I am getting ready to stretch 'er out to 600 yds soon, and am wondering if I am better off with a camera system, or a spotting scope? I don't mind using the shoot-n-see style targets if it works...
I am getting ready to stretch 'er out to 600 yds soon, and am wondering if I am better off with a camera system, or a spotting scope? I don't mind using the shoot-n-see style targets if it works...
Good question. I pick the camera. Has anyone tried the Caldwell?
With Shoot-N-See targets and a very high end Spotter like a Vortex Razor HD you might be able to resolve shots at 600yds. However for $300 you could buy a Bullseye Target cam. $600 for the extended LR version. I’ve used it and It’s a good product.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbohuntr
However you could also build your own for probably $150 in parts. I posted a DIY build on Maryland Shooters. https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=201095. My home range is 200yds but I’ve tested it using the dual antenna setup out to 600yds at Ft. Meade range. The antenna’s I used should allow me to extend out to a mile. There is nowhere I could shoot that far near Maryland but I’ve been meaning to just set it up along a straight road and test it out at a mile just to prove that it works.
Feel free to post questions here or on Maryland Shooters. I don’t mind answering them in the public forum it might help others to build their own.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Oh GREAT!! Another obsession... my second hobby is electronics.... I suppose it will have a pan tilt zoom on it as well.... i was looking for another project anyway... good stuff! Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by ToolAA
If you do take on a project like this I’d be more than happy to share notes and my 3d printed parts. To be honest I researched using Arduino or RPi to build my own camera with gimbal but in the end the Foscam worked well enough to get the job done. However having a mechanical zoom would be quite handy. Also I wish I knew how to program an app or something that could be specifically designed to recording and scoring targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbohuntr
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How about an actual telescope?
Darrell
Like a celestial telescope? I think the principals are the same. Unless you spend decent money on low dispersion glass you might see a target at 600yds but you wont see the projectile holes. Save for .50 bmg rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by DT400
I’ve got a $300 spotting scope with a 100mm objective lens. It can see .223 holes at 200yds but just barely.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Tool, I went down this same path almost identically. I just recently decided POE was the only way. Great post and information. DIY'ers will love you for this.
Do you mind sharing what you did. Maybe some photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes. Considering that spotting scopes usually top out at about 60X, and you need good glass to have a clear bright image) a telescope goes up into the hundreds or power. I don't own one and never tried to use one for spotting bullet holes, but I did a quick Amazon search and found a couple compact (read short design) telescopes around 250X with great reviews for under $200 some under $100. And with Amazon Prime you can try it and if you don't like it send it back for a full refund.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToolAA
Just seems the natural progression if you want more magnification and you don't run the risk of someone accidentally shooting your camera. What sort of range does the camera system you guys are talking about have?
Darrell
Thanks for the info... after some research, I see that the investment (money+time) between the homemade version, and the Caldwell cam is about equal, and given my propensity for doing things the hard way, it seems I would be better off with the Caldwell...provided someone doesn't shoot it... I have 2 range memberships, and haven't made it out this year at all...
Some a-hole deliberately took too shots at mine. I didn’t realize it until i got to the car. At first I assumed I has some crazy errant shot by me. Then at home I analyzed the trajectory by putting a cleaning rod through the holes to measure the angle of incidence. At about 90yds from the firing line the shots came from a position 30ft to my left. There was a guy shooting from there so I’m sure it was from him but at that point there was nothing I could do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbohuntr
Fortunately the shot just embedded into the 3/4” mdf frame inside of the case and didnt hit the camera or antenna.
I have read some people put a AR plate in front of the camera to protect it from idiots...Quote:
Originally Posted by ToolAA
Nice way to protect the camera but it is going to draw attention and people are going to want to ring it.....Quote:
Originally Posted by mbohuntr
Darrell
In my design that would block the omnidirectional antenna signal, which happens to be the second most expensive component.Quote:
Originally Posted by mbohuntr
Ive taken it our dozens of times without incident so maybe this the one and only dick move that ill have to experience at the range.
Have a camcorder? Some camcorders have nice zoom features. Plus, use the targets that show your hits. Some are fairly large now.
I’ve got a friend who uses a Canon digital camera with combined 50x zoom to see his targets from the firing line. It does work, but at 100yds even with the 50x zoom it’s not as clear. He can see impacts on steel at 600yds but not bullet holes for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcatrp
Before I built the wifi cam I was using a 25x Surveyors Theodolite which had great glass. I would attach my phone to it and digiscope out to 200yds. But still that’s as far as I could see clearly.
IMO trying to see bullet .22 and .30 cal holes at 300yds and beyond is really not feasible with optics at a reasonable cost, and by reasonable I’m still talking $1000-$2500. Spotting scopes were deigned to observe targets (Man/Animal Sized) and nearby shooting conditions, at long distances, not bullet impacts.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why not try a drone. It can be down to your target in mere seconds. They are becoming more useful as the price comes down more
Ive been thinking of the drone idea too. Probably very useful at really long ranges when shooting steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by ttexastom
My guess is that a DIY camera would be the least expensive, a commercial one next, and a spotting scope capable of seeing impacts at 600 yards WAY more expensive. Electronic targets are now available for less than eight hundred bucks now and that would be a serious consideration for me, especially if you could share it with two other shooters.
Caldwell has made quality imaging cheaper than what most guys can build.
A spotting scope will allow for seeing hits on targets even at 1000 yds on the white part of the target, (on some days).
And it need not be the highest cost scope in order to do it. On the good days (with no mirage) 20 to 30 power will do it.
More power actually increases the problem, and a larger objective lens on the scope wont improve the situation.
The primary purpose of a larger objective is to allow more light to enter the scope, but on good clear days you wont notice the difference
between a 60 mm and an 80 mm objective for viewing. I would advise a camera system for what your trying to do over a scope.
As for the low life that shot your camera device, thats what many public ranges have become. Im surprised you found something to hang a target on. You shoot groups, but lots of others just shoot things.
Just asking for some clarification are you talking steel or paper at 1000yds. From my own experience, I can see impacts on steel at 1100yds using my cheap 80mm dia scope for sure. However I had the opportunity to look through a $4500 Swarovski at a long range match and it was much clearer than my $400 scope but I just cant see how a bullet hole on paper would be visible at 1000yds.Quote:
Originally Posted by yobuck
Also to add to your comment about someone shooting my target cam, there is more drama to to the story. I rebuilt the thing in a new much smaller case. I was so proud of my achievement. I was teaching myself to use a new 3d modeling software and the project really helped me improve my skill. The new result was much smaller, lighter and worked even better.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...f700c674bd.jpg
Then the first day I took it out to the range I was testing some new 300 blackout loads. I had a baffle strike which sent my projectile about 6ft off course and shot a hole right through the new camera.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...53985439ed.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...10e24d269d.jpg
Oh well back to the drawing board. The new design will allow me to place a steel plate at the back of the case to at least protect the camera and battery. I’m working on the new one now.
.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Not on the Gulf coast 350 days of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by yobuck
I don't doubt your word on that. Looking through a fishbowl lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood
I was referring to paper targets in my prior post, but no doubt it wouldn't matter.
One of the problems today is that pretty much all spotting scopes regardless of cost are only available with zoom eyepieces.
By and large, zoom eyepieces aren't as clear as standard fixed power ones. Im told by friends that some are on the higher priced scopes like Swarovski, but I haven't personally tested that. You can definatly improve the viewing quality of a scope by changing the quality of the eyepiece. For the vast majority of viewing, the zooms work fine, but when they don't, you do the same as you do when testing loads, you find something that does. We need to count points on bucks in PA before we shoot. In our area of the state it must have at least 3 on at least one side. So if and when an opportunity comes along, your great gun and shooting ability are placed on hold till you find out.
And its very likely the buck just might get tired of waiting.
BTW, If you think one of those big expensive Swaros is good, try one on each eye.