Gentlemen,

This is a two part question. I’ve included a few pictures to try and clarify what I am talking about.

#1. Have you ever had a scope with crosshairs that do not appear perfectly perpendicular and/or parallel to the axis of the turrets?

It’s weird, but the older I get, the more anal I get about mounting scopes. After lapping the rings, I did my best to level a thick glass tabletop. Then I placed the rifle on the edge of the surface and made sure that the receiver was level as well. I then mounted the scope using the level placed on top of the turret as a guide. I leveled it as best as I could, however, my dinky little Segway reticle leveler as well as my natural hand hold when shouldering the rifle told me that it was off a few degrees. The biggest confounding variable is obviously my tired eyes, but just in case, I wanted to ask all of you much more experienced folks if you’ve ever had a reticle in a new scope that is off by a few degrees from the factory. I must admit, I am pretty tired tonight, so I'm hoping it's just my eyes playing tricks on me!

Scope: Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20X50mm

The whole setup:


Level Table top


Level Receiver


Level turret


Level crosshairs??? Dunno!!



#2. Have you ever used the TSR Rings from Brownell’s?

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx...ade____TRS__W__RINGS

At first, I noticed that the flat surface of the top half of the rings was nowhere near level either. They had me tricked for a few minutes until I remembered the instructions read that the one side of the ring, designated with a hash mark, is designed to be tightened flush with the bottom half first. Then the scope rotation is set before finally tightening the other half, leaving an estimated 0.020” gap between the halves. Apparently, this eccentric ring leaves a “slope” on the surface of the upper half. Fooled me! Not a huge discovery or anything, but I just thought I’d mention it anyway since I took the photos.

Level Turret


UN-level rings


Flush side of ring halves


Gapped sided of ring halves (~0.020”)

Kenati, I have slow growing cataracts that no one wants to do anything about yet. All scopes that I look through are skewed to my eye. If I get the horizontal line where it looks right the vertical line is off, same thing if I line up the vertical line, then the horizontal is off to my eye. I have came to the point I have someone else do that part. Look through another scope and see if you get the same effect.
James

It is time to see the Eye Dr. I learned this was a problems years ago after I moved a Dr's scope without asking him. I got a lesson on eyes and a good a;; chewing. As a gunsmith I would see this many times. Sometimes they need to be 5 or more degrees to appear straight.

quote:

Originally posted by Kenati:
Gentlemen,

#1. Have you ever had a scope with crosshairs that do not appear perfectly perpendicular and/or parallel to the axis of the turrets?

Yes, but it was 20-years ago and on a Leupold pistol scope. I haven't seen on since.

yes .. and the scope went in the trash .. it was a bushnell that died under recoil

that's NOT the issue at hand, it appears, though it was an answer to your question

Please be advised that if you wear glasses, as many of us old geezers do nowadays, it's critical that you look through the center of the lens of your glasses in order for the image to appear undistorted. The lens center is rather small in relation to the entire glasses lens area, and the tendency when shooting a rifle is to turn the head somewhat and to look kinda sideways through the inner area of the glasses lens instead of the center. Guaranteed to make the crosshairs appear crooked.

Maybe not the case here, but worth considering.
Regards, Joe

In my experience "wire" based cross hair type reticules that are not exactly at right angles (horizontal to vertical lines) are not all that uncommon even in top brands. Etched glass reticules have always been spot on. What I find not uncommonly on just about every scope brand I have ever used (except in the serious "tactical" types)is that the cross hair does not align perfectly with the turrets. Not enough to make a significant difference in adjustment of elevation or windage except at long range but enough to annoy me. Ever wondered why when you make a adjustment, say windage, you sometimes need a slight elevation adjustment. Probably thought it was your own fault, canting or the like.
Hey, J. Randall. The time to have surgery for cataracts is when they bother you, not when they reach some predefined density. It's a long time since the term "they have to be ripe" was relevant. I suspect that if in fact they are bothering you but you have been advised to wait longer for surgery is something to do with your health system rather than your eyes.

You guys bring up some darn good points. Without a doubt, my eye is the limiting factor here. I spent the morning tinkering around trying to make things right, but decided I needed to get my eye out of the equation. It’s probably a bit of an overkill, but I thought it would be a fun experiment to set up my camera lens to act as my “objective” eye. Then I used photography software to compare my results. If this method is valid, I was definitely off a little. I tweaked the scope just a little more after this picture, but I think I got it right this last time around.




Since the subject popped up, I thought I’d add a little side note about optics, cataracts, and macular degeneration…

First off, the lens I am using is very wide angle (Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM) so there is some built in barrel distortion (see below) at 16mm, but I think it’s pretty minimal and I don’t think it had much effect here as along as the lens was centered within the axis of the reticle. I often wondered if this is how antelope see the world through their big eyes that seem to catch the slightest flicker.

Barrel Distortion



Cataracts

I never thought before today how difficult it would be to shoot a rifle with cataracts. Makes me wonder how many otherwise healthy hunters gave up their passion for the sport because of eye conditions. With cataracts, most patients first notice image blur and can certainly skew your view, especially with those that are in the center of your lens nucleus. Location and size of the cataract determine the degree of visual disability. Axial opacities (in the nucleus of the lens), will cause you much more problems than a peripheral opacity, and will often make you myoptic (near sighted). I’ve heard patients say, “I don’t even need my glasses anymore to read!” This phenomenon is called, “second sight”. Then there are other things like double or multiple images, “starbursts” around lights, and browner or yellower color discrimination. There are other types of cataracts (subcapsular) that are associated with diabetes mellitus or corticosteroid use, but they usually affect the near vision instead. There are solutions for most cataracts, so if you have these problems, I urge you to see an ophthalmologist. (J. Randall, no offense, but I'd probably seek a second opinion to discuss your options)

Age-Related Macular Changes

Our retina lines the back of our eyes and is like the film in a camera, or like nowadays, the sensor in a digital camera. With age, our retinas start to get deposits (drusen), our retinal pigment epithelium degenerates, and vessels begin to invade the retinal membranes. Patients will often lose their CENTRAL vision, but will tend to retain their functional PERIPHERAL vision. Again, this makes it pretty damn hard to look through a scope when perfect alignment and a good cheek weld means looking down the axis of your scope through the center of your eye, which is typically the area of greatest disability. A simple in office test can be done by having the patient look at the central dot of an Amsler grid with one eye and note irregularities in the lines (wavy, bowed, missing, etc.) that he sees.



It tests the central 20 degrees of the visual field, which would certainly obscure the central portion of your crosshairs.

Anyway, enough of this. I sort of got off on a tangent there. Sorry about that.
Thanks for all of your advice!

No offense taken Kanati, I will get another opinion in the future, will be about the fourth one on this issue.
Ozzie, were you referencing my health, or my healthcare system? I was not sure the way you worded it. I do have a chronic disease called anklylosing spondylitis and the early onset of the first cataract was probably caused by steroid drops(was off work 6 months and the drops finally cleared it up). I have talked to others with this condition that had them removed with no problems.
Thanks James

I have a Burris 2x pistol scope on my 357 magnum Contender barrel that has gradually rotated a couple minutes anti-clockwise (in relation to the turrets) over the years. A fella has to look pretty close to see that the turrets aren't perpendicular. Have to get it fixed one of these decades...

Getting off topic James R. but I was referring to your health care system rather than your own health. HMO's as I believe they are called in the US seem to determine what, when and by whom things get done and their primary interest is their bottom line not you. As for your AS, you obviously had iritis and for that reason alone I would seek out a really really good opthalmologist who specialises in cataract surgery rather than a generalist. In good hands it should be a breeze.

quote:

I never thought before today how difficult it would be to shoot a rifle with cataracts. Makes me wonder how many otherwise healthy hunters gave up their passion for the sport because of eye conditions.

I'm glad I read this thread- I don't get to shoot all the time, the last session was a week ago off a bench with a Rem 700 in .221; I had a hell of a time at 100 and 200 yards with it, mostly looking through the scope at a blurry and irregularly shaped bull. Several odd fliers, even odder than my usual fliers.

To the ophthalmologist for me, and I'll see what can be done about it- of course there's not a thing wrong with my non-shooting eye.

All around good info in this thread, thanks.

I had new lenses installed in each eye two summers ago, due to having cataracts.
Life is good as I can see like a teen ager again. That was one of the best things that could have happened to me as I can now shoot iron sighted guns again.

quote:

Originally posted by J. Randall:
Kenati, I have slow growing cataracts that no one wants to do anything about yet. All scopes that I look through are skewed to my eye. If I get the horizontal line where it looks right the vertical line is off, same thing if I line up the vertical line, then the horizontal is off to my eye. I have came to the point I have someone else do that part. Look through another scope and see if you get the same effect.
James

J.R.

I had that same problem big time before I got the new lenses installed. I'd have either the vertical, or the horizontal line in focus, but never both at the same time.
Not a problem now with new lenses.
With the new lenses, I had to do a campaign refocusing all of my scopes so the lines were in focus.

Don

Hey Kenati, 1. Perhaps the Bottom of the Magazine Well is not perfectly square.

2. Perhaps the Connecting Bolt holes that secure the Upper to the Receiver are off a tiny amount.

3. Perhaps the Scope Mounting Base you are attaching the Rings to, is off a tiny bit.

4. Perhaps all of them are off just a tiny amount, in the same direction and you have Tolerance Stacking.

5. Perhaps one of the above is skewed a minute amount in one direction and the other two are in the other direction.

Nothing Man-Made is perfect, regardless of the prices some try to charge folks, and for sure the dimensions are not perfect.

I would suggest the important thing is getting the Vertical Crosshair inline with the Vertical CenterLine of the Bore, regardless of what the Level indicates.

If you are planning on shooting way out yonder, since I see the Target Turrets, there is an advantage to having the Reticle slightly skewed Clockwise, not much, just 2-3deg. That helps off-set the natural tendancy for a Bullet to drift to the Right in a Right-Hand Twist barrel. By having the Reticle skewed slightly Clockwise, once the rifle is aligned in your shoulder, the Barrel is "swung" slightly to the Right(imagine the rifle Pivoting about the Center-Point of the Reticle) which causes it to be barely canted so it is sending the Bullet slightly to the Left. You will not need as much "Left Adjustment" at distance as you normally would. Of course, it is possible to over-do a good thing.
-----

Nice looking rig. I'd encourage you to avoid "over-analyzing" the situation and end up wondering, questioning or concerned about your rifle. Ditch the Level, go sight it in and enjoy it. That is what I'd do.

If something is actually defective in the scope, it "might" show-up in a couple of boxes. And of course, you could always return it to Zeiss and let them check it out.

Best of luck to you.

It also might just be in the cap

I have a older Leupold scope that the crosshairs are level
But if you level off the cap it shows a few degrees off

I just gave up and shoot the darn thing
As it shoots better than I can

John

Ozzie, I agree, don't want to pull this anymore off topic. Sounded like I had a chance to get some good advice so I went for it. I have always thought Iritis was the case to, even though the called it a virile infection. I had the AS pretty bad at the time, but had not gotten a dx on it. I have been on Medicare for 20 yrs, so there is no problem there, they routinely pay for the procedure. Sounds like I might have some hope after all. Thanks everyone for your input.
James

J.R. While Medicare might pay for the procedure, do they allow you to choose your own surgeon, that is the critical choice. I'm not familiar with the individual funds in US but the US has some of the leading surgeons in this field though and thats who/what you should be looking for.
Back on topic, I was just browsing 6mmBR forums and they have an optics section with a sticky on how to choose a high powered scope. They state that canted reticles are not an uncommon problem on certain Leupold scopes.

quote:

Originally posted by Ozzie:
J.R. While Medicare might pay for the procedure, do they allow you to choose your own surgeon, that is the critical choice. I'm not familiar with the individual funds in US but the US has some of the leading surgeons in this field though and thats who/what you should be looking for.
Back on topic, I was just browsing 6mmBR forums and they have an optics section with a sticky on how to choose a high powered scope. They state that canted reticles are not an uncommon problem on certain Leupold scopes.

Medicare allows for you to choose your own Doctor. I've been on Medicare for close to 15 years, with BC/BS as a back up.
I went to see a local Opthamologist two years ago because I had difficulty with night time driving due to oncoming car headlights; they would drive me bananas.
The Doc took one look in my eyes, and said you have cataracts and they need to be handled. So, I immediately had the new lenses installed by my Doctor of choice. I ended up not having to pay one cent for the work. What Medicare doesn't pay, BC/BS does pay.
A side comment. My Opthamologist up here is one cool dude. He's a modern day version of Elgin Gates, having hunted on about every continent, and killing every big game species; every cat in Africa, four Cape Buffalos, Polar Bear, Brown bear, and the list goes on.