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

[BRTreedogs]

Maybe since you're in Europe you got inch based bubbles and you need metric

 

[ssimo]

Maybe since you're in Europe you got inch based bubbles and you need metric

damn! you are right, that's why

btw that's a huge animal in your pic, congratulations man!

 

[BRTreedogs]

In a more serious response.
Do I think those manufacturing tolerances are acceptable for my money. = no

But I also do not pick hard mounted levels for that reason.

A level you can adjust to your setup and for manufacturing tolerances is the only way imo.

Aka ring cap/scope tube mounted.

 

[ssimo]

Maybe since you're in Europe you got inch based bubbles and you need metric

damn! you are right, that's why

btw that's a huge animal in your pic, congratulations man!

In a more serious response.
Do I think those manufacturing tolerances are acceptable for my money. = no

But I also do not pick hard mounted levels for that reason.

A level you can adjust to your setup and for manufacturing tolerances is the only way imo.

Aka ring cap/scope tube mounted.

i don't think those can be defined manyfacturing tolerances. If it was the case, the 4 bubbles would have different degrees of cant.

Thanks. Do you have any specific product to suggest?

What about Hawkins rings with the top ring level? the one with the centered bubble looks pretty slick and the bubble would probably get more light that way than where it is positioned now

 

[Wrench]

Spin the ring. If the bubble moves....it's the ring....if not....it's your setup. It's that easy.

 

[BRTreedogs]

damn! you are right, that's why

btw that's a huge animal in your pic, congratulations man!

i don't think those can be defined manyfacturing tolerances. If it was the case, the 4 bubbles would have different degrees of cant.

Thanks. Do you have any specific product to suggest?

What about Hawkins rings with the top ring level? the one with the centered bubble looks pretty slick and the bubble would probably get more light that way than where it is positioned now

I prefer the Hawkins rings.

I'm not sure its absolutely the best option. As I think a level in front of the turrets and low would be easier to see.
But all things considered, price, weight and having a less snag prone hunting setup they are what I prefer.

 

[Marbles]

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.

I guess you are too worked up to see the reference to 2000 meters. You have been very clear that you will be shooting further, the hilarious thing is the further out you go, the less it matters because it is completely swallowed by minor changes in wind, the variance in BC between two bullets from the same lot, and velocity changes between shots.

It is an angular error, at any range, there is no scope that dials fine enough to correct for it, so it is a wash.

You also said:

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

Are mice legit game animals there out to 450 yards? Are you shooting birds in the head? Those are the two scenarios where 0.5 cm of error would matter. Which makes me think you don't understand how small the error is if you set your reticle to be true to the level.

If you enjoy chasing dust, go forth and do so. Just don't expect everyone else to agree.

 

[ssimo]

I guess you are too worked up to see the reference to 2000 meters. You have been very clear that you will be shooting further, the hilarious thing is the further out you go, the less it matters because it is completely swallowed by minor changes in wind, the variance in BC between two bullets from the same lot, and velocity changes between shots.

It is an angular error, at any range, there is no scope that dials fine enough to correct for it, so it is a wash.

You also said:

Are mice legit game animals there out to 450 yards? Are you shooting birds in the head? Those are the two scenarios where 0.5 cm of error would matter. Which makes me think you don't understand how small the error is if you set your reticle to be true to the level.

If you enjoy chasing dust, go forth and do so. Just don't expect everyone else to agree.

You have a weird take on what can be "hilarious" but to each their own i guess. Some experienced f class shooters disagree with you but it's ok, maybe you are a long range shooting expert.
That said, the less variables working against me i have when taking an already difficult shot, the better in my opinion. The angular error increases the more you move away from the zero of your rifle, this is obvious also if you are not a phisics expert but i agree it is a marginal problem at best.

I already said that multiple times so i don't see the meaning of your post.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I couldn't care less. I was just trying to understand what are the expectations about accuracy of ring mounted levels and i have seen your ones are pretty low, it's ok. 0.5 cm of error are 0.5 cm of error more than what you need.

I don't shoot birds or mices but i could shoot foxes and, more frequently, roes. A class 0 roe is more or less a 20-30 lbs animal and a good shot placement is within 5 inches. Put that animal quartering and yes, half a centimeter matters. I take these kind of shots regularly in good conditions (low wind speed, perfect rest, calm animal, etc). And remember that the error will be only 0.5 cm in perfect conditions, if you don't see the bubble well enough or you move slightly the rifle after you looked at the level and before taking the shot, the cant increases and maybe that 0.5 becomes 1 or 1.5 cm. If i can avoid this issue buying another ring with no error, i will. I won't go bankrupt, especially because the manufacturer admitted those rings are faulty and i will have a full refund.

Never missed a shot, never lost a deer out of more or less 100 i took in the last 15 years. I only look at the level in some conditions and i try to keep the rifle as level as i can but i know very well that most of the times the rifle won't be perfectly straight. That said, i prefer to have the chance to predict all the conditions i can when taking a difficult shot (which i always try to avoid but sometimes i have to take it). Since i never had problems missing animals, i guess i am doing something right.
I only hunt with guns printing 1/3 MOA groups or better.

Now, if you tell me that there is no chance to get a leveled ring reliably,
1) i don't believe it until someone gives me some explainations for this. Someone said he is an engineer and blablabla but, when asked about technical details, he didn't reply. it would be interesting to understand this point so i am all ears.
2) in case you end up being right, I will just accept the fact that in 2024 humans can't make a couple pieces of aluminum and a plastic piece straight to each other, i am pretty sure i will survive.

I don't understand why we need to be dramatic about this or why we should be so aggressive.. you think it is acceptable? Just say it and let's agree to disagree, there are bigger problems in life than a canted bubble level

 

[ssimo]

Spin the ring. If the bubble moves....it's the ring....if not....it's your setup. It's that easy.

That's a good idea, i already did it. It's the bubble, not the setup!

 

[BRTreedogs]

I would say the ring manufacturer thinks they are doing there work correctly.
And the variation is out sourced levels.
That they don't double check the results or don't care enough to change manufacturing for various lots of levels.

 

[ssimo]

I would say the ring manufacturer thinks they are doing there work correctly.
And the variation is out sourced levels.
That they don't double check the results or don't care enough to change manufacturing for various lots of levels.

Probably yes, they don't care and just replace rings when asked to, it's more cost effective. I like companies that try to make the best product possible, within the limits of common sense, of course.
their price, despite being inside the range of high quality rings, is a bit lower than the one of more expensive rings like mdt, hawkins, etc, so it would be understandable that they are cutting some corners.

I will just see if they can give me a straight one but i am thinking to move away from the brand because this for me is a sign that the QC is not the best, even if the rings looks well made. I also had a NF scope sliding in their rings a year and a half ago but i just put some loctite and torqued a bit more and it never happened again.. But this is another thing, i don't wanna go OT

 

[Marbles]

You have a weird take on what can be "hilarious" but to each their own i guess. Some experienced f class shooters disagree with you but it's ok, maybe you are a long range shooting expert.
That said, the less variables working against me i have when taking an already difficult shot, the better in my opinion. The angular error increases the more you move away from the zero of your rifle, this is obvious also if you are not a phisics expert but i agree it is a marginal problem at best.

No, angular error is consistent, the linear error that translates to is what increases. I have not clammed to be a long range shooting expert, but that is an expert fallacy anyway. In this case math (trigonometry) is all one needs and no amount of expertise changes that.

And remember that the error will be only 0.5 cm in perfect conditions, if you don't see the bubble well enough or you move slightly the rifle after you looked at the level and before taking the shot, the cant increases and maybe that 0.5 becomes 1 or 1.5 cm. If i can avoid this issue buying another ring with no error, i will. I won't go bankrupt, especially because the manufacturer admitted those rings are faulty and i will have a full refund.

Great, so you agree that the 0.5 degrees of cant is within the significance of your ability to measure, so even only discussing cant it is not significant (before even getting into the angular error in shot placement). Significant figures, you cannot be more precise then the least precise measurement. So by your own admission your precision is limited by your ability to read the level, adding one more variable that completely swallows the error induced by having your reticle slightly offset to the bore.

I only hunt with guns printing 1/3 MOA groups or better.

I don't believe you, post a 10 shot group that is 0.33 inches at 100 yards and centered on the x and I'll reconsider. Given that you reference world class F class shooters, lets see, the x ring in F class is 0.5 MOA, the 10 ring is 1 MOA. For many of the record setting scores not all shots are in the x ring, meaning the best F-class shooters in the world are not shooting 1/2 MOA rifles. Forgive me for not believing your hunting rig outshoots them.

Now, if you tell me that there is no chance to get a leveled ring reliably,
1) i don't believe you
2) in case you end up being right, I will just accept the fact that in 2024 humans can't make a couple pieces of aluminum and a plastic piece straight to each other, i am pretty sure i will survive.

I never said that it cannot be done, but if you want to get into it, reliable is a matter of the acceptable tolerances. If reliability matters to you, you must first define it. Is 0.1 degree of error acceptable? What about 0.0006 degrees of error in a bubble level. You need a product designed to a certain tolerance and stating that tolerance. You can buy levels with tolerances ranging from 0.1 MRAD to 0.01 MRAD (0.006 to 0.0006 degrees). All versions likely cost more than your scope rings. (not the precision is given in mm/m, 0.1 mm/m is 0.1 MRAD I could have mixed up a decimal place, feel free to double check that. https://www.leveldevelopments.com/p...evel-sensitivity-0-02mm-m-125mm-granite-base/

I don't understand why we need to be dramatic about this or why we should be so aggressive.. you think it is acceptable? Just say it and let's agree to disagree, there are bigger problems in life than a canted bubble level

I don't understand why you need to be so defensive and dismissive of people who are trying to answer your question. If you want to just disagree, then stop arguing and move on.

Buy the way, I already explicitly said in my first post that I thought it was acceptable, guess my mistake was to explain why. Once again, if you want to chase it, go right ahead and do so, it is your time, your money. Just like me chasing this explanation is my time that I'm choosing to waist.



Now, just for fun. The Theory of Marginal Gains supports your position and does not support mine. Go get after it and smash all those F-class records with your sub 1/3rd MOA hunting rig.

 

[JF_Idaho]

@Marbles

I only shoot my rifles that shoot <1/8 MOA groups. Always repeatable 1 shot groups.

 

[ljalberta]

I’d also love to see some 1/3 moa groups greater than 3-5 rounds centered on the poa. Or maybe some multiple 3 round consecutive groups that can all be overlayed.

But we all know the rifles he’s using are not in fact 1/3 moa, so we’re not going to get those pictures asides from maybe a wallet group of a few rounds here and there.

 

[ssimo]

I’d also love to see some 1/3 moa groups greater than 3-5 rounds centered on the poa. Or maybe some multiple 3 round consecutive groups that can all be overlayed.

But we all know the rifles he’s using are not in fact 1/3 moa, so we’re not going to get those pictures asides from maybe a wallet group of a few rounds here and there.

Why are people so impressed by 1/3 MOA groups lol

Everytime people get reactive on this subject. To me it's pretty easy: find a decent barrel, find the right load and shoot decently in good conditions. Nothing to be surprised about.

I usually don't get pics of my groupings because i don't care at all, i prefer to take pictures of stuff i actually kill. I take 5 shot groups only when i look for a good load. Then i either practice at different ranges on steel gongs or i shoot paper for zero checks etc

If i had some kind of napoleon syndrome i would take pics of every group to brag here like a loser but luckily i prefer going hunting.

Mines are not 1/3 MOA rifles with 100 round groups? Who cares lol, I know i can hit a bug at 100 meters with my hinting rifles first shot in good conditions, that's all i want. Bragging here is not among my priorities. It is pretty sad in my opinion actually, as it is sad to get butthurt when someone can shoot and has good equipments. I am also sad for you guys if you think that having a 1/3 MOA gun is not possible, it's not too difficult to find one IF you can shoot decently. How would people be able to take shots in hunting conditions at 6-7-800 yards pretty consistently? How would F-class shooters be able to do the groups they do? Lol

This thread reached some toxicity levels which are just a shame so i thank everyone for the replies and i will move on

Good hunting! Ciao!

 

[ssimo]

No, angular error is consistent, the linear error that translates to is what increases. I have not clammed to be a long range shooting expert, but that is an expert fallacy anyway. In this case math (trigonometry) is all one needs and no amount of expertise changes that.

Great, so you agree that the 0.5 degrees of cant is within the significance of your ability to measure, so even only discussing cant it is not significant (before even getting into the angular error in shot placement). Significant figures, you cannot be more precise then the least precise measurement. So by your own admission your precision is limited by your ability to read the level, adding one more variable that completely swallows the error induced by having your reticle slightly offset to the bore.


I don't believe you, post a 10 shot group that is 0.33 inches at 100 yards and centered on the x and I'll reconsider. Given that you reference world class F class shooters, lets see, the x ring in F class is 0.5 MOA, the 10 ring is 1 MOA. For many of the record setting scores not all shots are in the x ring, meaning the best F-class shooters in the world are not shooting 1/2 MOA rifles. Forgive me for not believing your hunting rig outshoots them.

I never said that it cannot be done, but if you want to get into it, reliable is a matter of the acceptable tolerances. If reliability matters to you, you must first define it. Is 0.1 degree of error acceptable? What about 0.0006 degrees of error in a bubble level. You need a product designed to a certain tolerance and stating that tolerance. You can buy levels with tolerances ranging from 0.1 MRAD to 0.01 MRAD (0.006 to 0.0006 degrees). All versions likely cost more than your scope rings. (not the precision is given in mm/m, 0.1 mm/m is 0.1 MRAD I could have mixed up a decimal place, feel free to double check that. https://www.leveldevelopments.com/p...evel-sensitivity-0-02mm-m-125mm-granite-base/

I don't understand why you need to be so defensive and dismissive of people who are trying to answer your question. If you want to just disagree, then stop arguing and move on.

Buy the way, I already explicitly said in my first post that I thought it was acceptable, guess my mistake was to explain why. Once again, if you want to chase it, go right ahead and do so, it is your time, your money. Just like me chasing this explanation is my time that I'm choosing to waist.



Now, just for fun. The Theory of Marginal Gains supports your position and does not support mine. Go get after it and smash all those F-class records with your sub 1/3rd MOA hunting rig.

Then how comes that those rings levels are all canted in the same exact way, with proplbably less than 0.1 degree of variation between one and the others?

Secondly, man. Draw a line which is the poa one, then draw another one which starts slightly on the left of the first one and intersect it at a given distance (zero distance), then follow the two lines after they intersected and check if they keep being at the same distance. You are right, you don't need to be a math expert for figuring out this.

As far as the actual impact on point of impact at reasonable distances, I wrote from the first second that i know it is not very significant. That's why i didn't ask about it, I know it. I asked if this cant is acceptable for high end rings because, if it is not, it makes me wonder about the overall QC policy of the company and because if it is defective in that regard, it could be defective in other aspects (for example, who knows if the level is canted because of a machining issue or just because of the position of the bubble itself). Anyway, you just want to have the last word, showing off and not accepting that someone else could criticize something in which you are obviously emotionally invested in for some reasons.
There is no problem, it's a forum and everyone can have his opinion and way of communicating. I am just sorry you and a couple other guys ruined the thread going OT and being randomly aggressive.

Again, nothing personal but your points don't make sense to me for the most part. Are we gonna move on or we are going on to discuss about my shooting skills? When you are in troubles in a conversation, the most obvious thing to do is trying to discredit the interlocutor or just attack him on all fronts. It's basic human relational mechanics, being a psychiatrist i see this everyday. Now please don't ask me to send you my medical badge
though, lol

Now this is hilarious

 

[ljalberta]

Mines are not 1/3 MOA rifles with 100 round groups? Who cares lol, I know i can hit a bug at 100 meters with my hinting rifles first shot in good conditions, that's all i want. Bragging here is not among my priorities. It is pretty sad in my opinion actually, as it is sad to get butthurt when someone can shoot and has good equipments. I am also sad for you guys if you think that having a 1/3 MOA gun is not possible, it's not too difficult to find one IF you can shoot decently. How would people be able to take shots in hunting conditions at 6-7-800 yards pretty consistently? How would F-class shooters be able to do the groups they do? Lol

I suggest you try shooting a few 10 rounds groups or even bigger. Don’t even post the results, but just see for yourself what the realistic results are relative to group size and poa vs poi. Maybe you’re a consistent 1/3 moa shooter with a 1/3 moa hunting rifle. If so, congratulations on being amongst the most elite in the world.

 

[eric1115]

It's basic human relational mechanics, being a psychiatrist i see this everyday.

A whole lot of things just snapped into focus for me.

 

[Marbles]

Then how comes that those rings levels are all canted in the same exact way, with proplbably less than 0.1 degree of variation between one and the others?

It could be a random sampling error. Could be other things to. I assume you have had at least one statistics class in your background. I also assume the customer service people do not actually know the tolerances their products are made to, which is pretty common.

Secondly, man. Draw a line which is the poa one, then draw another one which starts slightly on the left of the first one and intersect it at a given distance (zero distance), then follow the two lines after they intersected and check if they keep being at the same distance. You are right, you don't need to be a math expert for figuring out this.

Does the angle between the two lines get bigger (angular error) or only the subtended distance (linear error). Earlier you stated the angular error got increased, do you stand behind that?

As for everything else, well if you can confabulate my not believing you can outshoot F-class records with a hunting rife to me not believing statements about your profession, clearly the rancour goes too deep for discussion to be worth while. Unless English is a second language, your education level is too high for me to believe you cannot understand what I have written, which leaves willfull misunderstanding as the only option.

 

[SDHNTR]

Again, why are we arguing about a level you can’t even see without breaking position?