Help me pick a spotting scope, /k/.

I bought a simmons x20-x60 spotting scope for 70 bucks from cabellas. It's really nice for the price. Came with a hard plastic case but no tripod. I bought a shitty tripod and it sucks... no much wobble. A decent tripod is like 200 bucks.

>>33519144
such open ended request are not viewed favorably on /k/ OP, so please be more specific as to what YOU have narrowed your search criteria to.
the way you worded your request makes it sound like you wanted /k/ to choose for you.

>>33519364
Something rugged, high magnification, good price

that's it

>>33519497

The smarter starting point would be to consider what calibers you are shooting (or intend to shoot) and to what distances.

It does not take much of a spotting scope for 9-mm from 25 yards, but .223 from 300 yards demands serious hardware.

On a related note to OP's question but much more informed, I am also looking for a spotting scope. I'm shooting 6.5CM and plan to take it up to a km, but currently shooting around 300-500 yards right now. From my research it seems people agree that if you have a spotter, you can afford to spend less on the scope because they will have a much better idea of where a hit is because they actually watch it impact. But if you are alone, you need to spend alot more. My question is, is this true? And if I was shooting alone, how much is starting price for what I'm looking to do?

>>33519144
Depends what are you looking to do with it and what's your budget

>>33523517
This. theres lots of options, lots of price ranges etc.
two things, go angled. Much more versitility than straight body scopes. Another feature id look for is the ability to turn the scope in the mounting ring. Again, this adds more angle versitility. If youre shooting at a bench ir prone, the scope can be angled so its right next to you (depending in the tripod setup).
Also, while a $100 scope is fine for 100yards, id avoid them. Very cheap and low quality. Its worth spending more for good glass/ tripod

>>33523604
Yep, you also need to consider the cost of a tripod as well. It would be a shame to drop 3k on a ziess spotting scope only to put it on a shitty 50$ tripod

>>33519258
That's bullshit dude. You can find a solid ass tripod (don't look just for hunting or spotting scope specific, look for camera ones)
I have a Vanguard Alta pro 265, ball head, moves in all types of crazy directions and very sturdy. Holds my $5k worth of camera and my sport lens (100-400 f4)
My opinion, don't go carbon, too light, get a nice sturdy one, vanguard makes excellent ones for the price.
You can get a decent tripod for sub 100 if you don't mind it being an off brand company(something off amazon and eBay).

>>33523604
>go angled
Ugh. Angled are better for benchrest shooting, no doubt, but they are just so awkward for field use when hunting.

>>33524899
I'd suggest getting the ones that can rotate, it's what my range rents out (it's a Vortex, unsure of model) and it works good for on and off the stand

>>33524948
The rotating body is a must, it at least makes them useable in the field. Without it you couldn't use a window mount or look down a steep slope without killing your neck.

But my main issue is still there: the misalignment between my eye and the scope body when trying to find something and then track it. Your eye is not aligned with the direction you are glassing so acquiring a target is lots of looking up and then down into the scope and then back up and then down again and which is clumsy and frustrating for me. Maybe I'm just a clumsy person but they just don't work for me.

>>33519144
>>33519144
Gf got me a celestron 20x60 80mm and it works well so far. Need to try it in the field soon. From my deck it works very well.

I have the Redfield Rampage

its really decent up until you get into the higher power ranges. Then it becomes blurry, not bad but not great, and extremely prone to vibrations/wind