I just reread most of this thread. I've come to the conclusion:
1) Some engineers work outside of their stated field of expertise
2) I've been doing it all wrong. Putting my rifle in my lead sled, leveling rifle at the "mount" , using plumb bob is not correct. . Admittedly, sometimes the leveling the rifle can be a PITA though in that contraption.
Seriously though, the person recommending a tripod with mount seems to have hit on something. I have neither a tripod nor a mount (in plans).The tripod/mount technique would allow one to do a fairly nice job of leveling the rifle's base to which the mount/rings will go as well as get the eye relief likely correct on the first take. The only potential issue there is the leveling of the base/rail as I've seen a lot of variation in the "roll-axis" based on where one is on the 1553 rail just by the way the level itself sits on the rail (my experience only, not "law").
The tripod leveling concept is similar to that Badger ordnance device, which admittedly takes the "gun-to-person interface" out of the picture, and focuses on having the scope & reticle itself plumb-bob-level in the rings/mount. That system also allows the "jig" to be level based on a wider "roll-axis" and longer "pitch axis" which should provide a more accurate leveling. Also, the Badger Ordnance device would be a nice tool for scope tracking tests as well if one wanted to do multiple scopes at a time.
I think the downside of the B.O. is that the eye relief needs to be found first and how you're going to mount it on the rifle; whereas the tripod method allows potentially for both. Since I seem to fight eye relief at times, maybe I should hurry up acquisition of a tripod and go down that rabbit hole of a thread too.
Just my opinion..no math here. But Frank's analysis is spot on (as if there was a question on that!).
1) Some engineers work outside of their stated field of expertise
2) I've been doing it all wrong. Putting my rifle in my lead sled, leveling rifle at the "mount" , using plumb bob is not correct.
. Admittedly, sometimes the leveling the rifle can be a PITA though in that contraption. Seriously though, the person recommending a tripod with mount seems to have hit on something. I have neither a tripod nor a mount (in plans).The tripod/mount technique would allow one to do a fairly nice job of leveling the rifle's base to which the mount/rings will go as well as get the eye relief likely correct on the first take. The only potential issue there is the leveling of the base/rail as I've seen a lot of variation in the "roll-axis" based on where one is on the 1553 rail just by the way the level itself sits on the rail (my experience only, not "law").
The tripod leveling concept is similar to that Badger ordnance device, which admittedly takes the "gun-to-person interface" out of the picture, and focuses on having the scope & reticle itself plumb-bob-level in the rings/mount. That system also allows the "jig" to be level based on a wider "roll-axis" and longer "pitch axis" which should provide a more accurate leveling. Also, the Badger Ordnance device would be a nice tool for scope tracking tests as well if one wanted to do multiple scopes at a time.
I think the downside of the B.O. is that the eye relief needs to be found first and how you're going to mount it on the rifle; whereas the tripod method allows potentially for both. Since I seem to fight eye relief at times, maybe I should hurry up acquisition of a tripod and go down that rabbit hole of a thread too.
Just my opinion..no math here. But Frank's analysis is spot on (as if there was a question on that!).
