I found a Crosman 66 "Powermaster" at the dump. It works fine but I
have a big problem: my old eyes can't focus on the sights & the target
at the same time. I'm thinking that a 'scope would solve the problem.

I don't need much magnification & the gun is low value ($50 - 60 new),
so I don't want to put out a lot of money. Anybody have a
recommendation for a low-cost scope that isn't a POS? Or, which ones
are POS's that I should avoid? Or, is it not possible to get a low-cost
scope that isn't a POS?

Thanks,
Bob

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:48:10 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

I found a Crosman 66 "Powermaster" at the dump. It works fine but I
have a big problem: my old eyes can't focus on the sights & the target
at the same time. I'm thinking that a 'scope would solve the problem.

I don't need much magnification & the gun is low value ($50 - 60 new),
so I don't want to put out a lot of money. Anybody have a
recommendation for a low-cost scope that isn't a POS? Or, which ones
are POS's that I should avoid? Or, is it not possible to get a low-cost
scope that isn't a POS?

Thanks,
Bob

http://www.opticsplanet.net/riflescopes-by-price-1.html

Tasco is now owned by Bushnell. I have a Tasco on my pellet rifle and
have found it to be very satisfactory.

"Bob Engelhardt" wrote in message
...
I found a Crosman 66 "Powermaster" at the dump. It works fine but I have a
big problem: my old eyes can't focus on the sights & the target at the same
time. I'm thinking that a 'scope would solve the problem.

I don't need much magnification & the gun is low value ($50 - 60 new), so
I don't want to put out a lot of money. Anybody have a recommendation for
a low-cost scope that isn't a POS? Or, which ones are POS's that I should
avoid? Or, is it not possible to get a low-cost scope that isn't a POS?

Thanks,
Bob

Among the things I was left from a machinist's estate was a Chinese pellet
rifle.

I found I had the same problem, my old eyes couldn't resolve the front
sight.

Among the other things left over was a bsa red dot sight. The battery
powered gizmos with no magnification.

I didn't think much of them when they first came out, but it proved to be
just the thing for old eyes and plinking distances.

You can scrounge them, used, on ebay for less than $20. You will probably
also need a dovetail adapter.

Paul K. Dickman

Don Foreman wrote:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/riflescopes-by-price-1.html
...

Wow - Tasco as little as $6.19. Not that I'd cheap-out for it.
Especially since it's only 15mm. Thanks, Bob

Gunner Asch wrote:
...
https://www.sportsmans-depot.com/pro...Dot-Sight.html
Kmart/Walmart often sell these sights for under $15
...

Thanks for the link & the other advice. I'd heard about "red dot", but
didn't know what it was. I Googled it & it sounds cool. I ordered the
one above: $23 shipped. Bob

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
...
https://www.sportsmans-depot.com/pro...Dot-Sight.html
Kmart/Walmart often sell these sights for under $15
...

Thanks for the link & the other advice. I'd heard about "red dot", but
didn't know what it was. I Googled it & it sounds cool. I ordered the
one above: $23 shipped. Bob


Red Dot and Holo are actually two different things, but both put a red
dot in your view as a sight.

Let us know how it works out.

Gunner

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people,
we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

Bob Engelhardt writes:

I'm thinking that a 'scope would solve the problem.

A pinhole rear sight is the old-fashioned scope.

Gunner Asch writes:

... how-do-holographic-sights-work.html

Whether or not this device performs well, the explanation is bogus, nothing
to do with holography.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:38:08 -0600, Richard J Kinch wrote:

Gunner Asch writes:

... how-do-holographic-sights-work.html

Whether or not this device performs well, the explanation is bogus,
nothing to do with holography.

Or at least a very confused view of holography.

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic projection
instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift when your
eyepoint is off axis is false. Indeed, optical metrology is based on this
being false. Or that a holographic reticle specially solves this (non-
existent) problem. The is essentially just a lighted reticle. They're
both just virtual afocal images, differing in their sourcing methods.

On Feb 13, 9:48*am, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
I found a Crosman 66 "Powermaster" at the dump. *It works fine but I
have a big problem: my old eyes can't focus on the sights & the target
at the same time. *I'm thinking that a 'scope would solve the problem.

I don't need much magnification & the gun is low value ($50 - 60 new),
so I don't want to put out a lot of money. *Anybody have a
recommendation for a low-cost scope that isn't a POS? *Or, which ones
are POS's that I should avoid? *Or, is it not possible to get a low-cost
scope that isn't a POS?

Thanks,
Bob

For pigeons, my favorite is an el-cheapo laser, Crosman had these at
wally world for about $20 with the mount. Put the dot on the roosting
winged rat, pull the trigger and instant cat meat. The split second
between shouldering the rifle and getting the sight picture was often
enough time for the blasted things to take off. Firing from the hip
saved the day.

Stan

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic projection
instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift when your
eyepoint is off axis is false.


Then parallax really isnt true?


"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic projection
instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift
when your eyepoint is off axis is false.


Then parallax really isnt true?


Apparently he's never shot at rockchucks at extreme ranges . And the scope
makers have added the parallax adjustment feature just to run the price up .
--
Snag
every answer
leads to another
question

"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic projection
instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift
when your eyepoint is off axis is false.


Then parallax really isnt true?


Apparently he's never shot at rockchucks at extreme ranges . And the
scope makers have added the parallax adjustment feature just to run the
price up .

On my Unertl, the parallax adjustment also adjusted the focus. Rifle scopes
are a compromise; if the plane of focus always corresponded to the plane of
the crosshairs, you would see no parallax. Some target scopes have an
adjustable parallax feature, or had it at one time.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic
projection instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift
when your eyepoint is off axis is false.


Then parallax really isnt true?


Apparently he's never shot at rockchucks at extreme ranges . And the
scope makers have added the parallax adjustment feature just to run
the price up .

On my Unertl, the parallax adjustment also adjusted the focus. Rifle
scopes are a compromise; if the plane of focus always corresponded to
the plane of the crosshairs, you would see no parallax. Some target
scopes have an adjustable parallax feature, or had it at one time.

The only scope I own that doesn't have it is the bargain basement 3-9X that
is on the 30-06 I inherited from Dad . At 400+ yards , with small targets ,
it's essential . Thus my comment about rockchucks .
--
Snag
every answer
leads to another
question

"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic
projection instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift
when your eyepoint is off axis is false.


Then parallax really isnt true?


Apparently he's never shot at rockchucks at extreme ranges . And the
scope makers have added the parallax adjustment feature just to run
the price up .

On my Unertl, the parallax adjustment also adjusted the focus. Rifle
scopes are a compromise; if the plane of focus always corresponded to
the plane of the crosshairs, you would see no parallax. Some target
scopes have an adjustable parallax feature, or had it at one time.

The only scope I own that doesn't have it is the bargain basement 3-9X
that is on the 30-06 I inherited from Dad . At 400+ yards , with small
targets , it's essential . Thus my comment about rockchucks .
--
Snag
every answer
leads to another
question

Yeah, that's what I suspected. I've only owned two scopes in the last 45
years, so I don't like to generalize. It dates me. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
I found a Crosman 66 "Powermaster" at the dump. It works fine but I
have a big problem: my old eyes can't focus on the sights & the target
at the same time. I'm thinking that a 'scope would solve the problem.

I don't need much magnification & the gun is low value ($50 - 60 new),
so I don't want to put out a lot of money. Anybody have a
recommendation for a low-cost scope that isn't a POS? Or, which ones
are POS's that I should avoid? Or, is it not possible to get a low-cost
scope that isn't a POS?

Thanks,
Bob

I bought a scope here after stray dogs kept spreading my trash all
over the neighborhood:
http://urlxp.com/go/sjohnsonpic4

Steves wrote:
... :
http://urlxp.com/go/sjohn----------

Don't bother - it's that retard again. Bob

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic projection
instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift when your
eyepoint is off axis is false. Indeed, optical metrology is based on this
being false.

Then what's true of optical metrology isn't entirely true with rifle
scopes. I'll defer to you on optical metrology but I do know a little
about riflescopes.

The relative apparent positions of reticle and LOS to target are
independent of eye position only when the target image plane is
coplanar with the reticle. Otherwise there is "parallax", which is
not the same as parallax resulting from the scope's LOS being above
the bore axis.

Some riflescopes have adjustable objectives (AO) that enable the user
to focus the target image in the same plane as the reticle. The
process is:

first focus the reticle with the eyepiece against a blank background
so the eye sees it as being at infinity. Then focus the objective on
the target, or something at about the same range as an expected
target.

This is primarily relevant to precision shooting at long ranges with
high magnifications.

wrote:

For pigeons, my favorite is an el-cheapo laser, Crosman had these at
wally world for about $20 with the mount. Put the dot on the roosting
winged rat, pull the trigger and instant cat meat. The split second
between shouldering the rifle and getting the sight picture was often
enough time for the blasted things to take off. Firing from the hip
saved the day.

When I was a kid in Indiana, my grandma would take the family Stevens Visible loader, put
in a cb cap, and shoot them off the eaves. She would warn the upstairs renter to stay out
of the front room first Grandma used iron sights.

Grandpa was a lot more fun. He would take me to the maintenance building where his men
worked. The birds would get in and roost high above and his men would complain about
getting crapped on.

Grandpa would go in every other Sunday or so and shoot them off the beams with the same
rifle and cb caps.

Times sure have changed since the 60's. No one raised an eyebrown then, if the
grandparents were alive to do it now, a swat team would be summoned to arrest them.

Wes

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:53:52 -0500, Wes wrote:

wrote:

For pigeons, my favorite is an el-cheapo laser, Crosman had these at
wally world for about $20 with the mount. Put the dot on the roosting
winged rat, pull the trigger and instant cat meat. The split second
between shouldering the rifle and getting the sight picture was often
enough time for the blasted things to take off. Firing from the hip
saved the day.

When I was a kid in Indiana, my grandma would take the family Stevens Visible loader, put
in a cb cap, and shoot them off the eaves. She would warn the upstairs renter to stay out
of the front room first Grandma used iron sights.

Grandpa was a lot more fun. He would take me to the maintenance building where his men
worked. The birds would get in and roost high above and his men would complain about
getting crapped on.

Grandpa would go in every other Sunday or so and shoot them off the beams with the same
rifle and cb caps.

Times sure have changed since the 60's. No one raised an eyebrown then, if the
grandparents were alive to do it now, a swat team would be summoned to arrest them.

Wes

Depends on where you are and how well you get on with your neighbors.
I routinely bust tulip-eatin' rabbits with a pellet rifle and
occasionally with CB's in my back yard in a suburb of Minneapolis. I
have incredibly good neighbors. Maybe I'm a good neighbor too. I hope
so and I try to be.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:52:59 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic projection
instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift when your
eyepoint is off axis is false. Indeed, optical metrology is based on this
being false.

Then what's true of optical metrology isn't entirely true with rifle
scopes. I'll defer to you on optical metrology but I do know a little
about riflescopes.

The relative apparent positions of reticle and LOS to target are
independent of eye position only when the target image plane is
coplanar with the reticle. Otherwise there is "parallax", which is
not the same as parallax resulting from the scope's LOS being above
the bore axis.

Some riflescopes have adjustable objectives (AO) that enable the user
to focus the target image in the same plane as the reticle. The
process is:

first focus the reticle with the eyepiece against a blank background
so the eye sees it as being at infinity. Then focus the objective on
the target, or something at about the same range as an expected
target.

This is primarily relevant to precision shooting at long ranges with
high magnifications.


not only primarily relevant...but CRITICALLY important at long range.

A consistant stockweld at ALL TIMES is moy importanto!!!
This keeps the eye in the same place each time.

Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

Bob Engelhardt wrote:
Steves wrote:
... :
http://urlxp.com/go/sjohn----------

Don't bother - it's that retard again. Bob

OE has an excellent system of filters , and I won't be seeing his posts
anymore . That dude's sick .
--
Snag
every answer
leads to another
question

Gunner Asch writes:

Then parallax really isnt true?

Not if the reticle and objective image are calibrated into the same plane.
The problem arises when the objective is fixed with targets of varying
distance, then there is no one calibration.

Camera viewfinders are essentially telescopic sights, but they don't have a
parallex problem, because the focus is remade for each object.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:57:06 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Gunner Asch writes:

Then parallax really isnt true?

Not if the reticle and objective image are calibrated into the same plane.
The problem arises when the objective is fixed with targets of varying
distance, then there is no one calibration.

Absolutely correct. So the claim was false.


Camera viewfinders are essentially telescopic sights, but they don't have a
parallex problem, because the focus is remade for each object.

Correct.

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:57:04 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:52:59 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:38:00 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Tim Wescott writes:

Try this one: http://www.ultimak.com/UnderstandingE-Sights.htm.

That's better in terms of the reticle being a holographic projection
instead of a virtual image.

But the notion that conventional reticle telescopic sights shift when your
eyepoint is off axis is false. Indeed, optical metrology is based on this
being false.

Then what's true of optical metrology isn't entirely true with rifle
scopes. I'll defer to you on optical metrology but I do know a little
about riflescopes.

The relative apparent positions of reticle and LOS to target are
independent of eye position only when the target image plane is
coplanar with the reticle. Otherwise there is "parallax", which is
not the same as parallax resulting from the scope's LOS being above
the bore axis.

Some riflescopes have adjustable objectives (AO) that enable the user
to focus the target image in the same plane as the reticle. The
process is:

first focus the reticle with the eyepiece against a blank background
so the eye sees it as being at infinity. Then focus the objective on
the target, or something at about the same range as an expected
target.

This is primarily relevant to precision shooting at long ranges with
high magnifications.


not only primarily relevant...but CRITICALLY important at long range.

A consistant stockweld at ALL TIMES is moy importanto!!!
This keeps the eye in the same place each time.

Gunner

The stockweld, or spotweld (cheek to stock) as I was trained, doesn't
matter with a scope if the AO scope is focussed on the target. A
consistent spotweld is critical to accuracy when using military peep
sights for long-range riflery, and it's never a bad idea so I agree
with your assertion.

This can result in a sore cheek now and then as I'm sure you know.
Price of admission. I now don't shoot any rifles that don't start
with .2, or maybe a 6 as in mm. I could if I wanted to, but I don't
need to or want to. That said, if the rifle fairy were to leave me a
nice M-1 or M-14 I'd betcherass enjoy it.