Parallax free sights - is this. useful for Bullseye?

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. )

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

Au contraire mon frere.
In unlimited class benchrest , they do in fact meet the rules.
The biggest difference in F-class and Banchrest is you're laying on your belly in F-class, using basically the exact same equipment as Benchrest.
That is why F-class is commonly referred to as, "Belly benchrest."
If it rains, you get wet.

Conversely, in Benchrest competition, a competitor can and does use his F-class rig, only off a bench while sitting on a stool.

An update for this thread.  

I bought a new 1" Ultradot sight from Amazon, and it was delivered yesterday.  I mounted it on my Nelson Conversion to try today, and other than a smaller FOV (Field Of View) it worked just as nicely as my Aimpoint 9000SC.  I didn't expect that, and being 5 ounces lighter made it more comfortable.

The reason I'm posting this though is that looking through this sight, the negative magnification seems to be gone.  I didn't expect that.  It's a "Gen 2" sight, and either my eyes are playing tricks on me, or they've corrected that issue.

I should add that I had cataract surgery in both eyes, and because the IOL they fitted me was a different strength for each eye, and because my eyes are not exactly the same, looking through one eye made things look smaller than looking with the other.  That has nothing to do with the sight - it's always that way.  Technically, it means I have "Diplopia".

Still, looking through the new Ultradot, and then looking with the same eye at something, the sight no longer seemed to reduce the size of what I was looking at.  Maybe I'll call Ultradot tomorrow, and ask if they changed this for the Gen2 sights.  If so, I'll post the information here.

From the Ultradot web sight https://ultradotusa.com

"COMING SOON – ULTRADOT4
The Ultradot 4 is back! This sight has a 25mm tube with the requested dot sizes of 2, 4, 8 & 10. You’re welcome Adam and Dave! Available Summer 2021"

I have no idea who Adam and Dave are, but dot sizes of 2 and 4 sounds good.  I often wonder what dot size bullseye shooters prefer most.  I always get different answers.

mikemyers wrote:From the Ultradot web sight https://ultradotusa.com

"COMING SOON – ULTRADOT4
The Ultradot 4 is back! This sight has a 25mm tube with the requested dot sizes of 2, 4, 8 & 10. You’re welcome Adam and Dave! Available Summer 2021"

I have no idea who Adam and Dave are, but dot sizes of 2 and 4 sounds good.  I often wonder what dot size bullseye shooters prefer most.  I always get different answers.

Big dots!  Yes!  I'd trade every Matchdot I got for 1" 4 dots

Any dot sight shooting I have ever done has not equaled the few times I had my head screwed on right when shooting irons.

Jack H wrote:Any dot sight shooting I have ever done has not equaled the few times I had my head screwed on right when shooting irons.

The guns are lighter, which over the course of a 2700 can make a big difference.   Also irons are easier to shoot in poor conditions, like rain and wind.  A big gun with a big sight catches much more wind.

No.  The number one thing for me is the head screwed on straight thing. Then a good gin, oops!  I mean and gun and ammo.  And the gun has to have a fantastic trigger.  And great eyesight or lens to really see the sight.  And be physically up to the task.

mikemyers wrote:From the Ultradot web sight https://ultradotusa.com

"COMING SOON – ULTRADOT4
The Ultradot 4 is back! This sight has a 25mm tube with the requested dot sizes of 2, 4, 8 & 10. You’re welcome Adam and Dave! Available Summer 2021"

I have no idea who Adam and Dave are, but dot sizes of 2 and 4 sounds good.  I often wonder what dot size bullseye shooters prefer most.  I always get different answers.

The old ultradot 4 dot had dot sizes of 4, 8, 12, and 16.
I always felt like the 12 and 16 were unusable.  I wonder why the new one is skipping 6.  I think 2, 4, 6, and 8 would be a better set of choices.

swissyhawk wrote:

mikemyers wrote:From the Ultradot web sight https://ultradotusa.com

"COMING SOON – ULTRADOT4
The Ultradot 4 is back! This sight has a 25mm tube with the requested dot sizes of 2, 4, 8 & 10. You’re welcome Adam and Dave! Available Summer 2021"

I have no idea who Adam and Dave are, but dot sizes of 2 and 4 sounds good.  I often wonder what dot size bullseye shooters prefer most.  I always get different answers.

The old ultradot 4 dot had dot sizes of 4, 8, 12, and 16.
I always felt like the 12 and 16 were unusable.  I wonder why the new one is skipping 6.  I think 2, 4, 6, and 8 would be a better set of choices.

Congrats.   Buy the Matchdot  with 2, 4, 6 and 8.    On very bright days, I did not find the large dots unusable at all.   Many use a smaller dot for slow fire, and a bigger one for timed and rapid.   It keeps you from looking at the target,

I know this is an old topic but I can't help but think most have gotten this parallax thing wrong by evaluating it by fixing the dot on the target and then moving their head around behind the scope.  There is no way to do this and not have the dot appear to move off-target. Aim your finger at something and move your head.  You're now apparently pointing somewhere else but that is not parallax and certainly not parallax introduced by your finger.

It seems to me the correct way to evaluate a dot is to fix the head position and move the scope.  If you raise the gun on target and dip the scope slightly so that the dot moves lower in the scope, one needs to raise the pistol slightly to get the dot back on target. At this point the head, the dot, and the target are all in line albeit with an off-center dot. The question then is will this still result in an X or does the off-center dot introduce an angular error.

I think Aimpoint's position (right or wrong) is that with their scope, the eye/dot relationship, even with an off-center dot, essentially remains parallel to the bore (not that the dot doesn't move if you move your head) in which case the shot should still be on target.

Parallax really isn't an issue with Bullseye.
We shoot from a stable and repeatable position. The relative position of you eye and the sight doesn't (or shouldn't) change. And targets are at a relatively close distance.

With a defensive handgun, or one of the run & gun games, you may be shooting prone, kneeling, around a barricade, under a car, etc. In those instances where your head may be offset from the sight, parallax matters. You want an optic where you hit the target even if the reticle is way off to the side of the tube.

FLTony wrote:I know this is an old topic but I can't help but think most have gotten this parallax thing wrong by evaluating it by fixing the dot on the target and then moving their head around behind the scope.  There is no way to do this and not have the dot appear to move off-target. Aim your finger at something and move your head.  You're now apparently pointing somewhere else but that is not parallax and certainly not parallax introduced by your finger.

It seems to me the correct way to evaluate a dot is to fix the head position and move the scope.  If you raise the gun on target and dip the scope slightly so that the dot moves lower in the scope, one needs to raise the pistol slightly to get the dot back on target. At this point the head, the dot, and the target are all in line albeit with an off-center dot. The question then is will this still result in an X or does the off-center dot introduce an angular error.

I think Aimpoint's position (right or wrong) is that with their scope, the eye/dot relationship, even with an off-center dot, essentially remains parallel to the bore (not that the dot doesn't move if you move your head) in which case the shot should still be on target.

I'm sorry but you must be testing the scope wrong. On a parralax free dot like an Aimpoint it truly is possible to move your head without moving the dot. If the dot was truly a physical solid object located in a tube then that would be a different story. The dot is placed in your eye by reflecting off of quality lens. The cheaper the internals the more the dot moves.
   HOW TO TEST
With the dot mounted on a secured pistol or in a vice aim the dot at an object 50 yds away. The distance is important for the test. Now move back from the dot a distance equal to the distance of holding the pistol/dot at arms length. Move your head around. A truly parallax free red dot will not wobble off the object it is aimed at. It won't move at all. Cheaper/less well made scopes the dot will move. The distance you are aiming at and your eyes distance from the lens are important. Testing at a distance too short or getting your eyeball too close will skew your results. They don't make a red dot parallax free at 10yds or with your eyeballs practically inside the dot. Testing at distances greater than 50yds is okay.

I did a test like this for a Vortex Venom reflex dot, only at 20yd.  I clamped the pistol to a bench and moved things until the dot was centered on the target.  Moving my head from right to left, the dot didn't move off the target until the dot was near the edge of the sight window.  Even then, with the dot at the edge, the distance moved from POA to the target was only a few mm.

My conclusion is that if I keep the dot relatively centered (away from the edges), this particular dot is essentially parallax free

DrBill- "Parallax really isn't an issue with Bullseye"?


Perhaps you haven't shot with the cheap red dots.


Do the test that LenV indicated, and if your dot stays on target while moving your head, you have a good dot. Now try it with a cheap red dot.


It's misleading to newer shooters to think they can become proficient with a $50 reddot.