Parallax Knobs; A Misnomer???"

Just played.around a bit outside. Pointing at clear sky and adjusting the parallax knob, the reticule was sharp 90% of the time. Moved it down and across the yard, 50-60ft and it was blurry, adjusted from there to point where stuff wasn't moving around when head was moving...will this be OK at 100+ yards?
 
Pointing at clear sky and adjusting the parallax knob, the reticule was sharp 90% of the time
Click to expand...

I think you are going about it wrong. If your scope has a focus ( parallax ) adjustment on the side, leave it alone for now.

The first thing is to get the crosshair in focus. This needs to be done carefully so that it is nice and sharp the moment you mount the rifle.

The easiest way I know to do it is to take the eyepiece. . .not the focus knob ( parallax ), and turn it clock wise all the way in until the crosshair is well blurred.

After you have done that, aim the scope at a neutral background. An off white wall or a berm at the range will work also.

Begin turning the eyepiece counter clockwise until the cross hair starts becoming clear. As you get close, take your eye off the scope. This will prevent or minimize what we call "accommodation." Accommodation is what occurs when your eye tries to make something that is a little out of focus to be in focus and contributes to eyestrain.

Look through the scope again and continue to turn the eyepiece counter clockwise until the image is sharp when you first look through it. Half turns of the adjustment are normal here until the crosshair is clear and crisp at the moment you look through the scope. It may take a little trial and error of moving too far and having to start all over. That is ok. The goal is to get the crosshair clear first.

Once you are satisfied, lock the lock ring and leave it alone. If you wear corrective lenses, make your adjustment with them on. . .UNLESS you shoot without glasses. For many years that is what I did. At the range I frequent, you MUST have glasses on all the time.

If you shoot with regular shooting glasses ( no correction ) it makes no difference.

Now that you have the cross hair focused, look through the scope at the target you want to shoot.

Select your magnification if you have a variable and set your focus knob ( parallax ) adjustment to infinity and then bring it back until the target is clear.

If you move your eye slightly side to side or up and down, you should see NO relative movement between the target and the cross hair.

If you DO see movement, parallax is present and should be corrected out by further manipulation of the focus ( parallax ) knob.

This MIGHT mean a slight degradation of the target definition.

For hunting purposes, you will have to wing it. You will have to generalize a lot to make the shot and you will not have time to tweak any adjustments.

For target shooting, you generally have all the time in the world to get things set.

One thing to remember though. . .once the crosshairs are in focus for YOU, you should leave it alone unless you are changing from shooting with glasses to shooting without them.

When I used to hunt groundhogs, I wore glasses so I could look for movement around the edges of the fields. When I saw movement. . .off came the glasses and up came the binoculars. My binoculars and rifle scope were all adjusted for me to see clearly without my glasses. Anyone else using my rifle would have a problem.

If you wear glasses and your vision is 20/20 corrected with glasses and you use those glasses to set up your rifle, anyone with 20/20 uncorrected vision should be able to pick up your rifle and do pretty well with it as long as the rifle fit them like it fits you.

Sorry this is so long and hope it helps.
 
Now I'm confused. LOL.

I was using the eyepiece adjustment. Thought THAT was the parallax. Parallax is the infinity-200 yard knob?
 
And I switch between glasses and contacts. That means I can set it up with either and it will be the same or really close to the other?
 
I was using the eyepiece adjustment. Thought THAT was the parallax. Parallax is the infinity-200 yard knob?
I think that is correct. What scope do you have?

That means I can set it up with either and it will be the same or really close to the other?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by this. If you have a large correction for your vision and your rifle is set up for viewing with you wearing your glasses, you will have a problem trying to use it without your glasses.

If your vision is corrected to 20/20 with glasses and your scope is set up that way, then anyone with uncorrected 20/20 vision and those whose vision is corrected to 20/20 should be able to use your scope without further adjustment as long as the person wearing glasses is using them when he uses your rifle.

Put another way, if the scope is set up for someone with 20/20 vision, the scope does not care if you wear glasses or not as the assumption is that the eye viewing the target is corrected to 20/20.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fire Moose, if your contacts and eye glasses have the same prescription, once the scope's eyepiece is set to have the reticule sharp, either set of corrective lenses will work just fine.
 
As long as the aiming eye's kept on the optical axis of the scope, there will never be any parallax of the reticule on the target's aiming point regardless of where the objective (front) lens group's focused.
Click to expand...

The issue is that most people are really poor at keeping their eye at the center of the optical axis of the scope.
Also, what do you consider the optical axis?
Are you talking about the external glass, or the erector?

These two are rarely aligned unless you have a scope that adjusts externally like they did 100 years ago.

When teaching new precision rifle shooters, I find that they make their greatest leaps in precision when they fully understand how to adjust their parralax to remove all parallax error.
 
Focus and parallax adjustment is not the same thing. Your sight picture could be 100% in focus while having parallax or vice versa.
Click to expand...

I had a nightforce scope that had the focus and parallax slightly out of sync with each other.
I could focus the image as sharp as can be and then I would have to roll the parallax adjustment about 3 degrees counterclockwise to eliminate all parallax.
It was very consistent and I learned that with that specific scope, I focused it, then went counterclockwise until the image just started to go soft and that was right where my parallax error was at it's lowest.

I now teach people NOT to focus their scopes, but to adjust them for minimum parallax error.
 
I had a nightforce scope that had the focus and parallax slightly out of sync with each other.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if I would go that route. You may be using your scope at a variety of ranges. I think the most important thing when you first mount the rifle is a crisp reticle.

Unless your eye changes or you get very tired, that would be the constant.

The variable would be the target.

I have the 8-32 NightForce and the one thing that bothers me is getting just the right adjustment for the reticle. You can make several turns of the eyepiece without a great deal of change in the clarity of the reticle.

What I have noticed is that regardless of range or magnification, the target image parallax is minimized when the target image is just slightly "soft."

I think we are talking about essentially the same thing but approaching the solution from a different angle.
 
AR15Barrels, that issue of focus and parallax mismatched can happen. The cause is the range scale on the adjustment's not exact for the actual objective lens' focal length.

Let's say the scope's optical system designer chose the objective (front) lens system to have a 200mm focal length. There's a tolerance in making lenses; ones of that type can easily have a few millimeters spread. The mechanics of the focus system are exact; a given threads per inch of the adjustment moves the lens mount exactly the same for all scopes with that design. So the range marks can be put on each and they'll all be perfect for the designed lens focal length.

But the one in your scope is different. You set your range focus at 200 yards but the objective lens actually focuses that target in front of the reticule if it's actally 198mm, behind the reticule if that's a 202mm lens.

Depending on how much error the objective lens' focal length is off from spec, the amount of parallax will vary.

Note that if you're teaching people to not focus their scopes, they'll never be able to adjust parallax. These terms both relate to the same thing. It's physically impossible for the reticule be properly focused on by the eyepiece and when the range focus is on the reticule, to have any parallax at the target range. If I understand what you're saying, I think the scope's eyepiece wasn't focused perfectly on the reticule but instead in front or behind it.

What did you use to "focus" the scope on the target? I ask because all the scopes I've seen only have one adjustment to focus at the target range and it cannot be the eyepiece.

What make and model of scope do you have? This interests me very much and I'd like to look into it deeper.....thanks.
 
Last edited:
Bart,

Maybe it is my old eyes ( probably ) but it seems that years ago, it was a piece of cake to get the cross hair nice and sharp. I have an OLD Weaver K4 that is just as bright and sharp as the day I got it.

Beginning with an old Redfield 3-9 Widefield, I was never able to get that cross hair the way I wanted it. I had another 6-18 that was just as bad if not worse.

I have a new reissue Weaver K4 and it has a duplex instead of the old cross hair and you can get that one pretty sharp.

The NightForce is a nice scope but the cross hair never seems just right. It is close but when I start to focus it, it seems as though the adjustments are TOO fine and you can't find that "sweet" spot from coming from infinity to "in focus" and driving through to be out of focus. Normally, on the older scopes, I would go from out of focus to in focus and then to out of focus and reverse direction to get the "right" spot.


Even years ago when I was working, K and E usually had pretty crisp and black crosshairs. There were some Brunson alignment telescopes that were very good and others, all the same model, were not.

Without a clear and black cross hair to get your initial line of sight, it was difficult to set the line of sight and if the crosshair was not really clear, a plunge and rotate to measure the centering of the optical axis and mechanical axis was almost impossible.

Have you experienced similar?
 
Trying to read and absorb what has been said.

Would it be correct to say that with front objective adjustable scopes, like my Nikon Monarch UCC 5.5-16.5x44AO, that the front objective would focus the target on the reticle plane, and the rear objective would focus the reticle image on your eye?

I actually work on some pretty advanced optical systems, but we probably use different terms. I am trying to understand and relate this parallax, still reading so might be back to ask questions.
 
geetarman, what most folks do that often doesn't keep the reticule in sharp focus is twofold.

First, one needs to back the eyepiece out just 1/3 turn at a time then look at some distant point at least 200 yard away to let your aiming eye focus at infinity. Then look into the scope with it pointed at a clear sky. If the reticule ain't tack sharp immediately, quit looking through the scope. Continued staring through an out of focus eyepiece makes the eye try to focus; eye strain't not good for sharp vision. Readjust the eyepiece then refocus your aiming eye at a distant target. Finally look again into the eyepiece. Again, the reticule should be sharp instantly. Repeat if needed.

Second, the most common problem with some folks not seeing the reticule sharp all the time is the eyepiece wasn't focused right to begin with. They eye's trying to get sharp focus and older one have a harder time with it.

But sometimes, old eyes just don't stay focused that well, sad but true.
 
Bart B. said:
AR15Barrels, that issue of focus and parallax mismatched can happen. The cause is the range scale on the adjustment's not exact for the actual objective lens' focal length.

Let's say the scope's optical system designer chose the objective (front) lens system to have a 200mm focal length. There's a tolerance in making lenses; ones of that type can easily have a few millimeters spread. The mechanics of the focus system are exact; a given threads per inch of the adjustment moves the lens mount exactly the same for all scopes with that design. So the range marks can be put on each and they'll all be perfect for the designed lens focal length.

But the one in your scope is different. You set your range focus at 200 yards but the objective lens actually focuses that target in front of the reticule if it's actally 198mm, behind the reticule if that's a 202mm lens.

Depending on how much error the objective lens' focal length is off from spec, the amount of parallax will vary.

Note that if you're teaching people to not focus their scopes, they'll never be able to adjust parallax. These terms both relate to the same thing. It's physically impossible for the reticule be properly focused on by the eyepiece and when the range focus is on the reticule, to have any parallax at the target range. If I understand what you're saying, I think the scope's eyepiece wasn't focused perfectly on the reticule but instead in front or behind it.

What did you use to "focus" the scope on the target? I ask because all the scopes I've seen only have one adjustment to focus at the target range and it cannot be the eyepiece.

What make and model of scope do you have? This interests me very much and I'd like to look into it deeper.....thanks.
Click to expand...

I know about reticle focus, scope image focus and parallax.
In the particular nightforce scope I was talking about above, my reticle was perfectly focused.
It was just that particular scope (I owned 3 of them at the time) which had the parallax and the image focus out of sync.
My other two would put the image in focus and the reticle parallax free at the same adjustment.

When I teach new precision rifle students, I have them first focus their reticle using the sky as the background.
Then I teach them to adjust the parallax for focus first (gets you close) then continue adjusting so that when they move their eye behind the rifle without moving the rifle, they do not see any reticle movement on target.
Some scopes will coincide image focus with parallax.
Other scopes will not.

Shooters looking for precision grouping will do better with soft focus and zero parallax error than they will do with sharp focus and parallax error present.
The parallax markings on the scope are rarely correct.
 
AR15, thanks for your commenst and explanations. But there's still something about it that doesn't seem right.

It's physically impossible (optical laws of refraction of light rays as they travel through one medium to another) for a rifle scope to have the target image focused exactly on the reticule and the aiming eye seeing the reticule in sharp focus and not have both target image and reticule as sharp as can be as seen by the human eye.

For a given focal length of the combined lenses in front of the reticule, there's only one finite point where a target at a given range will focus sharply. Same for the eyepiece and the human eye; there's only one finite point in front of the eyepiece lens that the human eye can naturally focus on.

If you're referring to the side adjustment (focus or parallax, whatever one chooses to name it) being set to a range but the target image from that range isn't in sharp focus, then I understand what you're saying.
 
Actually its quite possible and very well documented. I could go into a lot of aberrations that would degrade your resolution yet be in focus. Most of the aberrations will only start having an effect at the sub-micron level, but there is plenty still. Spherical and Chromatic would be the the most obvious. Even at the mean focus, you are going to have a bell curve of that focus depending on the size and position in the field of view, and of each color. Better glass, better coatings, different internal gas and pressure...

There are reasons that in general there are cheap and expensive scopes.

In my field of occupation I believe what we call this parallax is telecentricity?
 
Abberation, I understand what you're referring to:
Even at the mean focus, you are going to have a bell curve of that focus depending on the size and position in the field of view, and of each color.
Click to expand...
Which is why different glass types (different refraction indexes), shapes and coatings are used in each element of doublets and singlets, even triplets, so each color band's focused closer together on the optical axis and eliminate as much of field curvature as possible at the edge of the field of view..

But there's still only one point among all those different colors focused at different distances from the lens that's the "focus" point as seen by the eye.
 
Bart B. said:
AR15, thanks for your commenst and explanations. But there's still something about it that doesn't seem right.

If you're referring to the side adjustment (focus or parallax, whatever one chooses to name it) being set to a range but the target image from that range isn't in sharp focus, then I understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Nightforce NXS scopes do not have yardage markings on the parallax knob.
You just adjust by eye.
Nightforce is usually pretty good about getting the target image in focus while the reticle is parallax error-free.
This particular scope was an anomaly in my experience.

Schmidt and Bender do have distance markings on the parallax knobs.
Schmidt and bender optics are very good quality and the scopes have a very narrow depth of focus.
It's common to be able to use a Schmidt and bender scope as a rangefinder by sweeping through the focus (parallax adjustment) and finding the near and far limits of where you see sharp focus.
For example, a target placed at 300yds may show sharp image focus from 290 to 310 on the parallax knob.
You can reliably say that target is at 300yds after racking though the focus and splitting the focus range in the middle.
Now, the scope will not always be parallax error free at the 300yd marking through.
You still have to bob your eye around behind the scope and remove the parallax error that way.
 
AR15, thanks a bunch for the following:
For example, a target placed at 300yds may show sharp image focus from 290 to 310 on the parallax knob.
You can reliably say that target is at 300yds after racking though the focus and splitting the focus range in the middle. Now, the scope will not always be parallax error free at the 300yd marking through. You still have to bob your eye around behind the scope and remove the parallax error that way.
Click to expand...
Now I know why there's parallax after you've first focused the eyepiece to see the reticule clear and sharp then focused the scope sharply on that 300 yard target.

The mechanics of the knob moving lens mounts inside the scope are exactly the same from scope to scope of that model. A given change from infinity to some shorter range will move those mounts exactly the same for each of them. And each ones movement for a given range change is based on each lens group moving based on the optical design specs for the focal length of each group. But lens making machines don't make each one of a given spec exactly the same; their focal lengths vary by a few percentage points.

For a 15X scope, the combined focal length of the lenses in front of a second plane reticule will be 22.50 inches for an eyepiece focal length of 1.5 inches (typical for scopes with a 3 inch eye relief). If the actual focal length of those front lenses is actually 22.40 inches, that'll change the focus point for a 300 yard target about 1/10th of an inch. That image will be focused about 1/10th inch in front of the reticule and parallax will easily be seen. If the actual focal length was 22.60 inch, the target image would be focused about 1/10th inch behind the reticule.

(Note that the physical length of a telephoto lens is less than what a long lens of the same focal length will be, Rifle scopes use telephoto lens systems so one with a 22.5 inch focal length may be only 8 inches long physically. Such is the magic of optics.)

With these normal variables for a given zoom range in a scope, there'll be less error at the lower magnifications, more error at the higher ones. This is why cameras had autofocus stuff put in them. The fixed mechanics of split image rangefinders in them were not exact; long telephoto lenses were often out of focus 'cause their focal lengths were a few percentage points off from what the rangefinder's mechanics were made for. Some rangefinder cameras had interchangeable cams cut for exact focal lengths (marked on the lenses as accurately measured) so long lenses would focus correctly on film.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top