NEW Leupold LCO optic

So...about that LCO...

1 MOA dot. Way better glass than an Eotech. Tactile adjustment knob like an Aimpoint. Soon to be sprung on the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelly neal

1 MOA dot. Way better glass than an Eotech. Tactile adjustment knob like an Aimpoint. Soon to be sprung on the world.

---

I am intrigued. Etched glass reticle?

Biggest advantage I see to the etched would be it works with the power off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tylerw02

Dude read the thread.
And reticle in focus has NOTHING to so with parallax.

---

Parallax explained. I think US Optics knows what they're doing, as does the owner of SWFA.

http://www.6mmbr.com/parallax.html

http://www.opticstalk.com/what-exact...topic5026.html

Also the CTD blog, which I didn't initially bother to look at given who CTD is, but you cited it, I finally looked, and my oh my its diagrams actually talk about FOCUS being an issue affecting parallax. Oh my yes.

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

I quote: "Parallax describes a situation where the focal plane of the object in the scope is offset from the reticle. If you have parallax, you have an optical illusion that must be corrected. Parallax should not be confused with focus. Parallax compensation changes neither the focus of the reticle nor the focus of the image; it simply moves the planes at which these two objects are in focus so that they share the same plane (are coindicent)."

By the way, part of their statement is incorrect, as the typical methods of parallax compensation do in fact change the focus of the target image.

If you're interested in Aimpoints or other red dot sights, here's the best explanation I've seen, which includes a discussion of actual parallax errors for certain RDS models:

http://www.bullseyepistol.com/dotsight.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelly neal

1 MOA dot. Way better glass than an Eotech. Tactile adjustment knob like an Aimpoint. Soon to be sprung on the world.

---

Wishing or fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy

Parallax explained. I think US Optics knows what they're doing, as does the owner of SWFA.

http://www.6mmbr.com/parallax.html

http://www.opticstalk.com/what-exact...topic5026.html

Also the CTD blog, which I didn't initially bother to look at given who CTD is, but you cited it, I finally looked, and my oh my its diagrams actually talk about FOCUS being an issue affecting parallax. Oh my yes.

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

I quote: "Parallax describes a situation where the focal plane of the object in the scope is offset from the reticle. If you have parallax, you have an optical illusion that must be corrected. Parallax should not be confused with focus. Parallax compensation changes neither the focus of the reticle nor the focus of the image; it simply moves the planes at which these two objects are in focus so that they share the same plane (are coindicent)."

By the way, part of their statement is incorrect, as the typical methods of parallax compensation do in fact change the focus of the target image.

If you're interested in Aimpoints or other red dot sights, here's the best explanation I've seen, which includes a discussion of actual parallax errors for certain RDS models:

http://www.bullseyepistol.com/dotsight.htm

---

Again none of those say the reticle, image, and focus are mutually exclusive.

Just because the image is on the same focal plane, does not mean the image will be "in focus".

It's a misnomer, no matter who says it, to say the image is in focus and therefore parallax has been eliminated. The only way to tell if parallax is eliminated is to so a bob-test and observe whether or not the reticles moves in relation to the target or not. It matters not it the image is blurry, fuzzy, or whatever you want to call "out of focus".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"• With some other brands of scopes we've tested it is difficult to achieve maximum target sharpness with near-zero parallax. There are many reasons for this, including sloppy production tolerances."

Lol there ya go, from US Optics in your own source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WS6

Wishing or fact?

---

Something tells me Kelly Neal might know a thing or two about this optic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KG_mauserman

Something tells me Kelly Neal might know a thing or two about this optic.

---

I dont know who they are and they offer no clues on profile. Help me out?

Btw...etched reticle...or no?