ANTI CANT on scope or on rail?

[bjay]

Which will give better reading or more accurately?im guessing the higher the device the more semsitive on degree. Does this mean it will help on accuracy? Or it wont matter.. im using a lot of spuhr and im building another rifle with alphamount rings (no built it anti cant) so now im debating which anti cant to get between the two.. or maybe just a personal preferense

 

[Captain Kirk]

No mounting method is more accurate than the other from a usage point of view, the goal is to ensure your rifle/optics is level and it doesn't matter how you get there. Strictly from a install point of view, a level on a mount or base will be more consistent and less susceptible to getting bumped, or from being mounted incorrectly. With a clamp-on level, you can have your optics and reticle level, and still have the level be off.

 

[bergman0311]

Interesting thread, I am curious to see what others post. I use scope levels on both of my rifles that I shoot long range with and haven't had an issue with it.

 

[texas_vet00]

Tag for later -

 

[ChrisNZ]

The spirit level is a reference device. As in the previous comment, as long as it is securely mounted and properly levelled, it shouldn't make a difference. Using a Spuhr mount with built in level makes it secure but unable to adjust. Mounted on my TRG, for true level with crosshairs true on plum-line, the left edge of the bubble needs to touch the left plum line in the level.
As long as I do that all is level and true, verified on tall target test.
For long range shooting a level is a must have.

 

[Painless300]

If you want to go with the base level instead of the scope level make sure you get one that is adjustable. I have tried a couple of base levels, one that was $100 and both were off just like the last poster said. I ended up with a scope mount so I could get it exact and have had zero issues. It takes some time to get it right but in the end when the bubble is in the middle of the line I know I'm dead on.

 

[Drifter™]

The important aspect to me is mounting the level where it's viewable and in focus, without having to change head position behind the scope to see it. As a right-handed shooter, I want the level positioned for my left eye, with the reticle for my right. When you get accustomed to this setup, the level will be superimposed into the scope's image within the reticle, so both are viewable with no head movement necessary. For me, the optimum position for the level is offset to the left of the scope tube just in front of or behind the front scope ring, as my left eye can't focus on the level if it's too close. The optimum setup can vary by individual preferences, and individual eyes.

 

[with contrast]

On the rail or on the scope doesn't really matter as long as the reticle and level are plumb to gravity. If you go on the rail, attach the level first, level the gun, then mount scope using a plumb line. The scope may have a very slight cant in the rings but it will probably be negligible and the reticle and level should be square. Its easier if you mount the level on the scope -- just align reticle and plumb line then tighten level without moving the gun.

I've tried both methods and like to mount the level on the scope. That way if you swap your scope from one rifle to another, you don't have to do it over again. So far, I like the acculevel from flatline ops.

 

[cobyb]

How about in the scope, i have a uso and love it.

 

[Pinecone]

1) A degree is a degree is a degree. It does matter if the level is mounted to the barrel or on an extension 10 feet above the barrel.

2) I prefer level on the scope, because the most important thing is that the reticle is level when you shoot. NOT the rifle.