Spotting scope - 60x?

[Pukindog]

T'Cat,

Good illumination of the target is important. The 25X eyepiece is ideal for me. Mirage is held to a minimum. Granted, there are times when I can not see .22 holes at long distances.
But again, good glass is a premium.

Jeff

[thomae]

This thread may be dead...but if anyone is still reading...
If you spend the money for a good scope, you don't need the super higher magnification. Look at what the serious High Power Rifle shooters are using. Mostly Kowas. I have a Kowa TSN2 (do a web search...it's a great scope!) with a 70mm objective lens with a 20 power eyepiece and it is sufficient for me. In fact I am selling it (I just have not gotten around to putting an ad out.

It will likely be available to look at (look through) at the Fall Sporting Goods Garage Sale
(http://forum.pafoa.org/centre-50/666...oods-sale.html (1st Annual Fall Sporting Goods Sale))

Maybe I can pursuade Xringshooter to put up a target with holes a few hundred yards away from the garage sale and then people can look at it through different spotting scopes. When you actually compare good and not so good scopes side by side, the difference is much more readily apparent.

Good scopes (used) can be had at reasonable prices. I paid about $400 used for mine and will be selling it for $350. (Nothing wrong with it, but I bought a Kowa TSN3, which is even better (Costlier, too)).

The problem with higher magification is that you get much more apparent wobble on your stand and the ground mirage ~appears~ to be more noticable. If you have better glass (higher resolution) and a bigger light-gathering objective lens, you can see the target details (bullet holes, etc...)clearer at a lower power, the result is a clearer picture with more light.

[Pete D.]

Kowa. The way to go.
Remember, also, that stepping up to a larger objective is important as you step up in magnification. A 20X40 and a 20X60 will both enlarge the image 20x but the 60mm lens lets in more than twice as much light, a 70mm more than three times as much
Pete

[MrBi11]

wireless cameras are a lot cheaper than the $300 one posted...
but you'll need a monitor to use with them {old TV with composite [RCA] inputs}

you don't need pan & tilt [unless your targets are running around]
simply build bunker box to put it in then semi bury the box in front of the target ..

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?inv...VID&cpc=VIDbsc

[Pete D.]

What is the range on that wireless setup? Will it work at 300 yards? I understand that 900 MHz cordless telephones will work out to 600 yards. The camera?
I'm usually a techno-phile but the idea on carting the stuff needed - the camera and its transmitter and receiver (small?) and a monitor or computer and then digging a hole for it - seems more complex than clamping a good scope to a bench and focusing. I wonder...
Pete

[Guns & Glass]

223 cal holes no problem w/good glass out to 220 yards, and even 300 w/sun on the target.

Question of 'what's good glass' is very subjective to: experience, comfort level of price points, and how important it is to see 'fine' detail or just a black dot. Expect to spend at least $400 for a good entry level w/minimum 20x and 60mm....not including the case.

Pete D was starting to hit the nail on the head w/the light size (Exit Pupil) which then lead us to another term 'Relative Brightness' that helps us determine which scope or at what power can be brighter if all things are equal.

Type of glass, coatings, indexing, (those 3 can be 30% or more of the cost), quality of construction, adjustment ability, really make the difference.

My Kowa 822, Leica 77, and Bushnell Elite 60 (formerly Bausch & Lomb) do it w/out any problem, and often 800-1,000 yards on .30 cal holes. Now .17 cal holes "is a whole 'nother story".

US Military just bought 300 Bushnell Elites 20-60 so they may know something about good glass.