Spotting Scope for Zeroing

[B52U]

I recently picked up a Bushnell T series 15-45x on the bushnell spring rebate. For the price I have been decently impressed by the optical quality and smaller form factor. I dig the mil reticle for range estimation and calling spotting adjustments. It may not be high enough magnification for seeing small holes on paper at long distances but seems like it will be fine for seeing steel impacts or dust from misses.

[AndyLate]

What's your budget? If all you are doing is sighting in a couple of rifles you probably don't need a two thousand dollar scope.

That is my quandry. I find myself wanting more magnification than my 10x scope and binoculars to see .223 and .30 bullet holes at 1-200 yards (not just zeroing). I don't WANT to spend more than $500 for a spotter and everything I read makes me think that any scope sold for less than $1000 is fragile blurry garbage. Throwing $500 away on a crap scope seems as dumb as spending $1000 for a scope I will use 25 times a year.

I am stuck in waffle mode and still walking back and forth to my targets. I guess the exercise doesn't hurt...

[Failure2Stop]

Good paper targets or appropriate steel are a much more economical solution.

[TomMcC]

That is my quandry. I find myself wanting more magnification than my 10x scope and binoculars to see .223 and .30 bullet holes at 1-200 yards (not just zeroing). I don't WANT to spend more than $500 for a spotter and everything I read makes me think that any scope sold for less than $1000 is fragile blurry garbage. Throwing $500 away on a crap scope seems as dumb as spending $1000 for a scope I will use 25 times a year.

I am stuck in waffle mode and still walking back and forth to my targets. I guess the exercise doesn't hurt...

If you use a Big Dawg or Shoot n c like what markm or I use you don't need to spend big bucks on a spotter, you can see your hits with a much less expensive spotter. That will work out to about 300 yds. After that you'll need a pretty good scope to see even the Shoot n c targets.

[Bimmer]

I don't WANT to spend more than $500 for a spotter and everything I read makes me think that any scope sold for less than $1000 is fragile blurry garbage.

You do NOT need a really expensive spotting scope.

The limiting factor for spotting is almost always environmental — it's fog or mirage, and better scopes don't deal with that any better than cheap ones.

IMO and IME, the returns diminish verrrrry rapidly once you spend more than $200-$300 on a spotting scope. I'm not saying a $1,000 scope isn't better than a $300 scope, but it's NOT 3x better, or even 2x better.


FWIW, budget for a good tripod or stand. That'll do more to make your scope useful than a "better" scope itself.

I'm a huge fan of Velbon's "table-top" tripod with it's widespread legs — I usually shoot off a bench.

[Bimmer]

I have been using a Celestron 20-60x80. It looks identical to the Konus.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._Spotting.html

No, that's different...

I don't know about the quality of the scope itself, but one of the reallllly nice features of the Konus is that the mounting ring swivels independently, so you can easily have the eyepiece pointing to one direction or the other (not just straight up).

[Pappabear]

I bought the vortex Razor, but you can get their cheaper line that is sub $1k for a decent Spotter.

The targets we use are all bought off Amazon, and they are cheap. They dont have the sticky feature but staples are cheap and easy.

Vortex Diamondback for around $400, kinda like a Konus
Vortex Viper to up your game in the $700 range.

If you have a sportsman warehouse close by, they usually have both. Good luck.

PB

[TomMcC]

You do NOT need a really expensive spotting scope.

The limiting factor for spotting is almost always environmental — it's fog or mirage, and better scopes don't deal with that any better than cheap ones.

IMO and IME, the returns diminish verrrrry rapidly once you spend more than $200-$300 on a spotting scope. I'm not saying a $1,000 scope isn't better than a $300 scope, but it's NOT 3x better, or even 2x better.


FWIW, budget for a good tripod or stand. That'll do more to make your scope useful than a "better" scope itself.

I'm a huge fan of Velbon's "table-top" tripod with it's widespread legs — I usually shoot off a bench.

Going to have to disagree with this. There is a huge difference in clarity between a $1500 Swaro, Lecia, or Kowa and a $200-300 spotter. You won't find a serious High power rifle shooter with a $200-300 spotter. And the reason is you can't see .223 and .30 holes at 200-600 yds on the targets they use. You're right about a good tripod though. A little wind and a weak tripod can bounce a spotter around and make things difficult. Again, if you want to see small holes 200 yds and out use targets that show up well.

[Bimmer]

Going to have to disagree with this. There is a huge difference in clarity between a $1500 Swaro, Lecia, or Kowa and a $200-300 spotter. You won't find a serious High power rifle shooter with a $200-300 spotter.

Fair enough, but for the OP and for AndyLate, who are trying to see .22 holes at 200yds, a $1,500 spotter is totally overkill. A $200-$300 spotter will work fine for them.


I'm not a serious high power/precision shooter, but with my $200 Konus I can easily see .22 holes at 200yds and .30 holes at 300 (as well as .17 holes at 150yds), especially on "splatter" targets.

Also, it's has held up fine over dozens and dozens of trips to the range over the last 8-10 years.

I don't baby it, either: it lives in an old soft ukelele case (perfect fit) and travels in a big duffel bag full of targets and shooting rests.

[TomMcC]

Yes I agree that he really doesn't need a really high end spotter for what he's doing. Maybe it's just my eyes, but I can't see .223 holes on a regular paper target with a lower priced spotter at 200 anymore. Remembering back I dont think I ever was able.