Best reticle leveler ?

Be sure to spin the level 180°, check if it is still level. If not the prior results may have been compounded errors that cancelled itself out.
Too bad we didn't have any math/physic gurus come along to explain the simple geometry/trigonometric of bore vs scope. Canadian math sucks.
Gunneegoogoo said:
...
I find the weakest link in this whole process to be levelling the rifle with a rink-ee-dink level on a very small surface to allow the scope to be levelled in the rings.
Click to expand...
 
ben777lemay said:
Yeah but the ideal setup is to be sure that the rail, the scope/reticle and the ACD is all on the same level.

I don't hear anyone saying you're wrong :yingyang:

Even with all those posts, you still haven't told us what you use for your reticle leveling...
Click to expand...

HAHA Sorry.

I level the pic rail with any normal level you can find.
Then
I mount the scope up and look at something at a far distance that I know is perfectly vertical or horizontal.... Like a flag pole. And align it that way.

My Rifle is setup for 1km Shooting and it does the trick. (Furthest I have shot it was 1006Yds)

I know, with of all the shiet im spuing out its not very scientific. But, the bullet doesnt lie and that system works for me at the distance I shoot at. (With repeatable verifiable results. )
 
Last edited:
burnaby said:
Be sure to spin the level 180°, check if it is still level. If not the prior results may have been compounded errors that cancelled itself out.
Too bad we didn't have any math/physic gurus come along to explain the simple geometry/trigonometric of bore vs scope. Canadian math sucks.
Click to expand...

Ya, good point.

Been thinking about this this eve.

Thought that a 12x12" or 18x18" (larger = harder to store) plate, maybe 3/8" thick, with finely threaded legs on all four corners. 4 accurate levels, 2 in each plane. Not sure if tube spirit levels, or the top down X-Y bubble levels, or digital ones, are best. Maybe someone else can tell me???

I have an ACD from accuracy first, and again I find the data from it to be less than perfect. It's nice, but I'd be surprised if that in real life use it gets us within 3deg (complete guess) of vertical with any consistency. Those little tiny tubes and their really short lever arms seem to be underpowered for accuracy of under 1 degree. Would be some good science to test it.

Could have 3-5 good shooters and they're respective fancy rifles. Have each one get setup behind their fancy precision guns, have level them to their satisfaction with their ACD's, and then the observer takes a measure with a more accurate device based off the rifle rail. Then everyone plays "musical rifles" and does it again. A couple hours later we'd have some really useful info.

Thoughts?
 
I ran some numbers. I'm sure this has been done somewhere before, so if you want to tell me that I'm just running up my post count - go ahead.

Using the ballistics for my .338, a 1deg cant shows the following L-R shift if you dial up for a zeroed hit with no holdover:

500 - .81"
1000 - 4.46"
1500 - 13.3"
2000 - 30"
2500 - 60"

A 3deg cant does this:

500 - 2.43"
1000 - 13.95"
1500 - 39.92"
2000 - 90"
2500 - 180"

I did 5, 7, and 9 degrees as well.....and as you can guess it all got proportionally worse.

Holy crap!!! This is really important!! The reason I took the time to run the numbers was to see if we were all just doing mental masturbation to justify a cool toy on our scopes. If would appear it's a pretty big deal!!!

NOTE: these L-R inch numbers are the rotation around the arc of a circle, not true straight sideways. I don't know how to go from arc to X-Y vectors, but it's a pretty good estimate.

GGG
 
:popCorn:

For the bubble levels and ACD, I know that there are more sensitive than others.
I guess the more *thin* the liquid is, the more sensitive it is.
 
I have now made it a habit to check the level on both front and rear rings
when the caps are off.
Amazing how some don't hold true to one another.
 
Gunneegoogoo said:
I ran some numbers. I'm sure this has been done somewhere before, so if you want to tell me that I'm just running up my post count - go ahead.

Using the ballistics for my .338, a 1deg cant shows the following L-R shift if you dial up for a zeroed hit with no holdover:

500 - .81"
1000 - 4.46"
1500 - 13.3"
2000 - 30"
2500 - 60"

A 3deg cant does this:

500 - 2.43"
1000 - 13.95"
1500 - 39.92"
2000 - 90"
2500 - 180"

I did 5, 7, and 9 degrees as well.....and as you can guess it all got proportionally worse.

Holy crap!!! This is really important!! The reason I took the time to run the numbers was to see if we were all just doing mental masturbation to justify a cool toy on our scopes. If would appear it's a pretty big deal!!!

NOTE: these L-R inch numbers are the rotation around the arc of a circle, not true straight sideways. I don't know how to go from arc to X-Y vectors, but it's a pretty good estimate.

GGG
Click to expand...

Yes, scope cant is a big reason for misses at distance.

Didnt think about the margin of error in the ACD itself. Would be curious to see how consistent that could be held.

(Using an "American Optics" ACD and as I said in practical use does 1000 no problem. Consistent.)
 
ben777lemay said:
:popCorn:

For the bubble levels and ACD, I know that there are more sensitive than others.
I guess the more *thin* the liquid is, the more sensitive it is.
Click to expand...

I think accuracy 1st says the "thicker" the better so the bubble doesn't bounce around so much. I'm not arguing, just putting it out there.

I was wondering what makes an accurate level last night. I found the fancy Starret ones. Google "Starret master level". It actually has graduations of "how level" you are, .005" per foot, with a much wider bubble that we're used to seeing in a standard construction level. I know for a machinist this is not news, but for us mortals it's interesting!!

Anyone like my leveller idea, or am I out to lunch? I think levelling the scope in the rings on something deadly flat, and then mounting it to the scope is the ticket.
 
JoKa said:
Yes, scope cant is a big reason for misses at distance.

Didnt think about the margin of error in the ACD itself. Would be curious to see how consistent that could be held.

(Using an "American Optics" ACD and as I said in practical use does 1000 no problem. Consistent.)
Click to expand...

Yes, it'd be a combo of the lack of resolution in the little bubble tubes, and human error. Some of the ACD's require you to lift your head off the cheek rest and then reset to look perpendicular at the level, so there's another spot for issues. Also, some are scope tube mounted, while overs are mounted to the guns pic rail.....apples and oranges....
 
Gunneegoogoo said:
I think accuracy 1st says the "thicker" the better so the bubble doesn't bounce around so much. I'm not arguing, just putting it out there.

I was wondering what makes an accurate level last night. I found the fancy Starret ones. Google "Starret master level". It actually has graduations of "how level" you are, .005" per foot, with a much wider bubble that we're used to seeing in a standard construction level. I know for a machinist this is not news, but for us mortals it's interesting!!

Anyone like my leveller idea, or am I out to lunch? I think levelling the scope in the rings on something deadly flat, and then mounting it to the scope is the ticket.
Click to expand...

I was assuming but you may be right... But there is definetly something relating the *thickness/viscosity* of the liquid vs the accuracy of the bubble level.
This and I guess the quality of the vial.

There is levels that are way more accurate than .005" per foot but they are expensive.
If I remember well, we have a Tesa ( Brown & Sharpe ) level at my job and its claimed to be accurate to .0002" per 10 inch.
I guess they will not let me leave the shop with it :p

I should receive my Starrett 135A levels this week.
I will test them with shims on a leveled inspection marble then I'll see how many thousands is needed to make the bubble move ( how accurate it is ).
My guess is that they will be pretty good.
 
Last edited:
ben777lemay said:
I was assuming but you may be right... But there is definetly something relating the *thickness/viscosity* of the liquid vs the accuracy of the bubble level.
This and I guess the quality of the vial.

There is levels that are way more accurate than .005" per foot but they are expensive.
If I remember well, we have a Tesa ( Brown & Sharpe ) level at my job and its claimed to be accurate to .0002" per 10 inch.
I guess they will not let me leave the shop with it :p

I should receive my Starrett 135A levels this week.
I will test them with shims on a leveled inspection marble then I'll see how many thousands is needed to make the bubble move ( how accurate it is ).
My guess is that they will be pretty good.
Click to expand...

The problem with your idea is that not all scope bases are spaced apart the same, then there is an eye relief issue, now if you took the plate you are talking about and instead of a rail, had a clamp that you could clamp on the recoil lug, and then "dial" the reticle in, then you could use it on all rifle platforms, heck even a machinist square would get 90% of the actions lined up
 
Gauge pin between the bottom of the scope and the rail, done.

Btw, a Starrett master level like the 199z is .0005" per foot, as far as I know its some alcohol in the vial, needs very low surface tension.

Doesn't matter much, most TR front sights have a little build in bubble level these days, that bubble level is likely only worth a few dollars, works plenty well.
 
Last edited:
ekoso said:
The problem with your idea is that not all scope bases are spaced apart the same, then there is an eye relief issue, now if you took the plate you are talking about and instead of a rail, had a clamp that you could clamp on the recoil lug, and then "dial" the reticle in, then you could use it on all rifle platforms, heck even a machinist square would get 90% of the actions lined up
Click to expand...

So you're saying take it out of the stock?? How do you know the lug means level??
 
Gauge pin/plug gauges, made in .001 increments, I have a machine shop so its just part of my tools, though a stack of anything flat enough would work just as well.
 
ekoso said:
The problem with your idea is that not all scope bases are spaced apart the same, then there is an eye relief issue, now if you took the plate you are talking about and instead of a rail, had a clamp that you could clamp on the recoil lug, and then "dial" the reticle in, then you could use it on all rifle platforms, heck even a machinist square would get 90% of the actions lined up
Click to expand...

I'm not sure to understand 100% of what you are saying... What plate ?
Are you sure you quoted the right post ?

BTW, all my long range rifles have flat top actions so its very easy to know if the picatinny rail is parralel with the action.
Then I can trust the level of my rails.
 
SND said:
Gauge pin/plug gauges, made in .001 increments, I have a machine shop so its just part of my tools, though a stack of anything flat enough would work just as well.
Click to expand...

They say a picture worth a thousand words...
My set on pin/plug gauges ( inspection pins ) :

 
He's talking about the plate leveller thing I proposed

I did think about the eye relief issue, but I was hoping the the rings could be placed such that the relief could he set by the notches on the pic rail.
 
I use pins like that in the pictures anytime I got a flat bottom scope and a rail, I was just saying you don't need to go out and buy such a thing as flat shims could do the same. It's just easy to roll these pins and go down a few thou until the fit is just right between the bottom of the scope and rail. Close enough.


What is most important is that your rifle is kept level, or at least at the same angle between shots, if you start to cant it one way and the other between shots that's no good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom