Realizing that the anti-cant level might a difference maker.
Opinions?
Opinions?
- Thread starter atm21
- Start date
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick.
It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick. </div></div>
interesting, have not heard that, in an area void of any 'plumb' frame of reference and in unusual/difficult shooting position, how do you insure that you're not canting the rifle? just asking
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick. </div></div>
interesting, have not heard that, in an area void of any 'plumb' frame of reference and in unusual/difficult shooting position, how do you insure that you're not canting the rifle? just asking
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Fair question.
You'll find that even in the most awkward position the rifle will feel in "balance". Your eye will get accustomed to the level of the reticle. You'll learn to gauge some frame of reference, even if your target is skewed, shooting at a sloping hill, etc. But even so, try this at home. If you put it on an unstable surface, i.e. the back of a chair, try and see if you can "recognize" the reticle being level. I'm willing to bet it will.
Fair question.
You'll find that even in the most awkward position the rifle will feel in "balance". Your eye will get accustomed to the level of the reticle. You'll learn to gauge some frame of reference, even if your target is skewed, shooting at a sloping hill, etc. But even so, try this at home. If you put it on an unstable surface, i.e. the back of a chair, try and see if you can "recognize" the reticle being level. I'm willing to bet it will.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I've owned units from Horus Vision & USO...
Both were off by more than a few minutes of a degree when checked against a calibrated machinist level.
I never trusted them fully when I did have them mounted and often times would go with what I perceived as level even if the unit told me otherwise.
Unless you have $80+ just burning a hole in your pocket, I'd go with Mikes advice.
I've owned units from Horus Vision & USO...
Both were off by more than a few minutes of a degree when checked against a calibrated machinist level.
I never trusted them fully when I did have them mounted and often times would go with what I perceived as level even if the unit told me otherwise.
Unless you have $80+ just burning a hole in your pocket, I'd go with Mikes advice.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Following a serious eye injury that has wreaked havoc with my vision in one eye I found that holding level was a problem. Not sure if this might also be the case with any other vision issues but for me it has been.
Looking for a tool to help I used USO rail mounted levels for a while and recently have switched over to tube mounted Flatline Ops levels and for me at least it is easier to maintain a level scope.
For me with my set of circumstances they have been useful.
Following a serious eye injury that has wreaked havoc with my vision in one eye I found that holding level was a problem. Not sure if this might also be the case with any other vision issues but for me it has been.
Looking for a tool to help I used USO rail mounted levels for a while and recently have switched over to tube mounted Flatline Ops levels and for me at least it is easier to maintain a level scope.
For me with my set of circumstances they have been useful.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
OK I'll experiment with that, Thanks for a straight answer
OK I'll experiment with that, Thanks for a straight answer
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I've leveled my scope to my reciever and found when I look through the scope the cross hairs look canted. Its not a cheap scope. I had a bike accident as a kid and it switched my eye domanancy. I bought a Sinclair from Brownells to help with keeping the system level. Haven't used it yet but plan on setting up the scope in a new mount and will install level then. The price was reasonable and think it was under 60.00 before shipping.
I've leveled my scope to my reciever and found when I look through the scope the cross hairs look canted. Its not a cheap scope. I had a bike accident as a kid and it switched my eye domanancy. I bought a Sinclair from Brownells to help with keeping the system level. Haven't used it yet but plan on setting up the scope in a new mount and will install level then. The price was reasonable and think it was under 60.00 before shipping.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I've concluded that they don't work for me.
I don't think they are bad tools or that they mislead the shooter in any way.
I have simply determined that I am not comfortable or adept with the kind of coordination that requires me to juggle multiple inputs when setting up my shot. If it isn't simple, it's beyond me.
As above, I have also noticed that my own internal compass tends to render a fairly 'plumb' mind's-eye benchmark against which to align my reticle. And if it's not perfect, it still appears to be consistent across a string of shots, so shot-to-shot POI deviation is not all that much of a factor for me.
YMMV...
Greg
I've concluded that they don't work for me.
I don't think they are bad tools or that they mislead the shooter in any way.
I have simply determined that I am not comfortable or adept with the kind of coordination that requires me to juggle multiple inputs when setting up my shot. If it isn't simple, it's beyond me.
As above, I have also noticed that my own internal compass tends to render a fairly 'plumb' mind's-eye benchmark against which to align my reticle. And if it's not perfect, it still appears to be consistent across a string of shots, so shot-to-shot POI deviation is not all that much of a factor for me.
YMMV...
Greg
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2189771
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2189771
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I have 2 locations to shoot distance. One is a flat hay field and I can get out to 1200yds or so and have never needed a level and always had good luck at keeping the shots centered (if I can make the proper wind call). The other place is also a hay field but where the targets are located there is a hill that is not exactly level and the shooting position is not flat. So when shooting from a semi awkward position to a unlevel back drop I have had issues gettting my rifle to level out when not using a level. I have found that more times than not I need to make an adjustment to level the rifle out. It has caused me to be off as much as 1/2-3/4 mil when shooting a 308 at 940yds.
I have tried a few and do not like the picrail mounted levels, even the USO's (out of 3 or 4 none have been level). I am now using a Accuracy 1st and it is OK but has a few things about it that I dont like. I do like the level that is in the Sphur mounts a lot but have yet to convert over to it. I am still searching...
I have 2 locations to shoot distance. One is a flat hay field and I can get out to 1200yds or so and have never needed a level and always had good luck at keeping the shots centered (if I can make the proper wind call). The other place is also a hay field but where the targets are located there is a hill that is not exactly level and the shooting position is not flat. So when shooting from a semi awkward position to a unlevel back drop I have had issues gettting my rifle to level out when not using a level. I have found that more times than not I need to make an adjustment to level the rifle out. It has caused me to be off as much as 1/2-3/4 mil when shooting a 308 at 940yds.
I have tried a few and do not like the picrail mounted levels, even the USO's (out of 3 or 4 none have been level). I am now using a Accuracy 1st and it is OK but has a few things about it that I dont like. I do like the level that is in the Sphur mounts a lot but have yet to convert over to it. I am still searching...
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I like the swing out USO levels because they are easy for me to see without moving my head. Also, because I have old eyes, I can position them further away and see them better.
I am pretty experienced at shooting in natural terrain, but I have found my natural sense of what is level to be very wrong on many occasions. Generally, I don't worry about keeping the bubble perfectly centered during the shot so much as I use it to get me set up right and oriented to the slope of the terrain. I may or may not check the level again as I shoot multiple shots from the same position.
I like the swing out USO levels because they are easy for me to see without moving my head. Also, because I have old eyes, I can position them further away and see them better.
I am pretty experienced at shooting in natural terrain, but I have found my natural sense of what is level to be very wrong on many occasions. Generally, I don't worry about keeping the bubble perfectly centered during the shot so much as I use it to get me set up right and oriented to the slope of the terrain. I may or may not check the level again as I shoot multiple shots from the same position.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I use, and like, the swing out USO. Both of mine are level according to the plumb line test.
When under time pressure, I don't sweat levelness inside 600 yards. Past 600, I think its worth the extra couple seconds to level up, if for no other reason than follow up shot consistency.
I use, and like, the swing out USO. Both of mine are level according to the plumb line test.
When under time pressure, I don't sweat levelness inside 600 yards. Past 600, I think its worth the extra couple seconds to level up, if for no other reason than follow up shot consistency.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Accuracy 1st. makes a good rugged level that is compact and easy to see.
Accuracy 1st. makes a good rugged level that is compact and easy to see.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Holland's also makes a very nice level.
Holland's also makes a very nice level.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Rail mount uso swing out. Keep it tucked in on short shots but swing it out on long shots, 500 and up. Make sure your reticle is plumb and the level matches it.
Rail mount uso swing out. Keep it tucked in on short shots but swing it out on long shots, 500 and up. Make sure your reticle is plumb and the level matches it.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I currently use an Accuracy 1st.
I find I do need a level. The way I shoot most stocks along with my body type I have about a 3-5 degree natural cant. The only adjustment I can make is a stock that has an adjustable butt. That really is counterproductive for me when some of the shooting I do requires so many positional changes.
I have used/shot several brands. I think a quality level that 'makes' a difference has to be a balance between how physically large it is vs. how accurate you want it to be. Also, will it freeze? Will the lines on the level wipe off if you accidentally spray it with brake cleaner? How easy is it to take off and on. Etc... These are some factors I consider.
Good to read a few times,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: spamassassain</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2189771</div></div>
I believe it is beneficial if you plan to minimize variables but, must be used with discretion. Just because you have a level won't help bad form.
The real question is, reticle cant in the scope or the procedure to level the scope and the level itself, lol
What about those guys that actually cant their stuff on purpose!
I currently use an Accuracy 1st.
I find I do need a level. The way I shoot most stocks along with my body type I have about a 3-5 degree natural cant. The only adjustment I can make is a stock that has an adjustable butt. That really is counterproductive for me when some of the shooting I do requires so many positional changes.
I have used/shot several brands. I think a quality level that 'makes' a difference has to be a balance between how physically large it is vs. how accurate you want it to be. Also, will it freeze? Will the lines on the level wipe off if you accidentally spray it with brake cleaner? How easy is it to take off and on. Etc... These are some factors I consider.
Good to read a few times,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: spamassassain</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2189771</div></div>
I believe it is beneficial if you plan to minimize variables but, must be used with discretion. Just because you have a level won't help bad form.
The real question is, reticle cant in the scope or the procedure to level the scope and the level itself, lol
What about those guys that actually cant their stuff on purpose!
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick. </div></div>
Agreed....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick. </div></div>
Agreed....
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
In Brian Litz’s book, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, he talks about the affects of cant at long range. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe with a long range cartridge with drop of around 300 inches at 1000 yards, 1 degree of cant can cause 5" of horizontal shift. A scope level can help overcome cant. Sure, cant is less of an issue at closer ranges, so you've got to decide if it’s worth it to you to get one given your shooting situations/distances.
There are times I believe my rifle is plumb, only to be surprised when I look at the level and find I'm off, more than 1 degree usually. I think if you are not sure it’s straight up and down, you are adding one more variable to the equation, and I have a hard enough time figuring out the wind.
Charley Robertson at Score High can put your barreled action in his jig and get the chamber, scope, and level all square and plumb.
In Brian Litz’s book, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, he talks about the affects of cant at long range. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe with a long range cartridge with drop of around 300 inches at 1000 yards, 1 degree of cant can cause 5" of horizontal shift. A scope level can help overcome cant. Sure, cant is less of an issue at closer ranges, so you've got to decide if it’s worth it to you to get one given your shooting situations/distances.
There are times I believe my rifle is plumb, only to be surprised when I look at the level and find I'm off, more than 1 degree usually. I think if you are not sure it’s straight up and down, you are adding one more variable to the equation, and I have a hard enough time figuring out the wind.
Charley Robertson at Score High can put your barreled action in his jig and get the chamber, scope, and level all square and plumb.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Accuracy 1st for me on 2 rifles. Never a problem with it and easier to see than a bubble for my old eyes. Not sure how much it helps, but shooting 0.60 MOA at 500-1000 yds. Have not yet stretched her out further than that.
Accuracy 1st for me on 2 rifles. Never a problem with it and easier to see than a bubble for my old eyes. Not sure how much it helps, but shooting 0.60 MOA at 500-1000 yds. Have not yet stretched her out further than that.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I keep buying the Vortex, I don't know why. They seem to slip, and strip pretty easy. I have my rifle on the table right now because of it. If I sell a scope, I sell it w/ the level, because it's stuck on.
I keep buying the Vortex, I don't know why. They seem to slip, and strip pretty easy. I have my rifle on the table right now because of it. If I sell a scope, I sell it w/ the level, because it's stuck on.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I used to think it was a gimmick but i was talked in to trying one and i will never be without one now. I have found that a slightly canted terrain can fool you into thinking what level is. When shooting MOA or smaller targets at 800+, a slight cant in your scope can really make a difference in getting hits. I also find the level very useful in F class. Simply use your left eye to check level when making a precise shot at distance. Takes only a second to check.
I have a Holland and like it but the Flatline ops is really nice. I just dont think it is $100+ better than the holland. That $100 savings is better spent on ammo IMO
I used to think it was a gimmick but i was talked in to trying one and i will never be without one now. I have found that a slightly canted terrain can fool you into thinking what level is. When shooting MOA or smaller targets at 800+, a slight cant in your scope can really make a difference in getting hits. I also find the level very useful in F class. Simply use your left eye to check level when making a precise shot at distance. Takes only a second to check.
I have a Holland and like it but the Flatline ops is really nice. I just dont think it is $100+ better than the holland. That $100 savings is better spent on ammo IMO
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I like the U.S. Optics Rail Mounted Fixed Bubble Level
http://www.usoptics.com/catalog/category/view/s/ext-cant-indicator/id/34/
I like the U.S. Optics Rail Mounted Fixed Bubble Level
http://www.usoptics.com/catalog/category/view/s/ext-cant-indicator/id/34/
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
True levels are priceless, but I wouldnt trust one on my rail. Fortunately my dad blessed me with a sharp level sense - imo you're not born with it, it's learned.
Suggestion: for training, light a laser level on a barn or a wall, then go many distances and multiple positions and see how you naturally line up on your sights. Your gun and scope may be dead nuts but you may consistently line up off or something.
haven't tried it on my rifle but the inclinometer on the iphone is amazingly accurate - something of a sanity check. I think I'll try that out tomorrow.
True levels are priceless, but I wouldnt trust one on my rail. Fortunately my dad blessed me with a sharp level sense - imo you're not born with it, it's learned.
Suggestion: for training, light a laser level on a barn or a wall, then go many distances and multiple positions and see how you naturally line up on your sights. Your gun and scope may be dead nuts but you may consistently line up off or something.
haven't tried it on my rifle but the inclinometer on the iphone is amazingly accurate - something of a sanity check. I think I'll try that out tomorrow.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I'm new but I would think if your moving your head out of alignment to check a level when you put your head back you'll most likely move again defeating the purpose I think if its that much of an issue you could get the us optics scope with the level inside
I'm new but I would think if your moving your head out of alignment to check a level when you put your head back you'll most likely move again defeating the purpose I think if its that much of an issue you could get the us optics scope with the level inside
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick. </div></div>
How so? In Bryan Litz' second book, "Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting", he quantifies the effect of a 3 degree scope cant at various ranges for two loads. In a .243 Win shooting a 105 Berger hybrid at 3000 fps, the horizontal error is 16.2" at 1000 yards. In a .308 Win shooting a 175 SMK at 2600 fps, the horizontal error is 24.7" at 1000 yards. With best regards from the Big Empty, ELN.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a difference maker. As long as you make sure your reticle is straight in relation to the rifle, you shouldn't have a problem. I think they're a gimmick. </div></div>
How so? In Bryan Litz' second book, "Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting", he quantifies the effect of a 3 degree scope cant at various ranges for two loads. In a .243 Win shooting a 105 Berger hybrid at 3000 fps, the horizontal error is 16.2" at 1000 yards. In a .308 Win shooting a 175 SMK at 2600 fps, the horizontal error is 24.7" at 1000 yards. With best regards from the Big Empty, ELN.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Used to be a lot of the shooters at Rayners used to think the levels weren't needed. We've been using them on our guns pretty much since they started the LR matches and now you are seeing them on nearly all the guns at the top of the win list. If you want to be at the top of the score sheet you have to shoot the tiny little targets at all distances worth more points and that slight difference of not being perfectly level and just missing those small targets move you down the list pretty fast. Go ahead and be cool and don't use them, but I think you'll find they do add a few targets to your score. Don't know how many experienced shooters try ours, tell them go ahead and line up on that little target out there at 1000 yards. I'll have the bubble covered, then move it away and none have had it centered when I moved my hand away. Some are close but close isn't going to get you a hit on those little high value targets.
Topstrap
Used to be a lot of the shooters at Rayners used to think the levels weren't needed. We've been using them on our guns pretty much since they started the LR matches and now you are seeing them on nearly all the guns at the top of the win list. If you want to be at the top of the score sheet you have to shoot the tiny little targets at all distances worth more points and that slight difference of not being perfectly level and just missing those small targets move you down the list pretty fast. Go ahead and be cool and don't use them, but I think you'll find they do add a few targets to your score. Don't know how many experienced shooters try ours, tell them go ahead and line up on that little target out there at 1000 yards. I'll have the bubble covered, then move it away and none have had it centered when I moved my hand away. Some are close but close isn't going to get you a hit on those little high value targets.
Topstrap
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Wyoming Shooter,
As I said before one naturally has the ability to keep the rifle horizontal without the use of a bubble. Now 99.9% of the bubble levels for rifles out there are the "bubble" type with an actual bubble in between two lines. I can guarantee you it's very easy to only get a 3* can't and still be "level" according to the level. For example, look at the bubble level in KillShot's post. Can you honestly tell me you can discern 3* of cant in that thing? It's a nice level no doubt, but I cannot. Again, practice in positions besides prone will help with this as well.
Next, 16.2" at 1000 yards is approx. <.5 mil. (remember 36"=1 mil at 1000) I and many others have made bad calls (wind, ukd, etc.) and been off by .4 mil and still gained a hit. Call it luck or whatever but if anyone can make a 100% perfect wind calls 100% of the time you need to be getting a paycheck for this. Remember, the targets we deal with are fairly large. And how often are you really shooting out to and past 1000? If it's a lot, I bet you can keep that rifle level.
I'm not even going to touch the 308 at 1K for this game because it's like throwing a ball to home plate from deep in center field; yes, it will get there and some guys do it well but I wouldn't rely on it to save a game.
If someone wants a bubble level then rock out. But at least admit you want it because it's cool, looks good, whatever. But when you start to argue the "need" for it, I think you're getting wrapped too tight. (no offense to anyone).
Wyoming Shooter,
As I said before one naturally has the ability to keep the rifle horizontal without the use of a bubble. Now 99.9% of the bubble levels for rifles out there are the "bubble" type with an actual bubble in between two lines. I can guarantee you it's very easy to only get a 3* can't and still be "level" according to the level. For example, look at the bubble level in KillShot's post. Can you honestly tell me you can discern 3* of cant in that thing? It's a nice level no doubt, but I cannot. Again, practice in positions besides prone will help with this as well.
Next, 16.2" at 1000 yards is approx. <.5 mil. (remember 36"=1 mil at 1000) I and many others have made bad calls (wind, ukd, etc.) and been off by .4 mil and still gained a hit. Call it luck or whatever but if anyone can make a 100% perfect wind calls 100% of the time you need to be getting a paycheck for this. Remember, the targets we deal with are fairly large. And how often are you really shooting out to and past 1000? If it's a lot, I bet you can keep that rifle level.
I'm not even going to touch the 308 at 1K for this game because it's like throwing a ball to home plate from deep in center field; yes, it will get there and some guys do it well but I wouldn't rely on it to save a game.
If someone wants a bubble level then rock out. But at least admit you want it because it's cool, looks good, whatever. But when you start to argue the "need" for it, I think you're getting wrapped too tight. (no offense to anyone).
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I never gave a level any consideration until I had an experience where it really showed a difference.
Was busting rocks with Broz and jrob one day a couple years back. We were on sideslope ground shooting at rocks on another slope 750 yards away.
Broz says "hey Shane, give my 6BR a try, see what you think". Broz and jrob had both been dinging a grapefruit size rock.
I got behind the rifle, dope already applied, and shifted it around to suit my left-handedness. I made two shots and had two misses about a foot left. Broz says check the level. Shit I was a full bubble off. Leveled her up, and center punched the target.
That made a believer out of me.
I suspect our inner level, is better for some folks than others.
I never gave a level any consideration until I had an experience where it really showed a difference.
Was busting rocks with Broz and jrob one day a couple years back. We were on sideslope ground shooting at rocks on another slope 750 yards away.
Broz says "hey Shane, give my 6BR a try, see what you think". Broz and jrob had both been dinging a grapefruit size rock.
I got behind the rifle, dope already applied, and shifted it around to suit my left-handedness. I made two shots and had two misses about a foot left. Broz says check the level. Shit I was a full bubble off. Leveled her up, and center punched the target.
That made a believer out of me.
I suspect our inner level, is better for some folks than others.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Topstrap,
Look at other factors as well. Are you shooting off your belly? What type of time constraint do you have? And omitting a level is only "to be cool"? Yes, let's go ahead and throw experience out the window.
Remember to take a look at what kind of shooting you're doing as well. If you're hanging out under a shelter, shooting a square range that's fine. But when you're on a time limit running through a shoot house or over and around obstacles, planning to make sure your rifle is perfectly level will lose you just as many points as it will gain you. "TIME" being called when you're peeking to make sure your rifle is level rather than getting that last shot off will lose you points as well.
Topstrap,
Look at other factors as well. Are you shooting off your belly? What type of time constraint do you have? And omitting a level is only "to be cool"? Yes, let's go ahead and throw experience out the window.
Remember to take a look at what kind of shooting you're doing as well. If you're hanging out under a shelter, shooting a square range that's fine. But when you're on a time limit running through a shoot house or over and around obstacles, planning to make sure your rifle is perfectly level will lose you just as many points as it will gain you. "TIME" being called when you're peeking to make sure your rifle is level rather than getting that last shot off will lose you points as well.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Our regular LR matches can be shot either prone or off wobbly old wooden benches from various positions on a large farm. No fancy rests for this match and we usually allow up to 2 minutes for the shots but usually all are done in under a minute on that stage. No real rush but it's not a tactical style match or a bench rest match either. Various size targets at various elevations and changing angles are worth various point values so you gamble on what you want to use your shots on.
The Sniper matches in the Spring and Fall are thru trails in the woods, in all types of positions, most all have time limits, and some the time is part of the score so no the bubbles aren't used there but targets are huge compared to what is shot at in the LR steel matches. On those larger targets the bubble isn't needed as others have said with a lot of experience and some do it better than others it's pretty easy to level the gun well enough to hit a 15" circle out thru 1000 yards. But try that on the 2"x4" at 720 or the 8" or 4 1/2" at 1000 at the LR matches and it does help.
I do agree with you that a lot depends on what type of match you are shooting, not everyone is young and running up and down hills shooting out of windows, over and under stumps, thru brush/limbs or shooting out thru a car grill at every match and these do help even a new shooter to double check as they learn to get into position and hold the gun correctly to develop NPA. SO yeah we're probably doing it all wrong for the type of matches you train for but I feel it helps under certain circumstances. I'll continue to recommend it to new shooters that are trying to learn to shoot well at distance but it does have to be set up properly and not just leveled up with a turret top or scope base.
And for the record, all of ours are set to be level after doing the vertical tracking test thru my scopes range needed for one mile for the rifles and 1000 yards for our LR pistols and then set to be level on the scope based on that test. They were not leveled in relation to anything on the scope or gun. When it shows level it will track level thru out all my needed elevation range.
This could go on forever, either you use them and find they help or you don't and think those that do need the crutch.
Topstrap
Our regular LR matches can be shot either prone or off wobbly old wooden benches from various positions on a large farm. No fancy rests for this match and we usually allow up to 2 minutes for the shots but usually all are done in under a minute on that stage. No real rush but it's not a tactical style match or a bench rest match either. Various size targets at various elevations and changing angles are worth various point values so you gamble on what you want to use your shots on.
The Sniper matches in the Spring and Fall are thru trails in the woods, in all types of positions, most all have time limits, and some the time is part of the score so no the bubbles aren't used there but targets are huge compared to what is shot at in the LR steel matches. On those larger targets the bubble isn't needed as others have said with a lot of experience and some do it better than others it's pretty easy to level the gun well enough to hit a 15" circle out thru 1000 yards. But try that on the 2"x4" at 720 or the 8" or 4 1/2" at 1000 at the LR matches and it does help.
I do agree with you that a lot depends on what type of match you are shooting, not everyone is young and running up and down hills shooting out of windows, over and under stumps, thru brush/limbs or shooting out thru a car grill at every match and these do help even a new shooter to double check as they learn to get into position and hold the gun correctly to develop NPA. SO yeah we're probably doing it all wrong for the type of matches you train for but I feel it helps under certain circumstances. I'll continue to recommend it to new shooters that are trying to learn to shoot well at distance but it does have to be set up properly and not just leveled up with a turret top or scope base.
And for the record, all of ours are set to be level after doing the vertical tracking test thru my scopes range needed for one mile for the rifles and 1000 yards for our LR pistols and then set to be level on the scope based on that test. They were not leveled in relation to anything on the scope or gun. When it shows level it will track level thru out all my needed elevation range.
This could go on forever, either you use them and find they help or you don't and think those that do need the crutch.
Topstrap
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
blah blah perfectly aligned scope.
you may not have that perfectly aligned scope on a completely even surface.
therefore negating that.
some of you really do take all the fun out of shooting.
blah blah perfectly aligned scope.
you may not have that perfectly aligned scope on a completely even surface.
therefore negating that.
some of you really do take all the fun out of shooting.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Mike - Thanks for the reply. When time allows, I use an Accuracy 1st scope level with the ceramic ball. I'm trying to eliminate as many sources of error as possible. Crappy wind calls like mine are a big enough problem on their own without adding scope cant into the mix. Best regards, ELN.
Mike - Thanks for the reply. When time allows, I use an Accuracy 1st scope level with the ceramic ball. I'm trying to eliminate as many sources of error as possible. Crappy wind calls like mine are a big enough problem on their own without adding scope cant into the mix. Best regards, ELN.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
This has all been very helpful in more ways than I intended.
As my name hints I am still a rookie and need the ground to thaw
before I can take my first real crack at 1K.
I still havent decided on if I will be procuring one yet.
Everytime I make up my mind, a new reply comes in and sways it
This has all been very helpful in more ways than I intended.
As my name hints I am still a rookie and need the ground to thaw
before I can take my first real crack at 1K.
I still havent decided on if I will be procuring one yet.
Everytime I make up my mind, a new reply comes in and sways it
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
Every scope manufacturer out there considers 2 to 3 degrees of cant <span style="font-style: italic">"within spec"</span> inside the scope. So already there is a good chance your reticle inside the scope is off level by at least that 2 degrees, and most people don't even notice it.
it's only if you compound that spec will people see a real problem "IRL". Then you can start to see 6 degrees or more, which will cause the issue.
I have seen plenty of people shoot with a bubble level mounted on their rifle and the level is off to one side and still they have no problem hitting the target. In fact I usually record it.
Every one is different, which is why the claims to scientific proof don't hold up. Otherwise the results would be the same for everyone, and clearly they are not. How the person addresses the rifle is more important. How we zero the rifle in our shoulder pocket, manage the recoil, align our scopes, all this plays into the end results. To say, " if you (meaning everyone) do this, the results downrange will be 16.4" at 1000 yards" is very misleading. Because some people pull the rifle right while others push the rifle left, causing a variation in that end result.
The <span style="font-weight: bold">Human Element trumps science described in a vacuum</span> or under picture perfect conditions, we override those factors that lead to the results determined by computer modeling, or fixture shooting. The computer simulation does not take into account the shooter, ever ... so to say "X" will happen is a lie.
It's <span style="font-style: italic">not so much a gimmick</span> as a much as it is <span style="font-weight: bold">a misunderstood and misused training tool.</span> When people address the rifle, get sighted on the target and look at the level after all this, and then see the bubble is off, that is describing a problem with their position in relationship to the set up of the rifle. That does not mean move your body to the level, but rather move your level to your body.
<span style="font-style: italic">We are creatures of habit</span> we will do the same thing over and over to a finite degree, if we address the system to that, we will be more consistent. That is what the level is telling you, <span style="font-weight: bold">move the system, not move your body.</span>
Every scope manufacturer out there considers 2 to 3 degrees of cant <span style="font-style: italic">"within spec"</span> inside the scope. So already there is a good chance your reticle inside the scope is off level by at least that 2 degrees, and most people don't even notice it.
it's only if you compound that spec will people see a real problem "IRL". Then you can start to see 6 degrees or more, which will cause the issue.
I have seen plenty of people shoot with a bubble level mounted on their rifle and the level is off to one side and still they have no problem hitting the target. In fact I usually record it.
Every one is different, which is why the claims to scientific proof don't hold up. Otherwise the results would be the same for everyone, and clearly they are not. How the person addresses the rifle is more important. How we zero the rifle in our shoulder pocket, manage the recoil, align our scopes, all this plays into the end results. To say, " if you (meaning everyone) do this, the results downrange will be 16.4" at 1000 yards" is very misleading. Because some people pull the rifle right while others push the rifle left, causing a variation in that end result.
The <span style="font-weight: bold">Human Element trumps science described in a vacuum</span> or under picture perfect conditions, we override those factors that lead to the results determined by computer modeling, or fixture shooting. The computer simulation does not take into account the shooter, ever ... so to say "X" will happen is a lie.
It's <span style="font-style: italic">not so much a gimmick</span> as a much as it is <span style="font-weight: bold">a misunderstood and misused training tool.</span> When people address the rifle, get sighted on the target and look at the level after all this, and then see the bubble is off, that is describing a problem with their position in relationship to the set up of the rifle. That does not mean move your body to the level, but rather move your level to your body.
<span style="font-style: italic">We are creatures of habit</span> we will do the same thing over and over to a finite degree, if we address the system to that, we will be more consistent. That is what the level is telling you, <span style="font-weight: bold">move the system, not move your body.</span>
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
That made me look at it from a different angle.
interesting
That made me look at it from a different angle.
interesting
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
I have an accuracy 1st and a holland level. They really have not changed any games, what they have done for me is give me a pause to review my body positioning, rifle alignment, and breathing. Most of the time when I look at it I am level because it has helped me to train myself to be level. Making sure I am in a good position has made more hits for me than any level ever will, is a tool to be used and not a crutch.
I have an accuracy 1st and a holland level. They really have not changed any games, what they have done for me is give me a pause to review my body positioning, rifle alignment, and breathing. Most of the time when I look at it I am level because it has helped me to train myself to be level. Making sure I am in a good position has made more hits for me than any level ever will, is a tool to be used and not a crutch.
Re: Scope levels. Any suggestions?
And to add another variable that might serve as a explanation for the varied opinions some give about the level being necessary for correcting cant and the opinions of others that a level is unnecessary because the shooter can learn to make the correction naturally.
Research the constructs field independent and field dependent cognitive style. These are well researched constructs from the field of education and learning stlyes.
The shooter with a preponderence of field independent cognitive style over field dependent cognitive style probably will not need a level to correct cant. The shooter with a predominently field dependent cognitive style will almost always have to use a level and will be unable to avoid cant without a level. Most shooters will have a mixture of field independent and field dependent traits and while they may be able to avoid severe cant without a level, will never be as accurate without a level as someone for which a field independent cognitive style predominates.
A primary research instrument for determining these cognitive styles is the rod and frame test. The subject is placed in a totally dark room and asked to align a luminous rod to true verticle. Those with field independent skills can do so very accurately. If field dependent skills predominate, the error (measured in degrees of error from true vertical) is greater. Most subjects measure somewhere in between because they have some of both skills. A subject cannot have a preponderence of field independent and a preponderance or field dependent skills. The more of one, the less of the other.
Neither cognitive style is advantageous in all situations, nor is either style a disadvantage in all situations. It's just the way we are "wired." Basically can't be changed. It just happens to be a advantage if the shooter doesn't have a level and is highly field independent. The highly field dependent corrects with a level. However most shooters are wired with some of both stlyes and will need the level to get that last degree of cant corrected.
And to add another variable that might serve as a explanation for the varied opinions some give about the level being necessary for correcting cant and the opinions of others that a level is unnecessary because the shooter can learn to make the correction naturally.
Research the constructs field independent and field dependent cognitive style. These are well researched constructs from the field of education and learning stlyes.
The shooter with a preponderence of field independent cognitive style over field dependent cognitive style probably will not need a level to correct cant. The shooter with a predominently field dependent cognitive style will almost always have to use a level and will be unable to avoid cant without a level. Most shooters will have a mixture of field independent and field dependent traits and while they may be able to avoid severe cant without a level, will never be as accurate without a level as someone for which a field independent cognitive style predominates.
A primary research instrument for determining these cognitive styles is the rod and frame test. The subject is placed in a totally dark room and asked to align a luminous rod to true verticle. Those with field independent skills can do so very accurately. If field dependent skills predominate, the error (measured in degrees of error from true vertical) is greater. Most subjects measure somewhere in between because they have some of both skills. A subject cannot have a preponderence of field independent and a preponderance or field dependent skills. The more of one, the less of the other.
Neither cognitive style is advantageous in all situations, nor is either style a disadvantage in all situations. It's just the way we are "wired." Basically can't be changed. It just happens to be a advantage if the shooter doesn't have a level and is highly field independent. The highly field dependent corrects with a level. However most shooters are wired with some of both stlyes and will need the level to get that last degree of cant corrected.
