For those of you who use scopes with side focus or adjustable objective models, which setup do you prefer, the SF or AO, and why? Thanks.

Side focus. Easier to adjust behind the trigger and it looks better.

yept.......me too

SF if given the choice

SF for ergonomics.

I use AO but that's only because me and my scopes are old.

If I were buying new SF seems like a no brainer.

Yup!

↑ ↑ ↑

Only real advantage I can think of for AO is for someone shooting leftie.

Side focus. A ton easier to adjust while behind the rifle ready to rock.

That would be me . I have both types and both work, but neither is lefty friendly.

There seems to be a general belief that side focus scopes are better at holding zero.
However, side focus setups have a much shorter depth of focus than similar AO scopes. AO scopes can be preset, if that's important.
My preference is neither. If I need a long range scope, I'd prefer something like the 10X S&B which is set to be parallax free at 300 meters. E

300 isn't really long range...

SF or AO ? How about neither.........rear parallax adj

And Price. Side Focus typically costs more.

I'm a southpaw. I prefer the SWFA rear parallax.

Hmmm....

Very surprised, seeing how you are a lefty...

Maybe he was talking about shooting pistols..

I'd be all for trying the SS line, but I have zero need or desire to hunt with cluttered reticles.

I thought you're hunting had you taking shots in a lot of wind? You might be suprised how much you like that cluttered reticle in that service if you were to give it a try. The simplicity of a FFP mil/mil sells itself.

David

Why would it be more dificult fot a lefty?

Shooting prone wouldn't it be akin to a righty dialing wind during a string? The dial is on their strong side. A righty has to shift his/her support to the right elbow to dick with SF taking them out of position. Having said that I prefer SF by a long shot...

If you shot lefty, you'd know...

I'm a lefty, and I prefer SF and RF. AO is my last choice of the three.

I do hunt in windy conditions, but I never said I chose to take longer shots in those conditions. I personally find it irresponsible. I like getting up close and personal if possible....

Wrong handed shooting a right handed rifle?

Pretty sure some of the models are available with a MD reticle.

I'm not a southpaw, but the rear parallax is easy to like.

Lefty. Rear focus or side focus.

amen to side focus

I was a great pheasant hunter at age 14.
At age 57 in 2007 I went deer and elk hunting with a 270, and killed 5 deer that year out to 500 yards.
I also missed a lot of deer and elk, and probably wounded some.

I really got yelled at for blowing the elk shots at 620 yards when they were walking toward me.

I needed to stop shooting at big game like I shot at pheasants when I was 14.

Since then I have tried to clean up my act.
I practice at long range at the beginning of the season and usually qualify for taking shots out to 400 or 500 yards in wind up to 10 mph.

Since then I have killed 17 more animals, and I have not missed any long range shots.

I find I don't NEED adjustable objective or side focus to reach my 500 yard potential. I just like it for the target practices, so I buy it.

Doesn't matter to me. I only have one scope with parallax adjustment and it is a rimfire scope with AO.

SF

Yes to that. I have a nice NF 2.5 x10 side focus NXS. Great target scope. To many things on the windshield. I would buy a 3-9 super chicken however with a .25 MOA line width reticle despite many admonishments to the contrary I just don't see the MOAR as a woods hunting device. Just my opinion.

I would vote for a democrat if he promised to get rid of thin reticles that disappear on low magnification with first focal plane.

That top buck is a HOG

I'm not sure why I didn't shoot that old monarch. He may be the largest bodied buck I've ever seen, and we've weighed a few at 325-330lbs (guts in).

They can be but rarely is parallax or focus optimal using that method.

I got a US Optics scope for dirt cheap that did not work right. It had been sold and resold.
I figured out that the adjustable objective had double pitch threads and was off 180 degrees.
I sent it back to the holy lands in CA and they fixed it for free.

Now the pre sets work.

And just how many Side Focus or AO scopes are you using?

Can you honestly qualify yourself to say one is better than the other?

OP question wasn't SF, AO or Neither.


In my opinion, both work well and personal preference is key to me. I have rifles with AO's scopes on them that I like alot and they get shot alot but they don't make them in SF. If they did that would probably be the direction I would go with those scopes. Most all other higher range scopes that I have have SF.

As the stooge above stated about depth of focus, I find it hard to see a difference but, when you actually use something rather than just commenting out your azz it might make a difference.

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.