Service Rifle Scopes...

[XTR]

The Hi-Lux XTC 1-4x34

I have one. As noted above, it has not seen competition or testing yet. So far I've only used it with my SCATT system.


Creedmoor is also showing a new "KONUS XTC-30 RIFLE SCOPE" on their website.

 

[6BRLongRange]

The Hi-Lux XTC 1-4x34

I have one. As noted above, it has not seen competition or testing yet. So far I've only used it with my SCATT system.

Gotcha, i will follow along for your review when you get to try it.

 

[XTR]

When I get time I plan to put it on one of my F-TR rifles and take it to the range and run it through it's travel and see how it tracks.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

After reviewing the recent comments here, I can't help but wonder if parallax issues in a low magnification scope can be ignored, especially for top SR competitors who display excellent and repeatable marksmanship. I know the focus aspect is not a big deal because of the large depth of field of low mag scopes. I need to do some research on how much parallax can be observed in a 4.5X scope focused at say 100 or 200 yards, shooting at a 600 yard target.

 

[kzin]

After reviewing the recent comments here, I can't help but wonder if parallax issues in a low magnification scope can be ignored, especially for top SR competitors who display excellent and repeatable marksmanship. I know the focus aspect is not a big deal because of the large depth of field of low mag scopes. I need to do some research on how much parallax can be observed in a 4.5X scope focused at say 100 or 200 yards, shooting at a 600 yard target.

Still have the best source I found in my favorites.

http://rimfirebenchrest.com/articles/parallax.html

I think it is a few mm but how many points could that be?

quickly I get 1/3 of the objective size as maximum possible linear error * WRONG *
Hard to imagine any competitive shooter having his eye far enough from center to get close to maximum.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Still have the best source I found in my favorites.

http://rimfirebenchrest.com/articles/parallax.html

I think it is a few mm but how many points could that be?

quickly I get 1/3 of the objective size as maximum possible linear error
Hard to imagine any competitive shooter having his eye far enough from center to get close to maximum.

Thanks a lot for that link. I haven't time right now to read it completely and understand it but I see that magnification does indeed play a large and measurable role in calculating PE. We users of high mag scopes kinda sorta knew this intuitively. This really reinforces my thought that log mag scopes don't really suffer from PE and that explains why you just don't find an AO or an SF on most of these scopes. For SR purposes it's just not worth the expense, especially if you take a minimum of care lining up behind the scope.

Thanks again, and I have bookmarked the site.

 

[XTR]

I've seen the equation somewhere that defines parallax error. The objective size is a significant contributor, (i.e., bigger obj results in bigger error) Running the numbers for SR with a 25mm or 30mm obj, if you have your parallax set at 200 or 300, the error is pretty minimal at any of the XTC distances. On the order of an inch so at 600 yards. With a 4x magnification it's not going to contribute much to lost points.

Long winded opinion follows:

My aforementioned limited personal experience is that the difficulty comes in shooting at a blurry target at 600 yards. I don't think parallax adjustment is the be all end all in a SR scope, and for a shooter who has been shooting XTC with irons it's probably not even going to be very noticeable. I don't know what good eyes see in the irons at 600 yards, but the image in the scope is certainly better than what I see. So not having a parallax adjustment is certainly not the end of the world, but I'm accustomed to a sharp picture.

If you put the reticle in the middle of the fuzzy ball (with the right windage on) it will hit there, but without parallax adjustment the aiming black is to my eyes blurred or fuzzy. I don't think it is going to make a lot of difference at 200 or 300. My even my limited experience at those ranges I can see the target fine with a scope with a 100 yd parallax adjustment. My first time out I shot a 97 in rapid prone at 300, and had nice group half in the 9 ring at 4:30 sitting at 200. The scope wasn't an issue, my pulse sitting killed me there, half a min up on the turret and I'd have probably cleaned it. In both cases it was the operator that lost all the points.

At 600 the out of focus aiming black is harder, at least for me. In my case I also found that I was losing the dot in the reticle on my Vortex time and time again in the course of a match. I shot the Vortex in XTC and prone and I am sure that it, or my inability to use it well, did cost me some points. There were times that I broke shots that I could not call because I lost the reticle just as I broke the shot.. Certainly not everything that I dropped was due to the scope but it contributed. If I was more solid and consistent in my position it have contributed less.

For an experienced shooter, with a solid, consistent position the parallax is likely not an issue for them. For a new shooter or one coming from something like F class, the absence focused sight picture at 600 is one more thing to understand and overcome. Easier than irons? surely, esp with my 57 yr old eyes, but none the less something else to learn that can be removed with a parallax adjustment on the scope.

 

[kzin]

Thanks a lot for that link. I haven't time right now to read it completely and understand it but I see that magnification does indeed play a large and measurable role in calculating PE. We users of high mag scopes kinda sorta knew this intuitively. This really reinforces my thought that log mag scopes don't really suffer from PE and that explains why you just don't find an AO or an SF on most of these scopes. For SR purposes it's just not worth the expense, especially if you take a minimum of care lining up behind the scope.

Thanks again, and I have bookmarked the site.

Actually, magnification has nothing to do with the calculation of maximum PE.

For a given distance of the eye off center a higher mag scope has more PE.

But the higher mag scope also has a smaller exit pupil in proportion so you can't get as far from center and still see anything!

If you assume a reasonably capable shooter will only get so far off line with any scope then the higher mag has 'more PE'.

 

[kzin]

I've seen the equation somewhere that defines parallax error. The objective size is a significant contributor, (i.e., bigger obj results in bigger error) Running the numbers for SR with a 25mm or 30mm obj, if you have your parallax set at 200 or 300, the error is pretty minimal at any of the XTC distances. On the order of an inch so at 600 yards. With a 4x magnification it's not going to contribute much to lost points.

Calculating slow and careful for 600 with 200 focus I figure that everything else reduces to 1 and max PE is the objective diameter. So 20-35mm, yep, right around an inch. Better if you find 300yd focus. Double if you settle for 100.
That is geometric maximum peeking in at the edge of the exit pupil.
I figure practical max of 1/2 that even on a relatively careless shot?

 

[Ed]

It doesnt have adjustable parallax, but I saw this today and thought I would share.

https://www.whiteoakarmament.com/woa-leupold-fx-ii-4x33mm-1350.html