leupold on ar rifle

[Jerry45Acp]

ah dude leupold is leupold it does not matter what product they made, it has there name on it. but i see no reason in debating with you on this cause you got your mind set, and it wouldn't matter if the lord himself told you that you were wrong.

Ah dude, Once again, I believe the conversation was about Leupold Scopes.
If you want to talk about rangefinders, binoculars, keychains or whatever else is on your mind, we will have to do it at another time and place.

Again, thank you for your contribution, but I think we can leave God out of this.

 

[nickman54]

Ah dude, Once again, I believe the conversation was about Leupold Scopes.
If you want to talk about rangefinders, binoculars, keychains or whatever else is on your mind, we will have to do it at another time and place.

Again, thank you for your contribution, but I think we can leave God out of this.

You are free to prefer/have opinion on what you like to use. Its your money after all, I just think sometimes its a good thing to open up your mind to new companies/products and take some advice on possibly saving some money. Either way I don't know you like you said, and quite honestly think you will fit in great here. Have fun.

 

[cwillour]

OK, I think I follow most of the opinions on this thread but this statement simply confuses me:

I have never had the need to adjust and fiddle with parallax once the scope was set up.

If you have an adjustable parallax (whether through a side-focus, adjustable objective, or a rear-focus like SWFA's) why would you avoid adjusting it for the range that you are shooting? In my experience, a scope with the adjustable parallax set for 200yds is notably out-of-focus at 400yds and looks far worse than a typical rifle scope with 100yd non-adjustable parallax (or 150yd, in the case of Leupold) at that same 400yds.

From the scopes I have used (Leupold, Weaver, Nikon, Vortex, etc) I have consistently found that if the scope had parallax adjustment capabilities, failure to use it properly consistently resulting in a poor target image. On one of the Bushnell's I had a year-or-two back, I even found that not re-adjusting after changing magnification could cause my zero to shift (and no, I do not think it was simple parallax error as the range was constant and the shift was repeatable with multiple shooters and across multiple days.)

 

[GunDave007]

 

[IndyGunworks]

OK, I think I follow most of the opinions on this thread but this statement simply confuses me:



If you have an adjustable parallax (whether through a side-focus, adjustable objective, or a rear-focus like SWFA's) why would you avoid adjusting it for the range that you are shooting? In my experience, a scope with the adjustable parallax set for 200yds is notably out-of-focus at 400yds and looks far worse than a typical rifle scope with 100yd non-adjustable parallax (or 150yd, in the case of Leupold) at that same 400yds.

From the scopes I have used (Leupold, Weaver, Nikon, Vortex, etc) I have consistently found that if the scope had parallax adjustment capabilities, failure to use it properly consistently resulting in a poor target image. On one of the Bushnell's I had a year-or-two back, I even found that not re-adjusting after changing magnification could cause my zero to shift (and no, I do not think it was simple parallax error as the range was constant and the shift was repeatable with multiple shooters and across multiple days.)

Parrallax is not only a focus adjustment to make the image clear, but if you don't have it set properly (by moving your head around to verify) it WILL effect where the rounds go in relation to the reticule, so setting it and forgetting it is an indication that one probably doesn't know as much about scopes as they are leading us to believe.

 

[IndyGunworks]

View attachment 21301View attachment 21302

I don't think you went wrong, no clicks was a thing of the past and if you are not going to be dialing for distance (ie zeroing it and leaving it set) then you will have no issues.... The most important thing here though is that you found a way to include that bad ass car in the background of the photo's

 

[palerider0485]

View attachment 21301View attachment 21302

jerry buddy, thats the pics i talked about, im going to look at the scope again and find out what year its from, i have gundave take the pics.

 

[palerider0485]

if you look at the pic on the left which is kinda blurry, u can see a faint line in the 6 o clock position that points and lets you know how much u have moved the cross hairs. So when i make ajustments i should have a pretty good idea how much to turn. but when i go from 100 to 300 yards nothing beats just counting the clicks and not haveing to stand up and look at the top of my scope. i almost bought a vortex from an ingo member when i bought this scope, reason i didnt was he was very far away and i saw the leupold for what i thought was a good deal, i think it was 200 or 225. and i thought if i get a leupold im getting a really nice scope, and i did get a nice scope probully, but next time around im going to really look into a vortex.

 

[cwillour]

Parrallax is not only a focus adjustment to make the image clear, but if you don't have it set properly (by moving your head around to verify) it WILL effect where the rounds go in relation to the reticule

Yeah, but I figured that he might think the relatively small parallax error is not that big of an issue when hunting at "normal" hunting ranges. After all, theoretical max error for a scope with a 50mm objective and a 150yd parallax setting at 300yds is under 2".

 

[IndyGunworks]

Yeah, but I figured that he might think the relatively small parallax error is not that big of an issue when hunting at "normal" hunting ranges. After all, theoretical max error for a scope with a 50mm objective and a 150yd parallax setting at 300yds is under 2".

A very valid point..... I have not really considered that side of the coin because I am never satisfied w/ "hunting accuracy" mostly because I don't hunt, and when I shoot I am trying to squeeze every last little ounce of accuracy out of my system.

 

[Jerry45Acp]

Looks like an old model VX-I. Still a nice scope.

 

[Jerry45Acp]

Yeah, but I figured that he might think the relatively small parallax error is not that big of an issue when hunting at "normal" hunting ranges. After all, theoretical max error for a scope with a 50mm objective and a 150yd parallax setting at 300yds is under 2".

My thoughts exactly. I normally do not take shots at game out past 200 yards.

 

[palerider0485]

ser number on the scope is 311123n, on the box there is also 56600, 0 3031756600 5 bar code. 051006

 

[42769vette]

2005 was the year of manufacturer.

 

[palerider0485]

05 is about what i figure, its not that old, i like it, but in not going to use this to hunt, i want good groups in the ten ring and would like to make accurate adjustments for different distances,

 

[Hookeye]

A very valid point..... I have not really considered that side of the coin because I am never satisfied w/ "hunting accuracy" mostly because I don't hunt, and when I shoot I am trying to squeeze every last little ounce of accuracy out of my system.

Hunting accuracy for me changes depending on the critter and platform.
For a walking varmint rig, I like .75" or under @ 100 yards.