The Vortex SPARC is a midrange priced red dot great for use on AR15′s, 45-70′s, shotguns and other rifles where short range, fast shots are required. At the low range, you have Tascos, Bushnells, etc for about $100; at your high end, you have EOTech and Aimpoint at $400-$900. The SPARC fits in the middle at about $200 including mounts. That’s an important consideration when mounts for the pricier red dots go for about $50-$125.

What’s in the box?

A lot, if you’re used to buying riflescopes! The box comes with 2 low height mounting options, an AR co-witness mounting option at 37mm, plus a combo of the two for a 1/3 co-witness. Also included is the rubber lens cover strappy-thing, 2 CR2354 batteries that should each last a bajillion years, and a screw-on 2X magnifier. The 2X magnifier is really handy for sighting in the red dot and giving a little extra oomph when target shooting, but I prefer the SPARC without it. It interferes with good “2 eyes open” sighting that’s excellent with 1X magnification, and it really narrows the field of view in the sight. Both eyes open sighting and target acquisition is a bit of an eye opener if you’ve been used to 3-9 scopes, and it really speeds up finding and engaging new targets. So I relegate the 2X magnifier to sight-in duty only.

Batteries and power

The most critical issue with using a powered optic is how quickly it can be brought to bear and how long it lasts. Thankfully, the Vortex offers a quick touch “on” for the dot. A simple click on the left of the red dot turns it on, while a lengthy 5 second hold is required to turn it off. Battery life at typical brightness is 120 hours, which is pretty good for a midrange optic. A high end optic like an EOTech could last more than 600 hours even on max brightness, while low end optics can come in quite a bit less. The compact 2354 batteries can be easily be fit into a grip hollow or other place on the gun as backup, though I’d be more impressed if the sight used a common CR123 for power.

Usability

Use of the SPARC is VERY straightforward. The typical brightness setting is fine for mid-day, and remained untouched while I used it. I did turn it down as dusk settled in, and that was very easy thanks to the easy up/down arrows on the back of the sight. I would prefer to see the NightVision button as smaller and harder to hit since the majority of users wouldn’t use it, and most hits of the NV button would be accidental. It’s on the outside of the red dot and is too easy to accidentally bump while using. The power button was easy to use, and while somewhat inconvenient to turn off, I’d hate to suggest something more convenient that would compromise the design or excellent reliability. The rubber “bra” style scope caps suck, regular flip-up scope caps would be much easier to pop up should you emerge from the bush and see a coyote or deer. Adjustment of windage and elevation is easy with the wired adjustment caps, but . . .rough. 1MOA click adjustments is just a bit big in my world; I could live with .5 MOA adjustments, but 1MOA leaves me wanting. The safety wires don’t really impede use of the caps and they ensure that the caps don’t fall down a sewer grate or down into a field or something silly, which is excellent. I don’t know how much experimentation they needed to do to get the tension and wire thickness/braid just right to retain those caps, yet leave them free to spin, but they did an awesome job.

Quality

Build quality is a bit tough to measure, because I’m too much of a wuss to beat the crap out of my SPARC. Thankfully, some nutjob saint has done that for me. PreachermanMATT on AR15.com put the SPARC’s claims of waterproof, weatherproof, and shockproof-ness to the test in an epic thread here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/488888_Vortex_SPARC_Review.html. I’m not willing to subject my property to that kind of abuse, so check his thread out if you’re interested to know what the SPARC can endure.

Overall

I think the big question most people will want to ask is “can I buy this instead of an EOTech or Aimpoint?” You can’t, unless you change your requirements. This sight does not last as long on battery, and will not be as robust as an Aimpoint or EOTech. If you’re not going to treat your optics like shit, and you’re willing to keep an extra battery around and changing that battery will not mean instant death, I can’t see why you wouldn’t want to go with a mid-range optic like this. A lot of people out there are convinced that you need to buy the most expensive, best stuff out there, no matter what your mission. But if your mission is to shoot a few coyotes or have a better-than-irons sight on your short range gun, there’s nothing wrong with going with a red dot like this. It’s certainly more likely to sop up abuse better than a Tasco, and the optics are pretty good. So if you’re not engaging OpFor, take it easy on your wallet and buy something “good enough” for moderate civilian use.

SPARC vs Strikefire

If you’ve been browsing the midrange red dots, you might have come across the Strikefire, also by Vortex, and also in the same price range. Where these systems differ is primarily in size and dot MOA. The bigger Strikefire looks like a mini-scope, and comes with a single 30mm ring to mount, while the smaller SPARC comes with multiple skeletonized aluminum mounts to fit a few different mounting requirements and uses a smaller 2MOA dot. While they both have very similar controls, the smaller SPARC will mount lower and comes with a more streamlined package. The Strikefire offers a larger view, with a 1.45″ objective vs a 1.1″ objective on the SPARC. The Strikefire comes with flip up caps, which in my own opinion, are better than the rubber scope caps that the SPARC comes with. To summarize:

Strikefire advantages:

• Better field of view
• Better scope caps
• Standard tube size: you could more easily customize the red dot height using commercial 30mm rings if you needed more adjustment options.

SPARC advantages

• Smaller, more snag-free design
• Smaller, finer red dot (2 vs 4 MOA)
• Comes with mounting options for several different heights. (2 different low mounts, co-witness, 1/3 co-witness)
• Safety wired adjustment and battery cap (you can’t lose them)

I have a personal sweet spot in riflescopes where the optical quality is “good enough” for hunting and the reliability is too. For me, that spot is most standard riflescopes that are $200-$500. There are plenty of great scopes in this range, such as Bushnell Elites, Vortex Diamondbacks, Classic Weavers,  Nikon Monarchs and ProStaffs, Millets, Burris Fullfields and more. If I had to borrow a rifle to hunt and it came equipped with any of those scopes, I’d be fine. With a new rifle that I had on order, I wanted to try a newcomer to the field.

Redfield Revolution

Redfield scopes are Leupold’s “fighting brand”, a brand name that a premium product maker uses to duke it out with lower cost competitors without ruining their premium name. With the Redfield name, they can load a scope up on features, keep production costs low, and fight it out with the scopes I mentioned above without losing a potential $600 sale for one of their more typical scopes. Redfield Revolutions are made in the US with very good lens coatings at a very decent price.

Why a 50mm Objective?

The objective of the scope (the end pointing at the deer you’re about to turn into supper) gathers the light that is then presented to your eyeball through the ocular lens (eyepiece). If you want more light into the waning hours of the hunt, you could buy a scope with better light transmission, say from 91% to 95% but that’s only a minor difference. Going from a 40mm objective to a 50mm objective makes a massive difference, just like how a 40″ TV is puny compared to a 50″ TV. But it comes with consequences. The size of your objective limits how close your scope can come to the barrel of your rifle. For most hunting rifles, the closer your scope to the barrel, the better; a tall mounted scope is hard to get a good cheek weld on. It also means more weight, since you’re carrying around more glass. The last consolation you need to make is on price. A 50mm objective scope will always cost more than the equivalent 40mm because of the big difference in size of glass and the difficulty in getting all that glass to the same level of quality.

Last year, I shot a deer from 300 yards at the end of legal hunting light and it laid down in a thicket to die. I had a good vantage point and should have been able to track the deer through the scope to it’s final resting place, but after it entered the thicket, it simply vanished. The 3-9×40 scope I was using was at max power simply wasn’t passing enough light for me to see that deer anymore. A 50mm objective may have given me the extra bit of light I needed to see where that deer laid down and saved me the time in tracking in the dark.

The Redfield Revolution 3-9x50mm

So, I was looking for a new scope for a rifle I had on order, and I had it narrowed down to a Redfield Revolution in 3-9×40, a Viper Diamondback in 3-9×40, or a Nikon ProStaff in the same. After comparing the three scopes, I found I disliked the optical image that the Diamondback gave me, and the Prostaff image wasn’t quite as clear. The Redfield was the clear victor. As I went to buy the reasonable 3-9×40, I asked how much the 50mm version was. The 4plex version was $30 more, while the ballistic version was just a bit more than that. Remembering last year’s hunt, how could I refuse the upgrade to a 50??

Pros

• The 3-9×50 Revolution is very solidly built. The metal has a  coating on it that’s all business. The metal knurling is sharp and grippy.
• The lenses are fully multicoated.
• The accuplex reticle option is an inexpensive upgrade (on a Bushnell Elite, the difference between a 3-9×40 with regular reticle and DOA600 reticle is $100!!).
• The 50mm objective is an inexpensive upgrade (also a $100 upgrade on a similar Bushnell Elite).
• Windage adjustments don’t require a dime or a screwdriver or whatever.

Cons

• The windage and elevation adjustments click, but they don’t feel really great. There’s a lot of lash (play).
• It’s a 2 piece tube scope (Vortex Diamondbacks and Bushnell Elites are 1 piece).
• The light transmission is “meh” at 90-91% (Bushnell Elites claim 95% light transmission).
• I’m not a super fan of the rotating eyepiece to adjust focus and resulting exposed threads and locking nut. It seems like an out of date solution.
• Warranty isn’t as good as Vortex’s.

Conclusion

If you’re building a rifle on a budget (who isn’t?) and need good glass at an affordable price, don’t be put out by hunting buddies that claim you need to buy a scope that’s twice as much as your rifle. You only really use your scope for 10 seconds on the hunt. It needs to keep its zero and be clear enough to see your game and your opportunity to make the shot. The Redfield Revolution in 3-9×40 or it’s bigger brother the 3-9×50 are fantastic scopes for the money and would be great companions to any of the budget bolt action rifles that are out there these days. The 3-9×50 in particular, is a bit of a unique beast, with only the Vortex Diamondback for competition. In any case, like many of the great $200-$500 scopes out there, you can’t really go wrong.

The Savage Axis is an incredibly inexpensive rifle and will be the starting point for a lot of hunters. I’ve got a few Axis-specific accessories below, but in order, here’s what I think should be replaced or upgraded:

1. Trigger. It was hard to determine if I should recommend a $200 scope or a $100 trigger, but given typical hunting ranges and how bad the factory trigger is, I’d go for a replacement trigger first. If you’re mechanically handy, you can do your own Savage Axis Trigger Job.
2. Scope. Something in the $150-$250 range. Redfield Revolution, Bushnell Elite, Vortex Diamondback, etc.
3. Better rings/bases. The rings aren’t all that fantastic, and the bases don’t leave a lot of scope mounting options.

That’s all I’d really recommend for these rifles. They aren’t offered in Magnum rounds, so don’t bother with an aftermarket buttpad, and the stock design is different so there aren’t any replacement aftermarket stocks available for it.

Scope bases for the Savage Axis

Thankfully, scope bases for the Savage Axis are pretty standard.

• Weaver Bases: two 46 bases or 402′s for extensions.
• DNZ has a 1 piece base/rings mount that would be very solid.
• EGW has a picatinny rail for the Axis (296-000-186WB)

Aftermarket Triggers for the Savage Axis

• Rifle Basix SAV-1 (I installed one of these in my Axis and a buddy’s Axis with excellent results)
• Timney trigger for Savage Axis

I’ll be adding to this list as I go along. If you come across a Savage Axis part that I haven’t included here, let me know!

It’s no big secret, I love LED flashlights and headlamps. So when Dorcy asked if they could send me a new LED headlamp to review, I couldn’t turn it down. I’ve bought 2 sets of Dorcy headlamps last Christmas for my parents, who need them to do chores at night on the farm. One was just like this one, except it was a 1 Watt LED bulb, and I think it was a bit dimmer than this one.

Build Quality

My parents are pretty rough on equipment, so it’s gotta be a decent testament that they haven’t obliterated their headlamps yet after daily use for about a year. In fact, neither of the headlamps are showing any wear, aside from one that had some junky batteries that leaked inside and caused a bit of corrosion on the terminals. The headbands still have a nice snug feel to them, the buttons still click like they’re supposed to, and nothings snapped or smashed. Ultimately, the design is simple, inexpensive, and durable. Will your buddies oggle it and ask how much it cost? Not really. But they will ask if they can borrow it when they’re tracking a blood trail into the dark of the night.

Headlamps While Hunting

Most of the hunters I know will take a flashlight along if they’re heading out really early to a spot, or if they need to take a long walk back after the evening hunt. Flashlights are great for light hiking because their collectors ensure you can throw the beam pretty far, giving you more to look at. Where they suck is an hour after sundown, when you’re looking through the leaves for spots of blood. You’ve got your rifle slung over your shoulder, your flashlight in your hand, and you’re trying to move branches aside with your other hand. On a blood trail in the evening is when a headlamp kicks butt. If you’ve got a clean, white LED, you’re really cooking with gas. I find the clean white color temperature of LED makes it easier to focus on leaves, blood trails, etc better than the yellow of an incandescent traditional flashlight or bulb. The big power savings of an LED, along with better color rendering, are advantages worth switching for.

Unit Notes

• I left it running for half an hour to see if anything got hot. No outside surfaces did, but there’s a metal heatsink inside that did get scorching hot. You shouldn’t be able to touch it in normal use, so don’t worry about it.
• The rubber covered button on top cycles it between high, medium, flash and off.
• The strap connects on either side of the unit and does not offer an over the top strap. Those are only really necessary on heavier units, so I don’t see the need for one anyways. The strap is adjustable for length and would fit a big range of head sizes from large adults to small children.
• The beam pattern is flood, great for close work or slowly hiking down a trail, but not so great for long distance illumination
• My Klarus XT2C easily beat it in power, but it also uses a comparatively exotic 18650 battery instead of plain old AAA’s. The Klarus also doesn’t fit on my head.

*Chippewa was kind enough to send me a pair of these boots to review. If you want your own pair, enter in the “Haggard-est Hunting boots” contest for your chance to win.

Review Double Header

I took these boots for a week of hunting in terrible, cold weather, but I still don’t think I gave them enough time in the field to really get a sense for how they’d be. My brother is a geologist here in Alberta, and has the same size feet as me, so I asked him if he could give these boots a go and let me know how he made out. Thus, I’ve got a review double header: one short and sweet from me and a longer, more in depth review from my brother.

Kain’s Review

Chippewa Arctic Boots Style 73126

8″ TIPPED BRIAR W/P INS A/T POLAR 90

I’m a geologist living next to the Rocky Mountains in Alberta.  Through my experiences hunting, climbing, mountaineering, and working on the oil rigs of Western Canada I’ve gone through over 10 sets of serious hiking boots and 5 sets of steel-toed boots working in some of the most unfriendly conditions on the planet.  When my brother asked me to review a set of boots, I jumped at the chance to put a new set through the paces.

The first things I look at when I purchase new boots are the fabric and stitching.  My boots are worn rough- I enjoy backpacking, camping, hunting, rock scrambling and working in the field so it’s really essential that a boot be well built- otherwise the boots disintegrate within a few weeks.  The Chippewa Arctic boot is easily one of the most solidly built boots that I have ever worn, and I think I’ll be testing its endurance into the distant future.  The leather is thick yet supple and the stitching is designed to last.  These boots won’t be failing anytime soon.

10/10

The next thing I look at is the waterproofing.  Does the boot have a waterproof sock?  Is the external fabric waterproof?  What happens if either the internal sock or the external fabric tears?  Well, this boot has a waterproof sock encased in thick, tightly-stitched leather and despite my best efforts I haven’t identified a failure point in the waterproofing.  I expect these boots will be water tight for quite some time. Even if the internal sock tears, I would have a high degree of confidence in the external leather keeping the water out.  How deep can you go?  My trusty measuring tape shows that these boots have a spill point of about 21 cm (8.26 inches).  8 inches is a very deep puddle, so you can feel confident that your feet will stay dry.

10/10

The next things I look at in a boot are the sole rigidity and grip type.  I had guessed that these boots would be stiff as a board, but was quite surprised at the presence of sole flex.  The rigidity is similar to my favorite set of light hikers, a set of Salomon trail running shoes. The toe obviously won’t bend because of the internal aluminum toe-cap, but the mid foot is quite malleable and that translates into comfortable walking.  The vibram grip is aggressive and firm.  Walking on terrain is a breeze, and they handle grates, rock and slopes pretty nicely.  One problem that I encountered was the firm rubber.  The rubber freezes and stops flexing well in cold weather.  I’ve had this problem with similar boots in the past, and I’m not sure how or if this can be avoided.  In any case, I don’t want a soft grip for this type of boot, so I just deal with it.

8/10

Insulation

The boots are warm and cozy, I got to test them up to -33 Degrees Celsius (-27F) and my feet felt comfortable. The boot also has Thinsulate Ultra insulation, and while I’m not sure how it works, it does work well when combined with the water resistant sock and the thick soft leather.  If I were in -40 Degrees (C or F)for a full day I would consider using something more insulated, but these would still get the job done fairly comfortably.  The last couple days I’ve worn these around in the house, cleaning out the basement etc. to try and get an idea for summer performance.  The Thinsulate Ultra keeps your feet dry and I haven’t yet felt ‘the humidity heat’ that is typical for wearing insulated boots in warmer temperatures.  These boots would work just fine outside of winter and indoors, but you might want to use something thinner in the heat of summer.

9/10

Other details

The metal lace loops and anchors are high quality and should last years, but if they fail they would be easily replaced with any simple rivet anchor.  One complaint would be the lace doesn’t remain on the upper anchors after taking the boots off.  I like quick lace ups so I would prefer having the hook-type lower anchors continue up the boot.

These boots aren’t small.  They are insulated and made with thick leather and as a result they are fairly big.  These are by no means a thin skinned bare bones steel toed boot.  They are designed to work in tough cold/wet environments and I feel like they do a good job, but if you’re looking for a small light package for warm dry weather you should check out a different model.

8/10

Overall

My bet is these boots will last longer than any other boot I’ve owned.  I will be recommending this model to anyone who is looking for a warm, comfortable, long-lasting work boot.  Here in Alberta, there are lots of outdoor workers who need hard toed boots that can stand up to our weather.  These boots do just that, and they have the added bonus of having an electrical hazard rating.  I’ve worked on rigs and in warehouses in Canada, and I’ve used several work boots in these conditions.  I would consider these the ideal footwear for those situations.

9.5/10

Adriel’s Mini Review

Kain covered a lot of the details above. I agree that the laces near the top were a bit of a pain because they are an open anchor. In the 2-3 feet of snow we had out here, lacing them up right to the top was necessary, and it got a bit tedious lacing them up twice a day. I took these boots out along with my regular hunting boots for a week of hunting. The Chippewa boots are big, bad, and pretty good in cold weather. Out hunting, even though it was -20C (-4F), I couldn’t really tell much of a temperature difference between the Chippewa Boots and my regular winter hunting boots. That’s saying a lot, because my regular hunting boots are monsters. Importantly, my feet stayed dry and warm, even after extended hikes out to spots where I was hunting.

My regular hunting boots

The stiff, tall sole was grippy and easy to walk in. The stiffness of the sole was a welcome change to the soft sole of my icefield boots, which were harder to walk in over longer distances. One thing I disliked was how the stiff sole made it hard to clean frozen deer guts off of the bottom. I had to bag my boots when I went inside after gutting a deer, because I simply couldn’t scrape off the frozen deer tallow and guts and I didn’t want to leave a puddle of blood and gore on the floor. When I showed these boots off, most people assumed they were $200+ boots due to the handsome, oiled leather.

Why Hunt with a Monocular?

How much stuff do you pack on your person when you hunt? If you hunt in the cold Canadian North, you’re wearing multiple, heavy layers of clothing, gloves, toque (woolen hat for you yanks), flashlight, knife, tags, your rifle, maybe a call or rattling horns. . .it can get a bit excessive. I’m really hesitant to add on extra fluff but at the same time, I don’t really want to aim my rifle at something unknown. I would be upset if someone “scoped” me to see if I was a person or a deer, and I want to keep that same level of respect for other hunters out there. So if I don’t have my 4X laser rangefinder with me, I carry this monocular from Vortex. It’s very small and I usually have it hanging from my neck, ready for a quick glimpse to see if I’m looking at a deer, human, or a bush. The weight and bulk of a monocular is much more conveniently carried than a full set of binoculars but as you’ll see later on in this review, a minimum quality should be maintained.

Overall Quality

The Vortex Solo 10X25 Monocular doesn’t scream “high end”, but it doesn’t scream “baby me” either. It’s encased in a respectable amount of soft rubber and plastic and I would expect it to take a fall off a cliff and survive. The lanyard material looks slightly nicer than standard, but the quick connection clip is a total bastard to use with heavy gloves on. Same goes with the chincy focus ring and quick-to-fog “fogproof” glass. Well, the glass might be fog resistant but if it’s -20C (-4F), out and you have to hold the monocular to within half an inch of your eye, the heat difference is going to cause fog no matter what. It fogged worse when I used the twist up eyecups.

Use in the Field

Know what’s nice about an inexpensive set of binoculars or monocular? You don’t need to fret about the glass, you don’t need caps, and you don’t have to care about using a carrying case or holster. This particular Vortex unit goes for about $50, and for that price I’m not going to worry about smudging or even scratching the glass. I’d rather have a cheap unit hanging from my neck, ready to use, than an expensive unit in a hip sack or backpack with caps on. That said, there was 1 glaring issue with this monocular: it’s not quite bright enough. Too much magnification with too small an objective equals not good enough in the closing minutes of hunting. In fact, I found the clarity and brightness dropping off sharply a good 30 minutes before close each day. My riflescopes were still capable, but my monocular wasn’t. I thought to myself, “Man, I wish this thing came with a bigger objective.” Well, Vortex does make one with a bigger objective. The Vortex 10X36 uses a relatively much larger objective and is twice the price of the smaller 10X25. If you’re going to use a monocular for hunting, buy that one instead. And whatever you do, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT buy one of the $10 mini binoculars or monoculars. They’re total crap, and you won’t be able to use them anywhere near dark.

This review is unfinished at the moment, but I wanted to share the images in case readers wanted to see what it looks like. Let me know in the comments if you’d like a full review of this scope.

This review is unfinished at the moment, but I wanted to share the images in case readers wanted to see what it looks like. Let me know in the comments if you’d like a full review of this scope.

tasco spotting scope left side

The Spotting Scope

Riflescopes are a bag of compromises. They need to be compact, sit low to the bore of the rifle, provide a range of very practical zoom, give enough eye relief that you won’t get scope eye, and above all else, they need to withstand the shock of firing the rifle. These compromises keep them from delivering the best clarity and highest magnification available at the lowest cost. A quick step up is a good set of binoculars, but beyond those, you’re in spotting scope territory. Most hunters use spotting scopes at a 100 yard range when sighting in their rifle, when scouting from long range, and some long range hunters use them to spot and watch prey before taking aim with their rifle. From a hunters perspective, a spotting scope should provide enough clarity to easily see bullet holes in paper at 100 yards, as well as enough zoom and resolution to watch game and identify sex/species/antlers/etc. I’m sad to say that the Tasco 20-60×60 is just not able to measure up.

Tasco 20-60X60 Spotting Scope

The Tasco  20-60×60 is an inexpensive spotting scope that’s widely available for around $100. It comes in a nice hard case with a soft carry bag, lens caps, and a little tripod. There’s nothing wrong with the carrying case, though the tripod is a bit hard to use. The big issue comes with the actual spotting scope, it’s just not clear enough. I’m no gun snob; I’ve got lots of . . .value priced equipment, but the Tasco 20-60×60 just isn’t suited for the tasks I had for it: easily find my bullet holes at 100 yards, and give me enough clarity to identify game at long distances.

 At the Shooting Range

Right away, the supplied tripod does not give enough adjustability to sight in and set the spotting scope on your target. So, you’ll need another tripod and that’s not a really big deal. The spotting scope uses the same bottom screw mount that any camera would, so there are lots of inexpensive tripods out there that you can use. The thing I noticed right away at the shooting range was that it was not any easier to spot bullet holes with the Tasco Spotting Scope at ANY zoom compared with my Bushnell 10X40 Tactical riflescope, and it wasn’t even close to the Bushnell 6500. That Bushnell 10×40 should be easily outclassed by the Tasco, but it isn’t. Is it fair to compare a $250 rifle scope with a $100 spotting scope? I think so. If you can’t beat the clarity of a 40mm objective even when you stack the odds with a 60mm objective, there’s a quality issue. That 60mm objective should deliver tons of light, but the picture lacks brightness, even at 20X magnification. So, I put it away and just went back to using the 10×40 to spot holes in the target.

In the Field

OK, even a crappy image at 20X zoom is better than what your eyes can see. No doubt, if you were scouting and you didn’t have any optics, this spotting scope would do the trick, provided you had a really sturdy mount. The combination of short eye relief and a rubber eye cup means that you must contact the spotting scope to get a proper sight picture. That rules out any crappy tripod or ad-hoc rest that you might try to use, because slight movements from your head will affect the picture. I’ve had the eyepiece fog up on me a couple times on hot days when humidity from cramming my eye into the spotting scope fogged it up, as well as on cold days when it actually froze over. Not fantastic if you want to use it for long periods of time scouting out game.

Conclusion

Well, I found the money spent on this spotting scope could have been better if thrown in when buying a rifle scope. Personally, I think a great scope combined with an OK monocular or rangefinder gave me all the optics I needed. I use the rangefinder/monocular when I can’t quite make out what something is, and the scope when I know it’s a deer (and not a person or something I shouldn’t aim a rifle at). And at the range, I use my better quality scopes for finding those bullet holes in paper. What of the spotting scope? I found that on a sturdy camera tripod, it was awesome for star gazing and looking at the moon. Those far away craters really come to life at 40X, and the relative brightness of the moon shines through the mediocre optics of the Tasco. And unlike a traditional telescope, movements of the spotting scope move the picture accordingly, not in the opposite direction.

Because this model is deprecated already, this is going to be a short review. Laser rangefinders have really come down in price, and they’re starting to approach very affordable prices. But, and it’s a big but, the range to be useful for rifle based hunting has to be more than 400 yards. Why? Take a look at the drop chart below:

Drop finally starts becoming a factor you need to consider at around 400 yards. Prior to that, simply zeroing your rifle for maximum point blank range means all you need to do is point and shoot for most standard cartridges. It’s beyond 400 where things start getting dicey. Telling the difference between a deer at 500 and a deer at 600 yards is a bit tricky, but the drop difference between the two is enormous. Let’s take a 30-06 for example:

Drop at 500: -55″

Drop at 600: -90″

That’s nearly 3 feet of difference and clearly a miss or a marginal wound if you don’t judge your distance and corresponding drop correctly. It gets even more extreme the further out you go:

700: -137″

800: -198″

900: -277″

Now, if your rifle is .75 MOA accurate, and you have a perfect rest, how far out can you reasonably take a deer? Well, a 10″ circle of vitals should be a reasonable goal, and that gives us +- 5″ and that means you should be able to take game at a kilometer (0.62 Miles). Well, if you can gauge distance perfectly, and I’m over-simplifying a lot of factors. But even misjudging 500 for 550 puts you well outside that reasonable 10″ goal we had for ourselves. In fact, for distance we have to calculate our drop a bit more accurately. While a perfect 1 MOA rifle will theoretically produce a 6″ group at 600 yards, you get half your allowable screwup on drop: for our 10″ circle, you can only really be 5″ high or low. In the right hands, an accurate rifle is capable of extremely far shots, if you know the distance very accurately and you know the drop chart on your rifle. Personally, I use Strelok ballistic software on my phone (iPhone, Android). For those really long shots, you’ve got time to punch in a few variables and calculate drop.

OK, back to the review. The reason why I mentioned all of the above, is that a laser rangefinder is crucial to making very long shots when hunting. Anyone can hold a cross hair on a deer, but you need accurate ranges to shoot beyond 400 and to make mil-dot, ballistics marked scopes, or turret equipped scopes useful. The problem with this rangefinder is that ranging anything 350+ is difficult, and the max range I’ve got out of it is 475. That’s just getting into where that rangefinder can actively increase your maximum practical hunting range. Therefore, I can’t recommend getting this rangefinder.

One of the cool things about rangefinders, is that they’re in a fast evolving technology state. Where 10 years ago they were toys for the well heeled hunter, they’re now becoming inexpensive ways to increase practical range. Newer models always reduce price or increase potential range. Right now, you have to go mid to high range to get a rangefinder that’s good for 400 yards+. Plenty of Bushnell, Leica, and Leupold products will be good for ranges up to and beyond 900 yards. If you do end up getting a rangefinder that goes long, make sure you try shooting that long both in the summer and in the cold of winter. Get familiar with your rifle and its drop. See what the difference is between the temperatures, and find where you get outside that 10″ circle when you’re in a prone position in the field. You never know, you might surprise yourself. I know I did.