Reading a bunch of articles about cant, but after a while it just seems as if people online in the various forums start talking in circles.
Hodnett on the Magpul vid made mention of the idea that rifle cant doesn't matter. What does matter is scope cant. I cannot really see this making sense. Does it?
Then I see 16 time National High Power champ Dave Tubb's gun:
http://www.gun-blog.com/2011/08/what-cant.html
My point is this. Hodnett says you can just "eyeball" whether your scope is relatively level to your firearm by making the reticle as close to perpendicular to your weaver base as possible. Is that really good enough?
Also, I'm a little concerned that my Burris Signature rings have my Sightron off the bore axis. It just looks a little off, like the scope body is pointing to the right (at the front). Just a little though. would that have an effect? I'm guessing no, because that's what the knobs are for (correcting misalignment between the optic and the firearm)! Right? Wrong?
This is all blowing my mind.
Hodnett on the Magpul vid made mention of the idea that rifle cant doesn't matter. What does matter is scope cant. I cannot really see this making sense. Does it?
Then I see 16 time National High Power champ Dave Tubb's gun:
http://www.gun-blog.com/2011/08/what-cant.html
My point is this. Hodnett says you can just "eyeball" whether your scope is relatively level to your firearm by making the reticle as close to perpendicular to your weaver base as possible. Is that really good enough?
Also, I'm a little concerned that my Burris Signature rings have my Sightron off the bore axis. It just looks a little off, like the scope body is pointing to the right (at the front). Just a little though. would that have an effect? I'm guessing no, because that's what the knobs are for (correcting misalignment between the optic and the firearm)! Right? Wrong?
This is all blowing my mind.