• Win an RIX Storm S3 Thermal Imaging Scope!

    To enter, all you need to do is add an image of yourself at the range below! Subscribers get more entries, check out the plans below for a better chance of winning!

    Join the contest Subscribe

Why do people still mount scopes the way they do?

#102
Alpine 338 said:
Anytime you add slope to a rail or mount, you no longer have the bore of the rifle, and the scope in parallel. If you induce cant to the equation, then you have the bullets flight path travelling at an angle (azimuth plane) away from your target.
Click to expand...
The optical axis and the bore are never parallel regardless of how you mount the scope. They only would be if you had a projectile that wasn't affected by gravity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carbonbased, JohnCarter17, lash and 2 others
#103
Alpine 338 said:
Anytime you add slope to a rail or mount, you no longer have the bore of the rifle, and the scope in parallel. If you induce cant to the equation, then you have the bullets flight path travelling at an angle (azimuth plane) away from your target.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine how adding vertical offset would change anything in this scenario as long as the reticle is level. Maybe I’m wrong but I can’t see it. @Rocketmandb what say you?
 
#105
lash said:
Well gorsh, let’s see now. Earlier in the week I took my NIB LRHS2 down to the range where a couple good friends shoot, so they and I could compare it with the LRHSi that was already mounted on my heavy Valkyrie AR.

When it was time to swap optics, I placed the rifle on a bench, held up by a bag and bipod. Removed the scope ring caps, took out the old scope, put the new scope in, replaced the ring caps and got prone to adjust eye position and reticle level according to being behind the rifle. With all of that highly technical stuff out of the way, I tightened the ring screws and proceeded to set zero.

I’m pretty sure I could have done it correctly if I had watched half a dozen YouTube how to videos and bought some high end fixtures, but I’m just funny like that.
Click to expand...

It looked way crooked to me. 🤣🤣

Good thing the turrets are reliable. 😉
 
  • Haha
Reactions: lash
#106
Charger442 said:
alpine's point is you now have a scope rail that cants in two directions, instead of in the vertical plane only.
Click to expand...
But if the reticle is level any dialed elevation is still true. You’re still starting from zero whether the scope has elevation offset or not..... I think. I’ll let one of our resident engineers answer.
 
#109
Precision Underground said:
But if the reticle is level any dialed elevation is still true. You’re still starting from zero whether the scope has elevation offset or not..... I think. I’ll let one of our resident engineers answer.
Click to expand...

as long as you compensate for it.

with your reticle level to the ground, with rifle canted and 20 moa rail, has your reticle cross hairs being pulled down toward the bore of the rifle, which is then in both the y and x axis of the real world, not JUST in the Y axis if it was directly over centerline of the bore.

in reality, you scope then has a certain MOA of cant in the vertical axis and a certain amount in the X axis. if you zero that way, i think there would be an effect on your windage call and your elevation dialing, but im not going to sit down to do the math and figure it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23
#111
Schütze said:
there are engineers in this threat?
Click to expand...
We have several engineers on the site. The ones who constantly remind you they are engineers you likely shouldn’t listen to. The ones who don’t are usually right lol
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: JohnCarter17, Mike Casselton, Tokay444 and 2 others
#112
Charger442 said:
as long as you compensate for it.

with your reticle level to the ground, with rifle canted and 20 moa rail, has your reticle cross hairs being pulled down toward the bore of the rifle, which is then in both the y and x axis of the real world, not JUST in the Y axis if it was directly over centerline of the bore.

in reality, you scope then has a certain MOA of cant in the vertical axis and a certain amount in the X axis. if you zero that way, i think there would be an effect on your windage call and your elevation dialing, but im not going to sit down to do the math and figure it out.
Click to expand...
But the error is still the same as illustrated by Frank above. It’s extremely negligible. Large errors happen when the reticle is not level and you dial seven mills up. In that case you’re dialing up and over depending on how much the reticle is canted. The scope being slightly off the bore axis has been calculated and is negligible. If you were shooting bench rest you may want to go down that rabbit hole. For tactical shooting a comfortable, consistent hold on the rifle is much more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spife7980, lash and Schütze
#113
I learned a long time ago to never ever argue with an engineer lol, actually the truth. It was in my time working in professional racing ( cars).
We did win numerous times anyway working against their advice. And then Monday morning came the phone call, how did you do it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
#115
Precision Underground said:
But the error is still the same as illustrated by Frank above. It’s extremely negligible. Large errors happen when the reticle is not level and you dial seven mills up. In that case you’re dialing up and over depending on how much the reticle is canted. The scope being slightly off the bore axis has been calculated and is negligible. If you were shooting bench rest you may want to go down that rabbit hole. For tactical shooting a comfortable, consistent hold on the rifle is much more important.
Click to expand...

thats right, you should still be able to push through the error. but we're on a site where people are lapping the front of their upper receivers on gas guns chasing accuracy. lets not pretend we dont (as a group) care about fractions of an inch. :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnCarter17
#116
Charger442 said:
thats right, you should still be able to push through the error. but we're on a site where people are lapping the front of their upper receivers on gas guns chasing accuracy. lets not pretend we dont (as a group) care about fractions of an inch. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Exactly. That was the whole point of me posting here; to convey that worrying about a level rifle to save .66” at 1000 yards is futile. Guys are trying to set up a rifle and then mold themselves to it rather than setting themselves up and molding the rifle to their body. The latter leads to consistency that will erase/offset well more than .66” @ 1000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate and lash
#117
Schütze said:
I learned a long time ago to never ever argue with an engineer lol, actually the truth. It was in my time working in professional racing ( cars).
We did win numerous times anyway working against their advice. And then Monday morning came the phone call, how did you do it?
Click to expand...
Lol, classic engineer(no offense to some engineers here).
 
#119
Charger442 said:
as long as you compensate for it.

with your reticle level to the ground, with rifle canted and 20 moa rail, has your reticle cross hairs being pulled down toward the bore of the rifle, which is then in both the y and x axis of the real world, not JUST in the Y axis if it was directly over centerline of the bore.

in reality, you scope then has a certain MOA of cant in the vertical axis and a certain amount in the X axis. if you zero that way, i think there would be an effect on your windage call and your elevation dialing, but im not going to sit down to do the math and figure it out.
Click to expand...
The reticle is "canted" fore and aft even without a canted scope mount. How the fuck do you think a rifle is zeroed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeM, spife7980, Schütze and 1 other person
#121
Alpine 338 said:
Yeah, but put a 20-moa rail or mount on the rifle, and the above goes out the window.
Click to expand...

Alpine 338 said:
Anytime you add slope to a rail or mount, you no longer have the bore of the rifle, and the scope in parallel. If you induce cant to the equation, then you have the bullets flight path travelling at an angle (azimuth plane) away from your target.
Click to expand...
Do the math and show us how wrong we are, or actually how much it doesn’t matter. Most people want to argue with the canted rifle canted reticle even when you show them the math. I’d bet that most of you didn’t actually read the article that Frank wrote and Snipe posted. Too complicated.

It’s easier just to believe what you want to believe.

But I’m serious, show us the math or you’re just talking out your ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444
#123
As alluded to earlier, when mounting scopes, I used to FUCKING SWEAT THE DETAILS. Twiddle this, twaddle that, FUCK I DIDN'T DEGREASE MY BALLS! Etc etc etc etc etc

After I Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love The Bomb I mounted scopes like I used to mount girlfriends. Fast, rough, hard. Spanking was involved.

Wives, well…thing change. Not always for the better. But I always seem to have more scopes to “mount.”

(I’m grossing myself out here)

1627065592031.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: stefan73 and lash
#124
308pirate said:
I only shoot out to 799 yards
Click to expand...
Must be shooting a .308 as we all know they drop out of the sky at 800 yards.

This thread is great. About as fun as the thread with the guys loading their .22s down with tons of weights to get that perfect balance on a pin point in front of the magwell, that we all know is completely needed to hit anything :rolleyes:, and ending with 20+ pound .22s. LOL
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: JohnCarter17, JeffLebowski, Badjujuu and 6 others
#125
Rob01 said:
Must be shooting a .308 as we all know they drop out of the sky at 800 yards.

This thread is great. About as fun as the thread with the guys loading their .22s down with tons of weights to get that perfect balance on a pin point in front of the magwell, that we all know is completely needed to hit anything :rolleyes:, and ending with 20+ pound .22s. LOL
Click to expand...
The funny thing is. The people weighing down their guns, are the same people saying that the gen 2 razor is too heavy.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: JohnCarter17, 308pirate, Superjet and 3 others
#126
lash said:
Do the math and show us how wrong we are, or actually how much it doesn’t matter. Most people want to argue with the canted rifle canted reticle even when you show them the math. I’d bet that most of you didn’t actually read the article that Frank wrote and Snipe posted. Too complicated.

It’s easier just to believe what you want to believe.

But I’m serious, show us the math or you’re just talking out your ass.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'll help you get started with the math...

I will use real world examples;

Caliber: 338LM, 375CT, etc, something capable past 2000-yards.

My 338LM rifle: 20-moa rail, 25-moa scope mount, with a total of 45-moa which allows full use of a S&B 5-25 elevation travel.

1-moa is 1.047" at 100-yards.
1-moa is 20.94" at 2000-yards.
45-moa is 942.3" at 2000-yards.

942" is a big distance in the ELR realm of things, unless that's the size of the target you're shooting at., Then you might get lucky and hit it being that big with all the induced error you want to ignore. Granted, you won't have the full 942" error unless you cant you're rifle at 90-deg. But some people think a 15-deg cant is acceptable.

That's a start, I'll let you clowns continue with the math class based on you acceptable rifle cant as I don't have time to get into Sin, angle errors, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: want2ride
#127
Alpine 338 said:
Ok, I'll help you get started with the math...

I will use real world examples;

Caliber: 338LM, 375CT, etc, something capable past 2000-yards.

My 338LM rifle: 20-moa rail, 25-moa scope mount, with a total of 45-moa which allows full use of a S&B 5-25 elevation travel.

1-moa is 1.047" at 100-yards.
1-moa is 20.94" at 2000-yards.
45-moa is 942.3" at 2000-yards.

942" is a big distance in the ELR realm of things, unless that's the size of the target you're shooting at., Then you might get lucky and hit it being that big with all the induced error you want to ignore.

That's a start, I'll let you clowns continue with the math class as I don't have time to get into Sin, angle errors, etc.
Click to expand...
Lolol! You’re a funny guy. That wasn’t math genius. I didn’t say that I wanted to do the math, I called you out and said that your full of hogwash unless you do that math to show us otherwise. Those were just drops from your ballistic app. I hope that didn’t stress you out to much or take too much of your time.

Ive got time…I’ll wait.

ETA: oh yeah. You’re changing your story too. You originally said that adding a standard 20moa rail would throw this all for a loop. Funny that real world applications that people do every damn day don’t bear out your unsupported theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnCarter17
#128
lash said:
Lolol! You’re a funny guy. That wasn’t math genius. I didn’t say that I wanted to do the math, I called you out and said that your full of hogwash unless you do that math to show us otherwise. Those were just drops from your ballistic app. I hope that didn’t stress you out to much or take too much of your time.

Ive got time…I’ll wait.

ETA: oh yeah. You’re changing your story too. You originally said that adding a standard 20moa rail would throw this all for a loop. Funny that in real world applications that people do every damn day don’t bear out your unsupported theory.
Click to expand...

No, that was my smart phone calculator as everyone knows 1-moa is 1.047" at 100-yards. Simple math (multiplication).

If I have time later, I'll do the rest of the equation, maybe Bryan Litz will step in and solve the simple math problem for you before I return.
 
#131
tadawson said:
Hmmm . . . seems like a gun vice (or other good rest) with the gun in it and a level on the pic rail gets you to exactly the same place as the first overpriced device, and you will know it fits correctly as well . . . . You can then level to a plumb nob (or whatever) or use something like a Wheeler scope level to true it to the rail.

???
Click to expand...
this isnt exactly the most fiscally responsible hobby haha. People spending hundreds, if not thousands for perceived advantages they may never realize.
 
#133
carbonbased said:
As alluded to earlier, when mounting scopes, I used to FUCKING SWEAT THE DETAILS. Twiddle this, twaddle that, FUCK I DIDN'T DEGREASE MY BALLS! Etc etc etc etc etc

After I Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love The Bomb I mounted scopes like I used to mount girlfriends. Fast, rough, hard. Spanking was involved.

Wives, well…thing change. Not always for the better. But I always seem to have more scopes to “mount.”

(I’m grossing myself out here)

View attachment 7673380
Click to expand...
Best thing for de-greasing your balls is 90% IPA works like a charm.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: JohnCarter17, 308pirate, lash and 1 other person
#136
Alpine 338 said:
I don't have time to get into Sin, angle errors, etc.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling you don't even know how to apply any of this quoted portion to show a 20moa rail will screw up the previously given 1000 yard example. How do I know? Because when asked to prove it with math, you started rambling about a 338LM's drop chart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnCarter17 and lash
#138
EotS said:
As it would pertain to 1pc mounts specifically.



Just mounting it in the ring setup, off of the gun, then put the entire assembly on the pic rail?

Seems like you're fighting 2 battles trying to level the gun and the scope.

Why isn't it common practice to put the ring/mount setup on a known, flat surface then just install and level the scope in the mount/ring setup? Short of some major mfg defects, the pic rail on the gun will be absurdly flat.
Click to expand...

Because the pic rail on your rifle may not be flat/straight. Mounting your scope and rings on the rifle helps alleviate stresses placed on the scope.
 
#140
Precision Underground said:
I can’t imagine how adding vertical offset would change anything in this scenario as long as the reticle is level. Maybe I’m wrong but I can’t see it. @Rocketmandb what say you?
Click to expand...

My head hurts after reading this thread. However, I will say that anyone who thinks that adding a sloped mount does anything to the equation doesn't understand what's happening inside a scope when you dial for elevation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate, SRPowah, Hesperidins and 4 others
#146
buggz said:
Just an unnecessary super OCD thought, all the latest cameras I have purchased have electronic pitch and yaw indicators.
Phones and iPad have these as well as accelerometers.
Shrug, just put them into scopes, walla, super sensitive over the top expensive unnecessary diagnostics that measures your breathing??
Click to expand...
The Steiner M7Xi 4-28x56 with ifs has this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ironpony52
Which Oil Do You Use to Wet Mount Scopes
Replies
22
Views
1K
Mark23
Mark23
M
Wet Mounting Scope Mounts - Where It All Started
Replies
211
Views
8K
st1650
S
rustyinbend
Leveling my scopes
Replies
28
Views
1K
Mike Casselton
Mike Casselton
P
Continuous scope ring slippage
Replies
37
Views
1K
JerkyFreak
JerkyFreak
mobo215
Bubble Levels Suck
Replies
48
Views
2K
Taylorbok
Taylorbok
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts