see 22 holes @200 in black

[kzin]

Shot a walk and paste match at 200yds this weekend and it was almost a waste of time as I couldn't see 223 holes in the old black targets to adjust off with my cheap spotter scope. I practice at 200 with white targets and forgot how much more difficult black targets can be.

Should a 60x 85mm $500 sightron spotter scope do it?
My mk1 mod1 eyeballs themselves aren't very good.
If not how far up in price/quality do I need to go?

thanks

 

[chkunz]

Being able to see the bullet holes depends on a lot of things, the type of target used, the background behind the targets (some ranges use a white background some distance behind the targets), the light conditions (sun on back of targets, bad, sun on front of targets, better, overcast ?). It would be good if you could look at this with someone else's scope(s) to see for yourself. We do not all see the same.

 

[kzin]

Conditions are pretty gloomy
bare dirt backstop as first part of very high hill behind
berms on both sides
big trees all over

targets are standard nra high power
yellow paper and dull black

 

[kzin]

I know nobody can guarantee anything.

Trying to refine the question I guess I'm asking how much do I have to spend on what features to have the BEST possible chance.

1000$ > 500 ?
2000 > 1000 ?

Any point in > 60x ?
80+mm definitely better than 60mm?

 

[daniel brothers]

make a better target by taping a black garbage bag to a wide board, then paint the bag with white latex paint. The shots will break away the paint, leaving a black bag hole to show through... then simply repaint the holes when finished for a new target face for next time.

 

[USMCDOC]

make a better target by taping a black garbage bag to a wide board, then paint the bag with white latex paint. The shots will break away the paint, leaving a black bag hole to show through... then simply repaint the holes when finished for a new target face for next time.

Not feasible for irons or walk up matches..

 

[kzin]

Not feasible for irons or walk up matches..

right
I must shoot the issued match target.
I MIGHT be able to add a layer below that target.

 

[chkunz]

It would really be helpful if you could look thru someone else's scope that they can see with and see how it looks to you. I realize that you may not have that opportunity. I had rather have one look myself rather than ten opinions.

 

[kzin]

It would really be helpful if you could look thru someone else's scope that they can see with and see how it looks to you. I realize that you may not have that opportunity. I had rather have one look myself rather than ten opinions.

The feedback I've got so far is mostly 'everybody struggles' and 'get a serious spotting scope'.

I left the range Saturday saying to myself "I'm getting a good spotter even if it costs 500 $"
Then I logged onto midway and see them going for over 2500

 

[akajun]

I shoot a lot of walk and paste matches at 200, even with my Kowa 82sv I can not always see the holes with a 223 at 200 in the black. I have tried the zoom 60x eyepiece and now use the 27x ler eyepiece.
It all comes down to light direction, humidity, backdrop, etc. The range I shoot these matches at faces south and we are usually done by 1230. The face of the target is always in a shadow and the sun facing you by the prone stage. Depending on the humidty and cloud cover I can see 50-60 percent of my shots.
Even at our full xtc matches where the range faces west, I can not always see the full shots at 200 due to pasters, humidty, etc. FOrget 300 with South LA Humidity.
The flip side to that is at Perry, where due to no backdrop, low humidity ( at least what I'm used to), and north facing range I can often see shots at 300 as little specs of light in the target.
IMHO no readily purchased spotting scope will be %100, learn to build a good position, good zeros, watch the wind/mirage (yes that is important at 200yds to for the prone slow stage on that reduced target) adjust off your sighters, and see what you can.

 

[daniel brothers]

is it possible to place a super strong light near the bench or near the target to produce enough bright light to illuminate the holes?

 

[kzin]

I shoot a lot of walk and paste matches at 200, even with my Kowa 82sv I can not always see the holes with a 223 at 200 in the black. I have tried the zoom 60x eyepiece and now use the 27x ler eyepiece.
It all comes down to light direction, humidity, backdrop, etc. The range I shoot these matches at faces south and we are usually done by 1230. The face of the target is always in a shadow and the sun facing you by the prone stage. Depending on the humidty and cloud cover I can see 50-60 percent of my shots.
Even at our full xtc matches where the range faces west, I can not always see the full shots at 200 due to pasters, humidty, etc. FOrget 300 with South LA Humidity.
The flip side to that is at Perry, where due to no backdrop, low humidity ( at least what I'm used to), and north facing range I can often see shots at 300 as little specs of light in the target.
IMHO no readily purchased spotting scope will be %100, learn to build a good position, good zeros, watch the wind/mirage (yes that is important at 200yds to for the prone slow stage on that reduced target) adjust off your sighters, and see what you can.

Thanks, this is the answer I don't want but maybe the one I need.
This is probably what most of the guys are doing.

One problem is that my wind reading is still crappy and usually the best chance I have is simply to adjust off the last shot.

I'm wondering about buying a 308 for this and long range and saving the 223 for the middle. Are 30 caliber holes a lot easier?

 

[kzin]

is it possible to place a super strong light near the bench or near the target to produce enough bright light to illuminate the holes?

Thanks for the input. I doubt if the match organizers would go for it.

Maybe if I 'brought enough for everybody'?

 

[kzin]

My two 30 cal rifles are a Universal m1 carbine and an sks.

I'll have to punch some holes at 25 and carry the target to 200 for a test

 

[chkunz]

The 30 cal holes are much easier to see at 200 yards as you would expect. At one time I shot 200 yard matches but gave it up because I could not see the bullet holes. We changed to 100 yard matches because of this and that made all the difference in the world. For walk up matches 100 yard is the right answer in the back of the book. And then shoot 30 cal and you can see the bullet holes, and identify the cross fires from the 223 and walk half as much, spend more time shooting and less time walking.

 

[akajun]

Thanks, this is the answer I don't want but maybe the one I need.
This is probably what most of the guys are doing.

One problem is that my wind reading is still crappy and usually the best chance I have is simply to adjust off the last shot.

I'm wondering about buying a 308 for this and long range and saving the 223 for the middle. Are 30 caliber holes a lot easier?

Read your own response, what you need is practice, not a new rifle. High power is about position, zeros, and control of the rifle , not equipment. Besides you would loose the advantage of the low recoil of the .223. Don’t even think of a m1 or m14, I cut my teeth on those , it’s easier to shoot an ar.
When I got back in high power I was a sold 430-440 shooter, my best scores were in rapids and my worst in standing. So I bought a cmp daisy air rifle and shot the hell out of offhand in the backyard getting into the mid 90’s, but at the same time my other stages went up. As I worked on other things other scores improved, classifications went up, leg points earned, etc.
So if wind reading is your problem work on that, spend time watching the mirage, watch for switches and corolate it to the flags. Get in the habit of being in the scope from when you fire the rifle to when you load it, did the wind change?
Keep at it you’ll get it

 

[kzin]

Read your own response, what you need is practice, not a new rifle. High power is about position, zeros, and control of the rifle , not equipment. Besides you would loose the advantage of the low recoil of the .223. Don’t even think of a m1 or m14, I cut my teeth on those , it’s easier to shoot an ar.
When I got back in high power I was a sold 430-440 shooter, my best scores were in rapids and my worst in standing. So I bought a cmp daisy air rifle and shot the hell out of offhand in the backyard getting into the mid 90’s, but at the same time my other stages went up. As I worked on other things other scores improved, classifications went up, leg points earned, etc.
So if wind reading is your problem work on that, spend time watching the mirage, watch for switches and corolate it to the flags. Get in the habit of being in the scope from when you fire the rifle to when you load it, did the wind change?
Keep at it you’ll get it

I want to see the holes to have feedback to work on things.
I might better just skip the matches and practice by myself at 100 and/or with white targets than fire 10 or 20 rounds into space. It feels like dollar a shot dry fire practice. It's complicated but these are low priority matches for me and learning to shoot 10 rounds without seeing each result is not something I really need or want to learn as a skill in itself.

The new rifle is just a wild thought. I'd probably not shoot the matches at all before going that far. Unless I decide I really want it for other purposes anyway!

 

[carlsbad]

How good is your tripod? If you have a good tripod, you can consider the Celestron 125mm spotting/birding scope.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...IrPA9FHjkwWoXhoChIEQAvD_BwE&is=REG&sku=485314

This is what I use. It holds up well next to the $2000 scopes but most other shooters seem to look down their nose at it because it is so big. I have an astronomy background where bigger is better.

I've seen them on sale for $399. Even those who look down their nose are jealous of my spotting scope. I'm never on the wrong target.

--Jerry

 

[Berger.Fan222]

How good is your tripod? If you have a good tripod, you can consider the Celestron 125mm spotting/birding scope.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&O=&Q=&ap=y&c3api=1876,{creative},{keyword}&gclid=CjwKCAiAoqXQBRA8EiwAIIOWsqGR1Vui8kjNfPBC_e0AvqXpnrc4OZLRurbEVf2QIrPA9FHjkwWoXhoChIEQAvD_BwE&is=REG&sku=485314

This is what I use. It holds up well next to the $2000 scopes but most other shooters seem to look down their nose at it because it is so big. I have an astronomy background where bigger is better.

I've seen them on sale for $399. Even those who look down their nose are jealous of my spotting scope. I'm never on the wrong target.

--Jerry

Nice. I hadn't thought of an astronomy telescope. The large aperture and the reflecting design (instead of an objective lens) get around a couple common limiting factors in a scope's resolving power.

 

[kzin]

How good is your tripod? If you have a good tripod, you can consider the Celestron 125mm spotting/birding scope.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&O=&Q=&ap=y&c3api=1876,{creative},{keyword}&gclid=CjwKCAiAoqXQBRA8EiwAIIOWsqGR1Vui8kjNfPBC_e0AvqXpnrc4OZLRurbEVf2QIrPA9FHjkwWoXhoChIEQAvD_BwE&is=REG&sku=485314

This is what I use. It holds up well next to the $2000 scopes but most other shooters seem to look down their nose at it because it is so big. I have an astronomy background where bigger is better.

I've seen them on sale for $399. Even those who look down their nose are jealous of my spotting scope. I'm never on the wrong target.

--Jerry

Interesting. I'm actually using a 200$ celestron 90mm 39x now.
Part of the feedback I'm getting locally is 'get a real spotter like the real shooters use'

My tripod is worse than the scope so getting a new one is definitely within scope of this upgrade project. I like something with mechanical tracking but I don't know if that even exists.