Rifle Scopes Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

[Joel45]

Am I thinking wrong that I want to keep my parallax knobs the same across the different scopes that I have? My high magnification scopes are NF and Premier, which both have CCW parallax knobs. Looks like S&B has a CCW parallax knob.

I had a USO that the parallax knob ran the opposite of that, CW. While I can certainly remember it is the opposite, I'd prefer to eliminate differences like that between platforms, especially when I am behind the scope and want to do it without looking.

Intellectually, CCW makes sense to me. From behind the scope, I turn the parallax knob away from me, forward, to increase yardage...I turn it back towards me, backwards, to reduce yardage.

I haven't seen anyone mention this before--is this not anything anyone cares about? Part of what is making me ask is that I want to give the new SS 5x20 a run--it looks to have CW parallax adjustment. You'd think this would be standardized.

Couple examples--Premier on top, USO middle, SS on bottom. Is there something I am missing about why these should be different?

 

[jakerz3]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

I think standardization would be nice. However, it seems to be something that is not really focused on. Otherwise, I would think that they would all be CCW as it makes more sense to me as well. Luckily, the two scopes I have are the same. Although, I never really gave it much thought to be honest. I would just grab the parallax turret and adjust one way or the other until I liked what I saw. I see where you are coming from though.

 

[Grump]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

While we're at it, how about reversing windage knobs so they match my old M1 Garand? To me, clockwise should move the bullet impact RIGHT!!!

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

Why not just stick to one brand of scope?

 

[Aries64]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Joel45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Am I thinking wrong that I want to keep my parallax knobs the same across the different scopes that I have? My high magnification scopes are NF and Premier, which both have CCW parallax knobs.</div></div>
No, you're not <span style="font-style: italic">"thinking wrong"</span>. Continuity across all of the scopes a shooter uses makes sense. Aside from economics, why would anyone choose to use scopes with differing controls? That is silly.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Joel45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks like S&B has a CCW parallax knob.</div></div>
S & Bs' do have CCW Parallax Knobs, regardless of whether the Elevation and Windage turrets are CW or CCW. Weird.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Joel45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had a USO that the parallax knob ran the opposite of that, CW. While I can certainly remember it is the opposite, I'd prefer to eliminate differences like that between platforms, especially when I am behind the scope and want to do it without looking.

Intellectually, CCW makes sense to me. From behind the scope, I turn the parallax knob away from me, forward, to increase yardage...I turn it back towards me, backwards, to reduce yardage.</div></div>
I wholeheatedly agree on all points here. I had a Falcon and I hated the CW parallax turret because it operated opposite of S & B and Premiers.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Joel45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't seen anyone mention this before--is this not anything anyone cares about? Part of what is making me ask is that I want to give the new SS 5x20 a run--it looks to have CW parallax adjustment. You'd think this would be standardized.</div></div>
It would be nice if scope adjustments were standardized, but don't hold your breath.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Joel45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Couple examples--Premier on top, USO middle, SS on bottom. Is there something I am missing about why these should be different?

</div></div>
I've owned a couple of Falcon 4-14X(44mm FFPs') and they were excellent scopes for the money, but one of the things I couldn't stand about them was theat they had CW Parallax adjustments, which worked opposite of my PMIIs'. In search of better glass and clicks without resorting to another PMII I looked at the Bushnell 4200 FFP and Vortex PST but both of these have CW parallax as well. There is no substitute for a PMII, and I now use the exact same scope on one of my Model 82 .22s' that I use on my Tac Ops X-Ray 51 - a PMII 5-25X 0.1 MIL Gen 2 XR CCW.

Keith

 

[19Scout77]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

SHOCKER!!! ARIES64 found another excuse to once AGAIN post a picture of his Tac Ops.

JUST IN CASE ANYBODY MISSED IT...ARIES64 OWNS A TAC OPS RIFLE!!!!

 

[Aries64]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 19Scout77</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SHOCKER!!! ARIES64 found another excuse to once AGAIN post a picture of his Tac Ops.

JUST IN CASE ANYBODY MISSED IT...ARIES64 OWNS A TAC OPS RIFLE!!!! </div></div>
<span style="font-style: italic">HATER</span> = has no inexperience with as basis of comparison - i.e., doesn't know any better. Why don't we take this is PM?


Keith

 

[19Scout77]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

No reason for PMs...

This "HATER" suggests you ponder the word BLOVIATE.

 

[Aries64]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 19Scout77</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No reason for PMs...

This "HATER" suggests you ponder the word BLOVIATE. </div></div>
Like I said...

And now back-on-topic.


Keith

 

[19Scout77]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

Come on now, you just missed TWO MORE opportunities to post more pics of your Tac Ops! You are slacking!

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

The direction of the parallax control on the T-pal is the one thing I'd like to see USO change, but its no big deal.
I do follow the consistency model-all my scopes are "oddball" USO's. Actually I only have one T-Pal, as I feel an adjustable objective is a better system than a side focus.

Keith's TacOps is nice, but I'd love to see it with some dings from use!! At least some dirt or something.....

 

[jasonk]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Keith's TacOps is nice, but I'd love to see it with some dings from use!! At least some dirt or something.....</div></div>

(Gasp) Shut your mouth!

 

[Joel45]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

Yeah, I actually called USO today to ask if they can swith the rotation on the parallax and Becky said that they could not. That leaves me with an ERGO to go USO--I much prefer the parallax knob, so not sure I'll go that route.

At least NF, PR, and SB are all the same (and how I like it)--not the end of the world staying with those, but I do like to switch things up some by trying different brands.

On the Tac-Ops, if I had it and the SB, it would be in my sig line

.

Hint hint, send it over and I will put it in my sig line.

 

[Aries64]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The direction of the parallax control on the T-pal is the one thing I'd like to see USO change, but its no big deal.
I do follow the consistency model-all my scopes are "oddball" USO's. Actually I only have one T-Pal, as I feel an adjustable objective is a better system than a side focus.</div></div>
The focusing mechanisms of objective-focus scopes are typically less complicated and have fewer moving parts (so are thus <span style="font-style: italic">theorietically</span> more robust), but well-engineered and executed side-focus designs don't compromise on image quality and, based on track record on military rifles in harsh environments are plenty robust as well.

I liked my SN-3 3.2-17X 44mm Lo-Pro ERGO while I had it, but I've found that I prefer side-focus models because you don't have to reach so far forward to adjust the parallax. The objective-focus (ERGO) models are generally more forgiving in terms of parallax focus though.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keith's TacOps is nice, but I'd love to see it with some dings from use!! At least some dirt or something..... </div></div>
About the only time I shoot photos is at my house or at Mike's shop or office, because I'm too busy shooting when I'm out with my gun. I rarely shoot photos when I'm out shooting because I'm too busy shooting. And I always dust the rifle off and clear the sand out of the action before I shoot photos. Why would I leave dirt and sand on the rifle and in the action for photos? I think its' funny that people see scratches and dings as badges of honor, and that if a gun isn't scratched-up and/or dinged its' a "safe queen".


Keith

 

[19Scout77]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

It is a physical IMPOSSIBLITY to actually USE a "tactical" rifle in any manner that even remotely resembles its intended use without acquiring scratches, dent, dings, etc.

 

[Aries64]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 19Scout77</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a physical IMPOSSIBLITY to actually USE a "tactical" rifle in any manner that even remotely resembles its intended use without acquiring scratches, dent, dings, etc. </div></div>
(1) I never claimed to <span style="font-style: italic">"actually USE a "tactical" rifle in any manner that even remotely resembles its intended use"</span>, did I? I'm just not tactical like you are. I don't shoot "tactical" matches with my "tactical" rifle. I shot in a tactical match several years ago with my A3 G and saw how the MD favored certain shooters, and that was it. Nothing to do with the match I shot, but I think using hot-rod calibers instead of calibers actually used by most LE departments in most call-outs (.223 and .308) actually hurts training.

(2) The rifle does have some scratches and wear, but my photos would have to be much closer, as most people do not have bionic vision like you and Steve Austin.

This is my final response to you here. You can keep responding here so you can feel superior while cluttering-up this thread. So far you haven't posted a single reply or comment within this thread that applies to the OP's original question. I would like to see this thread get back on topic.


Keith

 

[19Scout77]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like to see this thread get back on topic.</div></div>

I am sure you would

 

[Rob01]

Re: Parallax Adjustment--CW vs CCW??

Enough guys. Lets keep it on topic.