EOTech Holographic Sight Parallax Induced POA Error Compared to Reflex Red Dot Sights

[Convex]

I think a reasonable measured estimate can be obtained without complex apparatus.

How in the fuck do you measure an estimate. If you have the ability to measure something, then it's no longer a "rough calculation" or a guess.

That's nonsense.


If you come up w/a precise measurement, you've left an "estimate" in the rearview mirror.

 

[Milirad]

And here is the kicker, Parallax shift doesn't mean jack shit at CQB distances. Running around with an IR laser and dot/holo shooting people inside 25yards, mostly inside 10 yards, it doesn't matter. Virtually everyone cannot even shoot offhand inside of the shift.

Right, but it does if you need to shoot unmagnified at 150-200 yards which is not at all an unimportant circumstance. We've been practicing at that distance and that is why I considered going to a holo sight, thought it would have less parallax. Instead I learned that regardless of holo or reflex it's just as important to train keeping the dot pretty much dead center. FWIW I looked for data on all this and the only thing I found with real measurements was the link I posted way up in this thread which runs contrary to my testing so I thought the data is interesting. Also, pretty much all the guys I talked to, including the teams at two local gun stores, said a holo sight would have way less parallax error than a reflex sight.

If you have some good references from the "mountain of proven tests" you talk about, if you don't mind sharing that it would be helpful.

Also, sorry you don't like the content, but there is lots of other things to read on the Hide. I have heard from some others this is helpful, although they are a bit intimidated by the hazing. Wish someone else had posted this kind of result so I didn't need to spend the time to take the data.

 

[Milirad]

How in the fuck do you measure an estimate. If you have the ability to measure something, then it's no longer a "rough calculation" or a guess.

That's nonsense.


If you come up w/a precise measurement, you've left an "estimate" in the rearview mirror.

No measurement is perfect. An imperfect measurement can be referred to as an estimate. An estimate of a performance parameter is far better than knowing nothing about the performance parameter. The more resolution one attempts to characterize in a performance parameter test, such as the difference in parallax error sensitivity vs eye movement in different regions across a red dot sight, the more difficult it becomes to be accurate. If there is a 10% difference in performance in the middle vs the edges, the testing methods used here is not accurate enough to determine that. However, if there is a 2x or 3x difference in the error in the middle vs the edge, that will definitely be evident in the test results, which are referred to as estimates since they are not perfect.

I love the shooting sports and love learning about optics, especially when it translates to better shooting effectiveness. I have been experiencing substantive errors at longer ranges when using red dots, so for me this is not an academic exercise, it is seeking improvement in real world situations. I'm also trying to figure out if it's possible to be pretty accurate with a red dot at longer range (say +/- 1 MOA), or if the inherent errors make it better just go with an LPVO. One can also run an SPR setup with MPVO and offset red dot. I have two such SPR 556 rifles which are good out to 600+ yards, but that adds about 2.5-3lbs depending on the scope, mount and red dot, which is a lot for a rifle primarily intended for CQB. It's all interesting to me, sorry if it isn't for you.

 

[Convex]

Love the way you can slip a "Straw man" into a discussion



straw man

[ˈstrô ˌman, ˈsträ ˌman]

noun

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:

"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach" · "you are constructing a straw man argument"



Your "Straw Man" is your suggestion/inference that perfection was ever an issue when nobody mentioned it except you in your response.

To be precise has never meant being perfect, and to most folks including me using a high degree of precision means to be as precise as possible like in out to how many decimal places.



"es·ti·mate

verb[ˈestəˌmāt]

1roughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of:

"the aim is to estimate the effects of macroeconomic policy on the economy" · "it is estimated that smoking causes 100,000 premature deaths every year"


If you grab some other dictionary definitions, they'll mention a "rough calculation" or a guess.



"pre·ci·sion

[prēˈsiZH(ə)n]

noun

precision (noun) · precisions (plural noun)

the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate:

"the deal was planned and executed with military precision"

marked by or adapted for accuracy and exactness:

"a precision instrument"

technical

refinement in a measurement, calculation, or specification, especially as represented by the number of digits given. Compare with accuracy.

"a precision of six decimal figures" · "this has brought an unprecedented degree of precision to the business of dating rocks"


There's nothng anywhere in the above definitions mentioning perfection/including perfection/lacking perfection, only your "Straw Men" you've resorted to several times in these discussions, and it doesn't change my point because I never mentioned perfection.



Nobody can "measure" an estimate, nobody talks about perfection, that's all there is to it".


I'd suggest disciplined minds try to be precise as possible, not perfect, and if you don't agree w/that then you're "full of it".


There's nothing you will ever do, say, or calculate that will be perfect, that doesn't exist when it comes to human beings.




Now..... I'll tell you what he's going to do, he'll read this and then type 2 pages about resolution.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

No measurement is perfect. An imperfect measurement can be referred to as an estimate. An estimate of a performance parameter is far better than knowing nothing about the performance parameter. The more resolution one attempts to characterize in a performance parameter test, such as the difference in parallax error sensitivity vs eye movement in different regions across a red dot sight, the more difficult it becomes to be accurate. If there is a 10% difference in performance in the middle vs the edges, the testing methods used here is not accurate enough to determine that. However, if there is a 2x or 3x difference in the error in the middle vs the edge, that will definitely be evident in the test results, which are referred to as estimates since they are not perfect.

I love the shooting sports and love learning about optics, especially when it translates to better shooting effectiveness. I have been experiencing substantive errors at longer ranges when using red dots, so for me this is not an academic exercise, it is seeking improvement in real world situations. I'm also trying to figure out if it's possible to be pretty accurate with a red dot at longer range (say +/- 1 MOA), or if the inherent errors make it better just go with an LPVO. One can also run an SPR setup with MPVO and offset red dot. I have two such SPR 556 rifles which are good out to 600+ yards, but that adds about 2.5-3lbs depending on the scope, mount and red dot, which is a lot for a rifle primarily intended for CQB. It's all interesting to me, sorry if it isn't for you.

What distance and what size (angular and linear) errors? Also, what's the precision/dispersion of your rifle? What size targets are you attempting to engage?

Generally speaking, when you run a rig primarily for CQB/HR, you'll be running an RDS/Holo and Magnifier as you've pointed out. And the general idea is that when moving to distance measure in the hundred/s of yards and not feet anymore....you're not looking to take precision shots.

And the inverse is true. When you set up a "patrol" rifle, you'll be running an LPVO and possibly an offset or above optic RDS/Holo. With the purpose being more precise fire at the longer ranges and you're able to get by when you need it during CQB/HR distances.


Depending on the size target you are needing to engage, you may be expecting too much out of your RDS/Holo + Magnifier. Or may need to step the magnifier up to a 5 or 6x if you're using the typical 3x.

 

[Milirad]

Ok guys. Not sure what turns your crank, but I've had enough of it for now. Take care.

 

[Milirad]

What distance and what size (angular and linear) errors? Also, what's the precision/dispersion of your rifle? What size targets are you attempting to engage?

Generally speaking, when you run a rig primarily for CQB/HR, you'll be running an RDS/Holo and Magnifier as you've pointed out. And the general idea is that when moving to distance measure in the hundred/s of yards and not feet anymore....you're not looking to take precision shots.

And the inverse is true. When you set up a "patrol" rifle, you'll be running an LPVO and possibly an offset or above optic RDS/Holo. With the purpose being more precise fire at the longer ranges and you're able to get by when you need it during CQB/HR distances.


Depending on the size target you are needing to engage, you may be expecting too much out of your RDS/Holo + Magnifier. Or may need to step the magnifier up to a 5 or 6x if you're using the typical 3x.

Yes, that's the idea and your comments are helpful, thanks.

At 200 yards with a red dot I make more hits than misses on a small target from an improvised position when there is plenty of time per shot. But when I practice with position movement and faster shots I am considerably better with a scope than a red dot, even with the scope at 1x. This makes me wonder if I am not keeping the red dot close enough to the center of the window with time pressure and fatigue. With a scope there is no guessing about where the sight center is.

Running a scope on top, whether LPVO or MPVO, for longer engagement distance plus an offset reflex red dot removes the need for the red dot to be accurate. No need to mess with focus to quickly roll back and forth between CQ and distance, but it's heavy and bulky for a CQ rifle. This is a great setup but is pretty heavy and bulky.

LPVO alone is a descent alternative, but requires manipulation of magnification with the off hand, is still heavier than a red dot and sight acquisition for very close range, especially with movement, is considerably harder than with a red dot.

If you want a rig that is as light as possible with fastest CQ sight picture that's a red dot on top (holo or reflex), but It would be best to be able to reliably make hits at a reasonable distance. That's the scenario that requires a reasonable degree of accuracy from the red dot, meaning a reasonable parallax error. For a 200 yard shot on a 10" CoM target, if the parallax error is anywhere near what the EOTech website says to expect (as noted above), when you add shooter aiming error under time pressure and stress it's not a reliable setup. So the question I have now is just how close the dot must to be to the zero location to keep parallax error down to a reasonable level, say +/- 1MOA.

 

[Convex]

It's all interesting to me, sorry if it isn't for you.

Don't be sorry, LOL
This discussion contributed quite a bit of levity, in fact a whole lot.

Like this sentence....


"The more resolution one attempts to characterize in a performance parameter test, such as the difference in parallax error sensitivity vs eye movement in different regions across a red dot sight, the more difficult it becomes to be accurate."............


Somehow comparing/connecting resolution with parallax error ("oh yes, let us be exact, parralax error sensitivity vs eye movement in different regions")


If you legitimately want to learn, then quit suggesting that the problem is that it's "all" interesting to you and not to me (classic troll/straw man), save the wild speculation, and take Koshkin up on his offer of running it all down to you.

If he says he'll do it, he'll do it.

He's one of the smartest guys on here, he condenses the complex into simplicity instead of going in the other direction.

 

[Milirad]

Somehow comparing/connecting resolution with parallax error ("oh yes, let us be exact, parralax error sensitivity vs eye movement in different regions")

You may have skimmed over that post a little to fast because your comment mixes up measurement resolution in a parallax error test with the ability of a scope to resolve image detail, which of course is not related. Any test measurement of any product parameter, including how much parallax error moves POA as a function of eye location (the “parallax error sensitivity vs eye movement”) has a limit in the test measurement resolution.

I’ve done some additional observations on the differences in parallax error vs eye location for a variety of red dots and the two holographic sights. As reported above, I have found that some holographic sights have less parallax error sensitivity to changes in eye location than good red dots (around 50% less error), but some are about the same as red dots. I’ve been trying to find a good way to video this because pictures are clearly better than words and numbers in this case, but it’s hard to get good red dot images in a test apparatus with different calibrated “eye locations”.

For my purposes, the conclusion I have come to is that the main reason to use a larger and heavier holographic sight on a rifle vs a good red dot is if you want to use a magnifier. The holographic sight dot size doesn’t increase with magnification like a red dot does. However, if I need to magnify then that usually means I’m shooting farther and need more accuracy, which is when I care more about parallax error, so I prefer an LPVO with true 1x bottom end and nuclear bright center dot. It’s about as fast to swing a mag lever on an LPVO as it is to flip down a holographic sight magnifier and the parallax error with a good LPVO is a fraction of a holo sight or red dot. If the scenario only requires 100+ yards and less, a red dot does the job with less weight and bulk than a holographic sight and with similar parallax performance (depending on the red dot and holo sight). Best of both worlds for speed and accuracy when both CQB and longer range are required in SPR, DMR, SDM type rifles (if you can afford the weight) is an LPVO or MPVO with offset red dot.

This may draw more fire, but other members might find the observations useful for their needs.

 

[Convex]

I love it!

You try to confuse the issue by suggesting that I'm doing what I said you did.


The sentence I pointed out is convoluted gibberish, and you show up here today defending it w/more convoluted gibberish

"The more resolution one attempts to characterize in a performance parameter test, such as the difference in parallax error sensitivity vs eye movement in different regions across a red dot sight, the more difficult it becomes to be accurate."............


Resolution doesn't haven't have anything to do w/parallax error which is obvious to anyone who knows what they're talking about it way before I said it, so save me your bullshit arguments like showing up here later w/a troll suggesting that I skimmed over anything and then you do the same fucking thing, and suggest it again now, and I'll say it again, parallax error, however you want to connect it to eye movement has nothing to do with measuring resolution.


If I was talking to you right now, I'd say it to your face, your purpose isn't to learn anything, or to provide anything useful to anybody it's to come up w/dense "smokescreens" of nonsense you think will disguise the fact you're not grounded in the fundamentals but want to talk like you do.

Listening to you is like eating "fake crab".

 

[Milirad]

"The more resolution one attempts to characterize in a performance parameter test, such as the difference in parallax error sensitivity vs eye movement in different regions across a red dot sight, the more difficult it becomes to be accurate."............

This means exactly what it says - "resolution in a performance parameter test". This does not refer in any way to the resolution of an optic. What would resolution of a red dot even mean - the red dot optic has a clear window and I have never seen anyone talk about the resolution of a clear window. Let me provide you with another example of "resolution in a performance parameter test" - if you are weighing a rifle component, and the resolution of your scale is 1 oz, then the best you can do with the weight measurement is get within +/- 1 oz. Here's another - if you are measuring the parallax error in a red dot and the best you can do to measure the error is +/- 1MOA, then the best you can do with the parallax error measurement is get within +/- 1MOA.

Resolution doesn't haven't have anything to do w/parallax error which is obvious to anyone who knows what they're talking about it way before I said it, so save me your bullshit arguments like showing up here later w/a troll suggesting that I skimmed over anything and then you do the same fucking thing, and suggest it again now, and I'll say it again, parallax error, however you want to connect it to eye movement has nothing to do with measuring resolution.

Sorry, this is your incorrect interpretation of what I said as clearly explained above. No BS involved on my part.

If I was talking to you right now, I'd say it to your face, your purpose isn't to learn anything, or to provide anything useful to anybody it's to come up w/dense "smokescreens" of nonsense you think will disguise the fact you're not grounded in the fundamentals but want to talk like you do.

I don't know why you are so defensive about the results I reported. You could not be more incorrect about my interests and intentions.

There is a ton of incorrect information about how Holographic sights have better parallax error than a good red dot and that is why I did this post. For some reason that offends some people. I stick by my conclusions and the results stand on their own, as verified by Eotech's own parallax error specs, so the results can not be shouted down with false assertions about what I have said or my intentions.

 

[Convex]

For some reason that offends some people. I stick by my conclusions and will not be shouted down with false assertions about what I have said or my intentions.

I've got you on the money and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it, of course you're going to stick by your BS, I expected you to.

 

[Milirad]

I've got you on the money and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it, of course you're going to stick by your BS, I expected you to.

I just don't get this kind of Hide behavior. It is one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, so many people are afraid to get more involved or try to and then lose interest and drop out when they experience this kind of attack.

 

[Convex]

It's not the hide, it's your BS you're being called on.

Go back to the beginnings of this thread, you were advised w/TLC by several people and offered help by people who know what they're talking about so quit whining.

 

[Milirad]

Of course, it's not the Hide. The Hide has incredible information. It's people who behave this way. You are not the Hide.

 

[Convex]

If it's not the Hide, then why did you say it was? You called it "Hide Behavior" LOL

 

[Milirad]

If it's not the Hide, then why did you say it was? You called it "Hide Behavior" LOL

Please allow me to clarify. By "Hide behavior" I meant to say "the behavior of certain Hide members". Thank you for asking for clarification rather than telling me what I meant, very civil of you.

 

[Convex]

Think for a second before deciding what comes out of your mouth, then stand by it as you say you do, don't try to change it later.

That was not asking for clarification, it was pointing out how you contradict yourself, and the phrase "the behavior of certain Hide members" is not what you said when you first started trashing the "Hide".

 

[Milirad]

That was not asking for clarification, it was pointing out how you contradict yourself, and the phrase "the behavior of certain Hide members" is not what you said when you first started trashing the "Hide".

Sorry for not being more specific and thank you again for pointing it out so I could make the intention clear. I don't think this back and forth is interesting for others so I'm not going to continue it.

 

[houndog]

First, Milrad, thank you for taking the time to perform these tests and share your results. And I agree, they do seem to contradict conventional wisdom - based on what I've read on various forums, several tests I am aware of, and my own admittedly anecdotal experience.

Starting with my own admittedly non-scientific personal experience as someone who owns a couple of MROs and a couple of Eotech's - your results contradict what I've experienced simply sighting in these optics at 50 yards. With MRO's I find that if I am not fairly careful to center the dot I will get a widely dispersed group. This has not been the case with the three Eotechs I own. And these results run across multiple guns and on multiple occasions, so it's not that one rifle was inherently more accurate than the other.

I am also aware of a series of tests done by a pretty well known poster who posts here and on that forum primarily devoted to AR's. This gentleman performs what I consider to be "gold standard" tests on the accuracy of various ammo. He has also evaluated the parallax error of MRO's, Aimpoints and I believe Eotechs. Again, his tests are shooting at targets either 50 or 100 yards away and comparing the results when the dot/reticle is centered vs. when the dot/reticle is at the extreme edge of the optic. Those results showed the MRO to have significantly worse results than any other optic and I believe the Eotech to have the best results when it comes to parallax.

I'm not sure what accounts for the discrepancy between your two results. Perhaps it's because you are testing parallax at much shorter distances? Or maybe it's your different methodologies. But personally, I think the better test is to measure how parallax error: (i) effects the actual shot placement and (ii) at distances where that error matters - ie 50, 100 or 200 yards. As you yourself acknowledge, it makes little difference whether an optic has 4 MOA error at 7 yards. It makes a great deal of difference at 200 yards.

Finally, I have no real dog in this fight with respect to Trijicon vs. Eotech. I own and like MRO's and find them very useful so long as I am mindful about generally centering the dot. Similarly, I own a couple of Eotechs and like them a great deal. So I am not particularly invested in one brand vs the other.

 

[Milirad]

Thanks for these insights houndog. Your experience is roughly consistent with some of the other test results, including the Green Eye Tactical results I referenced early in the thread. Ilya has also weighed in stating that parallax error is a function of distance. I’ll see if the local gun shop/range team will loan me the different holo sight models again to compare with my red dots for longer range (50/and 100 yard) parallax error testing. I’ll also keep working to see if I can find a way to capture additional test results on video with imagery that is clear and conclusive.

I do point out however that the Green Eye Tactical tests had a set of 25 yard distance results and this distance is not far from the 20 yard test setup I did with the team at our local indoor shop/range. The Greeneye holo sight results at 25 yards are way better than the holosight results several of us witnessed at 20 yards, but perhaps there is a big, surprising leap from 20 to 25 yards. The Greeneye holo sight results are also way better than Eotech’s own published parallax error. Curious.

Thanks again.