Rifle Scopes The Level Questions Asked

[Lowlight]

Okay,

So my video of the Tubb level vs the A1st Level stirred some debate.



Lots of guys commented saying that a level is a must and compared using a level to the horizon line in your typical aircraft. They contend if you need a horizon when flying you need one when shooting.

I understand the argument about shooting in the mountains. After all, I live in the mounts and my shooting location in Pike National is at up there pretty good. I have shot in the mountain, to the point I have even shoot in Hell's Canyon with some of the biggest angles in the US.

So let's avoid the angle and mountain part of the discussion. I can see needing that for some that are not well tuned to these conditions, but let's talk about flat range shooting and only flat range shooting.

My question is, how many who own and use a Level on their rifle, finds it helps them on a flat range ?

I have my thoughts and many have heard me discuss them on our podcast.

Podcast 102

Even if you listen to a few others, I have mentioned this... but I am interested in flat range use. Do you need it to find level even on a flat range ?

During my fundamental eval I conduct in every class I see guys on square ranges canting the rifle, and those who claim to need a level often cite shooting in the mountains, but very few of these observations are taking place in the mountains. Even at the K02M event this year I watched a team get knocked out because they were canted from shot to shot on flat ground.

Here is Wade Stuteville during his win at the SHC back in the day, Douglas WY match, and his level during a string of fire:

Here is a picture from Jim at an AK Eval where you can see the cant when he pulls the bolt over.

Does a level help when the shooter pulls the rifle over during a string of fire. Especially considering most dont' use it after the string starts.

So flat range level users, explain to me the logic of your decision and why you think you can't manage to "eyeball it" vs needing a level on flat ground.

 

[Sheldon N]

I would separate the question of "Did I remember to check level?" from the question of "Should I use a bubble level?". It's just as easy to forget to check level with or without a bubble level.

One example from the last match I shot in....We had a stage that started out positional then finished out on some 1000+ yard prone. I got to the last target with 15-20 seconds remaining for the last 3 shots. Rushed into position, sent a round and missed off the edge. Quick correction for the miss got a second round hit. Glanced at my bubble level and I was canted, corrected back to level but used the same wind hold and of course missed off the edge for the third shot. It wasn't my bubble level or lack of that caused the misses... it was both forgetting to check for level and then being inconsistent in how I had the gun canted between shots.

 

[Lowlight]

That is the point,

If you can't understand level on flat ground, what are you missing.

Buying and using the level correctly is one thing,

Mounting the level and need to use it to "check" level on flat ground is another.

Guys are missing the point, if you need it for flat ground shooting like a lot of people do, where is the "Cant" coming from, I know, but do you.

 

[_Windrider_]

i have an Accuracy 1st level (yes despite how much i make fun of he who shall not be named). when i shoot i try not to use it. every now and then ill sneak a peek just as a check to see if what i am feeling is accurate. i do use it when i dry fire. i try to focus on how the rifle feels in my shoulder and i will check the level to once again see if what i am feeling and seeing is actually true. but i find when im shooting if i use the level too much, its just becomes a distraction. its a good tool to check your technique and fundamentals, but it sholdnt be relied on. repetitions are better than a crutch.

 

[Basher]

First off, glad to have another episode to listen to. I've been listening to ither podcasts in the meantime, and they're good, but yours is better Frank. Don't let that get to your head too much...

Second, several months ago someone made a post about levels, and I was one of the guys who used flying as an example in championing the use of a level. I'm not too big a man to admit when I'm wrong, but allow me to explain.

As a CFI and pilot certificate holder, I'm well aware of our use of artificial horizons, and the critical role they can play during certain kinds of flying. I'm also well aware of how our vestibular sense works, and how it can easily fool you. Here's why I was wrong, and why I now feel a level MAY be a useful tool, but is often a crutch.

As an over-generalization, there are two kinds of flying: VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (I Follow Roads... uh, I mean Instrument Flight Rules ). Everybody starts with VFR as a student pilot. MANY students have an inclination to stay "inside the cockpit," meaning they focus on all the fancy instruments we have (well, we helicopter guys don't really have all that many) instead of looking outside. This is counter-productive, ESPECIALLY for us heli guys, because many VFR ships don't even have an artificial horizon! You don't need it for VFR flying! You're supposed to be eyes outside for ~80% of the time, and inside briefly scanning instruments only to confirm proper aircraft function ans flight conditions. This works wonderfully. Our eyes can see the horizon, and we can confirm our orientation using our vestibular sense.

In IFR flight, you don't have a horizon to reference. Because of this, we use an artificial horizon, as it's all we have. Without a visual reference, you have to rely solely on our senses, but they CAN be fooled. A false horizon can tell your brain you're unlevel, aggressive maneuvering (tisk, tisk!) can upset the fluid in your inner ear, etc. Constantly changing orientation can confuse your senses, and your brain can't make sense of all the conflicting data. Your inner ear says one thing, your body says another based on what it feels (g-forces, pressure on restraints, etc.), and your eyes tell another story all together.

None of these problems exist when shooting. You're not constantly experiencing (and correcting for) changes in orientation to the earth. Your brain and vestibular sense should be working perfectly (unless you have some medical issue affecting them). A bubble level simply becomes a distraction in many ways, more so if you haven't set it up correctly or if it works like the A1 level, which seems to be more of a "trend instrument" (meaning it takes a little time to accurately settle on an indication).

Are they a waste of money? Only you can decide. But are they absolutely necessary? I'd (now) argue they're not, in most situations. Flying =/= rifle shooting.

 

[fastfwd]

explain to me .... why you think you can't manage to "eyeball it" vs needing a level on flat ground.

Here's something I recently discovered: With my cheek on the stock (i.e., with my head slightly tilted), it's easy to get the reticle level without a bubble if I'm looking through the scope with my dominant eye. But when I try with my non-dominant eye (which is the one I shoot rifles with, since I'm right-handed and left-eye dominant), I'm canted.

I've never seen a discussion of this result, so I don't know whether it's just me. But maybe ocular dominance is a factor for others as well.

My test was with a bipod that permits cant, scope at high magnification focused on the leaves of a tree (no horizon cues visible through the scope), and the rifle moved from one side to the other (but not really shouldered) to try each eye. Level was checked with a scope-mounted bubble level that's aligned with the reticle.

 

[pmclaine]

When people talk levels more often they are trying to ensure rifle and reticle are level with one another.

If your rifle has all the ergonomic ability of adjustable comb, butt plate etc than that my be possible.

All my rifles are pretty limited, think McMillan HTGs.

I dont care if the round barrel is level, I want the butt stock comfortably in my shoulder to best fit me. This means my rifle is canted.

If you make scope and rifle level to each other without ergonomic aids more than likely you are fighting the rifle with your bodies requirement to be comfortable.

But the reticle should be level to gravity, thats important.

I understand most bubble levels have a percentage of accuracy error and our own systems fall within or are better than most bubble levels.

Do you need a level on flat terrain? Not if you get into a consistent shoulder/cheek weld and you have ensured from that position your reticle is in line with gravity.

Trust your eye.

 

[Lowlight]

Rifle Set Up, that is a key component for sure.



Everyone wants their rifle and scope to compliment each other, and neglect the shooter's comfort for the sake of being square.

Our brain and body will subconsciously adjust when it's not happy. We dont have to do or think anything, it will automatically adjust it. This is why needing a reference point vs setting up the rifle correctly is the issue. Rifle set up matters.

A level is not a shooting aid, it's a training tool. Read that again because it matters.

I still want to hear from guys that feel the need to rely on a level when shooting flat and not guys basically agreeing with me. The number of responses for the absolute need of a level definitely outweighed any other comment with regards to the FB Post

 

[Sheldon N]

Here's something I recently discovered: With my cheek on the stock (i.e., with my head slightly tilted), it's easy to get the reticle level without a bubble if I'm looking through the scope with my dominant eye. But when I try with my non-dominant eye (which is the one I shoot rifles with, since I'm right-handed and left-eye dominant), I'm canted.

I see the same thing, harder to get level when shooting weak side. I don't think that it's just a rifle fit thing, I think there's a degree of "learned" visiual cues about what a level reticle should look like. I remember when I first started shooting precision rifle. I had a bubble level that told me when I was level, but damned if it didn't look canted to me. This sensation of everything looking crooked went away the longer I shot.

 

[pmclaine]

First off, glad to have another episode to listen to. I've been listening to ither podcasts in the meantime, and they're good, but yours is better Frank. Don't let that get to your head too much...

Second, several months ago someone made a post about levels, and I was one of the guys who used flying as an example in championing the use of a level. I'm not too big a man to admit when I'm wrong, but allow me to explain.

As a CFI and pilot certificate holder, I'm well aware of our use of artificial horizons, and the critical role they can play during certain kinds of flying. I'm also well aware of how our vestibular sense works, and how it can easily fool you. Here's why I was wrong, and why I now feel a level MAY be a useful tool, but is often a crutch.

As an over-generalization, there are two kinds of flying: VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (I Follow Roads... uh, I mean Instrument Flight Rules ). Everybody starts with VFR as a student pilot. MANY students have an inclination to stay "inside the cockpit," meaning they focus on all the fancy instruments we have (well, we helicopter guys don't really have all that many) instead of looking outside. This is counter-productive, ESPECIALLY for us heli guys, because many VFR ships don't even have an artificial horizon! You don't need it for VFR flying! You're supposed to be eyes outside for ~80% of the time, and inside briefly scanning instruments only to confirm proper aircraft function ans flight conditions. This works wonderfully. Our eyes can see the horizon, and we can confirm our orientation using our vestibular sense.

In IFR flight, you don't have a horizon to reference. Because of this, we use an artificial horizon, as it's all we have. Without a visual reference, you have to rely solely on our senses, but they CAN be fooled. A false horizon can tell your brain you're unlevel, aggressive maneuvering (tisk, tisk!) can upset the fluid in your inner ear, etc. Constantly changing orientation can confuse your senses, and your brain can't make sense of all the conflicting data. Your inner ear says one thing, your body says another based on what it feels (g-forces, pressure on restraints, etc.), and your eyes tell another story all together.

None of these problems exist when shooting. You're not constantly experiencing (and correcting for) changes in orientation to the earth. Your brain and vestibular sense should be working perfectly (unless you have some medical issue affecting them). A bubble level simply becomes a distraction in many ways, more so if you haven't set it up correctly or if it works like the A1 level, which seems to be more of a "trend instrument" (meaning it takes a little time to accurately settle on an indication).

Are they a waste of money? Only you can decide. But are they absolutely necessary? I'd (now) argue they're not, in most situations. Flying =/= rifle shooting.

Never really understood what IFR could mean to a pilot until I had to drive in true white out conditions.

Granted four tires and earths gravity made sure being upside down wasnt a problem but not being able to determine if I was travelling within the roadway or going perpendicular to it created intense moments of anxiety.

Your brain starts to compute for you and try to fill the information gaps with its own best guess data input.

I found the only way to manage it was to reset the navigation system.....stop in mid highway, get out of the car, get my bearings, carry on.

I was lucky no one else was on the road so that was an option.

Im sure a better trained/more familiar brain compensates much faster or will react to that information deprivation better.

 

[fastfwd]

if you need it for flat ground shooting like a lot of people do, where is the "Cant" coming from, I know, but do you.

Oh, for sure the scope can be rotated to compensate for the natural cant caused by a non-rotatable buttplate in a human's shoulder pocket. That'll eliminate the need to check a bubble level in at least one shooting position.

But there's still the question of whether that perfectly-level reticle will appear level to the shooter (I know it won't for me), and I assume that for most people there are other positions that will put the shoulder pocket in a different orientation anyway.

I'm keeping my new level for now. I guess I could remove it after a lot of practice if I find that the bubble's always centered when I check it -- but I'll probably keep it anyway, since it looks cool as hell.

 

[Lowlight]

Other positions,

What other position has your head rolled over, my goodness, other positions need a level ?

That is mindblowing to me.

Again, if you set the rifle up for a Right Handed Shooter and you switch to the left, that is a limited situation and one that a person can understand and account for... does the number of shots taken from the support side, to include the distances normally shot justify the need to recommend a level ?

If you set the rifle up for you, and then use the level to "train" yourself to understand the set up, is that not the same as what I said, Training Aid vs Shooting Tool.

My position from Prone to other positions mimic each other, I follow the same path.

FYI, I am right handed and Left Eye Dominant, in class this past weekend I alternated shots from left to right handed using a different shooter's rifle. I had a bit of vertical stringing because the scope was not right, I had shadowing, but my left and right was perfect and the shots were within subMOA group of each other. I did a 4 shot group with 2 from each side.

Training vs or lazy that seems to be what I am reading.

 

[Basher]

Never really understood what IFR could mean to a pilot until I had to drive in true white out conditions.

Granted four tires and earths gravity made sure being upside down wasnt a problem but not being able to determine if I was travelling within the roadway or going perpendicular to it created intense moments of anxiety.

Your brain starts to compute for you and try to fill the information gaps with its own best guess data input.

I found the only way to manage it was to reset the navigation system.....stop in mid highway, get out of the car, get my bearings, carry on.

I was lucky no one else was on the road so that was an option.

Im sure a better trained/more familiar brain compensates much faster or will react to that information deprivation better.

Because the aircraft I trained in is not IFR approved (it's just an IFR trainer), I've never experienced true IFR while on the controls. But I did almost all of my IFR training at night, which helped create that realism for me (and even introduced a few visual cue errors I wouldn't have experienced during the day, such as a false horizon created by street lights below). It can be terrifying for sure! For me, the worst was taking off "under the hood" (meaning with our view limiting goggles on). Our airport had fences not far from the helipad, and buildings under contruction nearby. My first few times taking off without seeing outside were experiences where I really learned to trust my instructor and that he wanted to go home as bad as I did when his day was done!

As you, and a few above you, mentioned though, training/practice is key. Frank's absolutely right that a level should be a training aid. Learn how to level yourself without it, and how to be in tune to when you are, and are not, level.

When I did my IFR training, the instructor would often cover the artificial horizon (or other instruments) to simulate a failure of that piece of equipment, and we had to learn how to continue using other instruments and information available to us. Similarly, most levels are (again, as Frank mentions) little $6 glass vials. They can be damaged or broken. Learning not to rely upon them could be the key between winning or losing a match, or bagging that once-in-a-lifetime elk. Not being a "one trick pony" sure makes life easier sometimes!

 

[Sheldon N]

A level is not a shooting aid, it's a training tool. Read that again because it matters.

I still want to hear from guys that feel the need to rely on a level when shooting flat and not guys basically agreeing with me. The number of responses for the absolute need of a level definitely outweighed any other comment with regards to the FB Post

It's not a "need to rely" on the level, it's that the presence of an absolute reference vs potentially flawed shooter perception is a valuable thing.

Sure it's a training tool, sure the better you get the less you'll look at it or need it, sure the better the rifle fit the less likely there are to be errors. But we know new shooters can be all kinds of messed up and therefore having an absolute reference is a must IMO. You can't just set up a rifle for someone then say "Go forth and may you never be wrong again.". Without the level they carry on and presume that they're correct without ever knowing. And if you're super experienced after long periods of training with the level, why would you take it off? It's not like there comes a point where you are now the absolute reference rather than the level. Keeping it around is a means of keeping yourself honest.

Of course it's not like you can't shoot without one. Consistency in position, even if it's slightly canted from "perfect", can still produce very accurate results. I just wouldn't trust their wind calls.

 

[Lowlight]

I honestly see more people with levels not using them correctly or at all, vs using them as needed.

I really believe the comment, "Because they look cool" is the right answer to all this. Why buy it, mount it, and not use it right or at all?

We see, read and hear a lot of people talk about lining up the shot, checking level and feeling saved by the fact they were canted. ON FLAT GROUND...

I am not talking the ONE OFF situations,

The one time you hunted in the mountains

The one stage when you went support side and felt canted

I am talking during the normal course of the day. Shooting on a flat range where people are saved by their gadgets

 

[Kisssofdeath]

The way I have my levels set up, when shooting with both eyes open I can verify I'm level while still maintaining a clear scope view. The bubble level is fuzzy but I can still make it out. Except for one, all my bubble levels are scope mounted.

 

[Sheldon N]

Shooting on a flat range where people are saved by their gadgets

Then do you blame the shooter, or blame the gadget?

I think the response you got on FB was because the message came across like blaming the gadget. If you had posted up a tutorial of "Here are some quality bubble levels and how to use them correctly" no one would have jumped into the fray to argue.

 

[Lowlight]

Blame the Shooter for trying to incorrectly rely on the gadget.

I bet $100 that when you're not paying attention, even a level that is supposed to visible with both eyes open is not being used. I see it all the time, guys will say it's set to watch while shooting but it's not. We cannot focus on the target and reticle relationship while checking level, especially when having to run a bolt. We have checklists and systems in place that fall apart when trying to do two things at the same time.

I note how often this happens in class and it's rampant, nobody checks or looks at them after they start shooting

 

[trob_205]

I’m glad for this discussion. I’ve ALWAYS fought a scope squared to the rifle. After properly squaring the scope and level to the action it looks crooked to me. After playing around with some adjustable buttpads it’s helped a lot but still don’t see square as square. Back in the day I listened to god knows who and burned some fairly heavy cheek pressure into my brain. Getting my head back square has helped make square look square. Level is still on the scope it just doesn’t get referenced like it used to. Issue is breaking the heavy cheek pressure habit. I still find my self doing it more than I’d like to admit.

 

[Sheldon N]

Blame the Shooter for trying to incorrectly rely on the gadget.

I bet $100 that when you're not paying attention, even a level that is supposed to visible with both eyes open is not being used. I see it all the time, guys will say it's set to watch while shooting but it's not. We cannot focus on the target and reticle relationship while checking level, especially when having to run a bolt. We have checklists and systems in place that fall apart when trying to do two things at the same time.

I note how often this happens in class and it's rampant, nobody checks or looks at them after they start shooting

Yep. This ^^^^

 

[Dthomas3523]

After about 6 months of matches. I can honestly say the only time I use a the level is on prone stages when adjusting the bipod as I can’t reach to the end of my ingenuity rail to adjust while looking through the reticle.

I do like the label as a training tool as I’ll be using it quite a bit for practicing.

 

[cleric]

So not in the same league as a lot of people on here. But I like it for seeing how well I am set up before I shoot. I don’t use it during shooting but rather to see how stable and how much I am moving...

Btw frank where is a list of the classes you teach?

 

[Kisssofdeath]

"In the end" personally I don't think there is a right or wrong way. It's individual preference and whatever makes you happy, consistent and confident then by all means continue doing what is best for you.

 

[Diver160651]

That is the point,

If you can't understand level on flat ground, what are you missing.

Buying and using the level correctly is one thing,

Mounting the level and need to use it to "check" level on flat ground is another.

Guys are missing the point, if you need it for flat ground shooting like a lot of people do, where is the "Cant" coming from, I know, but do you.

I think it must be the cant ferry.. we all have correct shoulder, head and body alignment. We never lean the gun until it feels natural on a scoped system we leveled only to the turret —

 

[BJames]

Hey Frank,

The argument some guys are using for attitude indicators in airplanes is uneducated at best. While yes, we use them to establish level flight, that’s also in a moving aircraft sustaining a certain amount of G’s at any given moment. Which plays havoc on our inner ear equilibrium, creating false indications with the rest of our senses. We use that horizon in our attitude indicators as a visual reference, ignoring what our other senses may be screaming. At the same time, equipment fails, we’re trained for that, we can fly just fine using our other instruments in place of that artificial horizon. What I’m trying to say is it’s no where near an accurate comparison, as shooters our other senses aren’t being assaulted.

 

[Basher]

Hey Frank,

The argument some guys are using for attitude indicators in airplanes is uneducated at best. While yes, we use them to establish level flight, that’s also in a moving aircraft sustaining a certain amount of G’s at any given moment. Which plays havoc on our inner ear equilibrium, creating false indications with the rest of our senses. We use that horizon in our attitude indicators as a visual reference, ignoring what our other senses may be screaming. At the same time, equipment fails, we’re trained for that, we can fly just fine using our other instruments in place of that artificial horizon. What I’m trying to say is it’s no where near an accurate comparison, as shooters our other senses aren’t being assaulted.

Well stated. I said basically the same thing further up, but you've distilled it down to the simplest explanation, which is much easier to understand than how I phrased it. As they say, taking a complex subject and reducing it to where a 5 year old could understand it is the hallmark of a good educator. I have much yet to learn!

 

[BJames]

Well stated. I said basically the same thing further up, but you've distilled it down to the simplest explanation, which is much easier to understand than how I phrased it. As they say, taking a complex subject and reducing it to where a 5 year old could understand it is the hallmark of a good educator. I have much yet to learn!

Thank you sir. I read your post, but that argument was driving me nuts and I couldn’t help myself. ??‍ The way Frank has been training us the past few years, I’m surprised this is just now, a “thing”.

When I switched over to spuhr mounts, I would get into position, glance at the level, then back through the optic and find my reference level in relation to my home range. Which, doesn’t have a horizon, there’s tall trees and mountains beyond the berm. Now it’s a habit, and I find myself rarely looking at the vial until I get into the positional stuff and time stresses during a stage. I noticed my hit percentages went up when I started to pay attention to level reticle, even though I lost a few seconds leveling myself.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

I started "serious rifle" a little over a year ago after decades of competitive skeet. There is one aspect to the whole cant/fit issue that hasn't been addressed IMO: In tactical rifle, we shoot from a variety of positions, some of them rather contorted, under time pressure. So a proper fit in the shoulder pocket is going to move around a bit. Frank, you can address whether the shoulder pocket/cheek weld/head position/etc. should align the same, regardless of position, if that position is properly built. With that said...

In shotgun, stock fit is everything because there is no rear sight or whatever. Tournament shotguns have a center bead. The most simplistic way of checking fit, in my experience, is:

• Pick an "aim point" such as a room's ceiling corner that approximates a typical target angle
• Close eyes
• Mount shotgun to shoulder. Just put it up there and don't wiggle it around
• Open eyes
• If the front bead is sitting atop the center bead - appearing as "8" - and the front bead is on your aim point, you're good.
• Repeat this as many times as you need or want.

Now, after shooting the same tournament gun for 20+ years, it's as much an extension of my body as my arms and fingers. But - I don't shoot skeet or clays from over/under/around/through props prone, bent over, or folded around. It wouldn't matter, though. I KNOW where that shotgun is going to point because I've shot tens of thousands of targets with it.

I think that's where you're coming from, Frank. Natural point of aim.

But if I'm off a few inches, it doesn't matter. It's a shotgun. With a rifle, though, I remember being quite surprised at how far the reticle moved horizontally at 100 yards as I canted the Vortex standard bubble from the left line to the right line. As I gain experience, I don't rely on that bubble as much. But it's a good verification tool at this point in my development.

Maybe, if I shoot 10,000-15,000 rifle rounds annually like I did shotgun, I would get to the point where the level is completely unnecessary. But right now, 18 months into learning rifle, I find it useful.

 

[fastfwd]

I really believe the comment, "Because they look cool" is the right answer to all this.

I win!

What other position has your head rolled over, my goodness, other positions need a level ?

That is mindblowing to me.

I just meant that -- for me, at least, although I'm barely a novice at this -- the angle of the shoulder pocket changes from position to position. So if the reticle is level to gravity when my rifle is comfortably shouldered in the prone, it won't still be level when the rifle's comfortably shouldered in, say, a kneeling sling-supported position.

As I learn, should I expect the rifle to be canted exactly the same amount by my shoulder pocket in every position?

if you set the rifle up for a Right Handed Shooter and you switch to the left, that is a limited situation and one that a person can understand and account for... does the number of shots taken from the support side, to include the distances normally shot justify the need to recommend a level ?

Right, my comment about dominant/non-dominant eyes wasn't about shooting from the support side. I might not have been very clear in describing my test, but I wasn't shouldering the rifle; the rifle stayed immobile on the bench and I just looked through the scope with each eye to see whether I perceived the reticle to be level. And I found that a level reticle looked level to my dominant eye, but looked canted to my non-dominant eye.

I didn't mean to imply that a level is necessary because I shoot with my non-dominant eye; certainly I can learn to ignore the canted appearance of the reticle (especially by training with a bubble level to confirm that the reticle is level regardless of how I perceive it).

I just found it curious that my eyes weren't equally good at judging the squareness of the reticle, that's all.

 

[Mormegil87]

@Lowlight could you point me in the direction of the Thomas Hogland (spelling) research that you referenced in the Podcast? It sounds like an interesting read.

 

[Lowlight]

I think the Thomas Video is 158, I would have to look it up, he has a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmKvQfvjqbUakUotekAyxew

I think the biggest issue is, nobody was taught to understand cheek weld and head position and because most lay on top of their rifles they get the body position wrong.

It is part of Natural Point of Aim and setting up the rifle, still amazes me how many with zero professional or even competent instruction will dictate the terms of how and what gear is used and most importantly WHY.

if you cannot answer why and it's just "because" so and so said so, is it really right.

The thing about a standing offhand shoot, you can certainly understand level when aiming in from the standing. Now translate that same position to the other ones. Head and shoulders wise you can mirror this as you move down to other positions.

At SHOT SHOW last year or the year before, I went to the Leupold Booth, they had the new scope with the electronic level in the FOV. The agent in the booth asked me to Aim on using the stock and scope on something down the hall. I did, he asked if I saw the lights, I said No, No lights, he said, Oh, you have to cant the scope. Clearly, my natural tendency is to not cant to the point during a demo that is supposed to highlight your cant I don't have one. Because I trained myself to avoid it.

 

[Lowlight]

Here is the video, 139

 

[stwcattle]

Remembering my first precision rifle, I bought a S&B PMII 5-25x56 from David Tubb for it and he sold me a level to go with the scope.

I used the level in the beginning as a training tool but it didn't take me long to decide to take it off. Later I bought a NF optic and ran it for years without a level until I turned the rifle over to my wife. I installed a 1st Accuracy level on it to help her get squared up and level learning to shoot long range. The level is still on her rifle but i honestly haven't noticed her using it.

She has since learned to use objects in her field of view to level up with.

I believe the levels were a good training tool.

 

[DuneShoot]

I use a level on a semi auto 260 & 223. I find when I pull the rifle in then check the level it's usually slightly canted. I adjust and shoot a string. But as you've mentioned I don't check it for each shot because I 'think' the rifle stays level during a string. I will start checking the level between shots to see if what I 'think' is happening really is happening.

It appears you're suggestting people don't need a level, why not have it if it helps the shooter?

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I think what Frank is getting at, is that shooters don't concentrate on honing that piece of the puzzle because they THINK they are relying on the level. When in reality, they are deceiving and frustrating themselves because they aren't even paying attention to the level they have mounted.

When you train yourself to consciously evaluate your body position and what you are seeing in the field of view for every shot, rather than target lock on the very center of the reticle, you will notice the level becomes much less necessary.

 

[fastfwd]

When you train yourself to consciously evaluate your body position and what you are seeing in the field of view for every shot, rather than target lock on the very center of the reticle, you will notice the level becomes much less necessary.

But it'll still look cool on the gun, right?

 

[Muldoon7]

Frank what are your thoughts when shooting on hard uneven ground? I shoot a lot in the desert and never had a level until just recently on my sphur mount. I tend not to look at it but would occasional check it to see if my bipod was canting me a lot. I felt like unless I checked it every shot I wouldn’t be level cause my bipod would dig into the sand one leg more than another or be sitting on a hard patch. When I felt I naturally adjusted to the target I wouldn’t be perfectly level. Is this something in my head or could possible small scope can’t be effecting my point of refenrence as well?

 

[Rlovato]

Good read tuned in!

 

[TTLCAV]

A Hobbyist Perspective:

I have been shooting only for about 10 years. When I started to shoot I took some long range classes and in between classes I would go to the local range and having a level on my rifle was a tremendous help because it helped me define what was the correct position for my rifle to cheek. I still find myself once in a while using the level, most of the time when "that" shot did not hit the target in a acceptable area of what i was aiming at so i can verify if I am canting the rifle on the next shot . I also use the level when the shooting position does not feel comfortable.

In addition on those rifles * that i use once in a while with a different setup a level helps me verify the stock is in the correct position and do find myself using the level on those rifles when I start to shoot the rifle, then I stop using the level, bringing up that once your memory of the rifle position is defined in the brain, your memory makes you aware that something does not feel right.

I can see very experience shooters not needing a level and perhaps I will remove my level if I stop completely making any reference to it while shooting, However for now I feel comfortable leaving it on since I make reference to it sometimes and is not in the way on my rifle.


* yes,I have more than one rifle, i believe in the right amount of rifles is "plus 1" of what you presently have.

 

[John boy jh]

Okay,

So my video of the Tubb level vs the A1st Level stirred some debate.



Lots of guys commented saying that a level is a must and compared using a level to the horizon line in your typical aircraft. They contend if you need a horizon when flying you need one when shooting.

I understand the argument about shooting in the mountains. After all, I live in the mounts and my shooting location in Pike National is at up there pretty good. I have shot in the mountain, to the point I have even shoot in Hell's Canyon with some of the biggest angles in the US.

So let's avoid the angle and mountain part of the discussion. I can see needing that for some that are not well tuned to these conditions, but let's talk about flat range shooting and only flat range shooting.

My question is, how many who own and use a Level on their rifle, finds it helps them on a flat range ?

I have my thoughts and many have heard me discuss them on our podcast.

Podcast 102

Even if you listen to a few others, I have mentioned this... but I am interested in flat range use. Do you need it to find level even on a flat range ?

During my fundamental eval I conduct in every class I see guys on square ranges canting the rifle, and those who claim to need a level often cite shooting in the mountains, but very few of these observations are taking place in the mountains. Even at the K02M event this year I watched a team get knocked out because they were canted from shot to shot on flat ground.

Here is Wade Stuteville during his win at the SHC back in the day, Douglas WY match, and his level during a string of fire:

Here is a picture from Jim at an AK Eval where you can see the cant when he pulls the bolt over.

No one. Has7
Does a level help when the shooter pulls the rifle over during a string of fire. Especially considering most dont' use it after the string starts.

So flat range level users, explain to me the logic of your decision and why you think you can't manage to "eyeball it" vs needing a level on flat ground.

 

[Lowlight]

Frank what are your thoughts when shooting on hard uneven ground? I shoot a lot in the desert and never had a level until just recently on my sphur mount. I tend not to look at it but would occasional check it to see if my bipod was canting me a lot. I felt like unless I checked it every shot I wouldn’t be level cause my bipod would dig into the sand one leg more than another or be sitting on a hard patch. When I felt I naturally adjusted to the target I wouldn’t be perfectly level. Is this something in my head or could possible small scope can’t be effecting my point of refenrence as well?

Adjust the legs, I shoot on uneven ground all the time, I travel all over and shoot, I experience all sorts of terrain.

I make one leg taller than the other on my bipod to level the rifle

 

[John boy jh]

No one has mentioned “optical allusion “. I shoot at a range ( 1000-1500yds) and every time I get behind my rifle it looks like my retical is slightly canted to my natural eye. My bubble is absolutely level with my retical so I trust my level over my eye. The terrain and horizon undulat from my shooting position all the way out. I’ve adapted to this and all is good. It reminds me of the “crazy house at the carnivals. Your brain can be fooled or at least mine can.

 

[Lowlight]

Why are you looking at a Horizon and what does a horizon matter when looking through a scope ?

You are doing it wrong, just because people have adapted to being "Incorrect" and doing this often, does not make them Right.

Again, people with no training complaining about not understanding how to shoot should not be the normal state of affairs.

 

[John boy jh]

Why are you looking at a Horizon and what does a horizon matter when looking through a scope ?

You are doing it wrong, just because people have adapted to being "Incorrect" and doing this often, does not make them Right.

Again, people with no training complaining about not understanding how to shoot should not be the normal state of affairs.

I didn’t say I used the horizon to level but if I go by what my brain tells me , I’m off hense the reference to opticalal allusion.

 

[fastfwd]

As I wrote before, I'm a novice. But here's how I think about reticle cant and scope-mounted bubble levels. Gentle guidance and corrections to my understanding are welcome.

1. A solid, consistent position, with the rifle comfortably and naturally held in the shoulder pocket, is of utmost importance.
2. Equally important is for the scope reticle to be level to gravity.
3. It's nice for the rifle also to be level -- that is, for the center of the bore to be directly below and inline with the reticle's vertical crosshair -- but points 1 and 2 must not be compromised for this, because the POI error from an offset bore is small and unaffected by windage/elevation adjustments, while the error from a canted reticle can be an order of magnitude larger and is affected in a complicated way by dialing.

So it's best to establish a consistently repeatable position, and mount the scope so that its reticle is level to gravity while you're in that position, even if the rifle is canted left or right by the angle of your shoulder pocket (although if your rifle has a rotatable buttplate, you can level it as well).

Even when the reticle is level, though, the eye might erroneously perceive it to be canted. So a scope-mounted bubble can be helpful, since it will confirm to the shooter that the reticle is indeed level regardless of how it looks. And by training with the bubble, the shooter will gradually learn that in his or her consistently-built position, the reticle can be relied upon to be level.

At that point, the bubble will no longer be necessary for shooting from the shooter's natural position. But it can be helpful to leave it on the scope anyway, because it may still be necessary for shooting from other positions, and because it makes it trivially easy to re-level the scope if it's ever moved to another rifle or another mount (or if the rifle is moved to another shooter). And also because it looks cool.

Does that seem about right?

 

[Rondogg]

Frank I have a question. I apoligize on the front side if this is a dumb question, as I just shoot for fun. If we confirm the scope is level when first mounted then when we get behind the rifle the scope will be canted due to natural position?? Would using a level then bring the rifle back to square/level? I run the MPA competition chassis which has the built in level.

 

[BJames]

Frank I have a question. I apoligize on the front side if this is a dumb question, as I just shoot for fun. If we confirm the scope is level when first mounted then when we get behind the rifle the scope will be canted due to natural position?? Would using a level then bring the rifle back to square/level? I run the MPA competition chassis which has the built in level.

That’s a rifle fit issue. We’re all built differently, shoulder pockets are different from person to person. Get prone behind the rifle with bipod and bags, adjust the cant of your butt pad to fit you.

 

[diverdon]

In the conditions that I mostly shoot I think that I can judge level better just looking at the reticle and target and when it feels like the vertical line of the H2CMR (or EBR2C) is vertical then it is. In truth with the levels I have tried (mostly Spuhr) I can not see them well from the shooting position.

As reticles transition to more electronic, someday some one will build a precision level that displays in the reticle and then I will revisit the issue.

 

[Jakebrake300]

So I’ve been wondering...and maybe this has been discussed but I missed it ( my apologies for kicking a dead horse..) . I have always leveled my scopes to my riffle and have never had an issue,I am comfortable behind all of my riffles, but every rifle of my dad’s ,when I put it to my shoulder the scope seems canted a bit. They fit him fine and he’s never made a bad shot on an animal although he doesn’t shoot much past 400 yards, does it affect anything as long as the reticle is level? He’s the only one I’ve ever known to do this.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I have not been using levels for very long. But there are times I use it if something doesn't look or feel right. I never rely on ground horizon. My rifle isn't flying so the plane instrument argument is just plain stupid. That is attitude of an aircraft and is artificial. A bubble level is not artificial. It moves naturally. But even here in SE NM where I can see a 12,000 mountain on the horizon that is 90 miles away doesn't mean I'm on flat ground. Silhouette target posts can also be deceiving.