Dose a scope with an adjustable objective have any place on a big game rifle?

I've always managed to get by without one.

Not usually. It can also be one more thing to do in the heat of the moment, especially if the adjustment is way off for the range.

IMO, not necessary but helpful for long distance. An adj. obj. reduces parallax, puts the target in the same visual plane as the crosshairs. If it isn't then any head/eye change of reference will change the point of impact, similar to changing the anchor point when shooting a bow. I think most non-adj. scopes are parallax adjusted at 100-150yd. Most of my big game guns are high velocity and I zero them at 300. For load development and zeroing I want to reduce as many variables as possible, being able to reduce parallax is one less thing I need to be concerned about. It may also be a factor on a very long (400+) shot where your head is at an odd position to the scope, like a steep uphill.

i prefer the side paralax know to the objective ring style for hunting. the opposite is true for the range.

Most of the scopes I hunt with do not have a parallax adjustment. The reason is, the scopes I hunt with are not over 3-9x. Years ago, I would hunt with scopes that now are on varmint rifles. I've found that some of the lower powered scopes helped me more when hunting...and I hunt on high plains quite a bit.

I used to think NO!

Last year I decided to get a dedicated long range hunting rifle for the big canyon country that I hunt in Eastern Oregon and Western Wyoming.

I chose a 300RUM, 26 inch barrel. 4.5 X 14 Leupold.
Because I specifically wanted a long range rifle I opted for the adjustable objective.

When setting up for long shots there is a system that I use.

Clearly identify which animal is the intended target. At long range it generally requires a spotting scope.

Range target with laser. Get into shooting range.
Range target with laser again. Adjust scope objective to proper distance.

Obtain a proper rest. Sticks, pack, stump etc.

Breathe, squeeze.

For long range shooting the extra step of adjusting your scope is NOTHING.

Keep it at 200 yards for walking around (which is what most scopes are regulated at) and crank it up for long shots.

When at the range with it for the first time I was amazed at the difference in clarity with the adjustable objective.

KC,

You have a very valid point. As long as you keep the the parallax set at a reasonable distance (since those without adjustment are set at 150 yards usually) there is no appreciable difference. At longer ranges, you'll normally have time to make the proper adjustments. JMHO

gd

I prefer not to hunt with a scope with an AO, but I have and don't really see a problem for the way that I hunt.

No adjustable objective scopes for me on big game rifles, for reasons mentioned above.
In fact, I don't want an adjustable (variable) power scope on a big game rifle, for the same reason.

Don

quote:

Posted 04 February 2008 21:55 Hide Post
i prefer the side paralax know to the objective ring style for hunting. the opposite is true for the range.

+1 I use a Zeiss 4.5-14 and out to 500 yards it makes a usable range finder. I can pretty well always focus that scope and then read the range off the side turret to within fifty yards and be close enough. It's no substitute for a ral range finder past 400, but it will tell you if your eyes are being tricked by the light and surroundings.

IMO AO doesn't get in the way and it doesn't hinder you in any way while in the field. I use my AO while at the range shooting various distances and when I take the rifle hunting I place it on 100yds just as if it were a factory set paralax as any non-AO scope would have. If the game is at 50 or 400, I've never had a problem while shooting with AO set on 100. When I have time, I dial in the proper setting on the AO.

Some think they are ugly and I understand that, but I buy scopes for the quality of the glass and the durability, they are tools and I'm not trying to win a beauty contest.

Good Luck,

Reloader

Hey Leo, I'd agree with the above folks who say it really depends on how far you plan to shoot. Out past 400yds, I find AOs to be an advantage.

Same with the Style Reticle you choose and the Turrets. I really like Mil-Dots inside 500-600yds and prefer Target Turrets beyond. But, the older I get, the closer I like the Game.

Best of luck in your choice.

No AO. Just another whistle or bell to catch the hunter and go tits up at a bad time.
I had one go bad on a target rifle during a match and I went from a one holer to pray and spray.

It seems to me that an AO would, maybe, maybe, be of use where parallax can be a problem - long ranges (my hesitation is because I don't know what the "set up time" is for long shots in the West) - thus, I would defer to the Western antelope, mountain goat and sheep hunters on this. Certainly for Eastern woods hunters, I agree with stillbeeman, "Just another whistle or bell..." (In fact, I would say that for a woods hunter, that AO would be as useful (with a bow to my Southern friends)as tits on a boar.

quote:

Originally posted by stillbeeman:
No AO. Just another whistle or bell to catch the hunter and go tits up at a bad time.
I had one go bad on a target rifle during a match and I went from a one holer to pray and spray.

Succinctly put, Stillbeeman.

The sole advantage of an AO is that it can provide minor correction to potential parallax error -- an error that is likley to be less than a half inch at typical yardages. I say potential error, because if your gun fits you well and your eye aligns with the sight picture in the same way each time you mount the gun, then there is no parallax error.

The disadvantages are also minor, but are numerous: 1. Weighs more. 2. May require higher mounting, thus disturbing your gun-scope fit. 3. Will be more expensive. 4. Is one more place to leak moisture and one more system to potentially fail. 5. Makes the overall scope more delicate and subject to damage. 6. Is guaranteed to be set at the WRONG place whenever game appears. 7. Is the last thing you need to be fiddling with when trying to get off a good shot at a trophy game animal.

Now, if you specialize in long-range shooting and your practice is to set up to take sniper shots at distances well over a quarter of a mile (all fine with me if this is your cup of tea), then you might as well have an AO scope. But if you are a more conventional hunter, then the AO is just excess baggage.

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:

quote:

Posted 04 February 2008 21:55 Hide Post
i prefer the side paralax know to the objective ring style for hunting. the opposite is true for the range.

+1 I use a Zeiss 4.5-14 and out to 500 yards it makes a usable range finder. I can pretty well always focus that scope and then read the range off the side turret to within fifty yards and be close enough. It's no substitute for a ral range finder past 400, but it will tell you if your eyes are being tricked by the light and surroundings.

I use the AO on the 6.5-20 scope on my 223 Varmint rifle the same way and it's within
a couple of feet of a friend's laser range
finder.

It's more than good enough to score first round hits within the effective range of a 223 (300yds)

I'd more or less trust it to do the same thing
on my heavy barreled 7mmMag so I'm scope shopping now for a similar scope for
that rifle...

if nothing else it makes life easier at the range when firing known distance.

the eyepiece focus is used to focus the crosshairs and the objective used to focus
the target.

Less eys strain for longer range sessions.

Then there's the AO 4-12x scope on my 30-06, the highest power is only actually used at the KD range, in general I IGNORE the AO in the field by leaving it set for a moderate distance
usually 175yards.

AD

I agree that only on long range rifles for shooting at abnormal distances would it be of any benifit...I don't shoot big game beyond 400 yards and seldom at that range so I don't need the added advantage...