Spotting Scope- Expensive Worth It?

[jcwit]

Then my Winchester brand, made in china, spotting scope must be "quality", all for the price of $75 bucks, as the resolution allows me to read the fine print on my targets at 100 yards as long as the mirage is not to bad on a hot humid summer afternoon.

 

[Elkins45]

I'm firmly in the "you get what you pay for" camp with riflescopes and camera lenses. For spotting scopes I'm in the "good enough" camp. My low end Tasco was sufficient to see 22 holes at 150 yards, well at least it was until I knocked it off the bench.

My new low end Burris accomplishes the same task just as well, maybe a little better. If a riflescope fails in the field I might miss a lifetime trophy. If my spotting scope fails at the range them I might have to walk out to the target. Not the same level of consequences, and one I'm willing to risk in the case of the spotter.

 

[wgp]

I have come to the conclusion that a cheap spotter is not much use and a good one is very expensive. Happily, I also find that for the deer hunting (woods mostly) I do a good pair of binoculars is more useful. Should I venture to really big country or the mountains I may have to break down and buy a good scope but I fear I'm talking more than 1K.

 

[jcwit]

wgp--The OP is asking about using a spotting scope for bulls eye comp. That's at a max of 50 yds. Doesn't take a $1,000 buck scope to pick out 45 cal. holes at 50 yds.

 

[docsleepy]

funny you should mention the cheap winchester -- I have one of those also, and it is unusally good. Must have paid $75. At 200 yards, I can generally make out .224 or .284 holes in white paper (not so easily in black).

At 300 yards, it is harder.

At 400-800 I have sometimes been able to see the "splat" on an AR500 target.

Wished there were some way to measure resolution and have it printed in the ads.....

 

[jcwit]

funny you should mention the cheap winchester -- I have one of those also, and it is unusally good. Must have paid $75. At 200 yards, I can generally make out .224 or .284 holes in white paper (not so easily in black).

At 300 yards, it is harder.

At 400-800 I have sometimes been able to see the "splat" on an AR500 target.

With my old eyes and old body shaking, there is no way I could even begin to shoot at those distances. Unless the bull was 12 feet in dia. LOL

 

[tuj]

I have used several high quality (ie $1k+) spotting scopes, and yet I have a Barska 20-60x. Why? Well I don't shoot much further than 100 yards usually, and often times my rifle scopes have enough magnification to resolve holes in paper that far. When shooting irons or with a lesser scope, I have found that 60x will resolve bullet holes in a low quality optic like the Barska, out to about 100-150 yards.

Higher quality optics are nearly essential for longer range shooting and spotting. This works especially well if you are shooting with a partner. You also need a good, steady tripod to mount the spotting scope on.

The biggest problem, even with high quality optics, at long ranges is mirage. But some spotters use this to their advantage and can see the vapor trail of a shot. I personally cannot do this, but I know shooters who can, especially in the right conditions.