Whats a good borescope?

[dmoran]

@Milo 2.0
Thanks... Guess they came down in price (significantly). They used to be $200. I will delete the reply to eliminate the error.

Again will say, for thorough barrel inspection the Hawkeye is hands down better, do to the extra magnification. But for barrel cleaning, I much prefer the less magnification, the larger field of view, and display screens of the Lyman and Teslong. I have all three.

 

[PatMiles]

Hawkeye!

 

[Milo 2.0]

@Milo 2.0
Guess they came down in price (significantly). They used to be $200.

Again I will say for barrel inspection the Hawkeye is hands down better, and a no-brainer to have the extra magnification. But for barrel cleaning, I much prefer the less magnification, the larger field of view, and display screens of the Lyman and Teslong. I have all three,

I was surprised on the total too, expecting much more also. By the looks of the tube, it looks new, I had quite a bend on the mirror end, tip to concrete no good.
I did glue the busted half of the mirror back in, view angle was off, but still useable, but I paid too much for it to live like that, lol

 

[PatMiles]

@Milo 2.0
Guess they came down in price (significantly). They used to be $200. I will edit my reply to eliminate the error.

Again I will say for barrel thorough inspection the Hawkeye is hands down better, and a no-brainer to have the extra magnification. But for barrel cleaning, I much prefer the less magnification, the larger field of view, and display screens of the Lyman and Teslong. I have all three,

I had the mirror in my Hawkeye replaced about 2 years ago, the cost was the same as Milo's, $85.00.

 

[Milo 2.0]

I had the mirror in my Hawkeye replaced about 2 years ago, the cost was the same as Milo's, $85.00.

Haha, a fellow putz.

 

[PatMiles]

Haha, a fellow putz.

Yes I am, and damned proud of it!

 

[Milo 2.0]

Yes I am, and damned proud of it!

My Hawkeye tube didn't bounce nearly as high as my first chargemaster did. I looked for a way to check the air pressure in the CM.

 

[Jdne5b]

Ive done the endoscope, Lyman Gen1, and now Hawkeye. Wait for a sale at Brunos or Bullet central to save some bucks on the hawkeye. I also skipped the fancy case and 90° option. Very happy to have the Hawkeye, even for just cleaning and general inspection.

Endoscope I couldnt use the 90° adaptor in my .223 barrels, so kind of worthless. Plus every app I found to use with it, was essentially a virus on my phone. Probably just poor research but it was a pain.

Lyman just didnt have the clarity/image quality that I wanted. The new ones appear to be much more useful.

 

[Texas10]

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H269P85/?tag=accuratescom-20

Note the mirrors included, and the cost. This will do everything you need to verify your cleaning methods, however it will NOT let you look closely at lands and grooves. For that you need a bonafide borescope. I look down the muzzle for copper, and in the throat for carbon. Additionally, it'll allow you a full view of your chamber, a highly neglected area IMOP. If you purchase this or a like item, you can expect to be in the market for more robust cleaning tools and solvents as you'll quickly see what does and does not work.

 

[PatMiles]

My Hawkeye tube didn't bounce nearly as high as my first chargemaster did. I looked for a way to check the air pressure in the CM.

Yeppers, I handle mine like it's a nuclear bomb and if I drop it the world will end.

 

[ormandj]

Lyman came out with a higher resolution version of their borescope a few months back; you can grab it for $200 off Amazon. The image quality is significantly improved over the first generation model, and it'll absolutely let you verify your cleaning routine. I'd say the updated version is 75-80% as good an image as the Hawkeye.

That said, the Hawkeye is a much nicer tool overall, and will give you the best image quality. It's what I'd own if I were chambering rifles for paying customers. You'll pay a good bit for one though.

I just purchased one and it's the same low 320 resolution. I'm waiting on a response from Lyman, but I have a suspicion that the rumors of the updated version re: resolution were incorrect. I think they made changes to the stand (it's folding now) and maybe some components, but as far as I can tell, the resolution is still the same.

 

[MikeMcCasland]

I just purchased one and it's the same low 320x200 resolution. I'm waiting on a response from Lyman, but I have a suspicion that the rumors of the updated version re: resolution were incorrect. I think they made changes to the stand (it's folding now) and maybe some components, but as far as I can tell, the resolution is still the same.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...18-day-two-highlights-with-cool-new-products/

Sorry the one you got didn't live up to expectations. That said, they're out there, because I've got one, and it's marked on the box as such. Could be you received 'new old stock' or something like that?

Let us know what Lyman says!

 

[ormandj]

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...18-day-two-highlights-with-cool-new-products/

Sorry the one you got didn't live up to expectations. That said, they're out there, because I've got one, and it's marked on the box as such. Could be you received 'new old stock' or something like that?

Let us know what Lyman says!

Mine is marked on the box "Improved screen resolution..." as well, but if you take a snapshot on the SD card, you'll see the photos are 320x240. I just got off the phone with Lyman, as well, and they confirmed that the above blog post was incorrect, as well as all the other blog posts reposting the information. The resolution is the same, but they improved the quality of some of the components as well as some of the design (such as the folding kickstand for the display).

The scope works fine, it's annoying to get 'focused' when in something larger than a .22, but I was hoping for higher resolution. 320x240 is enough to do the job, but the errant blog posts had gotten my hopes up. I just wanted to make sure people didn't fall into the same trap I did!

Please check a captured photo on the SD card and see what resolution it's in. According to Lyman, it should still be 320x240. They also confirmed there are no plans to increase the resolution at this time/in the near future.

 

[MikeMcCasland]

Mine is marked on the box "Improved screen resolution..." as well, but if you take a snapshot on the SD card, you'll see the photos are 320x240. I just got off the phone with Lyman, as well, and they confirmed that the above blog post was incorrect, as well as all the other blog posts reposting the information. The resolution is the same, but they improved the quality of some of the components as well as some of the design (such as the folding kickstand for the display).

The scope works fine, it's annoying to get 'focused' when in something larger than a .22, but I was hoping for higher resolution. 320x240 is enough to do the job, but the errant blog posts had gotten my hopes up. I just wanted to make sure people didn't fall into the same trap I did!

Please check a captured photo on the SD card and see what resolution it's in. According to Lyman, it should still be 320x240. They also confirmed there are no plans to increase the resolution at this time/in the near future.

Yep, I know the images captured to the SD were still in 320x240, however the images on the LCD screen read out seem much better quality than the 1st generation of the model. I can definitely see a huge difference between the live screen read out, and captured pics. I don't own a 1st gen so can't confirm that side by side.

If that's not the case, than I can't understand why they would bother upgrading anything? What would be the point?

 

[ormandj]

Yep, I know the images captured to the SD were still in 320x240, however the images on the LCD screen read out seem much better quality than the 1st generation of the model. I can definitely see a huge difference between the live screen read out, and captured pics. I don't own a 1st gen so can't confirm that side by side.

If that's not the case, than I can't understand why they would bother upgrading anything? What would be the point?

The screen/device may be improved, but the resolution of the camera isn't better, according to Lyman. I don't have a gen one display to look at, so can't really speak to that. The resolution of the device/camera itself is the same, they may have had a really poor quality display on gen1 and went to a less-poor quality on gen2, but if the camera is only 320x240, that's the best you're gonna get on the display.

The person I spoke with indicated the improvements were for reliability, quality of image (not resolution, and not really sure what was tweaked, CS didn't make it clear), and usability (folding stand). Not sure why they didn't go for higher resolution, perhaps a component price/supply issue.

 

[Nature Boy]

My Hawkeye tube didn't bounce nearly as high as my first chargemaster did. I looked for a way to check the air pressure in the CM.

It was at the end of a particularly frustrating reloading secession that I learned just how high a cheap Frankford Arsenal powder scale can bounce.

P.S. It doesn’t drift anymore

 

[ckaberna]

I've never heard of a Hawkeye owner ask a friend to come over with his Lyman to decipher what he sees in his barrel.

And you never will due to the $$$ he has tyed up in it. Truth hurts.

 

[mike06]

This one works for me. http://www.larrywillis.com/

 

[dcali]

I’m sure that there will be a digital scope that makes the Hawkeye seem like an expensive obsolete relic at some point. But we’re not there yet. The image quality of the Hawkeye is perfect. I doubt that the human eye is capable of using more resolution. It’s a very nice tool. I just wish there was an affordable way to take pictures with it. They sell a camera attachment but it costs way more than I care to pay.

 

[coldboreshot]

I've never heard of a Hawkeye owner ask a friend to come over with his Lyman to decipher what he sees in his barrel.

Perhaps not, but I do understand they consult their therapists from time to time.