Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

First topic message reminder :

Aimpoint makes a big deal about how their sights are Parallax-Free:  "Aimpoint sights are parallax-free, which means that the visible dot remains parallel to the bore of your weapon no matter what angle your eye is in relation to the sight. This means you never have to worry about centering the dot inside the sight. When the dot is on target, so are you."


There's an illustration on their web page:
https://www.aimpoint.com/academy/parallax-free



I was wondering how important this is to Bullseye Shooters, and if it is, what other sights offer that capability?  

I wouldn't think so, but does this help changing between 25 and 50 yards?  I know it won't compensate for the bullet falling more, but maybe there's more to it?

(The new P-2 ACRO is very small, very light, and KC apparently is already working on adapters for it.  As far as I can tell, it's not available for sale yet, and in a previous discussion, people here were concerned about there being so little protection from rain and stuff making it difficult to see through the sight. )

I think most of you guys have more experience than I have, but my experience with (good) red dot sights is that if the dot is over the bullseye, and I don't disturb the gun, the dot will represent where the bullet should hit (but if the dot is wobbling around, the hole will appear within the area of that wobble.  Sounds simple.  With a sight with parallax errors, if the dot is not centered in the sight, the hole will not go where I expect, and my wobble means the "grouping" of my shots will be a wider group, with my wobble + the parallax error determining where the holes will be.

Apparently, if a person uses a good sight properly, with the dot in the middle of the sight as a person fires, there is no parallax.   Someone here posted that bullseye shooters should keep the "wobble" of the dot in the center of the sight, and not allow it to move around.

After reading the above, I don't see any parallax issues, as long at the dot is near the center of the sight.  Thanks to all of you guys, I have it burnt into my brain to work harder at keeping the dot centered.  

(When Aimpoint says there is NO parallax, I take that. with a grain of salt, and accept it as meaning there is minimal parallax.  On the other hand, the Aimpoint sights I like to use cost around $500 or so.  The Aimpoint has other things going for it, as in turning the adjustment controls change the sight the expected amount.  Other sights seem to have "free play", so if I'm moving the sight to the right, and go too far, and want to go back to the left I don't see the change I expected.  Bottom line I guess is "you get what you pay for".)

If you just look at parallax my first scope was perfect. Also great fine controls. Also very hard to beat the price. They solved the parallax problem by using a long skinny (3/4 ") tube and good glass. I shot a 300 with it in team sectionals in 76. Cost new around  50.00. My point is the price is only part of the equation.v

I would suggest mounting a cheap Red Dot, You can then determine if keeping the dot in the center of the lens works for you. Later you can up-grade.  Aimpoint is better than most but the AMU had issues with the H1. Being that the AMU shooters are among the best in the country they use Aimpoint 9000SC, they are a good judge of equipment quality. However those shooter have no concern about cost!
 Most don't have issues with adjustment but you can if adjusted a few clicks/graduations too many, back off a greater amount then advance the correct number of clicks/gradations required.
 Your right LenV, as I mentioned those older scopes worked great! I had quite a few, I wished I still have them!! Had one on my 1911, used it to shoot Police L match, larger target and all at 25 yards some what the same as NMC, I shot 300-30X a few times!

Jon Eulette wrote:

Allgoodhits wrote:I am currently working on an aid for centering the dot in the scope, especially for SF.

PhotoEscape already makes what you are looking for; Aperture Ring Kit. Link at top of home page.
Jon

Thanks! 

~ Martin

I'll chime in since my name was mentioned within this tread.  Let me start from stating that I have no intentions to offend anyone, and if it appears so it is rather my way of presenting my thoughts.

Let me start from stating that IMHO this entire tread is based on false premises and misunderstanding of what parallax is and what is Aimpoint's (and other manufacturers too) claim to fame about their products being parallax free about.  Firstly, to simplify parallax is nothing more than the mental perception of the difference in position of the static subject when viewing such subject from different angles of view.  Since we, humans, are given two eyes, the easiest illustration of parallax would be bringing something on computer screen, positioning the head so one can see subject with both eyes (no need to put head, nor screen in the vise!!), then sequentially look at the image with one eye, - you will see image shifting laterally.  That is nature of the parallax.  It is well know for nature photographers taking panoramic photos.  I can offer you this link for review, - A Beginners Guide to Parallax and How to Avoid It When Shooting Panoramas | Fstoppers

Next in line would be Aimpoint claim stated by OP and how I interpret it.  So here is the original Aimpoint's statement with my emphasis: "Aimpoint sights are parallax-free, which means that the visible dot remains parallel to the bore of your weapon no matter what angle your eye is in relation to the sight. This means you never have to worry about centering the dot inside the sight. When the dot is on target, so are you." 


As I read it, - if firearm is on target, shooter sees dot on target, then moves and changes angle of view, but still sees the dot being on target even though dot appears as not being centered, shot will end up printing on the target.  If shooter moved so much that dot is no longer visible ............... well, it is not parallax's problem.  But this what leads me to suggest how to deal with it.  Yes, DOF has nothing to do with parallax, - I agree here with OP.  The proper optical parameter to deal with parallax is FOV, - field of view.  The narrower FOV enforces lesser angle of view, and hence shooter will lose dot with smaller change of viewing angle.  Len V brought up excellent example of the scope, that is enforcing proper viewing angle - longer pipe and smaller diameter.  I'm sure you all have seen scopes that are about 6 feet long and about 1/2" in diameter.  If not, here is the useful link - Malcolm 6X Long Rifle Telescope - Hi-Lux Optics

My aperture rings limit field of view at BE shooting distances.  They are useless for someone shooting F-class beyond 100 yards.  It is much more difficult to deal with parallax at longer distances.  And the reason behind is that in order to provide enough light through the scope, latter must have larger ID.  Hence there is larger FOV, and hence wider range for shooter's eye to move while still seeing target.  Different game all together...

As I said - all above is IMO.

AP

From what I'm talking about is not moving the eye and dot on target nor so much as dot can't be seen. If for example the pistol was put in something like a ransom rest and the dot is on the X ring and in the center of the ocular lens. Moving the eye moves the dot off the X ring and onto the 7 (large amount of parallax but I've seen worse) the gun is pointed at the X and if fired assuming the gun will hit where aimed it will hit the X ring. But if in the shooters hand and eye not in the center of ocular lens the red dot will be on the 7, shooter will then align the dot on the X but shot will hit the 7. In other words moving the eye around the ocular lens the dot moves off  position though the scope was motionless. Some scopes will have the dot move in all directions as eye is moved yet I have seen some that dot will only move right to left and others only up and down. Being my son Adam has been a member of the AMU pistol team for 22 years I have been able to talk with most of those on the team. Plus quite a few former members that dropped by the trailer at Camp Perry. None that I can remember wanted a scope that had large about of parallax, I definitely know Adam don't. (By the way Adam has Retired after 22 years as of November 2020)

Froneck, what you write is what I was thinking when I copied the wording from Aimpoint into this forum.  You described it much, much, much better than I did.  Thanks.  

I think it was LenV who pointed out that as bullseye shooters, we should strive to keep the red dot in the center of the red dot sight, which eliminates this problem.  But if due to a lack of time, or whatever, and we have to shoot with the dot off towards any side of the FOV, if there was no parallax, it ought to still be a good shot - but with parallax, the hole won't be where it's expected to be.

Aimpoint should copy your explanation into their write-ups, so people understand better what is going on.

PhotoEscape wrote:.......parallax is nothing more than the mental perception of the difference in position of the static subject when viewing such subject from different angles of view........

I will try to take two photos of the rear of my sight, with the dot centered on a bullseye, and another after moving the camera slightly to any side.  If the dot is no longer centered on the target, it's an accurate perception, not a mental perception.

Why wouldn't you want to do it in a way that would be more in line with actual shooting?

Rest the gun with the dot in the center of the scope and on the X and fire a shot.

Rest the gun with the dot toward the edge of the scope, but centered on the X and fire a shot.

Compare the two holes in the target.

Problem with your way DA/SA is the accuracy of the pistol. Amount of parallax will be altered by accuracy hence it would take group shift not single shot. Holding the gun is some type of support is not easy if you don't have a ransom type rest to hold the pistol. Simply putting the scope on an immovable support so dot is on a target even if target has to be placed so dot is in the x ring. Remember distance changes parallax, try the best like a 9000 at a distance of a few feet. Parallax will lessen as distance approaches the adjusted to distance then begins to increase. Problem with most Red Dots is they have been adjusted to 100 yards do to the demand created by AR shooters. The longer the scope the better because of the angle.  Red dots and Scopes (though Red Dots are called Scopes) The Red Dot uses a dot that is reflected off the lens from a light source, the Typical Scope has a reticle mounted between the lenses. I don't know why Red Dot makers don't put a reflective reticle in their scope and light it will the light source. It's possible, I've done it!

You were stating that if the dot wasn't centered you would be likely hitting the 7 ring rather than the X. You shouldn't need a group to determine that. 

I'm interested in quantifying the actual error of an Ultradot or Aimpoint at Bullseye distances. If the pistol inaccuracy exceeds the parallax error you should be more concerned with that.

The fact that there my be parallax error isn't the real issue to me. It's exactly how much error are we talking about under normal circumstances that the average Bullseye shooter would encounter.

It 'kinda boils down to the same thing. If the average shooters shots are all over the target, it most likely isn't due to parallax error, or the brand of primer, or that your projectile or load differs +-.1 grain.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you Froneck, I'm just curious as to the actual error we are eluding to here as it applies to Bullseye.

I posted a long article/test on parallax on this forum about 3 years ago.


http://bullseyepistol.com/dotsight.htm

Final comment on this one. I think the parallax impact for 50 yd pistol shooting on a B6 target, is not going to cause a dot placed X to become a 5. However, the compounding of errors in sight or trigger press that happen to be in the area of the parallax error could explain some of our "I didn't call it that bad" thoughts. For this reason, minimizing parallax is a no brainer for me. Not having the dot centered on the lens has become just as important to "me" as iron sight, front - rear alignment. I may still jerk the trigger, but I will have the dot centered in the lens as best I can.

All depends on the scope Allgoodhits! I have a few that by moving the eye the dot will move from one side of the full target to the other at 50 yards. Others that are better will keep the dot in the black at 50 yards. Simply put in my case I use a Red Dot so I do not have to align sights, it's not a problem for me to do it. I shot is the 280s with ball at Perry and made distinguished at Perry when at least a 270 was needed to make the cut with issued ammo. Best I've ever done at Perry was a 287.
 Why spend big bucks on an Aimpoint or other top brand Red Dot then put more money into an aperture to align the Red dot when Irons sights do the same thing? My son Adam thinks the same, will only shoot a Red Dot with no Parallax at 50. Yet is very good with iron! Won NTI  twice at Perry and 2019 won the Presidents 100 plus set the record at Bianchi Metalic with Perfect score, won Production which is also Iron Sights.
 I think us target shooter should demand better and not accept the junk we're being sold.

Froneck wrote:All depends on the scope Allgoodhits! I have a few that by moving the eye the dot will move from one side of the full target to the other at 50 yards. Others that are better will keep the dot in the black at 50 yards. Simply put in my case I use a Red Dot so I do not have to align sights, it's not a problem for me to do it. I shot is the 280s with ball at Perry and made distinguished at Perry when at least a 270 was needed to make the cut with issued ammo. Best I've ever done at Perry was a 287.
 Why spend big bucks on an Aimpoint or other top brand Red Dot then put more money into an aperture to align the Red dot when Irons sights do the same thing? My son Adam thinks the same, will only shoot a Red Dot with no Parallax at 50. Yet is very good with iron! Won NTI  twice at Perry and 2019 won the Presidents 100 plus set the record at Bianchi Metalic with Perfect score, won Production which is also Iron Sights.
 I think us target shooter should demand better and not accept the junk we're being sold.

Roger that. Adam is a beast slayer! I am quite familiar with Bianchi. I am Distinguished in Open, Metallic, and Production. #6 Distinguished in NRA AP Open. #164 in PPC.  I have also managed a 1920 in an AP match, but that was with open gun.  I think Adam won Open at Bianchi too one year. All Shooting Sports Matter.

~Martin

LenV wrote:I posted a long article/test on parallax on this forum about 3 years ago.


http://bullseyepistol.com/dotsight.htm

Len, what is the link to the forum post you made three years ago?  The above link goes to a Bullseye Encyclopedia article.  I'd also like to read your post.

Thank you for posting that, Len.

That is what I was looking for, a quantification of the error. 

At 25 yards with an Ultradot an X is still an X.

At 50 yards an X is still pretty much an X.



That still leaves ME at the top of the list for possible inaccuracies relating to undesirable shots, not the equipment!

You might want to check into which Ultradot was used for this test.
Different Ultradot sights would probably have different results.

Since so many people are here in this discussion, for those of you who do NOT want negative magnification, but do want a tube style sight, what are some options?  Apparently a longer tube has less issues with parallax.  If we keep the dot in the center of the sight, parallax errors won't apply - there won't be any.  

My friend at Aimpoint is on vacation this week, so I won't hear back from him until next week I guess.

I use 25mm and 30mm Ultradot's, and I would assume that the 25mm has the best aspect ratio for minimizing parallax.

Sightron S30 has no negative magnification (that is a good double negative), and the dot is nice and clear.  I have no idea how the parallax is for a Sightron.

So far, the reviews are excellent - made in Japan, and very "basic".  
1" size, no negative magnification, light, and very reasonably priced.
Thank you for posting - I never heard of it until now, but I'd like to try it out.
https://www.amazon.com/Sightron-1X27-Red-Dot-Scope/product-reviews/B0050DVIVM

The S30 is a 30mm scope, not a 25mm. And yes, the glass is very good and clear with no minification.

The dot is very small even though it is referred to as a 5 MOA. I also found it a bit dim in bright sunlight.

I tried one and went back to the Ultradot due to the dot size, although others my prefer the pin point dot.

My Ultradot's exhibit no minificaton, although one did, and Ultradot replaced the glass and it is now good.

Sorry, the page I went to had bad information on it.  Also, it may be discontinued - not sure.  Optics Planet has it, but it's no longer available on Amazon. "Currently unavailable.  We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."  If it's dim in direct sunlight, that's a big problem. 

mikemyers wrote:Sorry, the page I went to had bad information on it.  Also, it may be discontinued - not sure.  Optics Planet has it, but it's no longer available on Amazon. "Currently unavailable.  We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."  If it's dim in direct sunlight, that's a big problem. 

  Mike and DA/SA, I like UltraDots specifically Matchdots because I like the 4 or 6 mil dots settings they offer. Most of all, I like them because they come with a polarizing filter whenever the sun is washing out the dot. I don't like turning the dot intensity all the way up to see it during those situations. 
Stan

^^

Exactly.

I use a 25mm Ultradot on my .22 with a Polarizing filter when needed, and a Matchdot II on my wadgun because I like the variable dot size. My vision changes from day to day it seems...