Anybody Ditch the Bubble Level?

[General RE LEE]

Sure but PRS isn't benchrest. It's mainly positional (tripod, kneeling, modified prone, rifle balanced on a barricade, etc) shooting 2-3MOA steel targets between 400-1300 yards. And when he started competing in 2015 that was before PRS had become as specialized as it is now with 25# race guns. That was back when it was more practical and the rifles were lighter.

The reality is even civilian hobby shooters get exponentially more shooting practice than snipers do.

Some weeks I’ll shoot 150-200 rounds. I stop at the range with a box of 50 handloads after work multiple times a week. I don’t even compete. It’s fun dialing in loads and reloading in the evening. Deer season rolls around, shooting is automatic.

 

[Dobermann]

Iv trained myself to look at it every shot.

Even on a rifle that dosnt have one I still find myself looking at where it would be.

No way I could get away with it shooting in different locations, from different positions.

Which one are you running?

I've been so exposed to Frank talking about them being a learning aid not a shooting tool ... and the saw Form running a (gasp) Accuracy 1st level that I got all confusimacated ...

 

[Lawnboi]

Which one are you running?

I've been so exposed to Frank talking about them being a learning aid not a shooting tool ... and the saw Form running a (gasp) Accuracy 1st level that I got all confusimacated ...

One requirement for me is that it’s adjustable.

I use flatline ops tube mounted levels, and I have some Spuhr levels on their mounts, the accessory, not the one that comes on the base.

I could never get away with not using one. I’m constantly finding I’m not level, especially on broken terrain and shooting angles.

I have trained it to the point that I always look for the level.

 

[Dobermann]

I use flatline ops tube mounted levels, and I have some Spuhr levels on their mounts, the accessory, not the one that comes on the base.

Any preferred Flatline Ops models? I remember Frank recommending the Halo X ...

 

[Formidilosus]

I wonder how the top military snipers shooting 100's to 1000's of yards for the past 75+ years got by so well without them? one shot one kill too. maybe they were and are just better shooters.

You mean you wonder how they BS’ed about what they did? “One shot, one kill” was slogan that was laughably not true beyond a couple of hundred yards. The hit rates at 400 meters and beyond were ridiculously low before laser rangefinders, and are still low today.

 

[Formidilosus]

Your average top-50% PRS/NRL shooter would shoot circles around most snipers these days. Phillip Velayo has talked about it a bit. He's a former Marine sniper team leader and was a sniper instructor in the Marine Corps as well. He started shooting PRS thinking he'd shoot circles around civilians and got smoked. After that he stuck with PRS shooting and actually got very good, winning the 2018 PRS Finale. But he's mentioned his shooting practice as a Marine sniper was 30-40 rounds every 3 months. He now shoots more in a week as a PRS competitor for practice than he did in a year as a sniper.

The ammo allotment per sniper platoon is publicly available. You have probably shot more in one week than they get in a year.

People need to stop mythologizing snipers

Yes.

and realize that shooting is a very small part of their job,

This I will disagree with. Shooting at longe range is what separates them from everyone else, and when a sniper tells people inside the military and civilians why he’s “special”, it’s always because of their shooting. However, when snipers go to matches and get embarrassed because they aren’t good, it changes to “shooting is a very small part of the job”. It’s not. It is what makes a sniper. That they are bad at it, doesn’t change that

and that doesn't necessarily diminish the value they bring to the military. The more we mythologize them, the more they're incentivized to lie/exaggerate like many famous snipers do about their accomplishments.

Never meet your “heroes”.

 

[Dobermann]

You mean you wonder how they BS’ed about what they did? “One shot, one kill” was slogan that was laughably not true beyond a couple of hundred yards. The hit rates at 400 meters and beyond were ridiculously low before laser rangefinders, and are still low today.

Form, are you still running Accuracy 1st levels? Have seen one in some of your pics, but possibly not on most of your set-ups ... curious as to when you do/don't use one ...

 

[JohnJohnson]

You mean you wonder how they BS’ed about what they did?

I grew up reading sniper books, it's what got me interested in LR from a young age. It sucked to find out how much guys like Carlos Hathcock / Chris Kyle lied about their accomplishments. I tried to re-read Marine Sniper for nostalgia this year and now that I'm an adult it's an unreadable propaganda piece.

 

[Formidilosus]

I grew up reading sniper books, it's what got me interested in LR from a young age. It sucked to find out how much guys like Carlos Hathcock / Chris Kyle lied about their accomplishments. I tried to re-read Marine Sniper for nostalgia this year and now that I'm an adult it's an unreadable propaganda piece.

I’ve not heard or been told anything negative about Carlos.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’ve not heard or been told anything negative about Carlos.

Supposedly many of his most famous exploits have little to no historical evidence. The general he killed and the "Apache" woman he killed are two big ones. I don't think there's any evidence of the Apache woman ever existing, let alone any corroboration of him killing her. For his shot on the sniper through the sniper's scope, the rifle conveniently got stolen from the armory so no proof there either.

The general is probably one of his most famous. No archival or official records of that mission happening and no identifying details in the two accounts of it (both of which are from guys writing propaganda books on him). What was the general's name? Where did it happen? When did it happen? No mention of it at the time either from US sources, when the military would have liked a piece of propaganda like that. He supposedly only ever told Burke about it, who died in 1967 so he can't verify anything either. No records showing any VC general died in that manner from the VC side of things, though you could assert they have a vested interest in covering it up.

I'm certainly not a historian, so I could be misguided, but some historians do seem to doubt a lot of his claims. That doesn't detract from his shooting abilities though, which as far as I know are well known and verified.

 

[Formidilosus]

Supposedly many of his most famous exploits have little to no historical evidence. The general he killed and the "Apache" woman he killed are two big ones. I don't think there's any evidence of the Apache woman ever existing, let alone any corroboration of him killing her. For his shot on the sniper through the sniper's scope, the rifle conveniently got stolen from the armory so no proof there either.

The general is probably one of his most famous. No archival or official records of that mission happening and no identifying details in the two accounts of it (both of which are from guys writing propaganda books on him). What was the general's name? Where did it happen? When did it happen? No mention of it at the time either from US sources, when the military would have liked a piece of propaganda like that. He supposedly only ever told Burke about it, who died in 1967 so he can't verify anything either. No records showing any VC general died in that manner from the VC side of things, though you could assert they have a vested interest in covering it up.

I'm certainly not a historian, so I could be misguided, but some historians do seem to doubt a lot of his claims. That doesn't detract from his shooting abilities though, which as far as I know are well known and verified.

All that I get. And no doubt Land used him to sell sniping to the USMC that didn’t want it, and that just got rid of them again. However, it’s worth noting that lots of stuff happened in Vietnam and cross border that still isn’t talked about. Not saying that he did or didn’t do those things, just that until legit evidence is provided, it also can be a witch hunt. People love tearing others down.
Quite a bit different than other modern ones where dates, times, video, and lots of first hand accounts are available. There are quite a few legitimate story worthy dudes in the last 20+ years, unfortunately you don’t hear about them because they aren’t selling an energy drink with their “brand”.

 

[JohnJohnson]

All that I get. And no doubt Land used him to sell sniping to the USMC that didn’t want it, and that just got rid of them again. However, it’s worth noting that lots of stuff happened in Vietnam and cross border that still isn’t talked about. Not saying that he did or didn’t do those things, just that until legit evidence is provided, it also can be a witch hunt. People love tearing others down.
Quite a bit different than other modern ones where dates, times, video, and lots of first hand accounts are available. There are quite a few legitimate story worthy dudes in the last 20+ years, unfortunately you don’t hear about them because they aren’t selling an energy drink with their “brand”.

Yeah, the Hathcock inconsistencies are a lot murkier than Chris Kyle's outright lies. I'm just starting from the default position of not believing something until they provide real evidence. Especially with such a long tradition of basically all countries lying about their snipers dating back 100+ years. The Russians were treating outlandish sniper lore like a religion long before the US jumped on the bandwagon.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yeah, the Hathcock inconsistencies are a lot murkier than Chris Kyle's outright lies. I'm just starting from the default position of not believing something until they provide real evidence. Especially with such a long tradition of basically all countries lying about their snipers dating back 100+ years. The Russians were treating outlandish sniper lore like a religion long before the US jumped on the bandwagon.

Haha. True. About the only reason I personally would give it base credibility is first because the USMC HATED snipers as sniping and yet still even the biggest haters of Carlos and Land didn’t refute it. Second, because Carlos could actually shoot- in front of people on the national level. Nothing really about he shooting parts is off- quite a bit different than when (insert some person) supposedly was “one shot per dude to 2 miles all day”, and then comes in dead last in every match they shoot, or misses an elk multiples times from a rest at sub 300 yards, or says the most asinine things about basic ballistics/rifles/etc.


In any case- everything is a lie, and never meet your heroes.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Haha. True. About the only reason I personally would give it base credibility is first because the USMC HATED snipers as sniping and yet still even the biggest haters of Carlos and Land didn’t refute it. Second, because Carlos could actually shoot- in front of people on the national level. Nothing really about he shooting parts is off- quite a bit different than when (insert some person) supposedly was “one shot per dude to 2 miles all day”, and then comes in dead last in every match they shoot, or misses an elk multiples times from a rest at sub 300 yards, or says the most asinine things about basic ballistics/rifles/etc.


In any case- everything is a lie, and never meet your heroes.

I'm willing to admit I might be a pessimist on some of the war stories but I have no doubt that Hathcock had the ability to make those shots if they did happen. Hell, I don't really know much about whether Chris Kyle was a good shooter. He may very well have been. I just don't believe he shot looters from the roof of the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina, and the courts didn't believe he punched Jesse Ventura.

 

[MosAZ]

When hunting I’m often in a hurry and forget to check it. At PRS I almost always to forget to look. I would like to get a MDT send it so the light will be more obvious.

 

[Carl Ross]

When hunting I’m often in a hurry and forget to check it. At PRS I almost always to forget to look. I would like to get a MDT send it so the light will be more obvious.

I'd recommend practicing with it built into your shot process until it feels wrong not to check it. It will take a lot of deliberate reps, but if you shoot at distance regularly (like a PRS match) I think you'll find your wind holds get way more consistent. Lots of people like the Send It but I've never given one a fair shake. I'm certain they're good, but I'm not convinced they'll get you more impacts than looking at a bubble level.

I notice myself checking mine all the time offhand. It isn't needed there but I want that pathway to be strong so I don't try to change the process to shave part of a second in one position.

 

[magtech]

If you have good equilibrium and trust your eyes, that level is junk. I have one and my eyes are more accurate.

Whenever i look at the level im always thinking: was that "level" with the bubble closer to the left or right line. When, moving my head to look i have to readjust and refocus... when i trust level as my view to earth from my equilibrium, im always just right on.... but then again im really good with spatial oreintation/mapping/etc.

 

[Carl Ross]

If you have good equilibrium and trust your eyes, that level is junk. I have one and my eyes are more accurate.

Whenever i look at the level im always thinking: was that "level" with the bubble closer to the left or right line. When, moving my head to look i have to readjust and refocus... when i trust level as my view to earth from my equilibrium, im always just right on.... but then again im really good with spatial oreintation/mapping/etc.

We'll have to disagree. On a flat range or surrounded by level and plumb references, sure. In common hunting terrain, people I know who use levels all day find themselves guessing wrong regularly.

I don't think using a level is the be all-end all, but I think consistent use will increase people's consistency at range in mountainous terrain.

 

[magtech]

We'll have to disagree. On a flat range or surrounded by level and plumb references, sure. In common hunting terrain, people I know who use levels all day find themselves guessing wrong regularly.

I don't think using a level is the be all-end all, but I think consistent use will increase people's consistency at range in mountainous terrain.

I agree it can help people. I just ditched it and its one less thought to process when hunting... now an inclination monitor, that's different

 

[Carl Ross]

I agree it can help people. I just ditched it and its one less thought to process when hunting... now an inclination monitor, that's different

For most hunting situations at most hunting distances, I can't disagree with you. If you're testing the limits of reasonable hunting engagements or shooting competition it starts to matter. As a guy who shoots competition regularly, adding a step to check my level and adjust is probably a 1 to 1.5 second task now that I practice it. I haven't timed it on its own but I think that's pretty close. Practice and drilling can really streamline a complex process. Keeping both eyes open allows you to place the reticle on the target with your strong eye and see the bubble with your support eye at the same time, assuming both eyes work correctly.