Service Rifle Scopes that I haven't heard discussed.
- Thread starter libertyman777
- Start date
I was fortunate enough to buy a Leupold Firedot Bull Ring XTC scope from midway's clearance section for $760.00 (about half price) over the holidays. I was looking to upgrade without breaking the bank. Built a new rifle for it so I'd have a spare and so far I'm VERY pleased with it. It checks all the boxes. Thing I like the most is the red dot in the center of the circle and the zero stop wind/ele knobs. It's bright and can be seen on full sunny days and the circle seems to be size appropriate. I was having an issue of loosing my black crosshairs in the black target on my other scope. haven't shot a match yet, just sighted it in yesterday but my opinion is even at regular price, it's a contender with the higher priced scopes.
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
That ship has sailed.
I disagree with that logic.
It is some amount of added potential error on top of all our other sources of error. How much error can we add without it costing points over a year? I say none.
With a mature technology available to reduce it to zero why should we have to?
The Athlon mentioned here looks like somebody actually designed and built a competition Service Rifle scope instead of just marketing one.
March beat them to it for those that feel the need to have adjustable parallax 4x power small objective lens scopes.
https://www.marchoptics.com/product...-Scope-Tactical-Turrets-MTR-5-Reticle/MAR1086
It is a mystery how the many, many currently active shooters using scopes without this feature put up the great scores they do.
I hope this new offering from Athlon proves out to be a great scope after a year or two of heavy use.
Last edited:
No mystery, just how the parallax issue works.
Parallax error costs nothing on good shots.
Parallax correction adds nothing on good shots.
Parallax correction can save a point or an X on a less than perfect shot.
The number of points it saves is probably not even going to show up against the normal score variation from other factors without a high quality statistical analysis.
I think that if one chooses to go with an uncorrected scope one is really saying "I don't care about the few points a year it may cost." That is a different perspective than saying "I don't think 1/2 inch error at 600 yards matters".
That may be the rational choice for some but given the amount of money spent on this sport trying to save a point here or there I don't think it's unreasonable to go after a corrected scope either.
I agree,
I would agree more if we were talking about large objective high magnification scopes and not 4x tiny objective scopes.
Where this thread is about Service Rifle Scopes.
In My "Opinion" From a sling with a service rifle the amount of parallax error is very nearly impossible to be quantifiably measured.
Very likely beyond the ability of 90% 0f service rifle shooters to be able to hold.
The Vortex PST which has parallax set at 100 yards the math comes out to;
200 = 0.452 MOA maximum error
300 = 0.602 MOA
600 = 0.752 MOA
I will add,
You can't put a price on piece of mind.
I will never knock anyone for spending any amount of money they feel they need to spend for piece of mind.
How does that famous quote go ~ “Ninety percent of the game is half mental.”
Last edited:
Several people have made this statement in previous discussions and I don't see how it's meaningful.
Whether hold quality at 200 yards is a 2" circle or a 20" circle the potential error from parallax adds to that. Unless one never barely hits a line now that added error will cost a point or an x eventually.
The max error listed for 200 is almost an inch. Figuring that maximum error is practically impossible take 1/2 or even 1/4 of that for the real value. 1/4 " on top of existing error margin means missing a line sometime.
Or maybe,,
the error is equal into or out of of the scoring rings,,, and some of the error may help you pick up a point or two here or there.
Agree this topic has been repeatedly and heavily discussed.
It pretty much boils down to each of us buying a Service Rifle optic makes the choices based on their budget and other factors and they purchase the scope that makes them comfortable in their purchase.
If one buys a $400 - 600 scope and lays on the gun at 600 worrying about parallax they will very likely be out of the X / 10 ring. Maybe even a 7... Parralax can't possibly cause 7's or 8's with a legal service rifle scope but we all shoot one from time to time... They can blame their scope or they can work to become a better service rifle shooter.
If one buys a March and shoots a 7 or an 8 here or there then they can work harder to become a better Service Rifle shooter with nothing to blame it on except themselves...
Again, This opinion of mine only applies to Service rifle for the reasons stated above as well as it is a position / marksmanship game much more than it is a precision rifle game. 2 MOA 10 rings and all...
Last edited:
Or maybe,,
the error is equal into or out of of the scoring rings,,, and some of the error may help you pick up a point or two here or there.
Agree this topic has been repeatedly and heavily discussed.
It pretty much boils down to each of us buying a Service Rifle optic makes the choices based on their budget and other factors and they purchase the scope that makes them comfortable in their purchase.
If one buys a $400 - 600 scope and lays on the gun at 600 worrying about parallax they will very likely be out of the X / 10 ring. Maybe even a 7... Parralax don't cause 7's or 8's but we all shoot one from time to time... They can blame their scope or they can work to become a better service rifle shooter.
If one buys a March and shoots a 7 or an 8 here or there then they can work harder to become a better Service Rifle shooter with nothing to blame it on except themselves...
Again, This opinion of mine only applies to Service rifle for the reasons stated above as well as it is a position / marksmanship game much more than it is a precision rifle game. 2 MOA 10 rings and all...
No doubt the practical problem is very small at worst and the great majority of time is overwhelmed by other issues.
I'm interested in the theory for theories sake also.
One could also argue that for practice and less important matches losing a point or expanding group size for eye position can actually be a good thing as it teaches us to improve consistency of eye position.
As far as errors canceling sometimes, that is true as long as there are multiple sources of error. When we add a source our worst possible shots get worse. That has to be bad over the long run.
I shoot a sub 200$ Nikon w/o AO. When I miss the entire backer offhand I don't blame it! Still, if I ever bother to upgrade it would only be to a scope with AO on principle.
Here's a excel calculator courtesy of a USNM ( Thank You James R. ) member in case anyone wants to make it easy to do the math for piece of mind before spending $$
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pWZcTSATGk8ETSAsrDuiDNYxd8GuHli9/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
People that spend $1800 on a NF or over $2k on a March definitely have the advantage of being able to razz the shooters at matches in a friendly manner that they shoot better than about their cheap scopes. That often gets a friendly chuckle from time to time.
When the guy with the $309 special Ranger / PST beats the guy with the big $$$ scope... Ahhh, lets not go there
I think we are fortunate to have as many service rifle legal scope options as we do have to choose from for such a relatively small market.
Moral (again) and in closing statement from me in this thread on the on parralax topic.
Buy the scope that you are comfortable with (vote with your wallet) and spend as much time "on the range" working hard to be the best Service Rifle shooter that you can be.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pWZcTSATGk8ETSAsrDuiDNYxd8GuHli9/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
People that spend $1800 on a NF or over $2k on a March definitely have the advantage of being able to razz the shooters at matches in a friendly manner that they shoot better than about their cheap scopes. That often gets a friendly chuckle from time to time.
When the guy with the $309 special Ranger / PST beats the guy with the big $$$ scope... Ahhh, lets not go there
I think we are fortunate to have as many service rifle legal scope options as we do have to choose from for such a relatively small market.
Moral (again) and in closing statement from me in this thread on the on parralax topic.
Buy the scope that you are comfortable with (vote with your wallet) and spend as much time "on the range" working hard to be the best Service Rifle shooter that you can be.
Last edited:
Here's a excel calculator courtesy of a USNM ( Thank You James R. ) member in case anyone wants to make it easy to do the math for piece of mind before spending $$
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1pWZcTSATGk8ETSAsrDuiDNYxd8GuHli9/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
People that spend $1800 on a NF or over $2k on a March definitely have the advantage of being able to razz the shooters at matches in a friendly manner that they shoot better than about their cheap scopes. That often gets a friendly chuckle from time to time.
When the guy with the $309 special Ranger / PST beats the guy with the big $$$ scope... Ahhh, lets not go there
I think we are fortunate to have as many service rifle legal scope options as we do have to choose from for such a relatively small market.
Moral (again) and in closing statement from me in this thread on the on parralax topic.
Buy the scope that you are comfortable with (vote with your wallet) and spend as much time "on the range" working hard to be the best Service Rifle shooter that you can be.
Thanks for the spreadsheet. Great info. Both of my scopes are set at 300 yards for parallax so WORSE CASE I would have an impact change of less than 4/10th of an inch at 200 yds or 600 yds. I can live with that. I'm confident I get behind the scope fairly square.
Downhill
Gold $$ Contributor
I tried the Sig Tango 4 1-4. Fixed parallex. Still shooting master scores. Just made seeing the target easier for aging eyes. However I never noticed how the aiming black moves with irons. I don't believe optics really make that much difference in service rifle comps.
Kzin, can you answer a simple question for me. How many hours do you have slung up in a coat behind a service rifle?
the biggest issue I have found in regards to parallax with a service rifle scope is in siting, and its all from inconsistent head position. SOme of it is there during slow prone but not as bad. When I made a cap for the front lens with a 1/4" hole, that fixed the issue. If your head is not in the right spot the scope blacks out.
It also had another unexpected benefit, for some reason I see the target better. On super bright days it does not glow and on cloudy days it seems brighter? its odd.
It also had another unexpected benefit, for some reason I see the target better. On super bright days it does not glow and on cloudy days it seems brighter? its odd.
That is a strange post to raise that question because it's a mathematical questioning of someone else's mathematical claim. Shooting experience is close to 100% irrelevant.
For curiosity's sake I checked my logs. I do so much experimenting that a simple and meaningful answer is impossible.
I have about 40 sling sessions across SR, modern military, rimfire sporter and match configurations. Probably less than half with a coat.
Add about 15 offhand only sessions for SR and modern military.
One reason I shoot a lot less sling than my interest would warrant is because I have a bad shoulder. When that has made slinging up impossible I also have about 25 sessions with a service or modern military rifle off a bag or bipod. I thought for a while my main shooting might be SR or MM with a bipod on a Not-For-Record basis but then I got heavily into f-class.
The preceding compares to several hundred hours of f-class and AR-Tactical.
I'm also locally an assistant MD and score and record keeper for both sling and f-class twice a month. That helps to keep my interest in SR above what it might be for the amount of sling I shoot myself.
This thread is pretty sidetracked already down the recurring parallax black hole from what libertyman originally asked when he started this thread so I guess I'll add just one more off topic post here;;
Interesting differences in how we ( shooters with different backgrounds ) see things in very different balances between mathematical and real world / practical application.
Last edited:
dcali
Bullet Maker
It’s true that parallax adds an error. But it’s a tiny error relative to the others, and when you account for that, either with math or just range time, you find that it’s not worth considering, which is why nightforce (for example) didn’t include the feature.
Focusing on the things that matter are the keys to success in any discipline, and service rifle is no different. Parallax isn’t one of them.
Focusing on the things that matter are the keys to success in any discipline, and service rifle is no different. Parallax isn’t one of them.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.