4x12x40 riflescopes
- Thread starter Alberta Separatist 11
- Start date
Even then, depends on what range you're using it. Most scopes are set to be parallax free at 100m (rimfire scopes at 50m, some shotgun /muzzle loader ones at 75m), so if you're using it for target use at whatever distance it's set for it doesn't matter one iota.
Then again, with a good consistent cheek weld parallax isn't a big deal, parallax only matters if your eye is not perfectly lined up with the scope.
Hand Skills
CGN Regular
- Location
- In the 'heartland', southern SK
Maybe I have bad eyes, but I find adjustable parallax makes a big difference to me, even at 10x.
I agree that for typical big game hunting, parallax adjustment is not a necessity.
Parallax error is greatest at short range. Very important if one is using a high power scope at close range. A minor change in eye position can result in a big change in point of aim, even if the gun has not moved.
At long range parallax error is a lot less significant. Yes with a good cheekweld parallax error can be mitigated, but it's the focus I struggle with. Optically. I wouldn't buy a pair of binoculars without a focus wheel. Why would I buy a scope without one?
For shooting at big targets at moderate range, no problem.
For shooting small targets at long range, it definitely helps to have an optic that can focus on the target, instead of the foreground in front of the target.
I personally wouldn't buy any optic over 8x without a parallax (or focus) adjustment, but that's just me.
I agree that for typical big game hunting, parallax adjustment is not a necessity.
Parallax error is greatest at short range. Very important if one is using a high power scope at close range. A minor change in eye position can result in a big change in point of aim, even if the gun has not moved.
At long range parallax error is a lot less significant. Yes with a good cheekweld parallax error can be mitigated, but it's the focus I struggle with. Optically. I wouldn't buy a pair of binoculars without a focus wheel. Why would I buy a scope without one?
For shooting at big targets at moderate range, no problem.
For shooting small targets at long range, it definitely helps to have an optic that can focus on the target, instead of the foreground in front of the target.
I personally wouldn't buy any optic over 8x without a parallax (or focus) adjustment, but that's just me.
I’ve gotten rid of every scope I had without parallax adjustment thats over 10 x and a few of the 10s are side focus as well.
Thats not to say they aren't useable or useful, but that compromises have their limits. That's not to say that there isnt a lot of big game application inside those limits.
Thats not to say they aren't useable or useful, but that compromises have their limits. That's not to say that there isnt a lot of big game application inside those limits.
What about optics for precision shooting, mil dot or BDC? I have never used a mil dot reticle just duplex and BDC style. Mil dot looks a tad complex. I see Nikon has a P Tactical .308 4-12x40 800 BDC scope, fixed parralax. With the spot on app and 6.5 CM round, it will get you out to over 1000 yds with no math. Looks pretty simple to use. Anyone have any experience with BDC reticles for PRS specifically this Nikon version?
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
Mil-Dot and BDC are both useless for target shooting. You want either an MOA or Mil hashed reticle. If it’s fixed distances then you can get away with dialing around your scope, but having an FFP hash-marked reticle is the best choice.
Hand Skills
CGN Regular
- Location
- In the 'heartland', southern SK
PRS is expensive, even if you shoot 22LR!
There are more budget FFP options now than ever, Nikon FX1000 for example. Or Vortex Diamondback.
If cost is a factor, maybe look at a fixed 10x. Definitely stay away from BDC - hashed mil/moa with matching turrets is a good idea.
There are more budget FFP options now than ever, Nikon FX1000 for example. Or Vortex Diamondback.
If cost is a factor, maybe look at a fixed 10x. Definitely stay away from BDC - hashed mil/moa with matching turrets is a good idea.
Last edited:
Hand Skills
CGN Regular
- Location
- In the 'heartland', southern SK
It is to for many. The advantage being the reticle matches the turrets at every magnification.
If you are just going to set the scope on maximum magnification and leave it there, FFP offers no advantage.
With a 4-16x scope, you could probably get by just leaving it at 16x for example, but then it essentially becomes a fixed power scope.
FFP offers more flexibility because you can zoom out to say 12x and still use the reticle for holding wind or holding over. The angular subtensions are the same. If you do that on a SFP scope, 2units in the reticle (moa or mrad) becomes 3 angular units in reality. It's still possible to use the reticle, but one has to know precisely what magnification they are at, and then mathematically scale the reticle to that magnification... this takes valuable time and brainpower, and introduces more potential for error. That is why FFP reigns supreme for shooting 'unknown' (or varying) distances.
If you are just going to set the scope on maximum magnification and leave it there, FFP offers no advantage.
With a 4-16x scope, you could probably get by just leaving it at 16x for example, but then it essentially becomes a fixed power scope.
FFP offers more flexibility because you can zoom out to say 12x and still use the reticle for holding wind or holding over. The angular subtensions are the same. If you do that on a SFP scope, 2units in the reticle (moa or mrad) becomes 3 angular units in reality. It's still possible to use the reticle, but one has to know precisely what magnification they are at, and then mathematically scale the reticle to that magnification... this takes valuable time and brainpower, and introduces more potential for error. That is why FFP reigns supreme for shooting 'unknown' (or varying) distances.
