Different way to square scope...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Magnumite

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 17, 2007
    6,561
    Harford County, Maryland
    I had debated this with Pinecone a ways back. He convinced me and do my understanding, this is how it goes. To paraphrase, he finally indicated that a canted cross hair may cause a hit say, 1/2" to the right at sight in range relative to the bore. As long as one accounted for that the same deviation, it would be true for all subsequent hits at other ranges. At least this is how I understood it. I know line of sight and bullet trajectories are different but there is an analogy. Think of a hobby astronomer's telescope. We can see planet rings, etc.. To get in that ballpark area of the sky, there is a small parallel localizing scope to get us pointed in the right direction...parallel. it is offset from the vertical centerline of the scope...but we end up in a parallel location in the sky light years away...3 inches off center.

    Think about it...if you had a scope on a top eject Winchester lever action the scope was set up off vertical center. Common knowledge was it would be correct only at the sight in range. UNLESS, one allowed for the hit that amount off to left of the bull at say 100 yards...pretty standard sight in range. So 1" off center at 100 yards would be 1" off center at 50 yards, etc.. See the buck of a life time in the scope, hold 1" off the right of the intended fine target area. But in reality, that would not make a difference in practical application of a 10" vital area. On a bullseye...it could be the difference between a 9, 10 or X...depending on the target ring dimensions. At 1000 yards...homey here would not consider that deviation. I wish I could say I could but I don't shoot at a thousand yards.

    Do I set my rifles up this way? No, simply because I am not a long range rifleman. Heck, at the root of it all I am not a rifleman...but I can shoot a rifle. I set mine up square and if my hold is disciplined I do hold it upright. Makes my hold over/under, mil dot correction, or clicks effect square. And gentle on my mind since I don't shoot well enough to see that deviation out the ranges I shoot at.
     

    Yoshi

    Invictus
    Jun 9, 2010
    4,520
    Someplace in Maryland
    I've shot with Ed A LOT and I've never heard him say that the rifle/scope shouldn't be squared. Plus, he's set up a few rifles for me and leveling the scope to the rifle has ALWAYS been one of the first things he did. Maybe I missed something in the translation or maybe this is something new? In a world of consistency, squaring the rifle/scope makes the most sense to me.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    If you build a rifle for someone else, best is to square scope to rifle.

    BUT, if the persons body does not allow for that setup to have the scope square to the world, you will have problems.

    Again, the IMPORTANT thing is to have the scope reticle square to the world when you shoot. The rifle may or may not be square to the scope to have this occur.

    Let's take an extreme case to illustrate. If you have to hold the rifle canted 45 degrees to the left due to shoulder damage. If the scope is square to the rifle, the scope will then be canted 45 degrees. Does anyone think this is OK???

    If you sight in at 100 yards, fine. But now, you want to dial in the elevation for a 300 yards shot. So you dial in 0.6 mils. But "up" for the scope half Up and half left. You are actually moving it 0.5 mils up and 0.5 mils left. So as you dial in elevation, the point of impact will be low and to the left of where you think it should be. Take that out to 600 yards, and dial in 4.7 mils, and it is even worse. You are now setting the reticle 4 mils up and 4 mils left.

    Now, if we square the scope to the world, our 0.6 mils or 4.7 mils of elevation correction will be ONLY elevation and things would be good.

    What Magumite is mentioning is - say this 45 degree cant puts the reticle center 1" left of the bore. If you sight in exactly POA = POI, you will be fine at 100 yards, but at 200 yards the POI will be 1" right of the POA. And 300 yards it will be 2" right.

    But if you sight in so that the POA is 1" left of the POI at 100, it will still be 1" left at 200, 300, 400, 500, etc.

    And forcing the hold on the rifle to get the reticle square with the world is violating the natural point of aim concept. Any time you are forcing the rifle into a position, you are adding muscle stress and have to work hard to keep it there.
     

    Yoshi

    Invictus
    Jun 9, 2010
    4,520
    Someplace in Maryland
    I set up a scope on my new rifle today. Have to say, while I like the technique, it drove me batty trying to get it perfect. Where just using the levels put me in a "good enough" mindset, this way caused my Bruce Banner OCD to flare up.
     

    F-Stop

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 16, 2009
    2,484
    Cecil County
    I do something similar but without the flashlight. I use a piece of paracord hanging about 50yds away as a plumb line for leveling the reticle to the leveled action. Trying to use the turret with a bubble level is about as good as eyeing it up.



    I still have the cord on the shed, I can see it right now. LOL!
     

    willtill

    The Dude Abides
    MDS Supporter
    May 15, 2007
    24,314
    I’m actually more concerned about getting the scope rings/mounts aligned perfectly (as much as humanly possible) to the scope itself and not putting undue stress on the scope; than squaring the scopes horizontal reticle against the horizon. However I do eyeball it carefully and it seems to be pretty square. I do hit what I’m aiming at.


    .
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    The real test is when you zero at 100, then try shooting out longer ranges.

    If your reticle is not square to the world, you will have a hard time.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    I remember back at the bass pro days, I'd level the receiver in the vice, pointed towards a support column. I'd then use an edge of the column to align the y crosshair. Alternatively, a couple of bubble levels, one in the reciever/mount and one in the top scope cap worked decent.
     

    davsco

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 21, 2010
    8,607
    Loudoun, VA
    what i've been doing lately, to level (or i guess, plumb) the rifle (regular stock, hunting rifle) is, with the tops of the rings off, put a level on the tops of the bottoms of the rings to get the rifle level (plumb), make sure the rifle is secure, then put the scope and tops of rings on. then a level on top of the elevation turret to level that, or as noted here, use a plumb line.
     

    Yoshi

    Invictus
    Jun 9, 2010
    4,520
    Someplace in Maryland
    The scope I mounted using this method operated admirably. No complaints. I do like the older ways though. Especially for field expediency which was needed two weekends ago when we were shooting in WV. Had a scope that was way out of whack. Took two levels, leveled the stock and then leveled the scope. Tightened her up and the shooter was ringing steel again. Sometimes I think way too much for the simple things.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,612
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom