Simmons 20x-60x On Sale For $49 at Cabela's Is No Bargain

[jonp]

I saw the ad and wanted a cheap spotting scope for occasional use and to leave at my hunting camp to look at moose at the end of my pond so headed to Cabelas to pick one up. On sale for $59 (1/2 off) with a $10 Mail In Rebate and $25 on a gift card and the scope was about $25.

Got it home, took it out of the foam lined hard case and tried to unscrew the lens protector. The entire lens moved in a circle and I was able to pull it out with little effort. Of course, this makes it impossible to use the magnification ring. Buy cheap, get cheap. Guess I'm doing another 1hr trip back to Cabela's in the morning.

[RKJ]

I got one of those at WM a few years back after my old one bit the dust and I remember why I don't like Simmons Optics. It's not even usable at 25 yards for me. You're right, you get what you pay for.

[tazman]

I got one of those at WM a few years back after my old one bit the dust and I remember why I don't like Simmons Optics. It's not even usable at 25 yards for me. You're right, you get what you pay for.

I bought one at Wally World a few months ago and it has been very good. It is clear enough to see 22 caliber holes at 200 yards no problem. It has even survived a couple of 3 foot falls onto concrete with no ill effects.
Maybe I just got lucky.

[shoot-n-lead]

I bought one a few year ago, been very pleased with it. Resolution is good enough for .223 at 200yds on any target and with the right target you can see them at 300yds.

[RKJ]

Maybe it's my eyes but I can't make out 22 holes at 25 yards with mine. I'll take it back out here soon and try it again, maybe I'll be surprised. (Hopefully)

[Scharfschuetze]

I use an inexpensive scope when shooting bullseye pistol at 25 and 50 yards, but for rifle shooting at long range it is useless. In the end, you get what you pay for. Emptor caveat comes to mind.

One of my best spotting scopes is an old Bausch and Lomb 20x that I bought for something like $50 from an old target shooter disposing of his equipment at a gun show. Keep your eye out for something like that.

[brassrat]

I bought a 60X, yrs ago, for 60$. Not very sharp and never use it only a $100 Tasco that ain't great either

[Scharfschuetze]

You bring up a good point Brassrat.

Scope power v. resolution is a problem that cheap spotting scopes or higher power inexpensive telescope sights have. Resolution, the ability to define details sharply, is a function of lens quality, yet many inexpensive scopes at high power just don't have the quality lenses or lens coatings to handle their power, particularly the variables on the higher settings. The higher the power, the better lenses you need.

Manufacturers of inexpensive scopes often advertise high magnification to sell a product, but the quality just isn't there to use it. In the end, very, very, very few spotting scopes can use a full 60 power with any degree of good resolution and those that can, are usually well over a thousand dollars and outside the the OPs goal of an inexpensive scope.

[tazman]

I can buy a good long range rifle(Remington Long Range, Savage 10FCP-SR) and scope that lets me shoot to the limits of my ability for the same or less money than one of those high priced spotting scopes. I can get a good rifle scope in fairly high magnification (Weaver T36 $470 at Midway) for a lot less than the high priced spotting scope.
Seems to me investing in a $1200 spotting scope is counter productive. The money could be better spent elsewhere.

[EDG]

I guess I will disagree.
Buy the best rest and spotter you can possible afford because they go to the range with every rifle. You can buy a Weaver T36 but you can't mount it on every rifle the same day at the range.
The best rest will accurize every rifle and every load you have. A good spotter will enable you to spot the bullet holes for every rifle. Both are your best friends at the range.


I can buy a good long range rifle(Remington Long Range, Savage 10FCP-SR) and scope that lets me shoot to the limits of my ability for the same or less money than one of those high priced spotting scopes. I can get a good rifle scope in fairly high magnification (Weaver T36 $470 at Midway) for a lot less than the high priced spotting scope.
Seems to me investing in a $1200 spotting scope is counter productive. The money could be better spent elsewhere.

[tazman]

I guess I will disagree.
Buy the best rest and spotter you can possible afford because they go to the range with every rifle. You can buy a Weaver T36 but you can't mount it on every rifle the same day at the range.
The best rest will accurize every rifle and every load you have. A good spotter will enable you to spot the bullet holes for every rifle. Both are your best friends at the range.

I can put a T36 on all three of my long range shooters for the same money as the high dollar spotter.
I can see 22 caliber bullet holes at 200 yards with my cheap spotting scope. I have never seen a scope capable of seeing small bullet holes at 600 yards in the black or most anywhere else on the target no matter the cost. Some of the guys at my local range have some of those high dollar spotting scopes and they don't seem to work much if any better than mine.
The part about the rest I can agree with.

[brassrat]

You bring up a good point Brassrat.

Scope power v. resolution is a problem that cheap spotting scopes or higher power inexpensive telescope sights have. Resolution, the ability to define details sharply, is a function of lens quality, yet many inexpensive scopes at high power just don't have the quality lenses or lens coatings to handle their power, particularly the variables on the higher settings. The higher the power, the better lenses you need.

Manufacturers of inexpensive scopes often advertise high magnification to sell a product, but the quality just isn't there to use it. In the end, very, very, very few spotting scopes can use a full 60 power with any degree of good resolution and those that can, are usually well over a thousand dollars and outside the the OPs goal of an inexpensive scope.

Mine is a variable, I just wrote 60X cause I figure some might know the model. What you said is true. Ill just say, cheap optics suck, if the glass is poor. I did just buy, on clearance, $10 Bushnell binos and they are great.

[Scharfschuetze]

Seems to me investing in a $1200 spotting scope is counter productive. The money could be better spent elsewhere.

Taz,

For you and many others shooting casually that is probably the correct solution. However, that just won't work for several of the shooting sports such as National Match, Palma, NRA long range as well as the now popular sniper matches and for long range varmint hunting. Neither will it work for those of us that still shoot with iron sights. In the military and police sniping communities, the spotter using his spotting scope is the primary part of the team for finding targets and determining the wind indicators. We aren't looking for bullet holes in the above pursuits, we are looking mainly at the atmosphere for the mirage and other wind indicators that will affect the bullet's flight. The shooter and his rifle are subservient to the calls of the spotter as he has the optics for the job. A good spotting scope is really an important part of the tool box for serious shooting and doesn't hurt the casual shooter either.

By the way, I also use my two best spotting scopes for astronomical observations at night as well as bird watching in the day time. Excellent optics are a must for this and coated lenses are de rigueur at night.

I posted this photo just recently in another thread on spotting scopes. It is a Leuopold 20X that is fog proofed and is small and very light for its capabilities. The folding Freeland bipod and 18" rod extensions will all fit nicely into a rucksack for deployments (now it's just hunting or the range) or work nicely from the off hand position down to the prone position in formal NM or Palma competition. It's something like 30 years old now and resolves as well as ever. It's been around the world several times from the tropics to deserts. Here are two shots of the scope in use in NM competition.

[tazman]

Scharfschuetze---- You present some good solid points. I would agree that in your situation, a really good spotting scope is a necessity for the reasons you describe. I admit that my spotting scope will not give enough resolution to see mirage clearly at long range.
In my current situation and with what I do, it isn't needed for me. If I begin shooting the styles you mention, I expect I will need one as well. At my age I doubt I will ever be shooting competitively, or at least not on that level.

[cpileri]

Yeah, I bought a Nikon after a series of cheap ones failing to do what I wanted, and never looked back.

[Scharfschuetze]

I admit that my spotting scope will not give enough resolution to see mirage clearly at long range.

Try this Taz:

A nice trick to read mirage with a spotting scope is to adjust its focus to perhaps 50 yards in front of the target. This will allow you to see the light's refraction (mirage) in front of the target. It also allows a spotter or coach in the team matches to see the bullet's trace (supersonic disturbance of the air) accurately and know where the shooter is hitting in reference to his aiming point. For an experienced spotter, this trace is as good as a tracer bullet, but of course it is invisible to anyone but the spotter.

As you all know, mirage is caused by ground warmed air rising through the colder air above the ground. This refracts the light photons into what look almost like waves of very clear water through the air. Up until about 12 knots or so, it gives a very useful indication of what the wind is doing between you and your target. After about 12 knots, it just lays down flat, but is still very noticeable. When I taught SOTIC Level II courses or advanced marksmanship in the Army, we spent many hours on teaching how to read it and compensate for it. Think of it as almost an invisible smoke between you and the Tango.

[tazman]

That's interesting. I never thought to focus in front since I have always been trying to see the target. At closer ranges(200-300) I didn't think reading the mirage might be necessary.
Obviously I have some things to learn and studying to do.

[Scharfschuetze]

Taz,

It's all good and that's why we enjoy shooting so much!

a steady 10 knot full value wind at 300 yards with a 7.62 NATO round can deflect up to 2 to 3 MOA or about 6 to 9." Cast bullets are even worse!

I was just at our annual shoot-a-thon over in Central Washington two weekends ago. On Saturday we had an almost perfect mirage to read of a generally steady 10 knot full value wind from 9:00 O'Clock. At 500 yards with my match AR15 and with a Yugo sniper rifle in 8mm Mauser I had a left windage adjustment of 4 MOAs or just over 1 mil. That's equal to roughly 20" of deflection, that's over half a yard or meter. By shooting between the higher gusts (wind gusts are usually cyclic) we were able to keep all shots into a pretty small area of a 36" square target. I spotted for several of the guys and was able to get them right into the target by watching both the mirage and the trace of their bullets.

It's hard to have more fun than that with your clothing still on. :)

[Geezer in NH]

That's interesting. I never thought to focus in front since I have always been trying to see the target. At closer ranges(200-300) I didn't think reading the mirage might be necessary.
Obviously I have some things to learn and studying to do.Time to use a ML and Round balls at 2-300 yards. What you learn about wind and mirage will make you a better shooter with center fire rifles .

[David2011]

I bought a cheap spotting scope once as well. It works at 100 yards for all size holes and .22 holes are visible at 200 as long as the power is kept down. At 300 only .260 and larger can be seen. It's useless for looking at the moon.

I found a sale on a Celestron 80mm birding and astronomy scope with extra low dispersion glass a few years ago. It's a very sharp scope; able to resolve bolt holes on power pole hardware at 1/4 mile. It was still inexpensive compared to the name brand gun store spotting scopes at $350 and at deer camp I can show my friends and their kids some of the beauty of the night sky.

David

[tazman]

I never considered an astronomy telescope but I don't see any reason it wouldn't work at the range.

[jonp]

Well, I drove down to Cabelas. The return of the scope was no problem, I just pulled another off the shelf and checked it before leaving. It seems to work ok and is actually very good at full power. Worth $25 for occasional use to me, I guess.

[Scharfschuetze]

I never considered an astronomy telescope but I don't see any reason it wouldn't work at the range.

Be careful when thinking of an astronomical telescope for range use. They normally don't have an erector lens so what you see will be upside down. When designing a scope for the dim light of objects at night, the fewer lenses between the object (galaxy, nebulae, etc.) and your eye means more available light through the scope and thus the lack of an erector lens.

[Texas by God]

Time to use a ML and Round balls at 2-300 yards. What you learn about wind and mirage will make you a better shooter with center fire rifles .
Excellent suggestion. It will teach drop as well!

[jonp]

Just got a notice from Vista Outdoors that they rejected the rebate. It fell below the price for the scope or some such with the sale price. Beware of this ploy when you are looking at rebates.

[Tenbender]

Great wax paper view. LOL

[No Blue]

I bought a Simmons 20-60 in 1994 for $100. It's still working, no lens element falling out or rattling. I only have access to 100 yard ranges, but it's easy to see the bullet holes with it.

One time at the 100 yard range, a guy at the next bench had a $400 Leopold, also 20-60. He let me take a look thru it, I noted what I could see and then went back to the Simmons. Pretty much the same details.

I wish I knew somebody that worked at an optics company, then I'd bring in some of my glass and let him test it on the bench and see how it compares to the real expensive glass.

There's something about optics that produces the massive differences in price, just about anything with glass has the 'glass snobs' getting all excited about something that costs multiple thousands of dollars....I'd really like to see the details on why.

[ulav8r]

https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-52322-Landscout-12-36x60-Spotting/dp/B00B7LQ2EO

Looks like this might be a good one, has some good reviews.

[RKJ]

I checked out mine last week at the range and I was wrong. I messed around with it and figured it out. It's a decent scope for the price.