I'm looking to upgrade to a spotting scope that is capable of seeing a 5.56 hole at 600 yds. I have looked at many posts here and other places and can't find anything that positively answers that question. Any help would be very much appreciated.
- Thread starter TRP173
- Start date
If you know what magnification works satisfactorily for your eyes at 100 yards, you can extrapolate to figure out what magnification would be at 6 times that distance. Whether or not you can see them with that magnification will depend on glass and mirage, but at least you have an idea of how much magnification to shop for.
There are too many variables (weather, mirage, heat, etc) to say 100% what would or would not work. A finer quality optic such as a Kowa or Swarovski will give you the best chance. It would be my pleasure to discuss different options. Please feel free to give me a call during the week
Splash on fresh painted steel perhaps.......223 holes in paper at 600 could be too much to ask of any glass, especially if your aiming point is dark.
For best chance to do it shoot a light target in hopes the holes contrast on it.
For best chance to do it shoot a light target in hopes the holes contrast on it.
Thanks Guys. I was told many years ago that was too much to ask of a spotting scope and just let it go. Reading here jogged my memory and I was hoping that maybe there was something out there now that could do it. It will keep the UTV busy. 
Do some research on the subject of 'Exit Pupil'.
This is a dimension that is derived by dividing the objective lens diameter by the power of the magnification being employed.
For example, a 60mm objective being divided by a 30x magnification derives an exit pupil diameter of 2mm.
Now look in the mirror and estimate the diameter of your own eye's pupil. I can't tell you what that is, but I'm practically certain its quite a bit bigger than 2mm.
That's not good. It needs to be bigger, maybe as much as twice or three times bigger, in order to deliver enough light to allow the entire retina to process the image.
Now you can decrease the magnification by a factor of two or three, using a 15x or a 10x magnification.
That's not terrible, and when mirage runs strong, 15x may not be such an unreasonable upper magnification limit.
But it also makes it maybe more difficult to justify some of the optical system currently in use.
This a very great oversimplification, and should lead to some discussion to follow.
A 5.56 hole is just about 1/4MOA in diameter. A healthy unaided eye is assumed for argument's sake to be able resolve (yes I can see it/no I can't see it) an object 1MOA in diameter. So just to be able to discern the 5.56 hole at 100yd, you need a 4x, and at 600, you need a 24x, but that exit pupil (let's say 4mm for a ballpark value) needs to be 4mm x 24x magnification, deriving a 96mm objective.
Rephrasing, that's a 24x96 scope. Just to be barely at the minimal limit of maybe being able to see/not see the hole; assumes a perfectly healthy eye and no light loss within the system, and also assumes that your eye can process that 4mm exit pupil properly. It might just as easily need to be 6mm for some of us, dictating an objective of 144mm.
Wow. Just wow!
Maybe, just maybe; this goal is impractical. If it is, at least now we know why.
Greg
This is a dimension that is derived by dividing the objective lens diameter by the power of the magnification being employed.
For example, a 60mm objective being divided by a 30x magnification derives an exit pupil diameter of 2mm.
Now look in the mirror and estimate the diameter of your own eye's pupil. I can't tell you what that is, but I'm practically certain its quite a bit bigger than 2mm.
That's not good. It needs to be bigger, maybe as much as twice or three times bigger, in order to deliver enough light to allow the entire retina to process the image.
Now you can decrease the magnification by a factor of two or three, using a 15x or a 10x magnification.
That's not terrible, and when mirage runs strong, 15x may not be such an unreasonable upper magnification limit.
But it also makes it maybe more difficult to justify some of the optical system currently in use.
This a very great oversimplification, and should lead to some discussion to follow.
A 5.56 hole is just about 1/4MOA in diameter. A healthy unaided eye is assumed for argument's sake to be able resolve (yes I can see it/no I can't see it) an object 1MOA in diameter. So just to be able to discern the 5.56 hole at 100yd, you need a 4x, and at 600, you need a 24x, but that exit pupil (let's say 4mm for a ballpark value) needs to be 4mm x 24x magnification, deriving a 96mm objective.
Rephrasing, that's a 24x96 scope. Just to be barely at the minimal limit of maybe being able to see/not see the hole; assumes a perfectly healthy eye and no light loss within the system, and also assumes that your eye can process that 4mm exit pupil properly. It might just as easily need to be 6mm for some of us, dictating an objective of 144mm.
Wow. Just wow!
Maybe, just maybe; this goal is impractical. If it is, at least now we know why.
Greg
Last edited:
That's really a great answer with respect to exit pupil size. I hadn't thought of that...
Back in 1968, I was 22 years old, fresh out of the Marine Corp (uh, yes, and 'Nam), and I was working for a NASA contractor in the field of Solar Astronomy (which is many times more complex than basic spotter scope optics). I was personally responsible for the process that produced and delivered the Apollo Command Module windows, and also handled optical supply for other contractors, like Fabry-Perot Interferometer components for Sandia Labs.
If you think that's cool, I'll tell you that Frank (LL) is a lot more savvy about Marksmens' optics than I ever was.
Some who know me also know I'm not into the peak performance optics.
My short explanation is simply that I don't have the bucks.
My longer explanation would probably take a page or two, but here are the core facts. Just as rifles have improved in orders of magnitude since I joined SH back in 2001, so have optics. What was once only barely available for big, big bucks is now commonly available for a nice and tidy affordable sum.
I take my applications, apply logic as above to determine actual performance requirements, and then make some personal value decisions about where I might be able to insert some compromise while yet maintaining adequate (the is an important word with me, 'adequate'...) capability.
Taking it all logically and in sequence, a good balance between capability and cost can be derived. The differences between my choices and those of others can be reasonably explained as the products of compromise and vanity. I own what I absolutely need to own, and others believe in a higher degree of precision and aesthetic. We're both right for our own personal needs.
My most expensive scopes are a Weaver Classic V-24. Another is a Weaver T-24. My workhorse scope is a Mueller 8-32x44 Target Dot Scope, of which I own three. Most of my AR Uppers (three of them) use the Bushnell 3-12x40 AR 223 Drop Zone BDC scope.
Adequate without being exorbitant.
Greg
If you think that's cool, I'll tell you that Frank (LL) is a lot more savvy about Marksmens' optics than I ever was.
Some who know me also know I'm not into the peak performance optics.
My short explanation is simply that I don't have the bucks.
My longer explanation would probably take a page or two, but here are the core facts. Just as rifles have improved in orders of magnitude since I joined SH back in 2001, so have optics. What was once only barely available for big, big bucks is now commonly available for a nice and tidy affordable sum.
I take my applications, apply logic as above to determine actual performance requirements, and then make some personal value decisions about where I might be able to insert some compromise while yet maintaining adequate (the is an important word with me, 'adequate'...) capability.
Taking it all logically and in sequence, a good balance between capability and cost can be derived. The differences between my choices and those of others can be reasonably explained as the products of compromise and vanity. I own what I absolutely need to own, and others believe in a higher degree of precision and aesthetic. We're both right for our own personal needs.
My most expensive scopes are a Weaver Classic V-24. Another is a Weaver T-24. My workhorse scope is a Mueller 8-32x44 Target Dot Scope, of which I own three. Most of my AR Uppers (three of them) use the Bushnell 3-12x40 AR 223 Drop Zone BDC scope.
Adequate without being exorbitant.
Greg
Last edited:
I use a Vortex Nomad 20-60x80 which optically very similar to this Vortex Diamondback 20-60x80. My Nomad was discontinued; it has a lightweight shell that easier to tote around, probably intended for bird watching.
The Nomad can resolve .22 caliber bullet holes at 300yd, which is good enough for where I do the bulk if my bench shooting. I'm out on a limb here a little, but I think this one is a good compromise between capability and cost.
Between the height of a small bench tripod and the angled eyepiece, it's a bit of a move from rifle scope to spotting scope eyepieces, but I've been using it for years without any real problems. You may want to compare this against a straight eyepiece. My I like Vortex optics, but only have the Nomad and a SPARC II. Mine work well, as advertised.
Greg
The Nomad can resolve .22 caliber bullet holes at 300yd, which is good enough for where I do the bulk if my bench shooting. I'm out on a limb here a little, but I think this one is a good compromise between capability and cost.
Between the height of a small bench tripod and the angled eyepiece, it's a bit of a move from rifle scope to spotting scope eyepieces, but I've been using it for years without any real problems. You may want to compare this against a straight eyepiece. My I like Vortex optics, but only have the Nomad and a SPARC II. Mine work well, as advertised.
Greg
Last edited:
I did not see it mentioned above but might have missed it.
The biggest factors you will be dealing with to view .223 cal hole in paper at 600 yards is not the glass you are looking with but the air you are looking through and the light you are utilizing. No glass can overcome mirage, dust and glare that obscures the target. You might need to look at some remote viewing device. Target cam etc.
Good luck with your quest.
RTH
The biggest factors you will be dealing with to view .223 cal hole in paper at 600 yards is not the glass you are looking with but the air you are looking through and the light you are utilizing. No glass can overcome mirage, dust and glare that obscures the target. You might need to look at some remote viewing device. Target cam etc.
Good luck with your quest.
RTH
Yes, I had been told about that once, as part of a blanket statement that anything over 30x would be blurred out by intervening atmospheric crud.
But when I started using the Mueller 8-32 there was no sense at all of such distortion or blockage.
I guess it's something that may vary with locality. I live in a high desert region with a bunch of winds, The dry lakes generate dust clouds that completely obscure the Mountains behind them, it's even happening today. We have a high winds, heat, and low humidity related wildfire warning in effect at the moment.
Greg
But when I started using the Mueller 8-32 there was no sense at all of such distortion or blockage.
I guess it's something that may vary with locality. I live in a high desert region with a bunch of winds, The dry lakes generate dust clouds that completely obscure the Mountains behind them, it's even happening today. We have a high winds, heat, and low humidity related wildfire warning in effect at the moment.
Greg
Not sure of what you venue for shooting is public or private. If private the targetvision will do what you want
Living in western Kansas, we see a very wide range of atmospheric conditions, from crystal clear calm days with very little mirage, to blustery, cloudy conditions with dust in the air, and lots of other conditions in between. I'm fortunate to own a pasture that allowed me to set up a 1000+yd range where I can shoot. Since I'm a gunsmith, I've built myself a variety of rifles over the years - mostly LR prone & tactical rigs - and have spent a lot of time on my range playing, testing & doing load development. I used to shoot almost exclusively on paper, from NRA MR 600yd & LR 1000yd full-face (6'x6') down to 100yd repair centers with a single white paster covering the X-ring. And - on a very few days, in perfect conditions - I've seen 223 bullet holes in the white at 600. I don't own any of the high-end spotters, instead using scopes from a Tasco World Class 25x60 to Kowa 661 w/25x LER to a couple of mid-priced ($600~$700) Celestron & Vanguard 20-60x80~82mm spotters. Depending on the season, there are plenty of days when I can barely pick out 223 bullet (75-90gr) splash on steel at 600yds with the best of these scopes. I get a little shadowing on the steel target faces in late afternoon, both from the steel panel fencing I need to keep cattle from rubbing the targets & backstop down, and from the stands for the targets themselves. It doesn't take much of this sort of stuff to make it nearly impossible to resolve bullet splashes on steel, especially when shooting a 223. It gets a lot easier when I switch to a 6.5 or 7mm rifle with heavier bullets, but it can still be tough in less than perfect conditions.
If money were no issue, I'd own a nice Swarovski or other high-end spotter in the $2800-$3500 price range - not because I believe they would do a lot better job of resolving 223 holes or splashes at 600 - but because I like & enjoy using high quality optics/pride of ownership sort of thing. But money is always an issue...so I get by using what I've got, and living with the limitations.
If money were no issue, I'd own a nice Swarovski or other high-end spotter in the $2800-$3500 price range - not because I believe they would do a lot better job of resolving 223 holes or splashes at 600 - but because I like & enjoy using high quality optics/pride of ownership sort of thing. But money is always an issue...so I get by using what I've got, and living with the limitations.
