Inexpensive spotting scope?

[LMT42]

The spotting scopes at my range aren't strong enough to see bullet holes at two and three hundred yards. I've bought nothing but high-end stuff for my rifle, but this is one item I'd prefer to buy on the cheap.

What's my cheapest option that will allow me to easily see bullet holes at three hundred yards? Spotting scope, binoculars, rifle scope... I don't care. I want something that's functional, but as cheap as possible.

[mnoe82]

I bought a spotting scope at wal mart last year. its a burris 60x with a tripod. It was 40 bucks. Came with a case, tripod, and lens cloth. Ive seen them since then for the same price. It works great for me. I rarely shoot past 300 yards and I can see my 223 holes at that distance easily. Hope it works for you as well as it has for me.

[TAZ]

Stay the hell away from Barska. Bought one at Cabelas a while back for $40. I think its a 20-60 x 60 model. Looked good in the store, but it's a piece of crap on the range. Lots and lots of haze can't focus for squat. Can't see 223 holes at 100 yds clearly or barely for that matter. My Millett 4-16 is clearer as is my IOR 2.5-10.

[Hmac]

My experience with Barska is just the opposite. While it is certainly not a high quality optic, I have found it to be completely adequate for my limited needs. I don't have any haze, it focuses well. Even the cheapo tripod is at least functional, and the whole unit actually does quite well sitting on a shooting bench and used for sighting in. Truthfully, I was pleasantly surprised to be able to get such a functional spotting scope for so little money.

[SeriousStudent]

I'd be very interested in a recommendation at the $100 and $300 price points.

[LMT42]

Sounds like the Barska is hit or miss. I'd like to find out more about the Burris mentioned above. I've searched the net and can't find a Burris that cheap.

[ra2bach]

deleted

[ra2bach]

I have a Burris Lanndmark 15-45x60. it is quite compact, and is pretty clear - good enough to easily see .22 caliber holes in a 200 yd target, and is quite good in low light. I didn't spend a lot on this and I'd definitely recommend it for general duty...

[The_Hammer_Man]

From personal,expensive!, experience I've learned once again that you get what you pay for with optics.

Low cost "usually" means less than clear lenses, improper parallax and so on.

Cheapest ,least expensive, spotting scope that I haven't thrown away if my Yukon.

Pricey at about $400 but worth it.

[ra2bach]

From personal,expensive!, experience I've learned once again that you get what you pay for with optics.

Low cost "usually" means less than clear lenses, improper parallax and so on.

Cheapest ,least expensive, spotting scope that I haven't thrown away if my Yukon.

Pricey at about $400 but worth it.

this is true. but there is also a cost/benefit matrix that you need to place your needs on. with anything, ask yourself, "what is my intended use?"

the OP asked for a cheap scope that he could see holes on 300 yd targets. you don't need a high end Swaro or Kowa for this. at longer ranges or in low light, or even if you want to "trace" bullets, the need for better resolution, clarity, and contrast starts to come into play.

if I was headed out into the backcountry for some longrange Elk sniping, I would also have a different set of needs in low light resolution and durability.

simply taking a spotter out of its case and setting it up on a shooting bench doesn't tax any of its capabilities very much as long as it is capable or resolving the target in normal light.