Rifle Scopes Whoa, I can spot better with this rifle scope than my spotting scope...

[frank320]

True story.
Just this weekend, I was at the range with my dad looking to sight in and zero my brand new Cadex CDX-50 Tremor with a freshly mounted Razor Gen2 4.5-27x. Our range's rules state that the 50bmg can ONLY be fired from the 300yd line - no exceptions. Knowing we have a monumental spotting task ahead, my dad had his trusty old spotting scope ready to go. After bore sighting, I sent the first 750gr Hornady AMax on its way - "no call, can't see the impact on paper". Argh, hoping to get lucky, I sent a second AMax round downrange, again no call.

My dad can't see anything from his spotting scope, neither can I see anything from my Tremor's Razor Gen2. Not wanting to waste more ammo, I figure I will wait for range to go cold and go downrange to check. That is when my dad looked thru the Minox ZP5 5-25 MR4 mounted on my MPA on the next table: "Hey, I think I can see 2 larger than normal paper holes, bottom right." I looked thru the Minox scope on my MPA, and true enough, I can see 2 larger than normal bullet holes on the target backing, off and away from my "shoot N-C" target. Winner, thanks Minox ZP5!!!

My dad spent the rest of the day spotting thru my Minox ZP5. I also had a NightForce ATACR on another rifle, but the Minox impressed him the most by far. My dad has no idea how much each of these scopes cost, but his preference is obviously towards the ZP5.

I guess it is time to splurge on a better spotting scope...

Thumbs up for the Minox ZP5 5-25.

 

[TheGerman]

Its why I have a 7-35.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

1. "Trusty old spotting scope": this tells us nothing about the actual spotter, so no points awarded.
2. "Hoping to get lucky", on the range, at more than $5/pull: no points awarded.
3. I have a Gen2 razor and can spot 30-cal holes at 300 with no issues, maybe I have super eyes.
4. I hear good things about Minox, but no first-hand experience.

The common folk here will want details, else it is an anecdote for spotters sucking, razors sucking slightly less, and Minox being the most awesome-est optic ever.

 

[frank320]

1. "Trusty old spotting scope": this tells us nothing about the actual spotter, so no points awarded.
2. "Hoping to get lucky", on the range, at more than $5/pull: no points awarded.
3. I have a Gen2 razor and can spot 30-cal holes at 300 with no issues, maybe I have super eyes.
4. I hear good things about Minox, but no first-hand experience.

The common folk here will want details, else it is an anecdote for spotters sucking, razors sucking slightly less, and Minox being the most awesome-est optic ever.

Not really into scoring points.
Most can spot bullet holes at 300yds, the difference is being able to spot the 50 cal holes amongst all the 6.5mm/30/etc bullet holes all over the target's backing cardboard at 300yds.

I never said Minox being the most awesome optic ever - do not misquote me. As a matter of fact, the Minox's second rev bugs me, the soft illum knob bugs me and I think the Nightforce ATACR's turret clicks are better. I have the fortunate luck of being able to own a bunch of higher end optics of various brands, and I use them equally without prejudice.

 

[lash]

Truly, if you could not spot .50 cal holes in paper at 300 yards with your Razor G2, then there is something seriously wrong with either the scope, the power you had it on or your adjustment of the diopter when first setting up the scope. I’m not being derisive nor attacking you, just telling you to find out which thing is reducing your ability to see with the Razor.

Understand that I don’t own a Razor G2 nor ever have, though I would. I have however fired others rifles with them, been on others rifles to spot impacts etc using them, and compared their clarity with heavy mirage at a mile with my S&B PMII (S&B clears wins at that distance and use). This is not to say that the Minox may not do it better, as I do like the ZP5 a lot and would have one, funds permitting.

It is saying that something ain’t right with the G2 not spotting large caliber holes at 300 yards. Heck, even my 1st gen Bushnell HDMR 3.5-21 can spot my .260 holes at 300.

Diopter and parallax setup are critical for any scope.

 

[frank320]

Truly, if you could not spot .50 cal holes in paper at 300 yards with your Razor G2, then there is something seriously wrong with either the scope, the power you had it on or your adjustment of the diopter when first setting up the scope. I’m not being derisive nor attacking you, just telling you to find out which thing is reducing your ability to see with the Razor.

It's not just seeing a bullet hole at 300yds, its having enough clarity to spot the slightly larger 50 cal bullet hole amongst all the existing bullet holes in the target's backing... the first shot missed my shoot-n-c completely and landed on the bottom right of the target's backing board, where there are lots of other bullet holes from previous shooters/ bullets, mostly 30cals.

If you can easily spot the difference between a 50cal bullet hole amongst lots of other large caliber rounds at 300yds during your first shot at zeroing a newly mounted scope and new rifle, hats off to you.

 

[308pirate]

What kind of piece of shit spotting scope was it?

Tasco?

Konus?

Celestron?

Should have bought a Kowa.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Frank, we get where you were going, but you took a very long path to get there. And I didn't put words in your mouth, I said it was an anecdote with a message.

To be sure I understand: you wanted to zero a 50-cal at 300 yards with those small shoot-n-see targets. You missed the target but hit the board: correct? No one will chide you for the scopes, but some may find issue with your process. Personally, zeroing any gun that shoots $5 bills, I would bore-sight, then hang the biggest target I could find, then check my bore-sighted results - then squeeze a round. The great thing about a 50-cal is a good vapor trail, and the great thing about 300+ yard shots is being able to watch said vapor trail.

You like the Minox, we get that, glad you do. The Razor is no slouch, and you had trouble with it doing a thing lots of people commonly do. All that said, we get the point.

You don't have to like any of the responses, but I would remind...you started it...

Carry on.

 

[army_eod]

Man. Tough crowd tonight. Lol.

 

[lash]

Man. Tough crowd tonight. Lol.

Lol. I was not intending to be tough, we just did not have all of the information in the first post.

 

[frank320]

To be sure I understand: you wanted to zero a 50-cal at 300 yards with those small shoot-n-see targets. You missed the target but hit the board: correct? No one will chide you for the scopes, but some may find issue with your process. Personally, zeroing any gun that shoots $5 bills, I would bore-sight, then hang the biggest target I could find, then check my bore-sighted results - then squeeze a round. The great thing about a 50-cal is a good vapor trail, and the great thing about 300+ yard shots is being able to watch said vapor trail.

You like the Minox, we get that, glad you do. The Razor is no slouch, and you had trouble with it doing a thing lots of people commonly do. All that said, we get the point.

You don't have to like any of the responses, but I would remind...you started it...

Carry on.

I did not say it was a small shoot-n-c target. I used 4 12x12 Shoot n-c targets setup in 2x2 square. And yes, at 300yds, with a bore sight, it was still off the shoot-n-c. At the range I shoot at, zeroing a 50bmg at 300yds was my only choice. I challenge anyone to try to do better with a bore sight.

Spotting vapor trails at 300 yds? I call BS on that one. We shot 28 rounds yesterday and did not see any "vapor trails" under those conditions...

If I thought the Razor was a slouch, given all my available scope options, would I have mounted a "slouch" on my brand new $8000 Cadex Tremor? The Razor Gen2 remains one of my favorite scopes for the money. It's mounted on my Tremor because it is tough, has great warranty and helps me weigh down the whole 50bmg setup to reduce recoil.

 

[smoothy8500]

"Vapor trails" is a misnomer. Bullet trace is a better term as the air ripples from changes in density-kind of like mirage. To see it requires a decent spotting scope with the focus backed off about 100yds from the target. Generally, 300 yds is the closest you'll be able to see it.

 

[Contender-1]

Congrats on the new .50 cal rig. More importantly, congrats on being able to spend time at the range with your dad. For many of us that is no longer an option.
Bob

 

[Longshot231]

I think a lot depends on the person behind the spotting scope. I get frustrated with people spotting for me that say things like; "You were a little off."

That tells me a lot! I wish they would use more technical terms like "schmidgen" and "tad" or "way-off."

True story; my idiot brother could not tell me the clock positions of the bullet impact. I guess he was using a digital watch.

What is even worse is if you're trying to walk someone on to a target using larger objects or terrain features to guide them on to a target. For example:

Me: "Reference the bridge crossing the stream. At two o'clock from that bridge at 20 yards, you will see a tree with a low hanging branch off the right side. Do you see what I'm talking about?"

Them: "What bridge?"

Me: "It's the only %&$#ing bridge within a hundred miles of us!"

Them: "Okay, where is it at?"

Me: "It's right in front of us at about 500 yards!"

Them: "Do you mean that little wobbly foot bridge?"

Me: "No I'm talking about the big ass Golden Gate bridge?"

Them: "I thought you liked shooting. Why do you get so pissed off?"

 

[lash]

I think a lot depends on the person behind the spotting scope. I get frustrated with people spotting for me that say things like; "You were a little off."

That tells me a lot! I wish they would use more technical terms like "schmidgen" and "tad" or "way-off."

True story; my idiot brother could not tell me the clock positions of the bullet impact. I guess he was using a digital watch.

What is even worse is if you're trying to walk someone on to a target using larger objects or terrain features to guide them on to a target. For example:

Me: "Reference the bridge crossing the stream. At two o'clock from that bridge at 20 yards, you will see a tree with a low hanging branch off the right side. Do you see what I'm talking about?"

Them: "What bridge?"

Me: "It's the only %&$#ing bridge within a hundred miles of us!"

Them: "Okay, where is it at?"

Me: "It's right in front of us at about 500 yards!"

Them: "Do you mean that little wobbly foot bridge?"

Me: "No I'm talking about the big ass Golden Gate bridge?"

Them: "I thought you liked shooting. Why do you get so pissed off?"

Or you could get the guys that say, “You're off to the left about 6”, when you are shooting at 975 yards. Instead of calling it in mil/Moa terms. Fortunately, if they can see an impact so can I usually, so I adjust accordingly.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

I contributed to the tomfuckery of yesterday; and for that, I apologize.

Enjoy the 50, glad you like the minox, maybe think about a new spotter for dad for Christmas.

 

[Longshot231]

Oh and I forgot the classic!

Me: "I'm ready to shoot. Are you on the target?

Them: "Yes."

Me: [Shoots rifle.]

Them: [silence]

Me: "Did you see it?"

Them: "Sorry, I took my eye off the scope for a second."

Me: "No problem. Are you ready now?"

Them: "Yes."

Me: [Shoots rifle.]

Them: [silence]

Me: "Did you see it?"

Them: "How do you focus this thing again?"

Then there is always this when I'm spotting for them.

Them: [shoots rifle]

Me: "Miss at two o'clock. Come down three clicks and left 4 clicks."

Them: [Turns elevation and windage turrets the wrong way fires again.]

Me: "Miss at two o'clock even further out. Which way did you make your adjustments?"

Them: "I came up a little and over a little."

Me: "Okay, let me start with Genesis Chapter One on calling shots and scope adjustments."

 

[Longshot231]

Or you could get the guys that say, “You're off to the left about 6”, when you are shooting at 975 yards. Instead of calling it in mil/Moa terms. Fortunately, if they can see an impact so can I usually, so I adjust accordingly.

I can also see them impact on some rifles but the ones with more recoil cause the target to get lost in the field of view.

 

[frank320]

I contributed to the tomfuckery of yesterday; and for that, I apologize.

Enjoy the 50, glad you like the minox, maybe think about a new spotter for dad for Christmas.

No prob, it's all good.
We definitely need a better spotting scope, that's for sure. But knowing my dad, if I get him a better spotting scope and he found out how much it costs, he probably give me hell for it, turn around and trade it in for a couple of revolvers and muzzleloaders and we land up back to square one....

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

The get yourself a new spotter and get your dad a revolver for christmas. There are a few good options out there for not huge money. Or just keep using the Minox, that seems to work too.


And yes, vapor trail was a bad word choice, but it is visible at 300, especially with a pill in the 750-gr size.

 

[TDFT1]

Truly, if you could not spot .50 cal holes in paper at 300 yards with your Razor G2, then there is something seriously wrong with either the scope, the power you had it on or your adjustment of the diopter when first setting up the scope. I’m not being derisive nor attacking you, just telling you to find out which thing is reducing your ability to see with the Razor.

Understand that I don’t own a Razor G2 nor ever have, though I would. I have however fired others rifles with them, been on others rifles to spot impacts etc using them, and compared their clarity with heavy mirage at a mile with my S&B PMII (S&B clears wins at that distance and use). This is not to say that the Minox may not do it better, as I do like the ZP5 a lot and would have one, funds permitting.

It is saying that something ain’t right with the G2 not spotting large caliber holes at 300 yards. Heck, even my 1st gen Bushnell HDMR 3.5-21 can spot my .260 holes at 300.

Diopter and parallax setup are critical for any scope.

You should definitely be able to spot the 50 caliber holes with the VORTEX!!

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

what a warm and fuzzy bunch.

 

[deersniper]

Can’t y’all just let him be happy about his glass quality.

I’m a Nightforce fanboy through and through but I traded a bender for a minox and kahles and the glass is definitely a notch better

 

[TDFT1]

Can’t y’all just let him be happy about his glass quality.

I’m a Nightforce fanboy through and through but I traded a bender for a minox and kahles and the glass is definitely a notch better

I wasn’t knocking that, I was just shocked that you couldn’t pick up on 27X.