There's a suggestion on the BPCR forum about testing spotting scopes to make comparisons. I wrote this and sent it to Jesse Miller for his input. We're looking for an objective, repeatable way for a lot of people in a lot of places with a lot of different spotting scopes to “measure” them. Wouldn't it be nice if we found a $100 scope that did the job? Keep in mind that I know close to nothing about optics. I typed a sentence in WORD, Times New Roman, and copied it four times, so there's a column of sentences. Top is 12 point, then I changed them to 11, 10, 9 and 8 point. 8 point is small. I printed it. I propose that we set up a paper at 100 yards with a certain sentence in sizes from maybe 16? down to 8 point. The rule is, look through the spotting scope and decide which sentence you can read easily-no guessing. Record the size, ex:10 point, and record the conditions of the light, maybe bright sunny bright cloudy cloudy overcast or bright cloudy overcast and then start collecting these for various spotting scopes. If everybody uses white paper, the same sentences in the same font in the same sizes, then maybe we'll have some objective data to look at. Maybe a not on mirage too. This is a start at least. ?? joe brennan
Testing spotting scopes
- 18K Views
- Last Post 16 April 2019
Joe,
I would recommend using the standard USAF resolution test target so that you are comparing line-pair resolution instead of somebody's subjective judgement. That may be OK when you are trying to Identify Friend or Foe distinguishing between helmet shapes, the silhouette of an AK vs. M4 or trying to tell a Chicom cammo pattern from Army ACU, while wearing full NBC gear and GenIII night vision goggles, but when looking at targets, use the established methods. This is well plowed ground.
73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia
Attached Files
Pick the worst possible day for a shooting match and use that as your minimum. Also pick the longest distance being shot. Holes in the white are easy to see. Use hits in the black.
20x scopes don't hack it. I don't care who made them.
The Nikon 15x-45x will show bullet holes at 200 yards on dark, rainy Puyallup mornings.
The short answer is if you can't spot where your bullet hit, you can't make a sight adjustment. You can't make a sight adjustment you aren't gonna win the match.
Attached Files
Joe,
I would recommend using the standard USAF resolution test target so that you are comparing line-pair resolution instead of somebody's subjective judgement. That may be OK when you are trying to Identify Friend or Foe distinguishing between helmet shapes, the silhouette of an AK vs. M4 or trying to tell a Chicom cammo pattern from Army ACU, while wearing full NBC gear and GenIII night vision goggles, but when looking at targets, use the established methods. This is well plowed ground. Ed;
One of the BPCR guys mentioned the USAF 1951 resolution test target. Investigation, however, leads me back to the WORD sentences. And I'd guess it would discourage most. Here's a catalog quote-the least expensive charts I have found are $129 plus shipping for 5.
"The USAF 1951 test chart is available in many sizes and frequencies. Also available in custom density levels for different contrast ratios. Please see the charts listed below and look under engineering notes section of the website for the resolution conversion chart for this target."
joe b.
Attached Files
Pick the worst possible day for a shooting match and use that as your minimum. Also pick the longest distance being shot. Holes in the white are easy to see. Use hits in the black.
20x scopes don't hack it. I don't care who made them.
The Nikon 15x-45x will show bullet holes at 200 yards on dark, rainy Puyallup mornings.
The short answer is if you can't spot where your bullet hit, you can't make a sight adjustment. You can't make a sight adjustment you aren't gonna win the match.
Attached Files
Joe, some of the info in your book is close...but not the best answer. You need to be a bit more flexible and realize when the answer you are getting is better than the one you have.
I've tried a couple of times to tell you that a 20x or a 25x spotting scope doesn't hack it when shooting early on a dark, rainy morning.
A recreational shooter won't go out at that time or he will wait until later in the day when the conditions improve.
A person shooting in a match doesn't have a choice. If the shooting starts at 9AM and the rain is coming straight down or the fog is making the targets hard to see the shooter still needs to fire shots downrange. That's when the better glass looks lots better than the usual 20x or 25x piece.
Last year the Nikon 15-45x was sold by Midway for $219. The Alpen 20-60x sells around $300. Both of them meet my criteria as I've used them both.
People who shoot in the CBA military rifle class are limited to no more than a 6x scope on their rifle. 6x doesn't show bullet holes so the military rifle competitor must make up for that with a spotting scope. If they can't see the holes they can't make the sighting adjustments necessary to center the group on the 10 and x ring. Another thing to consider is spotting a “double” where you just hit one of your other bullet holes. The lower level optics might show where the shots are but it won't let you look at all the holes and see which one is slightly out of round.
Consider this match level info on spotting scopes, similar to the match level reloading info you currently have.
Just my “humble” opinion.
Attached Files
Joe, some of the info in your book is close...but not the best answer. You need to be a bit more flexible and realize when the answer you are getting is better than the one you have.
I've tried a couple of times to tell you that a 20x or a 25x spotting scope doesn't hack it when shooting early on a dark, rainy morning.
A recreational shooter won't go out at that time or he will wait until later in the day when the conditions improve.
A person shooting in a match doesn't have a choice. If the shooting starts at 9AM and the rain is coming straight down or the fog is making the targets hard to see the shooter still needs to fire shots downrange. That's when the better glass looks lots better than the usual 20x or 25x piece.
Last year the Nikon 15-45x was sold by Midway for $219. The Alpen 20-60x sells around $300. Both of them meet my criteria as I've used them both.
People who shoot in the CBA military rifle class are limited to no more than a 6x scope on their rifle. 6x doesn't show bullet holes so the military rifle competitor must make up for that with a spotting scope. If they can't see the holes they can't make the sighting adjustments necessary to center the group on the 10 and x ring. Another thing to consider is spotting a “double” where you just hit one of your other bullet holes. The lower level optics might show where the shots are but it won't let you look at all the holes and see which one is slightly out of round.
Consider this match level info on spotting scopes, similar to the match level reloading info you currently have.
Just my “humble” opinion.
Bill;
I don't know much about optics.
Anyone who wants to know about spotting scopes should go to the CB-L, the Chas site, and search there. Tom Slater either knew, or fooled a lot of people. There's a great deal of good stuff about spotting scopes that he wrote, unfortunately he's passed away.
Telescopes have three things about them. First is the power, the magnification. We all know what that means. Next is the size of the objective, a measure of the amount of light that gets squoze down and put into the viewer's eye. Third is the quality of the scope, lenses and coatings or mirror-the quality.
Now you can buy a high power cheap scope and it doesn't work-power ain't the answer.
You can look through a very good quality small objective scope like the Lyman 30X STS, and you can see 22 holes in the black at 200 under great conditions, but let a cloud go over the target, let it get a bit dark, and the STS no longer works.
You can buy big objective high power scopes without the quality and some won't work, just won't do the job.
Everything I've read on the topic tells me that variable power scopes lose something, that fixed power scopes, all else equal, work better.
We've got power, resolution and light-gathering ability. And bucks. Something tells me that a $1200 Kowa scope, after the strides in manufacturing and technology made, is an example of “If we make the price high enough they'll think it's great and buy it!!", known in the high fidelity world as “The Bose Principle".
We've all got our opinions, but I don't believe in opinions in a matter subject to test and analysis. I think that experiment and testing will tell the story.
I'm working on an objective, repeatable testing, maybe ranking method, to let us know if ZZ is better than XX, and maybe to find that YY is a wonderful bargain.
I don't know much about optics.
joe brennan
Attached Files
I don't disagree with anything said here so far, and hope that we can get some testing done before and at next year's matches. However, the can-you-read-the-print test, or something similar, allows testing of one scope with at least some information, common, gathered. Here's the first: Yesterday, 3 November, 2007, at the Trail Glades Range in Miami, I put a piece of white paper to the 100 yard target. On this paper, in Times New Roman, were sentences in 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8 point type. 16 looked pretty big to me, in person. It was a bright, sunny, windy day. No to few clouds. Nobody who looked could read even the largest sentence using the following: Lyman 30X STS Simmons 20-60 X 60 Leica Televid 62, 15-60 NC Star 20-60 X 60 joe b.
Attached Files
"If we make the price high enough they'll think it's great and buy it!!", known in the high fidelity world as “The Bose Principle".
Then you mean, “The Kowa Principle” in the scope world. :) The Kowa principle is to make a superior product with high quality components, but most of all with high quality assembly.
With the economically priced spotting scopes you are wanting to test like the Simmons, Lyman, Bushnell, Tasco, Burris, etc. there is differences in the quality out of the box. I was told by a big store camera salesman to pick the economically priced model I want to purchase and ask to look at 5 new models out of the box. He said more than likely you will be able to detect one that is better than the others and to buy that one. In other words, what cheap scope is good for one person may not be good for another 4 people who go out and buy the cheap product.
I never tested scopes, but personally I've seen some really bad scopes in a few brands. In the optical world they have a thing called resolution and I think that is what you're looking for Joe. I also “don't know much about optics", but this is what I've found out..................I've never seen a bad Kowa that I looked through.
Attached Files
We've all got our opinions, but I don't believe in opinions in a matter subject to test and analysis. I think that experiment and testing will tell the story.
Joe, what I gave you was facts based off my observations. Test all you want and then find someone who has the models I mentioned and test them.
Also, remember not all eyeballs were created equal so you will have to calibrate that data also. Some people have superior eye sight. I have met a few and have been left in amazement. Others don't have eye sight as good and need a magnifying glass just to read what is on paper in front of them. I know two and wonder what the limitations are on their drivers licenses.
The Alpen was the top rated mfgr in an Outdoor Life test a coupla years back. Best for price and resolution.
Attached Files
Some people have superior eye sight.
Bill,
Yah, That 's what the Windhill guys say that Ed Doonan used to do. He could see holes no one else could find. Now days Stan can really pick over the targets and see holes the rest of us can't.
Wouldn't it be great if we could line up several scopes at the Miltary National Tournament 2008 next year and have everyone there that wants to look and grade the scopes? We could test early in the morning, miday and then late in the day and then sope the moon at night just for kicks as long as you don't start howling! :)
Attached Files
Bill and Dan;
I have a piece of copy paper with “Times New Roman 72 point.", from 72 to 10 point, 72, 48, 36, 24, 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 11 and 10 are the steps my computer has.
The number, of course, is changed to be the point.
It's attached, I hope
Would you make one of these, take it to the range, put it up at 100 yards and see the smallest print that you, and hopefully others, can see?
This is certainly not the best test, but it might get us on the road.
Dan, Froggy on the ASSRA site mentioned doing testing side-by-side at his matches, as you did. Maybe we could have a good test worked out by the spring, and could get volunteers to ramrod the test at matches.
Thanks;
joe b.
Attached Files
In comparison tests of sniper scopes we did at MCDEDC, Quanticio, VA in 1988-1989 the best quality optics won out over higher magnification every time, in every scenario. Give me a 10X which resolved 40+ line-pairs over a 20X which resolves less than 30 line-pairs any time. BTW, the test engineer for this project wasn't a shooter, but was a USAF recee tech whose expertise was in satellite imagery for intelligence assessment. Sometime you need to thinbk outside the box.
And Joe, yes, sometimes you have to spend a buck to do it right. You might ask some of the scope manufacturers and major distributors to help. Those who were involved in the military sniper scope selections have already done this and might share their data if you asked nice.
73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia
Attached Files
Ed; I'm not averse to asking mfrs for help, they are generally responsive. But, there's little interest here, and few volunteers.
There are many, make that MANY spotting scopes available today. Maybe too many. I can't reasonably ask for scopes.
To do any test, we need a good test target, lot's of scopes, volunteers. I'm not going to spend $129 for a set of test targets absent the scopes and volunteers.
If you have a proposal as to how to perform this test, I'd be happy to hear it; and if you'd like to take over this project, I'd be happy to relinquish my (lack of) control.
Your pleasure?
joe brennan
Attached Files
Joe,
I'm not trying to take this over.
I'm just saying that you don't have top re-invent the wheel. Manufacturers may share data they already have. I'm NOT suggesting that you solicit scopes for evaluation to duplicate work which has already been done. I AM saying, due dilligence. Conduct a literature search of what is already out there. There may be open-source engineering reports manufacturers may let you see.
It costs nothing to ask. The report I assisted in writing was unclassified, but witheld from publication at the time because it contained proprietary information which was deemed “competition sensitive.” Enough time has passed now this is probably OBE. I don't have the time to do this. I still work for a living.
73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia
Attached Files
Ed;
I'm not accusing you of taking this over, I WANT someone to take it over. I said a year ago that I'd be done with the book in May, and sort of was. But WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!! Right now I'm working furiously on
How to tell random variation in group size from a variable change
The relationship between mold size and weight, bullet weight and shape, and speed of casting. And I can't get any of these guys to measure some molds for me.
A protocol for load development. At least on Cast Boolits there's some response. One guy suggested the Creighton Audette “ladder testing", I did it, posted it, asked for volunteers to try some and get bubkus. Yes, bupkus!
John Bischoff is finding BCs with 20 yard chronograph spacing, I need to get this written, to badger him
A poster on Cast Boolits finds that leaving cast balls in a metal container so they can roll about makes the sprue thingy go away. I need to get this down, and find out how long with what procedure; and if it makes a difference to accuracy
Now; Charlie Shaef on the ASSRA forum and you and Dan Willems here have shown some interest in this spotting scope test.
I'd be delighted to turn this over to the three of you or any combination. But, I want to see some results of the which-line-can-you-read test so we have at least a starting point.
I'm ready to relinquish control of this or any of these projects, but they WILL get done somehow.
So, how about it?
joe brennan
Attached Files
What happened to Ed?
joe b. you said:
"I've got this running on three forums"
Will you let us know the three forums that this is running on so we can see what the opinions of others are ?. You mention the BPCR forum so I checked the BPCR forum and did not find anything about testing spotting scopes, the last message I found that had anything to do with spotting scopes was from March of 2006, that's almost two years ago ?, and that message had nothing to do with testing.
Shooter
It started, for me, on the MSN BPCR forum. It's running there, on the CBA forum, and on Cast Boolits forum, and here. So I guess that's four. As usual, the Cast Boolits forum has helpful posters, and not so many critics/experts as there are here. Anyhow;
Steven Dzupin on Cast Boolits clued me in to
Attached Files
Joe, I printed the target and will test on Thursday. Ric
Attached Files
Joe,
Bright day at the range, temperature 50 degrees, with high overcast and no glare.
My scope is a 1950's vintage B&L 30X.
With my glare reducing veralux eye glasses, I could clearly read the “2” line in the vertical row under the “-1". The “3” lines were fuzzy but I think I could have seem a bullet hole with a light background.
With my plain glass eye glassess, I could read the “3” line below the “2", and the “4” was fuzzy. You can bet these will be the eyeglasses I use shooting from now on!
Ric
Attached Files
Day 1: Set up 5 spotting scopes at my buddy's place. 10” Compact Kowa 60mm 25x - 8” Kowa Compact 50mm 20x - Bushnell Spacemaster 20-60x - Burris Landmark 80mm 20-60x - Simmons #1220 55mm 25x. Temperature 45degrees. Sunny. Wind gusting to 10mph. Two of us checked the test sheet for 2 hours on and off. Mirage was bad with the wind gusting in and out.
The Bushnell Spacemaster was barely the best. Under these conditions, the 25x eye piece from the Simmons on the Bushnell worked the best, line4 and maybe line5 under the -2 column. Burris was 2nd reading line3 to line4 under -2 column. Simmons could read line2 to line3. Mirage was constantly changing in and out. Both compact Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting.
Day 2: Set up the Bushnell and the Simmons. Temperature about 50degrees. Sunny. Wind gusting 12mph. Better conditions today. When the wind stopped line3 to line4 could be seen under -1 column with the Bushnell with the 25x eye piece. With the 20-60x eye piece line4 to line5 could be read under -1 column, but the wind had to quit moving the mirage to see it. Simmons was slightly less in performance having difficulty reading line2 to line3 under the -1 column. I consider a straight 30x or maybe a 40x eye piece to be a big improvement over a variable eye piece on the same scope body..............Dan
Attached Files
Ric and Dan;
We need to be clear on which line you guys are talking about.
If you look at the AF target, you'll see that there are 4 concentric copies of the same thing. First biggest starts at he bottom right corner with “1", clockwise to left hand vertical column “2” through “6", then right hand vertical column “1” through “6". All going sort of clockwise. Then look inside, a smaller version of the same. Then look inside that, yet smaller version. Then see the teeny inside version.
Let's call them the “largest", “second largest", “third largest” and “fourth largest” sets of targets.
Ric; I think you're talking about the fourth largest set of targets.
Dan: I think you're talking about the third and fourth largest set of targets.
I was sure that I put up the tese we did Wednesday, but I can't see it here. Something's going on, this is the third post I put up that then disappeared here it is, another try
Attached Files
Categories
- All Categories
- General Polls
- Contact Us w/ Forum Issues
- Welcome to The Cast Bullet Association Forum
- General
- Bullet Casting
-
Guns and Shooting
- AR Platform
- TC Contenders & Other Single Shot Handguns
- Shotguns
- Informal Matches & Other Shooting Events
- Gunsmithing Tips
- Gun Cleaning & Maintenance
- Optics
- Benchrest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Military Bench Rest Cast Bullet Shooting
- Silhouette Shooting
- Postal Match Cast Bullet Shooting
- Factory Guns
- Black Powder Cartridge
- Hand Guns
- Lever Guns
- Single Shot Rifles
- Bolt Action Rifles
- Military Surplus Rifles
- Plinkers Hollow
- Muzzleloaders
- Hunting
- Reloading
- Buy, Sell or Trade
- Other Information & Reference
Search
This Weeks High Earners
- Aaron 32
- pat i. 28
- RicinYakima 18
- Pigslayer 17
- Wilderness 16
- SkinnerD 15
- linoww 13
- MP1886 11
- Bud Hyett 10
- Ken Campbell Iowa 8