Testing Spotting Scopes

[joeb33050]

There's a suggestion on the BPCR forum about testing spotting scopes to make comparisons.
I wrote this and sent it to Jesse Miller for his input.
We're looking for an objective, repeatable way for a lot of people in a lot of places with a lot of different spotting scopes to "measure" them. Wouldn't it be nice if we found a $100 scope that did the job?
Keep in mind that I know close to nothing about optics.
I typed a sentence in WORD, Times New Roman, and copied it four times, so there's a column of sentences. Top is 12 point, then I changed them to 11, 10, 9 and 8 point. 8 point is small. I printed it.
I propose that we set up a paper at 100 yards with a certain sentence in sizes from maybe 16? down to 8 point.
The rule is, look through the spotting scope and decide which sentence you can read easily-no guessing.
Record the size, ex:10 point, and record the conditions of the light, maybe
bright sunny
bright cloudy
cloudy
overcast
or
bright
cloudy
overcast
and then start collecting these for various spotting scopes. If everybody uses white paper, the same sentences in the same font in the same sizes, then maybe we'll have some objective data to look at.
Maybe a not on mirage too.
This is a start at least.
??
joe brennan

Jesse Miller, 11/2/07
Joe: Several factors to consider:
The brightness of the paper may have some effect.
Mirage and the other factors you listed all may at times have an effect on the results.
Also, yes the eyesight of the person doing the testing will affect the results. People with eyesight problems will not score any scope as highly as a person with good eyesight.
So I will recommend that all of the afore mentioned condititions be recorded with the results.
It would seem to me that the tests should only be done when two or more scopes can be tested at the same time under the same conditions. This would work even better if two people can independently test the same scopes. This whole thing will require some cross referencing, or maybe quite a bit. The more data you can get the more definitive your results will be.
One way to tighten the controls would be to use a limited number of testers and then have them test a number of scopes at the same time, under the same conditions.
Hope this is a help. Jess.

Yesterday, 3 November, 2007, at the Trail Glades Range in Miami, I put a piece of white paper to the 100 yard target. On this paper, in Times New Roman, were sentences in 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8 point type. 16 looked pretty big to me, in person.
It was a bright, sunny, windy day. No to few clouds.
Nobody who looked could read even the largest sentence using the following:
Lyman 30X STS
Simmons 20-60 X 60
Leica Televid 62, 15-60
NC Star 20-60 X 60
joe b.

[Char-Gar]

Fred Picker, the now deceased guru of Zone VI Workshops and a friend of mine, tested the resolving power of camera lens by taking test shots of tree branches against the sky. The ability of a lense to resolve the smallest of these branches demonstrated the difference in lens quality.

I still use that same method for any optical devise including spotting scopes. Look at some tree branches against the sky through several scopes and you will see a big difference in their ability of resolve the smallest of these.

You don't have to know anything about optics, or make test targets, or count lines or squares. The difference between a good and a not so good lens will be as plain as a rat turd in the sugar bowl.

[NSP64]

I just bought a Bushnell 20x (fixed power) scope new for $30. and really like it. It's 9" long. I don't like variable scopes due to the dimness at higher powers. I use mine mostly unmounted (Handheld) for spotting during hunting season and the occasional range sessions. I like fixed power so I can judge sizes at different distances.

[danski26]

Just google optics testing or lens testing.....you'll get many hits describing the "standard" tests for optics including down loadable test patterns.

[Lloyd Smale]

doubt your ever going to find anyting out of the ordinary opticaly for a 100 bucks.

[Scrounger]

doubt your ever going to find anyting out of the ordinary opticaly for a 100 bucks.

It might be "infinite number of monkeys syndrome", but I have owned some very, very good optics that cost less than $100...

[joeb33050]

Just google optics testing or lens testing.....you'll get many hits describing the "standard" tests for optics including down loadable test patterns.

Well Danski, I can't find a decent downloadable test pattern here, and I tried. There are a lot for sale, but when I look for free I can't find it. I tried copying some, but the ??pixels?? are few and they don't look good on paper. I right click on the picture, copy the picture to a file and print it. Not good. Can you tell me more?

I've made a 72 point to 10 point test target, looking for volunteers to try it out.
I'll attach it.
Thanks-still looking for a better way to test.
joe brennan

[joeb33050]

Well Danski, I can't find a decent downloadable test pattern here, and I tried. There are a lot for sale, but when I look for free I can't find it. I tried copying some, but the ??pixels?? are few and they don't look good on paper. I right click on the picture, copy the picture to a file and print it. Not good. Can you tell me more?

I've made a 72 point to 10 point test target, looking for volunteers to try it out.
I'll attach it.
Thanks-still looking for a better way to test.
joe brennan

Another try to attach it.

[danski26]

Ok......i found this first, there are many more out there. It uses "inkscape" program to open.

This is the test pattern;

Sorry i couldn't link it directly here. the file is too big.

This is the web address;

http://www.imatest.com/docs/lens_testing.html#download

This site explains a lot about the optics testing process. It is specificly for testing camera lens' but will apply to almost any optics.

A good quality printer and photo paper is required also.

Don't take this as a "told you so" i'm just offering a sugestion for an interesting project that you want to undertake. Please move forward with it in any form you deem correct. I believe the results will be intersting and i for one look forward to your conclusions. Also if I can help with anything......give a yell.

[GLL]

joeb3350:

I would to join your test. I have a Konus 10-60x100mm if that model is of interest.


What distance is your standard and how would you like to report results?

Jerry

[Steven Dzupin]

http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html

About 1/2 way down you'll find the standart USAF 1951 Optical Test Target.

The one in the center.

Regards,

Steve

[joeb33050]

Steven Dzupin on Cast Boolits clued me in to http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html, where there are downloadable copies of scope-testing targets, including the 1951 Air Force resolution target. Note that the right hand of the three targets is composed of lines of print. Nyah, nyah!!
I downloaded these into a .pdf file as recommended, and printed the AF target. It certainly looks good to me.
Thanks, Steven, I'll keep working on it.
Anyone willing to do some testing, please make a copy of the AF target, and try it out. Record the scope make and model and power, and the light conditions, for now
Bright, Sunny
Cloudy
Dark, overcast
Thanks;
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Spotting Scope Testing
Nov. 7, 2007
The bidding to date:
Jesse Miller, 11/2/07, responding to my message. Jesse is a retired eye doctor.

Joe: Several factors to consider:
The brightness of the paper may have some effect.
Mirage and the other factors you listed all may at times have an effect on the results.
Also, yes the eyesight of the person doing the testing will affect the results. People with eyesight problems will not score any scope as highly as a person with good eyesight.
So I will recommend that all of the afore mentioned conditions be recorded with the results.
It would seem to me that the tests should only be done when two or more scopes can be tested at the same time under the same conditions. This would work even better if two people can independently test the same scopes. This whole thing will require some cross referencing, or maybe quite a bit. The more data you can get the more definitive your results will be.
One way to tighten the controls would be to use a limited number of testers and then have them test a number of scopes at the same time, under the same conditions.
Hope this is a help. Jess.

I made a test target with a sentence in Times New Roman, sizes of 72, 48, 36, 24, 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 11 and 10 points. These are the sizes available on my computer.

Steven Dzupin on Cast Boolits clued me in to http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html, where there are downloadable copies of scope-testing targets, including the 1951 Air Force resolution target.
I downloaded these into a .pdf file as recommended, and printed the AF target. It certainly looks good to me.

On Nov. 7, 2007 we did some testing.

First, the 72 to 10 type script target doesn't work. The problem is that there's nothing between 36 and 24 point, and some of us needed another choice.

Second, three people lied during the testing.
(This is one of my strongest interests and research subjects: the lies/inaccuracies and their invisibility to researchers.)
I explained how to do the tests for both targets.
Get focused on the target.
Fiddle with the power if variable, get where it looks the best.
For the type script, 72 to 10 point target, tell me the smallest line you can comfortably read.
For the AF target, tell me the smallest target on which you can see the bars and white spaces between. I had a copy of the AF target in hand for them to point at.
Two testers claimed to be able to read the 24 point line, one read it as ">>>27 point", the other as "....21 point", and I queried them.
I lied to myself, claiming that I could read the 24 point line.
I KNOW it isn't a competition, the other testers know. We have this "compete" gene.

Here are the results, after explanation and negotiation:

Bright and sunny conditions

B&L 20X, 36 point, #6 on the 3rd largest set, John
Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, 36 point, #6 of the 3rd largest set, Tony
Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, 36 point, #5 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.
30X STS, 36 point, #4 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.
30X STS, 36 point, #5 of the 3rd largest set, Tony
20X Bushnell Sentry, 36 point, #4 of the 3rd largest set, Joe B.
Kowa TSN821, 27X, 36 point, #5 of the 4th largest set, Raoul
(The Kowa was in one of those blankies, Raoul isn't real good at English. I read "TSN821" off the scope, there may be more info under the blankie.)
This is an imposition on people at the range, responses varied from "sure" to "no".
Nobody even claimed to be able to read script smaller than 24 point, nobody could read 24 point, some fibbed but were caught.
My script target is out. I'd like another script target with finer graduations in sizes, and different words-to catch the guessers.

Anyone willing to do some testing, please make a copy of the AF target, and try it out. Record the scope make and model and power, and the light conditions, for now, are:

Bright and Sunny
Cloudy
Dark and overcast

Thanks;
joe b.

[DeanoBeanCounter]

Just thinking about it there might be a way to test any scope any time you want under identical conditions. If you could find a warehouse without windows. Then that will eliminate varying light conditions. You could even turn off some lights to test how well a scope works in twilight. A half way accurate light meter would be good but not necessary.
Myself, I'm ready to get a 20 inch mirror type telescope. I'm night blind.
My 2 cents worth.
Deano

[joeb33050]

Spotting Scope Testing as of Nov. 11, 2007

Steven Dzupin on Cast Boolits clued me in to http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html, where there are downloadable copies of scope-testing targets, including the 1951 Air Force resolution target. All testing was done using the AF target.

1. 11/7/07, B&L 20X, Sunny, No Mirage -2, #6, John
2. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #6, Tony
3. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Joe B.
4. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.
5. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Tony
6. 11/7/07, 20X Bushnell Sentry, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.
7. 11/7/07, Kowa TSN821, 27X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #5, Raoul
8. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #4, Louis
9. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #3, Joe B.
10. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #2, Joe B.
11. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #2, Luis
12. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #6, Joe B.
13. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #1, Louis
14. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #1, Joe b.
15. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #1, Louis
16. 11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy???, Mirage???, -1, #2 with Veralux eye glasses, Ric B.
17. 11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy???, Mirage???, -1, #3 with plain glass eye glasses, Ric B.
18. 11/6/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -2, #4, Dan W.
19. 11/6/07???, Burris Landmark 80MM, 20-60X, Sunny, Some Mirage???, -2, #3, Dan W.
20. 11/7/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -1, #3, Dan W.
21. 11/7/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 20-60 X eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???,-1, #4, Dan W.
22. 11/7/07???, Simmons #1220 55MM, 25X, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -1. #2, I consider a straight 30x or maybe a 40x eye piece to be a big improvement over a variable eye piece on the same scope body, Dan W.
23. 11/6/07???, 10" Compact Kowa 60mm 25x Sunny, Some Mirage??? Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W.
24. 11/6/07???, 8" Kowa Compact 50mm 20x, Sunny, Some Mirage???, Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W.
25. 11/10/07???, old Pentax 500R at 40X, Dark and overcast???, No mirage, -2. #2, I was able to barely make out the "set-2, subset 2" at 100 yards, overcast day, no wind. , dyzenco86 on MSN BPCR.


Light conditions, for now, are:Bright and Sunny or Cloudy or Dark and overcast
Mirage choices are: None, Some, Heavy

The question marks indicate what I think you said. Please advise!!!

Some things are getting clear.
The mounts. Yes, we all know that a steady mount is best. We know. But, I haven't found one yet. There have been mounts from a flimsy table top tripod to a serious looking camera tripod to a clamp-on bench spotting scope holder. I thought I had a good one, clamp-on.
All of them vibrate in the wind, making seeing difficult. More X, more vibration. Now it might be nice to test scopes set in concrete, but that ain't how they are used.
The Winchester scope and table top tripod, with canvas bag and stuff, all in a nice hard case, cost $60, I'm told. This tripod worked as well as others, at similar powers, as long as you weren't touching it. Hard to adjust, but as steady = vibration amount as most any other. Doesn't mean it was good, just that all mounts allowed vibration in the wind. The wind blows in South FL from Haloween to Memorial day, so there wonm't be much mirage.

The power. I'm trying the variables out at lower powers to see if I can see better, and I can't see the target better, yet, with any scope at a lower power. EX: Redfield 20-45X, I can't see a smaller target at a lower power than 45, BUT, regular targets with bullet holes are "easier" to see at lower power. I can see "better" at 45X, but I can see well enough to see 22 holes at 100 yards at 20X.

The Range. The LARGEST smallest target that can be seen so far is -2, #3. The SMALLEST smallest target that can be seen so far is -1, #5. This is a range of 9 steps. I'm not sure that that's enough.

The Range. All I have is 100 yards. I'm not sure that testing at 100 yards is correct.

The lies, or call it "wishful thinking". I can see testers trying to see smaller targets, testers who are in a competition, even right after I explain that smaller ain't better and that we want the "smallest target you can comfortably see". And I still see myself straining to see smaller targets. The only way I can think to beat this is with an eye chart kind of target,"read it to me!". This separates wishful thinking from reality.

The time. If I wait long enough, until there's a lull in the wind, and my eyes are working best, and everything is great-I can see smaller targets. I can't wait like that to see bullet holes in an offhand match.

The Translation. We're testing against a resolution/size target, and we want to know the "ability" of a scope to see bullet holes. I'm not at all sure that these are the same, or how to make the translation.
My experience is that spotting scopes have a threshold, some just don't do the job, then there are a lot that do meet the minimum requirement and vary in "goodness". Somewhere out there are the $1200 scopes. My definition of the threshold is the ability to see "most" 30 caliber holes in the black at 200 yards in less-than-perfect conditions. May be arbitrary, but I've used it for many years, looking through a lot of scopes. Certainly the red ASSRA targets are easier to see bullet holes in, but some prefer the black target.

I'm starting to think that a cheap scope in a good stand is a better deal than an expensive scope in a lesser stand.

John Astin is bringing big Kowa and Konus scopes to the range Wed., we should know more then.

Looking for helpful comments or suggestions, and clarification where I've got the ????s
Thanks;
joe b.

[joeb33050]

All testing was done using the 1951 Air Force resolution target at http://www.6mmbr.com/targets.html

The object is to identify the smallest target where the black and white bars are seen, before the bars look like a blurry black rectangle.

Light conditions choices are:"Sunny", "Cloudy", "Overcast"
Mirage choices are: "None", "Some", "Heavy"
Targets seen at 100 yards are in the -1 and -2 columns. Smallest target is -1, #6; largest target in the series is -2, #1
Tests below are sorted from smallest target seen to largest.
There are surprises.

7. 11/7/07, Kowa TSN821, 27X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #5, Raoul

8. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #4, Louis
26. 11/12/07??, Konus 80 @ 60X, Sunny, no mirage, -1, #4,
27. 11/14/07, Bushnell Spacemaster 20-45X @40X, Sunny, Some mirage, -1, #4 Dan and Gerry
21. 11/7/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 20-60 X eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???,-1, #4, Dan W.

28. 11/14/07, Kowa TSN-1 90MM 25X, Sunny, Some mirage, -1, #3, Dan and Gerry
20. 11/7/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -1, #3, Dan W.
9. 11/10/07, B&L Variable Zoom 60, 20-60X, Old, at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #3, Joe B.
17. 11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy, No mirage, -1, #3 with plain glass eye glasses, Ric B.

10. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #2, Joe B.
11. 11/10/07, Nikon Spotter XL Variable, 16-47X, at 47X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #2, Luis
16. 11/8/07, 1950s vintage B&L 30X, Cloudy, Some mirage, -1, #2 with Veralux eye glasses, Ric B.
22. 11/7/07???, Simmons #1220 55MM, 25X, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -1. #2, I consider a straight 30x or maybe a 40x eye piece to be a big improvement over a variable eye piece on the same scope body, Dan W.

29. 11/14/07, Saturn (old) 25X, Sunny, Some mirage, -1, #1, Dan and Gerry
13. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #1, Louis
14. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #1, Joe b.
15. 11/10/07, Redfield 20-45X at 45, Old, Sunny, No Mirage, -1, #1, Louis

1. 11/7/07, B&L 20X, Sunny, No Mirage -2, #6, John
2. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #6, Tony
12. 11/10/07, Winchester 15-45X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #6, Joe B.

5. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Tony
3. 11/7/07, Simmons 20-60X60 at 60X, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #5, Joe B.

18. 11/6/07???, Bushnell Spacemaster with 25X Simmons eyepiece, Sunny??, Some mirage???, -2, #4, Dan W.
30. 11/13/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.

4. 11/7/07, 30X STS, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.
6. 11/7/07, 20X Bushnell Sentry, Sunny, No Mirage, -2, #4, Joe B.

19. 11/6/07???, Burris Landmark 80MM, 20-60X, Sunny, Some Mirage???, -2, #3, Dan W.
31. 11/13/07, Bushnell Sentry 20X, Sunny, No mirage, -2, #3, Joe B.

25. 11/10/07???, old Pentax 500R at 40X, Dark and overcast???, No mirage, -2. #2, I was able to barely make out the "set-2, subset 2" at 100 yards, overcast day, no wind. , dyzenco86 on MSN BPCR.


23. 11/6/07???, 10" Compact Kowa 60mm 25x Sunny, Some Mirage??? Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W.
24. 11/6/07???, 8" Kowa Compact 50mm 20x, Sunny, Some Mirage???, Kowas were too dark realizing they are good for their purpose for indoor small bore and pistol shooting, Dan W.

[joeb33050]

One of my interests outside of guns and shooting is about this: There are recorded many statements from responsible individuals, frequently scientists, that are absolutely untrue. Sometimes they're telling a lie, but often enough they believe what they say. From this we see that there is something happening in their brains, that they see what is expected and the unexpected is invisible.
Examples include kitchen table cold fusion, police officers arresting the wrong guy, criminalists providing scientific proof implicating the wrong guy and prosecutors getting the wrong guy convicted.
I used a number of these examples to suggest to students that competition sometimes leads to unfortunate outcomes.
I've been asking other shooters with various spotting scopes to allow me to test them on the AF 1951 target at 100 yards. Yesterday I got to test a Swarovsky 80MM scope, and a Barska 20-60 X 60 scope.
I like to do the test myself, have the owner test, and get another person to test if possible.
The Barska scope was not a top flight spotting scope.
I could clearly see the -2, #6 target, nothing smaller.
After the -2 set, as they get smaller, there are the -1 set, 0 set, and the 1 set. The smallest target seen to date is the 0, #1 target.
The owner of the Barska, Armando, and his friend Ralph, both claimed to be able to see all the 0 targets, down to #6. This after I explained what we wee doing, how to pick the smallest target you could see, and that smaller was not better-this isn't a competition.
I do the test with a copy of the target in hand, so the tester can point to his smallest target.
I talked to them, had them look again, talked, looked, all to no avail. Armando claimed 20-20 eyesight, no glasses, no problem. Ralph said the same.
I have not an iota of doubt that neither of these very friendly and cooperative guys could see the targets claimed.
Something was going on, but it wasn't truth.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

On 12/8/07 we tested John Austin's Kowa TSN821M with 27X eyepiece, his Konus Konusport 80 with 20-60X eyepiece, and my old Bushnell Sentry 50MM 20 X.
There were some patches of clouds rolling by, so I tested the Konus and Bushnell scopes in both cloudy and sunny conditions. Clouds went away for the Kowa testing.
The Konus, at 40X, tested -2, #5 in sunny light, and -1, #1 in cloudy light. I checked this a second time. This is a 2 step smaller target in cloudy light than in sunny light.
The Konus tested better at 40X and 60X than did the Kowa, however the Kowa at 27X tested better than the Konus at 20X.
The old Bushnell Sentry tested equal to or better than the Konus at 20 X and almost equal to the Kowa with both John and me testing
(-2 is larger than -1, #1 is larger than #2 is larger than #3 etc.)
Konus 20 Cloudy Joe B -2, #2
Konus 20 Sunny Joe B. -2, #2
Konus 20 Sunny John A. -2, #2
Konus 40 Cloudy Joe B. -1, #1
Konus 40 Sunny Joe B. -2, #5
Konus 40 Sunny John A. -1, #1
Konus 60 Cloudy Joe B. -1, #3
Konus 60 Sunny Joe B. -1, #3
Konus 60 Sunny John A. -2, #6
Kowa 27 Sunny Joe B. -2, #4
Kowa 27 Sunny John A. -2, #4
Bushnell 20 Cloudy Joe B. -2, #3
Bushnell 20 Sunny Joe B. -2, #4
Bushnell 20 Sunny John A. -2, #2


I'm keeping all the information about this topic on the book site. You'll have to sign in, but it's easy and free. If you don't want e-mails, just set it up such.

go to: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/
click on: FILES
click on: WORK IN PROCESS
click on: SPOTTING SCOPE TESTING

joe brennan
joeb33050@yahoo.com