cheers, pondering on
cheers for the advice guys and thanks for the heads up on the leup, after some further research and looking into things I'm starting to question now that it ain't necessarily the magnification ability of the scope or the size of the objective, although both are critical too depending on need.
it seems that the actual issue of parallax error is more akin to the size of the exit pupil within the scope and obviously this then is solely dependent on the shooter ensuring head position is perfect each time.
So my Hawke and Falcon are both fixed mags at 10x and both with 42mm Objectives thus providing 4.2mm of Exit pupil.
The Leups and and Bushnell's etc which are lesser diameter and lesser mag, i.e 8.7x36 (full magnification setting) are 4.13mm Exit Pupil, so on paper this isnt a massive difference.
BUT.. lower mag as I've experienced first hand does provide a steadier sight picture and therefore less apparent wobble from the shooter which has to be a boost, in combination of excellent lenses and light transmission of the high end scopes.
Where do I head from here, its a conundrum, stick with my Hawke and Falcon etc, as I'm only sacrificing 0.07,, Exit Pupil (its early, Sunday and I'm knackered) or do I bite the bullet and make plans for a lesser scope numerically speaking in terms of magnification to hopefully improve and gain the following..
greater depth of field,
diminished (?) Parallax error, etc etc
even an 8x32 scope gives 4mm exit pupil? Am I barking up the wrong tree or should I stick to what I know. !