Are NS Panamax really this bad?

[Archer50]

You will notice a POI change with front AO budget scopes (Hawkes, Nikkos, even the Nikon EFR). If you find one than doesnt do it - then its pure luck. Same happens with the magnification normaly, but a bit less pronunced.


So you got a few chances. First- keep buying budget scopes till you get one than its aligned. Second - if your does it... Keep the settings and shoot it always like that. Third- if you need move setings- make a range card with your correct POI. Last one (the one i did after like 20 diferent scopes) - buy a decent scope if you can aford. my Leupold 3-9x33 EFR doesnt have that problem.

I'm sorry to say that I think this is right. I've dealt with optics all my life, from microscopes to telescopes and everything in between, and compared with just about any other type of optical instrument I think it is surprising how good some £150 scopes can be. That sort of money will hardly buy one objective lens on a decent pair of binoculars. Because of their design, AO scopes are the least likely to be true, and personally, I steer clear of them. SF scopes are a bit better, on the whole, but whatever type of scope you use, depending on what degree of precision you want, you have probably got to think in terms of £500+, or do what nunofrancisco says - or get lucky.

Alan

[Scubashot]

I'm sorry to say that I think this is right. I've dealt with optics all my life, from microscopes to telescopes and everything in between, and compared with just about any other type of optical instrument I think it is surprising how good some £150 scopes can be. That sort of money will hardly buy one objective lens on a decent pair of binoculars. Because of their design, AO scopes are the least likely to be true, and personally, I steer clear of them. SF scopes are a bit better, on the whole, but whatever type of scope you use, depending on what degree of precision you want, you have probably got to think in terms of £500+, or do what nunofrancisco says - or get lucky.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your input.
With your background you can probably tell me if, as I suspect, side focus adjustment of the objective lens is inherently superior to rotating the lens on a screw thread?
Does the s/f system still move the objective lens in and out or does it bring other mechanisms into play?
It seems to me that rotating the lens is always going to exaggerate the problems of any imperfections in the lens or its mounting. At least refocussing it without revolving it should keep errors consistent - I think?!!

Regards,

Clive

[TORNADOS7]

I've completely given up on cheap scopes with AO's, recently bought a 'Hawke Vantage 3-9x40AO/MD' which fails to hold a zero on my TXhc and the p.o.i moves slightly when I alter the mag and/or the AO so as of Sunday just gone the TX now wears a cheap 'AGS Sapphire 3-9x40' which comes PX'd at 35yds, has a reasonably fine duplex ret, exceptionally good (for the money) glass and most important of all holds a zero, doesn't shift p.o.i when the mag is altered and its springer rated to boot, all for 40 notes...

[Amac]

The bottom line is that if you want a scope that is unaffected by alterations to parallax or magnification you will have to pay for it and buy something manufactured in Japan, Germany or the U.S. You might drop lucky and buy a cheaper scope that works perfectly well, but my own experiences over the decades means a more expensive purchase if I want a "serious" scope that holds a zero no matter what.

For those who have yet to take a peek through a more expensive scope, you will be impressed with the clarity of the image. My main scope at present is a Nightforce and it is a joy to use. Problem is it cost a lot of money and I appreciate that not many shooters will be prepared to pay the equivalent price of a half decent used car on a scope. It is not the type of purchase you would make unless you are indeed a serious shooter who has over time realised that there is no easy way to achieve high performance without paying out lots of cash.

In saying that, I also recently bought an FX 4-12x40 from abroad. The image quality is not in the same league as a "serious" scope, but I have noticed that it doesnt shift about as much as other cheap scopes when the front adjustable objective is altered. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this post however, I might just have been lucky and got a decent example. Considering it cost around £120 posted, I consider this scope a decent purchase.

Anyway, I hope that if you cannot afford an expensive scope, take the good advice provided elsewhere and consider a fixed objective lens as you will be much less likely to experience that annoying zero shift problem.

Andy

[Shed tuner]

this is why I don't buy PA scopes any more.. unless you are spending say £200+, it's pretty well guaranteed that PA adjustment will result in POI movement. Luckily for 12 FP airguns, 95% of shots are in the 20-40 yard range, so just PX your non AO scope for 30 yards and job done. Less stuff to go wrong, less weight, and more money spent on the lenses If I do happen to acquire a secondhand PA scope, 99.9% of the time I'll set it to 30 yards (real, not what is written on the bezel) and never move it. If you are doing 40 or 50 yard benchrest, fine, adjust the PA, and rezero. But most of us don't

Keeping to sensible sized objectives max 40mm or maybe 44 helps reduce PX error too.

Zoom is somewhat usefull than AO, in as much as I leave my 3-9x on 9x all the time, but if I need to shoot something at say 10 yards, you can always wind the zoom down to 3x, enabling you to see it clearly enough, and any PX or POI movement at 10 yards is pretty much irrelevant

[Archer50]

Hi Clive.

Basically, an AO scope focuses by moving the objective lens backwards and forwards by rotation. The big problem with this is that unless the optical centre and mechanical centre of the objective lens are absolutely identical, as you rotate the lens, the image (which is what you actually aim at, not the target) goes round in a circle. This is made even worse if the other lenses - there are at least two - are not also in perfect alignment. The tiniest misalignment through the system can give big problems at even medium distances. With a Side Focus system, the objective stays still and the focus lens is moved backwards and forwards. This is a more expensive mechanism, and far from foolproof, but it does mean that there is more chance of the effects of any alignment inconsistencies staying constant, as the whole thing is not rotating. So, in my opinion, SF systems are inherently better than AO systems, but whatever system you use, if you want the best precision you and your setup are capable of, you need to check it out at each distance you shoot.

Also remember that as well as optical precision, you also pay for robustness. I have had two scopes that started life pretty much perfect, but started zero-wandering after a couple of months of careful, real-world outdoor use.

As it happens, it looks like I have got lucky with a £175 Hawke Vantage SF 3-12 x 44 scope. At the moment, this particular scope is spot on at every distance I shoot, and compares very well on all counts with my £600 Sightron S111.

Good shooting

Alan

[Scubashot]

Hi Alan,
Thanks for the explanation.
It is more or less as I thought, though expressed far more coherently and eloquently than I would have managed!

I take some hope from the fact that both you and Amac have recently bought "affordable" Hawke scopes that do work accurately.
I would happily pay around the £200.00 mark for a scope that was guaranteed to perform correctly but I wonder how many retailers would put the shutters up when they saw you coming to return your fourth or fifth inaccurate scope?!

Luckily, the only AO scope that I have purchased was a heavily discounted
Nikko 3-9x50 for around £35.00 so it has not proved to be an expensive lesson.
The next will be no more than x16 magnification with a 40mm-ish objective lens and side focus. Hopefully by the time that I have spare cash and feel inclined to experiment with a better scope there may have been some improvement in manufacturing methods.

Regards
Clive