|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Optics
> Parallax
Parallax
@ 08:19 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifI’m going to buy a new 3x9 scope. My choices are limited by the requirement that the scope must be able to be mounted in the Talley 1” extra-low, Model 700 rings I currently have on the rifle. Also, the scope must have a simple reticle, such as duplex or German. Leupold, for instance, offers two scopes that would work. One has a 40mm objective, a duplex reticle, and an exposed elevation turret - but no parallax adjustment. The other has a 33mm objective, a fine duplex reticle, and a capped elevation turret - as well as a parallax adjustable objective bell (i.e., there’s no side-focus turret on the left side of the tube).I’d prefer to have both an exposed elevation turret and a side-focus parallax turret. But I don’t want to sacrifice quality for functionality. In other words, I don’t want to buy some no-name brand just because it has those two features. Oddly, Leupold does not show a picture of the capped elevation turret with the cap off. It may be that it is field-adjustable. My question is addressed to the hunters with adjustable parallax scopes who follow this forum. Do you find yourself adjusting parallax in real-life hunting situations? Or do you mostly use parallax adjustment at the range? If so, what is your set-it-and-forget-it setting? |
Replies
@ 05:49 pm (GMT) |
VinceRe: ParallaxHi ScottMight need a bit more info on this one, what caliber is the rifle, what are the expected ranges? I have a standard 3-9x40 on my main deer rifle with no parallax adjustment but it is fine for the ranges it is used for, under 200 and often under 50, parallax adjustment really matters if you are shooting 300 + on deer sized animals or perhaps 150 + with a varmint rifle. Cheers Vince |
|
@ 09:42 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxThanks, Vince. It’s going on a 308 deer rifle. Like you, most of my shots are within 200 yards. I know that parallax isn’t a big issue at normal hunting ranges. I don’t really need either adjustable parallax or an exposed elevation turret. If I buy a Leupold, it’s going to have one or the other, but not both. I’m trying to figure out if the parallax adjustment is something I’d wonder how I lived without once I had it. |
|
@ 11:51 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxI spoke with a Leupold customer service rep today, after waiting on hold for an hour. He said the adjustable parallax feature is unlikely to be of any benefit on a a rifle, unless it’s capable of shooting dime-sized groups. I didn’t question the logic of designing and marketing a scope targeted at such a narrow niche.He confirmed that their capped turrets are field-adjustable. They can be adjusted by means of audible, palpable clicks, without tools. The waterproof warranty applies even if you don’t use the cap. However, the hash marks on the capped turrets are on top, so you have to count clicks, or look at the top of the turret. The exposed turret scopes have the hash marks on the side of the dial, of course. He said their CDS elevation “custom dials” are manufactured in either of two ways. The usual way is that the customer provides MV, G1 BC, temperature, and elevation. Leupold uses a ballistics calculator to inscribe the dial. The second method is the customer provides actual drop in 50-yard increments, out to the limit of what he wants engraved on the dial. There’s no mixing and matching. If the customer wants a custom BC value used, he has to calculate his own BC from his own drop data. |
|
@ 08:33 pm (GMT) |
VinceRe: ParallaxHi ScottIf it has to be one or the other for your use I would go for a dial turret as long as it has a zero stop, just use it as a standard capped scope and zero for 200, if you do get an opportunity at longer ranges and you have done the homework you can always dial for that if required. Having said that you can do the same as the Leupold rep said with the capped turret, just takes a little longer. For this sort of hunting you might be better spending on another feature and getting capped turrets, maybe better glass instead? I went for an illuminated red dot at the centre of the cross hairs for mine, capped turrets and no parallax, for bush hunting at close range this is a far better feature than dial or parallax but if you are shooting more in the open, probably spend on glass quality Maybe have a look at the swarovski z3 3-9x42, very basic scope with good glass Cheers Vince |
|
@ 11:32 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxThanks Vince. I like your thinking. An illuminated reticle makes a lot of sense for bush hunting. One feature of the 33mm Leupold that attracted me is the fine duplex reticle. But that feature would be most valuable at the range, where you want the best possible precision. It might be hard to see in the bush. The other downside of the 33mm Leupold is the 3” eye relief at 9x. The 40mm model has 3.7” eye relief.I understand parallax error, but I don’t know what that error translates to on paper. For example, I’d like to know how much parallax induced error is possible at 500 yards with a fixed parallax scope set at 150 yards. I live an hour away from Leopold’s headquarters. I asked them if I could bring my gun in and mount a few scopes on it finger tight so I could make a selection. They said security would escort me off the premises if they saw me remove a gun from my car. They don’t sell any optical products retail. Just “merch.” |
|
@ 01:34 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxBrowsing the Internet for information about parallax isn’t helpful. Everyone knows what it is, but non one seems to know how to quantify it. |
|
@ 09:01 pm (GMT) |
VinceRe: ParallaxHi ScottYes the fine reticle is horrible in lower light conditions for fast shots, I used to go for a really heavy Duplex, think it was called a German duplex? but am loving the red dot for fast aquisition in low light. Leupold used to make a scope called VXR in 3-9x40 and 4-12x40 that would probably work for you, don't think it had parallax adjustment but it did have a dial turret. The only drawback on the early models was no zero stop and a lack of resistance when dialling, a friend of mine has one and he reckons a 10mph wind will turn the dial, they are crazy sensitive! If they have fixed this it may be worth a look as they also have nice glass, don't know what prices are like in the USA but here Swarovski and Leupold are fairly similar which is why I suggested the Swarovski which usually have better glass. I think Nathan's not a fan but on low recoiling rifles where eye relief isn't a big issue like the 308 it's a moot point. On the subject of parallax impact error, I also don't know but in the interests of science I will try a test next time I go to the range. I have a Swarovski 3.5-18x44 on my 17HMR which has parallax adjustment, looks like from (not marked but probably 25 yards, first hash is 50 up to 300 then infinity). Will set at the minimum and shoot at 100 with say quarter fringing vs set at 100 square on and see if there is any POI shift, it may not be far enough to see a difference but I'll let you know Cheers Vince |
|
@ 09:46 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxHi Vince. The day I started this post, I thought I had my selection narrowed down to 2 scopes. I called Leupold, thinking they would recommend which one I should buy, especially since they live where I hunt and are personally familiar with the terrain. Leupold didn’t answer because it was Sunday and they were closed. In the meantime, I posted my question here. I thought someone would say something like, “I don’t fiddle with parallax unless the shot is over 300 yards. Just set it for 150 and forget it.”Leupold was no help. I thought maybe they would say they don’t recommend the fine duplex for bush hunting. Instead, they said, “If you ask 100 hunters what’s the best scope for a hunting situation, you’ll get 100 different answers.” I never thought I needed high-end glass until you mentioned it. It occurred to me after you did that good glass could be beneficial. A year ago, the state changed the definition of a legal buck black tail deer. It used to be “a deer with at least one forked antler.” The new definition is “a deer with any visible antler.” In common parlance, they changed it from a “forky horn” to a “spike.” The Swarovski Z3 you mentioned is available in 3x10x42 or 3x9x36. The reticle choices are Plex and 4A. Good glass is probably more beneficial to me than illumination. Which reticle would you recommend for bush hunting? |
|
@ 07:38 pm (GMT) |
VinceRe: ParallaxHi ScottThey both would work, I have never tried 4A but it looks like it would be quick, nice heavy posts to centre your eye but would probably go with the plex because I'm used to it. It's worth trying to handle one first and see how you rate the glass, mine is great, easily the best optic I have in terms of glass but about 5 years old and manufacturers don't necessarily maintain quality! For the sort of hunting use you are describing I would go with a simple capped scope and deal with a one percent chance if it happens, the other 99 percent of the time there is nothing you can inadvertantly twist or dial to screw things up, just crosshair on the shoulder and squeeze out to 225 yards, bang dead deer. Cheers Vince |
@ 02:30 am (GMT) |
David LandwehrRe: ParallaxHey Scott, I run a sightron s-tac on my 223 Rem fox rifle. Small target at variable range. The paralax is set for approx 150m. Half way between a red dot and a green dot I marked on the ring when I focused at the range some years back. I've taken foxes from 12m, basically at my feet in a very unfocused sight picture to 230m with a bit of Kentucky hold over.I only adjust it if I'm shooting bench rest at the range or 400 plus yards out in the field. Hope the above helps. But I love good glass. There is no substitute for my aging eyes. I like Meopta glass, very good quality for the price in Australia. I can't comment on dialing accuracy though. |
|
@ 05:20 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxThanks David. It’s helpful to know that hunters who have parallax-adjustable scopes don’t always avail themselves of the feature in the field. I wonder why some manufacturers of fixed parallax scopes choose 100 yards/meters, and others 150.In any event, you guys have convinced me that glass quality should be the first consideration in scope selection. |
|
@ 07:57 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxI’m confused, though. Swarovski’s entry level scope is the Z3 3-10x42 for $849. It has fixed parallax set at 100 meters, and capped windage and elevation turrets.Meopta’s entry level scope is the Optika5 2x-10x42 for $449. It has an exposed parallax turret on the left, but capped windage and elevation turrets. Are they pandering to idiots like me who worry parallax might be an issue? |
|
@ 11:05 pm (GMT) |
VinceRe: ParallaxHi Scott,Tough one to answer, I don't think the parallax adjustment is necessary on a 3-9 or 2-10 x 42 for your end use but that's just my opinion. In terms of dollars you don't get proportionate value for money for better glass, my Swarovski was 1800 NZD when I bought it and it is not twice as good as a 900 dollar scope. You will need to check both scopes hands on and see whether it is worth it for you, if it is going on your main rifle and glass is a significant factor for you then it may be worth it. For me I don't shoot a lot of deer in very low light conditions, and my bush rifle gets very rough treatment so a simple duplex with the red dot that doesn't cost a fortune makes sense. In a typical day I would get 3-4 opportunities on different animals while hunting (assuming I don't get the first one) so being focussed on the first and last 10 minutes of light isn't a big deal. From what I little I understand of American hunting, opportunities and tags can be pretty limited so it may make a lot more sense to get every advantage you can. Where I do worry about dial, parallax and glass is on the bigger scope for the longer range rifle, this is only used in the field once a year on South Island trips that involve a fair bit of planning, expense and generally much longer ranges. Hope this helps Cheers Vince |
|
@ 12:01 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxHi Vince. I think your advice is sound. If I buy the Swarovski, with parallax fixed at 100 meters (109 yards), I can avoid being nagged at the range by the question whether a fixed parallax of 150 yards might be contributing to inaccuracy shooting 100 yard groups.I watched an interview of Swarovski’s US marketing manager. He said their products are designed for hunters, not target shooters. The next step up in their product line uses the same glass as the Z3 line, as well as a 1 inch tube. But it uses more robust coil springs in the erector assembly, as opposed to the leaf springs of the Z3. There’s a company that sells Swarovski products on Amazon. They also sell Meopta products. They offer 30 day returns. They inspect the tube with a magnifying glass, and charge a 20% restocking fee if there’s evidence the scope was mounted. I ran across a forum thread in which people who own both Z3s and comparably-priced Leupolds discuss glass quality. They all said Swarovski glass is superior. Some said the image quality of the Z3 made it the better choice for low-light usage. I noticed that the makers of adjustable parallax scopes with capped windage and elevation turrets advertise them for usage on rimfire and air rifles. For example, the 3x9 Leupold with the fine duplex reticle and parallax adjustable objective bell, as well as the Meopta Optika5 2-10x42 with the side focus parallax. This would lead to the conclusion that adjustable parallax is mostly useful at ranges under 100 yards. If parallax is only important to hunters shooting beyond 300 yards, why do the the adjustment dials have so little range of movement between 300 yards and infinity, and such a large range of travel between 20 yards an 300 yards? One YouTuber, who does nothing but review scopes, says it’s because parallax is only an issue below 200 yards. https://youtu.be/2MOdJ8UUe6c?si=mkrsWw7jk9t12m2Q He also addresses David’s question, in a different post, about why focusing the image with the parallax adjustment doesn’t necessarily result in parallax being set correctly. He says you may need to adjust the diopter to get the two to coincide. This would seem to be highly prone to error. It would seem there are 2 ways to adjust parallax in the field: 1) Move your head around and turn the knob until the reticle doesn’t move on the image, 2) range the target with a rangefinder and dial the knob using range markings on the knob. The second method seems error prone, since there is so little movement between 300 yards and infinity. |
|
@ 10:24 pm (GMT) |
VinceRe: ParallaxHi ScottI guess one option if you can temporarily afford it would be to purchase both and treat them with kid gloves, set up the diopters for your eyes and check each in varying light conditions specifically low light and see if the swaro buys you another 2-5 minutes at the extremes. If it does and it is worth the price difference then so be it, make sure you get the 42 objective as opposed to the 36 if you have the barrel clearance, and return the scope that doesn't make the grade. A 3-9x40 or 4-12 x 40 that has parallax adjustment I would assume is a designated "varmint" scope so I am not sure if you can rate the feature as a gimmick, or that it is only meaningful only at shorter ranges, work on the assumption that a rabbit for us in NZ or a groundhog for you in the US is between a 6th to a 10th the size of a deer so a 150 yard shot is equivalent to a 900-1500 yard shot on a big game animal. In terms of setting the diopter, I do this when mounting the scope, I set the eye relief and adjust the diopter at the same time on maximum power setting then leave it alone. The parallax I do adjust (when I remember to!) and when I have time in the field on longer shots, otherwise I leave it on 100 as a default. I adjust as per your first method given the time Cheers Vince |
@ 07:35 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: ParallaxHi Scott, I have been avoiding this post as it seems quite redundant but will make a few comments that may help.You have the Leupold factory just down the road. Buy local, support your local workers. A side or front focus is most useful on high zoom scopes. At 24 power, a target at 100 yards will look fuzzy unless the focus is adjusted precisely to that range. On a 9,10 or 12 power scope, one simply cannot distinguish any practical difference. On a 3-9x40 scope, the actual parallax aspect is most noticeable if shooting very small game at ranges between 0 and 25 yards at a higher zoom. If a worker has set the parallax too far, it can (very occasionally) make it difficult to focus at at say 15 yards (treed squirrel) and can make head alignment more critical when sighting in at 50 yards. If a scope is to be used in this manner (.22LR / small game / tight bush), then you may want to loosen the front bell and adjust the parallax yourself (or go down the road and Have Leupold do it for you) for a range of 50 yards so that the scope is usable for all ranges inside 100 yards at at zooms / within reason. But otherwise, leave the fekkin thing alone and forget about parallax altogether for general high power rifle hunting with a 308 / 200 yard / / 4-12 scope etc - just as the agent told you. If you think you might want to have an occasional plink out long, perhaps try the Tri MOA reticle. Otherwise, stick to a traditional reticle / turret assembly for your 200 yard work. You can shoot to several hundred yards without parallax adjustment. If you go to my youtube page, you may find videos of me shooting a 7mm RUM with Leupold VX1 4-12x40 which I used to use to 1100 yards or so. Further to this, 4x is perfectly fine for bush work, you don't have to have 2 or 3 power. Look at the basic factors as outlined in this second edition of rifles. Personally I would not enjoy a Euro optic with 3.5" eye relief. |
|
@ 08:36 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxThanks Nathan. Before starting this post, I reviewed your books, including the latest edition of LR Rifles. On page 39 of LR Shooting is a picture of a target showing a double group resulting from an inconsistent cheek weld on a cheek rest set too high. So I was aware that inconsistent head alignment can cause a 1 inch parallax error at 100 yards even on a scope with parallax adjusted correctly. I was also aware that consistent head alignment will overcome any parallax error in a scope not adjusted precisely for parallax at the the target distance.Your comment above was quite helpful. Adjustable parallax is unlikely to be of much benefit to me. If I can’t achieve consistent head alignment, it doesn’t matter how many inches of parallax-induced error might result at 200 yards with a scope fixed or adjusted for parallax at 100 yards. I see your point about eye relief. However, the Leupold scopes, set at highest magnification, offer 3.7 inch eye relief. |
|
@ 08:08 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxThe excellent practical advice I received above was sufficient for me to decide whether I need a parallax adjustable scope. However, I was still curious to know what’s the maximum possible difference between the point-of-aim and the point-of-impact of a scope not precisely adjusted for parallax at the target distance.In the video below, at 5:20, a Leupold employee answers the question. With a scope adjusted for parallax at 150 yards, the maximum possible error at 300 yards is 1/2 of the objective lens diameter. https://youtu.be/6ziKTDIMCig?si=3dTZ8O8ylBZVeYw6 He also used the technical term for what Nathan described in LR Shooting can cause a parallax error even if the objective is adjusted to eliminate parallax: “spherical aberration.” |
@ 05:15 am (GMT) |
Daniel SchindlerRe: ParallaxScott,While I can't share any sound "parallax" advice as those above me have...you did mention scope clarity. A VERY long time user of Leupold, I support Nathan's suggestion to support and buy local. However...just me personally...I put a high value on optic clarity. Leupold's 5 Series, unfortunately, did not compare favorably with my very recent Zeiss Conquests. I now have 3 with red dots - each in the $1,000 range. I believe there was a significant and very noticeable "clarity" difference between my 5 Series Leupolds and the Conquest. YMMV. Maybe some Conquest research if you haven't already purchased? Best of luck with your decision. Cheers. Dan |
|
@ 10:50 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxHi Dan. Your comparison of Zeiss glass with Leupold’s is consistent with other reviewers’ comments. The general consensus seems to be that Zeiss, Swarovski, Meopta, and Leica have the best glass. But Nathan has a point: The European scopes all have eye relief of 3.5 inches.I decided, from the excellent advice I got in this post, that I don’t need adjustable parallax for deer hunting. However, if I buy a scope without it, I will mount it so that at full power I’ll see a shadow ring around the edge. This means my eye will be slightly closer to the scope than the eye relief spec. For example, the 4-12x40 Leupold that Nathan likes, has eye relief of 3.7” at 12X. In order to see the shadow ring, it would be mounted about 3.5” from my eye. At 4X, I wouldn’t see the shadow ring, but my eye would be the same distance away. In other words, I think it would be best to use the same cheek weld, as opposed to moving my head forward to see the shadow ring. This might also be a good idea to eliminate error due to spherical aberration on a parallax adjusted scope, which is caused by uncentered eye alignment. The longest shots are going to be at highest zoom, so it makes sense to do what you can to eliminate it altogether. So far, the scope with the most generous eye relief I’ve found is the Vortex 4-12x40 Diamondback Tactical. It has 3.9” eye relief at 12X, and 5.5” at 4X. That’s 3/16” more at 12X than the comparable 4-12x40 Leupold that Nathan likes. |
|
@ 11:47 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxI practiced dry firing with one of my existing scopes without parallax adjustment. Unless I’m shooting from an extremely solid rest, I don’t think it’s feasible, for me at least, to use the shadow ring trick to eliminate parallax. I had it backwards in my previous post - to see the shadow, the scope has to be farther from your eye than its eye relief at full magnification. In principal, that’s fine, because at lower magnification, the shadow disappears. Still, there’s a problem centering the eye with the shadow present, because your eye wants to concentrate on either the shadow, or the crosshairs, but not both. It’s impossible without a rock solid rest. |
|
@ 10:41 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxAccording to Leupold, different eye relief at minimum and maximum magnifications are designed into the scope, not an inherent property of variable power settings. To mount one of their scopes, you either set it at maximum magnification and position it as far from the eye as possible, or set it at minimum magnification and position it as close to the eye as possible.https://youtu.be/qGoEjh7LXRM?si=Dr6e9KA6glf-cAAN Their theory seems to be that either mounting method will result in the eye relief being just right for high magnification, whereas at low magnification there will be some wiggle room in the “eye box” to allow for less precise eye position when making snapshots. There’s another US company with a different approach, Tract Optics. Their Toric line of scopes are designed so eye relief is virtually the same at high and low magnification. For example, their 3-15x42 has 3.9” eye relief at low power, and 3.85 at high power. |
|
@ 01:22 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: ParallaxI emailed Tract and got a reply from the owner even though it’s Sunday. He said their theory is your cheek weld should be the same whether the scope is on low or high magnification. |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |