Spotting Scope vs WiFi cam vs Hi magnification scope

[Guest]

When shooting out to 300-400 yards, it can be difficult to see where your shots are hitting. Seems like a lot of people purchase a high magnification large objective spotting scope, or a WiFi camera that will send an image of the target to your phone. Is there any advantage to either of these over simply using a high magnification scope? ( I’ve got a Sightron 10-50x60 on my FX Crown, and it cost less than the Vortex Razor HD spotting scope I was looking at, but I usually don’t have that along when shooting my Slayer that has a 5-25x50 Viper PST on it.)

 

[Yo]

A good spotting scope is a very worthwhile investment especially when shooting past 200 yards. I tried a ridiculous amount of different spotting scopes and I highly recommend the Swarovsky ATS80 HD 20-60 at the minimum. It's only a one time investment. Prepare to see things A LOT CLEARER as though you just got super vision.

The Vortex Razor is very similar to the JAPAN BUSHNELL ELITE that was discontinued. IMHO at $1500 the Razor is like paying double of what I think they are worth compared to the old BUSHNELL Elites.

 

[bubblerboy64]

Splatter Targets. (Birchwood Casey) help a great deal. I agree with YO. A good spotting scope is a nice thing to have . They range from $100 to many $1000. If you get into the high end stuff pay attention to the eye relief specifications. It’s very nice not to have to have you eye right up against the ocular lens which is common on the cheap stuff.
It’s also much easier to get good video images thru a spotting scope then a rifle scope.
If you shoot “with” a spotter it’s also very handy to have a tactical scope which has a reticle in it. I find that very helpful to show a partner something down range. Other wise you are limited to descriptions.
I like the higher end leupold scopes but there are others which are just wonderful instruments. Kowa makes some really quality spotters as do Leica and others.
If you are talking really long range the WiFi remotes would have to be nice. Probably a lot less money 

 

[biohazardman]

The only advantage I can see with a WiFi cam is that if you are blogging or posting on forums you have the shot already digitized so it is easy to relay that to your post or blog. You would need to add a scope cam to your hi-mag scope to get the same picture.

 

[bubblerboy64]

I see the WiFi camera for extreme distances. Long range shooters of Utah. Shooting milk jugs at 1 mile. That type of thing 

 

[JungleShooter]

I'm interested in the Wifi camera stuff!

Some of my long range shooting happens out in the middle of no-where in mother nature – where there is no Wifi – naturally, as long open ranges usually exclude the presence of people (and the Wifi that comes with those people)....

So, how can I see what I'm hitting far down range on my cellphone with an unlimited data plan?

Matthias

 

[oledawg]

I’ve had these on my Amazon Wish list for a while, would something like this work for your needs. Tripod mountable. 

 

[Yo]

Thats only 25x. And at that price his scope is probably clearer. He's probably better off with a 60x high end glass for the distance he wants to see impact holes on targets with.

 

[marquette]

We have started using electronic scoring on our KD range. It’s 4 sensors that go one on each corner of the target. I’ve only watched a demonstration during a fun match but pretty amazing. I believe it uses RF to transmit to a small router that lets you see hits on your phone or tablet. I watched it in use at 1000 yds and it never failed. Besides showing hits on target and scoring it also tells velocity at impact. Also angle of entry into the target. I was at the budget meeting when we approved the purchase of 6 more for $4800. So I assume they cost $800 each. From what I remember you put up a target and fire 1 shot. Then put the curser on the hole, left click and move the curser to the center X, left click and it knows target center. After that it’s just shoot, look at your tablet, see your hit and score. It gave a ton of other options that I can’t remember them all. Might be something to look into for an alternative to a high end spotting scope 

 

[bigHUN]

A good spotting scope is a very worthwhile investment especially when shooting past 200 yards. ... Swarovsky ATS80 HD 20-60 ...

This ............I had one back in time when I was competing archery long FITA target ranges.

The other option I could recommend is to research a "bird watching scope".

I still have one Eagle Optics in my drawers that doesn't fall behind much from the Swaro but the cost is only fractions. This scope served me for a decade or more and expecting some recent models shall be way higher clarity.

But, if you go to their (birdwatchers) store you don't tell them you need for shooting, you can get an ugly look.

 

[Yo]

Bad news is that Eagle Optics Company closed down in Dec. 2017. 

Good news is Vortex Optics are (supposes to) honor the Eagle Optics Lifetime warranty. 

Bad news if they swap out the spotter to their Vortex Razor you're probably getting the Discontinued ($1600-$1200 depending if you shopped smart (OR NOT)) BUSHNELL Elite that were on clearance for around $500 years ago relabeled under the Vortex Razor name. SICKENONG AINT IT? I have both Bushnell Elites 45x and 60x and paid sale prices of $750 and $900 back in the day.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON to the Swarovsky!!!

I have an old Discontinued Kahles Spotter that's about even clarity as the Swarovsky that needs to be warrantied that has grown what looks like pubes in the glass due to age. Still mostly crystal clear though rather irritating to see.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the suggestions. I’d love a Swarovski scope, but for $3k I could buy a March 8-80x56 scope with great glass, so I’ve ordered a (much cheaper) SME Bullseye range camera that is supposed to transmit video of the target by WiFi (directly to a phone or tablet, no need for cell service) up to a mile.