anti-canting equipment

flims

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
51
Location
ITALY
while watching "the one mile shot' by G.David tubb he speaks of the importance of the anti canting devices. ive done abit of research on the web and all that i can seem to find are the bubble levels that attach themselves to the scope or rail but not the ones that fit on the muzzle of the rifle. his reasoning for having a level at the muzzle seemed quite reasonable since he said, if the eye looking through the scope is focused at infinity then by having a level on the muzzle you dont have to change the focus of your eyes but you can look through the scope with one eye and with the other you can check the canting and both eyes are focused at infinity.
can you tell me who supplies anti canting devices that fit on the muzzle, as portrayed in Tubb's DVD?
thank you
 
go to the US optics website they supply the best i have seen
Their are 4 models a scope mounted one
a scope mounted one that folds away
a weaver base one
and a weaver base one that folds away
They come with a metal protestive lid that screws over the bubble for when it is not in use.

I have one of the Weaver base folding units on the way in the post at the moment

If you dont want one of these Sinclair does have them the model i would reccomend is the ofset Sinclair model not the flip up ones.

Cheers Bill
Australia
 
if you want the ones on David Tubb's rifles email him he will tell you where to buy them.

Cheers Bill
Australia
 
If you want one like on a T2k (I wouldn't), then you should arrange to have the muzzle turned for this device before it's lapped.
If you simply clamp one onto an existing barrel, your tune will change but the barrel should shoot as well.
You never know.

You don't have to watch your cant really. I put the crosshair on the target as it naturally levels, and glance at my scope mounted level to confirm all is in order. If an illusion exists, I take that into account in my shooting.
For one shooting situation, without change, there is no need to look at it further.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top