Parallax focus

[HowieG]

Maybe you've been lucky but if you take this rhetoric to RimfireCentral, you'll hear the same story. I would NEVER put a centerfire scope on a rimfire that didn't have adjustable parallax. It is absolutely an issue, I have absolutely seen it but what I do I know, I only have 70 of them.

And I'm not talking about gun shop myth and legend. Rather information from folks like John Lachuk who had a .44 magnum wildcat before Elmer Keith bugged S&W about it. Proven through experience. It's almost laughable that this is a foreign concept to any serious shooter.

I don't have any scopes on 22RF rifles. I just never have seen the point. I came up shooting them with iron sights and I still do.

 

[Varminterror]

I don't have any scopes on 22RF rifles. I just never have seen the point.

You’ve been doing this way too long without asking your 22’s to do very many REALLY FUN things.

 

[CraigC]

I still love shooting with iron sights and have a few dedicated to them but many of my hunting handguns have scopes on them. Eyesight ain't what it used to be either.

 

[HowieG]

You’ve been doing this way too long without asking your 22’s to do very many REALLY FUN things.

Such as?

 

[wiscoaster]

.... It's almost laughable that this is a foreign concept to any serious shooter.

Maybe the difference is due to intended use - what you define as a "serious shooter". Technically, yes, a fixed-focus scope will have parallax error at any range other than its fixed-focus range. My POV is that for the average "recreational shooter" it's irrelevant, and to spend the extra money to be book-correct instead of pragmatically acceptable is just a waste of money. I've got something like a dozen scopes and only one of them has a parallax adjustment, and that one is mounted on a rifle set up for long-range precision shooting. I stand by my opinion that a 100-yd fixed-focus scope is just fine and acceptable for all recreational shooting uses and rifles, and if I can hit a two-inch steel at 100 yds with such a scope, so can anyone else with a decent rifle and a little practice, because I don't consider myself a "serious" shooter by any stretch.

 

[JEBruns]

I don't have any scopes on 22RF rifles. I just never have seen the point. I came up shooting them with iron sights and I still do.

I hope your vision always allows you to do so. I used to say the same thing. But now that my eyes are in their 6th decade, optics are required to maintain the accuracy I desire.

 

[CraigC]

One of my iron sight rifles:



Some don't even come with iron sights. When it came time to remodel my old 541, I ditched the centerfire 4x in favor of a variable with AO.



You'll never shoot bugholes like this at 50yds with parallax set to 100-150yds.



Even long range scopes like this Vortex will focus down to rimfire ranges.



For some rifles the Leupold rimfire special 4x is perfect.

 

[wiscoaster]

.....But now that my eyes are in their 6th decade, optics are required to maintain the accuracy I desire.

I'm older than you are, cataracts onset, presbyopia, etc ... and I still shoot iron sights. Actually prefer irons and red dots under 100 yds. And have been able to hit steel at 200 yds with irons. So I don't know. Eyesight is a weak excuse. You use what you've got and do the best you can with that. I'll bet you're under-rating yourself. Everybody over a "certain age" has got eyesight issues.

 

[CraigC]

Maybe the difference is due to intended use - what you define as a "serious shooter". Technically, yes, a fixed-focus scope will have parallax error at any range other than its fixed-focus range. My POV is that for the average "recreational shooter" it's irrelevant, and to spend the extra money to be book-correct instead of pragmatically acceptable is just a waste of money. I've got something like a dozen scopes and only one of them has a parallax adjustment, and that one is mounted on a rifle set up for long-range precision shooting. I stand by my opinion that a 100-yd fixed-focus scope is just fine and acceptable for all recreational shooting uses and rifles, and if I can hit a two-inch steel at 100 yds with such a scope, so can anyone else with a decent rifle and a little practice, because I don't consider myself a "serious" shooter by any stretch.

Parallax can make accurate shooting frustrating for anyone. I 100% disagree that either using a dedicated rimfire scope on a rimfire rifle or one with an AO is a waste of money. You don't have to be a benchrest shooter to see it. A squirrel's brain is a small target and parallax can make hitting it inconsistent. What you chalk up as just a miss may very well be the result of parallax error. I'd suggest you get out there and find out exactly how much error you may be experiencing before deeming it acceptable. IMHO, you can't even properly bench test a rifle if the parallax setting is that far off.

 

[HowieG]

I hope your vision always allows you to do so. I used to say the same thing. But now that my eyes are in their 6th decade, optics are required to maintain the accuracy I desire.

I'm 68.

 

[CraigC]

Post #15 goes into the changing parallax error at different magnifications.

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=504844

 

[HowieG]

Maybe the difference is due to intended use - what you define as a "serious shooter". Technically, yes, a fixed-focus scope will have parallax error at any range other than its fixed-focus range. My POV is that for the average "recreational shooter" it's irrelevant, and to spend the extra money to be book-correct instead of pragmatically acceptable is just a waste of money. I've got something like a dozen scopes and only one of them has a parallax adjustment, and that one is mounted on a rifle set up for long-range precision shooting. I stand by my opinion that a 100-yd fixed-focus scope is just fine and acceptable for all recreational shooting uses and rifles, and if I can hit a two-inch steel at 100 yds with such a scope, so can anyone else with a decent rifle and a little practice, because I don't consider myself a "serious" shooter by any stretch.

I agree with you completely. I have two scopes with parallax adjustment. One in on a long range precision rifle (side focus). The other is on my varmint rife (AO). That being said, if I did have a scope on a 22RF (I don't), it would be a low power rimfire scope without AO or SF and parallax adjusted out at 50 yards (typical for RF scopes).

 

[JEBruns]

I'm 68.

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

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

 

[someguy2800]

Maybe the difference is due to intended use - what you define as a "serious shooter". Technically, yes, a fixed-focus scope will have parallax error at any range other than its fixed-focus range. My POV is that for the average "recreational shooter" it's irrelevant, and to spend the extra money to be book-correct instead of pragmatically acceptable is just a waste of money. I've got something like a dozen scopes and only one of them has a parallax adjustment, and that one is mounted on a rifle set up for long-range precision shooting. I stand by my opinion that a 100-yd fixed-focus scope is just fine and acceptable for all recreational shooting uses and rifles, and if I can hit a two-inch steel at 100 yds with such a scope, so can anyone else with a decent rifle and a little practice, because I don't consider myself a "serious" shooter by any stretch.

I do have plenty of rifles that I have much lower expectations of precision for, but for any of my serious rifle builds, if any of them shot 2 inch groups at 100 yards I would probably throw them in the river. When you are trying to shoot .5 moa groups, dealing with an moa of parallax error is a big deal. If the goal is just to shoot deer in the woods or milk jugs on a dirt berm then not going to make much difference.

 

[JFrank]

A couple more pages and we should have this figured out.

 

[someguy2800]

I'm only 35 and optics are an absolute requirement for me to do any sort of precision shooting because I am pretty badly nearsighted. I can't make any reasonable use of buckhorn sights past like 25 yards. Military sights are better for me and peep sights much better yet. I have 6 iron sighted rifles and I still enjoy shooting them a lot, but I have to compensate for my eyesight by using targets large enough to see and painted contrasting colors so that I can make them out while the front sight is in focus and nothing else. Still fun, but if its actually important for me to hit something past 50 yards smaller than about 6 moa, then I need a scope to do it.

 

[HowieG]

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

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

I hear you, but what do you think the old timers did back in the 1890s? Just quit shooting? No, adapt and overcome. My vision ain't as good as it used to be, but I can still tell where the sights are. You don't do anything as good when you are old as you did when you were young. Fact of life. Except maybe Miculek. He is 67 and a freak of nature. Actually, even he isn't quite as good as he was. And he wears glasses. I have watched him win three gun matches by pure intimidation. The other shooters go "OOOOOOHHHHH, Miculek" and they start missing. The point is, I am not trying to maintain my youth. I see death on his horse in the not so far distance now. I am having what fun I can have for the condition I am in, and I am fine with that. When I can't do something any longer, I'll do something else.

 

[HowieG]

I'm only 35 and optics are an absolute requirement for me to do any sort of precision shooting because I am pretty badly nearsighted. I can't make any reasonable use of buckhorn sights past like 25 yards. Military sights are better for me and peep sights much better yet. I have 6 iron sighted rifles and I still enjoy shooting them a lot, but I have to compensate for my eyesight by using targets large enough to see and painted contrasting colors so that I can make them out while the front sight is in focus and nothing else. Still fun, but if its actually important for me to hit something past 50 yards smaller than about 6 moa, then I need a scope to do it.

Can you say LASIK?

 

[someguy2800]

Can you say LASIK?

I have considered it now that it has gotten much cheaper but my vision is 20/20 out to about 15 feet so it doesn't really present much of a problem in my daily life.

 

[HowieG]

I do have plenty of rifles that I have much lower expectations of precision for, but for any of my serious rifle builds, if any of them shot 2 inch groups at 100 yards I would probably throw them in the river. When you are trying to shoot .5 moa groups, dealing with an moa of parallax error is a big deal. If the goal is just to shoot deer in the woods or milk jugs on a dirt berm then not going to make much difference.

Two five round .75 inch groups at 100 yards. Cooper M54 22/250 with a regular old Leupold VX-II 3-9x40mm scope. It will do that all day long unless I flinch or swat a bug. I am not as steady as I used to be. If you have a decent scope and you focus your reticle properly against a light background, and you have decent technique, you don't have to worry about parallax inside 400 yards.

View attachment 1048120

 

[someguy2800]

Two five round .75 inch groups at 100 yards. Cooper M54 22/250 with a regular old Leupold VX-II 3-9x40mm scope. It will do that all day long unless I flinch or swat a bug. I am not as steady as I used to be. If you have a decent scope and you focus your reticle properly against a light background, and you have decent technique, you don't have to worry about parallax inside 400 yards.

View attachment 1048120

Now prove it to us by shooting the same .75 moa group at 400 yards prone with no parallax compensation.

 

[HowieG]

Now prove it to us by shooting the same .75 moa group at 400 yards prone with no parallax compensation.

Why don't you prove to me that you can't do it. Have you tried?

 

[CraigC]

Good Lord. I spewed the same rhetoric about iron sights for years. Then about 2 years ago I started having to wear reading glasses and all of a sudden, what everyone had been saying started to make sense. Yeah, I can shoot iron sights "good enough" for whatever iron sighted guns are good for. The fact remains that when you're off the square range and in the woods, optics not only extend your shooting light, they make precise shot placement much more reliable.

 

[someguy2800]

Why don't you prove to me that you can't do it. Have you tried?

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

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

 

[HowieG]

Good Lord. I spewed the same rhetoric about iron sights for years. Then about 2 years ago I started having to wear reading glasses and all of a sudden, what everyone had been saying started to make sense. Yeah, I can shoot iron sights "good enough" for whatever iron sighted guns are good for. The fact remains that when you're off the square range and in the woods, optics not only extend your shooting light, they make precise shot placement much more reliable.

Yep. No argument there. I also wear reading glasses. I have a cataract in my right eye. Will have to have surgery at some point. Anyway, I don't shoot iron sights on the square range. My current iron sight rifles are 22RF and 32-20. I'm not hunting Mr. Buck at the butt crack of twilight with those. If I am shooting a wheel gun, I have problems because the front sight is closer to me. What I do is use clear shooting glasses with a +1.50 correction. Then I can see the sights fine, but the target is a bit fuzzy. That works fine at wheel gun ranges. If I was doing actual self defense, I would squint, point and shoot. Minute of bad guy.