How to level rifle before leveling scope

[AZ_Hunter]

No need. Just mount the scope square to the receiver.

Exactly

 

[ThorM465]

If you have a solid rail, I find that using feeler gauges gets the scope the closer to level with the rifle than any other method.

 

[Jordan Smith]

If you have a solid rail, I find that using feeler gauges gets the scope the closer to level with the rifle than any other method.

Feeler gauges are better than nothing, but they rely on a very short measurement axis (the width of the rail), which introduces a lot of relative uncertainty.

I use indicator rods (or segments of multi-piece cleaning rods, for the frugal) affixed to the top of the rail and either the bottom of the erector housing or the top of the elevation turret, and ensure that the rods are parallel 5-6" out from the sides of the scope. That increases precision by lengthening the measurement axis.

 

[Wprinkle]

At class Form mounted a scope and eyeballed it level IIRC. Excluding lazers, when you want to level something you use a 4-6 foot level. The .5" or 1" levels are too small to dead nut something IMO.

 

[Choupique]

feeler gauges wedged between the scope and rail.

This is what I've started doing. Just be careful that you don't pinch them under the scope - don't want to bend the tube or anything silly like that. I've found it impossible to actually keep the rifle 100% level once I start torquing the screws without taking the action out of the stock and getting silly with holding fixtures and a vise.

The feeler gauge method has been working really well for me. If you don't have flat top receiver and the rifle is an open top action like a mauser, it's more difficult. I haven't found a perfect way to do this yet and frankly I've given up. I use a starret 98 across the bottom half of the rings, clamp the ever living shit out of the stock in a vise as close to level as I can keep everything, put the scope in, put a level on the top turret, torque it down as evenly and smoothly as I can.

PSA to scope makers - put a damn indexing feature in the scope & rings so we can quit dealing with this! I've been machinest - adjacent my whole life and the way scopes are required to be mounted drives me insane. It flat out sucks!

 

[wind gypsy]

At class Form mounted a scope and eyeballed it level IIRC. Excluding lazers, when you want to level something you use a 4-6 foot level. The .5" or 1" levels are too small to dead nut something IMO.

Because being perfectly level to bore doesn’t really matter compared to having scope plumb to gravity at the shot and a scope that tracks plumb. As has been discussed ad nauseam.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I set the rifle on a bench with a bipod and rear bag and adjust until it's level both ways, plumb the scope reticle to a hanging bob in view and torque, then torque my scope tube level so it's level to the plumbed reticle.

 

[KenLee]

Haven't shot over 400 yards in years. I mount the scope level to how I naturally shoulder the rifle. Couple minutes and done.
I don't want to be correcting how I hold a rifle after I get behind the scope in the field.

 

[Choupique]

having scope plumb to gravity at the shot and a scope that tracks plumb

I get that, but it still annoys me that there is not an indexing and locating feature made into the scope tube. It should be forced to be level, and not able to move back and forth. Then all this ridiculous scope mounting drama becomes a non-factor.

Again, I get why it is the way it is. I just don't like it, nor do I have the time or money or machinery to make my own stuff, so I'm just going to continue complaining about it on the internet.