Posted: 2/22/2026 4:34:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Ruckus][Edited]
|
So I just joined a range where shooting distances can stretch out past 1000 yards. So needless to say I'm in the market for a good spotting scope. Thing is I've never owned one or even used one. My question is do I want a straight one or angled? All shooting will be benchrest, and I can imagine the spotting scope will be mounted on a tripod, unless one you guys can give me a better alternative. Thanks y'all! |
Support Team Ranstad, Damnit!
| The straight ones are as big as a baseball bat. Get a folded design like Leopold Mark 4. |
The Second Amendment: Preserving our right to petition the government - with malice.
"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'."
Virginia Is For Loners (™)
"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'."
Virginia Is For Loners (™)
|
Paper or steel at 1000 yards? it matters because you are going to need a big dollar spotting scope if you want to see holes in paper at that distance..Think at least a vortex razor gen 2 27-60-85, or a step up to Swarovski .....Either eye piece will work fine, if you can get the spotter in close enough I prefer the straight eye piece, but if you have to move very much, the angled works better..I doubt any cheaper smaller scopes will see holes at 1000 yards on paper.... |
|
Originally Posted By Ruckus: For now I think id be happy just ringing steel at 1000, but I know eventually ill wanna put it on paper. The Vortex you mentioned is on my short list, and sadly I'm just a poor and don't have Swaro money. The razor is a great scope, compared side by side to my buddies Swarovski, it is pretty equal out to about 1500 yards when looking at brow tines on bull moose, past that the Swarovski is clearer and better not double the price better but better...The nomad, for how little it cost is 80% of the razor out to about a 1000 yards, but past that it just gets to fuzzy to be worth using..But for your needs, bullet holes in paper, the razor is probable the minimum, and thats with using the targets with the neon splash around the holes..even then it maybe hard to see bullet holes..A Caldwell camera or one of the other brands might be a good deal, but you have to have the ability to get it all set up down range plus make sure nobody shoots it, but it maybe a better deal for seeing bullet holes if you can control the range area....I have one of those as well, it works but its a pita to get setup and working if you have normal range with lots of people, plus assholes like to shoot your shit up for laughs... |
|
Here is a Celestron Mak for terrestrial use: https://astronomyplus.com/products/celestron-c90-mak-cassegrain-spotting-scope-52268 These reflectors produce high resolution at a fraction of the cost of standard refracting scopes. There are plenty of others out there to choose from. You can easily get a high power eyepiece for this one. You will see holes in paper at 1K |
|
Unless you’re shooting lots of prone and need to see downrange between shots, I’d go with a straight. If you don’t have a way to digiscope or someone to spot for you, I’d get the nicest rifle scope that you can afford in the 25x+ magnification. If there’s a decent berm, you should be able to spot where you’re hitting with just your scope out past 1000+yds. I’d give up on seeing holes in paper unless you’re using shoot n see targets, and that will likely be a wash if there’s decent humidity. The Razor is a good spotter, and it would serve you well. Their Viper line is more affordable and performs quite well for most uses. If going above the 2k mark, the Swarovski STC is a great option. It only goes up to 42x, but it’s easy to pack and the image is very clear. I’m a big fan of Vortex, but the Swaro glass is simply better. But if just starting out, and understanding the reality of what you need to hit steel at that distance, and how little a lot of spotters get used, I’d be looking at the Viper line if I had a sub 1000$ budget. |
|
Thanks GrumpyinStL, I hadn't even considered going that direction. Looks pretty viable, and it'd save quite a bit of money too! SuperJlarge, I've got a Burris on one of my bolt guns, just picked up an Arken EP5 G2 7-35 x 56 for my Savage, and for my Tikka, that's on order I'm undecided on what optic will go on that. As I said before the Vortex Razor is on the short list. I'm trying to keep the budget for spotting glass ~$1500. |
Support Team Ranstad, Damnit!
 19 TESTED! Best Spotting Scope For Hunting and For The Money Here’s a good look at multiple spotting scopes in order, ranked in price classes and performance (in their opinion). There are some good options in there. |
Diplomate, wikigoogle upstairs medical kindergarten
|
Originally Posted By Ruckus: Thanks GrumpyinStL, I hadn't even considered going that direction. Looks pretty viable, and it'd save quite a bit of money too! SuperJlarge, I've got a Burris on one of my bolt guns, just picked up an Arken EP5 G2 7-35 x 56 for my Savage, and for my Tikka, that's on order I'm undecided on what optic will go on that. As I said before the Vortex Razor is on the short list. I'm trying to keep the budget for spotting glass ~$1500. There are also some upscale Maks that would be even clearer. You would want a correcting prism to get things right side up and left to right, but they make those. Also you can just correct in your head, I have done it with birds at distance. Good mirrors are much cheaper to make than all those refraction lenses. The only reason more people don't use them is that they are heavy for hunts. But that is not your problem. Questar made stunning units, but I think they are gone now. If you can find a used one, they are superb. But I don't know if you can get one serviced anymore. |
|
Originally Posted By Ruckus: Thanks GrumpyinStL, I hadn't even considered going that direction. Looks pretty viable, and it'd save quite a bit of money too! SuperJlarge, I've got a Burris on one of my bolt guns, just picked up an Arken EP5 G2 7-35 x 56 for my Savage, and for my Tikka, that's on order I'm undecided on what optic will go on that. As I said before the Vortex Razor is on the short list. I'm trying to keep the budget for spotting glass ~$1500. Whatever you decide, you should spend the bulk of your money on your rifle optic and not the spotter. Probably not what you want to hear, but it makes a huge difference. Why worry about what a spotter tells you when you can see exactly where the round hit and how to correct in real time. |
|
the angled eye pieces are designed to be used from bench and prone when you are slung up and in a leather jacket and want to minimize movement out of position. if you're not doing any of that, then the straight eye piece is probably better. but honestly, either works. if you find a used kowa 821m from some old NRA HP or CMP shooter cheap, get it. if you're mostly interested in spotting for others and watching trace etc, the image stabilized binos are getting cheaper and good. something to think about. if you're going to pack the thing around, hunt with it where you hang out in a spot glassing several thousand acres for hours, a compact model like the leupold mk4 may be worth the trade off in objective size and glass quality. if you're JUST using it at a bench to see impacts on steel, I'd prob put the money into better glass on the rifle. |