Page 3 of 54 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 537

Thread: NEW Leupold LCO optic

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,762
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    I'm with WS6 on this.
    There is a difference, depending on precision expectation.
    In my case, I found that it prevented me from getting a good zero from the prone using M193 at 100. I had always thought Aimpoint = See the dot, see the target, G2G!

    I fired a group at 100 yards and it was off to the left about 3". So, I gingerly cranked in 3 clicks, and fired another. It was to the right 3" and a bit down. Huh? Kyle Lamb approached me about it and I told the same to him. He told me to flip the front BUIS up, and put the dot on top of the post for each shot. Somehow, magically, I was able to zero it after firing the next group, saw that it had NOT moved 6" from 3 clicks, and learned that a sacred cow of mine had met its demise.

    I have learned over and over and over and OVER again so many times it makes my head hurt how different the real world is from my medical text books, or from product descriptions, or from what "logic" dictates something should be. I'm still 28, and still learning that lesson. I just can't stress enough how much one can learn from doing, or listening to those who have done, that can't be found in print, and can't be derived from product advertisement literature.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    2MOA dot or 4? You must remember that your true point or aim is the center of the for an that can be misjudged. A carbine shooting 3 MOA ammo with a 4 MOA dot isn't expected to shoot within the point of aim.

    I don't really shoot groups with red dots few ineptly, they aren't for precision shooting but for speed.

    I really haven't had much of an issue, but I typically had a fixed front sight anyway. My best 5 round group shot zeroing was half MOA. I use the dot as dim as possible and use a six o'clock hold.

    I'm still not sure what you think an etched reticle will accomplish. Parallax will be worse. Sight picture is critical with an etched (or wire) reticle, it may just be easier for some guys to judge a sight picture.

    If group shooting is important, you've over chosen wrong optic anyway and that 1x etched reticle you desire won't fix it. You'll just need to pay that weight penalty.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    698
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    Why 1x if it's not going to be parallax-free? Why not 1-4x or something like that?

    Even with astigmatism, does the Aimpoint really hinder your ability to out rounds on target? My T1 dot looks like a spider, but I've managed to make hits on 18" plates to 700+.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    No scope or red dot is truly parallax free


    As to etched versus red dot or holographic-
    All 3 are in focus at infinity aka does nit matter where your head is behind the scope, it (reticle) should be in focus. The difference is eye relief. Basically all riflescopes have a definite eye relief including the prismatic.
    Last edited by teutonicpolymer; 10-13-14 at 15:58.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by teutonicpolymer View Post
    No scope or red dot is truly parallax free


    As to etched versus red dot or holographic-
    All 3 are in focus at infinity aka does nit matter where your head is behind the scope, it (reticle) should be in focus. The difference is eye relief. Basically all riflescopes have a definite eye relief including the prismatic.
    Dude read the thread.

    And reticle in focus has NOTHING to so with parallax.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    698
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    Dude read the thread.

    And reticle in focus has NOTHING to so with parallax.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Not what I was saying

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    You said it. If you are going to nitpick my post without reading the whole thread where it was already addressed, I'll do it back to you. Aimpoints are "relatively" parallax free. I believe it's parallax free at something like 25 or 50, and has minimal impact on ability to put rounds on target.

    Focus is something entirely unrelated to parallax. Aimpoint, Eotech, etc have no way to adjust focus. Focus isn't set for a range. Focus is typically set at the eyepiece, parallax on the side or at the objective.


    Typically an etched reticle or wire for that matter, will be set to be parallax-free at 75, 100, or 150 yards. The focus, an entirely different adjustment, will either be done via a lock-ring or fast-focus eyepiece. My S&B and Zeiss are fast-focus, whereas Leupold and NF have the lock ring.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,618
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    You said it. If you are going to nitpick my post without reading the whole thread where it was already addressed, I'll do it back to you. Aimpoints are "relatively" parallax free. I believe it's parallax free at something like 25 or 50, and has minimal impact on ability to put rounds on target.
    Focus is something entirely unrelated to parallax. Aimpoint, Eotech, etc have no way to adjust focus. Focus isn't set for a range. Focus is typically set at the eyepiece, parallax on the side or at the objective.
    Typically an etched reticle or wire for that matter, will be set to be parallax-free at 75, 100, or 150 yards. The focus, an entirely different adjustment, will either be done via a lock-ring or fast-focus eyepiece. My S&B and Zeiss are fast-focus, whereas Leupold and NF have the lock ring.
    In magnifying optics, parallax and focus are inherently related - there are two different images, the target image and the reticle image. They must be focused at the same plane or else parallax results (and one of them will be out of focus to your eye). All magnifying scopes have a reticle focus adjustment, at the eyepiece, which lets you set the scope for your own eyes, and it is essential to do so. Some scopes, either lower magnification or cheaper, have fixed focus for the target, which also means fixed parallax (as that term is used for magnifying scopes). Depending on the scope's intended use that fixed focus might be at 15-25 yards for airgun use, typically 50 for rimfire scopes, 50 or 75 for shotgun scopes, and 100 for most scopes intended for centerfire rifles, although a few are set for farther (my Zeiss Conquest 3-9x is marked as being set for 300, although my testing of it suggests it is set somewhat shorter than that). Higher magnification scopes of quality have adjustable target focus / parallax, usually a knob on the left side of the saddle, sometimes a variable objective (generally lower priced scopes but also one or two nicer ones), or most rarely, a rear focus (seen on SWFA SS fixed-power scopes). With these, you first adjust the ocular for your eye, then you adjust the target focus for the target image. With both properly focused, you eliminate parallax for the target on which you focused.

    Red dots work completely differently, as no target image is formed inside the tube - the tube is essentially a clear glass for viewing the target, except for having an angled and curved piece of glass with a coating that reflects the wavelength of the LED used (typically red, but Trijicon uses other colors in their fiber-optic/Tritium reflex sights). Since no target image is formed, there is nothing to focus there - your parallax depends entirely on the setup of the light emitter and the curved, angled reflector. I'm not the most qualified to explain, but in general larger sized RDS (longer tube for greater distance from emitter to reflector, and larger diameter reflector) will have less of a parallax issue. I've experienced the parallax shift of the Aimpoint H1, which is why I don't own one any more and drifted towards 1-4x type scopes (I still have a 30mm Aimpoint).

    And EOTech works differently still with a holographic system, which I will not attempt to explain.

    In short - magnifying scopes always have some potential parallax, but it can be eliminated by focusing. RDS have some parallax in all cases, but it's often too small to matter, particularly for their intended use.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Congratulations for more or less repeating what I said.

    My 3-9x conquest says in the literature 100 yards, however the tech told me 75.

    You are wrong in that "focus" eliminates parallax. It simply isn't true. Target image and reticle being on the same focal plane, as you identify, is where parallax is eliminated.

    This occurs without consideration of the reticle or the image being in focus. It's quite common for the image to be clear and "in focus" yet parallax to be present. Conversely, it is common for parallax to be eliminated, yet the image or the reticle to be out of focus. This happens to me quite frequently in precision rifle matches, depending on atmospheric conditions.

    Here is a quick google article to explain it for you. Note they specifically explain not to confuse focus and parallax:

    http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/unde...ting-parallax/




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,618
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    Congratulations for more or less repeating what I said.
    My 3-9x conquest says in the literature 100 yards, however the tech told me 75.
    You are wrong in that "focus" eliminates parallax. It simply isn't true. Target image and reticle being on the same focal plane, as you identify, is where parallax is eliminated.
    This occurs without consideration of the reticle or the image being in focus. It's quite common for the image to be clear and "in focus" yet parallax to be present. Conversely, it is common for parallax to be eliminated, yet the image or the reticle to be out of focus. This happens to me quite frequently in precision rifle matches, depending on atmospheric conditions.
    Here is a quick google article to explain it for you. Note they specifically explain not to confuse focus and parallax:
    http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/unde...ting-parallax/
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Seriously, this kind of insulting and useless response? Coming from someone whose signature claims that M4C is becoming Arfcom? If it is, you are driving the bus.

    Anyway, you either don't understand the subject or you can't write in a way to make yourself understood. You are really good at insulting everyone else though. The underside of my Conquest is marked as having parallax set at 300 yards. Perhaps yours is different, but it's marked on the scope itself.
    Last edited by SomeOtherGuy; 10-14-14 at 10:40.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    Seriously, this kind of insulting and useless response? Coming from someone whose signature claims that M4C is becoming Arfcom? If it is, you are driving the bus.

    Anyway, you either don't understand the subject or you can't write in a way to make yourself understood. You are really good at insulting everyone else though. The underside of my Conquest is marked as having parallax set at 300 yards. Perhaps yours is different, but it's marked on the scope itself.
    What insult did I provide? You quoted me, basically said the same thing as me, then told me I was wrong.

    I didn't say your conquest isn't set to 300. I simply said what mine is according to the literature, and that the rep that repaired it said it was wrong.

    Now you tell me I don't understand the subject. Please, source me to credible information that says focus and parallax elimination are synonymous. I've found eliminated parallax time and time again with out of focus images.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 3 of 54 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •