Questions on spotting scope

N

NMHunter51

New member
Hello everyone,

I am in the market for a new spotting scope. It will be my first and I don't have very much experience behind a spotting scope. I am very impressed with vortex products. I have 2 pairs of vortex binos and a couple vortex scopes. I live in new mexico and the terrain I hunt varies quite a bit. It will also be used on the range for sighting in rifles. I have narrowed down my choices to either a nomad or viper spotting scope. Does anybody have experience with either one? Also, some ideas on power, objective size, and straight or angled lens would be a big help!

Thanks in advance,

Rick
 
I'll have some fun here. Spotting scopes are for bird watcher, shooters..just another piece of gear to hump.

I have an old Tasco-20-60X that I've had for >30 years that works good for my use. I bought a Celestron Ultima 80 a couple of years ago..better than my old Tasco.

I have found that for most of the shooting that I do that I am well served by quality rifle scopes and binoculars. Did take the Ultima spotting scope to WY one year on a PD hunt when a friend wanted to try a 1000 yard shot - wind was too high, blew dust away on misses so could not correct..he had the skills, rifle, wind flags and targets but it all has to come together.

Conventional wisdom [if I have it correct] is that straight eye pieces work better for bench/tripod work while the angled eye piece better for field use.

Analyze your probable actual uses..and go from there. I originally got my Tasco because I wanted to see bullet holes at 200 when bench shooting.

I do NOT use a rifle scope when scanning for game...8X40 Nikon Monarch ATB binoculars work for me.

Lot of guys at my club are using the new compact Redfield spotting scopes at the 100 yard line.

Best part of all my spotting scope use is I bought a premier tripod from Cabela's for less than $200 - it will be a family heirloom..kind of heavy but you might be able to mount a .50 BMG on it.

Have fun, you'll get some serious advice soon.
 
Straight or angled is going to be a personal preference. I like the straight myself. When shooting from a bench or using it on my window mount it is easier to look through. For laying prone, the angled is going to be easier to use. You will get a lot of differnent opinions on that subject.

As for which spotting scope, I have not looked through the Vortex. I own a Nikon. I have looked through the Vortex binoculars and own a Viper PST scope. The glass is clear. Vortex also offers a great warranty.
 
I have a Swaro HD scope and I love it. My step dad has a Vortex Viper and he loves it. Would he rather have my Swaro yes, but he didn't want to spend that much. For the price he paid he is very happy. I looked through his Viper and it is pretty nice for the price tag. I will say that I could start seeing animals clearly at long distances about 15 min. before him in the morning and 15 min after him at night.

Also when it got really hot I didn't have as much ripple affect in the scope.

Overall we are both happy with our purchases and would make them again so if your getting the Vortex I would go with the Viper over the Nomad, but if you can swing it you wont be dissapointed with any of the Big 3.
 
I didn't use my spotting scope much at all until I started shooting my AR 223 at midrange (200-500yds)and discovered that this is one area where you still get what you pay for with quality products. I chose a Leupold Kenei straight body and could not be more pleased with a sub 1K$ scope. It comes with a strong varible lens that will show me 223 holes in the black at 200, and a fixed 30x wide angle that will be excellent for scanning areas out in the mountains. Regards
 
I got to look through a Vortex Spotting Scope at the NRA Meeting several years when they first hit the market and was extremely impressed with the clarity...

That being said, last year, when I was in the market for a new spotting scope, I found a "new on the market" Redfield (reportedly made by Leupold) that was about half the price of the Vortex 20-60x that in my limited experience, was just as clear as the Vortex...For $229, it was a 'best buy' for me...Like others stated, the straight model is a little more versatile than the angled one..

022.jpg


It comes with an excellent padded case that is really nice and saved me some damage when I accidentally knocked it off the shooting bench and onto the concrete pad on my first time out with it...The table top tripod is a little better than most others that I've encountered...
 
When it comes to spotting scopes I would go with as good of gear as you can afford. The cheap ones (generally lower clarity) are of limited usefulness. Viper, or even better Viper HD is a good place to start. Vortex has some real top notch customer service too. I have a number of their products and they have always been stellar to deal with.
 
I have had all 3 Vortex spotters in the field simultaneously to compare. For my eye, the Viper is just a couple notches above the Nomad whereas the Razor leaves them both far behind. The Razor HD is super heavy, but in a comparable model the Viper HD is even heavier. I have owned a Nomad for several years and at 500yds and under it's great, 500-1000yds pretty good and at 1000yds+ quality really starts to drop off. Also, much beyond 20x and the Nomad's quality suffers as well.

If it was me and I used it at the range and only occasionally hunting, I would probably stick with the Nomad. If I wanted more out of the scope, I would save up for the Razor HD. For me, the Viper HD didn't offer enough over the Nomad to justify the price jump and didn't even come close to the Razor HD in color contrast and clarity.

That being said if you want to stay under $1000, but want more than the Nomad, the Viper HD does have a better picture.

If I was bored and had enough time to make a graph to illustrate my opinion of where the scopes stand (which I did
thumbup.gif
) it would look something like this


| Swaro/Leica
|
|
| Razor HD
|
|
|
|
|
| Viper HD
|
|
|Nomad
|
|
|------------------------------
 
A key question is: how good is your eyesight? If you have very good vision or are far-sighted or mildly near-sighted, then a standard eyepiece with diopter adjustment should be sufficient. If you have astigmatism, however, then you must wear correction when spotting to get the most out of your scope. That means you need a long eye relief eyepiece.

Angle vs straight. Angled takes extra time to get on target, is awkward to position in a ball mount, but is more comfortable in most viewing positions. For spotting game from a sitting position, however, a good tripod and a straight scope will generally be the fastest and most comfortable.

HD vs standard glass. Most standard glass scopes will have similar contrast and resolution. That's because the objective is a simple doublet (two-lens) design. Some older Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski scopes use three or more lens objectives and will have better image quality. While there is no standard definition of "HD", some companies now use the term to mean "ED", "low dispersion glass" or "fluorite containing glass". All of these terms indicate a higher quality optical design that should have better contrast and resolution than standard glass.

The bottom line is that HD (i.e., ED/low dispersion/fluorite) glass will allow you to drop down one size and get the same or better image quality. That means a smaller, lighter scope. For example, a Leupold Gold Ring 12-40X60 HD will give higher contrast and resolution than a standard 20-60X85 scope. While the 60X scope will provide a larger image, the 40X HD scope will actually have the same or higher contrast and resolution, and let you see the same or more detail. Which one would you rather carry into the field?

Atmospheric blur. Temperature variations in the air cause the image to blur. The atmosphere will almost always limit the resolution at long range. The smaller the objective, the less atmospheric blur. This is another reason for going wih HD glass that is one objective size smaller.

Finally, construction is important. Most scopes under $500 have a polycarbonate body, while those above $1000 have an aluminum or magnesium body. Metal is more rugged and is less sensitive to temperature (stays in focus). Waterproof construction is critical - don't go into the field without it.
 
Back
Top