anti cant level

[glider]

Experienced shooters , looking for info on anti cant levels and there importance .
When using a TMR reticle for ranging it seems leveling of first is helpful . Otherwise I am not sure what there use is .

 

[gstaylorg]

If your rifle is canted even a few degrees, it will turn scope elevation into windage, putting your POI off in both vertical and horzontal. There is a very nice thread discussing the effect of side-to-side cant here:

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...7-effects-side-side-cant-field-test-pics.html

The use of anti-cant devices seems to come up here fairly often. You will find most are divided into two camps, they either like and use them, or think they're a complete waste of money and time. If you use the search engine with "anti-cant device", "scope level", or something similar, you will likely find quite a few discussion of this topic, which may help you decide the value of these devices for yourself.

 

[glider]

G thanks for direction , Thread was interesting , My confusion comes from one using a lrf and dialing in elevation and wind , seems like with range finder determining distance and drop calculated with an app. all is ready to send one down range. red dot knows no level right?
anyway when using hold overs cant makes sense . So are most discussions based on shooting hold overs ?

 

[gstaylorg]

The discussions in various threads cover a wide range of different types of shooting (tactical, target, hunting, etc.). As I mentioned, this topic seems to come up fairly often. One important note, regardless of the type of optic or sighting device used, if you dial elevation then cant the rifle to one side or the other, you will be turning some of the elevation you dialed into windage. How much will generally depend on how far (degrees) it is canted, but either way will not only put you off low (due to the lost elevation), but also off left or right depending on the direction of the cant. Although he purposely introduced a pretty extreme cant, Brasscow's pics in that post illustrated what happened very well.

I personally use the US Optics rail-mounted, flip-out ACD on all my rifles for F-Class shooting. This is one that is not so well-liked here, primarily because the bubble doesn't necessarily center perfectly when clamped down onto a leveled rail. That wasn't a deal-breaker for me, I simply shim them with a little folded piece of aluminum foil under one side or the other until the bubble is centered. Pretty easy fix. Mainly I like that it is flip-out, and is directly in front of my left eye when shooting. In any event, there are many styles, ranging from rail mounts to scope tube mounts, or anywhere in between. There are quite a few reviews/opinions of different types within some of the different threads on this topic.

Frankly, I'm not sure how useful an ACD would be to someone involved in tactical shooting that involved a lot of movement and lots of different shooting positions. I shoot F-TR, which is a whole different animal. We get to lay still on relatively flat ground, and when shooting a .308 to 1000 yd, I'll take all the help I can get, gimmick or not. If you're primarily thinking about using an ACD for tactical shooting, you'd really do much better to get an informed opinion from someone experienced in that type of shooting. I haven't participated in that type of match as yet, and really can't tell you how useful (if at all) it would be.

One of the arguments against the ACDs, which generally comes from people with a lot of shooting experience, is that the shooter ought to be able to tell without the aid of a device when the reticle is canted. There is something to this argument and I could probably do just as well in F-Class comps without one at this point. However, I view it in a slightly different way. Like scope magnification, if you have it but don't need it, you can always dial it down. If you need it and don't have it, you can't use it at all. The ACDs are small and weigh next to nothing, so why not have one? Particularly as a positional aid for a beginning shooter that may not have developed a good feel yet for when their scope is canted or not. In any event, you'll see a lot of opposing opinions here on this topic. The best thing is to read a bit and decide what works best for you.

 

[Pinecone]

The problem of doing without, is that you cannot tell if the target area is not level. And the natural tendency is to align the reticle with what LOOKS to be level.

I prefer a scope mounted anti cant, because the most important thing is that the reticle be level. Not the rifle itself.

 

[bogeybrown]

Hey Glidder, welcome to the Hide, and congrats on not starting out with a "best $100 scope for 2000yds with my .223" thread.

The gents above have already provided some good links and info.

I use anti-cant levels on all my scopes, including my old Mk 4 with TMR reticle. Even if you're dialing elevation, a very small degree of rifle cant at distance (say 800 or better) will greatly affect your POI. I absolutely GUARANTEE that every person who has ever fired a round at 1000yds prior to using a level has had a "miss" or unexplained impact well right or left of their POA and attributed it to an un-called wind condition downrange. Once I started using a level I could see the drastic difference in my POA with even a small amount of cant. I would have had a miss, usually to the right for me, and would have figured there was a wind condition I hadn't factored. On a field range it is very easy to introduce an unintentional cant to your rifle because you lack anything truly level to use as a frame of reference.

I also use a LRF rather than my reticle for ranging whenever I can. I don't worry about my reticle being truly level when using it for ranging (mostly just for practice to check against my LRF) because I'm using it as ruler, and lay it on the side of the object regardless of the angle. So if my target is canted 20 degrees, I cant my scope to be parallel to it so I'm getting as accurate a measurement as possible.

There are of course people who have never used one and been very successful, certainly guys MUCH better than me.

An area where cant was/is generally accepted is Service Rifle, since a number of shooters have a repeatable cant to their rifles based on their positions. I recently watched a series of videos from SR guru Pat McDonough (sp) where he addressed it in a clinic and basically told everyone to QUIT canting their rifles because of errors in dialing for elevation which translate into windage corrections with a cant.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

The problem of doing without, is that you cannot tell if the target area is not level. And the natural tendency is to align the reticle with what LOOKS to be level.

I prefer a scope mounted anti cant, because the most important thing is that the reticle be level. Not the rifle itself.

The natural tendency is to balance and center things, so, if focus is placed on the sight rather than target, as it should be, there will not be a problem. I do not use an anti cant device for match and any/any divisions as in those divisions I can simply adjust the butt stock to allow for a relaxed position with the rifle squared up. For Service Rifle competition I will use some muscle to square the rifle but having developed motor memory from such condition my scores do not suffer. Overall, for the best results in most scenarios I can imagine I think shooting squared up would assure better results, since getting a consistent shot to shot cant is not as likely as getting a consistent squared up position. I also believe the eye's natural ability to square things up is more accurate than any mechanical device which can be attached to the rifle. For the most part, I think these devices are distractions to good shooting. Those that have such devices for NRA LR usually use them in prep phase when making adjustments to the butt stock to get the rifle squared quickly so as to allow time for position building.

 

[Graham]

anti cant level

OP, when you shoot the same course of fire on the same target at the same distance on a flat range every time, it doesn't matter.

....Well, it matters, but you can make standardized adjustments for it.

 

[chribon]

I canted my rifles a little bit for years and didn't know it until I got an ACD a few years ago. They were an eye opener for me. I canted to the right, and thought I was level. I have found that after using them for a while I use them less and less as my eye is calibrated to actual level. At first, when I referenced the ACD, and leveled up according to it, the rifle seemed canted left. Now after using one for a while, level looks level. They are still on my guns, but I just use them to check myself occasionally, especially in hilly terrain or awkward positions. Although I use them less, I consider them an indispensable tool.

 

[Graham]

anti cant level

Although I use them less, I consider them an indispensable tool.

Why?

We all cant the rifle. Canting is not an evil in and of itself.

 

[chribon]

Why?

We all cant the rifle. Canting is not an evil in and of itself.

It is evil to me.
If you cant the exact same amount all the time, no matter what position you are in, and no matter how hilly/deceptive the terrain is, and your eye NEVER gets fooled, and you have trued your velocity/BC according to the error introduced by that consistent amount of cant, then I'll agree with you. However, I'm not that talented.
An ACD has taught me to look at level based on the reticle and ignore the terrain, but it is still a valuable reference, even to check if your cant, if you like to cant, is consistent. Show me a carpenter/framer whose eye is more precise than a level.

 

[Graham]

anti cant level

Eliminating cant is important, given enough distance for it to matter and enough time in which to do so. And levels are important for long ranges and small targets when there is no horizon. But other factors often matter much more for getting the hit.

...It's the difference between theory and practice.

 

[JByrd]

levels are an important piece of the accuracy puzzle. other pieces like, proper neck tension,charge wt., oal, are all factors as well. the guns the top builders of today are putting out are capable of amazing things, how we as shooters manage them determines the results we expierence.look at tactical match photos and you WILL see the vast majority of winners are running levels,that should answer your question.

consistency is all about doint it the same right way every time. to do the same right way you need a measurement. numbers, gauges , levels. same same same

 

[glider]

This is a place to be stupid , and I do not want to drag this out , but I am a carpenter , designer with some industrial Eng. education .
What I am trying to understand,if we know distance to POI, from intersection of reticles to point on target. Then we have two points, which make a straight line .Bullet is round going through a round barrel. Therefore, canting rifle is really not changing position of two points rather just rotating rifle . This is my understanding , what am i missing ?
I am not a competition shooter yet but I would like to make my way in this arena . If I cant understand CANT then I dont think I will get far .

 

[glider]

This is a place to be stupid , and I do not want to drag this out , but I am a carpenter , designer with some industrial Eng. education .
What I am trying to understand,if we know distance to POI, from intersection of reticles to point on target. Then we have two points, which make a straight line .Bullet is round going through a round barrel. Therefore, canting rifle is really not changing position of two points rather just rotating rifle . This is my understanding , what am i missing ?
I am not a competition shooter yet but I would like to make my way in this arena . If I cant understand CANT then I dont think I will get far .

 

[zenbiker]

This is a place to be stupid , and I do not want to drag this out , but I am a carpenter , designer with some industrial Eng. education .
What I am trying to understand,if we know distance to POI, from intersection of reticles to point on target. Then we have two points, which make a straight line .Bullet is round going through a round barrel. Therefore, canting rifle is really not changing position of two points rather just rotating rifle . This is my understanding , what am i missing ?
I am not a competition shooter yet but I would like to make my way in this arena . If I cant understand CANT then I dont think I will get far .

Canting, or leaning, your rifle changes your scope's visual reference around the rifle's optical center, causing the bullet path to change in the direction of the cant.

Glidder, an ACD is a very useful reference tool provided your rifle and scope are set up properlly:

1) The scope MUST be installed so the vertical reticle bisects the barrel bore AND the horizontal reticle is perpendicular to the bore as perfectly as possible. Here is one way to do that: the rifle is set on a level reference surface. An inexpensive laser level is used to project horizontal and vertical lines on a distant wall, depending on how close the scope being used can be focused. the scope is rotated until the reticles align as perfectly as possible with the laser level lines. The really tricky part is tightening the rings down without further rotating the scope, especially on mounts with 4 or 6 screws. i'll leave favorite methods to others as to how they do it. As far as how you set the rifle on the reference surface, if you shoot a bipod, use a bipod and use a sandbag under the butt to level the gun front to rear. If you don'tt use a bipod, use a front rest, preferably benchrest quality. Once the scope is tight and you are certain the gun is still level with the reference surface and the reticles still aligh with the laser level, attach your ACD, level it, tighten it, and check everything for level again.

Now, get a piece of cardboard 4 feet long. Draw a 36" straight line on it and make an aiming point at the bottom. This needs to be pretty rigid, so use whatever wood shop skills you have to make the target substantially inflexible. Be sure you have some way to secure it/set it on the ground.

Go to the range. Take a 36"" long carpenter's level. Set up your target at 100 yards. Use the carpenter's level to get the line on your target perfectly vertical. Now, using a second plain target, zero your riflle for 100 yards. When that is done, move over to your vertical target. Fire three shot group at the bottom aiming point. Now, dial 30 MOA or MIL equivalent of elevation into your scope, depending how your roll. Aiming at the bottom point, shoot three more shots. If you are a luck dog, the new three shot group will form 30" above the first group and right on the line. If the group is significantly (1 inch or more) to either side of the line, the scope needs to be rotated in the direction to bring the group back to the line (did I mention your shooting surface has to be level as well?) This can be a long and frustrating undertaking, but it is the only way to ensure that a canted reticle does not, as one poster stated, turn your elevation adjustment into wndage adjustments. When you scope is perfectly leveled, then and only then can you level your ACD and trust it in the field.

Cant really comes into play past 600 yards. If you want to shoot ELR, it has to be eliminated. BTW, it would be great if someone could come up with an easier way to to this.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Graham]

anti cant level

What if just my reticle is canted three degrees?

 

[glider]

So basically , when rifle is canted to POI, elevation will fallow angle of cant, therefore moving away in same direction ..
Thank you guys for input ,

 

[Graham]

anti cant level

So basically , when rifle is canted to POI, elevation will fallow angle of cant, therefore moving away in same direction

Nope.

Rifle can't be canted to establish a POI.
Fallow is for fields.
POI follows cant direction of the sights.
It's due to gravity and barrel rotation.
But there is also a neg. elevation component.

 

[bogeybrown]

In previous discussions on the topic I believe what was mostly agreed upon (we rarely ALL agree) is that when mounting the optic initially, it's less important for the rifle to be level than it is for your reticle to be absolutely plumb/level to the world (gravity). There are a number of ways to do this.
Some shooters, because of position, shoot with a slight cant to their rifle. They may opt to keep their rifle canted based on their natural body position to aid in NPOA and total relaxation but they will mount their optic totally plumb/level on top of the slightly canted rifle.
I can't explain the science behind scope cant to the degree that some of these gentlemen can, all I can tell you is what happens within my scope when I am dead-center on the target, check my cant before firing and make an adjustment to level-up. My crosshairs move dramatically at "long" range (I notice it the most at 800 and beyond). As I said, I don't hurt my head worrying about why that happens, I just know that it happens.
I defer 100% to Graham and Sterling on their experience with open sights/square ranges etc. I have fired a Service Rifle with a pretty noticeable cant in certain positions and been okay, largely because my dope was built from that position. However, I NOW realize that some of my dialed elevation was in fact translating into dialed windage. Fortunately on the KD course the target is fairly forgiving.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

It is evil to me.
If you cant the exact same amount all the time, no matter what position you are in, and no matter how hilly/deceptive the terrain is, and your eye NEVER gets fooled, and you have trued your velocity/BC according to the error introduced by that consistent amount of cant, then I'll agree with you. However, I'm not that talented.
An ACD has taught me to look at level based on the reticle and ignore the terrain, but it is still a valuable reference, even to check if your cant, if you like to cant, is consistent. Show me a carpenter/framer whose eye is more precise than a level.

O.K., I'll buy that you are not that talented; but, with discipline and desire you can take the natural ability of the eye to balance and center things and apply it to understanding where the barrel is pointed with greater accuracy than what your experience with the concept suggests is possible. You can indeed come to understand when the position has been built with a consistent relationship between shooter, gun, and ground, including recognition for a level sight.

 

[Graham]

anti cant level

.....Again my helicopter analogy applies here:

What if the pilot isn't flying level, or if he's dancing hard on the rudders in the convection from daytime heating?

Level horizon, ACD, and "Shooter, gun and ground" only get you so far.

 

[Pinecone]

The natural tendency is to balance and center things, so, if focus is placed on the sight rather than target, as it should be, there will be no problem as alluded. I do not use an anti cant device for match and any/any divisions as in those divisions I can simply adjust the butt stock to allow for a relaxed position with the rifle squared up. For Service Rifle competition I will use some muscle to square the rifle but having developed motor memory from such condition my scores do not suffer. Overall, for the best results in most scenarios I can imagine I think shooting squared up would assure better results, since getting a consistent shot to shot cant is not as likely as getting a consistent squared up position. I also believe the eye's natural ability to square things up is more accurate than any mechanical device which can be attached to the rifle. For the most part, I think these devices are distractions to good shooting. Those that have such devices for NRA LR usually use them in prep phase when making adjustments to the butt stock to get the rifle squared quickly so as to allow time for position building.

That is all very good. And works. In the right circumstances.

But now head out to a range in the mountains, with various slopes and a non-level shooting position. Now try to level everything by eye.

 

[Pinecone]

1) The scope MUST be installed so the vertical reticle bisects the barrel bore AND the horizontal reticle is perpendicular to the bore as perfectly as possible.

Disagree.

If you cant the rifle 45 degrees, but install the scope so the reticle is level, the gun will shoot fine at all ranges. The only affect is that if you zero the POI in windage, there will be some change in POI towards the scope at increasing distances. However, if you zero the POI so that the impact is offset to the barrel side by the distance between with the reticle and bore (only the horizontal component), the POI will be offset by the same amount at all distances.

The ONLY thing that is important is to have the reticle level when you shoot.

 

[Pinecone]

This is a place to be stupid , and I do not want to drag this out , but I am a carpenter , designer with some industrial Eng. education .
What I am trying to understand,if we know distance to POI, from intersection of reticles to point on target. Then we have two points, which make a straight line .Bullet is round going through a round barrel. Therefore, canting rifle is really not changing position of two points rather just rotating rifle . This is my understanding , what am i missing ?
I am not a competition shooter yet but I would like to make my way in this arena . If I cant understand CANT then I dont think I will get far .

Remember the reticle is line of sight. A straight line. But the bullet is fired in an arc. The barrel is pointed up (at most distances, especially at long range). The bullet goes up above the line of sight, then back down to the POI.

Now, as you dial or hold for elevation at longer distances, you are pointing the barrel higher, but in line with the vertical stadia of the reticle. If the reticle is canted, the elevation is not straight up (to gravity) but off to the side.

So take your level and place is level, both lengthwise and side ways (cant). Now, an angle finder on top at say 10 degrees. Roll the level in cant and see where the angle finder points versus where it points with the level not canted.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

That is all very good. And works. In the right circumstances.

But now head out to a range in the mountains, with various slopes and a non-level shooting position. Now try to level everything by eye.

The only thing your need to "level" is the sight. Alignment of the sight/s is done before adjusting NPA for the desired sight picture, so, whatever the picture, it should not distract from proper alignment, if alignment was established before attempting to get the reticle/target relationship.

This stuff is utterly simple, and, leisure time being a luxury, don't waste what little you've got overthinking it here.j

 

[Lowlight]

Sterling is absolutely right... I live in the mountains and shoot here... the "level" has nothing to do with it, because clearly you don't sight in on the objectives, horizon, etc around you, you focus on the reticle.

if the rifle is set up correctly, you can "feel" whether or not it is straight. If you need to observe the level and find you need that to adjust your rifle because it is off, your rifle is incorrectly set up for you. The level is not a shooting device it is a training tool. If you constantly see you need it to straighten yourself out, you are doing it wrong.

Everyone I have observed who watches the level screws it up. They focus on all the wrong things, (Like Sterling said, a distraction to good shooting) And as soon as they stop looking at it, they go back to canting the rifle because it's set up wrong. I have documented this with many...

This is Wade S, the winner of the SHC in Douglas... targets beyond 1000 yards, and many alternate positions.

Shooting in the mountains is the biggest load of horseshit out there regarding levels... If you want to go back to the East Coast and something like ASC, I shot that several years since the beginning and nobody was using a level, not a single shooter, and hitting.

You focus on the Reticle, not the terrain around you. You don't focus on the target and whether or not it is straight... I can careless if the target is straight. The rifle if set up correctly in your shoulder pocket cannot be anything but level. If it is not, you feel it, as well as see it. This is Day One common sense.

Guys above who said they noticed the rifle being canted after using a level, well that is called a Clue... adjust the rifle.

 

[Graham]

anti cant level

Here's hoping that the reticle and the elevation knob adjustments are in the same plane.

 

[Lowlight]

Most manufacturers allow for 3 degrees... anything less is a bonus.

This is another reason to test after mounting your scope, and I like doing it by shooting it as I normally would and not doing it from a bagged in unnatural position. If it shoots and tracks together in a way I naturally address the rifle I have nothing to worry about.

Not to mention, a test most don't conduct is, several manufacturers will have a curve in their reticle tracking at the top end of the adjustment range. So if you don't test it across 100% of your useable adjustment range, you have no way of knowing what that actually might be. The higher you go, the mechanics will push the reticle to one side. Bigger issue when shooting far and one a $7 level will not solve.

 

[Wazzu]

Anti-cant devices are a nice thing to have. If your objective is to shoot small groups or make hits at long ranges, it only makes sense to give yourself every reasonable advantage in order to minimize as many variables as possible.

Canting your rifle to either side will have negative results downrange. Canting to the left will result in hits low and left. Canting to the right results in hits low and right.

"A 1° cant will produce five inches of lateral displacement at 1000 yards. Thus, if you cant your rifle just 8°, the POI would move 40″ from the center of the target, putting the shot off the edge of a 72″-wide target." -Bryan Litz. Canting Effect on Point of Impact within AccurateShooter.com

Remember, consistency is a large part of shooting and this tool allows you to maintain a more consistent hold than without. Even if it is argued that the gain is slight and not worth the money invested, it must be conceded that it does provide an advantage. After all, numbers and bullets don't lie. So if you are looking to minimize human error, an anti-cant device is a great place to start.

 

[chribon]

O.K., I'll buy that you are not that talented; but, with discipline and desire you can take the natural ability of the eye to balance and center things and apply it to understanding where the barrel is pointed with greater accuracy than what your experin relatience with the concept suggests is possible. You can indeed come to understand when the position has been built with a consistent relationship between shoot, gun, and ground, including recognition for a level sight.

You just made my point for me. In many cases you can't "build a position." When you have to set up on a hill side for example, a level is a very valuablereference to check yourself. As I said before, a level is a good teacher to learn to recognize how a level reticle looks and feels I in relation to the rifle, irrespective of the terrain, which leads to referring to it less often. I happen to be quite experienced, and although you can knock my talent and experience without ever knowing me or shooting with me, the fact remains that the top sniper instructors in the country advocate the use of ACDs. I think the difference of opinion is between flat range, known distance NRA position shooters, and "tactical" long range shooters and/or a hunting perspective.

 

[Lowlight]

You just made my point for me. In many cases you can't "build a position."

Bullshit, he uses the term build the position when he talks about addressing the rifle, not
building it literally.

What top sniper instructors are you talking about... you mean the guys who "Sell" levels... or the magpul video ?

It's a distraction, you cannot hold the rifle watching the level and shoot, while properly looking through the scope. We can't properly look at two things at once like that. You have to check one then move to the other and the body will subconsciously move you back to unlevel because you improperly set up the rifle.


Scope manufacturers will allow up to 3 degrees of error in their reticles, so how can you determine 1 degree with a $7 level ? You have no way of knowing what 1 degree is, and as soon as you look away from the level I guarantee you move it back to off...

I taught for a long time, longer than the so called, "top sniper instructor' and we never advocated using a level beyond training yourself to see what you position looks like.

you can set you rifle up correctly to properly fit and use your body position then adjust your scope to gravity. The rifle is canted, the scope is not... David Tubb who does sell and advocate a level for "training" says in the first line of his literature to set the rifle up to your "Natural Position" this is a clue... many don't understand this but a level rifle with a level scope is NOT natural.

The Tubb 2000 rifles also have offset scope base holes, 5 and 10 degrees off center. He uses the level for that... because the rifle is up to 10 degrees canted.

 

[LastShot300]

It's a distraction, you cannot hold the rifle watching the level and shoot, while properly looking through the scope. We can't properly look at two things at once like that. You have to check one then move to the other and the body will subconsciously move you back to unlevel because you improperly set up the rifle.

Scope manufacturers will allow up to 3 degrees of error in their reticles, so how can you determine 1 degree with a $7 level ? You have no way of knowing what 1 degree is, and as soon as you look away from the level I guarantee you move it back to off...

Cannot be said any better. Try the built-in level in the Sphur...a waste of money.

 

[Lowlight]

Here is another BIG CLUE ...

The best fitting rifles have adjustable stocks that allow you to rotate the buttplate in order to "FIT" your body. Look at the McMillan / TUBB Rifles or any Olympic rifle. (which by the way many shoot canted) They rotate the plate for a reason. Our bodies are not designed to have a straight up and down buttstock in our shoulder pocket. So if you level the rifle to a level scope your body will automatically attempt to resist this position.

The natural way to do it, is to address the rifle without a scope mounted. Then mounting the scope rotating it (it's moved much smaller than 1 degree) until the reticle the movement is square with the fall of gravity. By lining up the scope with gravity and the rifle to the shooter, you eliminate the need for the body to move the rifle off to one side. That constant reminder for guys using the level (especially the ones who say they need it) is a clue you are not addressing the rifle correctly. That your rifle is in fact set up incorrectly for your use and body. It's Unnatural hence we fight that unnatural feeling.

What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.. well if you continually check your level and it's off... you're insane if you don't adjust the rifle to fix this. After that, you won't need the level except in the rarest of occasions.

This whole idea of shooting in the mountains or hills requires you to need a level because you don't have a horizon is pure ignorance put forth by people who don't know any better and feel because they don't know, everyone should follow their example. You don't focus on the horizon, ever... not on a square range, not in the mountains. I have never bothered to "check level" of the target because I don't care if the target is level or not. Why would I ? Holding the crosshairs consistently has nothing to do with the target's shape, orientation or anything like that. As if you line up your crosshairs on the horizon line (which with square ranges there are usually berms behind the target blocking the horizon) or on the target board, then moved them over to the circle... hello who does this ?

This is what Sterling is talking about, it's a distraction if you are focused on the objects around you or the target, and not on the sights. We can't watch both.

Sterling also describes your body position and the process to properly hold the rifle as "building your position" he is talking about bone support, muscular relaxation, sight picture, sight alignment as "building your position". This is the consistency part, where setting up the rifle to the shooter is the most important aspect of proper shooting. If it doesn't fit you correctly or is not set up correctly, you become distracted, your body will fatigue quicker, and you'll be inconsistent because you are constantly fighting your subconscious for it's need to move it off target on you.

These are clues, that the uninformed choose to ignore and then thinks can be fixed by a $7 1 inch long level. avoid the sales pitch, if you want to train your body and identify inconsistencies in your position or rifle set up, go for it, but if you think it will help you shoot better, that is false. I will go shot for shot anywhere with anyone without using any tools to aid me. I guarantee I don't miss because I am "canted" , or couldn't see the horizon, or had a bipod with a leg uneven, or any other excuse.

 

[Pinecone]

Hmm, so what happens when the surface you are "building your position" is not level?

If your rifle fits perfectly, and is level when you are in position, on LEVEL ground, what happens when you are on a 3 degree slope to the left or right?

 

[Lowlight]

Hmm,

You act like you can't have one leg in your bipod be taller than the other, or that they don't "swivel" and adjust..

Hmmm... seems like common sense to me.

I live in Fucking CO, you act like I don;t shoot in the National Forests here (or you're purposely ignoring my images)

I was also brought to Fort Irwin with the Rangers an "High Angle Instructor" not to mention we helped set up the Thunder Ranch High Angle Class and the Army National Guard School in Vermont... do I need to list more ? (and by Me, I mean Rifles Only)

 

[Lowlight]

As if you guys have never adjusted your bipod to get you "close to level" and then used the cant feature built in the bipod to adjust with...

Hmm, must never have thought of that... adjusting the bipod.

Look he is leveling the shot without using a level... voodoo, magic, or what ?

It's hard to see, but the other images of the Online Training Angle Lesson, you can see I have one leg 3 notches out and the other is closed.

Mountains of Korea, no levels ever used.

Clearly there is more ways to skin a cat, if the level says you need to level it, what do you do to level it, well I do the same exact thing but I can feel it is off.

Legs uneven

 

[Lowlight]

Posted on FB today... they get it, you adjust the bipod.

I mean really, it's so obvious I find it hard to believe someone would be like, "Hmmm what happens if the ground is uneven"

 

[Wazzu]

Just out of curiosity, why so passionate about not using levels? I have them on all my scopes and think they are great. Gives me more confidence and eliminates one additional variable. They are not expensive. It is not in my way at all, just sits there on the scope. With the level pushed all the way out by the objective lens, it is actually pretty easy to see both the level and the sight picture (with both eyes open).

I understand from some previous posts, that some believe they can train themselves to keep the gun level. I personally don't feel like I can do this accurately 100% of the time, but we also probably have very different backgrounds and training. My ACD will be 100% accurate, and that is why I use them. It is what works for me.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this question. Rather, the answer that fixes the problem of rifle cant for each individual person will be the "right" direction to go. I like them, other don't

To the OP: MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION BASED ON YOUR SKILLS AND NEEDS.

 

[TRAC]

http://youtu.be/gzX6DsJ5IrY

Sent from my GT-i9100 using Tapatalk

 

[Lowlight]

Video proves the point... pretty well too.

I am not against "levels" I am against the misuse of levels and the bullshit being shoveled when it comes to their employment. I have documented on many a firing lines, going shooter to shooter during various Sniper's Hide Competitions and even on "level" ground... noted their bubble being subconsciously moved off because of improper use.

Ignorance, excuses and false justifications don't make it so... just because you fool yourself into believing what you are doing is correct, doesn't make it correct to everyone else. Selling a bad line of instruction or improper use of a tool is still selling a bad thing where I come from. If you're gonna use it, use it right, and don't bs people just because you don't "know" or never bothered to seek out the truth.

Watch that video and note the errors he introduced by himself, vs what errors were found in these $7 levels all by themselves. 4x more error between the lines then he introduced on his own.

 

[Wazzu]

Video proves the point... pretty well too.

I am not against "levels" I am against the misuse of levels and the bullshit being shoveled when it comes to their employment. I have documented on many a firing lines, going shooter to shooter during various Sniper's Hide Competitions and even on "level" ground... noted their bubble being subconsciously moved off because of improper use.

Ignorance, excuses and false justifications don't make it so... just because you fool yourself into believing what you are doing is correct, doesn't make it correct to everyone else. Selling a bad line of instruction or improper use of a tool is still selling a bad thing where I come from. If you're gonna use it, use it right, and don't bs people just because you don't "know" or never bothered to seek out the truth.

Watch that video and note the errors he introduced by himself, vs what errors were found in these $7 levels all by themselves. 4x more error between the lines then he introduced on his own.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. What is the correct way to use a level? And, what am doing incorrectly? I post on these forums to share my "knowledge" and to learn from others.

 

[Lowlight]

Exactly what you said, looking at the level and the crosshairs together ... you can't do both even if you think you can. It's like thinking holding your breathe makes you steadier. We all know this to be wrong but lots of people do it.

I have explained it in great details above, if you "have" to look at your level to ensure it is correct, you might want to think about fixing your rifle set up. Its wrong.

We are not designed to "focus" on two things at once that way. Taking attention away from the sights is what causes them to drift off target, if you need the level focusing back on the sights will cause you drift off level.

Also watch the video, it explains it better, visually, .2 - .3 degrees of error sighting the rifle correctly vs .8 degrees of error between the level lines. So if the shooter is introducing .3 degrees of error and a level is .8 degrees between the lines, what variable are you reducing by using the level ? Setting up the rifle correctly and learning about sight picture is 4x more accurate than relying on the level in this case... let's be conservative, 3x more... so would you rather be confident about 3x more variable or 3x less ?

 

[Wazzu]

Hmmm…interesting. Something to think about and further research. Thanks!

 

[Lowlight]

Remember this, as I feel it is very important

Everyone of note who advocates the level is trying to sell you something. I am not selling you anything. Thomas H in the video is not trying to sell you anything. He is telling you to trust your training and set up your rifle right.

When level salesman start quoting facts and figures about how much you'll miss without one, ask yourself if you ever saw some one shooting F Class suddenly miss off the target because they were canted 8 degrees ? They always use numbers that are 5x bigger than you'l introduce on your own, and at the max distance they can give you. Why because saying an 8 degree error will send you off the board sounds much more important than saying the average guy will introduce less than 1 degree of real cant in the system. Or that scope manufacturers alone have a 2 to 3 degree error acceptance. It's always 5 or more degrees, which is actually a lot. So much you'd be on the edge of your swivel function with a Harris.

It's the difference between people who shoot and people who run numbers all day. You can many the numbers look as scary as you want, but once you hit the range you realize it's not very practical.

 

[Wazzu]

Well, I understand what you are saying. And I am definitely not one of those guys who run numbers all day and doesn't shoot. I love math and science and enjoy reading and understanding as much as I can, whether it is reading about ballistics from someone like Bryan Litz or reading about the universe from Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku. It is ok to disagree on a professional level, but if you cannot provide some sort of objective, measurable, and repeatable data to prove your point, it does not hold a lot of weight. Just saying "I've seen" or "so many guys" or "I've done this" doesn't really mean anything to others as it is subjective and cannot be measured. Nor could I repeat these result myself. Not to say it doesn't work for you, but it does not give others much to go on.

Whether a person chooses to acknowledge or not, physics can objectively prove that cant has a result downrange. That is why I included the numbers in my above post. It not based on my opinion. To what degree that can corrected, seems to be debatable based on the accuracy of the ACD being used and the given amount of acceptable error present.

The video posted above is interesting, but is by no means a valid or complete study of cant. As I see it, the video shows that this specific man can repeatably shoulder his rifle and that the digital ACD is more accurate than the bubble level used. Beyond that, I cannot derive any other conclusions. You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same training and experience you have as well as the same rifle/stock setup and therefore should be able to shoot just like you. Obviously, this is not the case. And as such, what works for you, may not work for everyone else.

Perhaps I did not clarify well enough; I don't look at both the level and the target at the same time while actually shooting. I get the rifle set against my shoulder and sights on target--then I make a quick glance at the level to confirm my hold is as level as my ACD will report. Occasionally, the rifle will be canted to a noticeable degree, and I can use the bubble to make a reasonably accurate adjustment to fix--at least it is more level than without. This system works for me, provides confidence (remember this is just a feeling), and has given positive downrange results. There may be other ways and I respect those who choose not to use the ACD, but this works for me. 'nough said.

FYI: As I hope you know, Bryan Litz is not a level salesman. He is the chief ballisticican for Berger Bullets, worked for the USAF designing air-to-air missiles, and has an aerospace engineering degree from Penn state. In addition, he is a world class shooter. So, that being said, I will continue to make my decisions based on what experts-not salesman have to say and then most importantly, how the product works for me.

Best of Luck in all your endeavors!

But, just out of curiosity, have you ever used an ACD? If so, which one(s)?

And I have to ask, are you saying breathing does not have an impact on shooting? Maybe I am extremely ignorant, but what do you mean by "it's like thinking holding your breathe makes you steadier. We all know this to be wrong but lots of people do it."? I usually take a breath or two and then try to pull the trigger at that natural break between exhale and inhale. Or, are you saying don't hold your breath like you are diving under water, i.e. fill the lungs with air and hold?

 

[jbell]

I have read through this thread and have to say that I am no expert and never claim to be but I agree that levels are more of a problem than anything else, at least for me. I have tried several different ones and some were easier to use and screwed me up less than others but I have never felt comfortable with one. They make me second guess myself when I know the rifle is level but the actual level is slightly off (at least it is when I look at it). So when I break a shot with that struggle going on in my head I usually end up with a loose nut behind the trigger. Each time I tried one I would attempt to make myself believe that I needed it especially at longer ranges but after trying to use it I always go back to simply rifle feel combined with what I see in the reticle and shoot better. I honestly have never given it any thought other than levels just frustrate me at times until I read this thread, then it clicked.

 

[Lowlight]

@Wazzu

So, just writing in a book that "X" amount of Cant will = "Y" downrange is all you care about.

The fact people "don't" cant that much naturally means nothing... The fact manufacturers allow for up to 3 degrees of cant in a reticle and call it spec means nothing.

The fact you can't show (or anyone else for that matter) shooters are missing the targets to a degree beyond the small amount that falls both inside the level they use and the scope manufacturers spec means nothing.

The fact David Tubb in his literature in the very first line says: to level the rifle to your natural hold, means nothing or that fact on the same action you have 0, 5, and 10 degree offset holes drills shows you can cant the rifle.

To say, 8 degrees = 40 inches, doesn't mean we cant that much, it just means if you cant it that much it causes this effect.

I read everything too, and I go to a lot of schools and taught / teach myself. I have copies of everything... which I understand and do not take away the unintended consequences. As Graham says I know what is a Tourist Trap and what is worth worrying about. I shoot in mountains, I shoot beyond 2000m, and I do it all without a level.

yes I own levels, of course I do, I have NF, Holland, Vortex, USO. I have used them, tested them and can show they only work for training and not shooting.

I have much more "Data" than what is written in a book, across a much wider platform as I did not model my opinion, I went out and experienced it. Been doing this a long, long time. And I have taught others to repeat it, which goes to show it works. On a broad level.

And PS. he does sell a product, his opinion on things, along with Books, Opinions that not all other ballisticians around the world agree with, so how many have you sampled ?

 

[Wazzu]

I've made my point very clear and see no other reason to elaborate. Take what you want from my posts, but they are sound, make sense, and are supported with data. I see levels as a tool, and like any tool, it has its flaws and limitations. Why do you not understand this? Why do you even care if I or anyone else chooses to use one? You have your way, which we all use to some degree, some of us just like to have something to confirm against, even if it is not perfect, it is reliable and gives consistent feedback. Again, why is this so hard to understand? And if I am wasting my money, so be it, worst case scenario I am supporting local businesses and the economy as a whole. But thank you for your concerns regarding my finances.

Everyone of your statements about what I care about is completely bogus and entirely faulty. How you came to those conclusions, I will never know, but imagine they are accurate examples of how you derive most of your conclusions.

I posted on this thread so the OP would have an accurate and mathematical baseline to establish what impact cant can have. I took a quote from a ballistic expert who was following up on the comments made by David Tubb. Noting more. It has now turned into some stupid argument with no merit. So, to those of you who enjoy this, please continue to post. I on the other hand, spend enough time arguing with doctors and lawyers all day that the last thing I want to do is come home and argue with some dude in another state whose existence has no impact on my life and can't provide anything other than his opinion. Good Luck!

Perhaps, someone should open a new thread measuring the accuracy of ACD as this is the real question being asked. This is a scientific question and should be treated as such to derive any "real" results.

 

[Lowlight]

Clearly if you were being objective, you would have said,

"Gee maybe I should try setting up my rifle and see how it affects my use of the level"

But clearly you're sold on a single opinion and not experience, the fact this stuff does not work the same for everyone equally is a big clue. If this was straight up math and science, these affects along with the numbers and values would be exactly the same for everyone who shoots. But interestingly they are not. What Larry Vickers calls a Clue.