Parallax focus

[HowieG]

How would me proving I can't prove that you can? Yes I have shot that far and farther with non parallax adjustable scopes and of course you can make hits, but you are still dealing with a loss of precision that is easily dealt with by dialing out the parallax.

Here is a video I just took of the parallax error in a Burris E1 3-9x40 out my patio door. My rangefinder battery is dead but I believe I've ranged that pole at 465 yards. I don't know the diameter of that pole at that height but I would guess its about 8" diameter probably? Rifle is sitting on a table and I am not touching either the rifle or the table with any part of my body.

You are missing my point. Have you tried without parallax correction? If not, how do you know you CAN'T do it? You might be surprised.

My point is I haven't tried. I don't know if the shooter (me) can do it. I don't know if the rifle can do it, though I suspect it is capable. More capable than me anyway. I don't know if that load can do it in that gun. I am certainly willing to try though. I think it would be pretty fun. I'd like to pass on the prone though. My arthritis makes that uncomfortable.

If I can't do it, I certainly am not going to blame parallax. At that point, I will go back to the bench and work on a match load that has a better performance at 400 yards out of a sporter weight 22-250. I don't know what that would look like. That will be interesting too. My current load is my normal coyote load and not loaded to anything other than ordinary handload standards. ES is 52 and SD is 14. Not bad, but not exceptional.

 

[wiscoaster]

And again, I hope your vision remains good enough that you can do that.

I didn't mean to imply everyone in their 60's needed optics, only that it has become a requirement for me to shoot as well as I like to. I used to have perfect vision, and was hoping I'd be one of those lucky folks that needed little or no help as I got older. First I needed readers, then I needed some distance correction. I wear contacts for distance and weak readers for reading, computer, etc. My eyes are not terrible or anything. But when using iron sights with just my contacts, I can see the target, the sights are very blurry though. With glasses, I can see the sights, but not the target. I tried multi-focal stuff too before giving in. But optics put a LOT of fun/satisfaction back into shooting for me. I know it's not a one size fits all world, that's just works for me.

Hah!! Sounds like a carbon copy of my story. Have you ever tried a red dot? Eliminates problems with focus, eye relief, and parallax. So you just wear whatever your normal vision correction is. No magnification, of course, but really, with practice you can shoot perfectly well out to 100 yds without magnification if your sighting system is good. Several of my rifles I shoot to 100 yds are equipped only with irons and red dots. And none of my milsurps are equipped with anything other than their original military iron sights. And some of those I have shot out to 200 yds and hit my targets. Matter of fact, the minimum range setting for the iron sights on the typical early 20th century European military rifle is 300 meters.

 

[someguy2800]

You are missing my point. Have you tried without parallax correction? If not, how do you know you CAN'T do it? You might be surprised.

My point is I haven't tried. I don't know if the shooter (me) can do it. I don't know if the rifle can do it, though I suspect it is capable. More capable than me anyway. I don't know if that load can do it in that gun. I am certainly willing to try though. I think it would be pretty fun. I'd like to pass on the prone though. My arthritis makes that uncomfortable.

If I can't do it, I certainly am not going to blame parallax. At that point, I will go back to the bench and work on a match load that has a better performance at 400 yards out of a sporter weight 22-250. I don't know what that would look like. That will be interesting too. My current load is my normal coyote load and not loaded to anything other than ordinary handload standards. ES is 52 and SD is 14. Not bad, but not exceptional.

Yes I have shot out to 600 or so with non adjustable scopes, that is as far as I have available to shoot without seeking out a longer range. All the little errors start to add up the farther out you go. The windage, vertical spread from velocity dispersion, parallax, ect... It is great fun and you will be able to make good repeatable hits out that far with a regular 3-9x40 scope, you just have to have a very repeatable shooting position so you can take time to get centered in the same place behind the scope each shot. Big steel targets that you can hear and see your hits on make it more fun and give you the instant feedback to correct.

 

[HowieG]

Yes I have shot out to 600 or so with non adjustable scopes, that is as far as I have available to shoot without seeking out a longer range. All the little errors start to add up the farther out you go. The windage, vertical spread from velocity dispersion, parallax, ect... It is great fun and you will be able to make good repeatable hits out that far with a regular 3-9x40 scope, you just have to have a very repeatable shooting position so you can take time to get centered in the same place behind the scope each shot. Big steel targets that you can hear and see your hits on make it more fun and give you the instant feedback to correct.

I know you can shoot at distance. I've shot a 600 yard gong kneeling with a Ruger #1 in 405 Winchester, but I didn't shoot groups. I was winging it for one hit just for fun.

What I am asking is have you tried to shoot a 3 inch or smaller five shot group at 400 yards with a non-adjustable 3-9 variable scope?? That is what you are asking me to do. A .75 MOA five round group, or smaller, at 400 yards.

You just more or less made my parallax point for me in your statement above, by the way. If you have a very repeatable shooting position so you can get centered behind the scope each shot, you will not have much of a parallax issue. I totally agree that out more than 400 yards, you start to have the little issues add up, and north of 600 you sure as heck could use parallax adjustment IF you are shooting some sort of event where group size matters. If you review, you will note that I very carefully stated a range of "inside 400 yards". Parallax is a problem way out there along with 50 other things including wind, sweat in your eyes, mirage, and last night's beer. Especially last night's beer.

 

[someguy2800]

I know you can shoot at distance. I've shot a 600 yard gong kneeling with a Ruger #1 in 405 Winchester, but I didn't shoot groups. I was winging it for one hit just for fun.

What I am asking is have you tried to shoot a 3 inch or smaller five shot group at 400 yards with a non-adjustable 3-9 variable scope?? That is what you are asking me to do. A .75 MOA five round group, or smaller, at 400 yards.

You just more or less made my parallax point for me in your statement above, by the way. If you have a very repeatable shooting position so you can get centered behind the scope each shot, you will not have much of a parallax issue. I totally agree that out more than 400 yards, you start to have the little issues add up, and north of 600 you sure as heck could use parallax adjustment IF you are shooting some sort of event where group size matters. If you review, you will note that I very carefully stated a range of "inside 400 yards". Parallax is a problem way out there along with 50 other things including wind, sweat in your eyes, mirage, and last night's beer. Especially last night's beer.

Yes I have but with a 4-12x40 non adjustable and its extremely difficult compared to doing it with the appropriate equipment. There isn't some point where parallax become a problem, it just continues to get worse the farther away you get from the focused range. It is always there whether you acknowledge it or not. How much of a problem it is to you is just relative to the amount of precision you require. If your trying to hit a 12x20 silhouette then a sub moa error is not a big deal. If your trying to hit a prairie dog or competing in an F class match then it is a very big deal.

 

[JFrank]

Guys tend to over think this subject more than necessary, adjust the diopter to a clear reticle then focus the target, if needed go back to the reticle.
Once you start shooting mid and long range you get your scope tuned pretty quickly and realize tuning your ammunition , reading conditions and gun handling far more important.

 

[HowieG]

Yes I have but with a 4-12x40 non adjustable and its extremely difficult compared to doing it with the appropriate equipment. There isn't some point where parallax become a problem, it just continues to get worse the farther away you get from the focused range. It is always there whether you acknowledge it or not. How much of a problem it is to you is just relative to the amount of precision you require. If your trying to hit a 12x20 silhouette then a sub moa error is not a big deal. If your trying to hit a prairie dog or competing in an F class match then it is a very big deal.

I shoot prairie dogs quite a bit. I don't think it's a thing in Minnesota. I don't find shooting regular sub MOA groups with a sporting rifle to be easy at 100 yards.

As far as this 400 yard experiment goes, I guess I am anchored to my Cooper. What I have that's better has an adjustable scope on it. My 260 won't shoot five round 3/4 inch groups. My 300 Mag certainly won't and I couldn't hold solid for more than one five round group anyway. My K Hornet certainly has the 100 yard accuracy, but certainly isn't close to being a 400 yard rifle. Well, maybe I could do it with my 223, but it's lighter than the Cooper. Might be fun to try though.

The Cooper has the classic 1 in 14 twist so stability issues are problematic with bullets heavier than say 55 grains, even at my 5000 foot altitude. So, there will be no recourse to heavy, high BC, bullets. Oh well, it is what it is. Cooper guaranteed the rifle for 3 round half inch groups at 100 yds with select handloads. Their test load for my rifle was H380 behind a 50 grain Sierra Blitz King. I am sort of close to that with H380 behind a 52 Sierra Match King loafing along at 3541 fps.

 

[HowieG]

Guys tend to over think this subject more than necessary, adjust the diopter to a clear reticle then focus the target, if needed go back to the reticle.
Once you start shooting mid and long range you get your scope tuned pretty quickly and realize tuning your ammunition , reading conditions and gun handling far more important.

Guys tend to over think everything anymore. A far cry from stuffing a bullet into the front of your barrel and holding over until you get there. I am not sure we are better off. We tend to whine now when our shooting/nap mat is the wrong color.

 

[someguy2800]

I shoot prairie dogs quite a bit. I don't think it's a thing in Minnesota. I don't find shooting regular sub MOA groups with a sporting rifle to be easy at 100 yards.

As far as this 400 yard experiment goes, I guess I am anchored to my Cooper. What I have that's better has an adjustable scope on it. My 260 won't shoot five round 3/4 inch groups. My 300 Mag certainly won't and I couldn't hold solid for more than one five round group anyway. My K Hornet certainly has the 100 yard accuracy, but certainly isn't close to being a 400 yard rifle. Well, maybe I could do it with my 223, but it's lighter than the Cooper. Might be fun to try though.

The Cooper has the classic 1 in 14 twist so stability issues are problematic with bullets heavier than say 55 grains, even at my 5000 foot altitude. So, there will be no recourse to heavy, high BC, bullets. Oh well, it is what it is. Cooper guaranteed the rifle for 3 round half inch groups at 100 yds with select handloads. Their test load for my rifle was H380 behind a 50 grain Sierra Blitz King. I am sort of close to that with H380 behind a 52 Sierra Match King loafing along at 3541 fps.

I should also note that while I have done it before, there is no possible way I could repeat it with any reliability so its more of a trick of luck. The rifle I'm talking about is just a deer rifle but it shoots about .600" at 100 yards from my bench rest if I'm on my game, but adding wind, parallax error, velocity dispertion ect... makes holding a .75 moa group at 400 possible but statistically unlikely. With better equipment to limit the error I can control the statistical probability is better.

 

[HowieG]

I should also note that while I have done it before, there is no possible way I could repeat it with any reliability so its more of a trick of luck. The rifle I'm talking about is just a deer rifle but it shoots about .600" at 100 yards from my bench rest if I'm on my game, but adding wind, parallax error, velocity dispertion ect... makes holding a .75 moa group at 400 possible but statistically unlikely. With better equipment to limit the error I can control the statistical probability is better.

The "on my game" part happens less frequently than it used to.

 

[HowieG]

I found out that if I am going to go shoot groups in the morning, I better avoid coffee.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I agree except at very close range where you would not normally be at the higher power settings anyway. It’s not solely a function of the magnification though. I once had a sig tango5 2-10x42 non adjustable that had an absolutely terrible depth of field, and it was a $850 scope. Meanwhile my sig tango4 4-16x44 has a very good depth of field and was half the cost. I am picky about these things and end up sending a lot of scopes back for having poor depth of field or having the parallax setting being way off. I had a new 3-9x40 once that when I tested it on the kitchen table in my normal manor the parallax was set at about 35 yards.

MOST scopes of lower power magnification have no adjustment for parallax. The reason is it is very minimumal, so they are pre-set for parallax by design to suit the majority of situations they intend the scope to be used in. Normally close up is where this takes it's toll, VERY CLOSE. Most are set about 100 yards to infinity and no one notices a problem until they trying to pick off a chipmunk half way down the porch.

 

[danez71]

I hear you, but what do you think the old timers did back in the 1890s? Just quit shooting?

The average life span in 1890 was 40-45 yrs old. They didn't even have penicillin. You'd have likely expired 20 years ago.

Old timers, if they were lucky enough to get to the age of having eye sight issues, often lived with younger family.


Lol....
It was well documented in Bonanza. Ben lived with his sons cause he couldn't shoot worth a darn and relied on Little Joe's young eyes and quick draw. He also relied on Hoss's size to get work done and big fists to save Little Joe in bar fights.


Very informative thread. Thank you to all for keeping it polite.

 

[HowieG]

The average life span in 1890 was 40-45 yrs old. They didn't even have penicillin. You'd have likely expired 20 years ago.

Old timers, if they were lucky enough to get to the age of having eye sight issues, often lived with younger family.


Lol....
It was well documented in Bonanza. Ben lived with his sons cause he couldn't shoot worth a darn and relied on Little Joe's young eyes and quick draw. He also relied on Hoss's size to get work done and big fists to save Little Joe in bar fights.


Very informative thread. Thank you to all for keeping it polite.

Well actually, people back then had the same young eye problems we do now. Nearsighted, farsighted and the like.

My family is long lived. My Great Grandfather Elisha served with Lee in the Civil war and then traveled west. He died in 1903 at the ripe old age of 70. So, he was an old timer of 57 in 1890.

 

[JEBruns]

I hear you, but what do you think the old timers did back in the 1890s? Just quit shooting? No, adapt and overcome.

Wear glasses? Live with not being as accurate? I'm glad in these more modern times, we have better choices than they did.

 

[JEBruns]

Hah!! Sounds like a carbon copy of my story. Have you ever tried a red dot? Eliminates problems with focus, eye relief, and parallax. So you just wear whatever your normal vision correction is.

Oh yeah, all of my pistols have red dots. I compete a little in Carry Optics. I own Romeo's, Holosun's, Trijicons and Vortex. I used Crimson Trace lasers for a while too. But prefer red dots.

 

[dranrab]

That is patently false. Adjustable parallax is absolutely essential if using a scope that is not rimfire-specific with parallax set at ~50yds, if you are shooting under 100yds. You can get away with it up to 4x but above that, you will definitely see parallax issues if you're shooting 50yds with a scope set at 150yds.

I'm not going to go searching for it but I've always read that the higher the magnification, the more parallax issues are amplified. Experience also bears this out.

That has not been my experience. Up until about 5 years ago, none of my scopes (rimfire or centerfire) were adjustable parallax. I bought a few "target" rimfire rifles, and from reading on Rimfire Central, I convinced myself I needed adjustable parallax scopes. Fast forward to today. About half my rimfires have 150 yard fixed parallax and about half are adjustable. The adjustable parallax scopes are on my heavier barrel/target type rifles. By a slight margin, my 150 yard fixed parallax scopes on my "hunting" guns give me my best groups.

Now, let's get up from the bench and take a stroll through the outdoors. I may jump a rabbit at 10 yards, see a squirrel at 30 or a crow at 100. It could very well be me, but it seems that whatever I want to shoot, I have to futz with the parallax, to get a good picture. If I am hoping to kick up a rabbit, I want my scope set on 3X. To pick out a squirrel head at 30 yards, I want 9X. So now, I may have to futz with power and parallax. Again, this could simply be a me issue.

I have yet to reap any benefits whatsoever from my adjustable parallax rimfire scopes either from the bench (inside 100 yards) or afield. So, your statement that "you will definitely see parallax issues if you're shooting 50yds with a scope set at 150yds." has not been the case for me at all.

 

[Walkalong]

Something is wrong there, perhaps not adjusting the diopter correctly, dunno, but you should be able to see the difference up close, assuming the scope’s parallax will adjust down close, at least as close as 25 yards. Many scopes with parallax adjustment will not go below 50, but with the surge in shooting. “precision” 22 LR, that is changing, with more and more scopes than can focus up close.

 

[HowieG]

Wear glasses? Live with not being as accurate? I'm glad in these more modern times, we have better choices than they did.

I believe they shot with fuzzy sights just like I do. I helps me if I shoot in good light. Peep sights can also help. Or enough sight radius to get the front sight away from my face as far as possible. My Remington 511 Scoremaster has a 25-inch barrel. That length added to the length of the receiver helps a lot.

 

[Bill M.]

Scopes with large objective lenses have less depth of field and thus more need for a parallax adjustment than smaller scopes. High power scopes have less depth of field than lower power scopes and thus more need for parallax adjustment. Good technique with the rifle can somewhat reduce the effect of parallax, as can a well fitted stock. It sounds to me like the OP’s scope is working like it should. And sorta like cameras have a limit as to how close they can focus, rifle scopes do also. Actually some camera techniques use measuring parallax to determine if focus is correct. In focus and zero parallax are by definition the same thing. No deviation of the focal point and the desired focal plane.

 

[JEBruns]

Scopes with large objective lenses have less depth of field and thus more need for a parallax adjustment than smaller scopes. High power scopes have less depth of field than lower power scopes and thus more need for parallax adjustment. Good technique with the rifle can somewhat reduce the effect of parallax, as can a well fitted stock. It sounds to me like the OP’s scope is working like it should. And sorta like cameras have a limit as to how close they can focus, rifle scopes do also. Actually some camera techniques use measuring parallax to determine if focus is correct. In focus and zero parallax are by definition the same thing. No deviation of the focal point and the desired focal plane.

Agreed. It is working as designed, and that is what I was trying to find out. I really like the scope, crystal clear and the perfect reticle (for me). Wife still has not shot it, but I think it will be fine. Chances are she will only want to shoot close up stuff, like 25 yards. So I'll just focus it there and let her bang away with it when she wants to give it a go.

 

[Bill M.]

Have you checked the actual parallax when focused to 25 or 50 yards? I would be interested in verifying that it actually works at those distances. I have never used mine at under 100 yds. Sure sounds like it is though.

 

[JEBruns]

Yes, I checked it several times. And still do every now and then. As you said, when the focus is at its best for any given distance, there is no parallax.

 

[Bill M.]

Thanks for the reply. It sounds like you have a great scope. I was thinking about ordering one until I checked the prices. If you are serious about finding a scope that needs less refocusing I would suggest looking at scopes with smaller objective lenses and less maximum power. But...some of them may not focus down to the close distances you want. And they will have a little more parallax than the sharp focusing Zeiss. It is a trade off. So I really can not answer the question as to what scope will do that. I would play with the Zeiss enough to determine the lowest maximum magnification I could use and work from there. Maybe scope specs show the minimum focus distance? And determine the maximum parallax you can tolerate and work from there. You are up against the laws of optics in this quest.

 

[JEBruns]

I have not tried to focus closer than 25 yards with it, nor past the range limit of 100 yards. So all I can say is it works for that range. I'll try to remember to check to see how close I can focus with it.

I did own a Vortex Strike Eagle 1x8 on my other AR which did not require adjustment from 25 - 100 yards. But it was not as sharp or clear as the Zeiss, and I did not like the reticle.