Spotting scope, glass vs reticle

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Hypothetical situation.

Rifle hunter in the west, hunting all big game species, would they be better served by the best optical quality spotting scope or a spotting scope with ok optical quality with a mil reticle?

So basically Swarovski/kowa vs leupold/tract/revic?

 

[gr8fuldoug]

Superior optical quality would serve you best. It's our pleasure, as a long standing supporting vendor here, to discuss the different available options and special opportunities with you. Please give a call, 516-217-1000, when you have the time. Thanks

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Superior optical quality would serve you best.

Would that opinion change at all if shots were possibly 400+ yards?

Is the information provided by the spotter with a reticle (bullet impact/poa adjustment) more beneficial than the best optical quality?

 

[gr8fuldoug]

If the spotter is being used for 400 yards take a look at the GPO TS100. Great optical quality with a reticle
FEATURES:

• Mil-based first focal plane (FFP) PLR reticle
• Picatinny rail mounting system
• Matching FFP reticle to GPOTAC 4.5-27×50 riflescope
• Armored for durability
• GPObright high-transmission lens coatings
• DOUBLE HD objective lens

 

[madcalfe]

I personally don't know why you'd need one with a reticle.
You should already know your dope prior to taking the shot granted if your off by wind/elevation a little you should be able to spot your shot at those ranges and correct yourself with your scope.

 

[JGRaider]

Would that opinion change at all if shots were possibly 400+ yards?

Is the information provided by the spotter with a reticle (bullet impact/poa adjustment) more beneficial than the best optical quality?

Do you ever hunt solo? Get the best glass you can afford, especially in a spotter. High mags bring out the worst in optical quality.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I have what I believe is an alpha spotting scope (kowa 774).

But would a spotter w/ a reticle be more practical?

 

[gr8fuldoug]

I have what I believe is an alpha spotting scope (kowa 774).

But would a spotter w/ a reticle be more practical?

If you have a Kowa 77 you're set

 

[madcalfe]

I have what I believe is an alpha spotting scope (kowa 774).

But would a spotter w/ a reticle be more practical?

no. changes are if you miss a shot, and you have someone looking in the spotter there going to be quick about it and say "2 low, 3 inches to the right" and so on.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

no. changes are if you miss a shot, and you have someone looking in the spotter there going to be quick about it and say "2 low, 3 inches to the right" and so on.

Or they could say .4 mils right .2 mils up (or the correctioncould be much larger if the wind call was poor)....if your spotter is speaking the same language as your scope.

The responses so far have been interesting. So far nobody sees the value of a spotter w/ reticle.

 

[Marshfly]

Or they could say .4 mils right .2 mils up (or the correctioncould be much larger if the wind call was poor)....if your spotter is speaking the same language as your scope.

The responses so far have been interesting. So far nobody sees the value of a spotter w/ reticle.

You use the spotter for finding game FAAAAAR more than spotting misses. That's why.

And people have no problem spotting misses and giving corrective advice through a regular spotter if that shooter and spotter have trained together even a little bit.

 

[Fire_9]

I could definitely see the advantage of having a reticle in a spotter and have often thought about getting one. If Kowa made an eyepiece with reticle I would jump all over it

 

[Shortschaf]

Ideally, BOTH. But I agree with all those above. If I can only have one, for hunting I choose glass quality all day long. You need to see the animal before you can shoot at it.

The real crime is that there is only ONE premium, MIL reticle, compact spotter. Hensoldt Spotter 45. Its heavy, cost as much as a premium Swaro, and users all seem to agree that the glass does not win any awards.

 

[Formidilosus]

I have what I believe is an alpha spotting scope (kowa 774).

But would a spotter w/ a reticle be more practical?

Are you shooting or hunting with another person usually?

 

[TaperPin]

Hypothetical situation.

Rifle hunter in the west, hunting all big game species, would they be better served by the best optical quality spotting scope or a spotting scope with ok optical quality with a mil reticle?

So basically Swarovski/kowa vs leupold/tract/revic?

Any clutter in the scope will cut down on the difficult to see animals you’d be able to pick out of the hillside. As your eye scans the area inside the scope, constantly criss crossing a reticle essentially hides animals directly behind it.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Are you shooting or hunting with another person usually?

I'd say 50/50. This year might be more, like 70/30

 

[Formidilosus]

I'd say 50/50. This year might be more, like 70/30

If you can teach them (and you can) to use the reticle correctly while spotting for you, or you for them- absolutely one with a reticle.

For all the people saying no reticle, how much experience do yall have calling shots both practicing off a flat range and hunting for another shooter?

no. changes are if you miss a shot, and you have someone looking in the spotter there going to be quick about it and say "2 low, 3 inches to the right" and so on.

That’s not quick, that’s slow. You give positive corrections, not negative. I do care where the round went, I care what correction I need to hit, and having to translate “inches” into “mils” just added stress on top of the mental load already present.


Spotting, correcting shots, and shooter/spotter dialogue is as much a skill as the shooting is. There are better and worse methods, what people are describing here are the worst methods.

 

[TaperPin]

For all the people saying no reticle, how much experience do yall have calling shots both practicing off a flat range and hunting for another shooter?

99.99% of time behind a spotting scope is searching for game - do you not find looking through and around a mil reticle to be distracting?

 

[BULLBLASTER]

I say glass quality. I dont like inches for spotter correction because what does an inch look like at 500-600 yards without a ruler. But a spotter can fairly easily indicate based on a known size. “Half a body high” for example. Or “half a deer left” and a shooter can quickly adjust.

I would not give up optical quality in spotting and evaluating game in order to have a reticle spotter personally.

If given the choice of a spotter i could look though for longer without eye strain or headaches that doesnt have a reticle, or a spotter that would give me a headache after 30 min but has a reticle the choice is easy. Though i prefer 15x binos to spotter in most cases.

 

[madcalfe]

That’s not quick, that’s slow. You give positive corrections, not negative. I do care where the round went, I care what correction I need to hit, and having to translate “inches” into “mils” just added stress on top of the mental load already present.


Spotting, correcting shots, and shooter/spotter dialogue is as much a skill as the shooting is. There are better and worse methods, what people are describing here are the worst methods.

I get your point. but if he doesn't primarily hunt with the same person and they don't establish a system for calling missed shot. more than likely a person will say "your low this many inches and to the left this many" or whatever it's a natural response if you haven't been training." compared to someone trying to count the marks in the reticle.

Use whatever you think will help your needs, but I know I wouldn't be using a spotter with a reticle while I'm trying to count annuli on a sheep.