Rifle Range Optics - Spotting Scope vs High Power Binoculars

[Anthony]

Hello Everyone,

I am in the market for some high end optics for use primarily on the range while practicing long range rifle and perhaps also in the field in a fixed position to a lesser extant. As I am somewhat new to shooting rifles past 200 yards I would like some advice before plunking down my hard earned cash.

After reading the excellent optics information in The Ultimate Sniper by Major Plaster, I am at something of a loss at deciding between a top drawer spotting scope mounted on a small tripod or a set of high power (e.g., 15x80) binoculars on a small tripod.

As I am a civilian on interested in punching paper and do not hunt I really do not think I need several types of optics. Further, to shoot over 200 yards I must travel quite a distance to an out of town range. With this in mind, limiting eye strain to get the most out of my range sessions is a high priority with me. This latter point suggests that the binoculars would be a superior option.

Thoughts?

 

[ArmedBear]

Spotting scope.

Generally, a spotting scope has an eyepiece that is made so that the user can look down at an angle, whereas binoculars are made so you look straight through them.

When you check your target, it takes a second or two if you keep the spotting scope positioned and focused (one reason you use the small tripod). This doesn't cause eyestrain. Crappy optics cause eyestrain.

15X isn't high power, if you're talking about seeing clean .22 caliber holes from spitzer bullets, on a black target, at 400 yards. 15X is great for spotting deer at 400 yards against a deer-colored backdrop, not tiny holes at 400 yards in a black background.

Spotting scopes generally offer 36X to 60X magnification.

 

[Averageman]

I would go

Spotting scope everytime. Having both and having used both, on the range that scope will be what you want. It will be so much more comfortable for you to use.

 

[War Squirrel]

I agree. Binoculars are better for scanning situations, but I've always found monoculars and spotting scopes to be far easier to hold steady and keep things in view.

 

[Offfhand]

Yep, you'll never see anything but spotting scopes on the firing line at long range rifle competition. Same when judging trophy game at distance.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Another vote for a spotting scope. It's hard enough to see .22 holes on paper at 200 yards with a decent spotting scope. Be ready to spend major $$$ for one with the clarity you will want. You may want to try and find what's popular among both CMP and benchrest shooters.

 

[wally]

Spotting scope is the way to go.

But for 50 yard targets (where I generally sight in at) I just use a pair of cheap 10x binocs if I'm not using magnification on the rifle. At 100 yards, generally the scope I use is good enough I can see the holes on the target through it.

At longer ranges the spotting scope is pretty much essential.

--wally.

 

[dakotasin]

just a word of warning, and armed bear touched on it... picking out bullet holes at 400 yards is difficult for most spotters, and impossible for 'decent' and lesser spotters if the conditions are not perfect.

i'd suggest a variable of around 20-60x. many times i can't get my spotter even into the 40's, but when i can, i sure wish i had more available.

i'd also suggest you try a few spotters at the range beforehand. you will discover vast differences in them for your very narrow, very specific application.

 

[ArmedBear]

If you REALLY want to shoot paper at long ranges on a serious level, you can't overspend on your spotting scope.

I like to shoot balloons. They're cheap, reactive, and I don't need a Swarovski to see whether they popped, even WAY out there.

 

[Rembrandt]

I use a Swarovski spotting scope and binoculars. Each has advantages over the other. While the spotting scope is wonderful for long range use, (10X42) binoculars can be changed to 20X with the addition of a doubler. While this is handy and compact, it can be a challenge to steady. Biggest problem with long distance optics is heat mirage distortion.

 

[rtn]

Spotting scope.

And a good one. I shelled out the money for a Kowa 660, 25x LER eyepiece, and Friedland stand. Yes, it was expensive; but yes, it was well worth it. I

 

[ArmedBear]

WRT Rembrandt's post: bear in mind that 10X Swarovskis will let you see detail that other 10X bino's will not, including some fairly good ones.

 

[wade rigsby]

if your gonna kill paper the opt for the spotting scope. you will not go wrong. get a good one. cheap spotters tend to not focus as good as highend ones. i made that mistake and will not make it any more

 

[ArmedBear]

Unfortunately, a cheap spotter is just throwing the money away.

Or, like I said, shoot small balloons. Fun, challenging, cheap, and they don't require a $1000 spotting scope to see if you hit them.

 

[Claude Clay]

100mm Schmidt-cassigrain telescope
terrestrial adapter or look at the moon & beyond

i use mine for 1000 yard 308 & 600 yard 223
comes with its own case and a tripod is useful but it will stand on its own for use as a spotting scope. ~$400
also get a camera adapptor & have lots of fun