Mounting a scope - the Eyeball leveling method

[Pahoo]

Okay, one more try !!!

Assuming that the reticles are "perfectly" square with each other,

That really wasn't a part of the question. I only put that in there in order to get past some "Second-Guesser" Who might have added that he has seen reticles that were not square to each other. Guess it only added to some confusion. ...

Now then, back to the question;
Can we level or plumb to each and accept that we are level or in line with the pull of gravity? Isn't that what we are trying to achieve? .....


Be Safe !!!

 

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Unless the house was built by monkeys

Not sure you could rule that out around here, lol.

 

[Captains1911]

Now then, back to the question;
Can we level or plumb to each and accept that we are level or in line with the pull of gravity? Isn't that what we are trying to achieve? .....

Your question doesn't make sense. It has to do with the optic being aligned to the rifle, not the "pull of gravity." If the rifle is rotated 45 degrees, so should the optic, whereas gravity will always act toward the center of the earth. Take the rifle to outer space where there is "no gravity", and the optic should still be square to the rifle. Gravity has nothing to do with this.

 

[wogpotter]

It's impossible to "eyeball" the top of a receiver level

Then I just did the impossible, not just once, but several times.

 

[AllenJ]

I don't see how a little 1" level on the rifle and the scope is going to be any more precise than the method mentioned by Art above, and in fact I believe Art's way is the better of the two choices.

 

[Captains1911]

I don't see how a little 1" level on the rifle and the scope is going to be any more precise than the method mentioned by Art above, and in fact I believe Art's way is the better of the two choices.

The levels work much better for people who are not able to eyeball it as good. It's really quite simple.

 

[uofudavid]

I am mounting a new scope on my rifle this weekend and will use the plumb vertical line at 100 yards method.

But when I am shooting long range in natural areas that do not have man made vertical or horizontal lines for reference would I not need to have a level on my scope to confirm I am holding my rifle correctly. Otherwise any scope adjustments will throw the shot off, correct?

If I would need a level on my rifle/scope for longer ranges is there any recommendations for a level for a Vortex Viper PST 6-24X50?

 

[Pahoo]

It's all in the inflection ...

Your question doesn't make sense.

I'm trying to make a point and draw something out and I can see I'm not having much luck. Instead, I defer to Art's and big al hunter's reply as an example of what I do. ....

I use a carpenter's level to draw a heavy black line on my 100-yard backstop.
al hunter I line up the vertical crosshair with a known plumb vertical line. Either a building corner or a door jamb. Works quit well if the rifle is held in a vise or jig.

I line up the vertical reticle with a known plumb vertical line. Either a building corner or a door jamb. Works quit well if the rifle is held in a vise or jig.

I line up with a plumb-line hanging on my fence, about 50yds. away and in the winter, 20ft. across my shop and garage. Being square and plumb, I could also reference on the horizontal reticle just as well. .....

Be Safe !!!!

 

[Art Eatman]

uofudavid, that's something that comes with experience. However, with a properly mounted scope, it should be pretty easy to tell if it's near-exact as to vertical.

Damfino. Go look at the edges of houses and office buildings, and learn all about vertical, I guess.

 

[reynolds357]

I have the gizmos for squaring a scope on a rifle. I have found that I do not like my scopes perfectly square except on my flat bottom bench rifles. I have found that I hold my hunting rifles with a slight cant, and the mounting of the scope needs to match that cant.

 

[4runnerman]

Yes wogpotter- To eyeball a scope at 300 yards is easy. Even if it is not level,oce it is sighted in it makes no difference. We have agreed on that. Now take your eyeballed scope and dial out to 1000 yards. That is the only place it comes into play.. The farther you shoot,the more pronounced the error becomes.

 

[wogpotter]

Yes wogpotter- To eyeball a scope at 300 yards is easy. Even if it is not level,oce it is sighted in it makes no difference. We have agreed on that. Now take your eyeballed scope and dial out to 1000 yards. That is the only place it comes into play.. The farther you shoot,the more pronounced the error becomes.

Maybe you should have read this before commenting?

Maybe it’s a knack, maybe something else but it works for me out to 650yds which is as far as I can shoot.

 

[4runnerman]

wogpotter- I did read it. I assume you are using hold over?. Because if you are saying you dial up your scope from 300 to 650 and it is still bullseye,,Well I just don't know if that is believable or how big your bullseye is. Or as you say--You have one heck of a Knack for sure- Like one in a million

 

[Art Eatman]

Okay, in the FWIW department: My first messing around on the 22" steel plates of my 500-yard range at the house was guesstimation for holdover and windage. I did okay, leaving me with a smug feeling. 200-yard zero, so four feet of holdover. That day, two feet of upwind hold. A tad low, but not off to the side.

On a calm day a week later, I messed around at 100 yards, adjusting eight inches higher for POI. I then moved over to the 500-yard range.

Near center, two 0.8 MOA groups with 165-grain. Then a 10-shot not-quite-rapid string of 180-grain with two called flyers and 8 hits in a six-inch group--near center. Any of the shots would have ruined Bambi's day.

So I guess I do okay in all this Mark I eyeball stuff. No big deal, though, since I've been doing this stuff for a long time.

 

[4runnerman]

Agreed Art. Hold over is a different story. That is what I do with my 223. I have a mil dot scope,have it zeroed for 200 yards and can shoot very well out to about 450 with it just using hold over. How ever-zeroed at 300 and then going to 1000 or 1200 yards, The hold over option is no longer there. Bullet drop is way to much for that. Which leads me back to what I first said.
Hold over out to 400 to 600 is possable ( no scope adj is needed) farther than that and a level scope is needed ( more than eyeball level). I also eye balled my mounting till I started shooting 1000 yards and more. That is when I found out it just don't cut the mustard.

 

[Barnacle Brad]

But when I am shooting long range in natural areas that do not have man made vertical or horizontal lines for reference would I not need to have a level on my scope to confirm I am holding my rifle correctly. Otherwise any scope adjustments will throw the shot off, correct?

Well sorta...
If your scope is mounted dead nuts plumb any subsequent adjustments will be true. But if you don't hold your rifle plumb for that 1000yd shot you will not be consistent with your POI.

Also, if your scope is not mounted plumb, you will not have accuracy when adjusting your MOA. The degree of inaccuracy will be relative to the 'plumbness' of your scope and amplified by longer shooting ranges.

It is not uncommon for guys to have bubble levels mounted in the front globe sight of their BPCR rifles. I found an example (link below) of a bubble level that mounts to a scope if you are interested.

Scope Level

 

[tobnpr]

The errors aren't going to be significant...unless you're looking for a first round hit- without specific dope from your rifle...at long range.

Two weeks ago stretched the legs on my son's AR-10 for the first time. Punched that data into Strelok for 600 yards from a 100 yard zero- first round hit on a 10" plate. Same went for 1000 yards (well...except for the hit- but the dope was right on, it was the wind).

You can have a scope that tracks like a drunken sailor, anyone can "walk" hits onto the target. It's getting the first round hit with no induced errors that requires a perfectly set up optic, that tracks true.