Leveling scope off the bottom

[ntsqd]

Has any one used this tool? I've seen it and considered getting one, but I'm skeptical about its accuracy.

Yes, see my first post in this thread.

 

[Blue Ridge Rifleman]

Gotta agree, optical is the way to go. I have a slightly different method. I remove the bolt (when possible). Then I shine a flashlight through the OCCULAR, projecting the reticle on the wall.

Then I sight through the bore with my eye, and adjust the scope so the reticle perfectly bisects the bore - when this occurs, I KNOW my scope and reticle are coincident with the bore. Not saying it's the best way for everybody, but I have tried a lot of methods and this one is the best for me!

When mounting without a rail and trying to use the plumb bob method, getting the rifle level is the most challenging part for me. I have used Hand Skills' method for most of my rifles and I feel I'm close enough. My question is: What is the best method to level a rifle when a rail will not be mounted? The Wheeler bubble levels are crap. Is there a higher quality level that I can buy?

 

[DSheetz]

ntsq , yes most of us did read your post but then we went on to state reasons or ways we do it other then with the tool you ask about so you also would know why we mostly don't use that way .

 

[338 dude]

Has any one used this tool? I've seen it and considered getting one, but I'm skeptical about its accuracy.

It works just fine

 

[ntsqd]

DSheetz, I was replying specifically to arch408. I knew that others who have evolved their own methods wouldn't be interested.

I like the Arisaka tool as it is very specific if the scope is level or not (nothing flexible or compressible in the system), but it does make two assumptions. First is that the rail is level to the rifle. The second is that the flat on the bottom of the turrets is square to the reticle. Most of the time these assumptions are correct or close enough that it takes extreme use to make that not good enough. However, they are assumptions and that means that there will be exceptions and that there is no telling if the rifle under consideration is one or not until you measure everything.

 

[Hand Skills]

Exactly. Removing assumptions is not easy, and it's unfortunate that in our culture, many of us are looking for the best 'gadget' instead of trying to understand the system and variables therein holistically.

When mounting without a rail and trying to use the plumb bob method, getting the rifle level is the most challenging part for me. I have used Hand Skills' method for most of my rifles and I feel I'm close enough. My question is: What is the best method to level a rifle when a rail will not be mounted? The Wheeler bubble levels are crap. Is there a higher quality level that I can buy?

Unfortunately I cannot answer your question. Yes, there are better measurement tools, but establishing a datum or reference is not always easy. What I like about the method described is that it does not require a level of any kind.

The thing is, even if a guy gets the reticle perfectly plumb through the bore, the reticle is not part of the erector, so there is no guarantee the turrets are plumb.

I maintain that the best procedure is to test the scope on a heavy base FIRST before installing. Once I have confirmed that the reticle is aligned with the erector (the reticle does not drift left or right when elevation is dialed on the heavy base), I can be confident going forward.

 

[User4302021]

Unless the scope can rotate in the rings nearly friction free I don't see tightening the rings with a stack of compressible anything underneath being a guarantee that the scope is level. When the cards are more compressible than the amount of friction in the rotation, the scope won't be level. Using paper card stock makes this a pretty sure thing.

You have obviously never done it, so why don't you stop commenting on it? I have actually used both and know exactly how well to the two methods compare.

Long story short: If there is any difference at all, it is too small to see with the naked eye. My dope to 1200 yards doesn't change, and I have taken various scopes off that rifle and remounted them numerous times.

 

[Blue Ridge Rifleman]

Exactly. Removing assumptions is not easy, and it's unfortunate that in our culture, many of us are looking for the best 'gadget' instead of trying to understand the system and variables therein holistically.



Unfortunately I cannot answer your question. Yes, there are better measurement tools, but establishing a datum or reference is not always easy. What I like about the method described is that it does not require a level of any kind.

The thing is, even if a guy gets the reticle perfectly plumb through the bore, the reticle is not part of the erector, so there is no guarantee the turrets are plumb.

I maintain that the best procedure is to test the scope on a heavy base FIRST before installing. Once I have confirmed that the reticle is aligned with the erector (the reticle does not drift left or right when elevation is dialed on the heavy base), I can be confident going forward.

Not knowing myself, and regarding your scenario above, will the erector align with the scope body or are they independent? Meaning, if I can acurately align the scope body to the rifle action, does this assure that the erector will move the reticle in alignment with the bore? If not, then your method is the only way to make sure the reticle tracks, if it can be aligned to the action, right?

 

[ntsqd]

D. R., I have not done exactly that process, no. I have tried extremely similar processes in non firearms applications and they were not as precise as other methods. While I only have ~25 years in working on firearms I have nearly 50 years in working with a range of mechanical things, combines & swathers to production machine tools to racing vehicles. I think that qualifies me to comment. Sorry that you do not think so but it will not alter my course.

 

[DSheetz]

Is the moon full or close to it ?

 

[Hand Skills]

Not knowing myself, and regarding your scenario above, will the erector align with the scope body or are they independent? Meaning, if I can acurately align the scope body to the rifle action, does this assure that the erector will move the reticle in alignment with the bore? If not, then your method is the only way to make sure the reticle tracks, if it can be aligned to the action, right?

Great question. Provided a scope is functioning properly, yes I think it's fairly safe to assume that the erector system and adjustments are going to align with the scope body. I used to snicker at the guys who level off the turret, but I know some very experienced builders do it that way, so there must be something to it.

Keep in mind the erector system doesn't actually move the reticle - think about it. The reticle stays centered in the scope. It's actually the image that is moving.

They key takeaway is, the reticle and the erector system are two physically separate things. If a scope is installed with the reticule 'plumb', there is no guarantee the turrets agree. Different manufacturers have different tolerances (and different approaches to QC)...

The bottom line is, there are many ways to skin a cat. Some guys just miss the fact that in this case, there are actually two cats.

 

[Hand Skills]

Is the moon full or close to it ?

Not just full, it's blue as well

 

[DSheetz]

Hand Skills , I like your explanation as well as the exploded view .

 

[Kimber7man]

Since switching to the business/playing card method I have been much more precise with proper scope leveling. So much so that I'm switching out the Talley lightweights on my hunting rifles and going with a rail and rings.