Best spotting scope mirage reading VS spotting bullet holes.

[maxpower]

I am looking to invest in a new spotting scope and realise that it wont be cheap to get very very good glass.
I will have 2 uses for the spotter.
One use will be for checking mirage when shooting F Class. Are there any certain attributes to look for in choosing a scope which is great for reading mirage? Are the very top shelf 80-90mm scopes any better than mid tier 65mm scopes at picking up mirage?

The other use is spotting bullet holes in 600yd BR. I realise that even the Hubble Telescope wont resolve bullet holes when the mirage is running, but would like to help my chances. Has anyone here tested the latest top of the line spotting scopes to see which have the best bullet hole resolution?
Has anyone compared the Vortex Razor HD 85mm against the Swaro,Zeiss,Leica,Kowas?
Are any manufacturers bringing out any new top shelf scopes soon? Most of the best ones out at the moment seem to be 5+ year old designs and technology.

 

[Matt Pitchon]

I recently bought a Razor Vortex 85mm ED with the 20-60 eyepiece. I did compare this scope to mostly the Kowa 82mm, but not the Flouride front lens 88mm. Prior I had a Nikon 20-45 60mm. For reading mirage the Nikon was fine, and it was sharp enough to read bullet holes at 200yds.

When there is no mirage running the Vortex is amazing for it brightness and 'crispness'. I was unprepared for just how sharp the view could be. However, once any mirage starts to run, all that 'crispness' goes away. I shoot at 50yds for practice and 200 to 600 for matches. At 50yds early in the morning, it seems I could count the fibers in the paper. Moving out to 600yds, which typically doesn't happen until the afternoon, the mirage is running so hard (where I shoot) I might as well be looking down the bottom of a Coke bottle.

The reality seems to be spotting bullet holes has more to do with the atmospheric conditions than a reasonably good scope. You can read mirage with just about anything. I looked through a Celestron Regal(ED) which is about 1/2 the price of the Vortex and it was completely sufficient for shooting.

The bird watching folks typically use their scopes for much shorter distances, meaning atmospheric conditions are less likely to distort the image. For them a really good scope does make a different. For shooters, at longer distances, the atmospherics completely swamp the impact of really good optics.

My 2 cents.....

 

[MK 19]

My spotting scope is a Swarovski STM-80HD with the 20-60 eyepiece. My usage is not only target shooting, but also birding, digiscoping, astronomy and astro photography. So for my needs the cost was well worth it. However, I live in SoCal and we have very dry days with very warm temps over 6 months of the year so my wonderful scope is of no more use to spotting bullet holes at 300 yards then looking thru an empty paper towel roll. If I was strictly a target shooter I would not pay $3500 for a spotter, instead I would be in the market for a target camera to spot bullet holes out past 1500 yards or further.

 

[maxpower]

OK, so a top scope is not needed for reading mirage for F class, that will mean I will use my small Celestron for reading mirage and other peoples targets in F Class. This time of year there sure is plenty of mirage to be reading and my small Celestron is convenient..

For 600yd BR bullet hole spotting, I realise that when the mirage is running (like it has been lately), I aint gonna see much at all, except for maybe the first and last relays. I had read some reviews on birding forums which placed the Uber expensive Euro scopes ahead of the mid level domestic scopes, but as I am not too interested in extreme examination of true colours on plumage on a lesser spotted warbler, then these reviews don't mean much if it doesn't help with finding bullet holes in a 600yd target.
I will try to look through some different spotters when I get to the next 600yd BR shoot in a month or so, but was kind of keen to upgrade my scope before that shoot. I tried a few different eye pieces on my Celestron, but it was just not up there with the big scopes when I tried to push the magnification for hole spotting.

 

[RDavies]

I have a new Vortex Razor HD85 on the way and will let you know how it goes. The next week or so should be cool and overcast, perfect viewing conditions, so I will try to put some old used targets outside at long ranges and see how far I can see bullet holes. I want to compare it to my March and Sightron scopes anyhow. Later next week I will be going to a 500M flyshoot (similar to 600yd BR) where there will be plenty of other scopes (all the big name scopes) to compare it to when looking for bullet holes. I don't know all the technical jargon on scopes, but will just see how each one goes for finding holes n targets.
I did find that my 65mm Pentax was great for reading mirage, but no matter which eyepiece I used, was never as good as my rifle scopes for finding holes at long range. I hope the new Vortex will be even better than my rile scopes for this.

 

[RDavies]

OK, my new Vortex Razor HD just arrived so I have done a quick test.
First test was looking into a backyard around 600yds away in fairly good viewing conditions, patches of overcast, wind going from zero to around 5 kmh.
First I checked the Vortex on 60x, my 65mm Pentax with a 6mm TMB eyepiece (around 60x) and my 10-60 March. I was hoping to try my Sightron 10-50x but it is away being repaired after I dropped it.
Looking at a kids cubby house first with the Pentax I noticed some nail holes in the roof and thought it was pretty good, the March showed a bit more detail in the nail holes though was slightly darker. I noticed a few more steel nails on the cubby house. I then tried the new Vortex and it showed much more detail again and was significantly brighter than the March, slightly more than the Pentax. I then turned them towards a gas bottle and found once again that the March and the Pentax were fairly even in reading some larger writing on the bottle. When I used the bigger Vortex it was much easier to read the writing and I found that what I though was some writing was a phone number which took some reading, but definitely showed more clarity than either the Pentax 65mm or March scope. I had tried using my Pentax to view bullet holes at a previous shoot, but put it away when I found it was no better than my March scope. I was relieved to find that I hadn't wasted my money on another scope which was no better at finding bullet holes than the rifle scope.

Next I screwed the 14mm Pentax XW eye piece in which is around 25x. I turned the Vortex down to 25x and tried reading mirage. Surprisingly I found it easier to pick up the mirage with the smaller Pentax than the Vortex. I swapped back and forth quite a few time and found the Pentax usually showed mirage direction a little easier than the bigger scope. Vortex was slightly clearer, Pentax showed more mirage. Could it be that the better (?) optics of the bigger scope punched through the mirage or something, I don't know, but I will stick to using my smaller Pentax and 14mm eye piece to check mid range mirage when shooting F Class and will use the 85mm Vortex for spotting bullet holes in Fly shoots and general viewing. Another thing I loved about the Pentax was the 14mm XW eye piece had a wider angle of vision, more eye relief and was more forgiving of eye placement, all important for looking through when shooting prone. I would love to borrow a 23x long eye relief eye piece in my Vortex to see if it brings it up to or exceeds the Pentax for this role.
Summing up, at 60x the big Vortex was clearly ahead of my March scope and 65mm Pentax ED, better clarity, lighter, just a better picture. I did not have any other top end "Alpha" scopes such as Zeiss, Kowa, leica, Swarovski to compare it to, but hope to compare them at a shoot next week.
At 25x, for reading mirage, it is likely the great Pentax 14mm XW eye piece is what I liked most with the 65mm Pentax ED, so would have to get a 23x LER eye piece in the Vortex to compare, but it seems the smaller scopes are OK for reading mirage. I'm not sure how a 65mm Celestron will stack up though.

Sorry I couldn't comment on Chromatic aberations etc etc or any other technical optical terms, I wouldn't know what they are.

 

[chevytruck_83]

The guys at eurooptic say the meopta are the way to go. Take it for what its worth.