quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
David Tubbs advocates canting the rifle and believes that most people benifit from canting.Mr tubss sets his adjustable stocks for his cant,he also levels his reticle when the rifle is in the canted position for his long range prone position. Mr Tubbs rifle is canted more so in the standing and knelling position than when in the prone therefore his reticle is canted as well in the standing and knelling position. Mr. Tubbs explains in great detail in his book why he believes canting forms a more stable shooting position,he also states that a canted reticle once sighted in does not affect accuracy it only would affect accuracy when making sight adjustments such as an adjustment up or down would also moving horizontally as well.If anyone wants more info I suggest read Mr. books as to why he believes canting to be best

I have a bunch of shooting trophies in my house, but no doubt Tubbs would kick my ass. However, the guy is a target shooter. Sure, canting doesn't matter in HP or other KD discipline, because you click for each range/positon. But in hunting, you don't shoot at a known distance. For moderate distances, it wouldn't matter, but at long distance, it would. And I am quite sure Tubbs would agree with all of this.

Well I don't think canting is good.
I like to get the cross hairs level to help stop canting.
As for shooting comfort, I can put the butt into my sholder where it's all comfy, and raise or lower my whole sholder and or upper body to get the rifle straight, if need be. At least then I can sleep nights.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
David Tubbs advocates canting the rifle and believes that most people benifit from canting.Mr tubss sets his adjustable stocks for his cant,he also levels his reticle when the rifle is in the canted position for his long range prone position. Mr Tubbs rifle is canted more so in the standing and knelling position than when in the prone therefore his reticle is canted as well in the standing and knelling position. Mr. Tubbs explains in great detail in his book why he believes canting forms a more stable shooting position,he also states that a canted reticle once sighted in does not affect accuracy it only would affect accuracy when making sight adjustments such as an adjustment up or down would also moving horizontally as well.If anyone wants more info I suggest read Mr. books as to why he believes canting to be best

I have a bunch of shooting trophies in my house, but no doubt Tubbs would kick my ass. However, the guy is a target shooter. Sure, canting doesn't matter in HP or other KD discipline, because you click for each range/positon. But in hunting, you don't shoot at a known distance. For moderate distances, it wouldn't matter, but at long distance, it would. And I am quite sure Tubbs would agree with all of this.

REad Tubbs secound book and he explains his belief in canting.This not my idea it is his.He states that in the kneeling and standing postion that his reticle is also canted and that it does not matter since the sights arenot adjusted during a shootig string.In the prone postion for long range he states that sight adjustment may need to be made for each shot because of varing conditions and his rifle cant is less in the in the prone position and his recticle is level in this postion.He also speaks of the hunting rifle and he also advocates canting for this endeaver as well.Until I read his book I did not know that shooters of his magnitude canted their rifles

Seems to me the best way to determine if a scope is level is to shoot from bench:

1) Sight in at 100 yards
2) then shoot at 300 yards (or farther if no wind)
3) then adjust only the scope vertical clicks to get up on target at 300 yards.
4) then shoot another group at 300 yards.

If both then second and third group are on the vertical the scope is level for the shooter's hold.

Not a bad idea RaySendero. I'll take actual range performance over theoretical any day.............DJ

I use the Segway reticle leveler. It may look like a cheap plastic gadget but it works great.

Take a look at Cabela's Laser Boresighter with Scope Reticle Leveler. It on sale.

I use two line levels. I take the first level, to make sure that the gun in the vise is level-I do this by placing the level on top of the receiver, or maybe on top of the scope mount(if there is enough room).On bolt guns, I sometimes remove the bolt and place the level across the top. Leave the level on gun for the next step.
Take top scope turret cap off(or leave it on, depends on the cap), and place the other line level on elevation adjustment. Adjust scope until the second line level is level. MAKE SURE THAT THELEVEL ON THE GUN IS STILL LEVEL. When both line levels are level, your reticle is level with your gun. Sometimes when you tighten the scope rings, the scope moves a bit, causing it to lose level-so you should set up the scope level a little off, so that when the screws are tightened, it is level. With the exeption of one gun, I have always been able to find something flat enough on the receiver, or scope mount, to rest a level on.
I recently put a scope on a BLR, and there was no flat place to get a level on. I cocked the hammer, and placed the level on top of the cocked hammer-seems like it worked to me.

I think most people, including David Tubbs, would agree that if you are going to set up your rifle other than the “norm†it should be done with a specific reason in mind and with the full awareness of how your “out-of-norm†set up will effect your aiming and shooting at different ranges.

I think it would be safe to say that David Tubbs knows and understands his rifles and loads far better than the average Joe out there, and therefore he knows pretty much exactly what each change or modification is going to produce for him.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I think most people, including David Tubbs, would agree......

I think it would be safe to say that David Tubbs..........................

.

I think that at this point (even though you previously ridiculed bringing him in to the arguement and now use his name yourself) it would be best that instead of "I think most would agree" and "I think it's safe to say", that you just actually read what Tubbs has to say about shooting and canting. You just might learn what he really said instead of assuming or guessing......................DJ

Well I don't know a thing about Mr. Tubbs and his canted rifles, but I will offer my method of leveling reticles. I mount my rifle in a gun vise, then I lay a small torpedo level - one I have checked out with my 4' level- across a scope base (Talley or Weaver type) and shim the vise until the base/rifle is level. I then lay the torpedo level across the top turret and make that level. I watch the level as I tighten screws so that it stays level. It seems to work for me.

quote:

I wish scope makers would etch a line across the top of the scope body, then etch a line on top of the rings, line these 2 up and you have your leveled scope every time

AMEN!!

Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I think most people, including David Tubbs, would agree......

I think it would be safe to say that David Tubbs..........................

.

I think that at this point (even though you previously ridiculed bringing him in to the arguement and now use his name yourself) it would be best that instead of "I think most would agree" and "I think it's safe to say", that you just actually read what Tubbs has to say about shooting and canting. You just might learn what he really said instead of assuming or guessing......................DJ

Pardner, you and David Tubb, and anyone else who wants to, can mount your scopes and hold your rifles any way that pleases you and works for you.

My rifle stocks are built so that when I assume a comfortable shooting position the rifle is level and I do not have to use up any scope adjustments to compensate for a level reticle and a canted rifle...and if I need to recheck the weapon/scope at any point in time I have a constant reference between the rifle and the scope/reticle than can be checked and verified very easily and accurately to assure that everything is pointing where its supposed to.

If you want to base your views on books...then it wouldn’t be real difficult to find a stack of them (written by people just as knowledgable, and some more so, as David Tubb) who advise to NOT cant your rifle and to have the weapon and the reticle level to each other.

When you shoot HP as Tubbs does, it doesn't matter if you cant yoru rifle. If it provides a more consistent "spot weld" then it is better to do it. I remember I used to click one windage when I shot sitting, in addition to whatever windage I put in. I took that out when I shot prone and standing. Since you are at the same known distance, you just put in the clicks.

BTW, HP doesn't allow scopes either.

I only worry about scope leveling on my long range rifles. I line up the retice using a piece of string. I then put a ScopeLevel on my scope such that it reads level when the vertical is lined up with the crosshair. Then I put a boresight device in my rifle, turn it until the crosshair vertical is lined up with a vertical line when the ScopeLevel is level, then I dial up the elevation. When the scope bottoms out, I should still be lined up with the vertical crosshair.

Well, Tubbs' rifle is not a good example for one obvious reason - his scope is offset to account for his cant. When we have our "hunting" rifles canted, unless the rings you buy are different than the ones I buy, the scope is not offset, that is what causes the problem - problem being that the scope are bore are not in perfect vertical alignment. Therefore the bullet has to travel left or right to hit where we are sighted in, so that at farther distances, by continuing that right or left path, your windage will be off.

I bet if you inspect his rifle very closely, that mount set-up is designed to put his scope in perfect vertical alignment with the bore.