• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

Bubble level for rifle

Ok, so I have a question about things being level. Sometime last year I started shooting at targets with diamonds on them. When I staple the targets to the frame I level them with a carpenters level.

When I shoot, I line up the scope reticle square to the diamond, intersecting at the corners.

Do you think this will work as an alternative to a scope level for shooting at the range?

Doug

These are my targets, feel free to use them if you like:

100 yard target:

2%20In%20Diamond.JPG



200 yard target:


4%20In%20Diamonds.JPG


[ 03-05-2004: Message edited by: dwm ]
 
I have not commented on the pictures because neither way either of you posted them is "truely" representative of what I see in the real world, but I understand what each of you were trying to point out in posting them, each the way you did.

What you don't consider, IMHO, is I'm sitting in front of a square computer monitor viwing this, the picture is framed itself in a way that leads a person to one conclusion or the other, both which do not represent what I see in the field, and it's impossible for you to even post a pic on here that would.

The first pic that was round, still had a square border, that influences your thinking right there again.

Dave shows the "world" tilted because that's what the shooter tends to do and he's trying to explain, orient the hairs to the animal as we normally see it on flat ground, and that's all he was trying to show. Of course the world don't rotate in reality, but you only realize that looking through the scope AND seeing a frame of referance. Just look at a painted wall and rotate the scope, you may see rotating texture on the wall when you cant the scope, but damned if you can tell which way's up in that sight picture (the world).

Your surroundings are what help you determine which way is up, or they don't help, just depends on what the sight picture is that determines the amount it helps.

A friend of mine taught underwater emergency egress, disorientation will kill you there. Getting out of an airplane underwater begins with FEEL, bubbles on your face in the water, and much more.

Lack of trees for one, snow, or tundra covered ground, up in the rocks, and on and on can lead you off to cant your rifle thinking you aren't.

Too me, a couple degrees cant is something I won't be taking a chance on in the field at LR.

My GOD Doug, that's a giant picture! I'd say you'll be plenty fine, you used a level.
grin.gif
 
Boyd

LOL & again LOL

That "Target Weenies" thing was just a little tinder for a fire.

You and I both know there's some "Target Weenie" in all of us.

BTW: Did that really hit a sore spot?? I'm sort of immune to the "Sniper Wannabe" thing!

wink.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Did that really hit a sore spot?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No Dave it did'nt...I have been called much worse
wink.gif
grin.gif
 
Brent

There appears to be a bug in RSI's cant
calulations. In both of these displayed
cases the sight height matches (closely as
not all decimal places are displayed) the
100 yard "drop" value.

I believe they've somehow linked the 100
yard drop value and the sight height to
the "start" value for the cant error
calculation, an error. Sight height
contributes to cant error, it does not
deminish the error.

Here's a screen that shows something is
obviously incorrect.

Cant is 90 degrees, as can be read from
the data on the image. This is for
trajectory data similar to a "standard"
308 Win trajectory. Notice that the
deflection values are in error, much too
large.


Cant-260-1.jpg


This screen shot show data for a
trajectory similar to a 300 Win mag.
Notice the deflection error for a 90
degree cant is Zero -0- at 100 yards, an
error.

Cant-183-1.jpg



Boyd

"I've been called much worse"
Yeah, me too.
smile.gif

And if it doesn't kill us it make us
stronger!


For any budding "rocket scientist" types.

80.66 - 78.65 = 2.01.

2.01 &lt;&gt; 1.75

[ 03-06-2004: Message edited by: Dave King ]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Yesterday, indicating a part with flats on it in an index head on the mill with the 3 jaw chuck at a crazy angle, I eyeballed the part (with no reference to anything square or plumb) and then put the "Starret exact angle finder" on it to find it off, "Minutes of angle".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well dude, your trying to tell me that you couldn't see the mill table, dah, a level reference plane! Now I see the problem, not only is he a target weennie, he's a wannabe machinist.
On a good day us machinist are one step from rippin someones frekin head off, we make gunsmiths look like Buddhist monks.
grin.gif


[ 03-06-2004: Message edited by: AJ300MAG ]
 
I'd like to state, ask and confuse

Dave
Good info ifin you are a sniper and may NEED to cant and know your worst case. The level will only tell you you cant not how much.

4MESH
Cant is a reality to some people (I guess)and knowing this they can adjust. basicly with the level you have consistancy this has to be good.

I personaly think it would be very unnatural to cant 6 deg ether left or right go with your gut feel not the target look. If you set up a crooked target you know it is crooked when you look thru the scope you dont have a need to line up the cross hair to the crooked target. IMHO

With all this said, YES I HAVE A LEVEL, but I been killing things for 25 years with out one also. you dont need a second morgage to own this simple tool.

I get very excited when shooting at game and never think to check the level! When that excitment is gone I'll quit hunting.

OK for the brain teaser

Nightforce RP2 sighted in at 600 using hold/under and hold/over.

6 deg cant at 500 POOOOH &lt;MOELK

what happens at 100 and 1K sure there is adjustment but how much kind of changes things I think.

I respect where both of you are coming from and have enjoyed this tread. just because the world is round and turns, you dont have to turn your scope to adjust for it use your gut feel for level and then check the level for peice of mind and shoot.

Dave could you run those numbers for 180 deg because I installed my bipod on wrong. LOL

Keep the info flowing you are never to old to learn.

CAM
 
Dave,
I looked at that last night myself, and I see what you're saying.

The extra elevation needed to account for 100 yards worth of drop would no longer be needed at 90 degrees cant, and the deflection would be equal to this amount drop at 100 yards if it were left dialed in.

So, if this amounts to x.x MOA, it would be that at all distances and the calcs would be off by that much, right?

I've got to go pick up some steel plates and may call Jim on the drive to Anchorage about this to see what he has to say.
 
CAM

The 6 degree figure comes from a post in this thread by *WyoWhisper* and a subsequent reply. Numbers were stated and that's why I used the 6 degree figure, no other reason. (Keep in mind that as always, any number selected is going to **** someone off so any number can be used as long as we're consistent.)

You're correct, the number are good to know if you're a sniper or shooting in that type of competition. The level is a essentially a binary device, on (level) or off (non-level) and I intend to use it in that fashion. For LR shooting I'd like to check level. I have only one shot to get it correct and every little thing helps. Cant is particulary unfriendly to shooting vertical targets, we shoot tall and skinny targets, if they were short and wide cant wouldn't be so much of a consideration. For example, we shoot a mover (nominally 3 mph) that's 12 inches wide and 48 inches tall at a distance of 600 yards, pre shoot prep dictates removing cant as much as possible.


On using a 180 degree "cant"... we've shot in this position too an it's fairly humbling without considerable forethought. Just tipping the rifle over at 100 yards you'll be about (don't hold me to this as I've not run the numbers) 6 or 7 MOA low (below POA). I don't care to argue this point, it's just for fun.
smile.gif


BRENT

Thanks, let's see what the RSI folks have to say, I'm curious (as always).
 
Dave
I agree it affects vertical moving targets more than horizontal targets,

Any idea about the nightforce NP2 sighted at 600 and not dialing dope? would this roughly reduce error by half at 1200? But increase error at 100?

That's what I use the level for also "to check level" and it works for that.

No arguement on the 180 deg. I was kidding you a little.

Have a nice week end
CAM
 
CAM

I know you were kidding on the 180 thing but we've actually shot in that manner, just wanted you to know folks are trying all kinds of stuff.

Sighted at 600..reduce error by 50% at 1200 but increase error at 100... ??? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking but I'll give it a whirl.

I'll assume you're asking about cant error. ****, I'm getting a little leery of talking about cant and stating values (my *** is beginning to look like that of a Mandrill).

Cant error is increased by the amount of offset/trajectory correction in the sighting system. This means that if you're sighted (zeroed) at a greater distance the deflection error is greater than if you were sighted (zeroed) for a somewhat shorter distance. The size of the base (the distant end) of the "cone" that projects from the center of the rifle bore to the line of sight "zero" distance determines the magnitude of the deflection cant could cause. For example, a 100 yard zero on an imaginary rifle would allow for about 3 MOA of correction (TOF "drop" for 100 yards ~ 2MOA and sighting system height ~1 MOA). This would make a "cone" with a base of 6 MOA. If you rotated the rifle in 1 degree increments and fired a round onto the same target using the same POA at each interval when you had completed a 360 degree rotation you'd have a circle 6 MOA in diameter. At 12 o'clock on that circle would be the round fired in the Zero -0- degree cant position, at six (6) o'clock would be the round fired at 180 degrees of cant (it'd be 6 MOA low).

Not let's figure the same for a zero of 600 yards. I'll guess you use a magnum and that your 600 yard zero is about 11 MOA (sea level) ON TOP of your 100 yard zero (a hidden ~3 MOA). You can see that if you perform the 100 yard "round robin" test again your "cone base" circle is going to be at least ~22 MOA plus the "hidden" 100 yard zero correction of ~3 MOA (but 6 MOA of "cone base"). Overall I'd say you would have a circle of about 28 MOA.

Of course if you had used a 1200 yard "zero" data set the cone base would be much larger but that's not the other part of the question. The other part of the question if whether or not the 1200 yard cant error would be decreased by 1/2 by using a 600 yard zero.

Then you say "nightforce NP2 sighted at 600 and not dialing dope? would this roughly reduce error by half at 1200?" I take it to mean that you would use hold overs to get to 1200 yards. By doing so you effectively raise the muzzle of the rifle as you use a lower aiming point in then scope, this is no different in my eyes that if you were to "dial on" the additional data, the "cone base" gets larger. So I guess the answer to the 600 yards zero, 1200 yard shot only 1/2 the error would be...no.


Anyone have thought on this?? Does this sound correct?


My out: I'm not a rocket scientist, ballistic expert, or college graduate. All this data is pure speculation on my part, it's based on things I've read, pondered on and "worked out" on my own. I could be wrong and if I am I'd like to know the correct method(s) and answer(s), so speak up, I'd appreciate it.
 
Boyd

I don't know?? I was possessed by a demon of some sort and all the stuff just came flying out. Sort of like Linda Blair (Regan(?)) in the Exorcist. Yaaackkkk, and there it was!
smile.gif
 
Dave,

Believe it or not I do understand what you are saying and you are basically correct.. ( can you believe I just said to Dave he is correct and I even understand it )

maybe in laymans terms...

your scope when mounted on a 20 MOA base is basically pointed down.... your barrel is basically pointed straight or flat... if you would draw a line from you line of sight ( scope ) or point of aim.. and a line from you barrels trajectory those two lines would intersect at some point...
now here's where it gets tough to explain...
If you cant your rifle.. ( given you movemnet is perfectly pivoted around your rifle barrel ) you barrels trajectory is still pointed at the same place but your line of sight or point of aim is now actually looking at another point ( away from your original target )and now you move your entire rifle so that you're aiming at your original target... hence this is how cant will cause you to have bigger groups.. However slight at 100 yards but it becomes greater as the distances grow!..

keep in mind I did not factory in trajectory of the bullet or ballistics as I tried to keep it simple..

did that make any sense to anyone other than me... I am not the best teacher thats for sure....
 
Warning! This thread is more than 21 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