Rifle Scopes Leveling a scope...

#51
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm gonna dissent slightly here as this topic, the use of levels is coming up more and more.

The common wisdom is, as stated above, level the rifle and then level the scope to the leveled rifle. Myself and recently others believe this is where the problem lies for many people.

I have discussed where I see very little benefit using a level. In fact using one I feel more comfortable without until I noticed something. Not every rifle is naturally held level in your shoulder. What I have been doing is leveling my scope to the rifle in my shoulder. This way I am consistent in my position and the scope is leveled to the ground. So regardless of my position the rifle is placed in my shoulder the same way every time. I am not trying to level me to the rifle, just leveling the scope to the fall of gravity.

There is no reason to level the rifle. Any cant introduced is because of the scope as it sits over the bore, not because of the position of the barrel. Case in point the Tubb Rifles that are not meant to be held straight up and down. That is leveled to your position, and then the ground. It's not leveled vertical first.

Scope level is important, the rifle should be addressed consistently, which may not necessarily be perfectly straight up and down. So, find a comfortable position, then level the scope to the fall of gravity using a plumb line. This will help with consistency, and when shooting on uneven terrain, as you'll feel it, as well as see it. </div></div>

Respectfully disagree with you in some respects...

You are 100% correct that you should address the rifle consistently every time. However,not having the scope's longitudinal axis, and the bore's longitudinal axis laying on the same vertical plane when the reticle is truely vertical is going to skew your tracking. If I am to understand what you're saying correctly, you are stating that when you are comfortable with your rifle, the reticle is vertical/horizonal, but the rifle may be canted a bit...thus, the bore isn't directly under the scope.

I am sure you have the experience and "feel" to handle this skew, however, I contend this is unadviseable, and in fact, a handicap. I am sure you can shoot through this handicap, but for us mere mortals, I argue we are VERY well advised to do our damndest to get our reticle level when the bore and scope centerlines are directly above/below one another....then do our damndest to take our shots with the reticle level.</div></div>

Pretty sure the bullet drops with gravity, as well the barrel is round so unless it is a centered to any "bend" in the barrel to start, there is no way the reticle is not over the bore, it's mounted over the barrel so the only consideration after that is gravity. The bullet will fall with it, and the reticle has to track with it, so how are you determining the barrel is timed in a way that is exactly 12 to 6 O Clock of the holes in the receiver ? You're not and you can't... not to mention you zero the reticle to where the barrel is pointing. Deviation from a canted rifle is based on the height of the scope over the bore, not the bore alone.

Sorry you're assuming you have control of the barrel when in fact you are only worried about gravity.

Please look up the Tubb Rifles who's bases are canted 7.5 degrees off center ...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The picatinny (mil-spec.) rail on the Spectacular is very robust not only in exterior design but also due to its use of 8X40 socket head mounting screws which secure the rail to the action. This effort was made to keep a dropped rifle from shifting its zero. <span style="font-weight: bold">The receiver rail is set at 7.5 degrees of cant in order to better fit the individual shooter's ergonomic position. This allows the shooter to be more comfortable in position and translates into a higher probability of hits</span>.</div></div>
 
#53
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm gonna dissent slightly here as this topic, the use of levels is coming up more and more.

The common wisdom is, as stated above, level the rifle and then level the scope to the leveled rifle. Myself and recently others believe this is where the problem lies for many people.

I have discussed where I see very little benefit using a level. In fact using one I feel more comfortable without until I noticed something. Not every rifle is naturally held level in your shoulder. What I have been doing is leveling my scope to the rifle in my shoulder. This way I am consistent in my position and the scope is leveled to the ground. So regardless of my position the rifle is placed in my shoulder the same way every time. I am not trying to level me to the rifle, just leveling the scope to the fall of gravity.

There is no reason to level the rifle. Any cant introduced is because of the scope as it sits over the bore, not because of the position of the barrel. Case in point the Tubb Rifles that are not meant to be held straight up and down. That is leveled to your position, and then the ground. It's not leveled vertical first.

Scope level is important, the rifle should be addressed consistently, which may not necessarily be perfectly straight up and down. So, find a comfortable position, then level the scope to the fall of gravity using a plumb line. This will help with consistency, and when shooting on uneven terrain, as you'll feel it, as well as see it. </div></div>

Respectfully disagree with you in some respects...

You are 100% correct that you should address the rifle consistently every time. However,not having the scope's longitudinal axis, and the bore's longitudinal axis laying on the same vertical plane when the reticle is truely vertical is going to skew your tracking. If I am to understand what you're saying correctly, you are stating that when you are comfortable with your rifle, the reticle is vertical/horizonal, but the rifle may be canted a bit...thus, the bore isn't directly under the scope.

I am sure you have the experience and "feel" to handle this skew, however, I contend this is unadviseable, and in fact, a handicap. I am sure you can shoot through this handicap, but for us mere mortals, I argue we are VERY well advised to do our damndest to get our reticle level when the bore and scope centerlines are directly above/below one another....then do our damndest to take our shots with the reticle level.</div></div>

Pretty sure the bullet drops with gravity, as well the barrel is round so unless it is a centered to any "bend" in the barrel to start, there is no way the reticle is not over the bore, it's mounted over the barrel so the only consideration after that is gravity. The bullet will fall with it, and the reticle has to track with it, so how are you determining the barrel is timed in a way that is exactly 12 to 6 O Clock of the holes in the receiver ? You're not and you can't... not to mention you zero the reticle to where the barrel is pointing. Deviation from a canted rifle is based on the height of the scope over the bore, not the bore alone.

Sorry you're assuming you have control of the barrel when in fact you are only worried about gravity.

Please look up the Tubb Rifles who's bases are canted 7.5 degrees off center ...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The picatinny (mil-spec.) rail on the Spectacular is very robust not only in exterior design but also due to its use of 8X40 socket head mounting screws which secure the rail to the action. This effort was made to keep a dropped rifle from shifting its zero. <span style="font-weight: bold">The receiver rail is set at 7.5 degrees of cant in order to better fit the individual shooter's ergonomic position. This allows the shooter to be more comfortable in position and translates into a higher probability of hits</span>.</div></div> </div></div>

The only way to achieve no skew, is to have the "best fit" longitudinal axis of the scope, and the "best fit" longitudinal axis of the bore, to lay on the same vertical plane... That vertical plane ALSO needs to be inline with/colinear with your verticle crosshair. By "best fit", I am referring to the fact that no manufactured part is going to be "perfectly" straight - as you alluded to by pointing out that no barrel bore is truly straight. However, in regards to a rifle bore, we're talking a couple of tenth-thousandths (.0001"), so it is really hardly worth mentioning, but I was talking about the true physics, so it's totally fair for you to point out the true physics as well.

Anyway, if the bore and scope axes are not laying on a vertical plane at the same time the reticle is "true" (meaning reticle/tracking is vertical and horizonal), there will be a varying windage AND elevation skew at various ranges. This is, in fact, a deterministic "skew", meaning it can in fact be exactly calculated based on the geometry of the optic relative to the bore.

If the vertical plane the bore/scope axes lies on is offset HORIZONTALLY ONLY from a "true" reticle (so that the bore-scope vertical plane is PARALLEL to the vertical crosshair), the skew would be fairly minimal. However, what you are referring to does NOT create this geometry. Rather, the canted rifle with true reticle means the plane your bore/scope axis lies on is NOT vertical, while at the same time, your reticle IS verticle. This skewed angularity WILL skew the shot. There is no argument against this.

Now, onto the Tubb Spectacular...

David Tubb is involved in a very different sport than most of us are. He shoots at known distances in an environment where you get sighters before shooting for score. Also, the game he plays includes a rather limited number of different known distances. Thus, it doesn't take very long to learn the skew introduced by the scope-bore/reticle angularity discrepancy. However, if you are expected to score first round hits on targets from 200 yards out to 1500+ yards, at "random" distances, I contend you're really better off to not be introducing ANY bore-scope/reticle angularity if you can help it.
 
#54
Re: Leveling a scope...

Sorry,

You're guessing and it doesn't work that way, the bore is "round" and the scope sites over it, because the tube of the scope is round over it. The tracking needs to be vertical with gravity only. The bullet falls with gravity, you have a round scope tube over a round barrel and you are not mounting the scope offset. You zero the reticle to where the bore is pointing to start, so you are compensating for the cant in the rifle from the beginning. What you suggest means you zero your rifle without adding any windage.

I hate to tell you, the Tubb Spec Tac U Lar is a tactical rifle not one designed for a square range. As well there are many tactical type shooters, including the SEALs that use David for training who also cant their reticles on square designed rifle. Lots of guys account for Spindrift by canting their reticle over the rifles and simply level the rifle for consistency to the cant with no ill effects.

You're skewing the thought process and I hate to tell it there is no reason the rifle needs to be level like you suggest. You're wrong, plain and simple.

You're not creating any angularity because you are zeroed to the fall of gravity, you are not zeroing the scope to one thing and the rifle to another. The rifle and scope are zeroed to start, the bullet will fall with gravity because the bore is ROUND, there is no top and bottom. Look up the M1D with the offset, it was used for combat on UKD targets, the scope is not even over the bore...

I can email David and him explain it if you don't believe me.
 
#55
Re: Leveling a scope...

First off,

Regarding the Tubb rifle the base is moved to be level despite the cant in the rifle itself. There is no offset there.

Second, you zero your rifle with windage, even if everything is straight and level. If you zero at 100 yards with 2MOA <span style="font-style: italic">(not uncommon)</span> of windage, there is an angle introduced that is not seen downrange. No one says, I zeroed my rifle with 2MOA Of right windage so as I move I need to compensate by subtracting or adding that in.

If you roll the gun completely over and offset it like an M1D, you will run parallel as you describe with your 45 degree statement. But like zeroing your straight gun, the cant for comfort is not that great. It's probably less than 3 degrees, a number which all scope makers will tell is the limit of their reticle straightness threshold. A number so small you can't see.

You're taking it to extremes that aren't' practical, and we're not talking "extremes" we talking a few degrees or less. Tubb rolls the gun over as much as 10 degrees and moves the base.

People cant there reticles all the time, there are actually a lot of them on here who do it. The new Tubb reticle is actually a holdover type where you level the horizontal because the vertical is canted, to account for differences in wind, SD, etc. So this change is easy to account for. It's like you said with a bore, they are not straight to begin with and so small it's easily taken up. If you roll your rifle over to such a degree, you have a deviation depending, but you have a deviation to start if you zero an optically centered scope and then add in windage, especially on trued rifle. Why is that angle not accounted for as you describe ?

Extremes will always have an effect, if you want to promote the idea of an extreme, but you cannot deny people with perfectly level rifles and perfectly level scopes have windage dialed so there is an angular component they never see downrange unless the erector is impacted by the tube at the extremes. I have yet to zero a scope with "no windage" so how am I defeating that angle ?
 
#56
Re: Leveling a scope...

I think you have responded to a post I deleted because it had incorrect content. I will draw some pictures and post them later. They will clearly demonstrate the vertical crosshair, when extended, MUST pass through the centerpoint of the bore.

More to follow
 
#57
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rather, the canted rifle with true reticle means the plane your bore/scope axis lies on is NOT vertical, while at the same time, your reticle IS verticle. This skewed angularity WILL skew the shot. There is no argument against this.</div></div>
I think this is where you're going wrong. The bore and scope axes will not be co-planar so you shouldn't think about connecting them with a plane. Maybe this will help:

Consider a scope "level with the world" but laterally offset from the bore a full inch to the right from the plan view. If you zero the rifle to hit 1" to the left at 100 yds, it will hit 1" to the left at 200 yds, 1" to the left at 500 yds, 1" to the left at 1000 yds, 1" to the left at a mile, etc. The two axes are parallel from the plan view, the distance between them will never change.

Now if you did zero such an extreme setup with zero windage at 100, it would hit 1" to the right at 200, 2" to the right at 300, etc, so you clearly wouldn't want to do that. If setting the rifle up in such an extreme manor you should know what you're doing.

Of course in the context of this question, we're only talking about fractions of an inch most of the time and when you combine that with the first example you can see it's just not something to worry too much over.

Naturally, if you take a rifle so set up and tilt the entire thing to a new angle, you're going to have the problems you describe--but at that point your scope will no longer be "level with the world."
 
#58
Re: Leveling a scope...

Jon: you are absolutely correct. If you have a horizontally offset scope (in plan view), regardless of reticle cant in relation to the bore, provided that the rifle is zeroed and used with the reticle level, elevation adjustments will run true. IF the horizontal offset is accounted for during sight in, windage adjustments will also run true...

That was never mentioned, but is a CRUCIAL point!
 
#59
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you have responded to a post I deleted because it had incorrect content. I will draw some pictures and post them later. They will clearly demonstrate the vertical crosshair, when extended, MUST pass through the centerpoint of the bore.

More to follow </div></div>

How so? assuming you have the scope mounted 6" off center, it will STILL have the same adjustments in terms of reticle subtenion as if it were perfectly mounted over the bore. A bullet drops and is affected by wind. The scope is linear and the line of sight will never be skewed from being linear. I've seen too many people argue LL and I gotta say it never ends well for them. Gravity is gravity and linear is linear.

Hold 2 broom sticks out in front of you. Hold them on top of each other and pointthem to the same spot on a wall. Now hold the one on top 6" away from the bottom one and point it to the same place. That's how I think of it. No matter where the two are in relation to each other, they will always meet at the ends. Doesn't mean it has to cross the center at any one point. Especially if your windage favors the side your claiming the vertical line to be off, it won't ever be in line with the center line of the bore. The main thing to worry about is if the horizontal line on the reticle is parallel with the ground aka the pull of gravity.

It also does not matter if the bore is "square" with the reticle since you can't exactly "square" a circle. Draw a crosshair on the wall and hold one of those broomsticks to it. Now turn it. Nothing changed did it? Only thing that stayed consistent is gravity is still pulling it in the same direction no matter where in the rotation you are.
 
#60
Re: Leveling a scope...

Not sure I should jump into this but here's my thought. I invested in a level from Flatline Ops which mounts to the scope. They have several models but the one I like most is the Covert 34MM. There are similar models but what makes this one unique is with the level flipped out there is a small allen screw which allows the level to be set to the reticle and the multitude of other level points no longer matter. The nice thing about this adjustment is it makes mounting easier. There is no more tightening and loosening the mount screw trying to get the level set perfect initially. Here's the link: http://www.flatlineops.com/levels/covert-34mm .
 
#61
Re: Leveling a scope...

I guess I am just over-simplifying this situation...

I use a bubble level from the rail of the rifle.
I use feelers between the rail and scope.
I check my vertical tracking.

DONE!!

DK
 
#62
Re: Leveling a scope...

I tend to make the reticle level to gravity and go, and if you look, I am the one who posted and promoted the feeler gauge method. I didn't invent it, but I found it fast and useful. I also have several of the Spuhr Mounts posted above and use Hakan's Key to level the scope. I think the final test, even as posted in the original Feeler Gauge article is to check it with a plumb line. The image was posted but is rarely repeated, as many skip this final all important step.

nfmountreticle.jpg


and I have never tried to move away from checking my work. Which is why I posted the image in the first place to show it works, but also that it must be confirmed.

Now, with this growing call that there is no long range accuracy unless you are using a variety of levels, I am taking this line of thinking to task. Because people are investing money in things like a level, and in many of these cases, more than one, it's important to separate the fact from fiction.

Truth is, a lot of effective shooting on uneven terrain is accomplished everyday without the use of one. It's part of shooting, to train the eye to not only correctly address the target from a hold off standpoint but from a quartering standpoint. Can you correctly hold the rifle, and in this case, the scope on target so that the bullet goes where it is supposed too. Free from shooter induced cant. Many who advocate the absolute need for a rail or ring level say that only experienced shooters can properly determine what is straight and what is not, without some physical aid. I disagree, it's really only a recently (10 years or less) that levels are becoming more mainstream mounted on rifle. Let's take from WWI to 2001, levels were not widely used yet people hit their mark. One of the first pages in the USMC Sniper manual is about how you hold the reticle on a target, there are even pictures as crude as they are, so why the need to sell people on an Anti Cant device. The rallying call is for people to see examples in the extreme as if you wouldn't even notice a 5+ degree lean, yet we constantly read about people bitching out Leupold for 3 degrees or less. Endless posts of small errors, which in many cases Leupold will write back and say it's within their standard. Having toured more than one Optics Company at their factories they will say 2 to 3 degrees is about all they can commit too. People see that 2 to 3 degrees and go crazy, but then will argue 5 Degrees + is unnoticeable and a huge potential pitfall.

I agree, it's a useful tool for many. That some people do have a problem holding the rifle straight at times, but there is a fix for that, it's called practice. I can tell you at the last Sniper's Hide match had more levels on the line than ever before. The hit rate did not go up because of it, what a surprise. The majority of shooters still shot below 65% of the available points. That has been average for a while now and the use of the level brought about no change in that number.

For too many It's a short cut, its a way for someone to slap a level on a rail and say, <span style="font-style: italic">"my job is done, that part is out of my hands"</span> when it's not. Most still don't calibrate their scopes properly, most don't check tracking across 100% of their adjustment range and in my opinion, if a person spent more time on day one checking that their scope is level with a plumb line and then using a plumb line on paper to test the rounds strike along that line all the way up, it would pay off more in the long run than simply slapping a level on their rail and calling it good. Especially a rail level which I have found to be off on several occasions... a ring or tube level is at least a step up because that forces the user to level it to the reticle better than a rail which 99% of the users never check.

Sorry to throw cold water on this, but levels are great if they are properly used, unfortunately properly seems to be of some debate. It's only a tool and should not be 100% relied on, like checking the wind with a Kestrel after you personally formulated a wind call, the idea is to check you, and not to rely on the meter only. Why because you'll never learn to call the wind if your only practice is holding the Kestrel up to read what is says.
 
#64
Re: Leveling a scope...

I agree that a level is a basic tool an no more. I started with a level on my rifle but it came off in a few weeks and I see no point in replacing it.

Something I found useful was to get setup behind my rifle, close my left eye and center the reticle on target using my right eye, then open the left eye to confirm the level on the bubble. If you can do this and consistently match the bubble to what is viewed through the scope it's clear that the level has run it's course with regards to usefulness.

In terms of shooting aids and practical tools available to a shooter a level would be near the bottom of the list...

Rath
 
#65
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
nfmountreticle.jpg
</div></div>
[hijack]that's one of the unicorn's of reticles![/hijack]
 
#66
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ranger1183</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
nfmountreticle.jpg
</div></div>
[hijack]that's one of the unicorn's of reticles![/hijack]</div></div>

I have a host of NF Unicorns, this is not even one of the cool ones. LOL

That Unicorn is more like a senior citizen ready for the glue factory.
 
#67
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ranger1183</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
nfmountreticle.jpg
</div></div>
[hijack]that's one of the unicorn's of reticles![/hijack]</div></div>

I have a host of NF Unicorns, this is not even one of the cool ones. LOL

That Unicorn is more like a senior citizen ready for the glue factory. </div></div>
Let me know when you're ready to send it to the glue factory!
 
#68
Re: Leveling a scope...

It is also possible for a reticule to be fixed in place NOT verticle to the elevation tracking . So even though you have it set verticle to the gun it may track off as you adjust the elevation. Expensive scopes don't seem to do this but I have had a cheap one that did. In a long range gun it pays to also test fire at a target and move the elevation knob enough each shot to see if the shots also track in a verticle line.
 
#69
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First off,

Regarding the Tubb rifle the base is moved to be level despite the cant in the rifle itself. There is no offset there.

Second, you zero your rifle with windage, even if everything is straight and level. If you zero at 100 yards with 2MOA <span style="font-style: italic">(not uncommon)</span> of windage, there is an angle introduced that is not seen downrange. No one says, I zeroed my rifle with 2MOA Of right windage so as I move I need to compensate by subtracting or adding that in.

If you roll the gun completely over and offset it like an M1D, you will run parallel as you describe with your 45 degree statement. But like zeroing your straight gun, the cant for comfort is not that great. It's probably less than 3 degrees, a number which all scope makers will tell is the limit of their reticle straightness threshold. A number so small you can't see.

You're taking it to extremes that aren't' practical, and we're not talking "extremes" we talking a few degrees or less. Tubb rolls the gun over as much as 10 degrees and moves the base.

People cant there reticles all the time, there are actually a lot of them on here who do it. The new Tubb reticle is actually a holdover type where you level the horizontal because the vertical is canted, to account for differences in wind, SD, etc. So this change is easy to account for. It's like you said with a bore, they are not straight to begin with and so small it's easily taken up. If you roll your rifle over to such a degree, you have a deviation depending, but you have a deviation to start if you zero an optically centered scope and then add in windage, especially on trued rifle. Why is that angle not accounted for as you describe ?

Extremes will always have an effect, if you want to promote the idea of an extreme, but you cannot deny people with perfectly level rifles and perfectly level scopes have windage dialed so there is an angular component they never see downrange unless the erector is impacted by the tube at the extremes. I have yet to zero a scope with "no windage" so how am I defeating that angle ? </div></div>

The argument is correct only if the gun is canted but it would need to be consistantly canted which could be achieved by setting the anti cant respectivly . Then there is no sight offset. If the gun is held verticle then there is a sight offset if the scope is not mounted in the verticle center of the action. Both posters are correct as they are talking about two different things.
 
#71
Re: Leveling a scope...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do fully agree with Lowlight that the leveling to the rifle is not important. However for those who have a bubble level the leveling to that is very important.

But it's also important to know that the various scope manufacturers have a tolerance for the reticlemounting 1-3 degres, so whatever perfect method you are using for mounting your scope, you better test it in real at the range afterwards.

I am using my own method for leveling scopes to the level.
Here is some pictures.
34295_465817669407_680984407_6430310_7132011_n.jpg

Here is the 10 degree key in its 10 degree slot in the mount.
The level is built into the mount so here its fairly important to get the leveling right.

Device for separate rings.
376657_10150530291294408_680984407_11675318_2110938298_n.jpg


And the above in use.
267309_10150390848579408_680984407_10612813_5880205_n.jpg


Built in level as the left eye see it.
376657_10150530291319408_680984407_11675319_1268091769_n.jpg


Regards Håkan </div></div>

Not to get off topic but I have to know what scope mount that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rustyinbend
Leveling my scopes
Replies
29
Views
965
Mike Casselton
Mike Casselton
A
Rifle Scopes leveling a H34L Aimpoint, no bottom flat red dot
Replies
6
Views
140
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
mobo215
Bubble Levels Suck
Replies
48
Views
2K
Taylorbok
Taylorbok
R
Is this acceptable for a high end ring manufacturer?
Replies
48
Views
2K
Aftermath
Aftermath
Kaveman44
Leveling a scope question
Replies
37
Views
1K
USMC22
U
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts