Hi guys. I am considering a 4.5-14 Leupold for my deer hunting rifle which is offered both in AO and non AO. My concern is that with this much magnification an adjustable objective may be necessary due to increased parallax. Often shots are presented very quickly, so making an objective adjustment would seem to be counter productive in many cases. So I'm sure someone here has experience with the non AO 4.5-14 Leupold and I would appreciate hearing about how it performs in hunting situations. Is parallax a problem with it? Thanks

pooch I have both AO and non AO scopes. It really depends on how far you are planning on shooting. I usually have my AO set to 100 yards and its fine for most "normal" hunting situations. Also it takes only a few seconds to adjust if the shot is further and requires some adjustment. I would personally go with the AO but thats just me.

The AO is a great extra to have, its one of those things you never use until you actual need it..........comes in handy

pooch,

I have a couple scopes with A.O. I set them at about 150 and leave them for the vast majority of hunting. If something presents itself way out, it most likely doesn't know I'm there so there is plenty of time to play with my toy.

Just last Saturday I compared a couple of 4-16X at 200 yards. One has the A.O. and the other didn't. The parallax error was so bad I called a couple young guys over to educate them. They were amazed at how much the crosshair moved in the non-A.O.

Thanks all for the input! Sounds like the AO might be my best bet. pooch

I like the AO. I do like a bigger field of view than the 4.5 gives. I just noticed this post in the classifieds. Someone is wanting to trade one. This must be his email. Leupold vari x iii 4.5-14x40 ao? Interested? Ogallala_1yahoo.com

No way I'd get one without the AO....................DJ

I debated over this question once before. Most will say you need the AO, others will see you can get away with it in most situations. I came to the opinion that it would be better to have it then to not have it.

I won't run over 10x's without an AO or SF. Though most all my scopes top out at 10x or less.

Lots of opinions here, but I'd not have one with AO for a hunting rifle. Depth of focus w/o AO is better, paralax error is overblown.

So if I set my AO scope at 100 or 150 yards like they usually do from the factory on a non AO. You are saying the depth of focus would be different? Are they made different? Please explain. I have 2 monarch 2.5-10 and a leupold mark 2 3x9, and a bushnell laser scope 4x12 I put in a shooting rest and put a orange dot on a piece of 8.5x11 typing paper. Not touching the gun and just moving my eye around the eyepiece I could get it to move off target about 3 to 4 inches each way from the center at 300yards. Worse at longer ranges. To me that is a lot of error when trying to work up an accurate load. I took AO scopes out and they stopped the error.

See the following thread, very similar. www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/u...pold_vx_3_4_5_14x40_need_op#Post5112527. In my opinion a scope with an AO for a hunting rifle used for big game is really unnecessary. However, for long range, in excess of 500 yards, small varmint hunting it could be useful in AO or SF format. See my post in that thread.

I have AO on most of my scopes. I do not know if it really solves any parallax issues. I always assumed it does but have never done any evaluations to prove so.

I find the ability to focus the scope at different ranges to be the best benefit of AO. Probably not a big issue on the typical deer hunt, but it sure can clear up the grid lines on a paper target, or let you spot your own bullet holes through the scope.

I have one of each, an older vari x with AO and a new vx3 without and I would say that while I haven't experienced a situation where either one was unuseable I would not buy another without it.

My point on the depth of focus is that the focus is more critical with the AOs - you should have the ring set somewhere near the range you're shooting. Less critical w/o AO. Not to say AO is unusable in a hunting rifle (I've had a couple in the past), but much prefer w/o.

To the parallax point, I've done the same thing w/ my VX-III 4.5x14x40 non-AO at 400 yards, crosshair movement was almost imperceptible when moving my head to extremes in eye box. The only time I could see any difference was at the extreme edges; definitely not where I would be looking when shooting normally. My scope is on a very accurate .264 M70, groups bear this out in actual shooting.

Leupold offers the 4.5-14X scopes w/o an AO, with one and with the side focus/parallax feature.
Scopes with AO's do have a shorter depth of focus. BTW, use the ocular to focus the scope's image not the AO. While adjusting the AO can affect the scope's image focus, it works better, that means you get a sharper image, if you use the scope's ocular instead.
I've found that focusing the scopes image for a compromise range works very well in reducing parallax. Enough that I get plenty of usable accuracy for long range big game shooting. Now, if small varmits are the quarry, then an AO can be an asset.
I'd also add that there is a significant difference in the eye box of the Leupold 4.5-14X scopes vs. the 3.5-10 scopes. If you need to shoot in a hurry, more eye box is an asset.
Another thing you might not know is that the "medium duplex" on the 4.5-14's is finer, thinner than that found one the less powerful Leupolds. That can make it hard to see if the light is bad. E

Oh, sure, now you tell me, after I just bought one!

I seem to see more parallax error then most people say they are seeing. I don't have to hardly move my off center and the crosshairs start moving on the target. I wear contacts and just wondered if that extra lens to deal with adds more to it?