dot manufacturers offer lifetime warranties as well. Most don't.

__________________
NRA RSO

I am a CRO at my local club and Vortex spotting scopes dominate.

Leupold makes a great scope for the money as well.

A scope that I think very highly of and has not been mentioned is the Konus line of spotting scopes. They make a 20-60x80 angled eyepiece scope that is surprisingly good.

Are looking to see .22 caliber holes at 100-200 yards? Many will do that on the 100 yard range, few will do that at 200 yards and they will cost in the thousands of dollars range.

Much of it will depend on how much you want to invest.

Randy

I bought a Bushnell 20-60 but returned it as the glass was spotty.
So I bought a Weaver T36 which sits on a tripod as well as the No.1V 223 Rem and one of the 6920s.
Okay for .224s to see at 100yds but have not tried it at 200yds.

Great for indoor smallbore as it works at 50'.

Will take it to a park and have the Mrs hold a target with various bullet holes at 150 and 200 when time permits.

Attached Images

BCACB630-D4FE-4BB2-B7FF-DDADB27B499F.jpg (118.0 KB, 39 views)

__________________
Have Fun/Stay Safe

I've heard good things multiple times about Konus scopes.

__________________
NRA RSO

I use a Celestron Ultima 20-60x80mm. It's OK, for a $300 scope. Good enough optics that I can see .22 holes at 100 yards, .30 cal holes at 200 yards, and 4 of Jupiter's moons, at 400 million miles.

__________________
George

200 yards isn't really that far and a good quality high magnification rifle scope is often enough to see bullet holes. If you're shooting a small bore rifle and it's overcast, you'll want a quality spotting scope.

You can find good deals on used ones, but it really helps to know the market. I've owned a Leupold 12-40x60, a 24X Unertl, a variable Bausch & Lomb, an older Bushnell Trophy and a collapsible Swarovski 30X.

I sold off the Leupold and Unertl after I picked up a used Kowa TSN-821 with a 20-60X eyepiece. The optics are superb and I can easily spot .22 caliber holes at 200 meters. It's too big for field use, which is why I kept the Swarovski. The Unertl probably had the next best optics, but the collector value was pretty high and the Kowa is a lot nicer.

If you belong to a club, see what other shooters are using and ask if you can view targets with their scopes. Most shooters are very accommodating and you'll quickly notice the difference.



The Unertl:



This is an old photo showing the Leupold and the Swarovski.

Attached Images

	6FD24DE5-20EF-41F0-8000-EF53195A92BB.jpg (40.4 KB, 297 views)
	IMG_2341.jpg (47.1 KB, 298 views)

__________________
"I also cook."

I have the Athlon Talos 20-60x80 and have had it a couple of years. No issues and it does the job adequately. It’s not a Zeiss by any means but it works and has held up. Like many cheaper optics there are some chromatic aberrations resulting in a little purple fringing around high contrast details. High refractive index glass in more expensive scopes corrects that problem.

I was a professional photographer for 55 years and have several really good tripods. The first thing I did when I received my scope was toss the terrible tripod and mount it in a good one. With a cheap tripod you’re likely to dump your scope on the ground and you’ll be fighting it constantly.

For longer distance 22 cal or any cal for that matter I use splatter targets and have no problem seeing the holes.

Excellent summary!!! In addition, to the size of the hole you need to consider the target color - IMO.
A black background & a small hole is tough at 200 yds even with some of the higher end scopes.
I've been a range safety officer at our club for 20 years and investing in a
better scope is a good idea if you shoot a lot.

Thanks millions, fellas!!! I sincerely appreciate the comments and assistance. I usually shoot 100yds. with a caliber as small as a .22 or .223. After reading all the posts, I think I should look for a decent used scope with a fair price. I usually shoot pistols at 20yds, only my rifles on occasion at the 100yd., and I don't hunt. So, that's why I don't know that much about optics. I used to just climb the hills and valleys numerous times at the 100yd., but with failing eyes and not-so-steady legs now, one trip to hang the target and a second to collect it is hazardous enough. I'll look around for some of the brands you all suggested to see if I can find a used one I want to afford.
Dave

How about a Gorsky with an 80mm zoom, 20-60x80? Would that work for me at 100yds?

I recently purchased an Athlon Ares spotting scope, and I've been very pleased with the quality of the glass. It's on the more expensive end of 'bargain' stuff, but nowhere near 'high end' optics. They have a slightly less expensive Argos line that's under $300 for a 20-60x85.



As noted above, a good tripod is essential, and I like a 45 deg eyepiece for bench work.

I have the Leupold SX-2 HD as mentioned above.

Low light performance depends on a few things.

1) Objective lens diameter.

Objective lens diameter along with lens quality is what determines resolution of the scope and diameter along with light gathering ability. An 80mm scope has 5,027 sq mm of surface area, while a 60mm scope has just 2,827 sq mm. That extra 20mm of objective lens diameter almost doubles the surface area and the amount of light it can gather.

2) Lens coatings.

Lens coatings make a huge difference. There may be 6-7 lenses in the average spotting scope and each uncoated lens surface can reflect about 10% of the light passing through it. In other words, you might only get around 25% of the original light passing through a “coated” lens scope.

“Fully coated” is better as it means each lens surface is coated. However, a single coating will only be optimized for a single wavelength of light.

What you want are “fully multicoated” lenses.

Even then the quality of the coatings will vary. For sample Leupold has the “advanced optical system” in tje SX-2 while the SX-4 has the “elite optical system”. (They also have a “professional grade optical system”.) Most of the difference with the SX-4 is the ED (extremely low dispersion) glass that reduces chromatic aberration***, but some of it might be a minor improvement in the lens coatings.

I’ve tried to find the light transmission numbers for the various systems and can’t. But even several years ago, Leupold’s standard lens coatings were 98.5 efficient. 1.5% loss through each of 10 lens surfaces is still going to give about 87% light through put. If you bump that up to 99.5% efficiency then the throughput rises to 95% with 10 lens surfaces. Is 8% more light worth the extra gouge? That’s for you to decide. On a small 60mm scope that is already low light challenged, it might be. But their lack of published numbers reflects the fact that their “advanced” coatings are probably very efficient already and the juice might not be worth the squeeze for anything higher performing.

3) Exit pupil.

Exit pupil is a function of objective lens diameter and magnification.

Let’s say you are looking at three scopes:

10-40x40mm
20-60x60mm
20-60x80mm

At 20x the 40mm scope will have an exit pupil of 2mm. (40/20=2). That will work fine on a bright sunny day, where your pupil diameter is only 2mm or so. But in low light where your pupil may be 4mm in diameter that small exit pupil will only partially illuminate the fovea (the part that sees fine detail) in your retina. The result will be an image that appears dark and grainy.

The 60mm scope will have a 3mm exit pupil at 20x, and the 80mm scope will have a 4 mm exit pupil.

In low light, with the 80mm scope, with your pupil at 4mm you’ll still be using all of your available retina and will get an image that appears much brighter and sharper. In other words, the best lens coatings in the world won’t do much for you of the objective lens and magnification are creating an exit pupil that is too small to fully illuminate your eye under those low light conditions.


*** I mentioned chromatic aberration above and what that means in a spotting scope will be some purple fringing around very bright objects. For example I might be looking at a bright white water tower a mile away and see a faint purple halo around the edges, but usually only at higher magnifications above 40x on my 20-60x80mm scope. Chromatic abberation won’t bother most users and they will only notice it on objects like that.

Theoretically the images won’t be as sharp as the different wavelengths of red, blue and green light will come to focus at three slightly different focal lengths, so focus is always a compromise. But in a 40 to 80mm spotting scope it will not be the limiting factor. In my 6” refractor out in the back yard, it’s a bigger deal.

———

The larger objective lens also means that you can use more of the maximum magnification in the available light. Buy the 10-20x40mm scope and you’ll rarely use more than 15x before the image starts to get dimmer and grainier. With the 60mm scope you’ll have 20-25x that’s actually useable on the average day. With the 80mm scope you’ll be using 30x with the same relative brightness and clarity as the 40mm guy at 15x and the 60mm guy at 23x.

In other words, the large objective is also getting you both more results on and more useable magnification in addition to better low light performance.

From that perspective, when low light performance matters, spend the money on a larger objective rather than the latest and greatest lens coatings (above a certain point).


——

I have an observatory in the back yard and I’m a bit of an optics snob, but I went with the Leupold SX-2 Alpine 20-60x80mm.

It’s been an excellent spotting scope, with great color transmission, great image sharpness, great low light performance, smooth, precise focusing and comfortable eye relief.

^^^^
Love the scope's choreography in the Leupold video for the scope you like.
Can you see .224 bullet holes at 200yds?
Gave all my binocs to the kids in Colorado so I might get one.

On the Ocean gyro stabilized are necessary and are $$$$.

Thx,
RT

__________________
Have Fun/Stay Safe

IMHO, best deal out there is usually an older KOWA TSN-1. There are plenty of different scope stands, but you want to get one with a one inch pole. You can't go cheap with optics. Cheap optics are useless.

__________________
NRA Golden Eagle, SWCA

Wonder if the Leupold SX-4 20-60x85mm might be a bit better?
Anyone familiar with both?

Thx,
RT

__________________
Have Fun/Stay Safe

I’m another Konus scope fan. I have the Konus 100, 20-60x100 and I can see everything very clearly at our 300 yd range, down to 22 caliber. Mine cost a little more than $200 about 15 years ago, and current prices look to be about 300, so still a reasonable balance of utility and price. I do casual shooting , but have used it for high power matches and never was hurting for seeing my results. So for me it still meets all my relatively modest needs and has lasted me very well.

Hi! Let me muddy the waters.

I have shot "across the course" since 1988 until my accident in 2007. When I started, I was using an (inexpensive at that time) Celeston spotting scope. I think it was either 1991 or 1992 that I purchased a Kowa TS601 with a 20x eyepiece. It still serves me well, even though it gets little use since I use my rifle scope in F class matches.

With the 20x eyepiece, I can generally see: most bullet traces out to 1000 yards, 30 cal bullet holes at 300 yards, and if back-lit, 22 cal bullets out to 200 yards. Typically, I've never had an issue with seeing spotting disks out to 1000 yards. Now that many of the ranges that I frequent have gone to electronic scoring, my spotting scope is collecting dust.

If I were you, I'd look into a used Kowa scope.

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

For spotting bullet holes up to 200 yards, many of the less expensive (not rock-bottom cheap) scopes are adequate. Beyond 200 yards, the higher priced scopes are far better. I'm not an optics maestro and don't know all the terminology, but I use a spotting scope a couple of times a week and have for years.

A cheap scope with a 60X zoom may prove worthless when cranked up to 45X or 60X at 200 yards. Even without mirage, the image may be very blurry and distorted. There is probably a technical term for this, but a cheap scope is the real problem.

I bought an inexpensive new Bushnell Spacemaster 15X-45X in 1984 for about $250.00. It came with a cheap but adequate tripod. The finish is almost gone, but I use it much more than my Kowa 884 because it's small and light and works well if I'm only shooting to 200 yards. I suspect newer ones may not be of the same quality, but that's only a guess. I would imagine there are a number of spotters under $500 nowadays that work as well as my Spacemaster, maybe better.

Big scopes like the Kowa 884 are heavy, bulky, and require a substantial tripod (often not cheap). However, when distances increase, the big, high quality, expensive scopes have no peers.

Beware of Internet reviews and comparisons of spotting scopes. I've looked at some of these and there are a lot of conflicting comments from one tester to another; just depends on whose doing the critiquing. A few of these folks are probably bonafide optical experts. Others may not be too knowledgeable at all but pretend they are.

Buy the very best you can afford. It's money well spent and the better quality to high quality scopes have resale value should you ever want to trade up. Used cheap scopes have virtually no dollar value and you'll quickly become dissatisfied with a poor scope anyway. A more expensive one may be adequate until you outgrow it.

Now that this is fully discussed....what did you decide on?

Randy

You can't go wrong with a Leupold! Pricey? Yes - but high quality and lifetime warranty. Never had any issues with Leupold optics.

Been using a Vortex Viper 20-60x for the last few years and overall, I am pleased.
Needed to upgrade some rifle scopes too, so I tried to keep cost for the spotting scope in the reasonable bracket.
Seeing .223 at 200yrds is no issue and .308 and larger is just a quick look.

It takes a bit of use and varying conditions to see benefits between bargain models and mid-priced+ glass, but you will.

When/if we move to more open country where I can shoot 500yrds+ with regularity, I might need to consider adding a higher end spotting scope.

A lot depends upon where the light comes from on your range. Ideally, you're shooting south to north with the light behind you and the target faces well lit. But, that might not be the case.

Resolution is more important than actual magnification. The one time I got to shoot a Nightforce scope at 1000 yards, I could actually see the scoring rings. My spotting scope had higher magnification, but not as good resolution, couldn't see the scoring rings. Could see the spotting discs though.

Eye relief is what you need. I got it in a K Mart 25$ scope I traded a 12 pack of Old Style for in the 90's. At 25 x I could see 30 cal holes at 300 yds over the HP X Course. Now I must hang a black plastic garbage bag behind the paper targets so that a hint of black leaks thru the hole at distance. Scope at top of pic. red tape protects my vision glasses from scratch if contact.

Attached Images

L20 071415 001.jpg (181.0 KB, 17 views)

__________________
"Don't Give Up the Ship"

Hmmmmmm
Here is a different concept,, for those of us with old eyes,,


It looks like the spotting scope could be placed some distance towards the target, then connect to your phone, for a clearer image?

Might be a good $65 item?

I've spent a lot of time trying to get good pictures through my spotting scope with both cell phone and DSLR.

For range use, I wouldn't bother with that.

Edit for a little more clarity:

On the range, I set up on the bench with the rifle, and then set up the spotter on my tripod on the other side. If I want to use the spotter, just lean over and look through it. To use a phone/screen based setup like the one linked above, I would have to put on my readers and look at it, then take the readers off to get back on the rifle.

I tried several when I was still handloading and shooting...I got the most satisfaction from a 30-60X Zeiss...It's long gone so I don't remember any other details about it......Ben

__________________
Cogito, ergo BOOM!...

For 100 to 200 yard shooting any mid-level quality spotting scope will do. I have a couple of old Bushnells that are just the ticket and are actually quite good for longer distance shooting too. You should be able to find a good 20X on Ebay.

If you plan on shooting past 300 yards out to a thousand or so, you'll need a scope with optics that actually see the refraction of light through the air. This will be an invaluable help in adjusting your hold on target or adjusting your scope's windage knob for deflection (windage)

Early in my military career, we used the M49 (Bushnell), but by the time I retired, we were using high-end Leopold spotting scopes and the difference in resolution was amazing. That said, don't be fooled by high power magnification adds, it's resolution that counts in a spotting scope, no matter what the range. It's kind of like comparing a low digit picture with a high digit photo. Coated optics help in this regard as well as top quality glass. The higher the magnification of the scope, the more critical this becomes.

Just make sure that it comes with, or that you have a good stable mount for it. As an old Army rifle team shooter, I prefer the old Freeland stands with extension rods. Again, these should be available used on Ebay. A cheap and wobbly mount is next to useless when trying to discern detail at distance.

One final tip. If you wear glasses, then check what the eye relief of the scope is. A longer eye relief is the best if you wear glasses. Some scopes have fold down rubber eye pieces to accomplish this.

If, as you say in your original post, you just need the scope for 200-yard shooting, you needn't spend an arm or a leg for it.

__________________
Keep your powder dry.

A few ago I was down at the Bosque del Apache at Sundown.
The Sandhill Cranes fly in by the thousands and it’s a treat!
I was taking pics on the observation deck with about 30 other folks.
It’s getting dark fast and pretty soon I can’t shoot no Mo.
Then I notice these ladies looking through a Spotting Scope.
Reading tag numbers on the cranes, a Wildlife Service Lady was logging the numbers.
There was apparently enough light for them to see the skepticism on my pretty face.
You want to take a look? Yes Please!
Yep, I could easily read the tag.
Not super far, maybe 50 yards, but small tag and not much light.
Leica Spotting Scope.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Your tax dollars at work...

I have an Athlon Ares 20-60 x 85 and it is AWESOME.

In the world of spotting scopes, it's not too expensive either. I think you can get them on Amazon for less than $800.

Believe me, you don't want to scrimp on spotting optics. This one would be the last one you'd need to buy in your life for almost any range.

I have 19 spotting scopes. I guess I am an accumulator. I use my B&L Spacemaster 15-45X 60 and my Leupold 15-45X 60 the most of any for rifle at 50, 100 & 200 yards. Can see .22 holes at 50 & 100 yards. At 200 yards 6.5X55 and .30 holes can be seen.

On my pistol box I use an old Focus 10-30X scope. Made for K-Mart in Japan probably 40 or so years ago.

Nothing wrong with older scopes that are in good repair. Still very usable.

Have about a dozen binoculars. The one that I use most is a Carl Zeiss 6X30. Made in the late 1930's and saw service with the U.S. Navy during WW II. Nice and light with great optics.

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

Do you want straight through or angled lens?

I use straight thru and am pleased with it.

__________________
I've still got it made.