Cannot decide what scope for a lightweight Mtn rifle

[shinbone]

I now have a Tract Toric 2-10x42 in the mail coming to me so I will see if I've found what I'm looking for.

I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts on your Tract Toric once you've played with it.

 

[Wedgy]

I now have a Tract Toric 2-10x42 in the mail coming to me so I will see if I've found what I'm looking for. If it's not, then I'm probably done looking and I'll get the Leupold and be happy. After my toying with the Maven, I've decided I really like the 2-10x range, seems about perfect for my needs.

Tract has great glass from the two Torics and a pair of binos I looked at but now you are at 19 oz with no side parallax adjustment, you can argue it all day long but anything over a 3x zoom needs parallax adjustment or it's a designated short range scope. Just my thoughts but if you are spending that much money and not in a light, compact scope anymore at least get one that you can transfer to a LR rig.

 

[Cornivorus]

And are you saying that it's only good for the distance that the fixed parallax is set for then ? As in a designated 150 yard rifle?

Tract has great glass from the two Torics and a pair of binos I looked at but now you are at 19 oz with no side parallax adjustment, you can argue it all day long but anything over a 3x zoom needs parallax adjustment or it's a designated short range scope. Just my thoughts but if you are spending that much money and not in a light, compact scope anymore at least get one that you can transfer to a LR rig.

Also, I don't own a long range rig to transfer to and so you are probably right, I've justified the extra size and weight looking for better glass. Sometimes that's hard to quantify until you have it in hand and can see how it will affect the rifle it's going on. Having never used a scope with a parallax adjustment, how important is that within 500 yards ?

 

[5.56×250]

Not having parallax adjustment makes eye position in the scope, as in up/down and side/side extremely critical. If your eye isn't in the exact same position in relationship to the focus piece on the scope, there will be POA error . That error grows the farther the target is away. With the parallax adjusted properly, the crosshair will be on the same plane as the target and the possible error is dramatically reduced, and possible eliminated all together.

 

[Cornivorus]

I am aware of what parallax is, it's just that I haven't really seen the problem with it at the ranges I normally shoot at. I fully admit I'm not much of a long range shooter, and maybe what I thought was wind problems affecting me at 700 yards on steel was actually a combo of wind and parallax? My half moa groups at 100 yards are still close to that at 500 yards from what I've tested.

That being said has there been any published info on how far off you can be with say a 500 yard target, due to lack of parallax adjustment.

 

[5.56×250]

Lock you rifle down so it is lined up on your target at the distance you want to check, then move your head around. The movement you see on the crosshairs will give you an idea of your particular combos potential error.
The fact that you can hit well at distance shows your ability to center up on the scope consistently. Parallax will just allow sloppiness on your part without consequence, or allow scope forgiveness.

 

[nicholasjohn]

Lock you rifle down so it is lined up on your target at the distance you want to check, then move your head around. The movement you see on the crosshairs will give you an idea of your particular combos potential error.
The fact that you can hit well at distance shows your ability to center up on the scope consistently. Parallax will just allow sloppiness on your part without consequence, or allow scope forgiveness.

This is one of the reasons guys comment so often on what they call "cheek weld." If you get your cheek down on the stock the same every time, it kinda takes the edge off the parallax issue. While it sounds simple, it isn't easy - particularly when one has a relatively skinny face and production rifles are mostly too low in the comb. The adjustable combs that are becoming so prevalent in long range shooting are very helpful, and they are also typically not knife-edged on top like your standard out-of-the-box production rifle stock.

When scopes first came into common use on hunting rifles, guys were putting them on rifles that were stocked for iron sights. This caused a couple of problems - the shooter couldn't get his cheek down on the stock at all, so parallax issues were greatly exaggerated - and it was hard to hit with this rifle/scope combo. In addition to that, these low-stocked rifles recoiled into the face with a running start, so it hurt the shooter - and taught guys to flinch. The "see-through" mounts that enabled the shooter to see his iron sights under the scope ( remember those ???) made the situation worse yet. I'm so glad we've got better stuff today.

 

[5.56×250]

This is one of the reasons guys comment so often on what they call "cheek weld." If you get your cheek down on the stock the same every time, it kinda takes the edge off the parallax issue. While it sounds simple, it isn't easy - particularly when one has a relatively skinny face and production rifles are mostly too low in the comb. The adjustable combs that are becoming so prevalent in long range shooting are very helpful, and they are also typically not knife-edged on top like your standard out-of-the-box production rifle stock.

When scopes first came into common use on hunting rifles, guys were putting them on rifles that were stocked for iron sights. This caused a couple of problems - the shooter couldn't get his cheek down on the stock at all, so parallax issues were greatly exaggerated - and it was hard to hit with this rifle/scope combo. In addition to that, these low-stocked rifles recoiled into the face with a running start, so it hurt the shooter - and taught guys to flinch. The "see-through" mounts that enabled the shooter to see his iron sights under the scope ( remember those ???) made the situation worse yet. I'm so glad we've got better stuff today.

Great points. It's also exasperated by hunting conditions where you dont always have a consistent rest . Shooting up hill and down hill will change your cheek weld also, if you dont make a conscious effort to maintain the same angle of contact with your cheek and the stock.

 

[Cornivorus]

Great info guys thanks for sharing that!

 

[nicholasjohn]

Great points. It's also exasperated by hunting conditions where you dont always have a consistent rest . Shooting up hill and down hill will change your cheek weld also, if you dont make a conscious effort to maintain the same angle of contact with your cheek and the stock.

Cheek pressure, too. These are all little things …… but the little things really add up quick, don't they ???!!!! This is definitely a sport for the detail-oriented guy.

 

[YZ-80]

I recently got a Wby. Altitude chambered in 6.5 "I hate you" Creedmore, and went through the same analysis as the OP. I figured it was pointless to put a scope on it that weighed more that 16 oz., and the whole point for buying the rifle was to keep my rig light for close-quarters thick woods duty. I don't suppose I'll shoot it more than 200 yards for all practical purposes. I probably could have got away with VX-1 in 3x9 but rather than buy one new I put an old VX-3 in 4.5X14 on it that I had laying around and it's worked out well for me. Anyway, 500 to 600 yards is pretty impressive for a light rifle like that. I don't know much about the Tikka but if you have the ability to shoot that far accurately with one of them, I can see why you might opt for higher quality glass.