I am glad you shared this with us. Not the scope I use now but I did have a scope that when ranging with it the crisp image was not the position that was parallax free. I tried to see if ranging would be repeatable by bobbing my head around then removing the parallax by rotating. But I couldn't be steady enough on my sticks all the time.
It's the proper alignment of both and the correct parallax adjustment of the optic to the focal point upon which the laser is trained that "should" provide convergence regardless of eye position within the box..... right?
It's the proper alignment of both and the correct parallax adjustment of the optic to the focal point upon which the laser is trained that "should" provide convergence regardless of eye position within the box..... right?
You are correct! Not only should it, but it absolutely will.
With most of my scopes, I am able to easily adjust the parallax for zero movement of the reticle on the target when the parallax is dialed in correctly. If the laser dot is moving in relationship to the reticle when you move your head from side to side, the only logical conclusion is that the parallax is not set right. The higher power scopes I own are much easier to precisely adjust than some lower power / less expensive models, though my $90 UTG 3-9x focuses quite easily - go figure. As for the antics of moving your head around, that is the only way I am aware of to verify that there is zero parallax or that you have it as good as you can get it with a particular scope that doesn't cooperate.
FYI, and I tested this just now, in case anyone is confused on this aspect, when it comes to checking parallax with a laser, it is irrelevant as to whether the laser is mounted on the gun or sitting on a table pointed at the target. All the laser dot provides is an easier to see reference point on the target that makes for quicker assessment. I could not detect any movement of the laser dot with any scope from 9x to 50x when the parallax was adjusted correctly.
Exactly ... head position matters & given the time to bob and weave around eye box fiddling with parrilax one can get there where it won't matter as much if not centered ... quick & dirty fast parrilax adjustments as most generally do need your eye centered best one can muster.
Exactly ... head position matters & given the time to bob and weave around eye box fiddling with parrilax one can get there where it won't matter as much if not centered ... quick & dirty fast parrilax adjustments as most generally do need your eye centered best one can muster.
YES!!! I realized that "forgiving" eye box is a feature to some but detriment to precision shooters. This is also why for any sort of precision shooting stock with adjustable cheek riser is required to get my eye position as consistent as possible. When everyone complaining about Element optics scopes' tight eyebox I specifically pointed out it's a feature for precision shooting but not everyone need or like that feature.
The tricky part of "dialing out" parallax in alignment of sharp image is that depending on your eye and the scope you have to adjust parallax AND the diopter at different magnification level. It is near impossible to be parallax free at all magnification ranges so it's a lot of work to get your focus and parallax aligned for even majority of the scopes zoom range. Again, every scope and everyone's eyes ARE different. One way to cheat this is to move your eye back so there is a black ring around the image and you a center the image/reticle that way.
You seem to come up with topics that pertain directly to my inconsistencies. I have been shooting/hunting all my life…bla bla bla, but only in recent years have been using optics.
I know that I have eye box/cheekweld/parallax consistency issues. Posts like this help me sort out my issues and improve my abilities tremendously.
