Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Side Focus or AO Preference

Thanks for the replies.

LIV2HUNT, good points made IMO. My eyes are still good, but not what they used to be, obviously, at age 54. Cabelas has some screamin' deals on VX3 CDS scopes. I like the CDS very much for my random plinking. I've never been a huge fan of the 4.5-14 version, but noticed they have one w/AO and a duplex reticle, something that was discontinued this year. For some boneheaded reason you cannot buy a new VX3 CDS without the windplex reticle, a reticle I'm not the least bit interested in trying.

Most of my scopes are Leupolds. Can't say anything about other brands. I prefer their AO over SF by a wide margin. Some of that may be how those are packaged / combined with other features. I prefer 40 mm objectives and I prefer 1" tubes.

With the 1" tube, 40mm objective, AO scopes I own, once the initial focus has been set, I can get a pretty decent guestimate of distances just by fiddling with the AO 'til the image is sharp, then read what it says on the dial. I can also set the dial to whatever distance my Leica rangefinder says and be pretty well nuts-on.

I haven't had that experience with their SF / 30mm scopes. The numbers on the dials seem to be entirely arbitrary. IMHO that sucks.

At the moment the only SF Leupold I have any interest in is a 30mm 3.5-10X ... this is because they don't offer the 3.5-10X with AO. Sometimes less than perfect is better than nothing at all.

Tom

Most scope manufacturers will tell you that the numbers on the AO dial are arbitrary, may or may not reflect the actual distance. My Leupold scopes and Nightforce with SF doesn't have yardage numbers on the dial.

Swfa sells a 3.5-10x AO

Jeezus Fhuqking Christ...this DUMBFHUQKTITUDE is amazing,in it's volume. Hint.

WOW!

There's a fence-hoppin'/barbwire poppin' Texan,quizzing folks on "focus"...despite her "reputed" decades of "experience"?!? Now THAT schit is fhuqking funny,beings she has none! Hint.

Anywhoo...A/O sucks heavy ass,due it's optical and mechanical concessions. Hint.

Side Focus is yet another compromise,due the integrity of the mechanical means. Hint.

What has GLARINGLY been missed thus far,is that modest X's require far less parallax massaging. Hint.

Fact being and assuming a Killing Rifle of 6x or less,I MUCH prefer no parallax adjustment,of any means. Hint.

Now in retrospect and forced to reflect...rear-focus parallax takes the cake. It's both positive and unobtrusive. Hint.

I get a kick outta the Day Dreaming Dumbfhuqks who source glass by "looks"! That schit IS fhuqking funny! Hint.

If only because I gun glass in all configurations and am afforded the luxury of not being forced to guess,it's a breeze to scribe CONFIRMED parallax settings,as reference points. ALL you Stupid Fhuqks,better read that again. Hint.

I'd post pics,but it would burst the decades old Texas Bubbles and swipe Imaginary Pretend Ignore,from the Do Nothing Fhuqks who need it most.

I'm fhuqking cryin'...I'm laffin' sooooooooooooooo hard.


Hint.

WOW, little dick must be bored and restless, hint

My grandfather was a logger and a wrestler back in the 1920s.
He was in the Alaskan Gold rush and got his name in the Klondike news when he found a bag of Gold after a robbery.

I wonder if he talked like Boxer when he was young.
He had a 1908 Olds truck with an exhaust cut out that he would make it roar.

I had a neighbor, Leo Smith, that was a 80 year old ex logger who had a car engine driven saw mill and built a barn for me 30 years ago. He never stopped bragging about all the fights he had been in. Amazing stories. He drove a Winton automobile across the Canadian border on dirt roads for a bootlegger when he was 15. His sons were gypo loggers and they were tough and rough. The Kenworth green and white self loading log truck made some nefarious collections.

No worries here, as I have a midget filter. I haven't read a thing that dwarf has posted in eons, unless somebody quotes his retardedass. Life is good.