Binoculars or Spotting Scopes?

[PhilA]

Who uses which?

I have a spotting scope, but it was a pretty cheap one that unfortunately barely lets me see holes at 100 yards without holding my breath and squinting.

I need to pony up the money for a better way to see, but I started thinking maybe binoculars would be the better investment because of their utility off the firing line (hunting, general purpose, etc).

Anyone use binocs to check their shot placement? If so, what power lets you see .223 holes or bigger at 100 yards? How about 200 or 300 yards?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

At 25 yards, I use a 10x50 or 11x56 or 9x60 bino. At this range, I am usually using a gun which has iron sights, so I need the binos.

At 50 yards, I usually use the scope that's on the rifle; at this distance, on a bright day, the same binocs mentioned will also work.

At 100 yards, I use a spotter or huge binos - either a Celestron C90 Mak or an Oberwerk 20x100 binos on a tripod.

At 150 yards, ditto.

At 200 yards or more, I use the C90 Mak or a Celestron C130 Mak.

Just depends on the distance, the caliber/hole size, the lighting conditions (sunny or overcast?), and whether/not I am using Shoot-N-Cs. I always bring to the range a pair of binos and at least one spotting scope with tripod.

I am planning to get a 22-66x100 monopod spotter with ED glass (the Ultima ED from Celestron).

This belongs in the Firearms Accessories forum.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In general, what you need to see bullet holes is acuity. That is a function of objective lens size divided by power -- big lens, lower power gives acuity.

If you want high power, you need a really big objective lens to get the resolution you want. That tends to make binoculars too large and heavy for most uses -- so a spotting scope is the usual solution. Another advantage of the scope is, they usually are mounted on tripods -- which minimizes the trembling you get with high-power binoculars.

Now, you can use binoculars, but as I said, you have to have binoculars you wouldn't want to carry up Hardscrabble Mountain when elk hunting.

 

[rcmodel]

I have a pair of Leupold 10x50 roof-prism binoculars that allow me to see .22 holes at 100 yards, just bairly.
(If I can rest my elbows on a shooting bench to steady them.)

They only weigh about 24 oz. and are light enough to carry hunting.

I have another pair of Nikon 10x25 compacts, and you cannot see .22 holes with them.

It all depends on the quality of the glass.

rcmodel

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It all depends on the quality of the glass.

I suspect the quality of the glass is the same. The difference is the size of the objective lenses.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I have a pair of Leupold 10x50 roof-prism binoculars that allow me to see .22 holes at 100 yards, just bairly.

I believe you, because I've got friends who can see MUCH better than I can**, but I could never do that.

**they can spot deer during the last shreds of dusk, when to me is just darkness looking at the same thing. "See those deer right there?" "Ummm, no".

Quality of glass is indeed important, as is objective lens size, but O.L. size doesn't get the recognition that it deserves for resolution, as Mr. Humphrey says. Quality of glass grind *does* get its deserved attention in contributing to detail. But a moderately-high-quality 100mm lens is going to give better resolution than an absolute-top-notch quality 60mm objection, at the same power. Ditto for your 50 vs. 25mm example.

 

[Rembrandt]

Sometimes carrying a spotting scope and tripod are not practical but would be nice for higher magnification viewing....like bullet holes beyond 100 yards. Best solution I've found is a "doubler" that attaches to one side of the binoculars. Changed my Swarovski 10X42's into 20X, downside is trying to hold it steady enough. Sort of a compact version of a spotting scope. Works very well.

 

[ArmedBear]

Sort of a compact version of a spotting scope. Works very well.

I'd rather have 10X Swarovski binocs than any spotting scope I've used. Acuity is an understatement.

I've compared Burris, Leupold and Swarovski on a hunting trip. The Burris are okay for glassing around (they came free with my Fullfield II and they're compact and rubber-armored). The Leupolds are a bit better. However, compared to the Swarovskis, the Leupolds are JUNK.

Bummer the Swar's are so damned expensive. It's hard to like anything else after using them.

Anyway, if you use these targets, you don't need a spotting scope or Swarovski binocs, even for those tiny .223 FMJ holes: http://www.birchwoodcasey.com/sport/target_index.asp?categoryID=4&subcat=22

Dirty Bird Targets aren't too expensive, and you can see where you hit through a low-power scope or regular crappy binocs.

 

[Mark K. C.]

Befor spending too much money on optics, try some Shoot-n-see targets. They do make a huge improvement in seeing your hits at all ranges. There are a number of companys that make a color upon impact targets.

 

[ArmedBear]

Yeah, AFAIK the Dirty Birds are the most affordable, but they all work.

Besides, when using a scope, it's nice to see the hits right away. A 4X scope is sufficient at 100 yards, with Shoot-n-Sees, Dirty Birds, or whatever.

Then you can spend the money on a rifle scope, not a spotting scope.

 

[dagger dog]

There are some binoculars used for astronomy observation that are of enough power and clarity to be used for spotting at long range but like any optic with that much magnification they have to be used with a tripod. If you are interested pick up a copy of a current astronomy magazine and there are plenty of ads, or try google.

 

[jkingrph]

With my 45-70 or .458 I can generally see the holes with about a 5x scope.

 

[ArmedBear]

I've seen .45-70 holes at 100 yards with no scope. These were big roundnose lead bullets.

I still used a scope, but only to confirm that I saw what I thought I saw.

 

[DWH]

Large binoculars are heavy and cumbersome to mount well. A scope is much more ergonomic when observing farther than 50 yds.

 

[SGW42]

Medium-sized binoculars, when I remember to bring them. At 50 yards.

Otherwise I use the range's spotting scope. Rickety they may be, but they work.

 

[10-Ring]

For range use, I prefer spotting scopes. For field use bino's

 

[smirnoff a]

I own several pairs of binnoculars. This one is my favorite:

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Stabili...e=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1214611144&sr=8-1

Rule of thumb, 10X50 is the largest pair that can be comfortaly hand-held. Some people can can hold 12X50 or 10X56, but anything larger should be mounted on the trypod. Anything over 10X will produce shakes. Anything over 60 mm would be pretty heavy.

That said, Canon IS series is the most popular IS line out there. 18X50 is the largest. There other other IS binoculars by Fujinon, Nikon and such with 20X being the highest magnification available, but Canon seems to outsell anything out there.

All u have to do is push the IS button, and the shakes go away. You can comfortably use these hand-held, or mounted.