Canadian Bushman
Well-Known Member
I dont understand the problem with checking the level. I watch the target with my right and check the level with my left. One blink, two blinks, boom!
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Is a scope level needed?
- Thread starter 1hornhunter
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
jmitchell135
Well-Known Member
Exactly...
My level is just above my parallax knob. Just a matter of changing focus from dominant eye to none and back. If It's un-level, tweak the stock a little till its good, then cut loose. I can understand that a shorter shot doesn't require this. 100 yards, a few degrees off may only mean 3/4". 1000 yards, you are looking at that being 7.5".
Scope tracking, with a level, shows if your scope tracks truly vertical.
jmitchell135
Well-Known Member
Before I knew about a level I kept getting horizontal stringing. Why? My scopes were powerful enough that all I saw was paper in them and had no reference point to use.
Michael Eichele
Well-Known Member
+2
My level is just below my parallax knob. I don't have to adjust my cheek weld to look at it. I see it right above my ACI and right below the knob.
6 degrees at 1000 yards can be 6' off at a grand.
6 degrees sounds like a lot and that you'd be able to perceive it being off that much but 6 degrees is only the one minute hand on a clock. Very few people are going to perceive that in mountainous terrain.
There is ZERO harm in using a level and potentially EVERYTHING wrong with not using one.
I read a while back that the human eye cannot level reliably within 3 degrees. Not sure how accurate that claim was but using a level is cheap insurance.
Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)
Well-Known Member
I have to admit that that is is one of the most thoughtful threads I've read in a long time. The more I read it, the more I've been considering this cant issue. After all the comments, I've started to believe that perhaps, like mechanical ability, that a persons ability to perceive varying cant, is like a persons ability to visualize a 3d item, when unable to see it from the angle in question. Intelligence tests use a similar approach and every person in life has different strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps detecting level is a product of a persons perceptual acuity and differs from person to person, like math ability.
My wife and I have started a conversation about this which has taken a strange turn, where she and I have been actually examining closet edges, pictures etc. We even went so far as to pull out a level and a compass to check our assumptions and test our ability to perceive true vertical level. What we found was that there's a buttload of edges in our house that are out of true vertical, and that she and I are both equally capable of perceiving even slight shifts in vertical (and horizontal) level, regardless of the outlying angles from the ceiling or tables etc. one thing that became apparent that she admitted, is that I tend to be much faster in making the determination. I don't know if it's a gut call, or a feeling, but when things are off level, they just stand out to me, quite quickly and effortlessly. We verified with our level and compass, so I have no doubt that it's very possible for a person to see a change in degree of level at less than 3*.
This is probably one of those threads that is somewhat like asking if someone would recommend eye glasses. Those that benefit by them are going to heartily agree and posit that they are useful devices. Others might just not need them. It all depends on your vision. I'll be the first to say that I have no doubt that those that believe a level helped them stay true are 100% spot on. No reason to say otherwise. I also have no doubt that inividual differences in people suggests to me that not everybody needs a level to true up a scope vertically.
Last edited:
jmitchell135
Well-Known Member
Here go. Read up, then go put powder to paper and prove your point Gents.
Canting Effect on Point of Impact within AccurateShooter.com
Canting Effect on Point of Impact within AccurateShooter.com
Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)
Well-Known Member
I've already posted my paper.... Out to 600 yards. No need to waste bullets trying to convince you or myself. If you were smart enough to read that link you posted, then you are smart enough to examine the target I included earlier and clearly see that cant isn't at work, at least not enough to warrant the additional purchase of a level for my scope. My intended game is deer and elk out to 600 yards. For my first time out shooting to 600 yards, that group helped me determine my load workup and dope, as well as confidence that by hunting season, I could reasonably take game at that distance. A 2.5x3.5" group with a single flyer, still at 6" is within my comfort zone.
Use a level if you want, or not, but forget about trying to convince me that I need one. I've looked it over and disagree. So be it.
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
A scope level is a cheap tool for when your wrong, on the range I'm rarely wrong with level unfortunately I don't hunt on the range so I need a level to keep it in check.
7magcreedmoor
Well-Known Member
Short answer: Yes.
When I am setting up the scope on a rifle, I use the tool from EXD to ensure the scope is centered above the bore, and the reticle leveled with a plumb line in the distance. While all this is dialed in and fixed in the vise, the scope level is installed and leveled. I prefer an offset, fixed level that I can see with my left eye while my right handles the scope. During each shot set-up it only takes a fraction of a second to glance at the bubble to correct any out of plumb condition. Eyes play tricks, especially when looking across uneven terrain. Bubbles don't lie. Shots launched from out of plumb platforms aren't likely to land where intended if the distance is beyond MPBR. I wonder how often "bad wind call" is blamed for a bad shot which the level might have saved...
When I am setting up the scope on a rifle, I use the tool from EXD to ensure the scope is centered above the bore, and the reticle leveled with a plumb line in the distance. While all this is dialed in and fixed in the vise, the scope level is installed and leveled. I prefer an offset, fixed level that I can see with my left eye while my right handles the scope. During each shot set-up it only takes a fraction of a second to glance at the bubble to correct any out of plumb condition. Eyes play tricks, especially when looking across uneven terrain. Bubbles don't lie. Shots launched from out of plumb platforms aren't likely to land where intended if the distance is beyond MPBR. I wonder how often "bad wind call" is blamed for a bad shot which the level might have saved...
Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)
Well-Known Member
This makes sense... and as mentioned earlier... I am not sure how I might fair in uneven terrain. Will cross that bridge once I get out and see what happens this Spring as I begin to test out the 300 wm out to 1k... off the range as it only goes out to 600. I'm open to the possibility of needing a level, but not under current conditions.
This forum is a great source for info... Some works for me... Some doesn't, but it does stimulate the brain cells. I picked up my lee collet dies and the wheeler levels based on threads on this forum. Both have been useful tools. Perhaps, someday a level will be also. Time will tell. Thanks for the discussion! lightbulb
jmitchell135
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how to respond to your post.
You are content in your findings from one group. I personally would not be.
Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)
Well-Known Member
Lol... Sorry if I gave you that impression. I reviewed all the targets I could find, but this was the only one I had at 600 yards as cant issues are more easily seen as distance increases. I use multiple sheets at 600 yards so I generally don't keep them. this image was already on my pad as I had a question to the forum about it back in August. I'm not sure how to respond to the obvious skepticism in this particular thread
. I'm just getting the impression that there is an overwhelming majority of shooters here that believe in the practice and use of a level. I'm just not one of them at this juncture (other than the initial trueing of my scope and rifle during mountings).
But hey... It takes all manner of opinions to make the world go round. I'm content with that.
600yds is barely far enough to make or break your shot placement on large game animals without a scope level. For prairie dogs, or testing your equipment and ability to shoot bughole groups on targets at extended ranges, it seems foolhardy to not ensure that rifle cant is minimized, using something better than "it looks about right to me". 500yds is about where I start to get concerned about rifle cant POI error on large game sized targets. You can get away with some rifle cant at that yardage. I believe I'll still experience better accuracy using my scope level, but in the boiler room is in the boiler room. Having said that, there's no reason not to be shooting my best, when the hunting situation allows time to dot all the i's and cross all the tees.
Like others have experienced and expressed, plumb and mount a scope level on your rifle and then go lay prone, parallel with the contour lines on the face of a mountain side with a 10-20 degree slope. When your field of view and horizon becomes tilted 15%, then see how well your sense of level compares with your scope level. No shooting at targets required. If your rifle isn't level, the error in point of impact can be calculated for the various yardages with a ballistics program. After seeing the cant I placed my rifle in, I never felt the need to shoot targets to demonstrate the effect of rifle cant on my group sizes. Any more than I felt the need to shoot groups at long yardage to demonstrate the known effects of Coriolis drift, spin drift, wind drift, or any other known sources of POI error. I didn't know about spin drift and Coriolis drift until I experienced them on 1000yd targets. After I researched these causes of error and understood them, I never spent further time proving they existed by shooting targets. And after I observed my rifle's cant, all I was interested in doing was minimizing that source of POI error to the extent possible.
I personally don't have concern on the closer shots on deer, sheep or black bear sized game. When hunting circumstances allow the thorough review of my mental pre-shot check list, I'll try to confirm my scope level on any shots exceeding 400 yds, simply because its a good habit to form for the longer shots. When I'm shooting for groups and developing loads, I'll use the scope level at any yardage, even the close ones. If it becomes an engrained habit, I'm less apt to overlook it when I want every advantage possible for the longer shots.
And I'll admit I've forgotten to check my scope level prior to firing on occasion in the past. Most often when the situation is fluid and there's already several things that need ongoing tracking prior to the shot. Like changing ranges, variable winds, and even slope of the shot due to movement by the targeted animal up or down the hill side.
Like others have experienced and expressed, plumb and mount a scope level on your rifle and then go lay prone, parallel with the contour lines on the face of a mountain side with a 10-20 degree slope. When your field of view and horizon becomes tilted 15%, then see how well your sense of level compares with your scope level. No shooting at targets required. If your rifle isn't level, the error in point of impact can be calculated for the various yardages with a ballistics program. After seeing the cant I placed my rifle in, I never felt the need to shoot targets to demonstrate the effect of rifle cant on my group sizes. Any more than I felt the need to shoot groups at long yardage to demonstrate the known effects of Coriolis drift, spin drift, wind drift, or any other known sources of POI error. I didn't know about spin drift and Coriolis drift until I experienced them on 1000yd targets. After I researched these causes of error and understood them, I never spent further time proving they existed by shooting targets. And after I observed my rifle's cant, all I was interested in doing was minimizing that source of POI error to the extent possible.
I personally don't have concern on the closer shots on deer, sheep or black bear sized game. When hunting circumstances allow the thorough review of my mental pre-shot check list, I'll try to confirm my scope level on any shots exceeding 400 yds, simply because its a good habit to form for the longer shots. When I'm shooting for groups and developing loads, I'll use the scope level at any yardage, even the close ones. If it becomes an engrained habit, I'm less apt to overlook it when I want every advantage possible for the longer shots.
And I'll admit I've forgotten to check my scope level prior to firing on occasion in the past. Most often when the situation is fluid and there's already several things that need ongoing tracking prior to the shot. Like changing ranges, variable winds, and even slope of the shot due to movement by the targeted animal up or down the hill side.
Last edited:
