I've always had trouble with paralax error. I'm a good shooter, not great. I can shoot sub-MOA with one rifle and MOA with several others. The one rifle that I can shoot sub-MOA with has a raised cheek rest on the stock. The others don't and I try to eliminate paralax error by always holding my head in the same place relative to the stock. But I still have more horizontal spread than I would like.

I'm wise enough to know that the one thing that can improve my accuracy is practice. I know that the limitatiions are mostly mine, not the gear. Still I'm vain enough to think that if I had a raised cheek rest on my other riflers, I might eliminate some of that horizontal spread.

There are four rifles that I think I might improve by adding a raised cheek rest. Two have synthetic stocks. Two have a walnut stocks.

I'm not rich and I'm really too cheap to buy new stocks.

So how can I add raised cheek patches to these rifles? And not make them look like abominations?

Following this thread.

I have used a neoprene stick on pad on some rifles. Even on walnut that don't harm the stock.
I think they can be removed and re applied.

Interested in other replies.

Look for lace on pads made out of leather.

They were used on Garand and the Brits rifles in the ww2/and later.

Last time i looked they were about 25+- bucks.
Some types attach with screws but look at the lace up.

I am pleased with one of these on my Marlin 336 35 Rem.

https://www.beartooth-products.com/collections/comb-raising-kit-gun-cover-cheek-pad-weld-piece-riser

I have mentioned this before on a similar thread, but I put a raised cheek piece on my McMillan classic hunter, and my son's tika t3x . I put them on with a strong adhesive like jb weld, instead of drilling holes in my stock. They are a huge asset, especially when shooting prone. The check pieces will greatly improve your consistent cheek weld,and therefore your accuracy. These are the plastic moldable cheek pieces. You simply set it to the exact height that fits you,make a couple marks on your stock, and the glue the check piece in place. One note, make sure the cheek piece sets far enough back that you can get the bolt out when you need to.

I recently came across Rick Lowe Custom Leather lace on cheek rests. I have 5 of them in both the 1" and 1/2" height and they make a big difference for me. They are not cheap but you can still order several before you reach the cost of a new stock.

It might just be that the rifles in question are only about as accurate as the results you've been getting, and parallax has nothing to do with it. At what distance are you shooting, and with what scope? Are you actually seeing parallax through the eyepiece (ie reticle moving on the target as you move your head around without moving the rifle)?

If you want to try the comb-raising thing though, without permanently modifying your rifles, you could use a bit of neoprene. Easiest of all I've found is what we call a stubby holder here (I think you call them "koozies"). You knock the bottom out of it and you have a cylinder of neoprene which can stretch over the butt to give you a little extra height. A piece of neoprene from a mouse pad, attached with tape, will do the same job, and you can add thicknesses with extra layers of neoprene. If that works for you you can go to something a bit more permanent, but if it makes no difference it has cost you nothing.

One might try a scope that can be parallax corrected. That's one route past technique issues.

KC,

Have you actually checked your scopes for parallax at the ranges tested?

I ask because it takes a LOT of parallax and eye misalignment to actually make a significant difference.

dan oz & Mule Deer:

Yes, I have checked for paralax error. The vertical retical moves horizontally when I move my head.

I'm going to try suggested products made by Beretta and Beartooth on two rifles. Both products seem like they are reversable. So if I screw it up, I can correct the mistake.

Thanks everyone for your input.

KC

KC
Getting a scope that has a parallax adjustment is the fix. Dont ever think you can put your head is the same place on the stock. Aint happening. Why do I say that ? For several years I have been teaching LE precision rifle shooting. In helping/making them understand how much parallax can be a factor, we do a test. Like this.....
We all know we can put our head in exactly the same place on a stock, even the STAR stock which is more adjustable that any on the market. But have we ever demonstrated it ? NO WE HAVE NOT !
Here is how the test works. I use a very heavy shooting table with a 1/2 inch steel top. Bolt on a large vise. Clamp the rifle in the vise so it cant be moved. When using the STAR stock, I clamp in the action area, plenty of strength there. Let the shooter set behind the rifle and adjust the stock any way he/she wants. Lock down the adjustments. Then take a Sharpie, put a small mark on their cheek and another on their temple. Get them back on the the stock, comfortable, then use a dial indicator with a magnetic base and zero each on there respective marks. Have the shooter move off the rifle. Then back on . Use their cel phone to take photos or else they wont believe how far off they are.
The standard bet is $200 if they can do this 5 times in a row. I had one shooter who got on the marks 2 out of five. The rest never get back. I made enough money from these bets to buy a pickup from my brother.
This idea of getting on the stock the same way every time is great until you have to demonstrate it.

KC
Another eye opening test is to set up a stock that fits from a bench, and use a scope with no parallax adjustment. Then shoot from your weak side, then prone on both sides, and watch your point of impact walk around.

Charlie;
Good morning to you sir, I trust the day is as bright and calm in Kentucky as it is up here just across the medicine line.

Thanks kindly for taking the time to post that bit of information.

I've now read it twice - have a good friend in law enforcement who's job has him behind a rifle - anyway we've kicked this subject around a bit and reading what you've found I just had to shake my head, grin and feel somewhat vindicated that my until now unproven theory wasn't totally crazy.

While I'm cognizant you're a busy man sir, please feel free to share what you've learned any time you're so inclined. I believe I can speak for a few of us that very much appreciate your findings.

If I'm not mistaken it was yourself and John Barsness who years ago built a .300WSM and then chambered it to .300H&H after to prove case shape didn't matter? That was another moment of clarity for me and if it was you once again, then thanks for that one too!

Thanks either way and all the best to you as we head into winter.

Dwayne

So, do you feel a raised cheek piece/adjustable stock is a waste?

BC30cal
Give me a call sometime. I can talk a little faster than I can type !😀🤔😫🤣

Dennis:

No, I don't think it would be a waste, just expensive.

KC

Why make this so difficult and maybe expensive..tape some cloth rags, I used my wife`s wash cloths, pad them to get the correct height, eye to scope,etc. and try it..see if what your doing helps or not. If the adhock cheek piece works, then change or add something permanent. Easy-peasy.
Good luck.

KC,

Now you've made me curious: Exactly what is this scope that has so much parallax?

Also, am assuming you're testing it at 100 yards? You don't say in your original post.

Muley:

Yeah. You're right, I am shooting at 100 yuards mostly. But I also practice at 200 and 300. The scope is a Leupold VX-3 3.5x10x40. I have the same prtoblem with several scopes. So I'm not blaming it on the gear. I don't think the problem is with the scope. I think it's my head moving and nothing to rest my cheek on to prevent movement.

KC

That is definitely parallax error, coming from the optics. Trying to keep you head in the exact same spot every time will likely be impossible realistically

Your body would also need to be in the exact same position because it supports your head.

You can actually calculate the maximum error attributable to parallax, and it may well be rather less than you think at the distances we're talking about:

The maximum parallax error E at a given target distance t for a scope which is parallax-free at distance p and has an objective lens diameter D is given by the equation

E = 0.5 D (abs(t-p))/p

So, for example, if you have a scope with a 40 mm objective lens, like the Leupold KC mentioned, set to be parallax free at 150 yards, maximum parallax error at 200 yards is

E= 0.5x40 (abs(200-150))/150

=6 2/3 mm

Similarly, for a target at 100

E= 0.5x40 (abs(100-150))/150

=6 2/3 mm

That is to say, if your eye position is at the very edge of the exit pupil, rather than properly centred, you could be as much as 6 2/3 mm (roughly 1/4") off at these distances, in these particular examples.

The parallax isn't always correct for the distance it's supposed to be set for. Even with adjustable parallax scopes the distance setting isn't accurate. Of the half dozen scopes I own with parallax adjustment only one has settings that actually match the distance - it's a Bushnell BTW

It is ugly but you could make a temporary raised cheek piece and see if it helps before buying.

I used a 2 inch diameter closed cell foam pipe insulating tube, box cutter, tape and veterinary self adhering wrap. As a harder shell over the foam I placed a piece of Dollar Store plastic cutting board cut and shaped to fit, and taped in place. It was UGLY but helped my offhand/ field accuracy a lot. Once I knew what it needed... I sold the whole rig and started over.

mauserand9mm,

"The parallax isn't always correct for the distance it's supposed to be set for. Even with adjustable parallax scopes the distance setting isn't accurate."

That's pretty common knowledge among experienced shooters--and it's due partly to the variations in manufacturing, and also to variable magnification scopes. It's also less well-known that parallax can vary from day to day, due to air density.

Which is why for the absolute minimum aiming error due to parallax, you have to compensate, which can be done in several ways:

1) Centering your eye behind the scope. This is what KC is trying to accomplish, but its most precisely done by moving your aiming eye closer or farther from the scope than the distance allowing the full field-of-view. This results in part of the FOV being blacked out, which is due to seeing only through the exit pupil. If you center this smaller FOV, and also the reticle, when aiming, there is no parallax, because your eye is aligned with the center of the scope.

2) Adjusting the parallax of the scope. This is easily done with either an adjustable objective lens (AO), or more commonly these days, a knob located on the left side of the scope.

3) Focusing the scope. Parallax can be affected both by the focus on the front of or side of the scope, but also from the two typical adjustments of the rear focus, either screwing the entire bell in or out, or (on many more recent scopes) the "quick-focus" ring on back of the rear bell. This typically doesn't affect parallax as much as 1 & 2, but can definitely help.

4) Variable scopes complicate things, because the change in magnification often results in changes in parallax, which are exaggerated in higher-X scopes. From about 10x down, this isn't much--but above 10x can be--which is why most scopes over 10x feature some sort of parallax adjustment. (In a worst-case example, I once tested a 5-15x scope made by a major "alpha" Eurupean company--which did NOT have any parallax adjustment. On 15x it had around a foot of parallax at 400 yards. I doubt many shooters have seen one, since it did not last long.)

Most scopes up to 10x (including variables) are set at the factory to be parallax-free at a certain range. If they do not have an AO or side-focus, the typical range they're set for is 100-200 yards. If they show considerable parallax at those ranges, then the parallax setting was off at the factory, which is not unknown--which is exactly why I asked AC what kind of scope was the problem.

The model he has should NOT show significant parallax at the ranges he's shooting.

I’ve put Picatinny rails on my las couple of Tikkas and had to raise the comb. I used something like this. Easy to install and addressed all issues without permanent alteration. It did tighten up my groups.

https://www.amazon.com/Beartooth-Co...0G9W1P98&refRID=VQYYW6C3NGRF0G9W1P98

That would be a stupid thing to do.

Gee whiz!

No, it's not a stupid thing to do if you're wondering whether parallax is affecting groups at any range. It's a way of testing scopes (and rifles) that can reveal a lot.

I was not going to comment further but will say that IMO it is a good idea. It is new to me and a scope test I will remember. I would not have thought of it but as soon as articulated, it is obviously true that when the only thing left is the center then you are centered. That is over simplifying what MD posted but is the direction of the exercise: quick, simple and useful.

It was mentioned as a means to compensate for parallax error, and that would be stupid.

You can look through a scope at the correct amount of eye relief and move your head a little to detect parallax error.

I think you can guarantee that any parallax error will affect accuracy at some point.

I don't understand why you would want to waste ammo determining something you can pick up easily just looking through the scope. By shooting you are compounding rifle accuracy (error) with parallax error.

Actually the opposite is true. By pulling your head back and centring the image within the black circle as John describes you eliminate the effect of parallax, so that rather than compounding the rifle accuracy with parallax you can isolate the rifle's inherent accuracy from the effect of parallax. IOW if your groups shrink when you do it, parallax may have been your problem. If your groups are unaffected, it likely wasn't.

I've done it myself. It is quick and simple and is one of those things that can help nail down the source of an accuracy issue. It also may help to shoot the smallest groups with a non-AO scope.

Dan,

"It also may help to shoot the smallest groups with a non-AO scope."

Which is exactly why I have sometimes used it. The last was a few months ago, when assigned by a magazine to test a new bolt-action .22 rimfire hunting rifle for an review article. Despite owning several dozen scopes, a lot of them were already on rifles--including two of the several "test scopes" I keep for such use, which were adjustable for parallax. (As a general rule, there are around 3-4 such test rifles in the safe at the same time.) So I mounted a Swarovski Z3 3-9x36, and shot the .22 extensively at 50 yards with several kinds of ammo, from hunting hollow-points to match stuff, backing off my eye so the reticle could be centered. As it turned out, the rifle would shoot 5-shot groups of half an inch or less with just about any of the ammo, so I decided to buy it from the manufacturer--and then purchased a parallax-adjustable scope to put on the rifle, returning the Swarovski to its usual job of testing centerfires.

On another occasion I was sent a custom centerfire rifle for review, which came from the maker as a package deal with a fixed 10x that turned out to have apparently been set at the factory to parallax-free at 200 yards. It would have been easy to do the testing at 200, but the magazine that assigned the article uses a specific testing protocol that, among other things, stipulates 100-yard group shooting. So I backed off my aiming eye when shooting the test targets, and the rifle shot fine.

I have also come to the conclusion that I can get my face Close to the same place each time using a stock with a higher comb.I am shooting more consistent then I had been in the past since I have changed from a straight classic stock to some form of Monte Carlo.Do I get my head in the exact same spot every time. Probably not,but close enough for me.I really like the McMillan Sako Monte Carlo style stock and have them on several rifles now.JMHO,Huntz

Okay, as a temporary means to get around parallax error is understandable. I thought it was proposed as a permanent fix which would be stupid.

I guess I should clarify my position - sacrificing FOV to correct parallel error would be stupid and potentially dangerous in a field condition. You gotta be aware of the surroundings and background of the intended target. You wanna see that other deer about to cross in front of your intended target, or who knows a farmer or hiker breaking out of the brush - [bleep] happens.

Consider and assess the possiblities of your actions

I use adjustable comb risers

Bolt on one


Strap on butt bag with foam pad,


Shell holder with pads cut from old neoprene waders
[/quote]


I don't use them for parallax error but so when the butt hits my shoulder the scope is in line with my eye and I don't have to be waggling my head around to find the image. The butt bags with pads are as cheap as $8. on amazon and work just as well as the more expensive ones from the LR houses.

I can recommend the beartooth adjustable comb kit. I have two or three of them, I use them on some of my shotguns.... your eye is the rear sight.

I tried one of those and hated it. As with any wrap-around pad, it also makes the comb wider which can push your head off to one side rather than just raising it. It also was not very consistent and stable, as the layers of pad stuffed inside the neoprene sock could shift around. I would not buy another.

There are several kydex adjustable cheek pieces available on Amazon and elsewhere as a kit. You do have to drill holes in the stock though, like erich's first picture above.

Some folks just don't get it when they are told a correct way to test or even shoot. For those folks I dont' think parallax is a big enough issue, they have other issues....

Is it an Oz thing to call someone stupid and then fail to apologize when you realize you were wrong?
Just wondering as I might go to Oz someday.

KC,
As someone previously suggested get a piece of foam pipe insulation, or a pool noodle (if you need more height) and tape it in place. Cheap, easy, and it will tell you what you need to know. Then follow up with a permanent solution if required.

Wasn't wrong so no need to apologise - understanding of intent differed between the parties involved. If you find a problem with parralax and it needs to be fixed permanently buy a scope that has the appropriate correction. Adding an cheekpiece to hold your head in the same spot isn't going to be reliable under all field conditions and positions. Adjusting the scope position to reduce the FOV, as a permanent solution, is a stupid idea. I reckon that whoever does this would also recommend licking the lens to clean it. (Hint)

Weasel words.

No weasels left down here - the cane toads killed them all.