Comparative Study of Red Dot Sight Parallax

[MistWolf]

Iron sights are very sensitive to parallax.

[Sigfan26]

Iron sights are very sensitive to parallax.

You win the internets today, sir.

[Dagga Boy]

Sort of old issue. Guy who started it is the only voice making an issue. Gained a lot of looks,yet he is the only one, particularly from that community making an issue. This should be a clue. I have yet to see any support from his former unit folks in this. From the cop side we call this a clue.
Everything with glass has some parallax. Most red dots that are true 1x do not have a issue worth “banning” them.

[GJM]

USPSA PCC competition seems pretty representative of how many regular folks would use a carbine defensively, and I am yet to see anyone, from doofus to national champion, use anything besides a red dot as their primary sighting system.

[NH Shooter]

I have little doubt that a RDS rules the day in CQC when effective hits need to be made at close-to-mid range as quickly as possible. Zero doubt, in fact.

I also believe the study had the user placing the dot at the extreme edge of view to induce the amount of parallax indicated. Though it would have been a much more exhaustive study, I would have found the information more useful measuring parallax incrementally over a range, from dead center to the far edge. My guess is that the vast majority of parallax happens at the extreme, with far lesser amounts within a large portion of the FOV through which the target is normally viewed.

If I need to get a fast hit on a BG 50 feet away from an awkward position, I don't believe any parallax from imperfect head position behind the optic will make any difference. But I also believe it's fair to say the greater the target distance (the smaller the target), the less room for position error there is. IMO, that's a reasonable expectation.

But the annoying fact remains that RDS manufacturers continue to tout their products as parallax free when that is evidently not the case. Shame on us for being so gullible, and for not taking the time to verify manufacturer's claims of the equipment we might use to defend ourselves.

At the very least, the study has informed me that most RDS are not "parallax free" and that ascertaining any amount of induced parallax is an easy and useful task the user should undertake. I'm sure the manufacturers of RDS are eager to discount the study but at least in my case, I am thankful to those who took the time to conduct it and share the results so I can be better informed about rifle optic selection.

[GJM]

I discount most to all manufacturer claims. On the way home from sushi, we stopped for frozen yogurt, and on the wall were all the health claims for their product. Parallel free was about the only thing not claimed as a benefit to yogurt. I have been using red dot sights for enough years to form my own opinion — and that is the red dot is almost always the best solution for a defensive long gun, whether that be an AR or my 14 inch shotguns.

[NH Shooter]

I have been using red dot sights for enough years to form my own opinion — and that is the red dot is almost always the best solution for a defensive long gun, whether that be an AR or my 14 inch shotguns.

That is a fair statement, one that I don't necessarily disagree with. I've owned several RDS (AP and an EO), and at some point will probably own another for exactly this reason.

BTW, what are you seeing as the most recent trend in BUIS for use with a RDS? Folding front and rear? Fixed front and rear? Fixed front with folding rear? Offset? Absolute or lower 1/3?

TIA for any insight.

[GJM]

That is a fair statement, one that I don't necessarily disagree with. I've owned several RDS (AP and an EO), and at some point will probably own another for exactly this reason.

BTW, what are you seeing as the most recent trend in BUIS for use with a RDS? Folding front and rear? Fixed front and rear? Fixed front with folding rear? Offset? Absolute or lower 1/3?

TIA for any insight.

For USPSA, no BUIS. For defensive use, I defer to others, but I like the Troy style folding sights that lock into position.

[Backspin]

Friend of mine (swat cop, avid 3 gun competitor) got to shoot at a major match in 2 different divisions. One gun had a Sworovski LPVO, other gun had an Aimpoint T2. One particular stage had two plate racks at 100 yards. My friend said he had a much easier time shooting the plate racks with the red dot than the LPVO (which was also at 1x). That was somewhat surprising.

Not surprising the LPVO had the advantage on the longer distance targets.

[vmi-mo]

This is all my opinion so....

I do not buy the small target long range thing. I believe the inverse. I am more likely to engage smaller targets at closer ranges than I am at longer ranges. This is all based off visual acuity. I can see smaller things at closer ranges than I can at longer ranges.

Next is the idea of introducing the potential for inaccuracy. Can you cope with parallax, absolutely. However that is one more thing to worry about. Why would I build a system where deviation is known to occur? Also, that deviation may not be readily apparent. There is nothing that ruins a mans confidence in combat more than not being able to hit what he is aiming at because of hardware.

How good of a shot do you have to be?
"The shot you have is the shot you have to make"

What makes a good shot?
"Good ability, good thinking, good gear"

"A 1moa trigger finger, doesnt mean shit behind a 5moa bullet"

ETA: Saying its a clue, that a Unit, that prides itself on not making things public, hasn't publicly spoken about it, doesn't make much sense. I wonder what optic those sorts are currently using...