Good chat. Clear and concise. First time viewer here at V.N.P., and I only checked out the vid to see if there was a correct answer... I was not disapponted. Thanks Rob. Had to view the remainder. Loved the summery at the end by the gentleman w/ the "cascade" t shirt.... "are Red Dots parralax free...no, does it matter...no." Classic. Currently looking at Vortex products... red dot and their "holographic" sights. Even though "EOtech" holds the pattent, I hear Vortex's solution to Holo sights is clever and more importantly..it .works. At an acceptable price point. Thumbs up.
Well , if parallax error is to much , like in cheap optics, it does matter at least a little bit more. Ive seen many cheap optics with notisable parallax error.
Thanks for this. Was recently in a competition and was missing everywhere. I obviously assumed it was parallax because of unusual head positions around barricades etc. well turns out I just suck. I did as you suggested notice the dot moving around as I moved my head and thought ahhh. So again great explanation and I need to practice more.
People have done a lot of parallax tests and its typically going to be way more then .19 inch parallax at 25 yards lmfao. Red dots such as the MRO and T1 have errors of up to 6 entire inches if your holding with the dot on the edge.
Im not in disagreement with your experiences and the physics involed.. I will say that at really close in (15 yards or closer), you can have a significant error. Maybe not so much a problem if your shooting steel and where it lands on the steel isn't as important, but if trying to get a good grouping at closer distance when shooting paper, I def have to keep the dot as close to center of the sight picture or I get not so impressive results. If it's a round type red dot, it is easier to keep it centered from the edgesof your sight picture. (mine is a holosun 507k x2 so it's more like a rectangle your seeing with a dot in the "center") If a holographic sight is better, who makes a holographic sight for a pistol? I need one that less then 1 oz in weight or I get cycling malfunctioning... Does anyone make a holographic sight that's 2 moa and weighs less then 1 ounce... for pistols that shoot with a really flat trajectory like a 57 and you need a 2 moa sight. Maybe do a "list" of the best holographic pistol red dots. Thanks. I enjoyed this video.. very informative...
I put the red dot at the furthest rear position and the rear iron sight in front of the red dot, no parallax distortion, and quicker iron sight target acquisition
So i was not paying so much attention in my physics light and optics class. Could you post the equation used? maybe some qualifiers of what else cause "distortion" at very close ranges. (5m)
I was. I tried so hard. I've always been fascinated by mirrors and lenses, got my first microscope when I was 6! I was a natural at physics, but for the life of me, “lenses and mirrors” kicked my ass!
@vortex nation podcast my question is on my sparc AR and crossfire I noticed the other night when I was drifiring there appears to be a small protrusion of a plastic part inside the optic I hadn’t noticed before. I have not even shot with the sparc ar yet. Then I got my crossfire red dot in and noticed the same thing. Both optics appear to have a slight “squared off “ sight effect in the lower right hand corner. I have the venom as well on a pistol and obviously do not notice it but should I be noticing that on either of the two red dots mentioned above?
Totally normal - that's the LED emitter inside. If you look down the red dot backwards with it on, you'll see the red LED shining there. It's not visible in optics like the venom red dot because that emitter is down inside the housing. In a closed tube red dot, it has to pop up somewhere to be able to shine at the lens and reflect back to your eye, so it sticks up a bit. Nothing to worry about and you won't even notice once you get shooting.
That's what we just talked about here. All red dots on the market will say "Parallax free" because, for all intents and purposes, they really are. Technically speaking if you really want to get in the weeds with it, they are not, but the amount of parallax error you will actually ever encounter at the extreme close ranges when it will present itself is going to be a complete non-issue.
Basically, they're parallax free at infinity, meaning the lenses are perfectly corrected. Problem is really close up, there's no way to change the curvature of the lens to compensate for tracking near objects. Some models fix it at say 100 meters instead of infinity, but it makes little actual difference. You'd have to have a distance knob that adjusted elevation of the sight, but then windage wouldn't track at the edge of the finder. In theory you could make one with a different kind of sight, that uses a lens to collimate and flat glass. You could change the lens focus then for distance to change the parallax somewhat.
Physically it is more proflematic. As far your eyes are from the sight the parallax error increases. BUT handguns are not intended to make long distance high accuracy hits, so the situation compensates it self. The main idea is that there is a trade: Lose high precision to gain fast aiming with decent accuracy. Just to give an example, the setup for my rifle is iron sights for sport/having fun and reflex for home defense.
So you claim that the error or shift at 25yds would be around 1/4 of an inch... Are you claiming your parallax shift is minimal compared to other top end/ top of the line optics on the market like the MRO, Aimpoint T1 or Eotech EXPS 3.0? I'm sure you're aware of the Green Eye Tactical parallax shift study. I know they didn't test any Vortex optics but how can you just pull out a calculator and run some numbers and assume a 1/4" error without actually testing? Not saying Vortex is inferior to the optics tested but it is well known in the industry that Aimpoint and Trijicon are quality top brand optics that are durable and well versed and tested for duty use. I would like the see a study done with your optics to compare if possible cause that is a game changer if Vortex really does have minimal shift compared to other top brands out there. Study link is attached here: www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/
The numbers Rob calculated on the spot there were strictly physics/trigonometry-based to make a point about how a value that would make up a large error at extended range becomes a much smaller error and potentially a complete non-issue at close range. He wasn't making specific claims or comparisons to any competitor products.
@@VortexNation i understand no comparisons or claims were made but I was just curious if you guys were aware of the study done. But that also goes to show you that the physics/trigonometry are off being that it is based just on theory and not real world. And based on the study it actually proves Robs theory to be reversed. At 25 yds the optics had higher moa shift but as distance increased the moa shift was getting smaller. I wasn't trying to take a jab at him, you or Vortex but was more interested in what the actual parallax was. I get his calculations come up to just under 1/4", but in real world, if we are seeing high values of MOA shift from Trijicon or Aimpoint with red dots and Eotech has some shift but minimal being a holographic sight at 25 yds, and the shift lessens as distance increases, then I am curious how vortex stands up to the competition. I know there is a difference between the holo and red dot sights, but the study basically proves Eotechs (specifically the EXPS3.0) are parallax free (Avg. 1.56 MOA Shift @25 yds/ Avg .833 MOA Shift @ 50yds/ Abg. 0 MOA shift @100 yds). I love these 10 minute talks yall do as they are informative, but would like to see some real world data come from yall with these talks and not theory, especially when data thats out there is directly related to the topic but is completely opposite of what yall are saying.
@@robertj5663 It sounds like there was just a misunderstanding in what he was saying. The parallax error does indeed increase as you get closer to the target and decrease as you go out further with red dots/holo's. What Rob was explaining, though, was that some people feel really nervous about the fact that there is parallax error at closer distances - especially in a sight that is designed to be used at closer ranges. They might think about 2 MOA of shift, for example and for easy math, and see that as being significant and reason to believe that the sight can't be used accurately at closer range. What a lot of people forget to consider, though, is that even a 2 MOA shift at 25 yards is just .5 inches down range, which is relatively insignificant, especially atop a rifle platform that is being handheld and shooting on the move. Regardless of the MOA value, the point is that at closer distances, it has less of an impact on the linear error translated down range onto the target. Rob's point was not at all to say that the parallax error actually gets less significant at short range, because as you pointed out, that is not true. Their study was extremely well laid out and documented, but there are more robust systems of measurement to be honest. the problem is that there is no standardized and universally accepted way of testing parallax in these sights and thus, different people will likely draw different conclusions. Once you start throwing numbers out there and getting a wave of conversation around something where there are likely going to be disagreeing numbers from different sources, you create more confusion and worry than the topic is realistically due. For most all intents and purposes, red dots and holographic sights are "Parallax free". There will be parallax present at closer ranges, but its impact on accuracy is dramatically less than it would be if it were at longer ranges. At longer ranges, there will be significantly less or near-zero parallax error. As with any optic, parallax error can also be mitigated by proper cheek weld and consistent eye position right in line with the optic behind the gun - the error is intensified as the shooter comes further and further off-axis. At which point, the ability to shoot with extreme accuracy is usually compromised significantly in the first place. And so-on and so-forth. It's a very complicated topic realistically speaking with many different facets and variables...
@@VortexNation I can agree to that. And only time someone will really notice parallax is from unconventional shooting positions like around vehicles or under cars and through cover at odd angles. I do appreciate you taking the time to read and respond. Shows true customer support and I respect and applaud you for that.
Red dots are not parallax free especially if you run it through a magnifier with an unknown focal distance that is also not parallax free. I had a red dot that i ran through a 3x magnifier and changes in cheek position resulted in a 4 inch shift at 50 yards. 8 moa. Totally unacceptable. I swapped it out with a LPVO. Lesson learned don't run red dots with a magnifier unless you don't care about precision at odd shooting angles
Chad Owens this is a video recording of an audio podcast. The audio is the primary reason for this conversation. Video of the conversation to go on TH-cam is just a backup or another means for people to tune in.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Good job having an optical engineer in
Thanks for clearing that up for me guys. Great job. Straight to the point with no waisted time. Keep it up.
Good chat. Clear and concise. First time viewer here at V.N.P., and I only checked out the vid to see if there was a correct answer... I was not disapponted. Thanks Rob. Had to view the remainder. Loved the summery at the end by the gentleman w/ the "cascade" t shirt.... "are Red Dots parralax free...no, does it matter...no." Classic. Currently looking at Vortex products... red dot and their "holographic" sights. Even though "EOtech" holds the pattent, I hear Vortex's solution to Holo sights is clever and more importantly..it .works. At an acceptable price point. Thumbs up.
Well , if parallax error is to much , like in cheap optics, it does matter at least a little bit more. Ive seen many cheap optics with notisable parallax error.
Really nice format here. My first episode. Thanks from Texas.
Thanks for this. Was recently in a competition and was missing everywhere. I obviously assumed it was parallax because of unusual head positions around barricades etc. well turns out I just suck. I did as you suggested notice the dot moving around as I moved my head and thought ahhh. So again great explanation and I need to practice more.
People have done a lot of parallax tests and its typically going to be way more then .19 inch parallax at 25 yards lmfao. Red dots such as the MRO and T1 have errors of up to 6 entire inches if your holding with the dot on the edge.
Vortex I love you guys and would love to see the factory one day 😈
Thanks for the love!!
Im not in disagreement with your experiences and the physics involed.. I will say that at really close in (15 yards or closer), you can have a significant error. Maybe not so much a problem if your shooting steel and where it lands on the steel isn't as important, but if trying to get a good grouping at closer distance when shooting paper, I def have to keep the dot as close to center of the sight picture or I get not so impressive results. If it's a round type red dot, it is easier to keep it centered from the edgesof your sight picture. (mine is a holosun 507k x2 so it's more like a rectangle your seeing with a dot in the "center")
If a holographic sight is better, who makes a holographic sight for a pistol? I need one that less then 1 oz in weight or I get cycling malfunctioning...
Does anyone make a holographic sight that's 2 moa and weighs less then 1 ounce... for pistols that shoot with a really flat trajectory like a 57 and you need a 2 moa sight. Maybe do a "list" of the best holographic pistol red dots. Thanks. I enjoyed this video.. very informative...
How many inches are you calling significant error? For steel or defense, you're well within minute of man!
Good video. Thanks! The REAL question though, is, did you break out that Spam on the shelve, after y'all finished? ;)
We've been exercising a lot of patience waiting for the right moment to crack into those things :)
@7:15 I totally did this when I was got my 1st red dot.
So if i mount my red dot farther back on the rifle, will it minimize parallax? Thanks 👍
Nice explanation. the problem confused me for a while
Very concise and scientific info!
Would love to know which of your Reflex optics is best for use in Home Defense on my Shotgun, Panzer BP12?
You guys have spam stacked on a shelf in the background?
I put the red dot at the furthest rear position and the rear iron sight in front of the red dot, no parallax distortion, and quicker iron sight target acquisition
You do you boo
So i was not paying so much attention in my physics light and optics class. Could you post the equation used? maybe some qualifiers of what else cause "distortion" at very close ranges. (5m)
I was. I tried so hard. I've always been fascinated by mirrors and lenses, got my first microscope when I was 6! I was a natural at physics, but for the life of me, “lenses and mirrors” kicked my ass!
Rob knows things. I want to hear him more. He speaks science, not shooter mumbo jumbo.
@vortex nation podcast my question is on my sparc AR and crossfire I noticed the other night when I was drifiring there appears to be a small protrusion of a plastic part inside the optic I hadn’t noticed before. I have not even shot with the sparc ar yet. Then I got my crossfire red dot in and noticed the same thing. Both optics appear to have a slight “squared off “ sight effect in the lower right hand corner. I have the venom as well on a pistol and obviously do not notice it but should I be noticing that on either of the two red dots mentioned above?
Totally normal - that's the LED emitter inside. If you look down the red dot backwards with it on, you'll see the red LED shining there. It's not visible in optics like the venom red dot because that emitter is down inside the housing. In a closed tube red dot, it has to pop up somewhere to be able to shine at the lens and reflect back to your eye, so it sticks up a bit. Nothing to worry about and you won't even notice once you get shooting.
Vortex Nation Podcast great. Thanks for the prompt reply and thorough explanation
The distance at which the red dot has been zeroed doesn't play a role ?
parallax is depends on your eyes placement. its hard to maintain its stability, especially when you shoot while you run
I just bought a Vortex Crossfire and the information on your web page says "Parralax Free". Whats up with that?
That's what we just talked about here. All red dots on the market will say "Parallax free" because, for all intents and purposes, they really are. Technically speaking if you really want to get in the weeds with it, they are not, but the amount of parallax error you will actually ever encounter at the extreme close ranges when it will present itself is going to be a complete non-issue.
Basically, they're parallax free at infinity, meaning the lenses are perfectly corrected. Problem is really close up, there's no way to change the curvature of the lens to compensate for tracking near objects. Some models fix it at say 100 meters instead of infinity, but it makes little actual difference. You'd have to have a distance knob that adjusted elevation of the sight, but then windage wouldn't track at the edge of the finder.
In theory you could make one with a different kind of sight, that uses a lens to collimate and flat glass. You could change the lens focus then for distance to change the parallax somewhat.
Is the situation any more problematic in handguns?
Physically it is more proflematic.
As far your eyes are from the sight the parallax error increases.
BUT handguns are not intended to make long distance high accuracy hits, so the situation compensates it self.
The main idea is that there is a trade: Lose high precision to gain fast aiming with decent accuracy.
Just to give an example, the setup for my rifle is iron sights for sport/having fun and reflex for home defense.
Good info. Thanks.
Thanks for tuning in!
Nothing is trully paralex fee but vortex trijicon and holosun are best out there for sure
So you claim that the error or shift at 25yds would be around 1/4 of an inch... Are you claiming your parallax shift is minimal compared to other top end/ top of the line optics on the market like the MRO, Aimpoint T1 or Eotech EXPS 3.0? I'm sure you're aware of the Green Eye Tactical parallax shift study. I know they didn't test any Vortex optics but how can you just pull out a calculator and run some numbers and assume a 1/4" error without actually testing? Not saying Vortex is inferior to the optics tested but it is well known in the industry that Aimpoint and Trijicon are quality top brand optics that are durable and well versed and tested for duty use. I would like the see a study done with your optics to compare if possible cause that is a game changer if Vortex really does have minimal shift compared to other top brands out there. Study link is attached here: www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/
The numbers Rob calculated on the spot there were strictly physics/trigonometry-based to make a point about how a value that would make up a large error at extended range becomes a much smaller error and potentially a complete non-issue at close range. He wasn't making specific claims or comparisons to any competitor products.
@@VortexNation i understand no comparisons or claims were made but I was just curious if you guys were aware of the study done. But that also goes to show you that the physics/trigonometry are off being that it is based just on theory and not real world. And based on the study it actually proves Robs theory to be reversed. At 25 yds the optics had higher moa shift but as distance increased the moa shift was getting smaller. I wasn't trying to take a jab at him, you or Vortex but was more interested in what the actual parallax was. I get his calculations come up to just under 1/4", but in real world, if we are seeing high values of MOA shift from Trijicon or Aimpoint with red dots and Eotech has some shift but minimal being a holographic sight at 25 yds, and the shift lessens as distance increases, then I am curious how vortex stands up to the competition. I know there is a difference between the holo and red dot sights, but the study basically proves Eotechs (specifically the EXPS3.0) are parallax free (Avg. 1.56 MOA Shift @25 yds/ Avg .833 MOA Shift @ 50yds/ Abg. 0 MOA shift @100 yds). I love these 10 minute talks yall do as they are informative, but would like to see some real world data come from yall with these talks and not theory, especially when data thats out there is directly related to the topic but is completely opposite of what yall are saying.
@@robertj5663 It sounds like there was just a misunderstanding in what he was saying. The parallax error does indeed increase as you get closer to the target and decrease as you go out further with red dots/holo's. What Rob was explaining, though, was that some people feel really nervous about the fact that there is parallax error at closer distances - especially in a sight that is designed to be used at closer ranges. They might think about 2 MOA of shift, for example and for easy math, and see that as being significant and reason to believe that the sight can't be used accurately at closer range. What a lot of people forget to consider, though, is that even a 2 MOA shift at 25 yards is just .5 inches down range, which is relatively insignificant, especially atop a rifle platform that is being handheld and shooting on the move. Regardless of the MOA value, the point is that at closer distances, it has less of an impact on the linear error translated down range onto the target. Rob's point was not at all to say that the parallax error actually gets less significant at short range, because as you pointed out, that is not true. Their study was extremely well laid out and documented, but there are more robust systems of measurement to be honest. the problem is that there is no standardized and universally accepted way of testing parallax in these sights and thus, different people will likely draw different conclusions. Once you start throwing numbers out there and getting a wave of conversation around something where there are likely going to be disagreeing numbers from different sources, you create more confusion and worry than the topic is realistically due. For most all intents and purposes, red dots and holographic sights are "Parallax free". There will be parallax present at closer ranges, but its impact on accuracy is dramatically less than it would be if it were at longer ranges. At longer ranges, there will be significantly less or near-zero parallax error. As with any optic, parallax error can also be mitigated by proper cheek weld and consistent eye position right in line with the optic behind the gun - the error is intensified as the shooter comes further and further off-axis. At which point, the ability to shoot with extreme accuracy is usually compromised significantly in the first place. And so-on and so-forth. It's a very complicated topic realistically speaking with many different facets and variables...
@@VortexNation I can agree to that. And only time someone will really notice parallax is from unconventional shooting positions like around vehicles or under cars and through cover at odd angles. I do appreciate you taking the time to read and respond. Shows true customer support and I respect and applaud you for that.
@@robertj5663 Always happy to chat! Thanks for tuning in and commenting
Nice video
Red dots are not parallax free especially if you run it through a magnifier with an unknown focal distance that is also not parallax free. I had a red dot that i ran through a 3x magnifier and changes in cheek position resulted in a 4 inch shift at 50 yards. 8 moa. Totally unacceptable. I swapped it out with a LPVO. Lesson learned don't run red dots with a magnifier unless you don't care about precision at odd shooting angles
green shirt man kinda looks like Michael McDonald
IF yoU WerE A rEal mAn YoU WouLd Not nEed a RED dOt.
Why the hell are yall using head phones? Yall are in the same room and not in tha Choppa? No need for all that extra.
Chad Owens this is a video recording of an audio podcast. The audio is the primary reason for this conversation. Video of the conversation to go on TH-cam is just a backup or another means for people to tune in.
good to now for a noobe
So if i mount my red dot farther back on the rifle, will it minimize parallax? Thanks 👍