I could likely Google this but that would eliminate the need to talk to you gents.

Is there a dual purpose pair of binos that would double to see targets/holes at 100 yards? Or am I just being a cheap ass?

Do I need to just buy two pieces of equipment?

Being in town now I can’t just walk down after every 3 shots to check targets so I need something I can use from the line. Sucks not being out in the woods.

Several variables in that question. Two important ones are the size of the holes and the color of the target. .30 caliber holes in white or light tan paper are much easier to see than .22 in black.

If one were considering a high quality 10 power optic, you could somewhat approximate that by looking at the holes without magnification from 10 yards. The lower the quality of the optics, though, the less valid that approximation would be.

In the long run, though, I believe you’ll be happier by just swallowing the bitter pill and acquiring a high quality spotting scope. I have two spotting scopes, one of which I bought in the mid-1970s, and which I still use more frequently than a high tier Swarovski that’s bigger and I’m more concerned about being blown over on its tripod. The older one was more painful to purchase at the time, but I’ve never regretted having it.

I initially tried something like that. Didn't go well. I bought a medium power spotting scope that was unwieldy at close range, and useless at long range (the target scope on my rifle worked better).

So ultimately I gifted my original spotting scope to a friend, and bought a proper high power scope for the rifle range, and a simple hand-held monocular for the pistol range. More better by far.

Thank you both, so for sighting in various rifles less than 30 cal, I only own two larger than 30, sounds like I’d be better of with a mid to long range spotting scope and a pair of binos for other applications.

ETA: most of my optics max out at 9x or less so I think I’ll listen to y’all. Maybe with a 24x max scope I could see my impacts but that’s only a small percentage of my shooting so I’ll invest in something more suited to viewing impacts down range.

My situation is I do not need to spend lots of $ for something I would rarely use. I like 12x bino's as a multi use instrument. Will it do everything great, no but it does a lot of things very well. Ymmv.
I also have 8x bino's. Between the two it meets all of my needs and both get used a lot.
I also have no need for a rifle scope that is more than 14x.
I do not feel limited by any of these factors.
Would it be cool to have a $1500-$2000 spotting scope? Sure, but would not use enough to justify that kind of $.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: old rugged cross,

If there’s any way for you to see how different scopes work in the situations you anticipate, that would be a good idea.

Something to keep in mind is that for spotting when shooting, atmospheric conditions have a major impact on what is possible. The highest quality optics cannot see through heavy “mirage” or haze. The best glass in today’s optics is a benefit for amateur astronomers looking up into the sky or a birder who is trying to determine the color of a feather at 50 yards in a heavily shaded forest, but it is much less useful when looking across an open range on a hot, hazy, humid summer day and trying to see bullet holes at 350 yards. And higher magnification isn’t the cure. Very often it’s better to use lower powers for that purpose; I max out at 40× much more often than 60× and the “seeing” is usually better where I live and shoot than it is for most shooters. Wind also affects higher magnifications more, and larger, heavier tripods or other supports become more important.

Again, if you are thinking of a major purchase, being able to actually look through various options is the best way to decide on what will work for you.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
If there’s any way for you to see how different scopes work in the situations you anticipate, that would be a good idea.

Something to keep in mind is that for spotting when shooting, atmospheric conditions have a major impact on what is possible. The highest quality optics cannot see through heavy “mirage” or haze. The best glass in today’s optics is a benefit for amateur astronomers looking up into the sky or a birder who is trying to determine the color of a feather at 50 yards in a heavily shaded forest, but it is much less useful when looking across an open range on a hot, hazy, humid summer day and trying to see bullet holes at 350 yards. And higher magnification isn’t the cure. Very often it’s better to use lower powers for that purpose; I max out at 40× much more often than 60× and the “seeing” is usually better where I live and shoot than it is for most shooters. Wind also affects higher magnifications more, and larger, heavier tripods or other supports become more important.

Again, if you are thinking of a major purchase, being able to actually look through various options is the best way to decide on what will work for you.

Actually, the bolded statement above is not completely true. Let me explain.

A few years ago, I realized that on heavy mirage days, contrary to all others on the F-class firing line, I was not lowering the magnification of my riflescope from 40X. This was not always the case; when I had a NF NXS 12-42X56, I would sometimes drop to the mid-20s are low 30s on days of mirage. Prior to that, my Weaver T-36 was completely unusable in heavy mirage days. But shooting with my March-X 5-50X56 allowed me to stay at 40X all the time, year-round. I finally put 2 and 2, together and postulated that the ED glass in the March was somehow resistant to mirage. Don't get me wrong, the IQ was affected by mirage, but the target kept its shape, I could still see the rings and I could place my central dot surgically on the target.

A few years back, I got a March-X 10-60X56 HM which sports Super ED glass. (I've been meaning to discuss glass types in my stickied thread, just been too busy.) I now shoot at 50X all the time, year-round. The Super ED glass is much more resistant to mirage than the ED glass. I did report this to Deon, the makers of the March riflescopes and the pioneer in ED glass riflescopes, and the only ones who use Super ED glass. They dismissed my observations as simply impossible; glass doesn't do that. After I started talking about this everywhere, other shooters noticed this and reported to Deon. One day, the glass designer at Deon went out and tested specifically for this. And discovered that I was not delusional. Deon reported on it at their website and it is now accepted that Super ED glass in a proper riflescope design has what they call "shimmer protection" capabilities. "Mirage" is a misnomer and they rightly term it "shimmer."

This effect cannot be achieved with traditional glass, regardless of how excellent it is. The ultimate Extra or Ultra low Dispersion (ED) glass is made from pure fluorite crystals, CaF2. There is only one company that makes spotting scopes with CaF2 glass and that is Kowa. They have 3 models with that glass: the 880, the 99x and the High Lander binoculars. I recently bought a Kowa 883 precisely for the CaF2 glass. I did not even consider any other spotting scope as none of them can match the shimmer protection of pure fluorite crystal glass, regardless of price. The Kowa 99x was too big for my needs.

The CaF2 glass allows you to discern the waves of the "mirage", you see the river but it doesn't mess up your image anywhere near what happens in traditional optical glass. It is impossible for traditional glass to match the IQ of a CaF2 glassed spotter.

sigfreund is exactly right when he stresses that if you're about to make a major purchase, you should look through various scopes.

I will go a couple of steps further. You folks know me as an optics snob, and you know I dismiss any report about comparing optics. When you get to a certain level of optical quality, being able to differentiate between them on a great day is essentially a waste of time; it's all up to your preferences.

What is a good test is comparing optics in bad or adverse conditions. For me as an F-class shooter, bad conditions amount to "mirage".

NikonUser, I have a question for you related to Kowa spotting scopes.
I have a 773, and thought the glass in those--also labeled "Prominar" was identical to the 883 size scope.

Here is Kowa's description of the "XD" glass in the 773:

quote:

As with many spotting scope brands, the TSN-770 series spotting scopes feature ED (Extra low dispersion) glass to improve optical performance, but the story does not end there. ED glass is manufactured in a variety of quality grades. Every TSN-770 model features Kowa’s environmentally friendly, legendary XD objective lenses. This high resolution ED glass contains large amounts of the mineral fluorite crystal - the best material available today for light transmission ensuring an image with edge to edge sharpness and virtually zero chromatic aberration (colour blur). The result is a simply stunning view of the natural world.

So it seems that, although it "contains large amounts" of fluorite, the objective is not actually of CaF2 glass. Is that right? I went for the smaller scope just for portability. Not that I would be likely to tell the difference.

That is correct. To recap the ED and especially Super ED glass contains a varying amount of CaF2. The XD glass that Kowa uses is probably equivalent to Super ED glass. The problem of course, is that there is no standard for the nomenclature used for this type of glass. Also, optical companies keep their secrets very closely and do not even tell you where they get their glass. Even those who do state they use Schott glass won't tell you where it was made, even if they knew.

It's all shrouded in mystery, by design.

Also, the design of the scope, and its assembly is at least as important as the glass itself. And we didn't even mention coatings.

The Kowa 770 series is an excellent design, and I can well appreciate why you would chose that one over the bigger, porkier 880. I wanted the pure CaF2 glass and was willing to deal with the bigger size of the 880, but shied away from the 99x series as it was far too big and heavy for me.

As always, NikonUser, thanks for that informative discussion.
I believe it is what you meant, but to be clear, no glass of lower quality than “Super ED” will offer improved seeing through heat wave effects (“shimmer”)—correct? And in your experience is there any minimum “badness” for the advantage to become apparent; e.g., minimum range to the target? (I keep thinking I should take all my rifles to the range some hot, sunny day and compare how the scopes deal with heat waves. I have only a couple of hundred yards, though.)

I have made the comment about not being able to see through heavy haze or “mirage” effects in the past, but it is of course possible to see something through almost any atmospheric condition short of dense fog or clouds. I should probably just say that the view though any optical device I’m familiar with can be severely degraded by certain atmospheric conditions, and some of the worst I’ve had to deal with were on long distance rifle ranges.

Something I have seen very little mention of in discussions about shooting optics is what practical effects different levels of quality have. I believe it was DLO who observed that for almost all situations all that really matters is whether the shooter can see the target. That should probably be caveated with, “… see the target well enough for an accurate sight picture.” Even then, though, it does usually mean that in practice a bit of color fringing or even blurring at the edges of the image that would usually result in a poor review is unlikely to mean that we couldn’t use the scope to hit a clearly visible target.

What I would be interested in are actual descriptions of differences in difficult seeing situations. I watch many NRL Hunter series videos and the most common comment by competitors is how hard it is to find its often small, cryptic targets. No one ever says, though, “I did much better this time at finding targets since I switched from that crappy Tangent Theta to the SuperClear 0.5-72×88mm scope.” Why is that? Because, as you alluded, at a certain quality level (short of the Super ED) the differences are so small as to be indistinguishable—? Or do the optical differences matter for only certain things such as dealing with shimmer? Thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
Is there a dual purpose pair of binos that would double to see targets/holes at 100 yards?
Being in town now I can’t just walk down after every 3 shots to check targets so I need something I can use from the line.

ETA: most of my optics max out at 9x or less

In my experience the best spotting scope is your rifle scope. Feedback is immediate, meaning that what you did or didn't do with that last shot is presented as the point of impact on the target. However, this often requires fairly high scope magnification, great optics clarity, and a target that shows impacts well.

It sounds like a higher magnification scope isn't your preferred option, so moving on...

Experiment with targets that show impacts well. Painted steel is one option, but it may not work for you -- especially at some public ranges. Solid black paper targets are tough to see holes in. White paper targets can be a challenge if the holes blend in with the backer or background. I suggest trying shoot-n-see, or similar targets. Pasters work to extend the lives of larger shoot-n-see targets.

I don't find binos all that useful for spotting holes in paper. I suppose with a solid rest or a clamping system, binos might work. Understand that with binos you're essentially paying for two scopes, so expect the cost to be higher than a comparable quality spotting scope.

You might find that a reasonably priced spotting scope is your best option. You might be shooting from some type of bench. If so, and the bench rest is solid, a short tripod might work well. Choose glass clarity over magnification -- it's easier to see results in a small-ish and clear image, than in a large-ish and fuzzy image. I suspect you'll want at least 15x to 20x to see 22-caliber holes well in paper at 100 yards.

I recommend your making friends with other shooters with spotting scopes on the line. Then you can see first hand how well some options work for your eyes and your targets.

I don't know a lot about spotting scopes, but I do know that binos of normal powers (say 7 to 10 magnification) will not have enough magnification to see .22 holes at 100 yards and even larger holes when you shoot at longer ranges. Binoculars are not very useful for that purpose. Even 15 power binos, which will be huge, will be marginally useful and will require a tripod.

You'll need a spotting scope, but listen to Fritz or NikonUser about them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

quote:

Maybe with a 24x max scope

We have 24x scopes on all our Mini-14 test rifles. It does work pretty well most of the time. Occasionally I need my 60x spotting scope, e.g. to resolve two shots that are touching. But if all I had was the target scope on the rifle, I could get by.

Of course, I still need the spotting scope when I'm shooting guns without 24x scopes, like my bolt-action or handguns.

sigfreund I think we have polluted Ottosig's thread enough and I don't want to further derail it.

If you would copy your post to the stickied thread, I will be glad to answer it in further detail.

Suffice it to say, I was not saying you were completely wrong, I was just explaining there are some ways to deal with the mirage to a certain extent.

I'm about to try a different solution to spotting my shots at distance.

I was at the range last week and as always became frustrated with trying to see where my shots were going. I was shooting three guns, a 6.5 Creedmore with a Burris 8-40 powered scope, a 308 Scar 17 with a Swarowski Z8 2.3-18 and a T/C Contender in .223 and a Burris 3-12 LER scope.
My shooting group decided they wanted to shoot at the 200 yard range.The best I could do was "think" I could see the bullet holes at 200 yards. I also decided that at $1+ per round I was not getting a warm fuzzy feeling not knowing exactly where all my shots were going.
The club I belong to has a 600 yard range. I have not yet shot at that range but plan to. I see no point in shooting if I can't be sure of where my shots are going.
Buying a extremely expensive spotting scope did not appeal to me so I decided to try a Caldwell Long Range Target camera.I states that it is good for over 1 mile.
I have not yet tried it.
Set it up downrange, tune in the WiFi signal to my pad or iPhone, and watch the screen in 720 resolution to see my target.
I hope it works as good as the commercials say it does.

Please post your comments after you try it!

I think JHE answered my question, binos have a purpose but it’s a spotting scope that does what I’m looking for, not convinced I can save money on binos at 10x or 12x to fill that role.

Thank you gentlemen and don’t worry about diluting the thread. I enjoy reading your thoughts and experiences.

I have the greatest bino's ever! Well, I think they are, I started out with Canon 10X IS Bino's. They were great. Everything stops moving when you push the button. Batteries only last 4 to 6 months. You'll discover you love it. But the the cover started coming off. I liked them so much I bought the 15 x model. All isn't lost, my wife uses the 10x these days. Great binos.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
binos have a purpose but it’s a spotting scope that does what I’m looking for, not convinced I can save money on binos at 10x or 12x to fill that role.

My binos are Swarovski EL Range 10x42. Had them for years -- use them for finding targets in steel matches, ranging targets, spotting impacts for other squad members. One will be hard pressed to find clearer glass in a pair of binos. But they're not for spotting holes in paper at 100 yards.