quote:

Originally posted by Fish30114:
Hey Rick, how does that thing from Brownells work? I'm infamous for ordering stuff and figuring out how, or trying to, after I get it. Thinking of giving that Midway thing Ol Joe showed a try as well, but was wanting the Brownells piece you showed also.

One other thing--I'm just curious, Bowhuntrrl, stated something like 'the chamber is round, the bore in the barel is round, how does it know the diff?' what's wrong with that theory?

I kind of like it.....

Just wondering--Don

It’s based on a geometric principal...that I cannot recall the name of. Basically, you set the v-base on the bottom of the tool over your barrel then slide the other v-base portion down on top of the objective bell and tighten down the locking screw. There’s a bubble level on top and since the scope and barrel are now vertically “tied†together by the tool you can just rotate the entire rifle until the bubble centers and now the scope and the rifle are both level.

There’s a slot down the middle that you can view through when looking through the scope and you just aim at a known vertical plumb line and losen the cap screws and align your vertical cross hair with the known reference point.

It’s really simple to use and doesn’t take as much time as it took me to type this. It comes with complete instructions. The only thing I dislike about it is that if you’re not careful you can scratch the finish on either your barrel or the scope. Would be nicer if made from hard plastic instead of aluminum.

And all this assumes, of course, that your scope base or bases are installed level to the receiver to begin with.

How do you measure "level" on a reciever?.
Good Luck!

[QUOTE]One other thing--I'm just curious, Bowhuntrrl, stated something like 'the chamber is round, the bore in the barel is round, how does it know the diff?' what's wrong with that theory?

Theres nothing wrong with that theory as long as the rifle is held verticle and you know how it is sighted. The problem is in the sighting in process. How can you possibly make an accurate adjustment without the scope and the bore being in perfect alignment? If they are not then every time you make adjustments one affects the other. 1/4" at 100 yards is not going to cause you to miss a deer sized animal but if you're in a prarie dog colony shooting at 300 and beyond then the score will be heavily weighted in the p-dogs favor. If you are happy with dropping the occasional lucky shot in there then don't worry about the relationship between bore and scope. I find it hard to believe that people would spend the money required to build a quality rig and then half-ass the scope mounting procedure.

quote:

Originally posted by hawkins:
How do you measure "level" on a reciever?.
Good Luck!

Usually by the horizontal axis of the bolt tunnel. Okay, generally by laying a level across the bottom of the receiver, on those that have flat bottoms such as Winchesters, Mausers, etc., or, across the mag well cut out of round receivers such as Remington etc.

The scope base screw holes 'should' be perpendicular to this and likewise centered on the bolt tunnel. If the scope base is square to the receiver, then theoretically, you could lay the jaws of your dial caliper across the bottom flat of, for instance, a Winchester 70 receiver, and the top of the scope base, and they would be perfectly parallel. On Sako and Ruger style actions with the integrated rail, they should be square and a good place to measure horizontal level.

In practice, IF the scope base is square, then you can use the flat top of the scope base to level and square the scopes crosshairs. Way simple!

If there is any noticeable difference in the cant position of the rifle when sighting in the scope, as in on the bags at the range but off the shoulder or on sticks in the field, then it is all theoretical anyway. You should sight in the scope holding the rifle as you would in the field. If you are talking about half a millimeter of cant then I would argue that just wearing different clothes, the difference between summer desert hunting and winter mountain hunting, may be more than enough to create a difference no matter how well proportioned your stock is. Don't get me wrong, I think it should be levelled to the rifle, I'm just saying that NASA tolerances may not make much difference given the variables of clothing and field conditions. I suppose prairie dog hunters who screw their rifles into vises on the back of pick-ups who level their trucks with jacks may disagree. I doubt if it makes a world of difference to an African hunter using a large bore at more rock throwing distances.

quote:

. I doubt if it makes a world of difference to an African hunter using a large bore at more rock throwing distances.

I agree that if you are at rock throwing distances it won't make a damn bit of difference. However if you don't understand the importance of getting things plumb and square as it pertains to long range shooting then you should probably stick to just that, throwing rocks. I've never seen any rifle offered with iron sights in your choice of right cant or left cant. Why do you suppose that is?

I just line up the iron sights on a horizontal line across the room, like a window sill, and then line up the crosshair on the same thing.

Tighten the screws 1/4 turn at a time.

If you don't have iron sights, then you don't really have a rifle.

I don’t recall anyone saying that you have to use “NASA tolerances†to level rifles sights or scope reticles...after all, bubble levels aren’t exactly what I would call precision measuring instruments.

Like I originally said, if your target is large enough to absorb any aiming errors caused by scope /rifle canting, then don’t worry about it. But to have people saying that it doesn’t matter at all whether or not the sighting elements of a rifle and the bore are vertically aligned is ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim White:

quote:

. I doubt if it makes a world of difference to an African hunter using a large bore at more rock throwing distances.

I agree that if you are at rock throwing distances it won't make a damn bit of difference. However if you don't understand the importance of getting things plumb and square as it pertains to long range shooting then you should probably stick to just that, throwing rocks. I've never seen any rifle offered with iron sights in your choice of right cant or left cant. Why do you suppose that is?

Jim, you will always be right in maintaining that the scope should be mounted "level" and I certainly wouldn't argue that it should be any other way. But if someone thinks they need sophisticated instruments to achieve it, then they are talking about those differences that are too slight to make a real world difference (it's true that my real world doesn't include shooting at animals at distances beyond 300 yards. I agree, it's probably a different real world for 1000 yard competitors. Now, if you use a red dot scope sight, or a target dot, on a fixed setting (with no fiddling around with the settings in that instant between spotting the animal and making your shot), how many degrees out of "level" will make a difference?

wink,

The views expressed on this site are very confusing at times. People will get all excited about a scope that has a 1mm larger exit pupil, something that shaves 2oz off the weight of their rifle, freely discuss methods to shrink their groups from ½†to ¼â€...and they will go on for days about chambering a rifle barrel to within .0001†of an inch...yet all of a sudden a $3.00 bubble level has turned into a “sophisticated instrument!â€

Rick 0311, you are definitely right about those people that get excited about those things you mention (although sometimes I learn something when reading their discussions) most of which I wouldn't have much of an opinion on. I don't want to get in the way of bubble level buyers either, it may be just the ticket although I confess I haven't used one. I haven't tried laying my dial calipers accross the bottom flats of a Model 70 receiver and checking for perfect parallel either, as suggested in a previous post above. But I am willing to accept the obvious, those guys scopes are more level than mine and bubble levels got them there.

wink,

I also enjoy reading the posts on here and have learned allot of things I didn’t know, or didn’t consider, before reading them.

I’m also a huge believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it!â€

No one on here, that I recall, said that leveling was the “have to do†set up for all rifle shooting, under all conditions, for all people. A guy came on here and asked for slick ways to level his scope reticle and then a few people chimed in and said that it was a waste of time and didn’t matter (my paraphrasing.)

Considering the number of posts on this site where guys are complaining that they have run out of adjustments in their scopes it seems sort of silly to have to use up some of those adjustments to compensate for a condition that is so easily rectified by just putting the scope and barrel in proper alignment and getting a stock that allows you to comfortably hold your rifle as close to level as possible for your style of shooting.

Rick, I agree. And sometimes I run into a problem I don't really know how to resolve and I appreciate hearing from those that have been there done that. I'll never be as knowledgeable as a good gunsmith about how to solve these problems, and sometimes, if I've never had the problem myself, I don't really understand what the problem may be. In the case of scopes, I've never had a problem and so perhaps I let a little levity slip in, thinking it too simple to need anything but common sense. But I've been wrong before.

Rick0311 and I have had a rather extended discussion about this in the optics forum. To summarize, many of the worlds top target shooters shoot with a far more severe cant than we would ever use on a hunting rifle, Here is a pic of David Tubb's Silhouette rifle that so dominated High Power Silhouette shooting (offhand to 500 meters) that the NRA essentially banned it:



The couple of degrees off that many hunters use to make a gun feel comfortable is not enough to make a huge difference at normal hunting ranges. I've tried most of the methods mentioned above to get a reticle perfectly straight including machinists levels, lasers etc. and finally came to the point it if didn't feel right after all that why bother with the last degree of perfection? One of my good buddies has taken dozens of species here and in Africa with a reticle so cock-eyed it makes my eyes cross, but it feels right to him and it works for him.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I guess if you’re too lazy or too cheap to get a stock that fits you and allows you to comfortably hold your rifle level then this is one option to consider.

One of the disadvantages of synthetic stocks is that you are pretty much stuck with what comes out of the mold. Having a wood stock custom fit for you can run into the thousands just for the stock, not having one done hardly means you are lazy or cheap. But hey if you have a custom maker build you a $20,000 gun it should fit with the reticle level......... .......DJ

dj,

I have enjoyed the discussion and hope you have also.

I agree with you about synthetic stocks, but your good friend Mr. Tubb sells a 4 way adjustable butt plate the allows anyone with any kind of stock (including synthetics) to have a rifle that is comfortable for them. And despite that fact the Tubb sells it, it is nowhere near $20 grand!

You can set up a rifle/scope to function with the rifle upside down and the scope sitting on a mount four feet away if you want to...but that isn’t real practical for most of us.

Also, I’ve seen the pictures of the incredible rifles that you built, so I ain’t buying the fact that fitting a rifle stock to your style of shooting is beyond your abilities or bank book!

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Also, I’ve seen the pictures of the incredible rifles that you built, so I ain’t buying the fact that fitting a rifle stock to your style of shooting is beyond your abilities or bank book!

Rick, I've enjoyed our good-natured debate. I often learn more from people that disagree with me than those who do. And then again sometimes it's just fun to argue. . I hope some of the other members enjoyed it at least half as much as I did.
Thanks for the complements on the rifle. I fit it to myself so that when I shouldered the rifle I was looking straight through the scope rings, i.e. one cirle inside the other. I then mounted the scope using a Segway reticle leveler and cross checking with the Midway double bouble level, I had it dead nuts on according to the guages but whenever I was holding the thing it looked crooked! So I adjusted it a couple degrees until it felt right and went and shot it with good results. In my stockmaking training exercises I've been concentrating on fit. When I get really good at it I won't be able to afford one of my own rifles!....... . I figured that since I didn't want to pay what really nice cost, I was going to have to make them myself.........DJ

dj,

If the ones you’ve posted pictures of are representative of your work I don’t think you need to worry too much about improving things to be in that category of really talented guys!

Of course, what the hell do I know, I still hold my rifles level!

quote:

Originally posted by Ol` Joe:
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=529349

This thing works..............

I AGREE. SLICKEST THING SINCE GREASED BALL BEARINGS ON GLASS.

Another vote for the simplicity of the Sedgway. Please note in the attached Link the comments of users. One reviewer is nearly poetic in his clarity and brevity while explaining the pros and cons. He seems like a wonderful person, too, beloved of kids and dogs. And he lives in my neighborhood...

Oh, and I'm morally certain that reviewer meant that the Reticle Leveler would work except with very low rings. Standard low work just fine...

Jaywalker