Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics AO on deer hunting scope?

E:

Does an AO scope ever have the same depth of focus as its counterpart in a non-AO scope at any particular setting?

Do (same quality) scopes with a reticle adjustment for parallax have more or potentially more depth of focus than scopes with an adjustable objective?

Another trick to eliminate parallax with a non AO/SF scope is what we call ghost ringing.

You pull your head slightly back until you see the black ring appear around the perimeter of your lens. Center this ring in your site picture and line up the cross hairs on target.

This will help eliminate most parallax on decent quality scopes. It really takes no longer than using a SF, if you practice...

JM

Works great on a bench, but what about when you're lying prone, rifle resting on a pack, with your body contorted between a rock and a cactus and your neck bent at an awkward angle and you don't have the luxury of picking just the right eye relief......

Back in the 1970's Robert Klienguenther suggested this procedure. He guarenteed 1/2" three shot groups at 100 yards with proper loads. I don't remember scopes back then with A.O. so I used his system to achieved his guarentee.

I'm a fan of AOs, but don't have them on any of my deer rifles.
They're for hitting tiny targets close in, or small targets at distance. They're of marginal usefulness on large targets.

I understand they have the same differences in depth of focus as long as they are set on the same magnification.
Side focus/parallax adjustable scopes have even less depth of focus than do the AO scopes.
The other thing is that the lower the magnification, the greater the depth of focus. Regardless as to any AO, side focus/parallax or none built into the scope. E

I don't agree with the statement that the potential loss of accuracy out to 500 yds. is less than 2 MOA with a scope with it's parallax set at 110-150 yds.
It depends on the scope, what magnification it's set on, and, probably the shooter's eyes.
BTW, I've never seen any shooting techniques that would eliminate the effects of parallax.
That's the bad news. The good news is that some companies, at least, will set a given scope to parallax free at whatever range(s) you'd like. And some scopes come set for longer ranges. S&B's 10X42 PM scope is set for 300 meters not 100 meters, for instance.
You can also try using the ocular to reduce parallax. I've had great results doing that with some of my Leupolds. I went from 4-5 inch groups at 300 yds. down to 2 inch groups with one of my 6X Leupolds by simply using the ocular to reduce the parallax in the scope. E

Even if it's only a loss of 1 MOA, if you start with a rifle that shoots 1 MOA at 100, the loss of accuracy due to parallax alone (never mind the wind) will take your groups (assuming they hold at 1 MOA out to 500, a big assumption) from 5 inches to 10 inches.

Either you can live with that, or you can't.

Thanks E.

Nothing is easy...

Works great in any position if you practice as you shoot in the field.

Is it easy? Nope, but contrary to what E. says, it does work because I've done it and know it works, otherwise I would say don't do it, it's a waste of time.

And the scope I've used the most on this was a VX-II 3-9x40

I know it works too, but I've been in situations where the right eye relief was not a position I could hold for long and I had to take what I could get, as far as eye relief. In other words, sometimes in the field, the only position you can squirm into is not one you've practiced. It's funny, some people poo-poo the idea of an AO by saying they don't want to mess around with another adjustment that removes a source of error, but they'll put up with a different compromise that takes just as long and restricts eye relief to a narrow band in order to reduce that same error. To each his own.

Never said I was against them and have said they have their place in certain applications.

I simpy gave an alternative method of reducing parallax if you don't have one.

IMO, if your position is so bad you can't get behind the gun properly, you should:

A. Change it if possible.

B. Pass on the shot.

JM

Personally, I'd never advise someone else what shots they should/shouldn't take over the internet.

Wasn't aimed at you Smoke, just a general statement pard.

If someone can't get behind their gun and execute a killing shot...for whatever reason, common sense should tell them to pass.

Just stated the ethical solution to the problem. I'm sure some will choose to bang away.

One of the things that would prevent someone from getting behind a rifle for a killing shot would be the requirement to get eye relief just so. In that respect the ethical solution is to eliminate parallax with an AO.

Only yuppie hunters need AO scopes for deer hunting.

Depends on how far they're shooting, not what they're shooting at. Or their status as rednecks vs yuppies.

Skill set of a hunter obliviates the need for an AO for big game.

You are trying to defend a "want" rather than a "need".

No necessity to do that. You may want whatever you wish.

Opposition springs from trying to convince others that your "want" for an AO is a need for "deer hunting".

Be my guest - go shooting, practice lots, argue MOA, clicks, dials and dots, windmeters, laser rangefinders and AO.

Tools of the trade for a shooter. Master that trade, perhaps you already have, and that commands respect.

Skill set does not change by supping a paper target for a deer.

Change the thread title to "deer shooting scope" and go forth and fill arcs.

To me - IMHO - to much talk of shooting these days and to little of hunting.

Rant over.

cmg hit the nail on the head.

Fact is an AO is a non issue in the vast majority of hunting situations.

LR guys are the exception of course, but tons of venison is loaded into the back of trucks every year by hunters who don't use an AO scope.

Guess I'd Rather be a redneck than a clueless boob.

JM

Now that's more like it, boys. We should have resorted to name calling earlier. I feel more at home in the optics forum, now.