Does FFP Reduce Parallax Error

Jump to latest Follow Reply
D

DrPutz

Member
Mar 18, 2017
244
31
Ohio, United States
So I am trying figure out how to minimize parallax error and was wondering if FFP, by means of being in the front, minimizes the error on setting the parallax. In my SFP Hawke Airmax, I get target movement with a head bob with the target clearly in focus. However, my new to me Athlon ArgosBtr, FFP, I do not get any movement with a head bob. I am not sure why there is a difference. 

Thanks, 

Dan 
 
Regardless of whether a scope is better at eliminating parallax better than the other and vice versa should not be an issue if you are consistent in your cheek or head placement on the stock. Parallax is just the result when the plane of the target and the plane of the reticle do not combine to form a single plane. Even the best of scopes have a hard time doing this. You can eliminate parallax, but you're going to have to make really fine micro-adjustments (very fine twisting of the AO) while constantly moving your head around to check for its existence or nonexistence; this can be very tedious.

What really matters---and what trumps over the phenomenon big time---is consistent head placement. You must have the same anchor point for your head on the stock. One simple technique is to view through your scope and make sure you see a ring that has equal thickness all around between the internal and external edge of the eyepiece as shown in the photo below (picture was taken from the internet and is not mine). This will be your reference view or standard view or whatever you want to call it. When you do this every time—make sure you’ve zeroed your scope doing this, most especially—you’ll have no problem with parallax effects. 

You have to understand that it's not enough to just take one's advice of "consistent cheek weld/placement" on a surface level. What it really means is that through consistent cheek placement you are able to see a consistent sight picture, one that always leads to the same "reference" or "standard" view as, for example, in the picture below.

Respectfully, never let it be that you need the best equipment to mask the lack of skill. Aim at being consistent first then accurate the next (no pun intended). Cheers and shoot straight!

1200px-Edit_4x_rifle_scope.jpg
 
Upvote 0
The "cheek weld" did not really resonate with me or help my underlying question, as I was interested in the optical properties of FFP vs SFP. It seems like the FFP should be better than teh SFP, but what proof is there?

This stems from having an apparent problem with more open groups with my Hawke Airmax. I could just not get my groups to "tighten" up (less the 0.75" at 55 yards) that I knew that the rifle could do better on (I had 0.23" at 55 yds before). I could see the pellet just start off-course and wind up as a "flyer" I would agree that inconsistent head position probably was an underlying issue, but with a fixed distance and all the time in the world to get the focus/parallax right - my head position "should" not matter. After all it is hard to be perfectly in the same position every time over 100 shots - I think that is why those old Tyrolean stocks came to be. I even tried drilling a "peep sight" into the fancy metal Hawke scope cap to "restrain" my eye position in the "perfect" spot without much success. One British writer suggested a 8mm peep on the objective end, which I did not try (yet). Well the truth is that the Hawke was just not focusing well enough to set the parallax correctly.

Yesterday with some time and very nice weather, I tried out my 4 best scopes: my replacement Hawke Airmax 4-16x50 (SFP), Athlon Talos 6x24x50 (SFP) against Athlon Talos BTR 4-14x44 (FFP) and Athlon Argos BTR 6-24x50 (FFP). I used the A-Team Parallax Adjustment Procedure and it really helped understand/observe what was going on (link down below). One understanding is that the ocular adjustment adjusts the clarity of the overall picture - both reticle AND object, should be done/fine tuned at the END, and then locked in. Adjusting the ocular lens to a clear sky will not get the full image perfectly/adequately in focus. 

Anyway, setting the scopes up on a table and sand bags, I was able with the head bob to get a "perfect" parallax at 10 yards, then adjusted the clarity of the image with the ocular adjustment. I used a excel-style table to look at to see the reticle movement during the head bob, which worked out well. Through this process, the FFP seemed to have just as much movement as a SFP when the parallax is off and you do a head bob. Even, if it was off just a little bit with the FFP or SFP, at 55 yards I was getting 0.5" movement! You could miss a field target with that amount of error. I observed that even with my "peep" sighted scope cap on the Airmax, I could still get movement when the parallax was off (plus it really messed up the clarity). 

I did notice that the clarity of the scope was the most important feature. I suspect that this is because - if you can't get a clear image, you probably can't get a good parallax adjustment in the field. Head bob in field target would be very tough, so you have to rely on a clear focused image as the guage. Overall the cheaper Athlon Talos 6x24x50 (SFP) was the absolute clearest scope. Not sure why, but it was the easiest scope to focus properly at 55 yds - which is probably why I recorded such a great 0.23" group with that scope back when I was setting the rifle up. It was even better than the FFP version. The replacement Airmax was the hardest to set properly due to clarity. The Athlon Talos BTR 4-14x44 (FFP) had slack in the parallax knob, so might have to be replaced.

Hopefully that sheds some light - try the A-Team procedure and don't skip steps and I think you will be rewarded.

http://www.bcsportsmen.org/ft/A_Team_Parallax_adjustment_procedure.pdf
 
Upvote 0
Spinj - I will be the first to admit that I'm an inconsistent shooter. I don't shoot enough to master the art, but hoping to change that in future. 

My theory is that when I get to he point where my skills match the equipment, time to get better equipment. I never want to have the option of blaming the scope or gun. That way, within reason, I know all the screwups are mine and mine alone.

Take my lowly Marauder for instance. It can consistently throw the 18.3 grain JSB's in .22 into a quarter sized group at 75 yards. However, I never quite seem to get a group that size. Somehow, I always manage to pull one or two out of a 10 shot group. Since I can't blame the gun or scope combo, gotta be me.

I will use whatever I can, within reason, to give me a better chance of hitting the target. That's why I wanted to follow this thread. Does a FFP, when properly focused, eliminate some parallax that SFP scopes might be subject to? If that's the case, I'll continue to buy FFP scopes, as I want the equipment to be better than I am so I can't blame the scope.

Don't get me wrong, absolute consistency will yield much better results than depending on equipment to camouflage lack of skill, but I wouldn't take a Maximus to Extreme Bench Rest and expect to win, even if my skills were top notch, if you know what I mean. If my skills are amazing and my equipment isn't good enough, I still lose.

Many thanks for the info.
 
Upvote 0
"Saltlake58"My theory is that when I get to he point where my skills match the equipment, time to get better equipment. I never want to have the option of blaming the scope or gun. That way, within reason, I know all the screwups are mine and mine alone.

Click to expand...
My theory too, with almost anything I buy. It was particularly in play for performance during my 2000 jump skydiving era.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu