Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

by mikemyers 6/7/2021, 9:03 pm

First topic message reminder :

Aimpoint makes a big deal about how their sights are Parallax-Free: "Aimpoint sights are parallax-free, which means that the visible dot remains parallel to the bore of your weapon no matter what angle your eye is in relation to the sight. This means you never have to worry about centering the dot inside the sight. When the dot is on target, so are you."

There's an illustration on their web page:
https://www.aimpoint.com/academy/parallax-free

I was wondering how important this is to Bullseye Shooters, and if it is, what other sights offer that capability?

I wouldn't think so, but does this help changing between 25 and 50 yards? I know it won't compensate for the bullet falling more, but maybe there's more to it?

(The new P-2 ACRO is very small, very light, and KC apparently is already working on adapters for it. As far as I can tell, it's not available for sale yet, and in a previous discussion, people here were concerned about there being so little protection from rain and stuff making it difficult to see through the sight. )

by Froneck 6/11/2021, 9:11 am

If I remember this right I believe it's said the match is won at the long line and lost at the short line. If I get the year right Adam came in second at Perry by a point or 2. They were having problems with 9000 moving 0 that eventually was corrected by changing the mount so it wasn't the 9000. First shot in slow fire was 6, not sure why and assuming it to be him or a round with light charge he shot again, another 6!. He adjusted the sights and if memory is correct he won NMC plus Aced the short line with a 600, Those 2 sixes cost him the win. The short line is a bit easier because the target size remains the same, the 8 ring only changes color. 50 yards becomes difficult because of gun error (group size) and shooters error (group size) and if parallax is added another group size from it is added. Accurizing the pistol lowers it's group size, practice lowered shooters group size 0 parallax eliminates it's added group size. Keeping the dot in the center helps but where is exactly the center? Any deviation from exact center will increase parallax depending on how much the actual parallax is. Adding an aperture will help but remove it for the short line? In addition having the luck to be Adam's father I was invited (more like tagged along with Adam) to a number of gatherings to the AMU shooters that some time included former great AMU shooters like Hamilton or for a "little" Rolling Eyes

liquid refreshment at the local watering hole. I was able to ask questions or listen in on open conversations about shooting. Adam and most of the top shooters look at the target when shooting Red Dot. Yes most of them attempt to keep the Dot in the center as most of us do but keeping the dot in the X than be concerned if in the exact center of the scope especially on the short line.
Yes Allgoodhits Adam won Open class in 2018 came in 2nd in 2019 by an X, Intends to return to Bianchi in 2022, guns are being made.
I have the Sightron S30-5, great red dot made in Japan (competing will Germany for the best optics) No night vision! Very reasonable price, I got 2 from Optics Planet. I've heard Tasco is being made in China.
I have the MRDS reflex sight made by Insight, was being sold by Eotech. Rain at Perry caused me to poke and hope, couldn't see anything with it. Siting in the box now.

by mikemyers 6/11/2021, 2:14 pm

You've had better luck than I have - for the Polarizing filter, it changes over time, so I need to be constantly setting it to "zero", and then I decided if I don't like or need it, why not just take it off, which I did, and instead I attached the "lens hood".

I'm beginning to suspect I do the best with the 1" Ultradot, but I wish it wasn't decreased in size. I bought one new (now on my 45), and I bought a used one from LenV which doesn't stay too long on a gun, as one of my other guns steals it. It's now on my Model 41, which may be part of the reason that my 41 and I get along so well. The Aimpoint H-2 is on my newest High Standard, but I was more pleased today shooting the 41/Ultradot than I was with the X/Aimpoint H-2. Dave Salyer twisted my arm to get the 1" Ultradot, and I ain't never goin' back. There should be two 30mm Matchdot II sights showing up in the Classifieds, here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, just like old clothing going through a dryer, the image size shrinks as it goes through the 1" Ultradot. As far as I can tell, the Aimpoint leaves the image full-size. As to parallax, from what you guys have posted here, I've learned I have more important things to work on.

If the S30 is 30mm, I've mostly lost interest in it. I only have two Vortex Venom sights, bought from a person in this forum, and the two guns I have them mounted on (Model 52 and Victor) snarl at me if I even think of removing their sights!

by chopper 6/11/2021, 3:17 pm

"You've had better luck than I have - for the Polarizing filter, it changes over time, so I need to be constantly setting it to "zero", and then I decided if I don't like or need it, why not just take it off, which I did, and instead I attached the "lens hood"

Mike, those polarizing filters are plastic lenses and get loose from the rings. I fix that by putting a drop of superglue at the lenses and rings on both of them. It don't take much glue, and you'll never notice it when looking through it. So now you have that problem taken care off you'll have to keep the setting from moving once you have the darkness to your liking. When I go to the range and it's very bright out to the point my dot washes out on the target I'll make my adjustments to the rings. I then use a piece of electricians tape and wrap it around the rings securing them to each other, some guys use those rubber bands that are used on lobster claws. You should never have trouble again with them.
Stan

by inthebeech 6/11/2021, 4:22 pm

[quote="Froneck"]I feel it's best to remove any annoyance[/quote]
You said it brother.
Sometimes though it's not within our power. :D

by mikemyers 6/11/2021, 6:35 pm

Stan, that's a great solution. Superglue lens to lens holder, and use Lobster Bands to maintain the setting. Thank you!

by Froneck 6/11/2021, 8:56 pm

I have made a few filters, rather than super glue I use a thin O-ring. Soft O-rings (50A Durometer) are available that are only 1mm thick (.039"). Put the O-ring on the end of the threads, screw into the scope compressing the O-ring. It will not unscrew, 50A works better than the higher durometer ones.

by SilentAssassin 6/12/2021, 4:59 am

LenV wrote:I think everyone answered your question Mike. All scopes (even Aimpoints) have some parallax. I only took this time to address your question about testing for it. When it was suggested you put it in a vice and move away from the dot it was not intended that you move back 5ft or anything like that. Move away to the normal distance between your eye and the dot while shooting. Do not put your eye within a couple of inches and test it like a rifle scope. There is not a red dot on the planet that would pass that test. Well, unless its a Red dot on a rifle scope.

Len

Even rifle scopes have their problems.
Some , like Leupold, like to call their scopes EFR (Extended focus range) ( fancy term for adjustable objective) when in fact focus has nothing to do with parallax.
Too many to count have adjustable objectives whose main purpose is to cancel parallax at ONE range. ( the range you're shooting a target.)
The problem arises in many scopes is that once you cancel parallax to 0..............you are out of focus. Put the scope back into focus and you've just added parallax but you have a clear sight picture.
Most people do not understand this and will argue with you about it until the sun comes up the next morning while defending their scopes.
I have seen claims that when you are in focus , parallax is cancelled to 0. That is not even remotely close to how it works. But you can't convince them because their scope is the greatest scope in the world.
It is not until you get into some of the high end glass, Nightforce, IOR Recon, Vortex razors and such that this problem is addressed and with these scopes you CAN truly cancel parallax and have a clear and sharply focused , parallax free sight picture. Keep in mind that as you cancel parallax with the objective and parallax becomes 0.................moving the gun one yard closer or one yard further away will re-introduce some slight parallax which gets progressively worse the closer , or farther away you move to or from the target.

As to your statement "there is not a red dot on the planet that is truly 100% parallax free" - Bingo. I have not found one over the many years of chasing .22 rimfire, this includes aimpoint, halosun , and trijicon. Though minimal, it's still enough to throw a flier out of an otherwise one hole grouping.
When you add this errors to other factors such as " cant " wind, atmospheric pressures , temperature changes, ammunition inconsistencies and the other hundreds of variables, then a small amount of parallax error becomes a huge problem. I like to call it enhanced inaccuracy. Because now you've added a controllable variable, to about 100 other uncontrollable variables. If this makes sense.

The people who say, " oh that small amount of parallax error is nothing to be concerned about" Need to enter an ARA benchrest competition with their finest rimfire gun and start shooting 50 yards at targets slightly larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Where you have an overall 0.220 margin of error compensation at 50 yards.

So the answer is , Yes, parallax error IS something to be concerned with if your goal is inherent accuracy. And it has absolutely nothing to do with whether your sight picture is in focus.

by mikemyers 6/12/2021, 6:42 am

SilentAssassin, and LenV - in my mind, you are both right, and nothing is "perfect". I guess it comes down to how perfect I want it to be, and how perfect I can afford.

For Bullseye Shooting, apparently a small amount of parallax is acceptable, and that can be minimized by keeping the dot in the center.

So, maybe what CAN be answered is to collect a list of reasonable sights for a Bullseye shooter, regardless of what they cost.

You mentioned "Nightforce, IOR Recon, Vortex razors ". In your opinion, are any/all of these good for Bullseye Shooting?

As for me, I usually copy what others suggest. Dave Salyer suggested a 1" Ultradot, and despite the negative magnification, it seems to be a great sight. It may have parallax, but its small diameter will minimize parallax. I used to have Aimpoint at the top of my list. Now I've got mixed feelings, and am anxious to get one of the new P2 ACRO sights. One gun I shoot the best (for me) is my Victor, and it has a Vortex Venom on it, which I love. Small, low, and light, and I haven't noticed any issues. Unlike the Ultradot L/T, it's easy to make a quick adjustment for centering. I guess I should look into what a Vortex Razor is, and how it compares.

Nothing in life is perfect. Water is good for us, but too much of it and we can drown. Maybe an appropriate way to finish this thread, would be for Bullseye Shooters to post what they prefer, and why.

For me, I'm smaller, weaker, and older, and my number one preference is weight. I've got an Aimpoint 9000, but every time I try to use it, within an hour it comes off the gun. Too heavy.

For me, the diameter of the sight has become a major deciding factor, with 30mm sights now excluded, and 24mm sights preferred.

For me, the lower the centerline of the sight, the better. I have heard some wonderful things about what a Bullseye Gunsmith here is doing with the ACRO P2. I hope to buy one of those as soon as I can, and in my case, to fit onto a rail, although this gunsmith has better ideas. For me, I'd like to be able to move it around to different guns.

For me, price is what it is. I suspect I would be interested in something between $250 and $550.

Finally, for me, the brands that offer an unconditional lifetime warranty, to fix it regardless of how old it is, is a HUGE bonus.

I'll stop now, and from now on just read. So far this thread has been very educational.

by Froneck 6/12/2021, 8:25 am

The one company that I know off that has been responsive to shooters needs is UltraDot. I heard at camp Perry Larrys Guns had an UltraDot representative change intensity setting knob back to original so there was no big intensity jump between 5 and 6 (if my memory is correct). I know Larry would allow shooters to inspect the scopes to check magnification so that negative magnification could be avoided. About 2 years ago I've talked to both Aimpoint and Leupold reps about offering a different intensity range to eliminate Night Vision so a greater range of Day vision setting would allow smaller changes between setting. Not sure if I discussed 50 yard parallax adjustment for Pistol Shooters with Aimpoint but did with Leupold. Both know of the issues and have discussed the options but haven't done anything. Might be worth a call to UltraDot to see if they would "fix" (exchange) an unused scope if after purchased it was noticed had negative magnification, greater amount of 50 yard parallax than desired or any other issues.

by **Wobbley** 6/12/2021, 12:13 pm

At the 4:38 mark of this video is a decent, practical evaluation method of evaluating parallax issues with a dot sight. The only thing I would change is to actually use a 50 yard center. https://youtu.be/_GH3ySqDLcY Note that they use a rifle. And in the sight being evaluated in the video kept the bullets well within a 3 inch circle no matter how much they biased the dot. Most of the other optics they tested using this method passed this test (keep the buckets within the 3 inch white dot.).

As for parallax in optical sights, parallax error is reduced/eliminated by making sure the target is focused to the same plane internally as the reticle. This can be done by adjusting the lens or moving the reticle. Doing this with all the optical and mechanical aberrations induced in a weapon optic to get it “parallax free” is a monumental ($$$$) task

What I want a pistol red dot sight to be is summed up as

Hold zero.
Have discernible clicks in each of the adjustments.
Have no noticeable optical distortion including magnification error.
Be easily mountable to my pistol without modification.
Be light enough to not affect function.
Have reticle sizes and intensities to go from indoor to bright SW sun.
Have parallax error minimized to allow for a Ten to be scored at 50 yards with the reticle centered on the target but visible anywhere in the viewing area of the sight.
Have readily available batteries and good battery life.

And I want all that for $500 or less. Also remember that Bullseye is such a small market segment that we cannot demand much from manufacturers.

If it can’t meet criteria 1 it is NOT acceptable. Even if the optic has zero parallax.

Remember, pistols are NOT rifles. They’re held and fired at arms length. Using ammunition that is not made with utmost accuracy in mind.

by chopper 6/12/2021, 3:15 pm

Froneck wrote:I have made a few filters, rather than super glue I use a thin O-ring. Soft O-rings (50A Durometer) are available that are only 1mm thick (.039"). Put the O-ring on the end of the threads, screw into the scope compressing the O-ring. It will not unscrew, 50A works better than the higher durometer ones.

Frank, I use o-rings when putting shades on the scope, but never on the polarizing filters. I do my method on the UltraDot polarizing filters to keep the 2 lenses from moving in their rings and the tape or rubber band goes around the outside to hold the adjustment on the 2 rings.
Stan

by Froneck 6/12/2021, 5:39 pm

What I did for my son to make filters for the 9000 is buy those intended for camera use. They have various types. Some are adjustable, some can be adjusted while others are fixed. Polarized and non Polarized are also available. For fixed shading I found non polarized better. Cameras don't get the effects created by recoil so adjustable types are like those from UltraDot and will move. I used the type that is 2 pieces, a fixed Polarized filter is inserted then has a second lens that will screw into it, the second filter being able to rotate to change amount of filter. I was bale to stretch a thin O-ring into the gap between the movable part and the fixed so it provided friction to prevent unwanted self rotation.

by SilentAssassin 6/12/2021, 5:43 pm

mikemyers wrote:
You mentioned "Nightforce, IOR Recon, Vortex razors ". In your opinion, are any/all of these good for Bullseye Shooting?

You can add Kahles scopes and Schmidt Bender to this group too. These are all high end glass for rifle's. You won't be using any of these for Bullseye.
They start at around 3000.00 and go up from there.
With these you can count on 0 parallax with a clear and ultra sharp sight picture.

I personally prefer the IOR Recon, and that is what I use on my rig. It was expensive but it totally put any scope I've ever been behind, to shame.
Including the tunnel visioned Schmidt Bender.

by mikemyers 6/13/2021, 10:50 am

Meanwhile, back at sights for pistols, Aimpoint claims the following about their soon-to-be-released ACRO P-2:

https://aimpoint.us/acro-p-2-red-dot-reflex-sight-3-5-moa-200691/

The more I read about it, the more I want it.
I had an ACRO P-1 for about a week, before returning it - no easy way to mount it.
The P-2 can come with an integral mount, is low weight, and low.

In the meantime, I just ordered another latest model 1" Ultradot from Amazon.

by SilentAssassin 6/13/2021, 3:28 pm

mikemyers wrote:Meanwhile, back at sights for pistols, Aimpoint claims the following about their soon-to-be-released ACRO P-2:

The more I read about it, the more I want it.
I had an ACRO P-1 for about a week, before returning it - no easy way to mount it.
The P-2 can come with an integral mount, is low weight, and low.

In the meantime, I just ordered another latest model 1" Ultradot from Amazon.

I wouldnt count on it to be completely parallax free. I would hope that it is....................but I wouldn't bank on it.
But if it turns out that it is indeed parallax free, I will be in line to get one. Red dot sights have been marketed as parallax free for years ( the big lie)
The truth is, NONE of them have been truly 100% parallax free.

by SilentAssassin 6/13/2021, 3:30 pm

And for me a 3.5 moa dot is too big. A 2 moa or a trijicon 1 moa dot would be better.

by -TT- 6/14/2021, 5:22 pm

mikemyers wrote:Meanwhile, back at sights for pistols, Aimpoint claims the following about their soon-to-be-released ACRO P-2:

https://aimpoint.us/acro-p-2-red-dot-reflex-sight-3-5-moa-200691/

There's an interesting choice of words on that page (emphasis mine):

Aimpoint red dot sights are operationally parallax-free, which means the visible dot remains parallel to the bore of your weapon no matter what angle your eye is in relation to the sight. Therefore, the user never has to worry about centering the dot inside the sight. If you have a proper zero, when the dot is on the target, so are you.

It's a good point though, that we don't always zero our sights optically. We zero them for our own shot biases, and of course for slight imperfections in the mount, slide, barrel etc. This does change the parallax geometry!

by mikemyers 6/14/2021, 7:23 pm

I had a long discussion with John at Aimpoint earlier today. He gave me the actual dimensions, but the bottom line was that at 25 yards, the potential worst case parallax error with the Aimpoint sight is so small as to be insignificant. Divide the diameter of the sight by two, and that dimension is the maximum amount your dot can move, while still being visible. That is how the sight is designed, for 25 yards.

Many of you are far, far more experienced than I am, and know better as to what is required. If one of you was to call John at Aimpoint, and start with assumption that we are only talking Bullseye shooting, he will give you the same data, and you can agree with what I wrote, or not.

Everything has a accepted measurement, and all measurements have accepted tolerances. There's also the selling price, along with the durability and the convenience. One of the better builders of bullseye guns on this forum lost out on two guns he could have won, if he won the match, but he lost them because a brand-x scope died on him. The ONLY problems I have had with Aimpoint sights are from me not tightening the mounting screws enough, and not tightening the battery cover enough.

I'm not sure what people here would consider "significant". For parallax, the Aimpoint seems to be as good as I can get, from all the Bullseye pistol sights I'm aware of. As to image negative magnification, that is annoying to me every time I look through an Ultradot tube sight. But I love the 1" Ultradot for so many reasons, and Dave Salyer suggested it for the best I can buy, for me. My next one arrives in three days from Amazon.

I actually did get to use my Aimpoint 9000sc today for several hours. I love it. It's heavy, and it sits higher than I like, but the view through the sight is fantastic. I used to hate the weight, but on top of my Nelson kit, the 1911 came in at 3 pounds, 0.4 oz, while my High Standard X-Series with the Aimpoint H-2 mounted weighed 3 pounds, 2.9 oz. I expect to replace the Aimpoint 9000 with the 1" Ultradot, but I'm having second thoughts......

I told John I wished Aimpoint would make a competitor to the 1" Ultradot, but with better optics inside.

by SilentAssassin 6/15/2021, 12:24 am

Divide the diameter of the sight by 2 = 1.75 MOA.

Divide this by 4 = 0.4375 - @ 25 yards. Just under 1/2 inch parallax error.

This does not equate to free of parallax as advertised. And it's not insignificant.
But for the sake of argument, let us say that it is insignificant.

Add to this insignificance - shooter error, wind, inconsistency in ammunition , ambient pressures and a bunch of other variables.
All of sudden these errors, are magnified nearly half an inch, by the insignificant parallax error.

How do you shoot a 1/4 inch group at 25 yards with a handgun when you have nearly 1/2 inch of parallax error - add to this the other variables mentioned. Of course there is an answer to this which has been mentioned.
The problem, however, is, Aimpoint advertises Parallax free optics. It seems to me that John told you the truth of the matter.
Seems to me that he admitted that Aimpoint optics are not parallax free.

I understand that this has nothing to do with handgun Bullseye shooting , but lets go back to unlimited ARA benchrest.
The first thing you see on the line is a bunch of guys with big expensive scopes setting up their rigs on 20-40 pound adjustable rests.
Then leveling the guns off. The next thing you see is these same guys bobbing and weaving behind the scope cancelling out any and all parallax error on the target plane. This is effectively what Aimpoint is advertising. Yet John went from 0 parallax error , to insignificant parallax error. Ask any benchrest shooter how insignificant a little parallax error, is.
Additionally, once these guns are set, or rather once these optics are set..............you can bob and weave from one edge of the ocular to the other until the cows come home and that target dot inside the scope is not going to move even one hair width off target.
That is parallax free. Not what John is telling you.

Albeit, aimpoints are really nice optics. If that's what you really want and need, I would buy it. But parallax free , I would have to say no.

by SilentAssassin 6/15/2021, 12:51 am

-TT- wrote:
It's a good point though, that we don't always zero our sights optically. We zero them for our own shot biases, and of course for slight imperfections in the mount, slide, barrel etc. This does change the parallax geometry!

I do not know who came up with this. Mounts slides and barrels have absolutely nothing to do with with optical alignment of an optical sight on a target plane.
In a perfect world with perfectly consistent ammunition and perfect conditions, with perfectly cancelled parallax, and a perfect shooter, a perfect gun should make 1 single bullet hole over 10 shots.
Not one ragged hole...........one single bullet hole. Slides , mounts and barrels do not in any way change parallax geometry nor does this have any effect at all on Parallax error.
Whoever wrote this is talking about something else , termed, " sight alignment." I think.

I have a diagram of this somewhere. Unfortunately I have not been here for 7 days and cannot post images.
But it is easily enough found on the net.
It seems to me that whoever posted this is confusing gun imperfections, or line of sight perfections, or both, with Parallax.

And, for the record, I don't know anything about the bullseye shooting game. I'm completely new to it and have never tried it before.
But, I do shoot benchrest and have been involved with .22 rimfire for more years than I care to count.
Nonetheless, this does not make me an expert on anything. So hopefully, during my very early time here, I'm not offending anyone.

by SilentAssassin 6/15/2021, 12:53 am

****line of sight imperfections*****- correction to the above

by **Wobbley** 6/15/2021, 10:17 am

Silent:

When you start adding up the errors like you did you create a very false impression. It doesn’t work that way. You have to take a statistical approach finding the mean errors, squaring those, adding them then taking the square root to find the cumulative mean error.

Besides, THIS IS PISTOL SHOOTING. It ain’t benchrest rifle shooting. The guns are not Benchrest rifles. Clamp the barrel in a barrel tester with ammunition as precise as you can make it you have a 2 MOA system. Shoot that same ammo in a heavy barrel in a Mann rest you get a 1 MOA system (maybe, on a good day). Use that same ammo and barrel in the gun in a Ransom Rest you have a 3 MOA system. In actual shooting, you get to grip said system in your hand, extend your arm towards the target, aim with your optic and release the hammer with your finger. All while trying to keep the dot on the 10 ring. Maybe the dot does have parallax, maybe it doesn’t. So long as I can shoot a 10 with the dot centered on the aiming point and I execute a good trigger release without moving the pistol, I don’t care if it has parallax.

Oh, and for the record, BenchRest rifles are no longer “The most Accurate Rifles in the world”. The F-Class guys took that title several years ago.

by mikemyers 6/15/2021, 1:00 pm

In the same way that we "can't" see something is "parallax free", neither can we say that our ammunition is ____" in diameter.
Maybe we use a ruler, or a caliper, or a micrometer, or a more sensitive micrometer - whatever we get for a numerical result, a more sensitive measuring system will be able to measure the deviation from that number.

I think John was trying to show me that the Aimpoint sights are effectively parallax free, and that the error is not significant.
With other (cheaper, and probably Chinese) sights, the parallax error is going to be far greater. Why? How accurate can you make something with a selling price of $50, compared to $500.

I think the real value is how much does the parallel error effect my score?
Not to mention, I'm pretty sure everyone in this forum usually attempts to keep the red dot in the center of the scope, for lots of reasons.
I think what John is telling (most of) us, is that if we shoot in rapid fire and don't have enough time to keep the dot in the center, the off-set dot is not a major problem.

Silent - you can send me an email with your photo(s), and I'll post them for you.
Also, Welcome to the forum!!!!!!!!!! :-)

by SilentAssassin 6/15/2021, 5:07 pm

Wobbley wrote:Silent:

When you start adding up the errors like you did you create a very false impression. It doesn’t work that way. You have to take a statistical approach finding the mean errors, squaring those, adding them then taking the square root to find the cumulative mean error.

Besides, THIS IS PISTOL SHOOTING. It ain’t benchrest rifle shooting. The guns are not Benchrest rifles. Clamp the barrel in a barrel tester with ammunition as precise as you can make it you have a 2 MOA system. Shoot that same ammo in a heavy barrel in a Mann rest you get a 1 MOA system (maybe, on a good day). Use that same ammo and barrel in the gun in a Ransom Rest you have a 3 MOA system. In actual shooting, you get to grip said system in your hand, extend your arm towards the target, aim with your optic and release the hammer with your finger. All while trying to keep the dot on the 10 ring. Maybe the dot does have parallax, maybe it doesn’t. So long as I can shoot a 10 with the dot centered on the aiming point and I execute a good trigger release without moving the pistol, I don’t care if it has parallax.

Oh, and for the record, BenchRest rifles are no longer “The most Accurate Rifles in the world”. The F-Class guys took that title several years ago.

I don't shoot bullseye competition. But I do hunt, sometimes, because where I live I'm surrounded by predators. They will take my Kittens, my dogs, anyone's child who gets too close to the water and me, if I'm unaware. I shoot a Volquartsen scorpion rigged out with a 2-7 scope, atlas Bipod, and when I can't use the bipod, I'm looking for a prop. Most other times, I'm just target shooting off sand bags at 25-35 yards on my range in the back yard. I've also had to eradicate beaver infestation's which the state paid me for. 40 bucks a tail. Due to the incredible damage they have done on my place and numerous other places. That is why the state carries a bounty on them. Overpopulated. In those cases I do shoot Bullseye, with an Olight Valkyrie 1500 Lumen weapons light hanging under the gun. You don't have time to find a prop or set up on a bipod. And yes, it's different. Much harder. That is why I try to squeeze the most inherent accuracy possible from my equipment while eliminating as many variables as I can control. Sometimes me and a few other guys get together and shoot off sandbags and rests at 25 yards on ARA benchrest targets. So this will pretty much tell you what I'm looking for in a precision 22 caliber handgun. It's quite a bit different from what you guys are doing. You guys are shooting for score on paper , free handed only. I'm trying to hit the eye socket of a moving predator from a propped position, except for the beavers , very hard to prop up for that......and it is quite the challenge for humane kills. ( only head shots),
We can see here the type of accuracy that you guys strive for is substantially different from what I strive for. A little parallax in my case is not acceptable since my margin of error is much smaller than a 10 ring.

Thanks for the update on the F class guns.
F-class guns are indeed benchrest guns. They set up Exactly like we do in .22 caliber ARA competition. Just not .22 caliber. And yes they are among the most accurate guns in the world, short of a finely crafted rail
gun. Which is quite amazing if you've never seen one or experienced one.

Please google F-Class competition. You will find there, these are benchrest guns.

by **Wobbley** 6/15/2021, 6:17 pm

They don’t meet the rules therefore they aren’t Bench rifles.

by Sponsored content

Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

Re: Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?