AR Sponsor
Red Dot Parallax Test Results (Page 3 of 4)
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER:
I believe you. Your example sets a pretty high bar. I just wish it was a little less technical, for us lowly grunts. Check out the interactive website for the less words, more pictures version- it is linked earlier in this thread. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Originally Posted By GimpsUnlimited:
Wow, extremely well written report. Thank you for taking your time and post this. Now I will have to do my own testing to see the deviation myself and how it would affect my own use. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Originally Posted By Thorgrim:
I had been taking the 'paralax free' claim as gospel , and although my model of optic was not included in your test , there may be some real reasons behind my recent frusrating experiences at the range.... It is useful to note- that no optic model or brand that was tested or that I have seen have shown exactly consistent error when compared to the same brand and model- they are all different. So, adding a parallax measurement to your data collection can help add information as to possible causes of shooting error. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Originally Posted By dopushups:
Frustration- you hit the nail on the head. This is one of the reasons I don't let the T1 in that one specific course anymore. When you're doing in-depth maksmanship training, it is really a troubleshooting process. Tying what happened on the target to either something you did behind the rifle or an effect from your equipment/ammo. When you can explain or account for the effect, then it isn't really frustrating because you know why it happened and then work on correcting it. When you can't determine the error specifically, you wind up speculating as to the error. This often can cause the shooter to "correct" something that didn't need correcting and causing an additional error. Our ability to precisely keep a dot in the center of a large tube or window is extremely limited- and I have seen this in practice. Some of these optics that I have seen exhibit more sensitivity to the viewing angle in the center 30% of the tube/window than others. The LCO, MRO and T1 are good case studies of this. If you go back and look at the video I posted of the MRO, LCO, EXPS 3.0 and T-1 closely, you'll see what I'm talking about. Although the MRO and LCO showed large overall deviation, the majority of the movement doesn't occur until you get a bit outside the center 30% of the viewing area. The T-1, however, begins to deviate immediately from the center angles. It is useful to note- that no optic model or brand that was tested or that I have seen have shown exactly consistent error when compared to the same brand and model- they are all different. So, adding a parallax measurement to your data collection can help add information as to possible causes of shooting error. Originally Posted By dopushups:
Originally Posted By Thorgrim:
I had been taking the 'paralax free' claim as gospel , and although my model of optic was not included in your test , there may be some real reasons behind my recent frusrating experiences at the range.... It is useful to note- that no optic model or brand that was tested or that I have seen have shown exactly consistent error when compared to the same brand and model- they are all different. So, adding a parallax measurement to your data collection can help add information as to possible causes of shooting error. |
| I remember reading this when he posted it. hadnt been to the site in a while but i know shooting an mro for the last year has been kind of annoying. forget the slight magnification, having to constantly check that my rifle is perfectly level and the dot perfectly centered in the window to hit targets at 100 yds has become beyond frustrating and has me looking at scopes. |
|
A couple of comments:
1) As has been mentioned, holographic sights are better at this, by design. Vortex UH-1 does really well at this. If you want to shoot beyond comparatively close ranges with a non-magnified sight, it is more trouble-free with holographic sights. 2) With reflex sights, in most cases accrued parallax is not linear offset from the optical axis. There is a sweetspot in the center and then it ramps up toward the edges. 3) Placing the red dot sight a bit further forward helps a little because of simple geometry: available angular deviation off-axis is smaller since the working distance of the collimating sight results in a smaller clear aperture. However, it makes for a less flexible eye position. Pick your poison, so to speak. In practical terms, I tend to put my red dot sight right at the front of the receiver on AR-15s, although my reasoning is as follows: at "inside the house" distances, when there is enough distance between my eye and the sight, the housing makes for a huge ghost ring. I can hit center of mass looking through it even if the dot is turned off (I use Shield SIS). 4) In principle, parallax can be controlled by better lens design, but smaller sights usually do better at this. Larger window makes controlling parallax more difficult. Upcoming Leica Tempus promises to have parallax really well controlled. I'll test it when it gets here. ILya www.darklordofoptics.com |
|
Originally Posted By DarkLordOfOptics:
A couple of comments: 1) As has been mentioned, holographic sights are better at this, by design. Vortex UH-1 does really well at this. If you want to shoot beyond comparatively close ranges with a non-magnified sight, it is more trouble-free with holographic sights. 2) With reflex sights, in most cases accrued parallax is not linear offset from the optical axis. There is a sweetspot in the center and then it ramps up toward the edges. 3) Placing the red dot sight a bit further forward helps a little because of simple geometry: available angular deviation off-axis is smaller since the working distance of the collimating sight results in a smaller clear aperture. However, it makes for a less flexible eye position. Pick your poison, so to speak. In practical terms, I tend to put my red dot sight right at the front of the receiver on AR-15s, although my reasoning is as follows: at "inside the house" distances, when there is enough distance between my eye and the sight, the housing makes for a huge ghost ring. I can hit center of mass looking through it even if the dot is turned off (I use Shield SIS). 4) In principle, parallax can be controlled by better lens design, but smaller sights usually do better at this. Larger window makes controlling parallax more difficult. Upcoming Leica Tempus promises to have parallax really well controlled. I'll test it when it gets here. ILya www.darklordofoptics.com Next, The rule of there being a "sweet spot" in the center of an optic and it "ramping up" towards the outside, is not true. Well, to be fair- it isn't CONSTANT. That is to say- it is true for SOME optics, but not ALL. The T-1 is a good example of that. Another interesting example is the SIG Romeo MRDS. I have one at a pistol course I am teaching yesterday/today. I'll try to video it, but it jumps in the center 25% and the movement DECREASES outside of the center 25% viewing angle. Mounting the dot far forward can limit the angle you look through the optic...somewhat... but you introduce a number of other issues with it as well. You pick up the sight later, smaller viewable area, more difficult with NVG's, etc. If it works for.you, then it works for you- as long as you understand the capabilities and limitations. Finally, larger windows do not necessarily mean more parallax, however, a smaller viewing area artificially limits the POSSIBLE angle you can induce. If you roll through the test we did, you'll find that there is no constant correlation between window size and parallax. I do think you are right on with the thought that is is simply better designs, and probably more specifically- quality control. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
I expected Trijicon to fix this parallax issue and not to be so careless when it comes to it...it has been a couple of years since MRO was released...that is all...10+ MOA parallax in a red dot can't be trusted unless you are always 100% centered on the dot in my opinion is just useless. I mean the MSRP on a MRO Patrol is $900 dollars.
If the UH-1 cuts the MRO's parallax to 1/3....that is much more acceptable. I don't expect a red dot to be 100% parallax free...because well that is not possible. |
|
Originally Posted By thehun06:
I expected Trijicon to fix this parallax issue and not to be so careless when it comes to it...it has been a couple of years since MRO was released...that is all...10+ MOA parallax in a red dot can't be trusted unless you are always 100% centered on the dot in my opinion is just useless. I mean the MSRP on a MRO Patrol is $900 dollars. If the UH-1 cuts the MRO's parallax to 1/3....that is much more acceptable. I don't expect a red dot to be 100% parallax free...because well that is not possible. You aren’t going to completely eliminate parallax but the T-2 and EXPS 3.0 are close. Personally I don’t really see an upside to running a different red dot optic than one of those. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
I really do appreciate the time and effort put into this study. Manufacturers need to be held accountable for "No parallax" advertisements when they are not accurate. Holographic vs red dot is actually comparing apples and oranges despite their similar appearance and uses. The method during testing of "maximum and minimum viewing angle" does not represent real world usage IMO. |
AR15 Minecraft - Valhalla.sx - AR15GLOCK21
|
Originally Posted By IceDiver:
I really do appreciate the time and effort put into this study. Manufacturers need to be held accountable for "No parallax" advertisements when they are not accurate. Holographic vs red dot is actually comparing apples and oranges despite their similar appearance and uses. The method during testing of "maximum and minimum viewing angle" does not represent real world usage IMO. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Originally Posted By dopushups: So, the UH-1 wasn't included in my tests but I have had a few show up at my courses since then. With regards to dot movement, it does not perform as well as the two top we tested (the T-2 and EXPS 3.0). Next, The rule of there being a "sweet spot" in the center of an optic and it "ramping up" towards the outside, is not true. Well, to be fair- it isn't CONSTANT. That is to say- it is true for SOME optics, but not ALL. The T-1 is a good example of that. Another interesting example is the SIG Romeo MRDS. I have one at a pistol course I am teaching yesterday/today. I'll try to video it, but it jumps in the center 25% and the movement DECREASES outside of the center 25% viewing angle. Mounting the dot far forward can limit the angle you look through the optic...somewhat... but you introduce a number of other issues with it as well. You pick up the sight later, smaller viewable area, more difficult with NVG's, etc. If it works for.you, then it works for you- as long as you understand the capabilities and limitations. Finally, larger windows do not necessarily mean more parallax, however, a smaller viewing area artificially limits the POSSIBLE angle you can induce. If you roll through the test we did, you'll find that there is no constant correlation between window size and parallax. I do think you are right on with the thought that is is simply better designs, and probably more specifically- quality control. On the rule about the sweetspot: if they do not grossly screw up the geometry of the reflective surface, it holds. That is how this sort of an optic works. If it is doing something weird in the center, you have an issue with the shape of the optical element. To be fair, the sweetspot is not entirely symmetric, since it is different on the side where the illumination is coming from vs the opposite side. Most of these optical elements in inexpensive sights are spherical segments and that is how they behave. Better sights are aspheres, which gives you a larger sweetspot and better parallax control at the edges. On window size: to be more specific, it is the ratio of the aperture to the focal length (distance from the LED to the mirror) that makes a big difference. Same idea as F/# for a conventional lens. T2 is an aspheric surface of some sort, probably parabolic. So is the upcoming Leica Tempus. I think a few others are, but it is usually not something the manufacturers talk about a lot. ILya www.darklordofoptics.com |
| This thread is interesting. So today when I got home I took my MRO (28k serial range), set it on a table and aimed it at a ~10" wreath on the neighbors house about 40-45m away. Moving my head up and down, left and right, the dot might have moved 2-3" within that wreath. Definitely no 13". I'm hitting the range next week so I'll be curious to see what happens at 100y, and actually firing it. |
|
Originally Posted By socommatthews:
This thread is interesting. So today when I got home I took my MRO (28k serial range), set it on a table and aimed it at a ~10" wreath on the neighbors house about 40-45m away. Moving my head up and down, left and right, the dot might have moved 2-3" within that wreath. Definitely no 13". I'm hitting the range next week so I'll be curious to see what happens at 100y, and actually firing it. |
AR15 Minecraft - Valhalla.sx - AR15GLOCK21
|
Originally Posted By IceDiver:
The test used "maximum and minimum viewing angle" as a defined variable. It would have been hard accurately test if the standard had been "about halfway" in the viewing window. The method used does show the absolute maximum deviation, not the normal that a shooter experiences being slightly off center. Originally Posted By IceDiver:
Originally Posted By socommatthews:
This thread is interesting. So today when I got home I took my MRO (28k serial range), set it on a table and aimed it at a ~10" wreath on the neighbors house about 40-45m away. Moving my head up and down, left and right, the dot might have moved 2-3" within that wreath. Definitely no 13". I'm hitting the range next week so I'll be curious to see what happens at 100y, and actually firing it. |
|
Originally Posted By IceDiver:
The test used "maximum and minimum viewing angle" as a defined variable. It would have been hard accurately test if the standard had been "about halfway" in the viewing window. The method used does show the absolute maximum deviation, not the normal that a shooter experiences being slightly off center. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Originally Posted By socommatthews:
I went from edge to edge with little movement. However I was just using an object across the street, not a Target with specific sized grids or anything. I would not have missed that target using the edges of the viewing area though, in real world shooting That said, I still plan on finding out exactly next week. Also- it is relatively easy to get a video of any motion with your iPhone. The YouTube video I linked I. The thread showing an EXPS 3.0, T-1, MRO and LCO’s movement was simply shot with my iPhone. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
| Oh, a good follow up proof is to do a storyboard shoots a few notable Instructors do this at their rifle courses. On group Center hold, one extreme left, etc. of course use a precise aiming point and group tight |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Originally Posted By dopushups: Also worth noting that if you look at the testing data- no MRO (or any other optic) had the exact same range of deviation. They were all different.... |
|
Originally Posted By thehun06: Why do you think that was? Bad QC at Trijicon? Trust me... I am a big Trijicon fan...but the MRO is screwed up...too many what ifs. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
So I sent a note to Trijicon yesterday and they got back with me today. Essentially they told me they have been very upfront about the parallax found on the MRO....
The only thing I've ever heard from Trijicon is via their FAQ (which is where they linked me in their response as well)...they state they meet or exceed parallax of other red dots...needless to say...I do not think Trijicon is worried about fixing the issue and its fairly obvious that the MRO suffers more parallax than any other quality, combat ready red dot. So how can they meet or exceed other red dot’s parallax...when they are the worst... 
I love their ACOGs but man the MRO is faulty...kind of like all their other red dot attempts it seems. Trijicon...please fix the MRO's parallax... |
|
Originally Posted By socommatthews:
So we're assuming it's all MROs and not select ones? I seriously doubt it. It was 1 of each optic tested right? |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Have you ever been able to figure out why there is an optical shift with iron sights that are viewed through a T-2?
I can zero a T-1, set my irons to the dot, and my irons will hit properly with the T-1 in place, and also with the T-1 removed. No issues doing this with my old eotechs as well. If I take the same rifle, and place a T-2 on it, when I zero the T-2, its consistently off from my irons. Remove the T-2, use the irons....they of course are still zeroed. However when "co-witnessing", they aren't even close. Any idea what is causing that? I've had four T-2's, all exhibit the same thing. Two were from when they were first introduced, and two just recently. I still love and use the T-2, but its an issue people need to be aware of, and its also why I will only use QD mounts with my T-2's. |
|
Originally Posted By socommatthews:
So we're assuming it's all MROs and not select ones? I seriously doubt it. It was 1 of each optic tested right? So I’d think it’s part of the design. |
|
Originally Posted By thehun06: The only thing I've ever heard from Trijicon is via their FAQ (which is where they linked me in their response as well)...they state they meet or exceed parallax of other red dots...needless to say...I do not think Trijicon is worried about fixing the issue and its fairly obvious that the MRO suffers more parallax than any other quality, combat ready red dot. So how can they meet or exceed other red dot’s parallax...when they are the worst.... |
|
True.
Here is the snippet from their site: Does the MRO® have any parallax? Like all reflex-style optics, the Trijicon MRO is parallax-free when the dot and target are reasonably well centered in the optic's field-of-view, but when the reticle and target are substantially off-axis, there will be some parallax. The off-axis parallax performance of the MRO meets or exceeds that of other reflex sights of similar size. |
|
Originally Posted By thehun06:
True. Here is the snippet from their site: Does the MRO® have any parallax? Like all reflex-style optics, the Trijicon MRO is parallax-free when the dot and target are reasonably well centered in the optic's field-of-view, but when the reticle and target are substantially off-axis, there will be some parallax. The off-axis parallax performance of the MRO meets or exceeds that of other reflex sights of similar size. |
|
Good report! I downloaded a copy. Thanks for that. Minor/trivial technical feedback for the future - the out of control non-significant digits is really irritating and your rationale for not rounding/truncating is,... (how do I put this?),... wrong.  They are not technically significant and actually interfere with my reading of the numbers and understanding them.I always view the red dot through my rear aperture. The rear aperture's sole purpose for being is to reduce parallax in your iron sights. Iron sights have notorious parallax. Using the rear aperture (co-witnessing) minimizes/eliminates the parallax errors. If you have a rear aperture, use it. Telescopic sights also suffer from parallax. Scopes whose focus is non-adjustable are guaranteed to have parallax errors at all distances other than those at which the optic is pre-set (typically 100 yards, from what I read). The only way to eliminate parallax from a telescopic sight is to keep the reticle focused on the target. You can use the lack of parallax as a means of knowing when you are properly focused. This is a slow process (10 - 30 seconds). This is not a problem for most target shooting. In my book, RELIABILITY is number one. Parallax,... less is better but overall,... meh! |
|
I have two Leupold Deltapoint Pro mini reflex red dots. Each has the 7.5 MOA triangle.
Using the test and tracking with the fine top tip of the triangle, I get distinctly different results between them. Both have imperceptible horizontal parallax, side to side. The window is much wider than Aimpoint micro dots, yet, there is no perceptible movement of the reticle on the grid when moving side-to-side. But, the oldest of the two DPP red dots has about 3 MOA vertical deviation from center at all distances I tested when viewed at the extreme top or bottom of the screen. That is a total shift of about 6" at 100 yards, but no more than 3" from POA. This DPP is about three year old, closer to four. The second DPP was recently purchased. There is no perceptible parallax horizontally or vertically at any distance, certainly less than one MOA. It just wasn't moving enough to measure. I don't know what to take away from this discrepancy. I don't know if it is inherent in production variation, or whether Leupold has identified and resolved the vertical parallax. I think 3 MOA is a acceptable for my use, but near zero would be nice to confirm. If anyone else has a recently purchased DPP I would like to know your findings. |
|
Originally Posted By MS556:
I have two Leupold Deltapoint Pro mini reflex red dots. Each has the 7.5 MOA triangle. Using the test and tracking with the fine top tip of the triangle, I get distinctly different results between them. Both have imperceptible horizontal parallax, side to side. The window is much wider than Aimpoint micro dots, yet, there is no perceptible movement of the reticle on the grid when moving side-to-side. But, the oldest of the two DPP red dots has about 3 MOA vertical deviation from center at all distances I tested when viewed at the extreme top or bottom of the screen. That is a total shift of about 6" at 100 yards, but no more than 3" from POA. This DPP is about three year old, closer to four. The second DPP was recently purchased. There is no perceptible parallax horizontally or vertically at any distance, certainly less than one MOA. It just wasn't moving enough to measure. I don't know what to take away from this discrepancy. I don't know if it is inherent in production variation, or whether Leupold has identified and resolved the vertical parallax. I think 3 MOA is a acceptable for my use, but near zero would be nice to confirm. If anyone else has a recently purchased DPP I would like to know your findings. Not the delta points- most of those I have seen exhibit more parallax movement in the lower 25% of the window, which can be an issue for guys running a lower 25% cowitness and not keeping the dot in he center of the window. I haven’t seen a deltapoint yet that has more than a moderate amount of movement above the lower 25%. Thank you for posting your results. The more information that gets shared, the better the industry will be. |
Owner/ Instructor of Green Eye Tactical. Tier 1 Training, Tailored to your Needs
|
Thanks for this report...it corresponds to my experience. I have 2 eotechs and 2 comp m4s. For close in work,
the aimpoint is fine but you can't use the edge of the field of view. Parallax is easy to observe directly and the eotech is better. Unfortunately delamination is killing one of mine...and both are battery sluts. The M4S is great on batteries! My astigmatism is worse every day and the use of the rear sight peep and turning the brightness way down on the m4s is as bad as having to use a scope. So I got a VCOG. Big, heavy, tiny eyebox at 6x, expensive... But diopter adjustment!!!! I can't wait to sight it in. My results with my TA02 ACOG were excellent but the target is blurry... and the eye relief too short. Now I finally have decent eye relief and everything is clear. To put it another way...I am leaving red dots. If the eotech was ever properly ruggedized especially for temperature extremes it would be usable. But as I get older I need diopter adjustment. I could use glasses but I want a system that I don't need them for. So a giant, heavy, and bombproof VCOG it is. Yes it has diopter shift. I biased the adjustment for max perfection on the 6x end and at 1x the target still looks better than through the eotech...the reticle looks clearer too. Definitely inferior for awkward use angles compared to the eotech however. I don't care. I am no operator but I think it will be great on my 18" rifle length AR. Again, thanks for the report...good job! |
Corgi Mod...be very afraid!!!
|
Originally Posted By thehun06:
We shall see how the Vortex UH1 shapes up to be...it appears much more rugged than the EOtech...its all aluminum with battery electronics. They say parallax free then hedge by saying it is within industry specs and will have no effect on use. IE; like an eotech. If they don't delaminate or change POI they might be nice. I like the eotech reticle better. |
Corgi Mod...be very afraid!!!
|
@dopushups
I like this a lot, but it's disappointing to me to see that the Primary Arms optic chosen is really super old. I'm on year 3 here and MD-05 was discontinued long before I was even hired. If you plan on updating this test, please email me at [email protected], lets see about getting you one of the new lifetime warranty units. For better or for worse, no matter what the results are, I would at least like to see a current product represented. |
Marketing Employee for Primary Arms, LLC.
Red Dot Parallax Test Results (Page 3 of 4)
AR Sponsor