Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Lack of parallax adjustment on SWFA 3-9X42?

Has anyone using the SWFA SS 3-9X42 HD ever found the lack of parallax adjustment problematic? Does anyone prefer the 3-15 for hunting and shooting longer ranges because of the parallax adjustment?

I've always liked parallax adjustment for rimfire at short ranges but I don't have enough long range experience to know if it is really a big deal in a hunting rifle,or at what ranges it really comes into play.

You can minimise it using the eyepiece focus.
Pick an object about 250 yards away and play about with it, works real well.

Not a problem, at all.

Parallax comes into play at the muzzle, and becomes less and less critical, the further out you go. Try this experiment: Hold your thumb 1" from your nose. Alternate closing your right and left eyes, and notice how much your thumb appears to shift. The angle change is enormous. Then look at something far away, and repeat the process with your eyes. The linear shift is the same, but the angular shift is MUCH less. The same thing happens with scopes.

Consistent and proper cheek weld is the key.

I'm not sure that's the best analogy because it is only demonstrating short range parallax and without reference to a fixed point like a reticle. Parallax is more the separation of focal planes. I would say that if you put both hands out in front of you and use your index fingers like beads on a shotgun rib you can better imagine parallax. Use one as a fixed point, say half your reach, the other moves to demonstrate target distance in relation to a fixed parallax distance. If those two fingers are an inch apart and you move your head like inconsistent weld you will see very little apparent movement because they are nearly on the same plane. Now try it with target distance being halfway back between your body and the fixed/reticle finger and again at full reach. You will see a large apparent movement because they are on significantly different planes just like when you shoot well inside or beyond your parallax setting because of how opposing triangles work. Adjustable parallax would be demonstrated as being able to move the reticle finger to the target finger to minimize apparent shift.

I would agree that well matched stocks and optic mounts ( that contribute to consistent weld) are important to minimizing the need for adjustable parallax. I think that is a big part of why in a practical match I can shoot a stage with ranges from 300 to 700yds, for example, with my parallax set for 500yds. Shooting lower magnification helps also because the higher the magnification used the shallower the depth of focus; part the reason I rarely shoot above 12x aside from other reasons.

Unless you're on a mountain with a awkward rest and shot angle which is a typical scenario...

Agreed, I shoot matches the same way- parallax setting for 300-600 meters set on the ~500 meter setting, mag set on about 12x most of the time.

Your analogy demonstrates adjustable parallax, mine simply demonstrates the principle of how parallax is affected by the distance of the originating image being refracted by the optical planes in the scope.

I have a 3-9 SS on my Rem 700 in 7 Rem Mag. The only parallax issues I see are at 100 yards. Admittedly, I have some cheek-weld issues, using Talley lows and a McMillan Classic. At 100 yards I can clearly descern about 1” of parallax... but I’ve never noticed it while shooting at stuff beyond that range, and I don’t believe it has been the difference between a hit/miss in the field out to 6-700.

Do ya'll consider the 3-9 SS a superior hunting scope compared to the 3-15 SS? I would go for the Bushnell LRHS as it has all the features I think I want but I don't think I want the extra weight on my Kimber Montana. I would already be going heavier than I would like if I go to the 3-9 SS. I'm just getting tired of wondering if the scope is the weak link.

Yes.

I've owned both the 3-15x and 3-9x, and prefer the 3-9x.

Observed parallax with my 3-9x MQ at 500 yards is minimal. Enough to see, when shaking my head around, but that is an extreme amount of movement. In comparison, my 10x MQ scopes had a ton of parallax until the rear focus was recalibrated.

Another forum member and I had a discussion about the 3-9x and parallax awhile back via PM. This is what I sent:



Note that I "fixed" the 10x scopes by "recalibrating" the rear focus.

I'm really not too sure, but over the years, I think that there have been at least of couple of big game animals killed at fairly long range with scopes that had no separate parallax adjustment on them................................I imagine that guns with those same scopes have also killed a couple animals at more mundane yardages as well.

MM

I'm sure that's right. Just wanted to hear from folks with more long range experience than me if the parallax adjustment is a help in that. Most of my hunting is done close range but there is an occasional opportunity in a cutover for a much longer shot.

Diopter setting is a one time adjustment, changing it only introduces other errors into the mix. not related to parallax

If your looking down the optical axis of the scope there isn't any parallax. Good cheek rest solves most problems.

Most shooters will cant their rifles, then readjust it with the horizon, or a level. Long range shooting with bad set up, amplifies this. Vestibular system is accurate to about one degree, levels about 6 degrees.

If rifle is parallax free at 100 yds, and target is 600 yds. (600-500)/100 x obj. radius and you are using an 50 objective, you will have 5 in. of error.

parallax adj. more important in sfp scopes that use the parallax component in a ballistic compensating reticle.

Super Chicken 3x9 is excellent all around scope.

Yes, like I said, minimise parallax using the eyepiece focus at an intermediate distance, after the usual focusing of the reticle looking at the sky business and this scope, or mine at least, has very little parallax at any range.

Just happened to talk to SWFA yesterday about parallax. Representative I talked to said the 3-9 is set for 100 yds.

Original reason was to ask about a used 1-4 x 25 illuminated i just acquired. It showed at least 8" of parallax movement at 100. If I kept my cheek weld consistent I was able to keep the shots within 1/2". Rep said parallax is also set at 100 yds. Said if it is that bad send it in for repairs or replacement.

----------------------

4th Point: quote: "What was surprising was that the 10x had more parallax and I really couldn't eliminate it with the rear focus. I also think the "parallax" was worse in one direction than the other, which would indicate an issue with the objective."

you got rid of parallax in the fixed 10X by "focusing" the eyepiece? That scope comes with adj parallax ring just in front of eyepiece. I wonder if that is what you meant?

I think it depends on which Montana. If we're talking a short action, I agree and wouldn't put a LRHS on a SA Montana because of the weight considerations. I put a LRHS on a LA Montana because I wanted to add a bit of weight. I find the LA Montana's with full power loads a bit snorty; a bit of weight between the hands tames down the recoil a bit.

Agreed Greg! This is always the advice given, which is good advice in general but isn't always possible to maintain same cheek weld in the field.

For me, the one thing about the 3-9 that would make me like it more (have 2, sold one other) would be a side parallax adjustment or at least set the parallax at 300-500yds vs 100yds.

AZs,

On the 10x scopes, the rear focus didn't work to minimize parallax using the factory markings for the distances being shot. It was WAY off. I found where the rear focus needed to be set, marked it, and ignored the factory markings. Similar problem with a 3-15x MQ.

The reticle focus (fast focus on the 10x scopes; rotating ocular on 3-9x) is a different deal. I did not adjust the reticle focus to fix the 10x scopes, however, I have seen fast focus introduce parallax. A buddy was consistently low, by at least 6", shooting from field positions at 300 yards. He was shooting a 12" target and shot under it. We checked parallax, and found quite a bit. He refocused the reticle, finding a setting that kept the reticle in focus while minimizing parallax for all distances.

Jason