-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Why do you think an adjustable parallax feature is needed on LPVOs? ? ?
- Thread starter Terry Cross
- Start date
Impossible to tell. Was it parallax, was it my wobble zone, was it wind, did the target move before I pulled.... Don't know. All I know is that I like to stack as many odds in my favor if I can, when I can.
Yes, I listen to Jacob's podcast
Not arguing here, just talkin
Might I be so bold as to suggest you re-read post # 20 on this thread. I posted that 2 years ago.
www.snipershide.com
Rifle Scopes - Why do you think an adjustable parallax feature is needed on LPVOs? ? ?
Starting this thread to avoid derailing another thread further.... I would like to hear why you think this is needed. Why is it important to you to have an adjustable parallax feature on a LPVO considering what their basic space in the tool box is cut out to be? I have a couple of 1-8x ATACRs...
www.snipershide.com
@carbonbased,
You gotta consider your audience/subject pool here and context as well.
Precision guys are going to do precision shit the way they know how. I could go on a rant on the uses of LPVO's and how they differ and how features specific for use matter, but I have neither the time, no do I think anyone cares.
One thing I will also note. The optic (quality, construction, design) makes a BIG difference. In the case of the NF 2.5-10x's (which aren't really LPVO), it's clear that NF would need a adj. parallax as in the case of the x42 vs. the x32. I felt I would have liked it on the x32. And I have little doubt the things March pushes, they might need it in their 10x as well. I have zero time on March products nor anything below a Razor HD tier.
I still say that dudes doing appropriate LPVO shit with LPVO-suited rifles with appropriately selected LPVO's will be just fine.
You gotta consider your audience/subject pool here and context as well.
Precision guys are going to do precision shit the way they know how. I could go on a rant on the uses of LPVO's and how they differ and how features specific for use matter, but I have neither the time, no do I think anyone cares.
One thing I will also note. The optic (quality, construction, design) makes a BIG difference. In the case of the NF 2.5-10x's (which aren't really LPVO), it's clear that NF would need a adj. parallax as in the case of the x42 vs. the x32. I felt I would have liked it on the x32. And I have little doubt the things March pushes, they might need it in their 10x as well. I have zero time on March products nor anything below a Razor HD tier.
I still say that dudes doing appropriate LPVO shit with LPVO-suited rifles with appropriately selected LPVO's will be just fine.
Hey, I get it. After reading the Leupold 2-10x32 thread and hearing people bitching about the weight (scope has side focus), I was just trying to see just why people request parallax/side focus on a LPVO.
So far, nobody has had any field-proven, I-lived-it reason. Just preferences. That podcast nailed it, math included (@Denys).
At least being able to dial the focus close for indoor dry firing makes sense. But no one but ILya ever mentioned that.
This went kinda like I thought.
Our of curiosity, I would be interested in your rant (or an abridged version), and here's why: I think that the concept of LPVO is confusing at best when it comes to optics in this classification that are in the 8x-10x range of magnification: There appears to be the assumption by some that with more magnification in an LPVO that there should be a wider applicability of the optic to more use cases. I think that this is where people get tripped up: there appears to be a trend in the market where people want to use these optics in applications where, traditionally, your 2.5-10, 3-9, 3-18, or 4-16 power optics with larger objective diameters are used, and this desire seems to get those of us who are attempting to squeeze more performance out of LPVO at increased magnification into the existential parallax dilemma. If anything, comparing LPVO to some of the "MPVO" options is not an equal comparison at all. Like most things in life, there is no "free lunch", and this appears especially true at the upper end of the LPVO magnification that is currently offered. As we are starting to see more calibers become widely available that are capable of extending engagement ranges out significantly past 7-800 meters with shorter than traditionally-employed barrel lengths, the interest in having a wildly capable "do it all" gun with an LPVO mounted on it has only increased. The issue, of course, with this concept is that, in attempting to address every theoretical use case with "one rifle", you actually create a rifle that is okay at performing a lot of different roles in a very wide context, but isn't highly optimized to perform a certain task in an exemplary manner.
I believe that the whole idea behind putting more features into an LPVO comes from the idea that an LPVO offers the most advantages with the least relative compromises currently, and that, by adding more features such as adjustable parallax, you are further increasing the ability of the LPVO to fit into more use cases on the fringes of the optic class' capabilities. Whether this is the best way or not, there are a lot of people who are drinking the kool-aid right now regarding LPVO magnification numbers and neglecting other considerations, such as exit pupil diameter, reticle selection, and use applications. I mention this only because what works in theory in a "scripted" environment most often does not perform exactly as intended in the real world.
I don't just think it's only a question of precision guys doing precision shit the way they know how, but I do think that you hit on a really important point in that using the optic for the appropriate application matters the most. If anything the inclusion of parallax on LPVO might be a great thing in that it expands the reasonable ability for the optic to be employed more widely . A friend of mine recently joked that he's started "golf-bagging" rifles in that he selects guns the way that he selects clubs during golf: use the applicable club for the applicable situation and the applicable shot. Of course, the downside of this is that you better have the ability to carry all those tools around with you. Then again, I'm the guy who thinks that 1-4s and 1-6s are still extremely relevant optic options within the context of use, especially when the optic is designed to perform a specific way for a designed set of applications, with the end-user being well-versed in the capabilities and limits of the entire system.
The only "oh fuck/I-lived-it" moment I had was on a monthly cold-bore where I was using a S&B 1-8CC (2nd FP). It was kept stored in "CC" mode. It somehow got stuck on the 7m parallax CC setting and when I went up to 8x to take my shot at 100y, my sight picture was a blurry mess.
The optic still worked fine in "CC" at lower magnification and I achieved the administrative parameters even though I would be deadlining the gun/optic combo so the optic could be repaired. Subsequently, this allowed me to move away from S&B lpvo's for a time as I was leary of anything with the "CC" mode ability.
I guess this could be relevant in this discussion of adding more complexity to a concept that's better when kept simple.
@Leftie
I tell people when selecting an LPVO, understand if you're:
- Going to use it most on max power but sometimes drop it to the low end for for close-in stuff
- Going to use it mostly on minimum power but sometimes crank it up to see better/further or take a rare poke at something.
Other considerations:
- Don't neglect the range between min/max magnification and how the optic performs there
- Quality matters. A crisp, fresh 4x sight picture loses nothing to a medicore 6x or a shitty 8x.
In running a gun I've used and been taught what can be broken into 3 different schools of though on the LPVO. Generally the methodology varies from the experiences of the school/instructor
1) The LPVO is a red dot + magnifier replacement
This is the camp that's going to use target-based holds, clean 2nd FP reticles, speed, 50 or 200y zeros and mostly stay inside 400ish yards with an LPVO on a 5.56 carbine. Speed and good enough kills. Shooting from 0 - where max point blank ends. Will never understand #3 below
2) The LPVO is a DMR optic/force multiplier
This is kind of the middle ground goldilocks sweet spot. There is a respect for speed but harnessing useful reticles and the ability to push distance as well with increased magnification AND reticle data. FFP, BDC and tree reticles are critical to allow for reasonably quick shooting opportunities but the optic allows for greater performance. No time for dialing....this ain't sniper shit. Shooting from 0 - limits of the optic.
3) The LPVO is a precision instrument...just smaller
We're doing all the sniper shit or at the very least "sniper lite". 0.5 mil hold stadia or less; Horus me up fam. Dialing is on the table. Mo power mo better. Shooting from 0 to Buzz Lightyear. Will never understand #1 above.
Dare I say, the trick is ALL of them...and finding an optic that will allow seamless use of any. The optic makers are somewhat polarized as well and a few are completely out to fucking lunch on their thinking.
Ultimately, I feel the LPVO is too broad of a concept to nail down "the BEST lpvo". That's not going to happen. The trick is finding the right fit for your preferences and hopefully your preferences reflect use/needs.
I'm just kinda tired of sitting back and hearing bullshit from one end of the spectrum or the other claiming how things need to be done.
I tell people when selecting an LPVO, understand if you're:
- Going to use it most on max power but sometimes drop it to the low end for for close-in stuff
- Going to use it mostly on minimum power but sometimes crank it up to see better/further or take a rare poke at something.
Other considerations:
- Don't neglect the range between min/max magnification and how the optic performs there
- Quality matters. A crisp, fresh 4x sight picture loses nothing to a medicore 6x or a shitty 8x.
In running a gun I've used and been taught what can be broken into 3 different schools of though on the LPVO. Generally the methodology varies from the experiences of the school/instructor
1) The LPVO is a red dot + magnifier replacement
This is the camp that's going to use target-based holds, clean 2nd FP reticles, speed, 50 or 200y zeros and mostly stay inside 400ish yards with an LPVO on a 5.56 carbine. Speed and good enough kills. Shooting from 0 - where max point blank ends. Will never understand #3 below
2) The LPVO is a DMR optic/force multiplier
This is kind of the middle ground goldilocks sweet spot. There is a respect for speed but harnessing useful reticles and the ability to push distance as well with increased magnification AND reticle data. FFP, BDC and tree reticles are critical to allow for reasonably quick shooting opportunities but the optic allows for greater performance. No time for dialing....this ain't sniper shit. Shooting from 0 - limits of the optic.
3) The LPVO is a precision instrument...just smaller
We're doing all the sniper shit or at the very least "sniper lite". 0.5 mil hold stadia or less; Horus me up fam. Dialing is on the table. Mo power mo better. Shooting from 0 to Buzz Lightyear. Will never understand #1 above.
Dare I say, the trick is ALL of them...and finding an optic that will allow seamless use of any. The optic makers are somewhat polarized as well and a few are completely out to fucking lunch on their thinking.
Ultimately, I feel the LPVO is too broad of a concept to nail down "the BEST lpvo". That's not going to happen. The trick is finding the right fit for your preferences and hopefully your preferences reflect use/needs.
I'm just kinda tired of sitting back and hearing bullshit from one end of the spectrum or the other claiming how things need to be done.
Last edited:
Versatile precision. Whether you are trying to shoot tiny rifle targets 15yrds -100 or trying to shoot 50-500 yrd small targets parallax adjustments are necessary
This is an interesting discussion.
Fundamentally, we have to think about the expectations and applications. When we know exactly what we run into, we can choose a sighting system optimal for that based on a variety of criteria: weight, size, magnification, battery life, etc.
LPVO with an auxiliary RDS is an optic you put on your AR, when you do NOT know what you are going to run into. That is when you are looking for flexibility and redundancy.
Side focus makes an LPVO more flexible. It is as simple as that. Is it required? No. Is it good to have in a pinch? Yes.
I have been thinking about this lately and this is one of those rare situations when I would not mind a locking side focus turret.
ILya
Fundamentally, we have to think about the expectations and applications. When we know exactly what we run into, we can choose a sighting system optimal for that based on a variety of criteria: weight, size, magnification, battery life, etc.
LPVO with an auxiliary RDS is an optic you put on your AR, when you do NOT know what you are going to run into. That is when you are looking for flexibility and redundancy.
Side focus makes an LPVO more flexible. It is as simple as that. Is it required? No. Is it good to have in a pinch? Yes.
I have been thinking about this lately and this is one of those rare situations when I would not mind a locking side focus turret.
ILya
But to me, this raises the question:
Is the LPVO still the appropriate choice for this "ya never know". I've taken the Ridgeline SPR/DMR and Alex makes a valid case for his 4-16x42 ATACR with offset rds and embracing the mRDS as 2nd primary aiming system and not a redundancy.
Looking at the vast majority of setups, many (including myself) have given to the offset mRDS despite 1x bottom ends. With this is the liberation from "true 1x" bottom ends. Admittedly I use the hell out of my 1.5-2.5x range between 25y-250y depending on target size...I don't believe anything under 2.5x bottom end IN CONJUNCTION with a well placed mRDS loses much, but gains so much more for the crowd that wants a more precisionish feature set.
Ultimately this boils into my other major peeve:
"There's a serious lack of practical MPVO's"
(as I've mentioned in the S&B 3-18x42 and ZCO mpvo threads)
IMHO two things are relevant SPR/DMR not in QCB context
1) Perfect Zero
2) 2MOA shots at 250 yd
You can workaround 1 or 2 by setting the parallax at 100-ish or 200-ish, but ...
1) How good is a 50m field zero on 1/2 in dot with optic that has 1-1.5 inch parallax error potential?
2) With a 1MOA field rifle, who can reasonably hold 1MOA (elevation waterlines), when stacking parallax error on system error?
Parallax error of of 1-1.5in inside 250 yd is not immaterial for each scenario.
Maybe this tells me I want more of an MVPO feature set on SPR, but I might also want x24 or x32 type low profile/light weight etc.
Interesting discussions for the optical designers out there...
1) Perfect Zero
2) 2MOA shots at 250 yd
You can workaround 1 or 2 by setting the parallax at 100-ish or 200-ish, but ...
1) How good is a 50m field zero on 1/2 in dot with optic that has 1-1.5 inch parallax error potential?
2) With a 1MOA field rifle, who can reasonably hold 1MOA (elevation waterlines), when stacking parallax error on system error?
Parallax error of of 1-1.5in inside 250 yd is not immaterial for each scenario.
Maybe this tells me I want more of an MVPO feature set on SPR, but I might also want x24 or x32 type low profile/light weight etc.
Interesting discussions for the optical designers out there...
Last edited:
@dms416
That is one of the best arriculations and breakdown of this phenomenon that I've seen written, ever.
You touch on a couple considerations that are absolutely necessary for selecting any optic, but specifically LPVO. I mentioned this on another thread, but I believe that, at best, there's a chronic issue with many companies that produce highly technical pieces of equipment that are fielded by end-users: there appears to be an inability to translate end-user requirements (and why they need them) to technical experts, and then for technical experts to translate what they are doing (and why they are doing it) into non-"nerd-speak" that end-users understand.
I agree that some optic manufacturers are completely out to lunch, but I think that might be symptomatic of the underlying condition mentioned above.
I also agree that LPVO is too broad of a concept to nail down, and this is part of the problem: the "micro-communities" of LPVO users can't decide to agree that LPVO means different things to different user-groups who employ optics defined underneath the blanket term "LPVO". You're right, there isn't a "BEST LPVO". It's all context dependent, and companies should do better to educate prospective buyers/users on why they made what they made, and for what use cases. Unfortunately, that's not going to go over well with their sales/marketing departments of optic manufacturers, as that would be akin to telling an otherwise interested customer "this optic wasn't meant for your use case, so you can purchase the optic, but another company actually makes something more useful for what you're trying to do" More honest and transparent? Sure. Commercially savvy for a company's bottom line? Probabally not.
That's a really good question, and I think that there is an extremely valid case for "MPVO" as a distinct class of optic that differentiates itsself from many currently available optics. The question is, how do you define "MPVO"?
That being said, a "not 1x" low-end with adjustable parallax, a well-designed reticle, and cohabitating RDS makes a lot of sense on a "do all/ya never know" rifle...
As an extension of this conversation, I also think that the shooting community absolutely needs to get beyond the mentality of taking at face value answers such as "well that's what we've always been doing, and it's worked pretty well until now, so we do it this way" for things like equipment setup, zeros, mount height, philosphy of use etc.
We owe it to ourselves as a community to be pushing the envelope, constantly evaluating existing techniques and principles, and adopting better ones in context. I haven't taken a Ridgeline SPR/DMR course yet, but it sounds like a very good use of time, effort, and resources especially because it sounds like they are asking the right questions, collecting the right data, and pushing the envelope to provide good evidence of what actually works in practice.
@Leftie,
I would define an MPVO as:
44mm objective or less
24 oz or less
1.5-3x max on the bottom end.
Ideally 12x or more on the top end (but obviously would depend greatly on the bottom end and erector ratio)
Preferrably FFP with a magnification appropriate reticle set, capped windage, locking adj. elevation, adj parallax (perhaps with @koshkin advising on a locking feature)
I've spent time with all the flavors of NF 2.5-10x(24/32/42mm), had a couple of ATAR 4-16x42's as well as a mk5HD and even some sporting/nonPMII S&B options. Of course there's also my stable of 5-20 and 3-20 Ultra shorts. "MPVO" or whatever is an untapped or misunderstood niche that I think pushes folks down into the LPVO where they still want more but can't get it. Thus, we end up with 1-10x optics with PRS features rather than the MPVO we should have.
Unfortunately industry going to industry. I've not yet been taken up on my offer to help with reticle layout or just tweaks that would help immensely...nor am I holding my breath. I absolutely agree that the shooters should be in the driver's seat; in some cases they are to some degree but then we have individual bias or only see this approach from certain companies. I have many gripes and grievances about "the industy" so I'll stop at that.
The Ridgeline SPR/DMR has by far been one of if not my absolute favorite. They cover a variety of aspects and explain their standpoint but don't take a dogmatic approach. I can say I used a mix ALL of the 3 concepts above and it was a very solid 0-600y (given this was offsite in Waterman, IL) no bullshit, practical course. I'll see if I can dig out my AAR on it.
I would define an MPVO as:
44mm objective or less
24 oz or less
1.5-3x max on the bottom end.
Ideally 12x or more on the top end (but obviously would depend greatly on the bottom end and erector ratio)
Preferrably FFP with a magnification appropriate reticle set, capped windage, locking adj. elevation, adj parallax (perhaps with @koshkin advising on a locking feature)
I've spent time with all the flavors of NF 2.5-10x(24/32/42mm), had a couple of ATAR 4-16x42's as well as a mk5HD and even some sporting/nonPMII S&B options. Of course there's also my stable of 5-20 and 3-20 Ultra shorts. "MPVO" or whatever is an untapped or misunderstood niche that I think pushes folks down into the LPVO where they still want more but can't get it. Thus, we end up with 1-10x optics with PRS features rather than the MPVO we should have.
Unfortunately industry going to industry. I've not yet been taken up on my offer to help with reticle layout or just tweaks that would help immensely...nor am I holding my breath. I absolutely agree that the shooters should be in the driver's seat; in some cases they are to some degree but then we have individual bias or only see this approach from certain companies. I have many gripes and grievances about "the industy" so I'll stop at that.
The Ridgeline SPR/DMR has by far been one of if not my absolute favorite. They cover a variety of aspects and explain their standpoint but don't take a dogmatic approach. I can say I used a mix ALL of the 3 concepts above and it was a very solid 0-600y (given this was offsite in Waterman, IL) no bullshit, practical course. I'll see if I can dig out my AAR on it.
Last edited:
I'm in agreement but I don't know if the added weight of a locking mechanism would be necessary for the parallax/side focus. Especially considering the optimistic weight goals of this type of FFP optic. A stiff detent at 125m focus, I think, would be the ticket. Call it the LPVO detent, when running and gunning is the situation. This would be easily tactile for setting without visual, save weight, and give the best of both world's (run&gun vs precision) requirements.
I think that many who want side focus on an LPVO also don’t want to pay the weight penalty, as evidenced by the moaning at the 24oz 2-10x32 Leupold thread.
For perspective, the Razor 1-10 is 21.5oz. If there’s that much moaning over 2.5oz…I dunno. Optimizers like to bitch (I speak from experience).
But what are the hard numbers, the misses we are going to have without side focus / parallax adjustments? Theory is not working here.
Calc from a 1-10x24mm Vortex Razor Gen III that is factory set at a 150yd parallax & based off of a Leupold dude in a RO podcast:
(You might have to turn your phone sideways to best read the table below. Also, earlier versions make the parallax error look worse b/c I suck at math. Scopes with larger objectives will have larger potential errors.)
I suck at math, so I took this from about 25min at this link (Dave @Feniks Technologies / @Dthomas3523 was on this too)
For those who don’t want to bother listening, the Max-Fell-Down-A-Well parallax error is calc like this: parallax is set at X yds. For every X yds further, add 1/2 of objective diameter.
Perhaps my assumptions of “reasonable error” are off here, but even at Max Stupid Error at 600yds I can deal with a potential 1.4” error when shooting something as small as a damn prairie dog.
Note that I often shoot pdogs from a well’s bottom, upside down, and with one hand.
This isn’t even getting into hyperfocal stuff, which you can’t typically find on a scope’s specs without calling the manufacturer. I’m hazy here.
To sum up:
Edit: in that podcast it was also noted that contrary to popular belief, parallax error affects people’s emotions more at close ranges, like 100 yds. I think the example was if you left your scope set at 750yds and shot at 100yds, you’d notice.
The actual error isn’t a huge number, but errors magnify their importance in your brain at close ranges. Why? Because you want the tightest group to see how good your barrel (& skills) are.
But, of course, if you’re off at 100yds and you base a lot of your dope on that, then a small error here might get magnified. I can’t figure out the potential errors at 100 (only 50yds less than the parallax is set at) but my intuition tells me it’s not gonna be much. Could be wrong, though.
*Excepting you benchrest fags lol
For perspective, the Razor 1-10 is 21.5oz. If there’s that much moaning over 2.5oz…I dunno. Optimizers like to bitch (I speak from experience).
But what are the hard numbers, the misses we are going to have without side focus / parallax adjustments? Theory is not working here.
Calc from a 1-10x24mm Vortex Razor Gen III that is factory set at a 150yd parallax & based off of a Leupold dude in a RO podcast:
(You might have to turn your phone sideways to best read the table below. Also, earlier versions make the parallax error look worse b/c I suck at math. Scopes with larger objectives will have larger potential errors.)
| Distance | Max reasonable error if taking your time (a guess, half of Max Reasonable in-a-hurry) | Max reasonable error in-a-damn-hurry (a guess, half of Max Stupid) | Max Stupid Error (looking through scope diagonally, lots of scope shadow, barely being able to see center crosshair, sliver of light. NOT A GUESS, FROM RO PODCAST.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AKA: Mr. Sniper LPVO | AKA: “Shit I’m getting shot at!” | AKA: Fell down a well, upside down, one handed | |
| 150yds | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 300 | 3mm / 0.1181102362”lol or ~ 1/8” | 6mm / ~0.25” | 12mm / ~0.5” |
| 450 | 6mm / ~0.25” | 12mm / ~0.5” | 24mm / ~1.0” |
| 600 | 9mm / ~0.35” | 18mm / 0.71” | 36mm / 1.4” |
| 750 | 12mm / ~0.5” | 24mm / ~1.0” | 48mm / 1.9” |
| 900 | 15mm / 0.6” | 30mm / 1.18” | 60mm / 2.4” |
I suck at math, so I took this from about 25min at this link (Dave @Feniks Technologies / @Dthomas3523 was on this too)
For those who don’t want to bother listening, the Max-Fell-Down-A-Well parallax error is calc like this: parallax is set at X yds. For every X yds further, add 1/2 of objective diameter.
Perhaps my assumptions of “reasonable error” are off here, but even at Max Stupid Error at 600yds I can deal with a potential 1.4” error when shooting something as small as a damn prairie dog.
Note that I often shoot pdogs from a well’s bottom, upside down, and with one hand.
This isn’t even getting into hyperfocal stuff, which you can’t typically find on a scope’s specs without calling the manufacturer. I’m hazy here.
To sum up:
- Would side focus be nice? Yes.
- Would lockable side focus be better? Yes.
- Do these things add weight? Yes.
- Will the same people who demand these features bitch and moan about weight? Yes.
- Does it really matter, from an “hitting what I want to hit” perspective? No*
Edit: in that podcast it was also noted that contrary to popular belief, parallax error affects people’s emotions more at close ranges, like 100 yds. I think the example was if you left your scope set at 750yds and shot at 100yds, you’d notice.
The actual error isn’t a huge number, but errors magnify their importance in your brain at close ranges. Why? Because you want the tightest group to see how good your barrel (& skills) are.
But, of course, if you’re off at 100yds and you base a lot of your dope on that, then a small error here might get magnified. I can’t figure out the potential errors at 100 (only 50yds less than the parallax is set at) but my intuition tells me it’s not gonna be much. Could be wrong, though.
*Excepting you benchrest fags lol
Last edited:
Add a thermal clip-on and re-calculate!
***From the benchrest fags to the knuckle draggers with love
...I want 40x zoom
...I want true 1x Aimpoint daylight bright
...I want a Tremor reticle that's visible at 1x but not busy at 40x
...I want all the trimmings with unlimited travel and parallax from my muzzle to infinity
...I want it all to be under 16 ounces and short
...I want a generous eye box, FOV and eye relief
Given I've pretty well spoken my mind here, from now on, when I hear people bitching about not being able to do not-LPVO shit with LPVO's my only response will be:
"Spaulding, get your foot off the boat!"
Last edited:
@dms416
This is a really helpful definition, and I think that you're on to something with what you are stating above, and it's notable that you mention that the niche is there and is untapped/misunderstood. I tend to agree with you, however I also think that we are seeing a TTP rennaissance in terms of the inclusion of RDS on magnified optic-equipped (specifically LPVOs with 8x or 10x max magnification) rifles. To me, this trend is an extension of the Elcan/ACOG trend, and is a welcome concept largely due to the fact that people are looking at optic height over bore in context to their applications, in addition to different zero-ranges, and figuring out what works best for their specific needs. If anything, this resurgent trend is helping push some really good conversations about what sighting systems really are/should be, and for what kinds of rifles/applications as well.
The more that I look at it and discuss it with people, the more that I think that conversations such as these are helping to unseat some really stale concepts and inferior products that are prevalent in the industry (BDC-reticles [within relative context without manufacturer-listed MRAD or MOA subtensions on a spec-sheet] being one of them, with the associated "giving linear values to someone using an angular-value for reference" being another major one).
Then again, I'm also the type of person who would rather give up velocity and barrel-length on a practical-use gun and equip it with the right optics and accessories to extend its' useable range (such as by having a great reticle and good glass/eyebox coupled with an RDS) well beyond what we would typically consider a shorter-barrelled rifle "capable" of achieving. I am reasonably confident that, as more 6-something milimeter calibers become even more popular and widespread in AR-pattern rifles, generalized setup above will continue to gain interest. I also believe that, for 5.56, the rationale also still holds water by comparison to other approaches for the "ya never know" rifle. Will it be heavy by comparison to other choices? Probably, but there's no free lunch, and again, use case, training philosophies, and end-user experience/capability factor heavily into "the choice".
In my opinion though, the pink-squishy bit behind the machine is typically where more time, effort, and resources should be committed as opposed to pouring RDT&E dollars into techno-wizardry theoretical pipe dreams that either fail as programs based on being too ambitious, or get caught in project purgatory because they are overly complex and difficult to implement, but that is a conversation that's outside the scope of this one. Long story short, I personally would prefer many gradual, incremental improvements to existing systems with a strong RDT&E development cycle to support adoption and improvement, rather than grandiose "greenfield" projects that end up competing with existing systems and causing the things that matter -the end users- to not receive proper continued high-quality training to use any system that they have available to accomplish their objectives. That investment is extremely intangible, and, in Western societies, where many things are measured by quantified metrics and in reaosnably tangible, objective terms, it is typically rare -outside of certain very specific organizations or individuals- to foster an environment where investment in people is made a priority over investing in new widgets to enhance capability.
This is a really helpful definition, and I think that you're on to something with what you are stating above, and it's notable that you mention that the niche is there and is untapped/misunderstood. I tend to agree with you, however I also think that we are seeing a TTP rennaissance in terms of the inclusion of RDS on magnified optic-equipped (specifically LPVOs with 8x or 10x max magnification) rifles. To me, this trend is an extension of the Elcan/ACOG trend, and is a welcome concept largely due to the fact that people are looking at optic height over bore in context to their applications, in addition to different zero-ranges, and figuring out what works best for their specific needs. If anything, this resurgent trend is helping push some really good conversations about what sighting systems really are/should be, and for what kinds of rifles/applications as well.
The more that I look at it and discuss it with people, the more that I think that conversations such as these are helping to unseat some really stale concepts and inferior products that are prevalent in the industry (BDC-reticles [within relative context without manufacturer-listed MRAD or MOA subtensions on a spec-sheet] being one of them, with the associated "giving linear values to someone using an angular-value for reference" being another major one).
Then again, I'm also the type of person who would rather give up velocity and barrel-length on a practical-use gun and equip it with the right optics and accessories to extend its' useable range (such as by having a great reticle and good glass/eyebox coupled with an RDS) well beyond what we would typically consider a shorter-barrelled rifle "capable" of achieving. I am reasonably confident that, as more 6-something milimeter calibers become even more popular and widespread in AR-pattern rifles, generalized setup above will continue to gain interest. I also believe that, for 5.56, the rationale also still holds water by comparison to other approaches for the "ya never know" rifle. Will it be heavy by comparison to other choices? Probably, but there's no free lunch, and again, use case, training philosophies, and end-user experience/capability factor heavily into "the choice".
In my opinion though, the pink-squishy bit behind the machine is typically where more time, effort, and resources should be committed as opposed to pouring RDT&E dollars into techno-wizardry theoretical pipe dreams that either fail as programs based on being too ambitious, or get caught in project purgatory because they are overly complex and difficult to implement, but that is a conversation that's outside the scope of this one. Long story short, I personally would prefer many gradual, incremental improvements to existing systems with a strong RDT&E development cycle to support adoption and improvement, rather than grandiose "greenfield" projects that end up competing with existing systems and causing the things that matter -the end users- to not receive proper continued high-quality training to use any system that they have available to accomplish their objectives. That investment is extremely intangible, and, in Western societies, where many things are measured by quantified metrics and in reaosnably tangible, objective terms, it is typically rare -outside of certain very specific organizations or individuals- to foster an environment where investment in people is made a priority over investing in new widgets to enhance capability.
Funny you mention the whole locking mechanism as a "detent"; this potential feature has been something that myself and others view as intriguing and potentially quite useful in context. Definitely not for everyone, but on a 1-8 or a 1-10 LPVO, this certainly has merit in my eyes.
A detent would be very useful for all FFP side focus scopes and for all scopes (incl. SFP) mag rings too, as a quick reference, especially in low light.
For the mag ring on a SFP scope, a detent at the magnification in which the reticle is calculated at would be sorta-invaluable. Add another detent at half that mag too for half-holds.
Example: 4-24x52mm Leupold VX6HD with varmint reticle, which has calc wind holds/drop at 18x (I think). Add a detent on the mag ring at 18x and at 9x (maybe each feel different).
Public Service Announcement
I added a little to the bottom of my prev post about close range parallax errors.
I added a little to the bottom of my prev post about close range parallax errors.
I outright got ridiculed the first time I showed up with an RMR in conjunction with my LPVO. As you noted it's not anything "new"...just a re-evaluation of the idea with other equipment.
My first thought in seeing this is that the 1-10 LPVO is going to throttle the overall capability; a decent tactical MPVO would be the ticket :
Then of course there's this fucking combo. 6x LPVO on top of a pig:
In regards to "short" barrels. I watched a guy with a Colt monolithic upper that was 10.3 or 11.5" struggle through a course for a day with his 4x ACOG. TD2 he used the instructor's Mk5HD and mRDS combo and not only did he become competitive, this SOB beat me out on the last day with the last drill/test to keep me from sweeping ALL the swag that weekend. I always found that interesting that despite his obvious ballistic limitations, the optic was the game-changer. Looked silly as all hell though....
My first thought in seeing this is that the 1-10 LPVO is going to throttle the overall capability; a decent tactical MPVO would be the ticket :
Then of course there's this fucking combo. 6x LPVO on top of a pig:
In regards to "short" barrels. I watched a guy with a Colt monolithic upper that was 10.3 or 11.5" struggle through a course for a day with his 4x ACOG. TD2 he used the instructor's Mk5HD and mRDS combo and not only did he become competitive, this SOB beat me out on the last day with the last drill/test to keep me from sweeping ALL the swag that weekend. I always found that interesting that despite his obvious ballistic limitations, the optic was the game-changer. Looked silly as all hell though....
Last edited:
Public Service Announcement #2
Please check my math and listen to the math in the link. I truly suck at math.
In the previous version of the table I made, I believe I actually made the parallax errors look worse than they are. I fixed it now, so now the errors are even more minuscule.
But please check. I can be a math idiot.
Please check my math and listen to the math in the link. I truly suck at math.
In the previous version of the table I made, I believe I actually made the parallax errors look worse than they are. I fixed it now, so now the errors are even more minuscule.
But please check. I can be a math idiot.
IIRC they said it sucked for shooting groups at 100 because of the MATH. EG... 24mm of error at 100yds is ± 1MOA..and this sucks for groups...(and hence ego)
Of course, this also suck for setting zero...
AFAIK its the same reason you don't zero at 25m, with a 50m min parallax setting... because...the POI error sucks.
Yeah, what I’m getting at is not the absolute error (because I am not sure how the calculation scales down from 150yds, only up). Suck at math, right? I’m cautious of muh brain.IIRC they said it sucked for shooting groups at 100 because of the MATH. EG... 24mm of error at 100yds is ± 1MOA..and this sucks for groups...(and hence ego)
Of course, this also suck for setting zero...
AFAIK its the same reason you don't zero at 25m, with a 50m min parallax setting... because...the POI error sucks.
What I’m getting at is a small absolute error at 100yds feels way, way, way worse than a large absolute error at 1000yds.
But if one shoots for groups at 100yds in the fashion of: Max Stupid Error - Fell down a well, upside down, one handed…
…that person has more issues that are beyond the “scope” of this post (ha!).
I'll be the first person to say that, for low-light, I really prefer tactile refrences generally, and a mild detent would be a great concept for that specific use case... on the side focus in addition to magnification.
Regarding SFP, there are some really cool things that you can do in practice once you understand the inverse relationship between subtension values and magnification on SFP optics, and it's totally under-rated by many shooters who have been led to believe that FFP is the only solution for precision optics.
It's funny how a lot of this stuff has high applicability now, especially with lots of interest in "passive aiming" over the past years.
I saw this too, and I thought something similar. Actually, the S&B 3-20x50 PM II Ultra Short appears to fit a lot of the criteria that you've defined as an MPVO, and with a mounted RDS you would have an exceptionally capable platform. Again, a lot of the discussion here has taken years to come to a head because of the human element and a lack of proliferated knowledge about the principles behind hitting targets at a distance being applied towards product development.
100% this. I experienced a similar ass-kicking at from someone years ago who was running a 1-4 LPVO with a BDC reticle out to 400m and the rest of us had some sort of RDS/magnifier combination, and that was an eye-opener. Talk about humbling when you can actually experience the performance gap for yourself. Needless to say, validated results and data made a lot of us magically begin to give LPVO and any sort of optic with a semi-decent reticle a really hard look.
That must have looked hilarious, but if it worked, then it worked, and the results speak for themselves.
louder for those in the back?
I'm nowhere near an expert, but I've basically made something like this by creating a little leaf-spring with beveled edges that sits on my LPVO's magnification ring. it's not exact, but learning how many "clicks" of the mag ring equals a given power has saved me a bunch of clock time in 2-gun competition, and would be a great asset for future designs. I feel the same way about that as I do push/pull locking turrets. why everything doesn't have them I have no idea.
as far as parallax on an LPVO? I think many here have hit the nail on the head. those looking for that are really wanting an "MPVO" for lack of a better term. I was in that camp myself, until I got a chance to use a nightforce NX8 2.5-20, which really checks most of the boxes as far as having something usable from close to far. if you want 1x wide fov just use a good reflex dot set over the scope or on a canted mount.
Currently saving for an NX8 2-20 of my own, pricey, but haven't found anything with the same feature set
Damn genius! Lol
Aural feedback is sorely underrated.
Got a pic? Assume it’s an FFP LPVO?
I'll snag a pic once I'm done the version 2, the V1 prototype looks like a hog's ass of bare metal.
Sadly not sure if the approach will work for everything, the scope I'm using it on is a 1-10 SFP Arrowhead from Swampfox. the aggressive texturing on the magnification ring is what allowed me to get away with it.
The only LPVO I have with adjustable parallax is my WOA 1-4.5x for service rifle. It largely makes it easier to practice off-hand at 25 yards. But also, for competition I’ll remove every variable I can, to include a possible inch variance at 600.
Parallax adjustment on most LPVOs would be kind of pointless. But I do think it could come in handy when you start stretching the upper magnification ranges of LPVOs. Not for POI error, but to obtain crisper focus at further distances on the high (10x) magnification.
Parallax adjustment on most LPVOs would be kind of pointless. But I do think it could come in handy when you start stretching the upper magnification ranges of LPVOs. Not for POI error, but to obtain crisper focus at further distances on the high (10x) magnification.
You threw me off a bit haha! You’re responding to this post in another thread.
Since you do indeed have an LPVO with side focus, instead of wondering about theory, set it at, oh, 150yds & go out and try your best to induce parallax error with it at different ranges and magnifications. Note focus and DOF issues too.
Look through it sideways, barely glimpsing the center crosshairs, scope shadowing everywhere. Shoot and record.
Then shoot it at the same distance on a bench, being really careful to center your eye.
My calcs from that Leupold guy may indeed not tell the full story. The Dark Lord that is the @koshkin may descend at any time, ghostlike, cloaked in mist, and further elucidate.
But so many LPVO bitchers complain about theory, the “what ifs?”, Instead of seeing what the eff really is the difference?
Edit: basically, I take from the Leupold guy that if you’re not the “fell down the well” sort of shooter, the error is small enough that it gets lost in other factors, like wind. Spend time concentrating on more impt stuff.
Last edited:
The parallax adjustment for 25 yard practice is pretty proven to be helpful. But I could get some data next time I bring that rifle to the range.
But the problem with testing further out is that a very slightly off wind call at 600 with 5.56 would ruin the experiment. I could check visually to see if the 4.5x is strong enough to see the movement at 600, whenever the season starts up again. But really, this LPVO is for a very specific competition purpose. If adjusting the parallax saves me that inch or whatever, if I make the mistake of having an off sight alignment, and keeps me in the 10 ring instead of the 9, it’s worth it. It’s reduction of variables.
That said, I can’t see any other good CONOPS where a 1-4/6/8 LPVO would benefit from parallax adjustment. Start getting into the 10x top end and depending on the design of the optic, I could see the adjustment being useful to some people for focus needs at the very least.
I must’ve been editing while you replied…I added wind etc in the post under “edit.”
Tell us more about 25yd practice.
Just re-read your reply. Just so we’re clear, the example the Leupold dude gave was having a parallax setting that is way way way way off in the distance (~750yds), and then shooting close range.
This scenario matters.
The (relative) opposite scenario, having a 150yd parallax setting and shooting way way way way off in the distance (900yds) doesn’t matter as much.
I should repeat that my chart is based on that single Leupold guy on the podcast and some guesses.
I could be dead wrong. The Leupold guy could be a hack. I have no idea. But the fact that he appeared on a Rifles’s Only podcast and the host agreed with him seems to have merit.
I found a parallax calculator here (at LeylendWest Insurance?? Wtf) that gives some different numbers…I don’t know why.
Optic questions always seem to be mired in a veil of confusion. I’m sure @koshkin will weigh in.
Last edited:
A few things:
1. No one is suggesting that EVERY LPVO should have parallax adjustment. Its just something some of us would like for certain applications. Obviously that application would not include the average LPVO user who is doing most of his shooting at <100yds and only occasionally taking longer shots.
2. The point of parallax adjustment in this application isn't really to reduce parallax error (thats a nice bonus), its to act as a focus, for better target ID, making out target from background, etc.
This advantage is probably not going to be very apparent when shooting at large steel plates in an open field, but would be when trying to resolve a camouflaged target against a background.
Consider this comparison between a PA 2.5-10 and the Vortex 1-10. Surely having adjustable parallax had some part in the advantage the MPVO has over the LPVO at 600yds?
1. No one is suggesting that EVERY LPVO should have parallax adjustment. Its just something some of us would like for certain applications. Obviously that application would not include the average LPVO user who is doing most of his shooting at <100yds and only occasionally taking longer shots.
2. The point of parallax adjustment in this application isn't really to reduce parallax error (thats a nice bonus), its to act as a focus, for better target ID, making out target from background, etc.
This advantage is probably not going to be very apparent when shooting at large steel plates in an open field, but would be when trying to resolve a camouflaged target against a background.
Consider this comparison between a PA 2.5-10 and the Vortex 1-10. Surely having adjustable parallax had some part in the advantage the MPVO has over the LPVO at 600yds?
For me, my main rifle is a 16" 5.56 which I built to be able to exploit the maximum capability of the 5.56 cartridge, to give up as little as possible to other rifles from 7M out to 600M. I have a PA GlX 2.5-10 with an offset red dot, set up in such a way that the red dot is my primary method of aiming, with the scope being secondary for when more precision is needed.
It would be pretty cool if there was a 1-10 LPVO out there that weighed the same as my 2.5-10 and was just as usable at 10X. I'm pretty sure that would require an adjustable parallax. As stated above this would be mainly for the use as a focus adjustment for resolving targets against the background, not so much because the actual parallax error might cause me to miss a shot.
If such a scope did exist it would give me a backup 1X optic in case the red dot goes down (most of my shooting is with the red dot). So, in my application, such an LPVO would be used just the opposite as most LPVO's: it would be shot magnified most of the time, with the ability to go down to 1X as a backup or for niche situations such as odd shooting positions where the red dot is not ideal.
It would be pretty cool if there was a 1-10 LPVO out there that weighed the same as my 2.5-10 and was just as usable at 10X. I'm pretty sure that would require an adjustable parallax. As stated above this would be mainly for the use as a focus adjustment for resolving targets against the background, not so much because the actual parallax error might cause me to miss a shot.
If such a scope did exist it would give me a backup 1X optic in case the red dot goes down (most of my shooting is with the red dot). So, in my application, such an LPVO would be used just the opposite as most LPVO's: it would be shot magnified most of the time, with the ability to go down to 1X as a backup or for niche situations such as odd shooting positions where the red dot is not ideal.
I'm not sure we're watching the same video. At max rez available to me (1080p) I cannot see any real difference in target ID (or much else) the two scopes when he looks across the lake.
The kicker is when he adjusts the PA's parallax (at 3:10) from 50 to 600 he admits he can't see any difference at all.
This is also where he also says things that indicate he is gauging everything by the video shot through the scopes vs him looking through the scopes with his naked eye at the time of filming!
Holy moly!
Screen grab at 1080p above. We can't gauge much from pictures through scopes, man. Certainly not color.
With your naked eye, if the two scopes have equal quality, raw resolution comparo's will be thrown off by the PA's much larger front objective (24mm vs 44mm), not by parallax.
Everything else being equal, larger front objectives allow for more resolution, at least from what I've read.
Correct me if I'm wrong about how he analyzed the scopes (through video or via his naked eye), as I can't bear to watch any more of this guy.
I'm getting the vibe that you should just buy any old 3-15x or 2.5-15x (or maybe a 2.5-20x50 NX8) and mount a offset mRDS to it. See below from a dude in this thread that says he is/was an LE sniper (don't know him):
I can hear it now…"That'd be too heavy!!!" lol Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick.
I swear the Mr. Sniper LPVO types are resistant to, well, any argument at all.
They want what they want. Irritated they can't have it. Insistent that they'd buy it if they could. Complains when it costs too much. Yells from the rooftops at the weight.
Kind of like arguing about barrel cleaning methods with the dude who just insists his bore to be cleaner than the day he bought it as he scrubs actual 0.002” of metal out of it.
Is there an overlap?
Last edited:
Comparing scope image through a camera is far from ideal.
And the larger front objective determines the light coming in, which can result in better “resolution”, if we want to use that term in analog optics. But what also does affect resolution is parallax adjustment to focus the image. And this is more apparent the higher magnification you go. That can’t be done on the LPVO. Though, it’s usually not as necessary since a 24mm objective optic will have a wider depth of field than a 44mm objective, all other optic design aspects being equal. It is also usually not necessary on an LPVO because of the lower magnifications.
I like to practice my offhand (standing unsupported) service rifle stage at 25 yards because it provides quick turn around during sessions. And I can use the range 24/7. But, shooting up close has a greater effect on parallax error than distance shooting. It’s the reason why air gun shooters need low parallax adjustment in their optics.
Absolutely the scenario matters. But I’ll say again that parallax adjustment is about more than parallax error. It is also about focus, which becomes more important the higher the magnification and also the greater the objective lens. Or… in some other cases with unique configurations like the March 1-10 shorty.
Yup, I’ve used the Leylend calculator a lot. But I’m still pretty sure that magnification level matters.
March 1-10 or the new 1.5-15 is what you seek
Edit: oops didn’t realize how old this thread was…
That calculator is generally almost accurate. The calculation does not take into effect the size of the eye pupil and image defocus, but aside from that, it is pretty good.
Honestly, with LPVOs, the bigger problem is image defocus than outright paralla, although both are measurable.
I have not listened to the podcast, so I have no idea which Leupold guy was there (would you happen to recall the name?) and whether he knows what he is talking about. I would assume he does, but it never hurts to know who we are talking about.
Honesty, if you are not looking to do close range dry practice on high magnification, LPVOs should be focused form the factory at hyperfocal distance of the objective lens and some are. Some are just focused at infinity. That means they will not be perfectly parallax free at 100 yards, but it is not benchrest guns these go on.
My original Razor Gen3 1-10x24, for example, was set to be parallax free at 300 yards, so 10x is not optimally sharp inside of 100 yards, but for my purposes, it makes no difference. I've even considered trying to convince one of the manufacturers to do a "Dark Lord Special" run of LPVOs with a reticle I want and parallax set at 300 for true general purpose DMR use, but it is very hard to gauge how much interest there would be and very hard to convince the manufacturers who are backordered with the SKUs they have. Maybe some day.
ILya
I would buy the Dark Lord Special!!! As long as it isn’t a CCP manufactured scope. Would love to see ATI do this, but more likely you’d be able convince Primary Arms since this kind of thing seems up their alley.
Also, how’d you get Vortex to set a 1-10 at 300 instead of default parallax? If Vortex will do this through their VIP service that would put the Gen3 back on my list…
Anyone else ever notice that the parallax adjustment from 10==>50 (or whatever your min parallax is) is huge, but from 500==>infinity is negligible? That’s a hint. People arguing against math and physics is fucking comical. Parallax error becomes increasingly insignificant as the target distance increases.
Do LPVOs need a focus knob? IDK. How do fixed parallax scopes maintain good focus across a wide range?
Do LPVOs need a focus knob? IDK. How do fixed parallax scopes maintain good focus across a wide range?
I have unnatural powers of persuasion.... It involves sacrificing a meth-addicted virgin albino goat.
As far as Primary Arms goes, while they are certainly capable of doing that, I would be very hesitant to approach them with something like that. ACSS reticle line is such an incredible brand for them that I do not think it would make any business sense for them to go with anyone else's reticle.
For me, on the other hand, it would be counter intuitive to do a "Dark Lord Special" without using my own reticle ideas. I do agree that doing it on a PLxC platform would be extremely tempting. I really like those scopes.
ILya
Given your experience with such a wide range of optics, they might welcome the collaboration as a new addition to the ACSS reticle line instead of a one-off special. if they could get a 1-10 PLx going with a good reticle it would put them in even more serious competition with vortex than they already are.
March already has a side focus and I doubt I can generate numbers that would move the needle for Vortex.
I am sure I'll come up with something eventually.
ILya
Similar threads
