ntsqd
Well-Known Member
Yes, see my first post in this thread.
Leveling scope off the bottom
- Thread starter S96743
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Blue Ridge Rifleman
Well-Known Member
When mounting without a rail and trying to use the plumb bob method, getting the rifle level is the most challenging part for me. I have used Hand Skills' method for most of my rifles and I feel I'm close enough. My question is: What is the best method to level a rifle when a rail will not be mounted? The Wheeler bubble levels are crap. Is there a higher quality level that I can buy?
It works just fine
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
DSheetz, I was replying specifically to arch408. I knew that others who have evolved their own methods wouldn't be interested.
I like the Arisaka tool as it is very specific if the scope is level or not (nothing flexible or compressible in the system), but it does make two assumptions. First is that the rail is level to the rifle. The second is that the flat on the bottom of the turrets is square to the reticle. Most of the time these assumptions are correct or close enough that it takes extreme use to make that not good enough. However, they are assumptions and that means that there will be exceptions and that there is no telling if the rifle under consideration is one or not until you measure everything.
I like the Arisaka tool as it is very specific if the scope is level or not (nothing flexible or compressible in the system), but it does make two assumptions. First is that the rail is level to the rifle. The second is that the flat on the bottom of the turrets is square to the reticle. Most of the time these assumptions are correct or close enough that it takes extreme use to make that not good enough. However, they are assumptions and that means that there will be exceptions and that there is no telling if the rifle under consideration is one or not until you measure everything.
Hand Skills
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Removing assumptions is not easy, and it's unfortunate that in our culture, many of us are looking for the best 'gadget' instead of trying to understand the system and variables therein holistically.
Unfortunately I cannot answer your question. Yes, there are better measurement tools, but establishing a datum or reference is not always easy. What I like about the method described is that it does not require a level of any kind.
The thing is, even if a guy gets the reticle perfectly plumb through the bore, the reticle is not part of the erector, so there is no guarantee the turrets are plumb.
I maintain that the best procedure is to test the scope on a heavy base FIRST before installing. Once I have confirmed that the reticle is aligned with the erector (the reticle does not drift left or right when elevation is dialed on the heavy base), I can be confident going forward.
Unfortunately I cannot answer your question. Yes, there are better measurement tools, but establishing a datum or reference is not always easy. What I like about the method described is that it does not require a level of any kind.
The thing is, even if a guy gets the reticle perfectly plumb through the bore, the reticle is not part of the erector, so there is no guarantee the turrets are plumb.
I maintain that the best procedure is to test the scope on a heavy base FIRST before installing. Once I have confirmed that the reticle is aligned with the erector (the reticle does not drift left or right when elevation is dialed on the heavy base), I can be confident going forward.
User4302021
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2018
- Messages
- 0
You have obviously never done it, so why don't you stop commenting on it? I have actually used both and know exactly how well to the two methods compare.
Long story short: If there is any difference at all, it is too small to see with the naked eye. My dope to 1200 yards doesn't change, and I have taken various scopes off that rifle and remounted them numerous times.
Blue Ridge Rifleman
Well-Known Member
Not knowing myself, and regarding your scenario above, will the erector align with the scope body or are they independent? Meaning, if I can acurately align the scope body to the rifle action, does this assure that the erector will move the reticle in alignment with the bore? If not, then your method is the only way to make sure the reticle tracks, if it can be aligned to the action, right?
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
D. R., I have not done exactly that process, no. I have tried extremely similar processes in non firearms applications and they were not as precise as other methods. While I only have ~25 years in working on firearms I have nearly 50 years in working with a range of mechanical things, combines & swathers to production machine tools to racing vehicles. I think that qualifies me to comment. Sorry that you do not think so but it will not alter my course.
Hand Skills
Well-Known Member
Great question. Provided a scope is functioning properly, yes I think it's fairly safe to assume that the erector system and adjustments are going to align with the scope body. I used to snicker at the guys who level off the turret, but I know some very experienced builders do it that way, so there must be something to it.
Keep in mind the erector system doesn't actually move the reticle - think about it. The reticle stays centered in the scope. It's actually the image that is moving.
They key takeaway is, the reticle and the erector system are two physically separate things. If a scope is installed with the reticule 'plumb', there is no guarantee the turrets agree. Different manufacturers have different tolerances (and different approaches to QC)...
The bottom line is, there are many ways to skin a cat. Some guys just miss the fact that in this case, there are actually two cats.
Hand Skills
Well-Known Member
Not just full, it's blue as well
Since switching to the business/playing card method I have been much more precise with proper scope leveling. So much so that I'm switching out the Talley lightweights on my hunting rifles and going with a rail and rings.
