Rogue River Super Scope

[TheBlueEyedBear]

Has anybody seen, used, or heard anything about the Super Scope?
Sounds good, but then again, don't think anyone would say anything bad about themselves on their website.

Super Scope

 

[Preacher]

Barry,
I'll go in for half, and you can use one side and i'll use the other side
I have heard some great things about it, but take that with a grain of salt.
Sure would like to get my paws on one for a little while......

 

[TheBlueEyedBear]

I'll let you know how they are. I am going to order a set on Monday. Hope I;m not stepping off in the deep-end!! :crazy:

 

[tenring]

I looked at their web site as soon as I saw the ad in new PS. I presented some questions to Rogue, and here is their response received yesterday:

"The lenses come from an Australian company….they are fluorite glass ED treated…they are apochromatic,corrected for 4 colors) not achromatic, corrected for three colors ) They are warrantied by an American company …us. The eyepieces are plossl,20 power) and orthoscopic, for all higher powers ) Everything is dispersion limited as the glass is the same quality as research-grade astronomical telescopes and won’t be available for this price after July 1"

Before I shell out that kind of cash, I would like to hear from a long range shooter re definition of bullet holes under decent conditions to 600 yds. Please report ASAP Bear.

 

[TheBlueEyedBear]

TenRing
Thanks for the response!1

I am placing my order first thing Monday morning. Unsure of delivery time,but when I get it I will head to the range first thing.

I am somewhat apprehensive about taking this plunge; but, it does sound like a great concept to spotting in our environment.

Thanks again.

 

[Fred Bohl]

Barry,

I received an email query from tenring and part of my reply follows:

I have found no independent testing of the Rogue River Super Scope FNS 120. However, I did actually get to try one,with the 25 mm 30x eyepiece lenses) and also a Leica Televid 77 APO with the 20-60x zoom lens.

Before I relate my impressions, I need to remind you that these are not based on objective testing but on my limited personal observations and as such are subject to my own experience and bias.

tenring,

Did you get my email reply?

On to the results:

Neither was capable of resolving a single 6 mm or 50% over lapping 6 mm pair of bullet holes at 1000 yards even in the early morning with no mirage and little wind. Not surprising given the optical spec as equipped. The FNS 120 did resolve the holes when I substituted my 5 mm,for 150x and 22 MOA fov) for one of the 25 mm,for 30x and 110 MOA fov) eyepieces,and only viewed through the 5 mm).

In the early morning with no mirage and little wind resolving a single 6 mm or 50% over lapping 6 mm pair of bullet holes at 600 yards worked with the Televid 77 APO but only at 60x,for 72 MOA fov). The FNS 120 did not work until I substituted my 10 mm,for 75x and 44 MOA fov) for one of the 25 mm,for 30x and 110 MOA fov) eyepieces,and only viewed through the 5 mm).

By late morning the mirage and wind were so bad that we were all hard pressed to even read target numbers,about 2 foot high) dependably through our spotting scopes at 1000 yards. The IBS targets were nothing but fuzzy blue rings on a white board at 600 yards also.

Now for my biased comments and assessments:

The Leica Televid 77 APO is somewhat better quality in both optical and mechanical design and assembly. Under good seeing conditions, low wind and mirage, it is capable of resolving single 6 mm or 50% over lapping 6 mm pair of bullet holes at 600 yards.

The FNS 120 has the potential for improved resolution,0.016 MOA vs. 0.025 MOA) and with its longer focal length,750 mm vs. 440 mm) it will be effective at higher magnifications,1.5 times more) and consequently smaller fields of view,e.g. 55 MOA vs. 72 MOA at 60x for each). This could translated into resolving those 6 mm bullet holes at 600 yards under worse seeing conditions or under very good seeing conditions at longer ranges. However, the basic eyepiece sets are too low powered to take advantage of that potential. I would suggest 12.5 mm,60x) minimum and 8 mm,93.75x) sets.

Binoviewer Comments/Opinions

If you were coaching or spotting for another target or varmint shooter and had to look through the spotting scope for long periods of time you would find the binocular viewer setup well worth the costs. However for the target or varmint shooter, that money would be better spent on higher quality single eyepieces. I happen to shoot right handed and sight through the telescopic sight with my right eye,and have done so for 57 years) even though I am left eye dominant. I leave the left eye open,to maintain an impression of wind conditions) and use the left eye to view through my spotting scope when needed. I find that by using different eyes for viewing through the two different optics my eyes and brain do not have to adapt to the changing conditions and views,at least it works for me and that is my rationalization for why).

If you do indeed follow some of my posts, you know that I have been a advocate the most bang for the buck and have advocated for much less expensive and functional if not very elegant spotting scopes. There are much less expensive setups that are at least useful but then you have to put up with the laughter, pointing and sarcasm from the possessors of BR TRUTHS,aka your shooting buddies). You may also know that last season I switched from my old Weaver T-36s to March 50x and 60x scopes on my long range heavy guns. Since doing that I never need or use a spotting scope unless I'm shooting over 600 yards and they have been well worth the expense.

Before you part with serious money to see bullet holes at or beyond 600 yards, be advised that the atmospheric lens,with its pollution, mirage and wind) can and will trump even the finest optics.

 

[Forum Boss]

Fred, thanks for your report. Very, very helpful.

Barry, last week we tested an 80mm Swarovski,20-60x zoom) and a 100mm Pentax ED,26-77x zoom + 55X fixed).

We also had a NF 10-42X Nightforce riflescope and a 10-60X March Riflescope on hand.

We started at 06:30 am, literally at the crack of dawn.,The 100mm was noticeably brighter than the 80mm Swaro at this hour).

Our test target was an official 600-yard target with five 6mm bullet holes in it, 3 in white, one in blue, and one "double",overlapping shot) at the blue/white edge.

Viewing conditions were nearly ideal early in the morning. We were at a mtn range, 3000+ feet altitude. It had rained earlier in the week, clearing up the air. Conditions, initially, were windless with no mirage, and air was cool and dry.

The Pentax and Swaro at 60X could both resolve ALL 6mm holes at 600 yards, including the double. It was easier to see the holes with the Pentax set at 77X, however. The Pentax had slightly more contrast, while the Swaro was just slightly sharper,target lines were "crisper").

With the NF 10-42, 3 of the four observers could see all bullet holes at 600, but basically you couldn't tell the double was two shots. The one shot by itself in the blue was pretty hard to pick out. I wear contact lenses, and I couldn't see the shot in the blue with the NF.

At 60 power the March 10-60 Rifle scope could pick out all FIVE shots and you could tell the double was a double. However, the Swaro was sharper and the Pentax had more contrast. It was definitely easier to see all five bullet holes with the spotting scopes,either one). However the March was surprisingly good. the big problem with using the March is the 3.5" eye relief and ultra-small exit pupil. It's easier to use when sitting behind a rifle so your head doesn't move.

NOTE: Individual eyes make a difference. I wear corrective contact lenses, and the three other observers could all see better through the Nightforce than I could. Additionally, I could see better with my right eye than my left eye. It's interesting, not only do I have better resolving power with the right eye, but I see more contrast.

WITH MIRAGE
As the day went on, the wind arrived and we started to see mild to medium mirage. We started shooting on a white butcher paper target with 3" Orange stickers. I was still able to call shots in the white with the Pentax 100ED, and another observer was able to call shots in the white with the 80mm Swaro. Shots on the orange stickers were pretty easy to see even when mirage was bad.

POWER
While the NF resolved holes in the white at 42X, it was easier to see them with the March at 60x,but the exit pupil is really small at that power so eye/head position is very critical and hard to maintain).

I'd say you'd want AT LEAST 60X in a spotting scope and 80 power isn't too much. We cranked the Pentax all the way up to 77X and that was definitely better than 52X,fixed lens), or 60X,with zoom). Keep in mind the Pentax had a huge 100mm objective.

FOCUS
In order to get the most out of the spotting scopes, you had to focus very, very carefully. With the Pentax this was difficult because it has a single 1"-diameter focus ring. It was easy to go "too far" one way or the other with the focus ring on the Pentax. Also the Pentax was so long and heavy that it would shake or wobble a bit as you worked the focus.

The Swaro had a big, wraparound focus ring that is the full diameter of the body. This was much, much easier to focus precisely.

Concurring with Fred, I would say that you'd want a spotting scope that can deliver 60X at least, and I'd like to try 85X magnification on a 120mm scope...

This assumes, of course, that the task is to resolve 6mm bullet holes at 600 yards and beyond.

 

[TheBlueEyedBear]

Thank you so much for the extremly concise information put forth here. As 'Mr. Moderator' had stated, individual eyes can/do make a large difference in the performance of the optics. My reason for looking at the superscope is mainly because of the dual eye pieces. With the Macular Degeneration I have going on it is a real pain for me to spend any amount of time looking through glass at a range or in a field. My hope is that the dual eye pieces will reduce or eliminate eye stress. It doesn't take long for me to develope a blinding headache.

Another one of my alternatives was the standard Big-Eyes. From what I have found the cost of the Big-Eyes makes me think I want to try the Super Scope..

Thanks again for everyones contributions to this POST. Great info posted here that should enlighten other readers who come along.

Thank you!

 

[tenring]

Fred - See my PM forwarded today.

Paul - Thanks, great report. I have a March 10-60X scope on a 30BR and WHEN CONDITIONS ARE IDEAL,familiar caveat) I can resolve single impacts at 500 meters. But my Leica Televid 77 spotter is not so forgiving. Less than half the time, I am not able to pick them out. But other shooters can find them in my Leica. I am right eye dominant for shooting and spotting. Had cataract removed from right eye last fall, but no improvement has been noted in spotting bullet holes. Maybe I have an impossible dream, but am willing to part with some serious cash when I am confident I will have the best possible optic to discern those way out projectile impacts. Gene

 

[Fred Bohl]

Barry,

Sorry to hear that your problem is Macular Degeneration. That does significantly alter my recommendations for your case. Since MD typically begins in the Fovea,center 10 degrees of the retina) which is the area that contains the most densely packed cone receptors, you are loosing the use of the most detail sensitive area. Further, the higher the power of a telescopic sight, spotting scope or binoculars, the smaller the exit pupil diameter and angular field of view. That very small image will then be well within the Fovea and typically within the center 1 degree or less.

I think you would be better served by substituting a color camera,i.e. Orion StarShoot Solar System Color Imager III) that will go in the eyepiece holder of a spotting scope and connect to a notebook computer,needs a hood for outdoor viewing). Then you can get an expanded image and even zoom in on selected areas. This could even be adapted to a telescopic sight if you need assistance for sighting as MD progresses.

 

[TheBlueEyedBear]

Thanks again for such concise information! I can't even get this much info from my Opthamologist. I go in the end of the month for Catarac surgury that will hopefully improve my vision enough to avoid additional surgery. However, Dr. Barth mentioned that he would be using a ceramic lens for the replacement lens incase additional surgery is required. He said something about the lasers can work through the ceramic lenses better than the standard lens material. My doctor is very good and explains thing in detail. I'm sure it is just me going in to 'twilight zone' when approached with all this info, and, facing the reality of lessening vision.

Thanks again for all the info provided. after spending the weekend reading and re-reading the entire post, I have decided to hold off on my purchase. If the 'Super Scope' is a good product, I'm sure it will be out there when I get my vision issue resolved.