Rifle Scopes Why do you think an adjustable parallax feature is needed on LPVOs? ? ?

[Terry Cross]

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 mounted on 5.56 rifles used as loaners on certain blocks of class work. They have been performing excellently. Obviously they do not have adjustable parallax.

I just put both rifles in a tripod and tried to see what the observable parallax was at different distances. Both scopes were set at 8x which should have maximized any parallax between target image and reticle. My 2 scopes seem to be factory set for zero parallax somewhere around 100 - 125yds with little or no observable shifting. Maybe someone that knows for sure could chime in with what the factory setting is on these.

When viewing objects in the 50 to 65yd range, there was parallax present but very minor. I'm guessing around 1.5-2 MOA at most (remember that 2MOA is only about an inch at 50yds).

I saw zero reason to check closer than 50yds because I cannot think of even a remote reason why a user would have an LPVO cranked to 8X (or 6X or 10X whatever your top end is) at closer ranges. I don't give a shit what parallax is present in these sights at 1X and inside 50yds.

When viewing objects at 250 to 550yds, the parallax was once again present but seemed to be no more than 1 to 1.5 MOA at most. This is with very exaggerated shifts in head position from one side of the eye box to the other to the point of having no view.

These are LPVOs and meant to ride on carbines, so I didn't attempt to observe anything past 550yds even though I could lase out to 2,740.

To add an adjustable parallax feature into these type scopes, the design would have to incorporate a good bit more moving parts that would increase the cost/sale price, increase potential failure points because of the additional external knob, increase potential vacuum leak points and increase weight.

Having an adjustable parallax on this type scope/rifle combo throws the opportunity for the user to have the damned thing adjusted completely on the opposite end of what is needed if the rifle were needed to be deployed in a hurry (remember it's a carbine/battle rifle not a "sniper rifle".)

All of this in an optical sight that we are already asking to be combat tough, reliable and affordable. To me the ATACR, Razors and NX series of LPVOs are the top of the food chain in delivering a usable optic across wide spectrums of use and abuse. Both families of optics have the covered and low profile turrets, basic reticles and minimalistic exteriors that help keep them bomb proof.

When taken in the context of the text in bold above, I personally don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze in adding an adjustable parallax feature to this class of scope. In fact, I would consider it a negative.

Convince me otherwise...

./

 

[wigwamitus]

I got an NXS 2.5-10x MIL-R a couple of years ago. The selection process included the requirement for parallax adjustment (and zero stop). After shooting this scope for several months, I realized the range of adjustment required to parallax at 100yds, versus in the field (500, 800 yds etc) was tiny ... and essentially was unnecessary. I've now removed the requirement for parallax from this class of scope going forward. I call them "DMR Scopes" but that's just a character string ... the archetype might be a 3-9x Mil-something. But most of my scopes in this category are 2-10x these days with 2 of the 4 being FFP and 2 of the 4 being SFP. Two of them have parallax and two do not (the last two purchased do not - thus reflecting the relaxing of the parallax knob requirement).
So my rationale for not needing parallax adjustment for this class of scope is based on my use of these scopes both for groups at 100yds and in the field for critter control (generally under 500yds, mostly under 300yds - at night) or wind practice (under 800yds). These are on Mk12 556(18) or Mk-11-ish 762(20) rifles.

FYI the scopes I have in this class, in order of acquisition

NXS 2.5-10x Mil-R (SFP/Parallax)

VO 2-10x EB4 (FFP/Parallax)

L&S MK4 2.5-8x TMR (SFP/ no parallax)

Trijicon Credo 2-10x Mil-Tree (FFP/ no parallax)

 

[Choid]

I hate the idea of parallax on an lpvo. The one, and only, reason is that the likelihood of being on 700 when I want 35 is exactly what is going to happen to me. I've used the ATACR 1-8 to pretty quickly run KYL racks where the smallest target is 1/2 moa at 400 yards. I don't know that I would ever use it for something that would be harder on a no parallax scope.

Likewise, I regularly use no parallax Swaros while hunting. From 75-500 they are fine. A little shitty from 75 in, but come on. But same deal, they give you what you need and don't ever leave you exactly where you don't want to be.

 

[Evolution 9]

“Considering what their basic space in the tool box is cut out to be”

That’s the issue right there. We don’t all agree on what that space is meant to be.

1. Some want a 1x sight with the ability to crank up to 8x in rare circumstances. The focus is on close range engagement.

2. Some want the opposite. They want an SPR scope that can dial down to 1x when needed. The focus is on precision. These are the guys who want parallax adjustment.

3. Some guys want a Jack of all trades scope and don’t have a preference for which end of the spectrum is optimized.

I fit in the #2 category.

You don’t want the adjustment and you have good reasons for that. I do, and I have good reasons for that.

You already have the scope you want. I’m glad.

Now us category 2 people want the scope we want. Be glad for us if we get it.

I have an ATACR 1-8 with the new X reticle and love it. I’ll ALSO get another one with adjustment if Nightforce produces it.

It’s not one or the other. If companies make LPVOs with adjustment you can still buy what you want.

 

[Terry Cross]

Thanks for the reply @Choid and @wigwamitus .

A ton of good precision shooting was accomplished for years before adjustable parallax became a common thing on the bigger scopes. Good fundamentals certainly minimize the effect.
That is why attention to head position and "shadowing" was such a huge deal in sniper classes.

./

 

[Terry Cross]

“Considering what their basic space in the tool box is cut out to be”

That’s the issue right there. We don’t all agree on what that space is meant to be.

1. Some want a 1x sight with the ability to crank up to 8x in rare circumstances. The focus is on close range engagement.

2. Some want the opposite. They want an SPR scope that can dial down to 1x when needed. The focus is on precision. These are the guys who want parallax adjustment.

3. Some guys want a Jack of all trades scope and don’t have a preference for which end of the spectrum is optimized.

I fit in the #2 category.

You don’t want the adjustment and you have good reasons for that. I do, and I have good reasons for that.

You already have the scope you want. I’m glad.

Now us category 2 people want the scope we want. Be glad for us if we get it.

I have an ATACR 1-8 with the new X reticle and love it. I’ll ALSO get another one with adjustment if Nightforce produces it.

It’s not one or the other. If companies make LPVOs with adjustment you can still buy what you want.

Understood.

My thinking was people in your #2 category would be happy with min X in the 2.5-3 range and bigger than 10X on the max end while putting it on rifles and calibers that could take advantage of an adjustable parallax feature. Most I know go the route of an RDS mounted around the those scopes for close, in your face knife fight scenarios.

Thanks for the input.

./

 

[Choid]

Thanks for the reply @Choid and @wigwamitus .

A ton of good precision shooting was accomplished for years before adjustable parallax became a common thing on the bigger scopes. Good fundamentals certainly minimize the effect.
That is why attention to head position and "shadowing" was such a huge deal in sniper classes.

./

When did adjustable parallax become the norm?

 

[Evolution 9]

Yes, I’ve been very pleased with a 2.5-10 and a 45 degree T2.
I will say that so far, the ATACR 1-8 hasn’t held me back to the limits of my 77 grain TMKs.

 

[jeffl838]

I read the OP but haven't read the other posts. Will read them when I get some time and reply if I have more thoughts.

I've been asking for adjustable parallax on a 1-8 for years. You can probably dig into my SH history and find like 100 mentions where I'm basically begging for it. I don't really want it for parallax error compensation, as much as I want it for side focus. The ATACR has such nice nice glass, and it's a shame that I can't refine the image. At 300m, I start having issues resolving fine details in the target picture. Is that the purpose of these 1-6 or 1-8's? Absolutely not, and that's why I don't hate on them. I'm asking for a different product with different capabilities and limitations.

I would also really appreciate a larger objective for a larger exit pupil at higher magnifications. Which might exaggerate the parallax error potential a bit (but probably not by all that much).

Which brings me to the low end magnification. I personally don't care about true 1 power that much. I'd be happy with a 1.5-10x32 ffp with adjustable parallax. But no one makes one except for USO and everyone says it sucks. I would even settle for fixed 200-300m parallax like the SR scopes are fixed at

Tl;dr, I want a mid-2000's spr style sniper optic with a lower mag on the bottom end because I would really appreciate super wfov and better dusk/dawn use. What I really like about to 1-8 atacr that I would like to carry over to this hypothetical spr optic would be the capped but usable turrets, the illumination, and the throw lever.

EDIT: I would also really appreciate LOCKING parallax.

 

[Choid]

Maybe the best compromise would be an adjustable parallax with a stiff detent at 100 so you could just snap it back into place.

 

[Terry Cross]

When did adjustable parallax become the norm?

If you are referring to the LE arena I would say it was creeping in starting in the 80's and 90's with the adjustable objective scopes. Leupy had several in their LE line that started sporting that feature. We saw lots of movement from the little 1" tube 3.5-10 VX-III that had fixed parallax right after that.

Certainly some scopes prior to that time had adjustable parallax including Unertl, US Optics and others but they were very scarce in LE circles. I believe most of the adjustable scopes lived on benchrest rifles, long range target rifles and varmint guns prior to the 80's.

Keep in mind, my reply to you and all my other comments are bounded by my own experience only. I am no expert historian on any of this.

./

 

[jeffl838]

Maybe the best compromise would be an adjustable parallax with a stiff detent at 100 so you could just snap it back into place.

I don't think that's a compromise at all, because the advantage of having fixed parallax is a significantly more simple machine. If anything, having a stiff detent feature (like turret clicks) would further complicate the design. That being said, I like the idea

 

[wigwamitus]

... 3. Some guys want a Jack of all trades scope and don’t have a preference for which end of the spectrum is optimized ...

I think I fit into your #3 category.

While I shoot the vast majority of my rounds downrange from 100yds - groups and dots - working on fundamentals ... I rate the importance of my other two activities equally together with the groups and dots.
Critter control (primarily at night, defending chickens and calves from predators) ... I shoot the least amount of rounds downrange with this activity, but it is still very important. Every calf is worth ~ $1,000. And the chickens provide eggs - and during periods like initial C-19 times when for months there were essentially no eggs ... and avoiding town was a thing - the chickens showed their value to us - and we resolved never to be chickenless !
Wind practice is what I call shooting at distance ... generally 500-1,050yds (though there's a gap in my ability to shoot between 805 and 1,022 yds due to the lay of the land ... but I can shoot on one stage from 424yds to 804yds ... and then jump to 1,022yds to 1,058yds ... I don't challenge the "DMR scope" to shoot beyond 804yds as mostly they are on 5.56(18) rifles anyway. Wind calling is the primary attribute of this practice. So I call it "Wind Practice". But I rate it as equally important to critter control and groups and dots. All are equally important !!

 

[jeffl838]

I really want to add that I'm not shitting on the 1-8's at all. I'm asking for something different, not for something more. I think I must have bought one of the first ones.

@wig, I think with a clip on is where the atacr and other 1-8/1-10's really really shine, since focus is done at the clip on

 

[Choid]

Keep in mind, my reply to you and all my other comments are bounded by my own experience only. I am no expert historian on any of this.

./

Yes, but you are old, and have a reputation for wisdom.

 

[Terry Cross]

I really want to add that I'm not shitting on the 1-8's at all. I'm asking for something different, not for something more. I think I must have bought one of the first ones.

Not taking it negative at all sir.
Let me set the tone for this thread that I may should have added at the 1st post.....

I fully realize that some of the thinking shared in this thread will be a lot like religion.
You feel strongly about it and have it justified in your mind. That is cool and I don't want anybody fucking with anybody else over their own preferences.

I am pretty damned hard set in my thinking on this just like my religion and my patriotism so it's going to take serious challenges to my logic or great boobies. I'm willing to look at both.

So keep it civil, have a good debate and hopefully we can understand different ways other digest what we see and think.


./

 

[jeffl838]

Not taking it negative at all sir.
Let me set the tone for this thread that I may should have added at the 1st post.....

I fully realize that some of the thinking shared in this thread will be a lot like religion.
You feel strongly about it and have it justified in your mind. That is cool and I don't want anybody fucking with anybody else over their own preferences.

I am pretty damned hard set in my thinking on this just like my religion and my patriotism so it's going to take serious challenges to my logic or great boobies. I'm willing to look at both.

So keep it civil and hopefully we can understand different ways other digest what we see and think.


./

Right on. I said it more for dudes on the fence about the atacr that might read it and teeter onto the negative side. The atacr is bad ass and everyone needs 2.

 

[CBDR]

I have yet to pull the trigger on a LPVO.
Call me unwilling to learn how to use a new tool.
3 x 18 Kahles on a (5.56) AR
4 x 16 ZCO on a (6.5G) AR
Are my night time hunting optics.
I realize I am getting off topic here with regards to MR Cross's original post.
Do I consider parallax a factor on shooting out to 400m, absolutely.
My challenge is ranging in the dark which then leads to adjusting to the correct parallax.
Do I zoom up my magnification or down, depends.
Pop up hogs can be as close as 25m or a 400m coyote on the move.
Things have a way of unfolding at the drop of a hat for me after dark in the swamp.

R/
Constant
Bearing
Decreasing
Range

 

[LRRPF52]

If I was only looking at 5.56 even shooting higher BC bullets like 77gr TMK, I still wouldn’t really care on an LPVO and would generally be happy with 1-6x or 1-8x that already exist.

Some of the major factors that make things different for me are where I live regionally, with lots of mountains, open spaces, dry climate, lots of dirt, high altitude, and the fact that I shoot a lot of 6.5 Grendel from smaller and smaller firearms.

The main thing that attracts me to LPVOs is not that you can put them on 1x, (although this is great for the house/HD/vehicle), but that several of the really good ones are more compact and have excellent FOV, unlike many smaller 2-7x/2.5-X rifle scopes.

Several LPVOs have sucky FOV even within the same company compared to their 1-4x models.

My priority list for an LPVO goes like this:

1. Reliable under harsh conditions and extended high volume semi-auto shooting schedules over many years

2. Clear glass that lets me see what is out there enough to detect TGTs, resolve them, and focus on them

3. A practical reticle that doesn’t require a lot of thinking, but is intuitive in getting me quickly into engaging at various ranges. I’ve gravitated to the stadia/tree designs with a preference for the new GRSC reticle that goes down to 1200yds for 16” 175gr SMK, which basically mimics 123gr Grendel.

4. Forgiving exit pupil under most magnification settings in the lower range. There are some 1-4s I have that are just superb in presenting a total picture of what’s in the TGT area looking at Exit Pupil and FOV combined, whereas when the ball is dropped in either of these specs, the scope just doesn’t lend itself to me really liking it.

5. If the scope is mounted on 6.5 Grendel, 6mm AR(C), 6.5CM, .260 Rem, or .308 Win, I really like to be able to set the focus quickly like a precision rifle scope when engaging at 500-1200yds. 500yds is pretty boring with any of them, but smaller TGTs get increased hit probability with proper use of side focus. So far, not many LPVOs have SF that I’m aware of. This is the area that sets me and those like me apart, particularly when you combine those 2 factors of regional terrain being open, and LR-capable chamberings in the AR-15.

For those that say these longer-range cartridges are better served with typical 4-15x56, 3-15x50, 5-25x56 scopes, I’m talking about much shorter or lighter rifles/carbines/even pistols that will reach out with 900yd+ supersonic reach and fairly minimal wind deflection. In my regional conditions/elevations, a 12” Grendel stays supersonic much farther than you might expect, so you get a very compact platform with comparable and better hit probability than .308 Win at distance, much of which has to do with twist rate.

6. Daylight visible illumination is a nice-to-have that is now becoming a baseline on the higher end optics where you can use them as an RDS on 1x.

7. I’m leaning more on capped, low-profile turrets that can be left un-capped and used like TGT turrets, without the insane height seen on some scopes that interferes with overall FOV, while presenting snag/smash hazards.

I understand that my wish list might not match up with a 3-Gun guy shooting .223 Wylde with ranges mostly in the 15-50yd region, with some stages that go out to 400yds.

For many shooting LPVOs, the 1x CQB capability is a major focus with an equal emphasis on being able to perform in a DMR-type role as well, but most will not be shooting past 500yds with 5.56 much due to hit probability.

I’ve been shooting to 1000yds and farther with 10x for decades with older glass that has nowhere near the optical clarity of some of these new LPVOs from the companies mentioned in the OP. My Razor 1-10 Gen III has beautiful glass/optical clarity for example, and I feel it out-performs many of the legacy dedicated sniper scopes we had easily, while being able to match the practical performance of an Aimpoint in CQM. That’s a huge capability shift. The only area the Gen III Razor doesn’t compete with some of the legacy sniper optics is....side focus.

TL/DR: I want the .22LR footprint with .50 BMG ballistics of scopes. The technology is getting to the point where we’re much closer to that than ever before, with LPVOs already bypassing the capabilities of many legacy sniper optics while matching RDSs for close range. One area missing is SF on LPVOs for the farther distances for cartridges that can benefit from that feature.

 

[Denys]

If you start with the premise that it’s all about parallax, then there is really no need for an adjustment on an LPVO. As we all know, the formula for calculating the maximum parallax error is dependent on the diameter of the objective lens (D), the range to target (R) and the fixed parallax (or focus distance) setting of the scope (P). The parallax error has absolutely nothing to do with magnification.

Error in mm = (0.5 x D x ( ABS (R-P))/P

If you want to change to inches, multiply the result by 0.0394.

For instance, in a 24mm objective with the focus set at 100 yards, the parallax error goes from 0.47 inches at 200 yards to 4.2 inches at 1000 yards. Big deal. Of course, if you insist on really not getting anywhere properly behind the scope, those parallax figures can grow. But I figure that when you’re trying to shoot at a target at 1000 yards, you’re not doing it standing upside down; you might even be trying to do a good job.

But I don’t view the side focus as a parallax adjustment, I view it as what it is, a focusing tool to be used to get the best possible image, and that’s where things get convoluted. In a low power scope, with a small objective, the depth of field of the image is immense. Things only seem to get out of focus when they are VERY close. It’s almost like the focus is good from 20-30 yards to infinity. I would think most fixed focus scopes are set for about 100-130 yards or thereabouts.

The DOF is very much influenced by the magnification and a DOF calculator will show that for 100 yards, with a circle of confusion set at .02mm, the acceptable DOF at 1X should run from 23 feet to infinity. At 8X, that changes to 250 feet to 360 feet, again for the 100 yard (300 feet).

This means that as the magnification grows, the DOF shrinks but the parallax error remains the same. For folks like me who value the image quality (IQ) very highly, then a side focus is critical at higher magnifications. When I shoot at longer distance using a higher magnification with, for instance the March 1-10X24, with the dual focal plane reticle, I appreciate a nice clean picture of the target. I started to shoot F-class at 1000 yards with an old Nikon Tactical 2.5-10X44 in 2006 and I appreciated the side focus on that Nikon. When you spend a lot of time looking at that target, you appreciate a crisp picture.

It really does depend on how you use the scope. I completely agree that if your use of the LPVO is at low mags most of the time, and rarely above 5X or 6X, no side focus is required. On the other hand if you spend most of your time above 5X or 6X and only occasionally come down to 1X or so, then a side focus is definitely appreciated.

 

[Terry Cross]

The parallax error has absolutely nothing to do with magnification.

No argument there. In my opening post, I should have stated that I used the scopes at 8X to maximize my ability to visibly discern the error when moving my head behind the scope.

For instance, in a 24mm objective with the focus set at 100 yards, the parallax error goes from 0.47 inches at 200 yards to 4.2 inches at 1000 yards. Big deal. Of course, if you insist on really not getting anywhere properly behind the scope, those parallax figures can grow. But I figure that when you’re trying to shoot at a target at 1000 yards, you’re not doing it standing upside down; you might even be trying to do a good job.

Ok. Learning moment for me please.

Would it be true to state that if your eye is mechanically/optically centered in the exit pupil of the scope, there would be no shift between the reticle plane and the target plane?

Would it be true to state that if the above is true, the degree of parallax shift between the two planes is slaved to the degree of your eye's movement away from that optical center of the exit pupil?

./

 

[Aftermath]

I am pretty damned hard set in my thinking on this just like my religion and my patriotism so it's going to take serious challenges to my logic or great boobies. I'm willing to look at both.

You know what they say about boobs?
If you've seen one, you've seen them both.

 

[Denys]

The formula that I posted above is used to calculate the maximum theoretical error in parallax. So you are absolutely correct in your thinking; if you are lined up well behind the scope, the parallax error is drastically reduced. If you are lined up perfectly, there should be no parallax error.

 

[308pirate]

LPVOs are, for me, 1X sights with the ability to temporarily go up in magnification and that are zeroed at a distance that will give max point blank range. It should be self evident why I don't care to have a parallax adjustment in them

 

[Denys]

I read the OP but haven't read the other posts. Will read them when I get some time and reply if I have more thoughts.

I've been asking for adjustable parallax on a 1-8 for years. You can probably dig into my SH history and find like 100 mentions where I'm basically begging for it. I don't really want it for parallax error compensation, as much as I want it for side focus. The ATACR has such nice nice glass, and it's a shame that I can't refine the image. At 300m, I start having issues resolving fine details in the target picture. Is that the purpose of these 1-6 or 1-8's? Absolutely not, and that's why I don't hate on them. I'm asking for a different product with different capabilities and limitations.

I would also really appreciate a larger objective for a larger exit pupil at higher magnifications. Which might exaggerate the parallax error potential a bit (but probably not by all that much).

Which brings me to the low end magnification. I personally don't care about true 1 power that much. I'd be happy with a 1.5-10x32 ffp with adjustable parallax. But no one makes one except for USO and everyone says it sucks. I would even settle for fixed 200-300m parallax like the SR scopes are fixed at

Tl;dr, I want a mid-2000's spr style sniper optic with a lower mag on the bottom end because I would really appreciate super wfov and better dusk/dawn use. What I really like about to 1-8 atacr that I would like to carry over to this hypothetical spr optic would be the capped but usable turrets, the illumination, and the throw lever.

EDIT: I would also really appreciate LOCKING parallax.

I'm responding to the bolded section above.

At the low end of magnification on these LPVOs, it is my understanding that it is difficult to make a 1X scope with an objective lens that is larger that the ID of the main tube. Zoshkin explains it better than I can in some of his highly informative videos, but that's pretty much the way it is with very low magnification scopes. March did bring out a 1.5-15X42, yep with a 42mm objective but they had to design a new objective lens portion of the scope to accomplish this. I think the other ones that I have seen in the under 2X magnification have a 32mm objective but don't quote me on that.

 

[Terry Cross]

The formula that I posted above is used to calculate the maximum theoretical error in parallax. So you are absolutely correct in your thinking; if you are lined up well behind the scope, the parallax error is drastically reduced. If you are lined up perfectly, there should be no parallax error.

Ok. Cool.

Reason I wanted to clarify is because when I read your statement :

Quote - - "For instance, in a 24mm objective with the focus set at 100 yards, the parallax error goes from 0.47 inches at 200 yards to 4.2 inches at 1000 yards. Big deal. Of course, if you insist on really not getting anywhere properly behind the scope, those parallax figures can grow."

I didn't understand at what point your values reached those shown.
When I read that, I am led to believe that the 0.47" and 4.2" values are reached at some point of your eye being out of perfect alignment but "those parallax figures can grow" if you push further off axis.

So I am asking whether those two example values are max error or are they at some median point between zero and max offset?

./

 

[Denys]

Those numbers are the maximum theoretical parallax error. This is what you would get if you were not positioned perfectly behind the scope, but you still got a complete picture. My additional point, which you underlined, addresses the cases where you are really out of whack and actually only see a portion of the picture. In other words, you're doing this on purpose.

 

[Terry Cross]

Understood.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Listened to one of the precision shooter podcasts and they had a very knowledgeable Leupold guy on and his explination is that paralax is only really a factor at close ranges, other than that its a focus knob.

 

[fdkay]

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 mounted on 5.56 rifles used as loaners on certain blocks of class work. They have been performing excellently. Obviously they do not have adjustable parallax.

I just put both rifles in a tripod and tried to see what the observable parallax was at different distances. Both scopes were set at 8x which should have maximized any parallax between target image and reticle. My 2 scopes seem to be factory set for zero parallax somewhere around 100 - 125yds with little or no observable shifting. Maybe someone that knows for sure could chime in with what the factory setting is on these.

When viewing objects in the 50 to 65yd range, there was parallax present but very minor. I'm guessing around 1.5-2 MOA at most (remember that 2MOA is only about an inch at 50yds).

I saw zero reason to check closer than 50yds because I cannot think of even a remote reason why a user would have an LPVO cranked to 8X (or 6X or 10X whatever your top end is) at closer ranges. I don't give a shit what parallax is present in these sights at 1X and inside 50yds.

When viewing objects at 250 to 550yds, the parallax was once again present but seemed to be no more than 1 to 1.5 MOA at most. This is with very exaggerated shifts in head position from one side of the eye box to the other to the point of having no view.

These are LPVOs and meant to ride on carbines, so I didn't attempt to observe anything past 550yds even though I could lase out to 2,740.

To add an adjustable parallax feature into these type scopes, the design would have to incorporate a good bit more moving parts that would increase the cost/sale price, increase potential failure points because of the additional external knob, increase potential vacuum leak points and increase weight.

Having an adjustable parallax on this type scope/rifle combo throws the opportunity for the user to have the damned thing adjusted completely on the opposite end of what is needed if the rifle were needed to be deployed in a hurry (remember it's a carbine/battle rifle not a "sniper rifle".)

All of this in an optical sight that we are already asking to be combat tough, reliable and affordable. To me the ATACR, Razors and NX series of LPVOs are the top of the food chain in delivering a usable optic across wide spectrums of use and abuse. Both families of optics have the covered and low profile turrets, basic reticles and minimalistic exteriors that help keep them bomb proof.

When taken in the context of the text in bold above, I personally don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze in adding an adjustable parallax feature to this class of scope. In fact, I would consider it a negative.

Convince me otherwise...

./

Terry,
I sort of lump the folks that want parallax adjustment on LPVO's in the same category as those that want daylight bright illumination on their 5-25 long range scopes, as if they are going to use those for entry or short range engagements.
I have one 3-10 scope with parallax adjustment and one without. I don't know why I bothered with the adjustable one, though it is a dandy little scope.

 

[jeffl838]

At the low end of magnification on these LPVOs, it is my understanding that it is difficult to make a 1X scope with an objective lens that is larger that the ID of the main tube. Zoshkin explains it better than I can in some of his highly informative videos, but that's pretty much the way it is with very low magnification scopes. March did bring out a 1.5-15X42, yep with a 42mm objective but they had to design a new objective lens portion of the scope to accomplish this. I think the other ones that I have seen in the under 2X magnification have a 32mm objective but don't quote me on that.

Yeah, I totally get I'm asking for something very complicated.

Listened to one of the precision shooter podcasts and they had a very knowledgeable Leupold guy on and his explination is that paralax is only really a factor at close ranges, other than that its a focus knob.

That's not entirely true. If you have a large obj (56mm) have your parallax set to 100m-125m (like the atacr or an acog is fixed at) and are shooting at something 1000m away, you can have up a minute of parallax error. That's a maximum number in one direction, so if you want to think about 50% bad sight alignment in any direction, you're basically increasing your cone of fire by a minute. It's not a ton, but it's not insignificant. Especially if you're shooting off a not entirely stable position, and can't ensure perfect sight alignment from shot to shot.

Terry,
I sort of lump the folks that want parallax adjustment on LPVO's in the same category as those that want daylight bright illumination on their 5-25 long range scopes, as if they are going to use those for entry or short range engagements.
I have one 3-10 scope with parallax adjustment and one without. I don't know why I bothered with the adjustable one, though it is a dandy little scope.

Illumination is a nicety when used with night vision (but not entirely necessary)

 

[Evolution 9]

Listened to one of the precision shooter podcasts and they had a very knowledgeable Leupold guy on and his explination is that paralax is only really a factor at close ranges, other than that its a focus knob.

Has he actually ever shot a precision rifle?

 

[jeffl838]

Has he actually ever shot a precision rifle?

In terms of correcting for parallax error I don't think he's super far off base, especially for shooting larger targets. You're definitely removing a variable (which is good practice) by removing parallax error, but parallax error in comparison to the rest of your error variable is small.

 

[fdkay]

Yeah, I totally get I'm asking for something very complicated.

That's not entirely true. If you have a large obj (56mm) have your parallax set to 100m-125m (like the atacr or an acog is fixed at) and are shooting at something 1000m away, you can have up a minute of parallax error. That's a maximum number in one direction, so if you want to think about 50% bad sight alignment in any direction, you're basically increasing your cone of fire by a minute. It's not a ton, but it's not insignificant. Especially if you're shooting off a not entirely stable position, and can't ensure perfect sight alignment from shot to shot.



Illumination is a nicety when used with night vision (but not entirely necessary)

true, but you don't need or want daylight bright with NV

 

[10ring'r]

I'm a poor, so, there's that. But, my original scope I have on a 16" upper on my first AR, in 5.56, was a TruGlo 1x6. I still shoot it from time to time and also use it to hunt with. With it set at 1x or 6x, at 300 yards, whether at steel or paper, there is no target shift and since the ocular is adjusted for my eyes, the targets are clear/vivid. So, for a $110.00 scope & mount, I'm good with that. I don't run & gun, or, deal with a lot of climatic changes, so, that might make the difference, don't know. IMO, I think 1x4/6/8 mag. scopes are for the under 500 yd. club. I could be very wrong with this line of thinking, because, I've never taken one out past 400 yards. Maybe, I'll slap it on my 18" upper and attempt to use it at my next 600 yd. shoot, instead of my 5x25. Not arguing with any point, just my experience. Adjustable parallax is a good thing when reaching out, way out. Mac

 

[smoothy8500]

parallax error in comparison to the rest of your error variable is small.

You bring up a good point. Shooters have gotten used to the parallax knob on the bigger, higher-end scopes over the years and expect it on any scope they purchase. Years of NRA Highpower with irons hammered home the fundamentals of consistent cheekweld and NPA. When we transitioned to LPVO, the early models were all fixed parallax at around 200-300yds. Error was most notable at short distances such as 200 or even 100yd events. 600yds is not really an issue, unless you think a 1MOA X-ring is too generous. Honestly, I think as Tery Cross mentioned, the tool fits the expectation of the toolbox

 

[plt228]

It was the Modern Day Sniper Podcast. Don’t remember which episode

 

[stefan73]

true, but you don't need or want daylight bright with NV

I don't use an illuminated reticle at all with NV.

 

[jeffl838]

You bring up a good point. Shooters have gotten used to the parallax knob on the bigger, higher-end scopes over the years and expect it on any scope they purchase. Years of NRA Highpower with irons hammered home the fundamentals of consistent cheekweld and NPA. When we transitioned to LPVO, the early models were all fixed parallax at around 200-300yds. Error was most notable at short distances such as 200 or even 100yd events. 600yds is not really an issue, unless you think a 1MOA X-ring is too generous. Honestly, I think as Tery Cross mentioned, the tool fits the expectation of the toolbox

I'm on the side of wanting the knob, but for side focus not for parallax error. 8x is enough to be an almost-sniper optic, but you need side focus to refine image details at say 300m and beyond

I don't use an illuminated reticle at all with NV.

Worth giving it a shot. It's not necessary, it just looks nice (arguably the difference between gp and wp and wp has become the hotness), especially if you have it on black hot.

 

[stefan73]

My big thing is I like clarity. I like clarity from 5-however far I want to look and/or shoot. What gives me that clarity?

I don't believe my M3A has paralax adjustment but I could be wrong. I haven't used it in a while.

 

[FatBoy]

I think people are pressing LPVOs beyond the original intent. They were never meant to be precision rifle scopes. They were meat eaters, meant to put people to ground quickly and having fixed parallax and a nice, big SFP reticle fit the need. I believe they grew guys out of not wanting to stick a Dr. Optics on top of an ACOG 3” over bore so they made a 4x LPVO, to 6x. Then 8x and now 10x. 15 years ago 10x was NOT low power, it was a main sniper optic.

I love that we have the option, but I wonder if we too often get caught up in the gear and pushing the limits of our kit. Knowing the limits is important but so is discretion and situational awareness.

 

[stefan73]

I'm on the side of wanting the knob, but for side focus not for parallax error. 8x is enough to be an almost-sniper optic, but you need side focus to refine image details at say 300m and beyond


Worth giving it a shot. It's not necessary, it just looks nice (arguably the difference between gp and wp and wp has become the hotness), especially if you have it on black hot.

I'm not running thermals clipons so I don't have that big of an issue or any issue with my green tube.

 

[Denys]

I think people are pressing LPVOs beyond the original intent. They were never meant to be precision rifle scopes. They were meat eaters, meant to put people to ground quickly and having fixed parallax and a nice, big SFP reticle fit the need. I believe they grew guys out of not wanting to stick a Dr. Optics on top of an ACOG 3” over bore so they made a 4x LPVO, to 6x. Then 8x and now 10x. 15 years ago 10x was NOT low power, it was a main sniper optic.

I love that we have the option, but I wonder if we too often get caught up in the gear and pushing the limits of our kit. Knowing the limits is important but so is discretion and situational awareness.

Those are great points, however, it seems to be a human tendency to have a piece of gear to gain more capabilities in that one item. So can see this in smartphones, crossover vehicles, and on and on. Of course, at the extreme end of the capabilities, the do-all doesn't measure up to the specialized device, but it's not bad and can usually perform well enough at that end to make it useful.

For example, I would not create a presentation on a smartphone, but it's possible to create a lot of content. I'm much happier creating a presentation on my main system with my 49 inch 4K screen. However, that setup doesn't fit in my pocket. And as someone said earlier, it's all about the tool fitting the requirement. If you don't need or want a side focus on your LPVO, then don't get one. If you want to fit a Docter (spelling) Optics (now Noblex) on an ACOG, go for it.

I think it's fun having choices, and I know you would agree with that. In fact, I don't see any disagreements on this thread, just choices and reasons for those choices.

 

[scharfschutze762]

Terry,

Generally they are set at 100/125/150M, but for specific units they have also been set at 300M. Im not speaking on NF scopes in particular. I believe out the box the NF is 125M

The mission will dictate what parrallax range setting is better for that optic/shooter
I would have one sent back and have the parrallax set at a longer range and try it out vs the one set at 125m and see which one works better for your needs. Of course as you know it will be give and take.

 

[stefan73]

I think Terry started this based on a question I asked about looking at some different LPVO's. This is a lot of good information.

 

[Halfnutz]

It was the Modern Day Sniper Podcast. Don’t remember which episode

Rifles Only Accuracy Podcast season one episode 4 @ about the 24min mark.
Very good information straight from Leupold rep.

Parralax set at 150 the max you can be off at 300 is 1/2 the distance of the objective.

Once you get past the hyper focal distance (light beam is straight) the parallax becomes a focus knob.

 

[lash]

This has been a great thread, with opinions and information that I’ve enjoyed reading. Being nobody, but having an opinion like very one else, I’ve slowly found myself of the opinion that you buy the right tool for the job. So, for me1-6x for general use out to 300 or so. No parallax needed. For mid range or general hunting, the basic 3-9, or 2.5-10 fits the bill just fine. Longer range hunting is 3-15 or 4-20-ish. Right tool for the job.

My precision rifles typically have something starting in the 5-6 range and ending with e 24-30 range. Pure target or bullseye disciplines would necessitate different requirements.

 

[sinister]

The ACOG is fixed at 4 power. Hell for stout, it meets the requirements of about 99% of foot non-SOF infantry.

The 1-4X Schmidt-Bender gave CAG guys the first LPVO giving flexibility for a red-dot at CQB distance to 200-300 yards with a short-barreled carbine. You don't necessarily need parallax correction when your target's an E-type or stinky in man-jammies.

National Match shooters with Leupold 1.5-5, Vortex 1-4, and March 1-4.5s are competing to nail X- and 10-rings at 200, 300, and 600 yards. They're finding out a fixed parallax at 100, 125, or 200-300 yards is OK, but makes your head position critical at 600. The March allows you to take out parallax.

The 1-6 Razor, Viper, and SIG, and now 1-8 and 1-10s are still meant for guys carrying 11.5 to 14.5 carbines to hit the same targets that may be moving, running, hiding, or otherwise jinking so as not to be hit. They may not have the time or desire to dial in-and-out and monkey with parallax when they're multi-tasking while also trying not to BE hit.

 

[jeffl838]

I think the whole “warfighters need [this] for [that]” is a totally moot point. I don’t care what anyone else wants, I know what I want. I’ll hear out their opinions, but they likely won’t change my mind about this.

AMU requested that the nf sr scope be adjustable parallax. It wasn’t up to the shooters that the parallax be fixed.

The issue of monkeying around with parallax is moot if it’s a lockable turret. The biggest and most commonly occurring pro of carrying a magnified optic isn’t shooting people it’s observing and pid’ing. You make clearer observations and more positive identifications if you can focus your scope onto the target.

The acog and other prism scopes in my opinion are still some of the premier combat optics for their size and durability. What they give up is capability. There’s a give and take, acog vs razor is apples to oranges

 

[plt228]

@Halfnutz thanks for the correction. That’s what I get for using my memory instead of confirming before posting