Is this acceptable for high end rings? And a couple other questions

[Steve300xcw]

Why do you even need a level for a 450yrd max rifle?

 

[Shortschaf]

So you guys think it's normal. I understand. I wonder why they will replace all the rings and even said at the phone that these kind of issues are very rare amd they eill fix it. And i wonder why all the levels are off in the same exact way if it is so difficult to manufacture them for all the tolerances adding up..

How did you quantify that they were off 0.5°?

And how do you level your scope?

 

[ssimo]

Why do you even need a level for a 450yrd max rifle?

Because i hunt smaller game than ehat you are used to, being in Europe. And because I want to be as accurate as possible. And because i hunt in hills amd mountains. And because i want to shoot at the range much further away

 

[ssimo]

How did you quantify that they were off 0.5°?

And how do you level your scope?

1) i used some precise professional macchine my neighboor has, under his supervision. And the results were confirmed by the bubble level touching the line (as a reference there is a very nice post with various bubble levels, off of about 0.5 degrees, on a famous precision shooting forum) and i even checked with the level app of my phone (which turned out to be extremely accurate, at least in this appllication). I wrote 0.5 degrees but the actual cant is between 0.5 and 0.7 for all the 4 rings.
2) plumb line

 

[Shortschaf]

1) i used some precise professional macchine my neighboor has, under his supervision. And the results were confirmed by the bubble level touching the line (as a reference there is a very nice post with various bubble levels, off of about 0.5 degrees, on a famous precision shooting forum) and i even checked with the level app of my phone (which turned out to be extremely accurate, at least in this appllication). I wrote 0.5 degrees but the actual cant is between 0.5 and 0.7 for all the 4 rings.
2) plumb line

How did you physically place the ring on the precise proffesional machine your neighbor has?

(We'll just ignore the fact that you can still do #2 completely unhindered here)

 

[ssimo]

How did you physically place the ring on the precise proffesional machine your neighbor has?

(We'll just ignore the fact that you can still do #2 completely unhindered here)

"Ignore"? You mean "assume" i guess..

Btw man, don't worry about how i verified that there is a problem. The question was "is this acceptable to you?".

So, would it be acceptable to you to pay 200 usd for a parte of ring with a bubble canted 0.5 degrees so that the bubble touche one of the two reference lines when the rifle is level?

Do you really think it is inside the margin of error for this manufacturing process but still they refund me and they managed to make at least 4 rings with bubbles all canted in the same exact way?

That's funny to me honestly. On the other hand i know that on this forum people know their stuff so i am a bit confused

 

[ljalberta]

Because i hunt smaller game than ehat you are used to, being in Europe. And because I want to be as accurate as possible. And because i hunt in hills amd mountains. And because i want to shoot at the range much further away

What’s the windage difference at 450 yards for being off .5*?

If they’ll replace them and give you 100% accurate rings/levels then great. But yes, I would say most industry option with built in levels can be expected to have some small degree of error. I use scope mounted levels that can be adjusted to account for this error.

I will say, I did order a UM Tikka level, but I did so realizing that it is not adjustable. I’ll likely place that on a .308 which I’m not hunting long with.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I recently bought several sets of rings from a reputable brand, very appreciated on forums. They look good quality. They have an integral level in the base. I opted for that model based on reputation and onnthe fact that the level, placed in the base of the front ring on the left, looked like a good compromise for a 450 yards max hunting rifle. This way i am able to check the level when rarely needed but at the same time the level doesn't stick out too much, keeping the rifle convenient to carry.

I made a test and found out that ALL the 4 rings i have, bought in a 1 year timespawn, have the level.. out of level! It's just a matter of half a degree and i know that, as long as the reticle is plumb to the bubble level, the level being off (and thus the rifle being canted) 0.5 degrees is no big deal, especially for the distances i am shooting at. That said, every one of the level is canted in the same exact direction and everyone is off by 0.5 degrees (i checked with multile levels whit rings mounted and torqued on a high quality integral scope base and using multiple levels i know to be on spot as a reference).

1) how is this possible? For at least 1 year a reputable brand (i will not say the name of the brand because they have been great in assisting me and accorded a full refund) produced defective rings?
2) what do you think about my reasoning about the placement of the level in the base of the ring? I have seem some drawbacks (mostly low visibility on the bubble in low light conditions, level out of focus being very close to my eyes but still visible, until i am young) but i like the fact that the level doesn't stick out

Thanks guys!

Brand? Not sure why you didnt share that…

 

[Shortschaf]

"Ignore"? You mean "assume" i guess..

No, it's a fact. You just match the reticle to the level, just like all other level products work. Feel free to explain how your bubble level was defective to the point where you couldnt make the reticle match it.

Btw man, don't worry about how i verified that there is a problem. The question was "is this acceptable to you?".

Literally nothing you have said is an indication that any "problem" has been "verified".
I'm trying to help you (and future readers) through the thought process of how this all works. If you just set the rings down on top of a flat, level surface that would be invalid test. You would need them clamped to a rail, then that rail set down on the leveling surface for the measurement. But hey, forget I mentioned it. You came to complain and hear what you want

So, would it be acceptable to you to pay 200 usd for a parte of ring with a bubble canted 0.5 degrees so that the bubble touche one of the two reference lines when the rifle is level?

Yes. Because at the end of the day, the user still needs to MANUALLY match the reticle to the level... it is an imperfect process, so the bubble level being "imperfectly" level to the rest of the rifle matters literally zero. You are "calibrating" everything to be true anyway when you mount the scope

Do you really think it is inside the margin of error for this manufacturing process but still they refund me and they managed to make at least 4 rings with bubbles all canted in the same exact way?

I'd be shocked if it was not. I am an engineer who used to be in manufacturing. No "bubble level installation expertise" lol, just lots of machining and sheet metal.

Let us know what the new rings do. Many companies will just replace things because some customers are impossible to work with.

 

[ssimo]

No, it's a fact. You just match the reticle to the level, just like all other level products work. Feel free to explain how your bubble level was defective to the point where you couldnt make the reticle match it.


Literally nothing you have said is an indication that any "problem" has been "verified".
I'm trying to help you (and future readers) through the thought process of how this all works. If you just set the rings down on top of a flat, level surface that would be invalid test. You would need them clamped to a rail, then that rail set down on the leveling surface for the measurement. But hey, forget I mentioned it. You came to complain and hear what you want


Yes. Because at the end of the day, the user still needs to MANUALLY match the reticle to the level... it is an imperfect process, so the bubble level being "imperfectly" level to the rest of the rifle matters literally zero. You are "calibrating" everything to be true anyway when you mount the scope


I'd be shocked if it was not. I am an engineer who used to be in manufacturing. No "bubble level installation expertise" lol, just lots of machining and sheet metal.

Let us know what the new rings do. Many companies will just replace things because some customers are impossible to work with.

Most of your points showed you just didn't read or didn't understand what i am asking and what i wrote.

I do level the reticle to the bubble, always, and i know this is the most important factor. Still, a canted rifle will produce an incremental error the more you mive away from the zero point. That's just math and you being an engineer should get it.
Addutuonally, i verified everything exactly as you wrote.

I am not impossible to work with since i returned 3 products in my whole life.

Could you explain why would it be impossible to make a ring eoth an integrated level reliably and repeteably?

 

[SDHNTR]

Levels on rings are near worthless anyways. Ignore it. Get an offset level if you want one.

 

[Shortschaf]

Most of your points showed you just didn't read or didn't understand what i am asking and what i wrote.

I do level the reticle to the bubble, always, and i know this is the most important factor. Still, a canted rifle will produce an incremental error the more you mive away from the zero point. That's just math and you being an engineer should get it.
Addutuonally, i verified everything exactly as you wrote.

Not once did you mention reticle plumbness relative the bore as being your worry. But if that is your worry, I'd just like to say that is a largely overblown issue

0.5° cant error with a 2" height over bore zeroed at 100 yards is a windage error of 0.017" per 100 yards.

So if you have a perfect 100 zero on your 450 yard rifle, it will have a built in angular misalignment causing a 0.061" windage error at 450. Less than a 1/16"

Could you explain why would it be impossible to make a ring eoth an integrated level reliably and repeteably?

It is not impossible. Simply not financially feasible. As the math shows, there is no practical advantage gained by a dead-nuts perfect level. And to manufacture such a level gets expensive fast. Stuff like that doesnt sell. If zeiss does manufacture such a thing, tickle me impressed

but most importantly, I am not a huge fan of scope ring levels. They are not as easy to see as an offset

 

[IAm_Not_Lost]

Do you have rings from this manufacturer that aren’t “0.5 degrees” off?

I guess what I mean is, if these are your only samples, and this is a high quality scope ring brand, and ALL four of your samples have the exact same…problem…it would make me consider if my methodology is correct, or if I’m missing something.

My other question would be; when you compare your scope ring level against another level, are you also testing how level the actual bottom and top of scope rings are versus just what the tiny bubble level is saying? Is the entire scope ring assembly unlevel when measured at the top of the rings, or is it only the bubble level that is miscalibrated/misaligned?

 

[ljalberta]

0.5° cant error with a 2" height over bore zeroed at 100 yards is a windage error of 0.017" per 100 yards.

So if you have a perfect 100 zero on your 450 yard rifle, it will have a built in angular misalignment causing a 0.061" windage error at 450. Less than a 1/16"

And there we go. The actual effect. Mountains out of molehills.

 

[Marbles]

I do level the reticle to the bubble, always, and i know this is the most important factor. Still, a canted rifle will produce an incremental error the more you mive away from the zero point. That's just math and you being an engineer should get it.
Addutuonally, i verified everything exactly as you wrote.

If you cannot dial for the error, it is too small to matter. The 0.5 degree offset of reticle to bore produces less than 0.02 MOA of error. At best, your scope dials to 0.125 MOA per click. Of course you are in Europe, so error is less than 0.01 MRAD, and at best your clicks are 0.05 MRAD (or 0.5 cm depending on your scope). So, at 2000 meters the 0.5 degree offset produces less than 2 cm of error. At 500 meters it produces 0.5 cm of error, are you knocking birds heads off at 500 meters? Can you call wind within 0.2 mph?

AKA, you are chasing dust as the saying goes in surveying.

To answer the question, yes I would be just fine with that degree of error in a scope ring level. I use tube mounted levels, just torquing the screw to secure it is enough to make me uncertain if it might be off by 0.5 degrees.

I did trust @Shortschaf math. I've figured it for myself once, but decided to save time.

0.5° cant error with a 2" height over bore zeroed at 100 yards is a windage error of 0.017" per 100 yards.

So if you have a perfect 100 zero on your 450 yard rifle, it will have a built in angular misalignment causing a 0.061" windage error at 450. Less than a 1/16"

 

[ssimo]

Why do you even need a level for a 450yrd max rifle?

Why are you concerned about my reply on the motivations for a level mounted on this rifle?

Levels on rings are near worthless anyways. Ignore it. Get an offset level if you want one.

Ok

 

[ssimo]

Not once did you mention reticle plumbness relative the bore as being your worry. But if that is your worry, I'd just like to say that is a largely overblown issue

0.5° cant error with a 2" height over bore zeroed at 100 yards is a windage error of 0.017" per 100 yards.

So if you have a perfect 100 zero on your 450 yard rifle, it will have a built in angular misalignment causing a 0.061" windage error at 450. Less than a 1/16"


It is not impossible. Simply not financially feasible. As the math shows, there is no practical advantage gained by a dead-nuts perfect level. And to manufacture such a level gets expensive fast. Stuff like that doesnt sell. If zeiss does manufacture such a thing, tickle me impressed

but most importantly, I am not a huge fan of scope ring levels. They are not as easy to see as an offset

It is not a 450 yard rifle, i just said i will not shoot past that distance while HUNTING.

And again, i explained the problem i was referring to even on the first post but you didn't even try to understand (or wasn't able to, idk) and kept replying many times without even understanding what we were talking about.

Again, could you explain why it would not be feasible financially? What is the financial bottleneck in glueing a piece of plastic straight to a piece of metal so that they are leveled to each other?
I am genuinely interested

 

[ssimo]

If you cannot dial for the error, it is too small to matter. The 0.5 degree offset of reticle to bore produces less than 0.02 MOA of error. At best, your scope dials to 0.125 MOA per click. Of course you are in Europe, so error is less than 0.01 MRAD, and at best your clicks are 0.05 MRAD (or 0.5 cm depending on your scope). So, at 2000 meters the 0.5 degree offset produces less than 2 cm of error. At 500 meters it produces 0.5 cm of error, are you knocking birds heads off at 500 meters? Can you call wind within 0.2 mph?

AKA, you are chasing dust as the saying goes in surveying.

To answer the question, yes I would be just fine with that degree of error in a scope ring level. I use tube mounted levels, just torquing the screw to secure it is enough to make me uncertain if it might be off by 0.5 degrees.

I did trust @Shortschaf math. I've figured it for myself once, but decided to save time.

I don't understand why you guys assume i will shoot at 450 yards max with this rifle. I wrote many times that's not the case.

I will probably shoot it qell past 1000 at the range.

Anyway, again, I get it. For you guys it is acceptable. That's cool, I would have never expected that but it's cool, I will change my expectations on "precision" machining in gun industry.

 

[Wrench]

I assure you it has less to do with the machining of the rings than it does tolerance in the vial, bedding and perception.

Nobody produces rings on a manual machine and fitting a base on an action will have the amount of deviation you see. If you have these mounted on an integral rail action please drop a pic of the action in a vise with a protactor across the pic and again across the rings.

It's possible your supplier sourced some bogus vials....but not likely.

 

[ssimo]

I assure you it has less to do with the machining of the rings than it does tolerance in the vial, bedding and perception.

Nobody produces rings on a manual machine and fitting a base on an action will have the amount of deviation you see. If you have these mounted on an integral rail action please drop a pic of the action in a vise with a protactor across the pic and again across the rings.

It's possible your supplier sourced some bogus vials....but not likely.

Finally a non polemical reply.. i think that's the case. All the bubbles of all the rings were showing the same exact cant when placed on flat surfaces and also when mounted on a defiance action (placed firmly in a gun vise), even after torqueing them to specs. So the fact that the bubble levels are off is out of question. I used 4 other levels (2 of them made by good quality professional italian tool companies-beta tools and usag) for reference and all the other 4 levels were perfectly centered.

The manufacturer of the rings said me this is very unlikely to happen and it should not happen, despite what someone says in this thread. They also told me that it is very unlikely to happen and they asked me for several pics, after which they offered me a full refund, free of shipping charges and offered me to send a new pair of properly functional rings. The manufacturer provednto be extremely good in the customer service department and this mean a lot to me (and this is not common in europe as it is in the USA). I don't want to bash them so i will not post pics or tell the name of the brand. Also good manufacturer can have a small issue at some point and i don't like the idea that my thread could impact their reputation. The fact that all the 4 levels were off in the same exact direction, literally being off in an identical way to each other, tells me that it is possible to produce levels with some consistency as far as inclination and tells me that, most likely, there was a problem in the manufacturing line, lasting at least 1 year (the older one of the 4 rings was purchased more or less 1 year ago).

As i said above, i know it is not a big deal as far as function but a canted rifle can and will show shifts in the POI at great distances. Since i hunt only within 450 yards more or less, this wouldn't be an issue in that area of application. At greater distances, at which i often practice at the range, the small cant will have a (still pretty small) impact on POI. Since we have so many options (maybe too many!) and i don't have time or financial problems, i don't understand why i should accept a (despite small) tradeoff especially when paying a premium for good rings.

There is a similar thread on another forum and also in that case the manufacturer offered to fix the issue and recognized it should not happen and recognized it is rare.

With the amount of useless stuff we talk about on forums (and rightly so!), i am honestly surprised to see people not caring about things that have a (small) functional impact on the shooting

I agree it is most likely a problem with bedding of the bubble levels than woth machining