My old eyes aren't what they used to be. I have a 40 year old Bushnell 20x50 spotting scope that served me well at 50 yards when shooting competition pistol, but I usually can't see .22 holes at 100 yards with it. I searched here, and among other posts, found someone recommending a Meade 50mm spotting scope. A few other web searches led me to the Meade 20-60x60 spotting scope, which sounded ideal, so I purchased one.

Well, while I always felt Meade made quality optics, the image at higher powers with this scope are quite poor. Probably 35-40 power is its maximum, and surprisingly, it's still difficult for me to see the .22 holes at 100 yards. I've seen people here post they see their holes at 100+ yards through 9-12 power scopes, but I don't see how. With my 14x I'll get a "shadow" around a cluster of shots, but that's about it. I guess my old eyes cause the problem.

Having pretty much wasted the money on the Meade, I'd like to consider a better spotting scope, but I can't spend THAT much. Certainly under $200.

So, what, if any, scopes would you recommend that give a clear image of .22 holes at 100 yards? If it's not much better than the Meade, there's no sense in my upgrading. But if there's a huge difference, maybe I'll actually be able to see what I'm shooting.

Have you tried shoot and see type targets? The work extremely well at long distance shooting. Very easy to spot where you hit your target.

My buddy used one on our last shooting session, but I've shied away from the due to the cost. I've got dozens (hundreds?) of pistol targets from my competition days, and tend to use those, although I did buy some new orange rifle targets. Not shoot and see, though.

I recently got a Barska 20 - 60 x 60mm from Cabela's; on sale for $59.99. It's certainly not the same type glass as my Nikon scope but it's pretty good for under $100.

20-60 x 60mm Spotting Scope with Tripod

Under $55 bucks...plus if you use one of their 20% off coupons even better.

__________________
M&Ps 40C, 40FS, AR15 Piston

Thanks, I was just at Harbor Freight yesterday! Wonder if they have them in the store, so I'd not have to pay any shipping and if it doesn't work, I can take it back.

Do you have one of those?

My father bought me one last Christmas. It was very cheap with his HF membership. The scope itself is ok I guess, but the tripod was a complete pile of smelly stuff. It busted the first time out, and now I'm left with a paperwieght. Maybe you had better luck.

My buddy has the Barska already mentioned. It was 10x better, but nothing special at long distances. I'm at the point where when I get a new one I'm just gonna spend the money and get a nice one.

I have a tripod, so don't care about that. In fact, I originally bought a Simmons 20-60x60 from Sportsman's Warehouse for about $80, but took it back, in part, because it included a cheap tripod I didn't want. I'm not sure it was any better than the Meade I ended up with. With the Meade, I had a tough time seeing hits on splatter targets. :-(

As far as long range goes, I'm only interested in 100 yards with my .22, but I'm not sure if my eyesight is limiting me. Seems like it still ought to focus clear, though, given that I have only slight astigmatism. I thought I found a Swarovski for $250 on CheaperThanDirt.com, until I realized that was for the soft CASE!

Nah...I have the barska...my friend picked up the HF one today. Said the glass wasn't half bad but the tripod was less than desired...he was $40 OTD after using the 20% off.

__________________
M&Ps 40C, 40FS, AR15 Piston

What about Nikon 16-48x65mm Straight ProStaff ($350ish) or Minox MD 50 16-30x50 Waterproof Straight Spotting Scope ($250ish)? Both have quality glass (no ED elements though), waterproof, nitrogen filled etc. They are not Zeiss or Swarovski but they are very reputable companies.
These are the two I am looking at right now. I have Minox 8x42 binoculars and they are awesome.

I'm the person who started the thread earlier on the Meade scope. If you're unable to use the 20-60, it is very unlikely trying another scope in the same general spec range is going to help you out in any way. Dialing that thing over to 60X is going to put a lot of vignetting in to the picture, even for someone with 20/20 vision, the result will be an image nowhere near as crisp as it is at 20 to 30X.
If I were in your situation, my next step would be to try combining the shoot-n-see targets with the Meade, say at 20 to 30 power, at your 100 yard range, to see if you can see the holes then. Maybe at 40X.
Probably any kind of optics upgrade is either going to be quite expensive, or a lot more difficult to set up, or both.

__________________
Geoff. Since 1960.

Some years ago I picked up a "kids" telescope at a Goodwill store for 20$ works great. Not sure what the power is but the main lens is about 3" in diameter.

As a competive Smallbore shooter myself( rifle) I understand your quest. If I had to replace my current scope I would strongly consider the Konus with either the 60mm or 80 mm objective lens.

The downrange performance is very good and I have been able to see my bullet holes in a 100 yard smallbore target. They can be had for around $200.00
A friend of mine that shoots on the US Palma Team is the one that informed me of these and he uses them for his junior team.

The standard scope for many years on the NRA High Power Rifle line was the Kowa TSN1 with the 25x Long Eye Relief eyepiece.....you might be able to find one of those used on eBay

(The scope is the Konuspot 80...if you do an online search. They will also focus down to 10 meters for use on the air rifle/pistol range as well.......)

My current scope is an AccuSpot that I bought from Jack Foster when he still had his Accuracy International Store....great scope in ALL regards. It will read .22 holes at 100 yards.

Randy

I have a Barska 20-60x scope. It is an alright scope and I can see .22 holes at 100yds but as a previous poster stated the field of view at 50-60x is pretty severe. The glass is clear but you have to work your head a bit to get lined up. Since I do not shoot competition it works for me. I use a Cabela's trypod.

__________________
Revolver luvin' Mountaineer

Forgot to ask if you wanted an angled or straight eyepiece...

Randy

BTW. there is a nice Kowa 601 spotting scope on eBay bidding is at $200 and would be an outstanding choice.

Yeah, I might be expecting too much at the higher powers for a cheap scope.
Yeah, I got to thinking about my comment that shoot-n-see targets were too expensive; I can buy a lot of targets for the price of the next level of scope!

Celestron 52250 80mm Ultima Zoom Spotting Scope.. It's not bad at 100 yards.. The Silk tripod is nice for a low end unit.. Ron


Amazon.com: Celestron 52250 80mm Ultima Zoom Spotting Scope: Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Slik Heavy-Duty Tripod with 3-Way Fluid-Effect Head and Built-In Bubble Level: Camera & Photo

Slik Heavy-Duty Tripod with 3-Way Fluid-Effect Head and Built-In Bubble Level

Thanks. I actually bought the same Silk tripod for my daughter-in-law. As to the scope, I'm sure it's pretty good. I had always considered Meade a step up from Celestron (in astronomical telescopes, which is my previous experience with both), but the Meade I got isn't up for the job. And I don't think I need the 80mm objective; I'd rather put the money into the quality than the size.

Well, Fry's has two spotting scopes on sale FRYS.com - $50 for Sightmark 15-45x 60mm straight FRYS.com |  or Yukon 15-45x angled FRYS.com | .

I got Sightmark. Seems to be OK, feels little cheap but I haven't had high expectations. The exit pupil at 45x (1.35mm) is so small that it is hardly usable so I wouldn't zoom higher than 30x, but it should be OK for 100 yards.

My experience with the more inexpensive scopes has been poor. I bought a 20X50 and couldn't use it at 25 yards. At distance, even the better scopes will show aberrations that can ruin the ability to see .22 holes effectively. The older you are and/or poor eyesight just complicates that **** out of spotting.. My vote is 80mm at a minimum with a good tripod.. Ron

Have you found that the objective diameter really makes that much difference? I have a 40 year old 20x50 Bushnell, and it's crystal clear, pretty much, but not powerful enough for this purpose. I know the larger diameters let in more light and are therefore brighter, but wasn't sure it would make much difference at high power (unless the problem is too dark, which it is not - just too blurry).

On the lower priced scopes (sub ~$200) the clarity of the 80mm was much better, especially at high magnification. I had problems actually seeing a 22 bullet hole with the cheap 40mm scopes I tried. Also the 80mm is much easier to keep on target and significantly reduces eyestrain for a 2-3 hour session. The 20X40 I bought (Alpen) was worthless. I gave it to my 6 year old nephew to use as a toy. I believe I gave $215 for the 80mm and the Silk tripod. It stays on target pretty good for me and doesn't take forever to line back up.. FOV with resolution are a biggy for me. I've since had cataract surgery, but haven't been back to the range. I'll take a look today.. Ron

Interesting. Since my scope experience has been more with astronomical telescopes, and since larger objectives usually exponentially increase the price of them, I figured a $200 80mm scope would be of far inferior quality to a $200 60mm scope. Apparently not.

You need targets where you can easily see 22 holes on up at 100 yards with a decent spotting scope. A bad spotting scope will just give you headaches by looking thru it all day. I would get the best one that you can afford without breaking the bank.

My favorite 22 targets at 100 yards...are the blue colored Mountain Plains targets I order from Sinclair International. I've read that blue targets are more pleasing to the human eye --- and I agree on that.

The targets have designated inch number graph spacings, on a white paper backing, with 5 round sighter targets, 4 triangular blue sighters with a white inset and one big round blue circle in the center; with a white triangular center.

My data set was not great.. Just the scopes I could get my hands on. I agree with the concept that larger glass for a similar price will yield lessor results, but the larger FOV seemed to help me.. The Alpen 40mm I bought was about 1/3rd the price of the 80mm, so the comparison might not be a fair one. I didn't try a $175 40mm at the range. I sort=a had to guestimate when ,looking through them at the shops..

I agree with the "buy one that works without breaking the bank" concept as well.. Ron

Meade and Celestron are like Ford and Chevy. Sometimes one is better than the other. However these days only their astro SCT scopes are made the old fashion way (although Meade's factory is in Mexico and Celestron's in on Taiwan). The rest of their stuff is now just rebadged from Taiwan or China.
If you want better and clearer high resolution optics you need either a bigger objective (more important than power) or better glass. Without ED or FL glass the resolution at the highest power gets fuzzy because it can't focus all the colors in a single spot. This is true of rifle scopes also. A bigger objective also focuses more light to help clarify the image. When it comes to good spotting scopes comparing a Barska to say a Pentax can be an eye-opening experience. The good scopes like Kowa, Towa, Zeiss, Pentax, Nikon, Steiner, Leitz, Fujinon, and others can't be matched by the mass builders. Except some of them also make ED type scopes which are not bad. The best spotting scope for rifle use is unfortunately no longer available in the US. That is the Russian made LOMO 95, a 95mm mirror type telescope. I know personally several 1000 shooters that use these as the only portable scope they tried that could see clearly .30 cal bullet holes at 1000 yards. And it was sold in the $250 range. I used to work for a dealer in telescopes and I kick myself for not picking one up while they were available. They also made a 70mm that would work fine out to 300 yards easy. These are good enough that used copies seldom come up for sale.
Bottom line is besides a good 80mm or 60-65mm ED scope the best thing is some kind of mirror telescope in the 75-110mm range. But some could be costly, like the Vixen 110.

I did buy some splatter targets, which should help, but I looked at a Leopold SX-1 Ventana, 15-45x60 at a dealer, and was VERY impressed with its clarity at 45x. So I bought one online, getting it HERE for $240 plus S&H, total cost $253, so I'm looking forward to it.

As always, thanks to everyone for your suggestions and opinions. Guess for some things, you just gotta spend a bit more.

Maybe you need contrast to help you see the holes. A less expensive alternative to “shoot n see targets” (but not as good) is printing them yourself. Google “print targets” and you will find five sites with hundreds of targets to choose from, ready to print. Besides color options maybe it would help if you experimented with different colors of paper too.