Crooked scope?

A one piece rail mount adds a fair bit of height which allows you to use much lower rings.
That is what I finally came up with. It seems picatinney mil spec is some thing like .320 high. The Weaver one piece I have(Not mounted) is .160 or so, not sure of measurements, but a substantial difference. Worse comes to worse, I still have some where the 1.75 rings that came with my cheapo !
Gregg
 
I use this tool:View attachment 85658
My scope is plumb centered above the bore, and another level atop the turret levels the scope. Follow up with a tall target tracking test and you are good to go.

+1.....excellent device for determining whether the scopes center axis is in alignment with the barrel/bore. Using Wheeler style, Action/scope rail levels alone does not measure axial alignment....

https://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-...y&utm_campaign=itwine&utm_content=289-100-000
 
You can also just draw an + on a piece of cardboard or plywood and set it level either on a stake or against a wall.

Level the rifle, install the scope and match the crosshairs to the +.

I like simple.

I do too, the kiss system was created for guys like me and maybe you.
I was only joking on my prior post, but it seems that didn't register well.
I think a valid question is that since were talking about the center of the scope, or the + as you termed it as the aiming point, then how much actual error is involved if the reticle appears correct, but is actually slightly off even at say 1000 yds which is in fact much further than most guys will ever shoot at an animal?
And how would we know for sure if a shot was off, that it was caused by scope alignment issues, wind, an unseen tree branch, or even in a remote case, maybe just shooter error?
What is the remedy for any of that?
I'm from the school of send more lead asap, and talk about what might have happened later.
As for torque drivers for tightening ring screws, it was never necessary until recently and the influx of cheap scopes having thinner tubes. And I know some of them aren't cheap as for cost.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top