-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Trust the level or the eye?
- Thread starter kentactic
- Start date
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread points out two facts Graham - one, cant has a real and measurable effect on POI, and two, a not insignificant percentage of our species displays disassociative behavior, regardless of background.
I'm no stranger to the sand flats of south Texas terrain. </div></div>
{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am.
</div></div>
Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: _9H</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread points out two facts Graham - one, cant has a real and measurable effect on POI, and two, a not insignificant percentage of our species displays disassociative behavior, regardless of background.
I'm no stranger to the sand flats of south Texas terrain. </div></div>
{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am.
</div></div>
Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am. </div></div>Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful. </div></div>We are still waiting on your explanation of what you said on the first page. Your attacks against me would be more credible if you didn't rely on other people to fight the battle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am. </div></div>Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful. </div></div>We are still waiting on your explanation of what you said on the first page. Your attacks against me would be more credible if you didn't rely on other people to fight the battle.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
So I'm still not sure why Ken thinks his rifle/scope/base/reticle/turret is/are canted. One or all.
When I mount a scope and I hit directly left or right with no verticle, I fondle the lil knob on the right side of the scope and the 'cant' disappears. If the condition disappears permenantly I slip the turret and all is right in my world.
I'm surprized so many have debated this so long.
So I'm still not sure why Ken thinks his rifle/scope/base/reticle/turret is/are canted. One or all.
When I mount a scope and I hit directly left or right with no verticle, I fondle the lil knob on the right side of the scope and the 'cant' disappears. If the condition disappears permenantly I slip the turret and all is right in my world.
I'm surprized so many have debated this so long.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am. </div></div>Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful. </div></div>We are still waiting on your explanation of what you said on the first page. Your attacks against me would be more credible if you didn't rely on other people to fight the battle. </div></div>
Well, 9h already posted the link, but since you apparently don't understand it yet, here it is again. Simple high school math. I'm not attacking you, I'm challenging your ignorance on the matter. If that can be remedied, it should help your shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am. </div></div>Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful. </div></div>We are still waiting on your explanation of what you said on the first page. Your attacks against me would be more credible if you didn't rely on other people to fight the battle. </div></div>
Well, 9h already posted the link, but since you apparently don't understand it yet, here it is again. Simple high school math. I'm not attacking you, I'm challenging your ignorance on the matter. If that can be remedied, it should help your shooting.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: notquiteright</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I'm still not sure why Ken thinks his rifle/scope/base/reticle/turret is/are canted. One or all.
When I mount a scope and I hit directly left or right with no verticle, I fondle the lil knob on the right side of the scope and the 'cant' disappears. If the condition disappears permenantly I slip the turret and all is right in my world.
I'm surprized so many have debated this so long. </div></div>
no vern.. the scope and base were seemingly "level" at that point in time. the thing that turned out to be canted was the entire rifle/scope setup when i was shooting it.
its two storys in one on this thread... the reason i bought the base level was because if this incident. and now that i have it im having a problem getting the base level and the turret level to both say level when the reticle appears level aswell.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: notquiteright</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I'm still not sure why Ken thinks his rifle/scope/base/reticle/turret is/are canted. One or all.
When I mount a scope and I hit directly left or right with no verticle, I fondle the lil knob on the right side of the scope and the 'cant' disappears. If the condition disappears permenantly I slip the turret and all is right in my world.
I'm surprized so many have debated this so long. </div></div>
no vern.. the scope and base were seemingly "level" at that point in time. the thing that turned out to be canted was the entire rifle/scope setup when i was shooting it.
its two storys in one on this thread... the reason i bought the base level was because if this incident. and now that i have it im having a problem getting the base level and the turret level to both say level when the reticle appears level aswell.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am. </div></div>Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful. </div></div>We are still waiting on your explanation of what you said on the first page. Your attacks against me would be more credible if you didn't rely on other people to fight the battle. </div></div>
Well, 9h already posted the link, but since you apparently don't understand it yet, here it is again. Simple high school math. I'm not attacking you, I'm challenging your ignorance on the matter. If that can be remedied, it should help your shooting.</div></div>
If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle.
That's not directed at anyone. Just a blanket statement that that is alot of cant which would easily be seen and adjusted for without use of a bubble level.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">{...]and we can agree that you are a much better shooter that I am. </div></div>Part of the reason why: a clear understanding of why exactly levels are useful. </div></div>We are still waiting on your explanation of what you said on the first page. Your attacks against me would be more credible if you didn't rely on other people to fight the battle. </div></div>
Well, 9h already posted the link, but since you apparently don't understand it yet, here it is again. Simple high school math. I'm not attacking you, I'm challenging your ignorance on the matter. If that can be remedied, it should help your shooting.</div></div>
If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle. That's not directed at anyone. Just a blanket statement that that is alot of cant which would easily be seen and adjusted for without use of a bubble level.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine. </div></div>
does that go for any shooting dicipline or just ones where your on level concrete at the range?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle. That's not directed at anyone. Just a blanket statement that that is alot of cant which would easily be seen and adjusted for without use of a bubble level.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine. </div></div>
does that go for any shooting dicipline or just ones where your on level concrete at the range?
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
If the level is plumb to the erector and the scope's mounted properly, having a level to maintain your consistency from compromised positions is a good thing in my opinion.
Do I need matching turrets and reticle to get rounds on target? No but it makes things nicer-levels for me go into that kind of category.
If the level is plumb to the erector and the scope's mounted properly, having a level to maintain your consistency from compromised positions is a good thing in my opinion.
Do I need matching turrets and reticle to get rounds on target? No but it makes things nicer-levels for me go into that kind of category.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
Nice pictures, but a sample size of one shot each means nothing. Among many other things just a minor difference in trigger pull can effect that much change.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well heres what i had happen. and then i "leveled" the rifle and shot again and i was dead nutts. these were shot at 100 yards and thats where my rifle is Zero'd for. (sorry one image is out of focus). am i insane or does this make sense and was likely a canted rifle issue?
</div></div>
Nice pictures, but a sample size of one shot each means nothing. Among many other things just a minor difference in trigger pull can effect that much change.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well heres what i had happen. and then i "leveled" the rifle and shot again and i was dead nutts. these were shot at 100 yards and thats where my rifle is Zero'd for. (sorry one image is out of focus). am i insane or does this make sense and was likely a canted rifle issue?
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle. That's not directed at anyone. Just a blanket statement that that is alot of cant which would easily be seen and adjusted for without use of a bubble level.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine. </div></div>
does that go for any shooting dicipline or just ones where your on level concrete at the range? </div></div>
Any situation shooting a long range scoped rifle. Do you really think you wouldn't see that much cant in the scope?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle. That's not directed at anyone. Just a blanket statement that that is alot of cant which would easily be seen and adjusted for without use of a bubble level.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine. </div></div>
does that go for any shooting dicipline or just ones where your on level concrete at the range? </div></div>
Any situation shooting a long range scoped rifle. Do you really think you wouldn't see that much cant in the scope?
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle. That's not directed at anyone. Just a blanket statement that that is alot of cant which would easily be seen and adjusted for without use of a bubble level.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine. </div></div>
does that go for any shooting dicipline or just ones where your on level concrete at the range? </div></div>
Any situation shooting a long range scoped rifle. Do you really think you wouldn't see that much cant in the scope? </div></div>
yeah i did THINK i would notice that much cant but i infact did not notice it. i was prone on a slope that was maybe 5 degrees. i pretty much leveled my rifle to that slope without realizing it. i couldnt beleive my eyes when i put a level on the rifle and saw how the rifle looked when it was actually level. it looked like it was leaning way over. but infact it was level. i leveled a metel frame and put my reticle on it and sure as shit...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need a bubble level to see that much cant when shooting the rifle you shouldn't be shooting a rifle. That's not directed at anyone. Just a blanket statement that that is alot of cant which would easily be seen and adjusted for without use of a bubble level.
I know Graham and he can shoot just fine. </div></div>
does that go for any shooting dicipline or just ones where your on level concrete at the range? </div></div>
Any situation shooting a long range scoped rifle. Do you really think you wouldn't see that much cant in the scope? </div></div>
yeah i did THINK i would notice that much cant but i infact did not notice it. i was prone on a slope that was maybe 5 degrees. i pretty much leveled my rifle to that slope without realizing it. i couldnt beleive my eyes when i put a level on the rifle and saw how the rifle looked when it was actually level. it looked like it was leaning way over. but infact it was level. i leveled a metel frame and put my reticle on it and sure as shit...
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice pictures, but a sample size of one shot each means nothing. Among many other things just a minor difference in trigger pull can effect that much change.</div></div>
true. but it only did take place when the rifle was canted. and once leveled didnt happen again. i know theres a million other explinations why it could have put my shot right like that but the first thing that came to mind after the third one to the right like that i said "give me that level" stuck it on there.. was way off.. leveled and shot the rest of the day dead nutts.
like i said im going to do more testing and purposely cant the rifle to see if i can recreate it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice pictures, but a sample size of one shot each means nothing. Among many other things just a minor difference in trigger pull can effect that much change.</div></div>
true. but it only did take place when the rifle was canted. and once leveled didnt happen again. i know theres a million other explinations why it could have put my shot right like that but the first thing that came to mind after the third one to the right like that i said "give me that level" stuck it on there.. was way off.. leveled and shot the rest of the day dead nutts.
like i said im going to do more testing and purposely cant the rifle to see if i can recreate it.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yeah i did THINK i would notice that much cant but i infact did not notice it. i was prone on a slope that was maybe 5 degrees. i pretty much leveled my rifle to that slope without realizing it. i couldnt beleive my eyes when i put a level on the rifle and saw how the rifle looked when it was actually level. it looked like it was leaning way over. but infact it was level. i leveled a metel frame and put my reticle on it and sure as shit...
</div></div>
That's how you learn.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yeah i did THINK i would notice that much cant but i infact did not notice it. i was prone on a slope that was maybe 5 degrees. i pretty much leveled my rifle to that slope without realizing it. i couldnt beleive my eyes when i put a level on the rifle and saw how the rifle looked when it was actually level. it looked like it was leaning way over. but infact it was level. i leveled a metel frame and put my reticle on it and sure as shit...
</div></div>
That's how you learn.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
ok i found out a few things and raised new questions aswell..
i leveled my rifle and the reticle was parrallel to the plumb bob line so i was good there. the turret level still showed it was way off.
so then i shot @ 100 yards.. the bore was clean so i did a few strings of fire to foul the bore. then i shot one shot at my zero and then cranked up 4 mills and held on the 4th mill-dot on my reticle and it impacted within reasonable accuracy of the rifle. (the holes were touching)
then i tested out the canted rifle affecting POI fom the zero'd distance. i canted the rifle way right and it landed right... canted tghe rifle left and the POI landed left. did this back and fourth a few times and 4 out of 6 times it landed the direction the rifle was canted... then the other 2 times it landed true to the POA. so honestly i dont think i really learned anything there.. more of a WTF moment. one factor i was thinking might play a role is wether or not the bipod is canted enough to make contact with the stock. i didnt pay much attention to if it was touching on any given shot.
oh and let me add that this was also my first time shooting 175SMK's.
i then went to 150 yards and set up my papaer target. and shot and wtf... high RIGHT... the high part was fine because i only had rough estimation on the ballistics. so i went down to .2 mills and shot again. now its on elevation and left a little bit... so at that point i just layed there on the mat for a second and thought about wtf could be going on. i checked the torque on the action bolts and they seemed to be less then exepected so i loosened them and retightened them to 65in-lbs and shot some more at 100 yards. i couldnt seem to get any consistent grouping... shooter error?.... wtf... it shot fine with the 168SMK's...
either i was shooting HORRIBLE or my rifle hates 175SMK's. is it typical to see that much deviation in accuracy from two very similar loads? both were FGMM.
thoughts?
ok i found out a few things and raised new questions aswell..
i leveled my rifle and the reticle was parrallel to the plumb bob line so i was good there. the turret level still showed it was way off.
so then i shot @ 100 yards.. the bore was clean so i did a few strings of fire to foul the bore. then i shot one shot at my zero and then cranked up 4 mills and held on the 4th mill-dot on my reticle and it impacted within reasonable accuracy of the rifle. (the holes were touching)
then i tested out the canted rifle affecting POI fom the zero'd distance. i canted the rifle way right and it landed right... canted tghe rifle left and the POI landed left. did this back and fourth a few times and 4 out of 6 times it landed the direction the rifle was canted... then the other 2 times it landed true to the POA. so honestly i dont think i really learned anything there.. more of a WTF moment. one factor i was thinking might play a role is wether or not the bipod is canted enough to make contact with the stock. i didnt pay much attention to if it was touching on any given shot.
oh and let me add that this was also my first time shooting 175SMK's.
i then went to 150 yards and set up my papaer target. and shot and wtf... high RIGHT... the high part was fine because i only had rough estimation on the ballistics. so i went down to .2 mills and shot again. now its on elevation and left a little bit... so at that point i just layed there on the mat for a second and thought about wtf could be going on. i checked the torque on the action bolts and they seemed to be less then exepected so i loosened them and retightened them to 65in-lbs and shot some more at 100 yards. i couldnt seem to get any consistent grouping... shooter error?.... wtf... it shot fine with the 168SMK's...
either i was shooting HORRIBLE or my rifle hates 175SMK's. is it typical to see that much deviation in accuracy from two very similar loads? both were FGMM.
thoughts?
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..and that's the problem with bubble levels, and one reason why I don't use one despite what the internet says about whether or not I need one. </div></div>
+1
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..and that's the problem with bubble levels, and one reason why I don't use one despite what the internet says about whether or not I need one. </div></div>
+1
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
I always put a level directly on the scope rail, and make sure my bubble level matches. Once I make any corrections that are necessary, I then make sure the rail is level front to back prior to mounting my scope and rings.
Once I have everything level front to back, and side to side, I begin working on the scope itself. After I have done all the leveling I can do, I check the level of the reticle. Yes, it is sometimes canted, but as long as the erector is level, the scope should track correctly.
To verify correct tracking, I will bottom out my elevation turrent and place the reticle at the bottom of my target. I make sure the vertical line on my target is level, then I will dial up the turrent and check it against the target. The level line on the target will show whether or not my scope is tracking correctly level. I will make whatever adjustments I need to ensure it tracks true all the way up and down the target.
As long as it is not a horribly canted reticle, I will go ahead and use the scope. If it is beyond what I can stand, I will send the scope back to be corrected, or sometimes even just use a different scope. I pay more attention to my bubble level than I do to what the reticle itself is telling me. My results have been very consistant, and it is just what works for me.
DK
I always put a level directly on the scope rail, and make sure my bubble level matches. Once I make any corrections that are necessary, I then make sure the rail is level front to back prior to mounting my scope and rings.
Once I have everything level front to back, and side to side, I begin working on the scope itself. After I have done all the leveling I can do, I check the level of the reticle. Yes, it is sometimes canted, but as long as the erector is level, the scope should track correctly.
To verify correct tracking, I will bottom out my elevation turrent and place the reticle at the bottom of my target. I make sure the vertical line on my target is level, then I will dial up the turrent and check it against the target. The level line on the target will show whether or not my scope is tracking correctly level. I will make whatever adjustments I need to ensure it tracks true all the way up and down the target.
As long as it is not a horribly canted reticle, I will go ahead and use the scope. If it is beyond what I can stand, I will send the scope back to be corrected, or sometimes even just use a different scope. I pay more attention to my bubble level than I do to what the reticle itself is telling me. My results have been very consistant, and it is just what works for me.
DK
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
of course grandpa with his 30/30 and a straight 4x used for hunting whitetail at 50 yards might give this a bah humbug and can live with a little crokedness, but for any serious target shooting:
1. make sure the rifle itself is level before anything. this can be accomplished a few ways, either by putting a level on the flat part of the receiver (if you have a flat part) or on the scope base. yeah i know, the base itself can be off a little, but its the next closest thing to the receiver.
2. next is leveling the scope, you can use the plumb bob method, the vertical line on a paper drawn with a level, etc. you are now leveling the scope crosshairs to a level rifle, just don't move the rifle during the process. witness marks on a table using a bipod on the rifle helps to see if you are actually moving the rifle or not, and a place to return to if you have. making sure the CROSSHAIRS are leveled to a LEVELED RIFLE takes out any second guessing, and takes the equipment out of play. any perceived misalingment is the shooter canting or an optical illusion as you know now beyond a shadow of doubt that the rifle AND crosshairs are in alignment.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">if running a level for shooting -</span></span>
1. now that the rifle is leveled, and the scope is calibrated level to the rifle, you have to calibrate the level to the scope if a scope mounted level, to the rifle if a rail mounted level.
2. since in the first section we know beyond a doubt that the scope and rifle are leveled, you can adjust or calibrate the the shooting level to match the rig, making sure to keep the rifle and crosshairs leveled on the plumb bob, leveled drawn line on paper, etc.
3. now all three components are calibrated to a "true level" - the rifle, the crosshairs, and the shooting level, and you are able to return to that "true level" in any position.
using a level on an adjustment knob, knob cover, etc. is defeating the purpose. those knobs (especially the kind you can reset using set screws) may not and usually are not exactly flat or level to what is going on inside the optic - the crosshairs themselves. the knob covers are threaded on (threads are diagnal) and offer way too much vertical travel to be depended on to put a level on top for a "true level" reading to be depended on. then they rest on some sort of gasket once screwed down, causing some sort of constant cant.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">it doesn't matter if it's a nightforce or a tasco, find the level using the crosshairs, not the knobs. then trust the level, not the eye.</span></span> otherwise it's like guestimating range rather than using a laser rangefinder or a ruler. you may be close, but not exact.
a whole ton of threads are out there in detail about the topic, the google search will give you hours of reading material and instructions on all of it.
EASIER TO FIND STUFF - sniper's hide google search
try canting, leveling a scope, rifle cant, etc. there was a good post out there about 2 mths ago with some range proven effects of cant, which if you trust the eyballing method, ther results would turn out the same.
here's a few with additional threads within:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2117042#Post2117042
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...980#Post1287980
of course grandpa with his 30/30 and a straight 4x used for hunting whitetail at 50 yards might give this a bah humbug and can live with a little crokedness, but for any serious target shooting:
1. make sure the rifle itself is level before anything. this can be accomplished a few ways, either by putting a level on the flat part of the receiver (if you have a flat part) or on the scope base. yeah i know, the base itself can be off a little, but its the next closest thing to the receiver.
2. next is leveling the scope, you can use the plumb bob method, the vertical line on a paper drawn with a level, etc. you are now leveling the scope crosshairs to a level rifle, just don't move the rifle during the process. witness marks on a table using a bipod on the rifle helps to see if you are actually moving the rifle or not, and a place to return to if you have. making sure the CROSSHAIRS are leveled to a LEVELED RIFLE takes out any second guessing, and takes the equipment out of play. any perceived misalingment is the shooter canting or an optical illusion as you know now beyond a shadow of doubt that the rifle AND crosshairs are in alignment.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">if running a level for shooting -</span></span>
1. now that the rifle is leveled, and the scope is calibrated level to the rifle, you have to calibrate the level to the scope if a scope mounted level, to the rifle if a rail mounted level.
2. since in the first section we know beyond a doubt that the scope and rifle are leveled, you can adjust or calibrate the the shooting level to match the rig, making sure to keep the rifle and crosshairs leveled on the plumb bob, leveled drawn line on paper, etc.
3. now all three components are calibrated to a "true level" - the rifle, the crosshairs, and the shooting level, and you are able to return to that "true level" in any position.
using a level on an adjustment knob, knob cover, etc. is defeating the purpose. those knobs (especially the kind you can reset using set screws) may not and usually are not exactly flat or level to what is going on inside the optic - the crosshairs themselves. the knob covers are threaded on (threads are diagnal) and offer way too much vertical travel to be depended on to put a level on top for a "true level" reading to be depended on. then they rest on some sort of gasket once screwed down, causing some sort of constant cant.
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">it doesn't matter if it's a nightforce or a tasco, find the level using the crosshairs, not the knobs. then trust the level, not the eye.</span></span> otherwise it's like guestimating range rather than using a laser rangefinder or a ruler. you may be close, but not exact.
a whole ton of threads are out there in detail about the topic, the google search will give you hours of reading material and instructions on all of it.
EASIER TO FIND STUFF - sniper's hide google search
try canting, leveling a scope, rifle cant, etc. there was a good post out there about 2 mths ago with some range proven effects of cant, which if you trust the eyballing method, ther results would turn out the same.
here's a few with additional threads within:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2117042#Post2117042
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...980#Post1287980
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
im beyond the leveling of the rifle and the reticle. thats taken care of. the reticle is level to the rifle. and as far as i can tell it tracks straght even though the turret isnt showing level at the same time.
im beyond the leveling of the rifle and the reticle. thats taken care of. the reticle is level to the rifle. and as far as i can tell it tracks straght even though the turret isnt showing level at the same time.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
If you are leveling the scope with a canted reticle, you are not leveling the erector and therefore setting yourself up for failure in my opinion.
I have to level my scope with the actual tracking of the scope, otherwise I feel like I am wasing my time. If you are not leveling the scope with the inner workings of the scope erector, dialing for distance, you are dialing additional left or right trajectory of the bullet. This is NOT what I want to have happen.
I only put the level on the elevation turrent as a starting point. I let the tracking of the scope be my final level of the scope. It takes a bit more time to get it where I want it though. Like I said before, it works.
DK
If you are leveling the scope with a canted reticle, you are not leveling the erector and therefore setting yourself up for failure in my opinion.
I have to level my scope with the actual tracking of the scope, otherwise I feel like I am wasing my time. If you are not leveling the scope with the inner workings of the scope erector, dialing for distance, you are dialing additional left or right trajectory of the bullet. This is NOT what I want to have happen.
I only put the level on the elevation turrent as a starting point. I let the tracking of the scope be my final level of the scope. It takes a bit more time to get it where I want it though. Like I said before, it works.
DK
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> im beyond the leveling of the rifle and the reticle. thats taken care of. the reticle is level to the rifle. and as far as i can tell it tracks straght even though the turret isnt showing level at the same time. </div></div>
well then you've found the answer, and if tracking correctly like z71rat pointed out, the level of the turret is inconsequential.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> im beyond the leveling of the rifle and the reticle. thats taken care of. the reticle is level to the rifle. and as far as i can tell it tracks straght even though the turret isnt showing level at the same time. </div></div>
well then you've found the answer, and if tracking correctly like z71rat pointed out, the level of the turret is inconsequential.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOP PREDATOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> im beyond the leveling of the rifle and the reticle. thats taken care of. the reticle is level to the rifle. and as far as i can tell it tracks straght even though the turret isnt showing level at the same time. </div></div>
well then you've found the answer, and if tracking correctly like z71rat pointed out, the turret is inconsequential.
</div></div>
correct. but ive found other issues. seems my rifle dosent like 175 SMK's.. or atleast i hope thats the reason i couldnt hit the broad sie of a barn this morning. and since the accuracy was so poor i cant say 100% that the scope does infact track true. it hit where it should have but with the accuracy doing what it was i cant trust it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOP PREDATOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> im beyond the leveling of the rifle and the reticle. thats taken care of. the reticle is level to the rifle. and as far as i can tell it tracks straght even though the turret isnt showing level at the same time. </div></div>
well then you've found the answer, and if tracking correctly like z71rat pointed out, the turret is inconsequential.
</div></div>
correct. but ive found other issues. seems my rifle dosent like 175 SMK's.. or atleast i hope thats the reason i couldnt hit the broad sie of a barn this morning. and since the accuracy was so poor i cant say 100% that the scope does infact track true. it hit where it should have but with the accuracy doing what it was i cant trust it.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: z71rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are leveling the scope with a canted reticle, you are not leveling the erector and therefore setting yourself up for failure in my opinion.
I have to level my scope with the actual tracking of the scope, otherwise I feel like I am wasing my time. If you are not leveling the scope with the inner workings of the scope erector, dialing for distance, you are dialing additional left or right trajectory of the bullet. This is NOT what I want to have happen.
I only put the level on the elevation turrent as a starting point. I let the tracking of the scope be my final level of the scope. It takes a bit more time to get it where I want it though. Like I said before, it works.
DK </div></div>
yeah but this method relys on the turret being true to tracking. so far from what ive tested its looking like thats not the case with my scope. ill have to test again with some 168SMK's to confirm it though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: z71rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are leveling the scope with a canted reticle, you are not leveling the erector and therefore setting yourself up for failure in my opinion.
I have to level my scope with the actual tracking of the scope, otherwise I feel like I am wasing my time. If you are not leveling the scope with the inner workings of the scope erector, dialing for distance, you are dialing additional left or right trajectory of the bullet. This is NOT what I want to have happen.
I only put the level on the elevation turrent as a starting point. I let the tracking of the scope be my final level of the scope. It takes a bit more time to get it where I want it though. Like I said before, it works.
DK </div></div>
yeah but this method relys on the turret being true to tracking. so far from what ive tested its looking like thats not the case with my scope. ill have to test again with some 168SMK's to confirm it though.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
As Graham said, the 2011 SHC was level central, huge difference from the Fall Bash in December to now, seemed everyone had a level and out of 63 shooters less than 5 actually used it, at least when I was looking. In fact I made a tongue and cheek point of pointing out every time someone shot and they weren't 100% level. Now the majority of them weren't terribly out of square, but a few were beyond the lines for sure.
We see it a bunch, people who don't have their rifles square, or are canting their rifles slightly, levels mounted or not. However I don't see many that crooked enough to have an effect like has been documented when people purposely exaggerate the cant. Most aren't that far off to the side, and usually you can see bigger issues like trigger control issue so it really doesn't matter when they aren't following through to begin with, let alone hooking or pushing the triggers.
I have no idea what Ken is trying to say here, sounds like a half something to show a lot of nothing... I mean did you shoot 168s then shoot the 175s and see a difference in zero ? If so, well ya.. of course. Or did you zero the 175s and see a shift... I mean canting to such a degree where you see it at 100 yards, you have to see you are canting it.
For a whole lot of years people shot under every condition imaginable and managed to hit their target fine even setting a record or two, all without levels, so the idea you can't see it, well if you say so. I for one can clearly tell if the reticle is straight without using a horizon, or if i am in an alternate position, on a mountain side, etc. It's not magic, there is no voodoo, it's just an angle, in this case, the less of one the better. A simple plumb is the best way to check, the use of $5 bubbles on the turret, base, rifles, well, okay, if you feel they work for you, and it makes you happy, sure. But heck I have mounted scopes in absolutely low brow rough shod ways and still managed to get it straight enough to hit at a 1000 yards, call it luck, call it silly, but I have never invested much time in the practice and my hit ratio is pretty good.
Mechanical issues happen, shooter errors account for a lot and it's pretty simple to check with a string and weight, which answers any question you have, but first you have to zero the rifle. Then simply check tracking along the weighed string.
Hang it if you got it, but if you hang it, try using it, and that means you have to look at it. I see lots of them hung and very few of them make the nut behind the bolt any more effective. All the gadgets like level, ballistic computers, or the latest thoughts on engaging targets at distance don't mean a thing if you slap the trigger, fail to follow through or screw up any one of the fundamentals of marksmanship. There is no shooting problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of the fundamentals of marksmanship and nothing else.
As Graham said, the 2011 SHC was level central, huge difference from the Fall Bash in December to now, seemed everyone had a level and out of 63 shooters less than 5 actually used it, at least when I was looking. In fact I made a tongue and cheek point of pointing out every time someone shot and they weren't 100% level. Now the majority of them weren't terribly out of square, but a few were beyond the lines for sure.
We see it a bunch, people who don't have their rifles square, or are canting their rifles slightly, levels mounted or not. However I don't see many that crooked enough to have an effect like has been documented when people purposely exaggerate the cant. Most aren't that far off to the side, and usually you can see bigger issues like trigger control issue so it really doesn't matter when they aren't following through to begin with, let alone hooking or pushing the triggers.
I have no idea what Ken is trying to say here, sounds like a half something to show a lot of nothing... I mean did you shoot 168s then shoot the 175s and see a difference in zero ? If so, well ya.. of course. Or did you zero the 175s and see a shift... I mean canting to such a degree where you see it at 100 yards, you have to see you are canting it.
For a whole lot of years people shot under every condition imaginable and managed to hit their target fine even setting a record or two, all without levels, so the idea you can't see it, well if you say so. I for one can clearly tell if the reticle is straight without using a horizon, or if i am in an alternate position, on a mountain side, etc. It's not magic, there is no voodoo, it's just an angle, in this case, the less of one the better. A simple plumb is the best way to check, the use of $5 bubbles on the turret, base, rifles, well, okay, if you feel they work for you, and it makes you happy, sure. But heck I have mounted scopes in absolutely low brow rough shod ways and still managed to get it straight enough to hit at a 1000 yards, call it luck, call it silly, but I have never invested much time in the practice and my hit ratio is pretty good.
Mechanical issues happen, shooter errors account for a lot and it's pretty simple to check with a string and weight, which answers any question you have, but first you have to zero the rifle. Then simply check tracking along the weighed string.
Hang it if you got it, but if you hang it, try using it, and that means you have to look at it. I see lots of them hung and very few of them make the nut behind the bolt any more effective. All the gadgets like level, ballistic computers, or the latest thoughts on engaging targets at distance don't mean a thing if you slap the trigger, fail to follow through or screw up any one of the fundamentals of marksmanship. There is no shooting problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of the fundamentals of marksmanship and nothing else.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
thanks for posting lowlight i always enjoy your help.
i pretty much added a shitload of factors in all at once.
i had never shot 175SMK's before. i did infact zero to the new load and then started testing. but for what ever reason be it me or the load/rifle i was getting horrible accuracy. i had a box of FGMM 168SMK's that i shot first to foul the bore. and even from clean to fouled the accuracy was way better then i ended up getting out of the 175SMK's. there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to where my shots would land. it was pretty bad. i could have acheived the same accuracy with a .22lr.
id say my average group was around 2 inches @ 100 yards. i wasnt actually shooting for groups just single shots at each dot but if you put any three shots together youd be looking at around a 2 inch average.
i went through every possible scenario to why the accuracy was so bad. re-torqued the action bolts etc. sure it could just be the nut behind the wheel but i shot better then this the first day i ever shot a precision bolt action.
im hoping its just the ammo.
thanks for posting lowlight i always enjoy your help.
i pretty much added a shitload of factors in all at once.
i had never shot 175SMK's before. i did infact zero to the new load and then started testing. but for what ever reason be it me or the load/rifle i was getting horrible accuracy. i had a box of FGMM 168SMK's that i shot first to foul the bore. and even from clean to fouled the accuracy was way better then i ended up getting out of the 175SMK's. there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to where my shots would land. it was pretty bad. i could have acheived the same accuracy with a .22lr.
id say my average group was around 2 inches @ 100 yards. i wasnt actually shooting for groups just single shots at each dot but if you put any three shots together youd be looking at around a 2 inch average.
i went through every possible scenario to why the accuracy was so bad. re-torqued the action bolts etc. sure it could just be the nut behind the wheel but i shot better then this the first day i ever shot a precision bolt action.
im hoping its just the ammo.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
Please keep in mind that the shooting that I am doing is almost all on paper. I am especially picky when it comes to shooting those stinkin little Smiley faces or Snow Flakes!! LOL!! While hunting in Texas, my longest shot was about 125 yards. Level needed?? No. I never even used one on my hunting only rifle rig. My archery rig is a TOTALLY different story. I use a level ALL the time, and my scores in competition and the animals I have taken show it. So the use of the level is specific to what I am doing at the time.
When I go to actually shoot steel out to 400 yards so far, I am tickled to hear the "ting" out there, and for the most part don't use the level unless I feel uncomfortable. I don't shoot timed competitions, except when I am doing some very informal drills with my shooting buddies. With the timed piece added into the mix, I don't use the level at all as it takes too long.
I have yet to hunt here since moving to Colorado. I am sure that if I have the chance to do so, that I would in fact use the level just to help me to ensure proper shot placement at some of the longer shots that I am sure would present themselves. That is, if time allowed me to do so. To each their own, and to their own they must find what works for them.
Bottom line is, I will have a level on most all my rigs. To me it is better to have and not use it as opposed to needing it and not have it.
DK
Please keep in mind that the shooting that I am doing is almost all on paper. I am especially picky when it comes to shooting those stinkin little Smiley faces or Snow Flakes!! LOL!! While hunting in Texas, my longest shot was about 125 yards. Level needed?? No. I never even used one on my hunting only rifle rig. My archery rig is a TOTALLY different story. I use a level ALL the time, and my scores in competition and the animals I have taken show it. So the use of the level is specific to what I am doing at the time.
When I go to actually shoot steel out to 400 yards so far, I am tickled to hear the "ting" out there, and for the most part don't use the level unless I feel uncomfortable. I don't shoot timed competitions, except when I am doing some very informal drills with my shooting buddies. With the timed piece added into the mix, I don't use the level at all as it takes too long.
I have yet to hunt here since moving to Colorado. I am sure that if I have the chance to do so, that I would in fact use the level just to help me to ensure proper shot placement at some of the longer shots that I am sure would present themselves. That is, if time allowed me to do so. To each their own, and to their own they must find what works for them.
Bottom line is, I will have a level on most all my rigs. To me it is better to have and not use it as opposed to needing it and not have it.
DK
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
Bullets and barrels are round. You will have a hell of a time trying to get a circle square. What this means is that the only effects on the relationship between poa and poi (as far as cant is concerned) is that the reticle tracks properly and that it is level to the ground. The perpindicular/parallel relationship between the reticle and base is purely ergonomic/aesthetic.
Bullets and barrels are round. You will have a hell of a time trying to get a circle square. What this means is that the only effects on the relationship between poa and poi (as far as cant is concerned) is that the reticle tracks properly and that it is level to the ground. The perpindicular/parallel relationship between the reticle and base is purely ergonomic/aesthetic.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
Knowing level is a function of the inner ear.
I live in an area of the country that has real issues with peoples with allergies. Summer and dead of winter I never check my level. Spring and fall I do. Allergies affect peoples balance and can cause vertigo in extream cases.
Knowing level is a function of the inner ear.
I live in an area of the country that has real issues with peoples with allergies. Summer and dead of winter I never check my level. Spring and fall I do. Allergies affect peoples balance and can cause vertigo in extream cases.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
Kentactic, Frank has said it to ya and his advice is solid. What he said about the extremity of your impacts is exactly what I was thinking when I first read this post.
If you dont trust the bubble level then dont use it. You have confirmed that the rifle is ok.
Trigger time should help you sort out your problem, im sure of it.
Regarding the 175 smk. It is an extremely forgiving round meaning that it should be tolerated very well by rifles chambered for a .30 cal regardless of seating depth, charge weight, primers or brass. In fact it is one of the easier rounds to get shooting well.
That being said, stick to a one or two round system at most. Theres no point going between different projectiles all the time and if you do your research well you will realise one or two will get the job done... At most you will only ever need one round for paper and one for hunting, but its easy enough to use one for both. Stick to one and master it.
Trust the 175smk. Rezero your rifle when you use it and go from there.
And one more thing, if your utilising a constant cleaning regime, you may want to hold on for at least a few rounds before you pass judgement on shifts in POI.
Kentactic, Frank has said it to ya and his advice is solid. What he said about the extremity of your impacts is exactly what I was thinking when I first read this post.
If you dont trust the bubble level then dont use it. You have confirmed that the rifle is ok.
Trigger time should help you sort out your problem, im sure of it.
Regarding the 175 smk. It is an extremely forgiving round meaning that it should be tolerated very well by rifles chambered for a .30 cal regardless of seating depth, charge weight, primers or brass. In fact it is one of the easier rounds to get shooting well.
That being said, stick to a one or two round system at most. Theres no point going between different projectiles all the time and if you do your research well you will realise one or two will get the job done... At most you will only ever need one round for paper and one for hunting, but its easy enough to use one for both. Stick to one and master it.
Trust the 175smk. Rezero your rifle when you use it and go from there.
And one more thing, if your utilising a constant cleaning regime, you may want to hold on for at least a few rounds before you pass judgement on shifts in POI.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For a whole lot of years people shot under every condition imaginable and managed to hit their target fine even setting a record or two, all without levels, so the idea you can't see it, well if you say so. I for one can clearly tell if the reticle is straight without using a horizon, or if i am in an alternate position, on a mountain side, etc.</div></div>
You're right of course, <span style="font-weight: bold">but</span> people shot Mosin-Nagant with iron sights to 1000m and were hitting their targets, back in WWI time. Not to mention all the other parameters working against the shooter back then - inferior ammunition, overall rifle quality, etc. I don't see shooters - even the greatest ones - abandoning their high-quality rifles, glass and other "crutches" simply because people did well without them for ages.
So it's not the question of whether it <span style="text-decoration: underline">can</span> be done - we all know it can. It's the question of whether the improvements in quantity and quality of "assisting devices" (a) make it easier for a shooter to make difficult shots, and (b) allow an average shooter to acquire the skills quicker by providing him feedback otherwise available only with many-many rounds downrange (and maybe not even then). <span style="font-style: italic">IMHO the answer to both questions is a resounding Yes. The downside is that it's easy to become dependent on those crutches.</span>
Back to the bubble level - I don't know how many rounds it would've taken me to figure that I'm canting the rifle a very tiny bit. The bubble tells me immediately, before I send even one round.
I know, people did fine without bubbles for ages. But heck, they did fine without toilets and hot water too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's not magic, there is no voodoo, it's just an angle, in this case, the less of one the better. A simple plumb is the best way to check, the use of $5 bubbles on the turret, base, rifles, well, okay, if you feel they work for you, and it makes you happy, sure. But heck I have mounted scopes in absolutely low brow rough shod ways and still managed to get it straight enough to hit at a 1000 yards, call it luck, call it silly, but I have never invested much time in the practice and my hit ratio is pretty good. </div></div>
I don't know what to call it - but I sure as heck won't rely on either that amount of luck or that amount of practice which in the end creates "luck". So (as I said in another post) whatever crutch can make the learning quicker and easier for me - if I can afford it I'm going to use it. <span style="font-style: italic">While in the end it indeed is just the practice - I found that these extra tools allow one "getting more for less" - accumulating more knowledge and correction in less time and in absence of a good instructor nearby.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mechanical issues happen, shooter errors account for a lot and it's pretty simple to check with a string and weight, which answers any question you have, but first you have to zero the rifle. Then simply check tracking along the weighed string.</div></div>
My limited personal observations certainly concur - shooter errors account for most.
But why should I waste money (via ammo) and time to figure after 20 shots that I'm canting when I can see it immediately by using both eyes - the dominant one on the reticle/target and the other one keeping track of the bubble? Which also helps me learn, memorize and remember what the reticle should look like in respect to the "world" when it is <span style="text-decoration: underline">really</span> straight...?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hang it if you got it, but if you hang it, try using it, and that means you have to look at it. I see lots of them hung and very few of them make the nut behind the bolt any more effective.</div></div>
Well, it surely makes this nut behind the bolt more effective.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All the gadgets like level, ballistic computers, or the latest thoughts on engaging targets at distance don't mean a thing if you slap the trigger, fail to follow through or screw up any one of the fundamentals of marksmanship.</div></div>
Of course. No questions - fundamentals must be learned and polished. There is no substitute for that (short of a Predator UAV
).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no shooting problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of the fundamentals of marksmanship and nothing else.</div></div>
A normal person can learn to run 100 miles non-stop. Some manage to complete that run in an amazingly short time. Others hope they'd never need to actually do that and are happy driving cars (or bicycles
).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For a whole lot of years people shot under every condition imaginable and managed to hit their target fine even setting a record or two, all without levels, so the idea you can't see it, well if you say so. I for one can clearly tell if the reticle is straight without using a horizon, or if i am in an alternate position, on a mountain side, etc.</div></div>
You're right of course, <span style="font-weight: bold">but</span> people shot Mosin-Nagant with iron sights to 1000m and were hitting their targets, back in WWI time. Not to mention all the other parameters working against the shooter back then - inferior ammunition, overall rifle quality, etc. I don't see shooters - even the greatest ones - abandoning their high-quality rifles, glass and other "crutches" simply because people did well without them for ages.
So it's not the question of whether it <span style="text-decoration: underline">can</span> be done - we all know it can. It's the question of whether the improvements in quantity and quality of "assisting devices" (a) make it easier for a shooter to make difficult shots, and (b) allow an average shooter to acquire the skills quicker by providing him feedback otherwise available only with many-many rounds downrange (and maybe not even then). <span style="font-style: italic">IMHO the answer to both questions is a resounding Yes. The downside is that it's easy to become dependent on those crutches.</span>
Back to the bubble level - I don't know how many rounds it would've taken me to figure that I'm canting the rifle a very tiny bit. The bubble tells me immediately, before I send even one round.
I know, people did fine without bubbles for ages. But heck, they did fine without toilets and hot water too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's not magic, there is no voodoo, it's just an angle, in this case, the less of one the better. A simple plumb is the best way to check, the use of $5 bubbles on the turret, base, rifles, well, okay, if you feel they work for you, and it makes you happy, sure. But heck I have mounted scopes in absolutely low brow rough shod ways and still managed to get it straight enough to hit at a 1000 yards, call it luck, call it silly, but I have never invested much time in the practice and my hit ratio is pretty good. </div></div>
I don't know what to call it - but I sure as heck won't rely on either that amount of luck or that amount of practice which in the end creates "luck". So (as I said in another post) whatever crutch can make the learning quicker and easier for me - if I can afford it I'm going to use it. <span style="font-style: italic">While in the end it indeed is just the practice - I found that these extra tools allow one "getting more for less" - accumulating more knowledge and correction in less time and in absence of a good instructor nearby.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mechanical issues happen, shooter errors account for a lot and it's pretty simple to check with a string and weight, which answers any question you have, but first you have to zero the rifle. Then simply check tracking along the weighed string.</div></div>
My limited personal observations certainly concur - shooter errors account for most.
But why should I waste money (via ammo) and time to figure after 20 shots that I'm canting when I can see it immediately by using both eyes - the dominant one on the reticle/target and the other one keeping track of the bubble? Which also helps me learn, memorize and remember what the reticle should look like in respect to the "world" when it is <span style="text-decoration: underline">really</span> straight...?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hang it if you got it, but if you hang it, try using it, and that means you have to look at it. I see lots of them hung and very few of them make the nut behind the bolt any more effective.</div></div>
Well, it surely makes this nut behind the bolt more effective.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All the gadgets like level, ballistic computers, or the latest thoughts on engaging targets at distance don't mean a thing if you slap the trigger, fail to follow through or screw up any one of the fundamentals of marksmanship.</div></div>
Of course. No questions - fundamentals must be learned and polished. There is no substitute for that (short of a Predator UAV
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no shooting problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of the fundamentals of marksmanship and nothing else.</div></div>
A normal person can learn to run 100 miles non-stop. Some manage to complete that run in an amazingly short time. Others hope they'd never need to actually do that and are happy driving cars (or bicycles
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
People who do nothing more than "practice" on their own and are never tested by the parameters of others are always correct in whatever they decide works best for them. I have yet to see a person who goes out by themselves to qualify something they believe to be right prove themselves wrong until they are removed from themselves.
Whether it be levels, which testing level, tracking, etc takes no amount of ammo, you can run the scope up a plumb line without ever having to fire a shot, or even some thing like MOA/ MOA which works well for the shooter alone but 8 times out of 10 falls flat in practical exercises, or even ballistic computers when pushed out beyond distances like 800m that demonstrate there is no guarantee on anything without putting your time in driving the rifle correctly. Also you can simply ask someone to stand over you and look, actually see if you are holding the rifle straight, in which case if you are not, this is a "Training Issue" and not a device deficiency, levels don't make the hits, shooters do, if you are canting the rifle to such a degree that it effects your impact, then you need training.
People convince themselves everyday that what they think they know is right and can easily prove themselves correct while alone with under their rules, but come to someone else's pond and I know it can proven beyond any shadow of a doubt the deciding factor is the shooter, and nothing else.. if you feel it works for you and improves your shooting, more power to you, but I bet it has less to do with any success gained than you think. Sure you can use a level, but you should be using it to train your eye to recognize what is in fact straight, not something you should rely on 100% of the time.
In training a kestrel is to verify my personal wind call.
In training a laser range finder is to verify my visual estimation along with my mil reading estimation
In training a ballistic computer is to help me build a personal database on my dope so I can visualize and recognize trends in my dope that has been shot at distance to confirm and record.
We constantly see people dope a trigger slap, because they consistently do it wrong they can actually adjust for it. They can hit targets fine but that doesn't make the trigger slap and lack of follow through correct simply because they can account for it mechanically.
When the shot is needed for whatever reason, I do everything I can to get that first round hit, which means drawing on my experience using all of the above, but if I slap the trigger, or hold my breathe, fail to fine tune my NPA, none of it helps one bit.. driving the rifle correctly, is all that matters, everything else is just there to support me and my back up my experience.
People who do nothing more than "practice" on their own and are never tested by the parameters of others are always correct in whatever they decide works best for them. I have yet to see a person who goes out by themselves to qualify something they believe to be right prove themselves wrong until they are removed from themselves.
Whether it be levels, which testing level, tracking, etc takes no amount of ammo, you can run the scope up a plumb line without ever having to fire a shot, or even some thing like MOA/ MOA which works well for the shooter alone but 8 times out of 10 falls flat in practical exercises, or even ballistic computers when pushed out beyond distances like 800m that demonstrate there is no guarantee on anything without putting your time in driving the rifle correctly. Also you can simply ask someone to stand over you and look, actually see if you are holding the rifle straight, in which case if you are not, this is a "Training Issue" and not a device deficiency, levels don't make the hits, shooters do, if you are canting the rifle to such a degree that it effects your impact, then you need training.
People convince themselves everyday that what they think they know is right and can easily prove themselves correct while alone with under their rules, but come to someone else's pond and I know it can proven beyond any shadow of a doubt the deciding factor is the shooter, and nothing else.. if you feel it works for you and improves your shooting, more power to you, but I bet it has less to do with any success gained than you think. Sure you can use a level, but you should be using it to train your eye to recognize what is in fact straight, not something you should rely on 100% of the time.
In training a kestrel is to verify my personal wind call.
In training a laser range finder is to verify my visual estimation along with my mil reading estimation
In training a ballistic computer is to help me build a personal database on my dope so I can visualize and recognize trends in my dope that has been shot at distance to confirm and record.
We constantly see people dope a trigger slap, because they consistently do it wrong they can actually adjust for it. They can hit targets fine but that doesn't make the trigger slap and lack of follow through correct simply because they can account for it mechanically.
When the shot is needed for whatever reason, I do everything I can to get that first round hit, which means drawing on my experience using all of the above, but if I slap the trigger, or hold my breathe, fail to fine tune my NPA, none of it helps one bit.. driving the rifle correctly, is all that matters, everything else is just there to support me and my back up my experience.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People who do nothing more than "practice" on their own and are never tested by the parameters of others are always correct in whatever they decide works best for them. I have yet to see a person who goes out by themselves to qualify something they believe to be right prove themselves wrong until they are removed from themselves.</div></div>
Absolutely. In most every activity I can think of a person (usually) needs a guide - an instructor, a teacher - at least to observe and tell "what you're doing doesn't look right".
Some of us don't have "enough" access to such a guide or instructor. So we're trying to do what we can to compensate - including bouncing our questions and errors off other folks here at SH, using gadgets, etc...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also you can simply ask someone to stand over you and look, actually see if you are holding the rifle straight, in which case if you are not, this is a "Training Issue" and not a device deficiency, levels don't make the hits, shooters do, if you are canting the rifle to such a degree that it effects your impact, then you need training.</div></div>
If there is someone... But yes I concur - most of what I'm dealing with belongs to the "Training issues" (as my gadgets tell me
). I've seen "equipment malfunctions" too - but that doesn't detract from the fact that this shooter needs more training.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure you can use a level, but you should be using it to train your eye to recognize what is in fact straight, not something you should rely on 100% of the time...
In training a kestrel is to verify my personal wind call...</div></div>
I'm on the same page, 100%.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People who do nothing more than "practice" on their own and are never tested by the parameters of others are always correct in whatever they decide works best for them. I have yet to see a person who goes out by themselves to qualify something they believe to be right prove themselves wrong until they are removed from themselves.</div></div>
Absolutely. In most every activity I can think of a person (usually) needs a guide - an instructor, a teacher - at least to observe and tell "what you're doing doesn't look right".
Some of us don't have "enough" access to such a guide or instructor. So we're trying to do what we can to compensate - including bouncing our questions and errors off other folks here at SH, using gadgets, etc...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also you can simply ask someone to stand over you and look, actually see if you are holding the rifle straight, in which case if you are not, this is a "Training Issue" and not a device deficiency, levels don't make the hits, shooters do, if you are canting the rifle to such a degree that it effects your impact, then you need training.</div></div>
If there is someone... But yes I concur - most of what I'm dealing with belongs to the "Training issues" (as my gadgets tell me
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure you can use a level, but you should be using it to train your eye to recognize what is in fact straight, not something you should rely on 100% of the time...
In training a kestrel is to verify my personal wind call...</div></div>
I'm on the same page, 100%.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I bet the bubble level industry is fuming right now.
</div></div>
Nah the mall ninja fan club will keep that boat floating for decades mate dont you worry
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I bet the bubble level industry is fuming right now.
Nah the mall ninja fan club will keep that boat floating for decades mate dont you worry
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
If a carpenter come to work on my house and could not "Eyeball" a 8' board... having to revert back to the archaic practice of using a Level... I would run his ass off !
Wait..What ? If they can't do that, how do we claim to "Eyeball" a 3" wide Rifle ?
If a carpenter come to work on my house and could not "Eyeball" a 8' board... having to revert back to the archaic practice of using a Level... I would run his ass off !
Wait..What ? If they can't do that, how do we claim to "Eyeball" a 3" wide Rifle ?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
I am surprised how many guys are saying cant does not matter and you don't need a level, the guys saying this haven't done much long range shooting in the field.
if you run turrets on your scope, you BETTER make sure you are using a level and the reticle is level. if you even have 1 degree of cant its going to make a difference it will also cause the gun to shoot low and to one direction. I use a pop up level on my long range gun and it is surprising how much off level the crosshairs are before I deploy the level. terrain is very deceiving. trying to eyeball the level of the gun in the field even on a coyote at 500 yards normally means I miss, if I deploy the level by flipping it up and leveling the gun before shooting, it means I make the shot. its really that big of a deal.
at 100 yards its not going to be, but then again if you are only shooting 100 yards do you really need that nightforce and GAP rifle??
someone posted a link of the EXD device, I also use this, one thing I might add is when you look through the scope you can see through the slot on it, so you can level the gun and level the CROSSHAIRS with the device on the scope.
I am surprised how many guys are saying cant does not matter and you don't need a level, the guys saying this haven't done much long range shooting in the field.
if you run turrets on your scope, you BETTER make sure you are using a level and the reticle is level. if you even have 1 degree of cant its going to make a difference it will also cause the gun to shoot low and to one direction. I use a pop up level on my long range gun and it is surprising how much off level the crosshairs are before I deploy the level. terrain is very deceiving. trying to eyeball the level of the gun in the field even on a coyote at 500 yards normally means I miss, if I deploy the level by flipping it up and leveling the gun before shooting, it means I make the shot. its really that big of a deal.
at 100 yards its not going to be, but then again if you are only shooting 100 yards do you really need that nightforce and GAP rifle??
someone posted a link of the EXD device, I also use this, one thing I might add is when you look through the scope you can see through the slot on it, so you can level the gun and level the CROSSHAIRS with the device on the scope.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hidesertcowboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised how many guys are saying cant does not matter and you don't need a level, the guys saying this haven't done much long range shooting in the field.
if you run turrets on your scope, you BETTER make sure you are using a level and the reticle is level. if you even have 1 degree of cant its going to make a difference it will also cause the gun to shoot low and to one direction. I use a pop up level on my long range gun and it is surprising how much off level the crosshairs are before I deploy the level. terrain is very deceiving. trying to eyeball the level of the gun in the field even on a coyote at 500 yards normally means I miss, if I deploy the level by flipping it up and leveling the gun before shooting, it means I make the shot. its really that big of a deal.
at 100 yards its not going to be, but then again if you are only shooting 100 yards do you really need that nightforce and GAP rifle?? </div></div>
Please spare us... not much shooting in the field... ya we never do that.
1 degree wow you are good to resolve that and see it down range in the field. The fact you can tell that with your low budget level, not to mention that many will "try" and eye ball the level then before the shot they subconsciously move the rifle any ways is feat in itself.
$6 dollar levels must be more amazing than I thought, especially spanning that 1" of space.
Genius.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hidesertcowboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised how many guys are saying cant does not matter and you don't need a level, the guys saying this haven't done much long range shooting in the field.
if you run turrets on your scope, you BETTER make sure you are using a level and the reticle is level. if you even have 1 degree of cant its going to make a difference it will also cause the gun to shoot low and to one direction. I use a pop up level on my long range gun and it is surprising how much off level the crosshairs are before I deploy the level. terrain is very deceiving. trying to eyeball the level of the gun in the field even on a coyote at 500 yards normally means I miss, if I deploy the level by flipping it up and leveling the gun before shooting, it means I make the shot. its really that big of a deal.
at 100 yards its not going to be, but then again if you are only shooting 100 yards do you really need that nightforce and GAP rifle?? </div></div>
Please spare us... not much shooting in the field... ya we never do that.
1 degree wow you are good to resolve that and see it down range in the field. The fact you can tell that with your low budget level, not to mention that many will "try" and eye ball the level then before the shot they subconsciously move the rifle any ways is feat in itself.
$6 dollar levels must be more amazing than I thought, especially spanning that 1" of space.
Genius.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
LOL This thread keeps getting better and better.
Hey Cowboy, here I am shooting to 2000 yards with no level. Guess I shouldn't have been hitting should I? Spare me your BS.
LOL This thread keeps getting better and better.
Hey Cowboy, here I am shooting to 2000 yards with no level. Guess I shouldn't have been hitting should I? Spare me your BS.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<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: hidesertcowboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised how many guys are saying cant does not matter and you don't need a level, the guys saying this haven't done much long range shooting in the field.
if you run turrets on your scope, you BETTER make sure you are using a level and the reticle is level. if you even have 1 degree of cant its going to make a difference it will also cause the gun to shoot low and to one direction. I use a pop up level on my long range gun and it is surprising how much off level the crosshairs are before I deploy the level. terrain is very deceiving. trying to eyeball the level of the gun in the field even on a coyote at 500 yards normally means I miss, if I deploy the level by flipping it up and leveling the gun before shooting, it means I make the shot. its really that big of a deal.
at 100 yards its not going to be, but then again if you are only shooting 100 yards do you really need that nightforce and GAP rifle?? </div></div>
Please spare us... not much shooting in the field... ya we never do that.
1 degree wow you are good to resolve that and see it down range in the field. The fact you can tell that with your low budget level, not to mention that many will "try" and eye ball the level then before the shot they subconsciously move the rifle any ways is feat in itself.
$6 dollar levels must be more amazing than I thought, especially spanning that 1" of space.
Genius. </div></div>
how do you know I am using a $6 level?? my level is such that I can see it when I am getting ready to shoot, and I can tell you almost everytime without fail when I lay down to make a shot I have to make a substantial correction to what I think looked level.
rob, in the field conditions I shoot in, ummmm like hills and terrain, laying out a shooting blanket is not an option nor is shooting on level ground, try hitting a coyote at 800 yards while set up on the side of a hill, then tell me you don't need a level you dumbass.
heck you can't even carry that heavy gun to the hill, without alerting the entire county you are coming and sounding like a heard of wounded water buffalos walking in.
a level is not needed if you don't use your gun in the field and shoot in the sanitary conditions of a range or flat ground. here is an article on scope set up
http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/reticle-perpendicularity.php
some of the attitudes around here astound me with their arm chair expertise, tell everyone they don't need a level on their scope when they shoot, because low light and rob, are sure its not needed, and think we are all dipshits.
<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: hidesertcowboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised how many guys are saying cant does not matter and you don't need a level, the guys saying this haven't done much long range shooting in the field.
if you run turrets on your scope, you BETTER make sure you are using a level and the reticle is level. if you even have 1 degree of cant its going to make a difference it will also cause the gun to shoot low and to one direction. I use a pop up level on my long range gun and it is surprising how much off level the crosshairs are before I deploy the level. terrain is very deceiving. trying to eyeball the level of the gun in the field even on a coyote at 500 yards normally means I miss, if I deploy the level by flipping it up and leveling the gun before shooting, it means I make the shot. its really that big of a deal.
at 100 yards its not going to be, but then again if you are only shooting 100 yards do you really need that nightforce and GAP rifle?? </div></div>
Please spare us... not much shooting in the field... ya we never do that.
1 degree wow you are good to resolve that and see it down range in the field. The fact you can tell that with your low budget level, not to mention that many will "try" and eye ball the level then before the shot they subconsciously move the rifle any ways is feat in itself.
$6 dollar levels must be more amazing than I thought, especially spanning that 1" of space.
Genius. </div></div>
how do you know I am using a $6 level?? my level is such that I can see it when I am getting ready to shoot, and I can tell you almost everytime without fail when I lay down to make a shot I have to make a substantial correction to what I think looked level.
rob, in the field conditions I shoot in, ummmm like hills and terrain, laying out a shooting blanket is not an option nor is shooting on level ground, try hitting a coyote at 800 yards while set up on the side of a hill, then tell me you don't need a level you dumbass.
heck you can't even carry that heavy gun to the hill, without alerting the entire county you are coming and sounding like a heard of wounded water buffalos walking in.
a level is not needed if you don't use your gun in the field and shoot in the sanitary conditions of a range or flat ground. here is an article on scope set up
http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/reticle-perpendicularity.php
some of the attitudes around here astound me with their arm chair expertise, tell everyone they don't need a level on their scope when they shoot, because low light and rob, are sure its not needed, and think we are all dipshits.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
36 post wonders crack me up...
Field shooting never heard of it, and shooting coyotes must make you an expert... never shot one of those things are they furry ?
Before it was 500 yards and your subtending 1 degree with your level, which how much do you think a 1" bubble level costs, regardless of what the mark up is ?
So let's see if we use JBM and put in some parameters, heck we can even double your cant to 2 degrees we have an offset of .1 MOA at 500 yards... .1, you sir are a genius that you can resolve that type of accuracy.
At 3 degrees which is 3x your claimed accuracy, we have a .2 MOA adjustment or .1 Mils at 800 yards... wow, you're a 1/4 MOA Field shooter -- sounds like i need a lesson from you, please provide your fee schedule because I want to learn your technique for subtending that kind of accuracy. And give me idea of which super precise level you using ?
36 post wonders crack me up...
Field shooting never heard of it, and shooting coyotes must make you an expert... never shot one of those things are they furry ?
Before it was 500 yards and your subtending 1 degree with your level, which how much do you think a 1" bubble level costs, regardless of what the mark up is ?
So let's see if we use JBM and put in some parameters, heck we can even double your cant to 2 degrees we have an offset of .1 MOA at 500 yards... .1, you sir are a genius that you can resolve that type of accuracy.
At 3 degrees which is 3x your claimed accuracy, we have a .2 MOA adjustment or .1 Mils at 800 yards... wow, you're a 1/4 MOA Field shooter -- sounds like i need a lesson from you, please provide your fee schedule because I want to learn your technique for subtending that kind of accuracy. And give me idea of which super precise level you using ?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">36 post wonders crack me up...
</div></div>
so your idea of an expert is post count?? oh that explains everything I needed to know about you. your talking about subtension I am talking about reticle cant both when the scope is mounted and in use in the field.
if your too dumb to understand that not mounting a scope properly and having your scope add windage as your adjust elevation I don't know what to tell you. having your gun off level in the field is the same as if you failed to set up your scope right at the time of mounting.
so go ahead just continue to slap on your scope with no regard to level and just eye ball it. I suppose US optics installs internal levels in their scopes for no reason what so ever, everyone that has a level on their scope tube or pic rail on their gun is an idiot oh yeah they may even have a less post count than I do, that makes them more of an idiot. you are really not worth arguing with.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">36 post wonders crack me up...
</div></div>
so your idea of an expert is post count?? oh that explains everything I needed to know about you. your talking about subtension I am talking about reticle cant both when the scope is mounted and in use in the field.
if your too dumb to understand that not mounting a scope properly and having your scope add windage as your adjust elevation I don't know what to tell you. having your gun off level in the field is the same as if you failed to set up your scope right at the time of mounting.
so go ahead just continue to slap on your scope with no regard to level and just eye ball it. I suppose US optics installs internal levels in their scopes for no reason what so ever, everyone that has a level on their scope tube or pic rail on their gun is an idiot oh yeah they may even have a less post count than I do, that makes them more of an idiot. you are really not worth arguing with.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
There once was a shooter named Doe
who insisted that everyone know.
When shooting in a field of hay
your level must be used all day.
For not the weapon be level
you no strike the coyote in the bellow.
A degree of cant any day
allows the coyote to get away.
I submit, spin drift is more problematic than cant.
There once was a shooter named Doe
who insisted that everyone know.
When shooting in a field of hay
your level must be used all day.
For not the weapon be level
you no strike the coyote in the bellow.
A degree of cant any day
allows the coyote to get away.
I submit, spin drift is more problematic than cant.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
Dude,
You have no clue, I think you need to read more and post stupid shit less...
Apparently you missed a lot, a whole lot.
So how about that rate schedule so you can give me a class on mounting scopes, shooting straight and whacking furry creatures cause clearly I missed your awesome boat.
Dude,
You have no clue, I think you need to read more and post stupid shit less...
Apparently you missed a lot, a whole lot.
So how about that rate schedule so you can give me a class on mounting scopes, shooting straight and whacking furry creatures cause clearly I missed your awesome boat.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hidesertcowboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">36 post wonders crack me up...
</div></div>
so your idea of an expert is post count?? oh that explains everything I needed to know about you. your talking about subtension I am talking about reticle cant both when the scope is mounted and in use in the field.
if your too dumb to understand that not mounting a scope properly and having your scope add windage as your adjust elevation I don't know what to tell you. having your gun off level in the field is the same as if you failed to set up your scope right at the time of mounting.
so go ahead just continue to slap on your scope with no regard to level and just eye ball it. I suppose US optics installs internal levels in their scopes for no reason what so ever, everyone that has a level on their scope tube or pic rail on their gun is an idiot oh yeah they may even have a less post count than I do, that makes them more of an idiot. you are really not worth arguing with. </div></div>
hidesertcowboy,
In every battle, intel is key. Know the enemy you take on and you have a upper hand in that fight.
You my friend have no clue to whom you picked this fight with
Your post count tells me that you're not too familiar with this site. My advise is: Do some check up on "Lowlight" before your next post
Jo
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hidesertcowboy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">36 post wonders crack me up...
</div></div>
so your idea of an expert is post count?? oh that explains everything I needed to know about you. your talking about subtension I am talking about reticle cant both when the scope is mounted and in use in the field.
if your too dumb to understand that not mounting a scope properly and having your scope add windage as your adjust elevation I don't know what to tell you. having your gun off level in the field is the same as if you failed to set up your scope right at the time of mounting.
so go ahead just continue to slap on your scope with no regard to level and just eye ball it. I suppose US optics installs internal levels in their scopes for no reason what so ever, everyone that has a level on their scope tube or pic rail on their gun is an idiot oh yeah they may even have a less post count than I do, that makes them more of an idiot. you are really not worth arguing with. </div></div>
hidesertcowboy,
In every battle, intel is key. Know the enemy you take on and you have a upper hand in that fight.
You my friend have no clue to whom you picked this fight with
Your post count tells me that you're not too familiar with this site. My advise is: Do some check up on "Lowlight" before your next post
Jo
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
hidesertcowboy, you're too funny! Keep up the entertaining posts, reviewing the last 2 weeks of your work and then reviewing your thoughts in this thread has provided me with quite the laugh.
Oh, and don't let that armchair expert Lowlight get you down, he's just a hater!! Rob01 too, they are both full of BS they read in Ultimate Sniper.
hidesertcowboy, you're too funny! Keep up the entertaining posts, reviewing the last 2 weeks of your work and then reviewing your thoughts in this thread has provided me with quite the laugh.
Oh, and don't let that armchair expert Lowlight get you down, he's just a hater!! Rob01 too, they are both full of BS they read in Ultimate Sniper.
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
LOL Cowboy you obviously think you know everything or think you do. So is this 1000 yard shot angle enough for you?
Or this
I have done alot like that without a bubble level on my rifle. You have no idea where I have shot or how but you think you do so keep thinking that. The anonymity of the internet is awesome isn't it? Some of us are actually known by people off the net and they have seen us shoot. Not you though tough guy. So dumb ass how about you shut up and read more or you might find your stay here very short.
LOL Cowboy you obviously think you know everything or think you do. So is this 1000 yard shot angle enough for you?
Or this
I have done alot like that without a bubble level on my rifle. You have no idea where I have shot or how but you think you do so keep thinking that. The anonymity of the internet is awesome isn't it? Some of us are actually known by people off the net and they have seen us shoot. Not you though tough guy. So dumb ass how about you shut up and read more or you might find your stay here very short.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dude,
You have no clue, I think you need to read more and post stupid shit less...
Apparently you missed a lot, a whole lot.
So how about that rate schedule so you can give me a class on mounting scopes, shooting straight and whacking furry creatures cause clearly I missed your awesome boat. </div></div>
ok guys everyone that shoots with a level on their gun is an idiot is that what I am hearing????
low light, reading a few of your past posts you really are the resident board know it all, and I will prove the value of leveling your reticle and keeping it level with guess what one of your OWN video reviews I just watched!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGObPx8VxN4&feature=player_embedded
ok notice that as you go up in scope travel, notice how the groups get lower and move to the left, when you bring them back to zero the groups are actually more to the right, this is probably caused by reticle cant either in how you are holding the gun or how the scope is mounted, you yourself claim this is no big deal, from top to bottom the distance is pushing 1 moa left and 1 moa low, at 1000 yards thats a miss on the targets I shoot at, and probably a miss beyond 600 yards. I will admit that in a low powered scope on an AR that in this case the amount of error is not going to matter, but on a long range gun it sure as hell will.
a canted reticle causes just the symptoms you found in your review, low and one direction or the other if you marked and twisted the scope in the rings 1 degree to the left and retested the scope I bet your groups would be spot on. but then again I am an idiot because I use a scope level, and level my reticles so my scope travel is strait up and down. the scary thing is the misinformation you are spreading.
there you go, proven wrong with your own test, check mate bitch. go relearn half the stuff you thought you knew, reading darrel hollands correct way to mount a scope would be a big help
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dude,
You have no clue, I think you need to read more and post stupid shit less...
Apparently you missed a lot, a whole lot.
So how about that rate schedule so you can give me a class on mounting scopes, shooting straight and whacking furry creatures cause clearly I missed your awesome boat. </div></div>
ok guys everyone that shoots with a level on their gun is an idiot is that what I am hearing????
low light, reading a few of your past posts you really are the resident board know it all, and I will prove the value of leveling your reticle and keeping it level with guess what one of your OWN video reviews I just watched!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGObPx8VxN4&feature=player_embedded
ok notice that as you go up in scope travel, notice how the groups get lower and move to the left, when you bring them back to zero the groups are actually more to the right, this is probably caused by reticle cant either in how you are holding the gun or how the scope is mounted, you yourself claim this is no big deal, from top to bottom the distance is pushing 1 moa left and 1 moa low, at 1000 yards thats a miss on the targets I shoot at, and probably a miss beyond 600 yards. I will admit that in a low powered scope on an AR that in this case the amount of error is not going to matter, but on a long range gun it sure as hell will.
a canted reticle causes just the symptoms you found in your review, low and one direction or the other if you marked and twisted the scope in the rings 1 degree to the left and retested the scope I bet your groups would be spot on. but then again I am an idiot because I use a scope level, and level my reticles so my scope travel is strait up and down. the scary thing is the misinformation you are spreading.
there you go, proven wrong with your own test, check mate bitch. go relearn half the stuff you thought you knew, reading darrel hollands correct way to mount a scope would be a big help
Re: Trust the level or the eye?
Ha, it was probably because I maxed out the elevation on a 4X scope designed for a 5.56 which isn't going to 1000 yards to begin with.
it happened after I went beyond the listed max elevation for the scope.
Ha, it was probably because I maxed out the elevation on a 4X scope designed for a 5.56 which isn't going to 1000 yards to begin with.
it happened after I went beyond the listed max elevation for the scope.
