What do you use to level the reticle?

[Kimber7man]

This level is the best IMO.

https://www.shortactioncustoms.com/final-scope-level-true-innovation-from-short-action-customs/

 

[7magcreedmoor]

This tool from EDG will let you get the optic and barrel plumb with each other, then the light projected through the scope against a plumb line levels the reticle. A tall target test for tracking confirmation and away we go.

 

[PNWdude67]

I'm confused here. Are you saying the scope reticle and action relation has nothing to do with cant?

I'm saying if you don't have a way to reference your reticle cant in the field there's no point in any of the effort to level anything. Obviously, the height of the reticle above the bore creates the necessity to have the components generally aligned. The complete system needs to be held consistently plumb with regard to cant and the reference level being trued to the scope reticle is the most critical aspect. Simply squaring or trueing or whatever folks think these fancy tools or a deck of cards feeler gauge accomplish when installing a scope to the receiver is nice but not as critical as knowing you are holding the reticle plumb in the field.

 

[huntsman22]

11 pages of bubba-levels, plumbbobs, house corners, stakes, framing levels and various other BS methods, When a Reticle-Tru is ALL a guy ever needs.....

https://parabola-llc.com/

 

[ntsqd]

I'm saying if you don't have a way to reference your reticle cant in the field there's no point in any of the effort to level anything. Obviously, the height of the reticle above the bore creates the necessity to have the components generally aligned. The complete system needs to be held consistently plumb with regard to cant and the reference level being trued to the scope reticle is the most critical aspect. Simply squaring or trueing or whatever folks think these fancy tools or a deck of cards feeler gauge accomplish when installing a scope to the receiver is nice but not as critical as knowing you are holding the reticle plumb in the field.

For LR in particular I would say that they are equally important. If the rifle is"twisted" under a "level" reticle it introduces a horizontal component to the difference between POA and POI.

11 pages of bubba-levels, plumbbobs, house corners, stakes, framing levels and various other BS methods, When a Reticle-Tru is ALL a guy ever needs.....

https://parabola-llc.com/

Looked at that. It sort of works like the tool that I need to try to build today, only it's still lacking in having a solid ref to the action.

 

[Mram10us]

I'm saying if you don't have a way to reference your reticle cant in the field there's no point in any of the effort to level anything. Obviously, the height of the reticle above the bore creates the necessity to have the components generally aligned. The complete system needs to be held consistently plumb with regard to cant and the reference level being trued to the scope reticle is the most critical aspect. Simply squaring or trueing or whatever folks think these fancy tools or a deck of cards feeler gauge accomplish when installing a scope to the receiver is nice but not as critical as knowing you are holding the reticle plumb in the field.

If only there were a way to mount a small level on a scope for the sole purpose of anti-canting

 

[huntsman22]

you'd be surprised at how well the little 'pointers' align to the tang.....

 

[KY_Windage]

I'm saying if you don't have a way to reference your reticle cant in the field there's no point in any of the effort to level anything. Obviously, the height of the reticle above the bore creates the necessity to have the components generally aligned. The complete system needs to be held consistently plumb with regard to cant and the reference level being trued to the scope reticle is the most critical aspect. Simply squaring or trueing or whatever folks think these fancy tools or a deck of cards feeler gauge accomplish when installing a scope to the receiver is nice but not as critical as knowing you are holding the reticle plumb in the field.

Yup, everyone thinks they are great at holding their scope level until they put a scope level on.

Then of course they think it got twisted or something.

I don't know any serious LR shooter who does not have a level mounted on their scope or action, for the reasons you said.

 

[Mram10us]

Yup, everyone thinks they are great at holding their scope level until the put a scope level on.

Then of course they think it got twisted or something.

I don't know any serious LR shooter who does not have a level mounted on their scope or action, for the reasons you said.

That's pretty funny because every time I mount a scope for a buddy they hold it up to their shoulder and say "are you sure this thing is straight? "

 

[chromatica]

This tool from EDG will let you get the optic and barrel plumb with each other, then the light projected through the scope against a plumb line levels the reticle. A tall target test for tracking confirmation and away we go.

This tool is also available from Brownells:
https://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-...nt-sku289100000-6097-14989.aspx?sku=289100000

 

[7magcreedmoor]

That's pretty funny because every time I mount a scope for a buddy they hold it up to their shoulder and say "are you sure this thing is straight? "

Yeah, I've heard that from several buddies. My reply is "your head must be crooked, cause the bubble doesn't lie..."

 

[Old Rooster]

ntsqd I am looking forward to seeing your system as it sounds like you have something interesting.
I'll be checking back to see it.
Old Rooster

 

[Varmint Hunter]

My observation (and I'm not a gunsmith):

I have used most of the various tools and methods discussed above. The one thing that I learned is that if you compare results using the different tools and methods (on the same rifle) you will find those results to vary.

What makes using the raceway to indicate when the rifle is plumb a good idea?
Why would putting a level across a flat spot on the action be better?
Why is using the scope base as a point of reference the best method?
How do we know the bubbles in these inexpensive tools are accurate enough?
Why does the reticle look canted after you do everything possible, with every available gadget, to get things perfectly aligned?

Just sayin'

 

[Mram10us]

My observation (and I'm not a gunsmith):

I have used most of the various tools and methods discussed above. The one thing that I learned is that if you compare results using the different tools and methods (on the same rifle) you will find those results to vary.

What makes using the raceway to indicate when the rifle is plumb a good idea?
Why would putting a level across a flat spot on the action be better?
Why is using the scope base as a point of reference the best method?
How do we know the bubbles in these inexpensive tools are accurate enough?
Why does the reticle look canted after you do everything possible, with every available gadget, to get things perfectly aligned?

Just sayin'

Good points. Only a tall target test will show what worked and what didn't. Everything we are talking bout above simply gets us closer on a ttt, but that should be you baseline since you're actually getting result based information.