tag for reference
Scope Rings with Integrated Level
- Thread starter Doublezranch
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
ONE strip of electrical tape, trimmed to fit the center 2/3 of each ring half & pressed in by hand. Tape only in the center of each ring avoids issues working tight fitting rings onto the scope. Works for me up thru 7 Rem Mag - most recoil I own. Y'all shooting big bore Weatherby's & the like may need 2 sets of rings....
I prefer a level separate from rings. 1) Barreled action leveled in padded vice using a metal level across the top of the scope rings (have yet to have front & back rings disagree). 2) Scope with level loosely clamped (cos low rings may not leave enough room to get the level around the scope after mounting it. Ask how I know
) Scope set in rings & reticle referenced to a plumb line on the wall with a flashlight. 3) Top ring halves carefully set in place, screws tightened in criss-cross pattern, rechecking reticle against the plumb line. 4) When done, center the level's bubble, carefully tighten its ring while verifying reticle to plumb line. Results: Action is level. Reticle lines up with plumb line. Bubble level centered. Quality rings with inbuilt level for sure would simply the above but even if the rings are perfect, one should still consider shining a Surefire thru the scope to plumb the crosshairs.
longtubeman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2012
- Messages
- 119
Looks like every one like bubble levels, well it takes 3 degrees to move a bubble! I start with a stock in a vice, leveled, then the action leveled, then the base and then rings. Scope comes next. The difference is I use a digital level that goes two places over from 0. And yes I use a bubble level on my scope, but at least I know the gun is very level. These are cheep on Amazon.com
Attachments
osok-1k
Well-Known Member
I have a digital level that I bought for sharpening knives with a consistent angle on each side, never thought about using it on the rifle, I think I'll try it and see where things are. Good idea for us 'nth degree folk.
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
Klein sells a level like that for not a lot. I bought one for setting some drive-line angles.
Klein Digital Level - $30 at time of posting
Klein Digital Level - $30 at time of posting
Humm, where do you set this when you level the scope? My concern on using levels to level the scope is levels can wrong and many people place them on top of the elevation turret cap which is not always level. By using a plumb line, you know that is correct and as a final step, if you want to, you can dial elevation up and down to be sure the reticle is correct or run a tall target test. I have found the David Tubb bubbles to be very sensitive.
At some point you can only do so much. If you want to spend more money, the Send It digital bubbles are really cool.
Attachments
Buzzsaw
Well-Known Member
I'll be the Devils Advocate.
Are these levels REALLY nessacary on a hunting rifle shooting 300-400 yards? I guess I could google it. I can see the ELR shooters who are shooting 1000+ yards needing one but, normal hunters?
I shoot a 6mmbr to 500 yards hitting 4" steel plates if I can read the wind. NO level, just well mounted NX8 Scope.
I think many guys buy these bubble things because they are Tacticool. Yes, I'm an old fart.
But, if they make you more confident by all means bubble up.
I think reading wind should be more important than "doo dads".
Just my worthless opinion.
Are these levels REALLY nessacary on a hunting rifle shooting 300-400 yards? I guess I could google it. I can see the ELR shooters who are shooting 1000+ yards needing one but, normal hunters?
I shoot a 6mmbr to 500 yards hitting 4" steel plates if I can read the wind. NO level, just well mounted NX8 Scope.
I think many guys buy these bubble things because they are Tacticool. Yes, I'm an old fart.
But, if they make you more confident by all means bubble up.
I think reading wind should be more important than "doo dads".
Just my worthless opinion.
Good for you. However a simple " doo-dad" is not merely Tacticool.
It is based on fact. The human eye is only capable of detecting a minimum 3 degree cant. Shooting on a hillside or rock or anything else but flat earth, makes it even more difficult. Please see the attached. 3 inches at 400 yards is a lot. .75 MOA in windage. So if you are shooting a 5 inch plate, you will likely miss. 24 inches at 1,000 yards is way off the plate.
So given the cost of shooting, I would say setting up your scope properly the first time and using a $80 bubble is worth it.
Attachments
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
Putting some perspective on this, 3" at 400 yards is very likely still within the kill zone. So at that range it matters a lot more on paper than it does in hunting. At further ranges it starts to matter in hunting as well, arguably becoming as and perhaps more important to the hunter.
CoSniper66
Well-Known Member
Not on a Prairie Dog.
Average wind speed here this time of year is 15 mph. Average... I will take every advantage I can get. But your point is valid for average hunters and the range most game in the USA is taken. Just that few here are average, or at least they don't want to stay that way.
I like the digital level idea and products I didn't know about. Good thread.
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
Maol explained my point better than I did, although I would probably use "typical" instead of "average.
In my mind shooting prairie dogs is "varminting" rather than "hunting" and that brings in an expectation of a higher level of gear, practice, methodology, and skill-set. At least that has been my exposure. That a "varminting" approach is being applied to hunting as done on this forum hasn't escaped me. I was merely pointing out that under ~400 yards the methodology needed doesn't require the use of a level. That you would use one anyway for the practice would make sense. Particularly if you're of the mindset that you always do it the same way every time regardless of the distance. That makes sense to me too. Even if levels aren't particularly new ( I recall handling a Sharps-Borchard Mid Range Target rifle from the late 1800's that had a spirit level in it's front sight), folks have been killing meat animals with firearms for quite a while without a level.
I would expect that with frequent use of a level that eventually you would refer to it less and less because you would get to know when you're not level just from body position. But that's just my guess based on how humans aclimatize to the use of just about anything.
True, but I did say "very likely". Can always find an exception.
In my mind shooting prairie dogs is "varminting" rather than "hunting" and that brings in an expectation of a higher level of gear, practice, methodology, and skill-set. At least that has been my exposure. That a "varminting" approach is being applied to hunting as done on this forum hasn't escaped me. I was merely pointing out that under ~400 yards the methodology needed doesn't require the use of a level. That you would use one anyway for the practice would make sense. Particularly if you're of the mindset that you always do it the same way every time regardless of the distance. That makes sense to me too. Even if levels aren't particularly new ( I recall handling a Sharps-Borchard Mid Range Target rifle from the late 1800's that had a spirit level in it's front sight), folks have been killing meat animals with firearms for quite a while without a level.
I would expect that with frequent use of a level that eventually you would refer to it less and less because you would get to know when you're not level just from body position. But that's just my guess based on how humans aclimatize to the use of just about anything.
