Print Page | Close Window

Parallax-letting the genie out of the bottle again

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=21186
Printed Date: September/19/2018 at 19:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Parallax-letting the genie out of the bottle again
Posted By: 8shots
Subject: Parallax-letting the genie out of the bottle again
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 02:34
A little while ago I posted a thread that had some definitive answers about the actual influence parallax has on GENERAL shooting accuracy. This article seemed to indicate that for most tactical and hunting purposes parallax error is not such a big deal. On the other hand if you are shooting benchrest and are looking for 1/8inch groupings, then parallax error does play a role.
I further suggested that good consistant cheek weld plays a bigger role then having a scope with zero parallax error.
 
This week-end I took a 25X side focus scope and put this theory to test.
This test was done at 100m.
The rifle was first zeroed, then the rifle was shot in random order. With the scope parallax eliminated no movement of the reticule was detected if I moved my head. With the parallax  poorly adjusted the reticule moved to allmost the edges of the circular target as I moved my head behind the scope. (It was bad, believe me.)
In each case proper attention was paid to consistent cheek weld.
Also, with the parallax dialed out, shots were fired with scant regard for cheek weld.
 
I post the target below.
Who would hazard a guess which settings were used for A, B, C and D????
Your choices are Zeroing, Zero parallax with good cheek weld, Zero parallax poor cheek weld, poor parallax with good cheek weld.
(And yes, I will try a similiar experiment at 300yds when I get the chance.)
 



Replies:
Posted By: silver
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 07:54
C&B poor cheek weld?

-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 08:09
You're not making this easy Wouter!
 
Zero - D
ZPGCW - A
ZPPCW - C
PPGCW - D


-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: mike650
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 08:59
Get Your Popcorn Ready


-------------
Fish to Live, Live to Hunt


Posted By: SVT_Tactical
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 09:24
Originally posted by mike650 mike650 wrote:

Get Your Popcorn Ready
+1


Posted By: tjtjwdad
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 09:52
D:  Zeroing

A:  Zero Parallax, Good Cheek Weld
C:  Zero Parallax, Poor Cheek Weld
B:  Poor Parallax. Good Cheek Weld
 
Pass the popcorn, please...


Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 10:46
8shots, my PPGCW choice was supposed to be "B" - doubled on the D
 
p.s. you do Do intent on enlightening us right?


-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: SD Dog
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 11:27
d: zero par, good weld
a: zero par, poor weld
c:  par, good weld
b: zeroing


-------------
If nobody ever said anything unless he knew what he was talking about, a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth. AP Herbert

Stupidity & ignorance have been the foundation for many certainties.


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/04/2010 at 14:33
Interesting.  You did a good job of keeping all the groups pretty decent.  But I'm more worried about the POI moving all over the place.


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/05/2010 at 01:29
Hats off to those who were brave enough to hazard a guess!!!!
 
To ease the pain.......
 
Target A was a cold barrel / fouler shooting. Prior to this excercise I had removed the scope for a minor gun repair job. So target A was the first shots after re-fitting the scope.
 
I then dialed one click right.
 
Target B is poor parallax, with a good cheek weld. This is in my opinion a decent/acceptable grouping.(0.64 of an inch or 15.38mm)
Target C is good parallax, but poor cheek weld and probably poor trigger work as a result of poor rifle holding.
Target D is good parallax and good cheek weld, again showing a decent/acceptable grouping. (0.599 of an inch or 14.36mm)
 
Due to the parallax being off on B, the focus was also poor. The black point on target B  (bottom right) became a better aiming point, accounting for the slightly low and right impact point.
 
JonA, the impact point shifting has been explained, but it is in my opinion a non issue, as the impact point can be shifted back to bull by dialing the turrets if a consistant grouping can be achieved.
 
The point is this, can a rifle group well enough for hunting purposes at 100yds with a scope with a bad/poor parallax setting?
I think it can. This parallax was bad, more then a "normal" scope without parallax adjustment. Mine was set for about a 300yds parallax free setting. Yet it allowed me to group under 1MOA.(With a rather blurry sight picture.)
 


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/05/2010 at 03:50
It was further suggested by someone (in a different thread), that errors are accumalative. In other words poor trigger control (say 1 inch)+ poor barrel (say 1 inch) will add to a two inch grouping. The same argument was used for parallax error.
 
My rifle seemed to group at less then 3/4 inch (See target D). The maximum parallax error for my scope (50mm lens with parallax fixed at 300 m) would be 33mm or 1.26 inches at 100 yds.
 
If the errors were accumalitive, as suggested, then target B should show a grouping of close to 2 inches. It does not.


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/05/2010 at 05:59
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

JonA, the impact point shifting has been explained, but it is in my opinion a non issue, as the impact point can be shifted back to bull by dialing the turrets if a consistant grouping can be achieved.

Non issue?  It's the only issue.  It'll open your group if you can't hold it shot to shot, but if you can and can shoot small groups that still isn't good enough unless you can shoot group after group to the same POI.

Remember you're talking about hunting, where you may be in shirtsleeves or really bundled up, you may be wearing a thick wool cap or you may not, you may be in prone or you may be sitting, you may be shooting uphill you may be shooting downhill....  Counting on your ability to get the exact perfect weld as you can on the range because if you don't the crosshairs aren't where you think they are is setting yourself up for a poor shot in the field, IMHO.
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

This week-end I took a 25X side focus scope and put this theory to test.
This test was done at 100m.

Unfortunately, putting the "theory to the test" would have meant:
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Try setting it at 100 next time and I think you'll find the 400 yd targets very difficult

Quite a different test.  Because: 
Quote The point is this, can a rifle group well enough for hunting purposes at 100yds with a scope with a bad/poor parallax setting?
I think it can. This parallax was bad, more then a "normal" scope without parallax adjustment. Mine was set for about a 300yds parallax free setting. Yet it allowed me to group under 1MOA.(With a rather blurry sight picture.)

No, that wasn't the point.  The point was:
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

A scope with a lot of parallax at 600 yds simply isn't the best tool for shooting at 600 yds, regardless of what the shooter's "hold ability" is.

That was your original argument.   Proving it's good enough for "hunting purposes at 100 yds" is a completely different arguement.  Also
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

It was further suggested by someone (in a different thread), that errors are accumalative. In other words poor trigger control (say 1 inch)+ poor barrel (say 1 inch) will add to a two inch grouping. The same argument was used for parallax error.
 
My rifle seemed to group at less then 3/4 inch (See target D). The maximum parallax error for my scope (50mm lens with parallax fixed at 300 m) would be 33mm or 1.26 inches at 100 yds.
 
If the errors were accumalitive, as suggested, then target B should show a grouping of close to 2 inches. It does not.

Nobody ever suggested the maximum possible parallax error would be added to your group size.  Even your original claim:
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

Now if a half decent shooter halves that error with proper cheek weld,...

Was that you could cut it in half.  It was your contention that since nobody could shoot 1/2 MOA anyway, this would not increase group size at all that drew disagreement.  Do those 400 yd and 600 yd tests and get back to us on that one. 


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/05/2010 at 17:16
Thanks for sharing that Wouter!  I see and understand your intent!  And if I am ever in a hunting situation where my scopes parallax goes south I will know I can still attempt ethical shots and just by choice not attempt the longer shots pass ~300yds.  At least I would still be able to hunt with some level of confidence for larger game out to 250yd.
 
I also understand what JonA is saying.  I however instead of argueing just for the sake of argueing the splitting of hairs is more appropriate for the bench than the field.
 
Hope that last post didn't kill this thread.......HINT, HINT


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/06/2010 at 00:43

Budperm, at least you see what I am trying to show.

JonA, my first post in this thread says that I intend to do the longer distances test as soon as I can get to the long distance range.
 
I agree with you JonA that my test is not definitive and exhaustive, but as proved,  at 100yds and closer, with a CONSISTANT CHEEKWELD, parallax error can not to be blamed for missed shots. Nowhere in this thread did I talk about applying this information to any distance beyond 100m.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/06/2010 at 06:48
Wouter I am sure JonA understands your intent, he is no dummy.  He just likes to argue for the sake of argueing sometimes.  I found this thread interesting and still what to see your results from the longer targets.  If your mechanics of aim are good and repeatable then I would think that the lack of focus the usually goes with bad parallax will cause an opening up of groups simply do to the fuzzy enlarged site picture and loss of a crisp small bullseye.
 
Thanks again for sharing Wouter, interest stuff!


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/06/2010 at 07:12
Thanks Wouter, interesting exercise and observations!
 
.....Bud where is your guess work??


-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/06/2010 at 07:22
That wasn't brown enough for your Craig?

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/06/2010 at 07:39
You have me convinced bud but Wouter is a hard sell!

-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/06/2010 at 07:52
Time will tell.  Wouter obviously has his mechanics down.  Let's see if my ASSumption pans out.  I am especting to see groupings of ruffly the same MOA as the 100 yards test.

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/07/2010 at 01:52
Thanks for some sanity and rescuing this thread.
The law of physics dictate that parallax error with a consistant cheek weld should produce the same consistant result. So if a shooter places his eye consistantly 3thou off the optical path he will achieve a consistant impact point in relationship to that error. By dialing the turrets he can shift the aimpoint to his impact point. This zeroed impact point/reticule aim point will only be correct at the distance it has been so zeroed.
 
Having said that, if a good shooter can maintain his eye in line with the optical path by correct cheek weld, the law of physics dictates that no parallel error excists, irrespective of the fact that the sight picture and reticule may be on different focus points. Parallell error only excists when the eye moves off the optical path.
 
This error can be calculated with mathematical formulas.
As an example, using a 20X power scope with a 50mm objective lens, the exit pupil is 2,5mm. The maximum the eye can be off the optical path is 1,25mm. Any further and the sight picture will be black. The scope has been set parallax free at 100m.
So to get back to JonA's suggestion of a 400 m test. The laws of physics dictates that the maximum parllax error can only be  1.25X20(400-100)/100 = 6.25cm or 2.5 inches in one direction. Should the shooter move his eye from one extreme end of the exit pupil to the other then this error doubles to 5 inches. The eye has to be exactly on the focal point for this calculation to be correct.
 
Can a good shooter manage better cheek weld and half this error by maintaining a better eye to optics path?
 
This is what I set out to do on a practical level and see what is possible. So far, for the 100m distance, this seems possible.
Can it be done at 400 m? My own shooting ability is about 1MOA at this distance, in other words with my scope at zero parallax at 400m and all systems firing, I should be able to hold a 4 inch grouping.
Can I still shoot a 4 inch grouping with the same scope but parallax set to 100m???
 


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/07/2010 at 06:29
Time to make some pudding, Wouter!

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/08/2010 at 05:08
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

Nowhere in this thread did I talk about applying this information to any distance beyond 100m.

I'll give you that.  You hadn't yet, in this thread.
Originally posted by budperm budperm wrote:

He just likes to argue for the sake of argueing sometimes.

No I don't!!!!









Bandito

Bandito


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/08/2010 at 05:34
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

[QUOTE=8shots]Nowhere in this thread did I talk about applying this information to any distance beyond 100m.

I'll give you that.  You hadn't yet, in this thread.
 
You must be having a weak moment!!!


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/08/2010 at 06:06
The proper reply Jon is.... Nuh-Uh!!! Laugh

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/10/2010 at 07:13
Ok, I made some pudding, now for the eating.
 
This Sat I managed to get to a longer range to try out the 400m stuff......well what happened????
 
These are all first targets and no repeats were shot. I made one attempt only.
 
First up I checked the 200m zero. The rifle was spot on. Whilst at the 200m mark I also focused the parallax setting on a 100 m distance and shot a grouping.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So far so good, both groups stayed under 3/4 MOA and would bring home the bacon.
 
At 400m :
 
 
 
Ta-daaa, both groups at 400m under 1MOA.
 
So yes, a consistant cheek weld that maintains the eye close to the optical path can  overcome parallax error.
 
I will however concede and agree with JonA (and this burns my >>>> to do this), that shooting accurately at the longer distances without being parallax free takes a lot of concentration and effort.
 


Posted By: biggreen747
Date Posted: January/10/2010 at 08:07
8 Shot's Thanks for the additional info. I'm going to throw something out there for everybody to digest and I welcome any insight. Based on what I am seeing a scope that allows a generous amount of side to side eye position but without a parallax adjustment, while nice to use and possibly quicker to acquire targets with may not be in our best interest. Whereas one that is less forgiving will require a more proper cheek weld and shooting position and thus help reduce parallax error at longer ranges...

-------------
We measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a crayon, and cut it with a chainsaw.


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/10/2010 at 08:15
Biggreen, I will agree with your statement.
What determines that "forgiveness" is exit pupil size, which is determined by magnification and objective size.
The least "forgiving" scope will thus have the smaller objective. Then the trade-off begins such as brightness in fading light etc.....


Posted By: biggreen747
Date Posted: January/10/2010 at 08:23
And unfortunately as with everything there are always tradeoffs. 

-------------
We measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a crayon, and cut it with a chainsaw.


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/10/2010 at 09:49
Thanks Wouter!  Good stuff as usual! 
 
Good shooting too, AS ALWAYS!
 
Gonna start calling you Steady Eddy!
 
If I had done that test the results would
have been a little more....umm...extreme! Embarrased


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/10/2010 at 21:37
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

I will however concede and agree with JonA (and this burns my >>>> to do this), that shooting accurately at the longer distances without being parallax free takes a lot of concentration and effort.

Aww shucks, you make me blush.      Wink      Nice shooting.


Posted By: Tbrake12
Date Posted: January/14/2010 at 02:50
I've just got one question, and this is based on your mention of increased "concentration and effort"...Wink 
 
When you shot at 400yds with 100 yd parallax setting, did you just find a good full picture, aim, and shoot (the way the average joe who knows nothing about parallax would do), or did you take your time and center the error by moving your head up/down/left/right and finding the spot where the reticle travelled the same distance left/right/up/down from the bull??  Or..... did you back up on the stock until the edges got blurry, then center the now smaller picture in the eyepiece?? 
 
These are the two ways that I would use to lessen my error in a non adjustable scope, the first more accurate, the latter faster and easier....


Posted By: Tbrake12
Date Posted: January/14/2010 at 02:56
Originally posted by biggreen747 biggreen747 wrote:

8 Shot's Thanks for the additional info. I'm going to throw something out there for everybody to digest and I welcome any insight. Based on what I am seeing a scope that allows a generous amount of side to side eye position but without a parallax adjustment, while nice to use and possibly quicker to acquire targets with may not be in our best interest. Whereas one that is less forgiving will require a more proper cheek weld and shooting position and thus help reduce parallax error at longer ranges...
And this explains why the little Burris 4.5-14x32 is so sensitive to eye position on 14x.  Just holding it in my hand a local store, I couldn't keep it still enough to avoid blackness when the power was cranked up....


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/14/2010 at 04:10
Tbrake, the concentration and effort cam from using this system:
 
 take your time and center the error by moving your head up/down/left/right and finding the spot where the reticle travelled the same distance left/right/up/down from the bull
 
I tried backing off to have the edges blurred, but it seems more tricky, maybe because it forced my cheekweld into a position I was not comfortable with.
 
The reason for the scope being more sensitive at higher power to eye mnovement, is that as the power goes up, the exit pupil becomes smaller.
If you had a scope with a 1thou exit pupil, then parallax error would be largely eliminated. However, other problems would make the scope unusable.


Posted By: Tbrake12
Date Posted: January/16/2010 at 18:48
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

Tbrake, the concentration and effort cam from using this system:
 
 take your time and center the error by moving your head up/down/left/right and finding the spot where the reticle travelled the same distance left/right/up/down from the bull
I don't have to tell you that your test has not proven anything for scopes without AO/side-focus Wink 
 
Your test has proven that you have good eyes, shooting skills, and a good understanding of parallax and how to correct for it.  Now set your scope to be parallax free at 100 meters, then hand it to someone who also has good shooting skills, but knows nothing about parallax or how to correct for it.  Have them shoot at 400 meters and see what happens.... This will represent the results of about 95% of the scope-buying public.
 
For example... my nonadjustable scopes that were factory set to be parallax free at 100 meters, had lots of parallax (8-10 inches of movement) when viewing the target at 600 meters. I could adjust most of this out with my adjustable scope to the point where they had little to no movement.  If I had handed my Mom (no clue about scope/parallax) both guns and had her shoot groups at 600 meters, what do you think would have happened??
 
In other words... I'm still convinced that adjustable parallax is always superior unless you intend to always shoot at one distance. 
 
I'm sure you also know that your head up/down/side/side method is pretty much impossible without having the gun benched on both ends.Big Smile


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: January/17/2010 at 09:39
all 8 is saying is that parallax isn't a big deal in the normal hunting shot. --regardless of distance.
 
off center parallax error from improper cheek weld isn't a problem when the eyeball is directly behind the optical center of the scope -- no matter who is shooting.
 
focusing parallax error is always there unless corrected by an ao (even if the eyeball is behind the optical axix) , and is a function of the objective diameter thus the smaller the objective the less parallax error.
 
higher magnifications -- magnify the error present depending on the amount there in the first place of the image projection behind the first set of lens.
 
in most variables below 15x the parallax error will be less then the cone of fire at distances beyond 300 yds.
 
trick with using a non ao scope, especially fixed power, is having a rifle/load combination that shoots as "flat" as possible to decrease the cone of fire (assuming its also a good grouper).


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/17/2010 at 18:55
Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

all 8 is saying is that parallax isn't a big deal in the normal hunting shot. --regardless of distance.

But that's not really what he showed.  If you need to shoot quickly, from a less than ideal field position, while choking down a case of buck fever (as is often the case when hunting), if you need to "take your time" and put forth "a lot of concentration and effort"--self imposed and in addition to everything else adding difficulty to the shot--you're not giving yourself the best chance for success.  


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: January/17/2010 at 19:43
to me it is --- the only thing that changes is the grouping of the intended point of impact.  which are well within the cone of fire. get a Pact timer and put it on yourself, whether under the pressure of competition or the hunt and try this with shooter ready positions standing.


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/17/2010 at 20:31
Again, "the only thing that changes is the grouping of the intended point of impact" could be stated as:

"the only thing that changes is the [Only thing that matters!]"

When the group moves from the vital zone to over the back of the animal or into its guts because you didn't take the time and go to the extreme effort required to center the reticle in the middle of the error zone as he described above, that's all that matters. 


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: January/17/2010 at 22:24
and again the kill zone is much larger than the parallax on any animal or human, even larger than the cone of fire in most cases. I found it interesting the 8s went to the trouble of illustrating it at distance. Parallax has its greatest problem in short range. This is seen almost every weekend in 3 guns matches. The parallax errors are there but less apparent because of the magnification of the optics used. (one of reasons to use a dot sight on the side of a higher variable.). and the low objective sizes. Use a 10 power on IPSC targets from 3 to 50 yards and the parallax is 4x his measurements, but will still be in the A zone. More errors (gut shots, etc) occur from hunters who have sighted in higher gain scopes at the highest power then returned them to the lowest for increased fov than errors from this parallax discussion.


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 00:05
Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

and again the kill zone is much larger than the parallax on any animal or human, even larger than the cone of fire in most cases.

At close range.  This whole discussion began in a thread that was talking about error at 600 yds, which was observed to be 8"-10" through several scopes.  Expand your "cone of fire" with this additional "cone of error" and unless the vital zone you're going for is a chest shot on an elephant you had better do something to minimize it or not take the shot.

8s showed a good shooter who is cognizant of the error can take some time and deliberately apply specific additional techniques that will allow him to still make the shot (at 400 yds at least).  If he's in too big a hurry or forgets in the blur of pressure, or if a guy simply doesn't think parallax can be a problem and just points and shoots, he stands a good chance of missing his intended POI by a significant amount.  Yes, enough to completely miss an animal.

Quote Parallax has its greatest problem in short range.


Maybe in competition, where a tiny group isn't tiny enough if somebody else shoots a smaller one, or where targets are a certain number of MOA sized.  But in the real world the animals don't get smaller as they get closer to you.  Even a large angular (MOA) error at short range is less of a problem for hunting because the vital zone is that much bigger.  5 MOA off at 50 yds is no problem at all, 1 MOA off at 600 is unacceptable for the same sized target.


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 01:43
The proof is in the pudding. I have hunted for more then 25 years using a telescope without parallax correction. During this time I have taken snap shots and deliberate shots. I have shot from prone, kneeling, standing and other awkward positions. I have stopped short of standing on my head. I have taken animals at 10 yds and at 600yds. The error induced by parallax error, has never been great enough to cause me to miss the vitals, which is mostly 12 inches or more in diameter.
I have a photographic file full of shot animals to proove this. 
The Test was "can a half decent shooter half this error by using CONSISTANT decent cheekweld." It was not whether your grandmother could do it. (unless she is a half decent shooter.) The point is, if your grandmother cannot do it, the equipment is capable and she can be trained to do it.
I have conceded that AO makes it a lot easier and less skill is required.
But Jon A, take what you want from this exercise, and remember the saying "with enough force, you can break anything".
 
T-brake, this discussion is based on whether it is "impossible" to shoot well enough without an AO. It was not about which system is superior. Every system has advantages and disadvantages and I am a great believer in that. I will never say one is better then the other. It all depends on your application which system is the best.
For example, we shoot a discipline were the shooter must take 5 shots under 1 min at targets that vary in distance from 180m to 350m. This hardly leaves one time to change positions and to engage different targets and to still focus the AO. This is a simulated hunting excercise were things change fast. The shooter that has the best advantage in this instance is one without AO, but can keep his eye on the optical path so as to eliminate parallax.
 
On the other hand, a target shooter with no time limit has all the time in the world to fiddle with an AO. He will be best served with a scope with AO.
 


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 04:39
No, "The Test" was that even with a 25X scope with the parallax set at 100 yds, you wouldn't even notice a difference at 600 yds.  That was your original contention to which I disagreed.  Even though you haven't yet tested that far, I think even your 400 yd tests showed this is not the case, you certainly noticed the added difficulty.

The proof being in the pudding sounds good, but only if we know what's in your pudding.  A statistically significant number of animals at 600 yds taken with 25X scopes all with the parallax set to 100 yds?  With shots taken from odd field positions from uneven terrain when you only had a couple seconds to shoot?  If so, you must have some fantastic skills and I'd say you're right, that is good evidence supporting your argument.  But that's a big "IF."

I made it very clear in the first thread that low powered fixed parallax scopes can work just fine and so can somewhat higher power ones if you have them set for a longer range.  You contended it just wouldn't matter, even with high powered scopes even if the parallax was set for 100 because basically "people can't shoot any better than that anyway."  Hopefully this exercise has taught you that original contention was highly misguided.

With enough force you can break anything, and with enough desire you can come up with all sorts of crazy arguments why the things you like to use for other reasons are "just as good as" anything else for any other application.  People do it all the time.  You know if you must make the shot very quickly from an odd position you haven't practiced a bunch you will be less accurate with a 25X scope set to 100 at 600 yds.  Not your grandma, not somebody with less skill, but you.  Anybody would be. 

So your arguments that it's "good enough" are no different than arguing you don't need a 1 MOA rifle because a 2 MOA rifle will keep them all in 12" if your a really good shooter.  Surely you can see the pointlessness of such arguments.  It's not a difficult concept.


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 10:01
A statistically significant number of animals at 600 yds taken with 25X scopes all with the parallax set to 100 yds?  With shots taken from odd field positions from uneven terrain when you only had a couple seconds to shoot?  If so, you must have some fantastic skills and I'd say you're right, that is good evidence supporting your argument.  But that's a big "IF."

This is done every weekend across the US in 3-gun and tactical matches.
Comparing scopes would be difficult because no two show the same image at the same power. (thread pitch, glass etc). The discussion is also mixing what occurs in the physical part of parallax and what action shooters call the flash sight picture. The error introduced into the shot by the sighting system. Good action shooters know the flash sight picture is off and will double the target if the shot breaks too soon, too late, hunting may or may not have this opportunity, but as Jon does suggest the results depend on practice. (which I would change the word to say training- which is different). Assuming the kill zone is 8 in dia. the only thing that changes with the distance is time on target. Using a z6 swaro set on 12 power with no parallax I can bang 8x10 steel all day (if the wind is good to me), today I'll try a 8x32 NF at 600 yds set on 50 yd parallax to see who is more accurate.


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 11:11
Dale Thanks for stepping up to the plate. Just a tip. When setting the parallax at 50 yds your sight picture may be blurred. You can improve the focus by refocusing the eyepiece. You obviously then lose sharp focus of the reticule, but you will find a happy medium somewhere.
 
And JonA, as being "good enough" yes it can be. We shoot at 8inch gongs. A hit is a hit, whether dead center or a near miss.
 
Having shot this excercise, I still maintain that a parallax free scope will not make a person shoot better then with a scope with only 100m free parallax.
To start with, the same novice who has never shot at 600yds will not hit the targets first time, he will need to learn the disciplines of long range shooting. With that comes proper cheekweld, consistant eye placement etc. With that comes coping with parallax errors.
 
 


Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 11:45
I may have to shoot that genie Wouter if I ever see him!

-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 12:18
May I suggest a slightly different target that would be much more effective at reducing the needless controversy! 

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 13:36
Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

This is done every weekend across the US in 3-gun and tactical matches.

But it isn't.  Nobody in the world uses 25X scopes for 3-gun.  Every 25X scope you'll find at a long range tactical match will have parallax adjustment.  I don't even know of any 25X scopes that don't have it.  For those using adjustable 25X scopes, I really doubt you'll find anybody who is in the habit taking down the 600 yd targets with the things set on 100.  Not anybody who wins anything anyway.

Thanks for offering to test with the NF.  For the sake of curiosity, try the test at both 8X and 25X.  It will be interesting to hear your results.


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 14:55

sorry wasn't necessarily referring to the type of equipment used in either event, just that the level of shooters test suppositions in this post on a weekly basis. A lot of tactical shooters don't adjust for parallax, just isn't time, also one of the reasons alot use lower power variables - so they don't need to, however there a lot of 22x nxs used. While the 3 gunners use lower power scopes the lack of  distance makes the parallax problem more severe -- so in a way it evens out.

Just got back (have 1000 yd range with 10 mins drive) , used two rifles, and scopes, 8x32x56 NF and a 6x24x56 Diavari, which have extremely fine (and the best AOs I've ever used). Both will read distance on snap in focus to with 50 yds, but thats something else.  NF wouldn't focus on at 32 but would give a blur on 50 yd adjustment at 22x, which was used for test on .223 69 gr smk bc .375. Zeiss gave blur image at 50 yd adjustment and 24x with a slightly sharper image  using 175 smk bc .5. Had a diagonal wind in face, and all shots were taken off the hood of a pickup. (Snow is too cold to go prone). Bottom line -- If I could see the target (8x11 in steel plate) I could hit it and once the wind was doped the percentages went up. Test was also done at 750 yds, but the wind drift was killing the .223 and not conclusive. Granted the .223 would not have worked on prarie dogs, but I'm not sure if that was the clarity of the target or parallax. Didn't try it on 8x per suggestion, but will at a later date.


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/18/2010 at 22:05
Thanks for sharing the results, Dale.  Did you try and measure how much parallax error each scope had?  Just to be sure I'm reading you correctly, you say even after you had the wind doped your hit percentage was less than 100% on a vital zone sized target?

Anyway, thanks again. 


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 00:41
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Thanks for sharing the results, Dale.  Did you try and measure how much parallax error each scope had?  Just to be sure I'm reading you correctly, you say even after you had the wind doped your hit percentage was less than 100% on a vital zone sized target?

Anyway, thanks again. 
 
If I could see the target (8x11 in steel plate) I could hit it 
( I also found that the image in the unfocused parallax shots were blurry and made accurate aiming difficult. )
 
"Just to be sure I'm reading you correctly, you say even after you had the wind doped your hit percentage was less than 100% on a vital zone sized target?"
Do not blame parallax for this....off the hood at 600 yds and you want a 100% hit?
Jon A, post some of your 600yd targets for us.
Dale, Many thanks for your tests. Excellent
It is interesting that you mention that in your 3-gun shoot there is not enough time to go with readjusting parallax. This was one of the starting points of this discussion, wherby I stated that I personally set my parallax somewhere midpoint to all the targets and bang away without readjusting, because there is just not time for continual re-focussing.
 
I hope we have now stuffed this genie back into the bottle!
 
 


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 04:19
Originally posted by Dogger Dogger wrote:

I may have to shoot that genie Wouter if I ever see him!
 
Just make sure that you focus out any parallax error, as you are bound to only wound him if you don't. And if you p him off, who knows what magic spell he can cast on you!


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 05:38
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

you want a 100% hit?

Yes, I do.  This discussion began in the context of hunting.  If you aren't about that sure of hitting the vital zone with your first shot, you should not take it.   And that's the first shot cold.  After a few shots to dope the wind, unless the conditions are really terrible there's really no excuse for missing with a rifle you think is good enough to take a game animal with at that range.
Quote Jon A, post some of your 600yd targets for us.

Didn't I just post a VIDEO of a 700 yd group for you?  Done with a non-parallax adjustable scope, no less (of course it wasn't 25X either).  Shot with a lightweight rifle too.  No prior wind doping either.  I guess you weren't impressed.      Sad      OK, maybe this is better.  650 yds.  The very first three rounds ever at that range from the 6.5 Grendel I just put together:





I'll admit there was no wind for those.  No parallax either.        Bandito      Just imagine if it was a bolt gun.....       Shocked

Quote I personally set my parallax somewhere midpoint to all the targets and bang away


Why?  You've been arguing to the point of ridiculousness it will not matter if it's set at 100.  So, set it at 100. 

Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

I still maintain that a parallax free scope will not make a person shoot better then with a scope with only 100m free parallax.


So, put your match scores where your mouth is.


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 07:16
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

Originally posted by Dogger Dogger wrote:

I may have to shoot that genie Wouter if I ever see him!
 
Just make sure that you focus out any parallax error, as you are bound to only wound him if you don't. And if you p him off, who knows what magic spell he can cast on you!
 
What could he do to Craig?  Make him young again so he has to go through it again?


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 07:24
That's too terrible to contemplate bud!

-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 09:29

Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

you want a 100% hit?

Yes, I do.  This discussion began in the context of hunting.  If you aren't about that sure of hitting the vital zone with your first shot, you should not take it.   And that's the first shot cold.  After a few shots to dope the wind, unless the conditions are really terrible there's really no excuse for missing with a rifle you think is good enough to take a game animal with at that range

.

Quote

There are very few people out there that can take a 600yds shot with a guranteed first hit. Even 100yds shots are not a guranteed hit in hunting, yet no-one hesitates to take them. I personally have missed shots at all distances, including inside 100 yds. Yet I take shots up to 300 yds without hesitation. For longer distances a lot of other factors come into play, such as type of rest available (rock, tree etc), wind etc. Parallax is not one of them.

 

Jon A, post some of your 600yd targets for us.


Didn't I just post a VIDEO of a 700 yd group for you?  Done with a non-parallax adjustable scope, no less (of course it wasn't 25X either).  Shot with a lightweight rifle too.  No prior wind doping either.  I guess you weren't impressed.            OK, maybe this is better.  650 yds.  The very first three rounds ever at that range from the 6.5 Grendel I just put together:
Quote  

Was that you in the video clip!!!!! Gee, did not know that. Man, I would have stopped this thread a long time ago!!
 


Why?  You've been arguing to the point of ridiculousness it will not matter if it's set at 100.  So, set it at 100. 

 

I cannot do that because the scope focus will be out. I will be unable to see a target 350yds out. 

Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

I still maintain that a parallax free scope will not make a person shoot better then with a scope with only 100m free parallax.


So, put your match scores where your mouth is.

 

Wes-Bolandjag Standaard Baanskiet te Moorreesburg Skietbaan CHASA Formaat – 15 Augustus 2009

Op 15 Augustus 2009 hou Wes-Bolandjag weer hul baie suksesvolle standaard baanskiet op Moorreesburg.

'n Rekord totaal van 82 skuts neem deel op hierdie pragtige dag met feitlik geen wind nie.



Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 09:32
Shocked


-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 09:35
Round 14 and still standing:
 
 
 
 


Posted By: SD Dog
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 09:47
Nice shootin Wouter.  Didn't know they gave a woman away as a prize.  Maybe it ain't as bad down there as you make it out to be.

-------------
If nobody ever said anything unless he knew what he was talking about, a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth. AP Herbert

Stupidity & ignorance have been the foundation for many certainties.


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 11:37

After two weeks and at least 7 post a day I thought I would post an executive summary:

 
ThinkingSharp ShooterBowExcellentDevilSharp ShooterMoonerBeating a Dead HorseBabyJerry SpringerRoll EyesStiring The PotPokerSumuDie
 
Or while tollerances should stack, other factors swamp out parallax


-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: SVT_Tactical
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 11:40
Laugh


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 12:56
damn good shooting wouter ole boy.

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 12:59
He does pretty good for an old guy don't he Hunter.

-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 13:01
id say craig, he would kick my butt all day long! i dont think i could shoot that good at 300yds

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 13:43
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

For longer distances a lot of other factors come into play, such as type of rest available (rock, tree etc), wind etc. Parallax is not one of them.


If you really don't mind missing, I guess it isn't.  I do mind missing.  Haven't done it in a very long time.

Quote Was that you in the video clip!!!!! Gee, did not know that. Man, I would have stopped this thread a long time ago!!


Darn.  I should have made sure you understood that.  Think of all the fun we could have avoided!

Quote I cannot do that because the scope focus will be out. I will be unable to see a target 350yds out.


Just turn the power down, it'll come into focus.  You don't need 25X for 400 yds either.
Quote Match Results


I see, asking to see my target was just a ploy to give you an excuse to post those.      Excellent      Nice shooting.      Thunbs Up     But of course, unless you shot all those matches on 25X with the parallax set at 100...they mean what to this discussion?   Thought so.        Loco

And just so you know, 8" plates at a max of 400 yds ≠ Long Range Precision which is how the subject originally came up.  In fact, the way you describe the matches you do I'd probably like to use my 4X ACOG with the JP reticle.  That thing is fast...and plenty precise for a 8" plate at 400 yds.


Posted By: skywalker
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 16:09
So let me get this right......a 3X15X42 scope w/out an AO whose parallax adjustment comes from the factory at 100m, would be just fine for shooting up to 400 yrds?  Scope in question is the new Minox Za5.

Now I am completely confused.


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 16:14
Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

id say craig, he would kick my butt all day long! i dont think i could shoot that good at 300yds
 
We definitely want him on OUR side!  Dead-eye Le Roux!  Excellent


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: SVT_Tactical
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 16:15
Originally posted by budperm budperm wrote:

Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

id say craig, he would kick my butt all day long! i dont think i could shoot that good at 300yds
 
We definitely want him on OUR side!  Dead-eye Le Roux!  Excellent
 
Second that


Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 20:30
Yes, I do.  This discussion began in the context of hunting.  If you aren't about that sure of hitting the vital zone with your first shot, you should not take it.   And that's the first shot cold.  After a few shots to dope the wind, unless the conditions are really terrible there's really no excuse for missing with a rifle you think is good enough to take a game animal with at that range.
Couldn't agree more -- as far as it goes. when does not be sure actually stop taking the shot? This is such an open ended statement its not even addressable.
skywalker -- it depends on the size of the target and the rig, the parallax error must be within the cone of fire, or dispersion of the rig.
Alot of 3 gun shooters, have a hash mark on their aos about 300 yds, and dial mag, back for movers and closer targets, it depends on how much overlap the ao has on the scope your using.
Jon -- the first thing one learns about doping wind in other peoples zip codes, is that its never constant, doping wind in this area means you have it down to between 10 and 20 mph.
Part of the problem I had , was the wind actually moving the pickup. Given a prone, on a fairly good day, there is no doubt I could do it cold bore, 500-600 yds isn't that hard of a shot, mostly because you haven't given any time constraints in your discussion.


Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 20:45
Boy, I've read through this thread and all I can say is some of you guys are killing the spirit of hunting as I know it.


Posted By: skywalker
Date Posted: January/19/2010 at 22:59
Deer, mulies, elk........would be the target...


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/20/2010 at 00:50
Originally posted by SVT_Tactical SVT_Tactical wrote:

Originally posted by budperm budperm wrote:

Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

id say craig, he would kick my butt all day long! i dont think i could shoot that good at 300yds
 
We definitely want him on OUR side!  Dead-eye Le Roux!  Excellent
 
Second that
 
Thanks for the kind words. I must say that I posted that with reservation. Unfortunately the thread kinda overrode my better judgement.


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/20/2010 at 00:52
Round 15.....I am outa here.
 
 


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/20/2010 at 06:30
Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

doping wind in this area means you have it down to between 10 and 20 mph.  Part of the problem I had , was the wind actually moving the pickup.

If the wind was that bad, why did you think the comparison would yield any useful information?
Quote mostly because you haven't given any time constraints in your discussion.

Dale, really, I luv you man.  But geeze, if you aren't going to read what is written the discussion becomes quite tiresome.  From this thread alone:
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

If you need to shoot quickly,

Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

because you didn't take the time and go to the extreme effort required to center the reticle in the middle of the error zone as he described above,

Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

can take some time and deliberately apply specific additional techniques that will allow him to still make the shot (at 400 yds at least).  If he's in too big a hurry or forgets in the blur of pressure,

Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

With shots taken from odd field positions from uneven terrain when you only had a couple seconds to shoot?

Time constraints was one of the most important things I've been talking about.  If your scope has a significant amount of parallax error at the distance you're shooting, that's something else you need to spend time thinking about, something else you need to spend time ensuring you negate with your shooting technique.  This time is in addition to the time you need to think about everything else you need to do to make the shot.  Failure to do so risks increasing the size of your "cone of fire."

Guys, my goodness.  I can only ask you take a step back and ask yourselves why you're trying to argue whatever it is you're trying to argue.  Arguments for the sake of stubbornness beyond all reason abound all over the internet; I halfway expect somebody to interject here at any moment that all one needs to do is "focus a scope correctly" and parallax is never a problem...but hopefully people aren't that far off the deepend yet.

But arguing a scope condition which results in the reticle dancing up, down and all around on the target with every twitch of the eyeball is the ideal condition for accuracy?  That it makes absolutely no difference in any way and doesn't make it more difficult to place a shot quickly and accurately at all?  

Really, it's beyond silliness.  Please, take a step back and think about what you're saying.  I can only do so much.


Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/20/2010 at 06:34
............and we thank you for it Jon

-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/20/2010 at 06:43
No Jon A, you are being the ass.
It has been proven you can shoot well enough without an AO. 
No-one can  focus an AO in a couple of seconds and still pull the shot off,  so your "quickly" will also be impossible.
 
We have all made various statements, some correct, some wrong and some unproven. In a forum, make your point and let it go. A adult reader can sift the chaff from the wheat himself.
 
Hopefully you have said it all now.
 
PS, you are the Great Shot. Go and test a scope with and without parallax like we did and give us your honest feedback.
 


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/20/2010 at 07:20
Not an asshole...but a whole ass!
Talk about beat a dead horse!  Szzzz.  Ed couldn't do better! Wink


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: Dale Clifford
Date Posted: January/20/2010 at 09:15
"I don't need no stinkin Badges"
Jon-- everybody would like the "perfect shot" it just doesn't happen. Thats what your talking about. Regardless of training and equipment there will be a random error to bite you in the butt. There isn't to time to think, in competition or fast hunting.  Even when cold bore first shots do come through, the good action shooter trains for the second shot. The post started out seated in the hunting situation, I brought in action shooting because the parallax problems, sighting systems problems, have been devleoped, known and used for 20 years in action shooting.
Anytime I can shoot 90% hits at 600 yds, in 20 degree weather off the hood of truck, with a 10-15 mph diagonal wind with out regard to the parallax setting tells me everything I need to know about your comments . Your idea of quick and mine vary by about 3 mins. (about enough time for your fingers to freeze from the chill factor in this case). I still suggest you put yourself on a Pact timer to see if your "seconds" agrees with the timer.


Posted By: rogn
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 06:26
Dont know if were on the same thread anymore, BUT in the old days when I was competeing in BR the scope I had would not perfectly correct for paralax in the vertical plane. And a 1/16" was important to score shooting.  The fix other than apprenticeing to Leupold and sendind it to myself to repair was to put a cap over the ocular and cutting a slit in it to limit the vertical range of eye movement. Thats the same thing as keeping your eye dead center on a non AO scope. If the eye remains centered then there is no parallax. Pretty simple -huh?


Posted By: Skunk
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 10:49
l'explication simple est toujours la meilleure

-------------
Let me give you my two scents worth


Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 11:04
Exactement!

-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 11:24
Short & Sweet! Big Grin

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 11:38
It seems I'm the late entry in the Big Peter contest. Better late than never.


-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: SD Dog
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 11:41
Classic

-------------
If nobody ever said anything unless he knew what he was talking about, a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth. AP Herbert

Stupidity & ignorance have been the foundation for many certainties.


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 11:46
Originally posted by cyborg cyborg wrote:

It seems I'm the late entry in the Big Peter contest. Better late than never.
 
Thats what happens when you stop to pose for Man Ass pictures with giggles!


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: cyborg
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 11:52
Originally posted by budperm budperm wrote:

Thats what happens when you stop to pose for Man Ass pictures with giggles!
Speaking of Giggles.... He and I were discussing this issue the other day. Parralax affects him more at short range. It has more of an affect on me at longer ranges. Cheek wield perhaps? Bucky

-------------
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other

An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects.

OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause.

Cyborg


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 11:59
Laugh Above   Oh SH&T!!!   I'm done! 

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 12:30
if you use open sights you dont have to worry about it

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 12:47


-------------
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: January/21/2010 at 12:51
Hey... some of us are just glad that Skunk did not have to spend a lot of time with the Fee-b

-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: 8shots
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 03:43
I was wondering when Skunk was going to save this thread!


Posted By: Jon A
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 06:50
Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

No Jon A, you are being the ass.

This is disappointing.  I expected more from you.  I have bent over backward to be polite and humor your misguided ideas without personally insulting you.  When you're right you don't need to stoop to such levels.

But that's OK, being called a name might sting a bit if you know you have done the person some wrong and might deserve it, but there's no worry of that here.

For example, had you spent a bunch of your hard earned money on a scope based upon my recommendation and you found it to be a poor choice for your application, the unsatisfactory performance causing you to spend more money again quickly thereafter, that might elicit such a response, and I wouldn't blame you.  If my tales of a dimmer view, impossibility of fast use at close range, POI shifts with a mere tap of a pencil, and of course the contention that parallax error does not matter at all, in any way for long range shooting when you asked about a high power scope for long range precision caused you to buy a scope that was difficult and slow to use accurately, I might deserve to be called a name or two.  And I wouldn't blame you. 

Luckily I have done no such thing.  Others have though.

Quote No-one can  focus an AO in a couple of seconds and still pull the shot off,  so your "quickly" will also be impossible.

Bzzzt.  For most such equipped scopes (they aren't all exactly the same) you can take zero time by setting the AO to around 300 yds (depending upon the scope) before you leave the house.  Zero time can also be described as "infinitely quick."  Most AO scopes when so set, still work perfectly at close range when at low power (which is where it will be set at close range).  And when the power is cranked up for a longer shot, even if the setting isn't perfect, you have eliminated that vast majority of possible error to the point you really don't need to worry about it.

That's "point and shoot" which requires zero extra time compared with a non adjustable scope, in all hunting conditions.  If you have even one single second, you can do even better.  This will also vary from scope to scope but if it's a good one and you have practiced with it you should be able to turn the sidefocus very close to the correct location as soon as you know the range.  Whether the knob has numbers on it and you've related them to real life in practice, or such as the case with my Premier I've put my own reference dots on the knob so I can quickly set it.  Weather conditions will change this slightly so this certainly won't be the "perfect" setting either (I'm not suggesting shooting a BR match this way) but it can be good enough to eliminate about 95% of the possible parallax.  And it takes about 1 second.  Since you think having a full 100% of the error is no problem at all, after knocking that down to 5% it certainly isn't a big worry for a vital zone sized target.

If you wish to childishly counter this information with more namecalling and the like, that's fine.  It really doesn't bother me.  I know for every one of you there are a hundred out there who are reading and will come away from this thread with a better understanding of the subject matter.  If somebody feels bad because he lost an arguement and calls me a name in the process, that's of little import.

Originally posted by Dale Clifford Dale Clifford wrote:

Jon-- everybody would like the "perfect shot" it just doesn't happen. Thats what your talking about. Regardless of training and equipment there will be a random error to bite you in the butt.

Of course there is.  But adding another element of random error on top of what you already have from other sources (such as using a 2 MOA rifle instead of a 1 MOA rifle, etc) will only make things worse.
Quote Your idea of quick and mine vary by about 3 mins. (about enough time for your fingers to freeze from the chill factor in this case).

I guess so.  If it's taking you over three minutes to make the shot, that simply won't be fast enough for most hunting situations--even those at fairly long range.  There are times it will be, I guess it can depend upon how you hunt.  If it's a stand-type hunt, it might happen more often.  But for primarily spot and stalk, still hunting, etc, that I do having that much time to mess around is a rare occurrence (for a big buck, anyway--if talking does and little bucks that's different).  If I had three minutes to wiggle my eyeball behind a scope to line things up just perfectly while making a shot, sure, I can do very well even one with a lot of parallax.   But most of the time it's only a fraction of that.

So why would I choose to use such a scope when wanting to be prepared for such a shot when others are so much easier and faster to use and in many situations will be more accurate?  Maybe you guys could try to explain the motivation behind why you're arguing so hard for non-adjustablility.  What will  I gain?  I can pound a nail in a board with a pair of pliers if I need to, but that doesn't make me go around telling people not to buy hammers.


Posted By: Dogger
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 07:09
Hard to believe this is where it all started:
 
"A little while ago I posted a thread that had some definitive answers about the actual influence parallax has on GENERAL shooting accuracy. This article seemed to indicate that for most tactical and hunting purposes parallax error is not such a big deal. On the other hand if you are shooting benchrest and are looking for 1/8inch groupings, then parallax error does play a role.
I further suggested that good consistant cheek weld plays a bigger role then having a scope with zero parallax error."


-------------
God save the Empire!


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 07:34
Originally posted by Jon A Jon A wrote:

Originally posted by 8shots 8shots wrote:

No Jon A, you are being the ass.

  I can pound a nail in a board with a pair of pliers if I need to, but that doesn't make me go around telling people not to buy hammers.
 
For Christ sake!  Give it a rest! 
You might not go around telling people not to buy hammers but you would take great delight in needlessly argueing that you didn't need a hammer to get the job done!
 
You have MORE than earned that name by the way!  SHEEZE!


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: scooter65
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 07:49
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

Boy, I've read through this thread and all I can say is some of you guys are killing the spirit of hunting as I know it.
 
Not only that... but it's making me think the mechanics of a golf swing are simple.


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 08:41
so who's up for some quantum physics???Bucky

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 09:07
Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

so who's up for some quantum physics???Bucky
 
Now your scaring me....Professor Pyro.  Wink


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: biggreen747
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 09:11
Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

so who's up for some quantum physics???Bucky

While were at it we can start work on our atom splitter. 


-------------
We measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a crayon, and cut it with a chainsaw.


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 09:14
I thought we just finished working on our atom splitter!  Laugh

-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson





Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 09:47
Originally posted by budperm budperm wrote:

I thought we just finished working on our atom splitter!  Laugh

no that was just a migraine no biggy right?Bucky


-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: budperm
Date Posted: January/22/2010 at 10:49
Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

Originally posted by budperm budperm wrote:

I thought we just finished working on our atom splitter!  Laugh

no that was just a migraine no biggy right?Bucky
 
Yeah I just your right hunter.  The biggest problem with Migraines is getting rid of them.
Unfortunately it can take years before there gone for good!


-------------
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson






Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net