• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Why is level not built into scope?

LostInTranslation

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 16, 2020
104
8
I've read about importance of keeping rifle level - why don't scopes offer level as an aid?
 
Seems challenging to make it visible inside a scope, and it would obstruct the view.

External levels are easy to use and cheap enough.
 
It has been in the past, Springfield Armory had several models that did 20+ years ago.
 
a
Seems challenging to make it visible inside a scope, and it would obstruct the view.

External levels are easy to use and cheap enough.
Depends how it is implemented... Could be a digital reading or analog projection or even bubble projected on top.
 
so the industry can charge you for another product ? cause scope companies love it when you buy there product then have to spend months fumbling around with your new scope at the range with reticles twisted so cockeyed you would have to hang upside down to see it straight , everyone needs a good laugh at the range so they make you the but of the joke . Id stick to the first one .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravenworks
Related question - why are mounting rings are actual circles with no keying feature (so scope/rings could be mated together at preset angle - while allowing front/back movement)? Are there times where one would not want scope to be perfectly aligned to rifle/base?
 
Related question - why are mounting rings are actual circles with no keying feature (so scope/rings could be mated together at preset angle - while allowing front/back movement)? Are there times where one would not want scope to be perfectly aligned to rifle/base?

Who's to say that the base is level? That's in its own right a presumption. The first and only Tactical Machining upper I bought the pic rail on top was totally out of spec for width much less level. The idea is that the end user calibrates the system. If a maker had a scope/rifle all together at once I could see such a thing being more plausible.
 
Seems challenging to make it visible inside a scope, and it would obstruct the view.

External levels are easy to use and cheap enough.

They have no problem doing it on precision alignment optics used in industry.
 
If space engineers did it they would have the scope free floating in the rings so when you shoot gangster or prs your scope would be level and as a bonus voice activated for yardages.
COST 1.5 MIL
 
Related question - why are mounting rings are actual circles with no keying feature (so scope/rings could be mated together at preset angle - while allowing front/back movement)? Are there times where one would not want scope to be perfectly aligned to rifle/base?
Maybe you should go mount a few scopes first. Then you will know why.

ETA let me help you a little with some questions
  • How close to perfectly parallel do you think the transverse centerline of the receiver is to the transverse centerline of the stock?
  • How close to perfectly perpendicular do you think the scope base screw holes in the receiver are to the transverse centerline of the receiver?
  • How close to perfectly aligned with the longitudinal centerline of the receiver do you think the receiver's scope base screw holes are?
  • How close to perfect form do you think the receiver's exterior profile is?
  • How close to perfect form do you think the underside profile of the scope bases are?
  • How close to perfectly aligned with the longitudinal centerline of the scope base do you think its screw holes are?
  • How close to perfectly perpendicular are the scope base screw holes are in relation to the top of the scope base's picatinny rail?
  • How close to absolute flatness do you think the top of the picatinny rail slots are?
Those features (and more) all have allowable variation within their assigned linear and geometric tolerances and by the time you stack all that up, there's no guarantee that your scope keyed to the rings will be plumb and level in any direction.

It's amusing how many people think man-made, mass produced items have zero variation from part to part. Even custom-made rifles have part to part variation, even if it's significantly less than what you see in similar mass produced products.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: b2lee
I believe some Sig optics have their LevelPlex which is an electronic internal level.
 
the importance of bubble levels is WAY over hyped.

its honestly not all that hard to keep a rifle level without a bubble.

bubble levels are useful for mounting scopes.....aaaaaand really not much else.
 
Who's to say that the base is level? That's in its own right a presumption. The first and only Tactical Machining upper I bought the pic rail on top was totally out of spec for width much less level. The idea is that the end user calibrates the system. If a maker had a scope/rifle all together at once I could see such a thing being more plausible.

I always hang a plumb line--doesn't mean everything is fully squared up but it's a good place to start....
 
Related question - why are mounting rings are actual circles with no keying feature (so scope/rings could be mated together at preset angle - while allowing front/back movement)? Are there times where one would not want scope to be perfectly aligned to rifle/base?
Old technology. WW2 era Brit No.32 scopes and brackets for the No.4 Mk.1 T sniper rifle has an indexing pin on the turret housing that fits in a slot in the front cradle to plumb the aiming post but does'nt allow any fore and aft movement of the scope.
 
They have no problem doing it on precision alignment optics used in industry.

With precision alignment Optics you aren't worried about obstructing the field of view and making the operator take more time to aquire object or target. Different worlds where things happen slow vs fast and picking a target or animal up in varied terrain can be challenging when you start obstructing the view. Even reticles get in the way so I don't see how a bubble level wouldn't pose the same problem.


That said, I'm just an amateur and someone more knowledgeable than me will hopefully chime in
 
With precision alignment Optics you aren't worried about obstructing the field of view and making the operator take more time to aquire object or target. Different worlds where things happen slow vs fast and picking a target or animal up in varied terrain can be challenging when you start obstructing the view. Even reticles get in the way so I don't see how a bubble level wouldn't pose the same problem.


That said, I'm just an amateur and someone more knowledgeable than me will hopefully chime in

If you’re close enough that rifle/scope cant doesn’t matter, you don’t need to look at a level, and it probably won’t take up much more space than the turrets do anyway - this is the main time that snap shots are necessary anyway.

If you’re far enough that it does matter, glance at the level when the animal or target is in your field of view; you probably won’t lose track of the target while doing so.

If you’re on the side of a mountain and don’t have a level reference, possible body positions won’t readily support the rifle feeling level regardless of how precisely aligned the scope is to the rifle. Your body won’t be level and if the rifle feels natural the scope won’t be level.
 
Old tech Unertl scope. External adjustments, scope has rail which rides in mount. You can move the fixed crosshairs inside the scope to level.
1596572946465.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornerstonearmory