One would think that binoculars of a given aperture would be twice as good as a scope of the same aperture.  But I suspect this is not true.  Anybody know the scoop on this?

I guess it boils down to practical application.  Which is better for detecting holes in paper at 200 yards?  Since part of the equation is 1 eye versus 2 eyes, it's not all the optics hardware, but which is the better system?

A friend of mine took his brother in law deer hunting.
brother in law comments:
"I could see you all the way accros the field in your treestand."

"How could you see me that far away?"

"Uh, . . I was lookin' at you through the scope"

! ! ! !

He didn't get invited after that.

To oversimplify things a bit, binoculars are two scopes attached to each other!!

Binoculars are much more comfortable to use, especially for extended periods of time, since both eyes are being used.  I don’t believe there’s any substantial benefit to them beyond that.

My understanding is that resolution increases as aperature increases.  Thus a 60mm scope and a 60mm pair of binoculars should be the same.

IMHO, for looking at bullet holes at 200 yards (especially if you’ve got a black bullseye and/or you’re looking at .223 holes) a spotting scope is the only way to go.

I suspect one of those humongous tripod-mounted large-aperature binoculars like the military uses would also work, but they’re very bulky and horrendously expensive.