What can you expect of a spotting scope when viewing bullet holes at 200 yds?.

[Dunc]

I bought a second hand Minox spotting scope recently, hoping that I'd be able to see bullet holes at short range if I had a lane to myself for a morning.  I tried it yesterday and found that 0.223 holes at 200 yds were barely visible.  And they were little better than an old x22 Tasco spotting scope that I'd bought over 40 years ago which I took with me!  Light conditions were good.

Should it be possible to clearly see bullet holes on say a white target backing at 200 yds?  FWIT, I used all mags from 20 to 60 and still couldn't see the holes clearly.  Best viewing was of a tight group which had more definition than single holes.

Thanks in advance.  

[Popsbengo]

resolution and magnification are related but not the same thing.  A first class scope will resolve better than a cheap one at the same magnification - that's why top quality gear costs so much more than cheap and cheerful or indeed midrange scopes like Minox.  A £300 scope isn't going to have lenses anywhere near as good as a £2000 scope.

My Vortex Razor spotting scope (not quite the best, but good) easily resolves bullet holes at 300m at x60 mag. Further than that and atmospherics/mirage makes it difficult.

[stephentri]

With my kahles k624i  I can see . 223 holes on white paper at 300 y .what rifle scope are you using? 

[Dunc]

2 minutes ago, stephentri said:

With my kahles k624i  I can see . 223 holes on white paper at 300 y .what rifle scope are you using? 

10 mag max. 

[NigelM]

I picked up a old Kowa TSN-2 which was reputed to have very good glass. Seeing holes at 300 meters is no trouble at all. For £300 I thought it was very good value.

Sat it next to a mates new £2k Swarovski on a LR day the other week and it was not as good, but it was good enough to see 800 meter strikes on steel plates. Didn't try it out any further but I'm sure 1000 would be fine too.

[Dunc]

Thanks folks.

There was a slight breeze yesterday and the tripod I was using wasn't really up to the job.  This scope is well over a grand to buy new and on it's first outing, a few weeks ago with a sturdier tripod, seemed to perform better.  Now that I know the 'standard' which I should expect, from your comments above, I can more easily judge when I get a better tripod and have more time to play.  

Thanks again.

[NigelM]

2nd hand Manfrotto from fleabay. Solid as a rock and good value.

[srvet]

I would expect to see bullet holes at 200 on a white target with a spotting scope. Can you compare it directly against someone else’s off the same tripod

[VarmLR]

I just use my rifle scope.  It has no problem resolving bullet holes at 200 yds at all.  I have a spotting scope too, one of the top of the range Hawke ones which is good (I can read a number plate at half a mile with it when atmospherics allow) but it's not as good as one of the older Kowas which would be my pick of the bunch.  They've been doing spotting scopes, theodolites, and military ranging optics for donkeys' years. Newer ones I've looked through don't seem as good.  However, once I'd upgraded to a PMII, the spotting scope was redundant for ranges to 300 yards.

[Vonrisak]

Hello. I usually use binoculars for such tasks. I think long-range binoculars are such key equipment. I have binoculars Vortex Optics Kaibab HD 20 × 56 https://opticzoo.com/vortex-optics-kaibab-hd-20x56-review. 20x magnification with optical accuracy is the reason why I chose this model. These binoculars are also great for viewing over long distances, whether watching the stars or watching the details of wildlife.

[Dunc]

Update.  I was using the Minox at the weekend with a good sturdy tripod and it was fine at 300 yds for viewing .308 holes.  The absence of vibration was a huge help....

Thanks again for all the comments.