Scope level - in the field

[rratzlaff1490]

Is there a particular brand or level that folks shooting LR or ELR prefer ? While in the field on their scope?

Second question, does a level on the chassis completely replace the need for a secondary level? I have an XLR element 4.0 and it has a built in level but I think I would prefer one in my line of sight, either on the side or on the scope. Thoughts? I have a trijicon tenmile for reference

 

[XLR]

I like them integrated and out of the way from getting snagged on stuff for hunting rifles. Hawkins, Zeiss, or Spuhr rings are what I personally prefer. The chassis level works great if you practice with it but in the heat of the moment I find myself as an out of sight out of mind person so it has to be in my sight. On all of my comp guns though I run the send it level.

 

[bmart2622]

I have an SWFA on my rifle, its pretty compact but still visible

 

[TxLite]

I have the Vortex level on my Kahles and Nx8. I was concerned about it catching on things but I haven’t had any issues yet. They stick out about as far as the windage turrets. Maybe a little less. I looked at the SWFA that @bmart2622 posted. That looks like a really good option to keep everything tucked in and out of the way. Going to try the new Unknown Munitions levels on my Tikkas when they come in

If you get a ring cap style, make sure your ring is torqued evenly so it’s actually sitting level

 

[alpine_troop]

Flatline Ops Halo-X or MKM Machining XLP. Have both, recently mounted the MKM and it doesn’t protrude as far to the side.

I only mount levels to the scope itself, because that’s the component that you are actually verifying level on at the time of shot.

 

[bmart2622]

It does stay tucked in and the bubble is small so basically if you can see the bubble you're good, no lines or bracketing involved

 

[JCMCUBIC]

I really appreciate a level while shooting, especially in the field and from makeshift rests. I want them as unobtrusive as I can get them, but still want to be able to see them when I'm on the gun.

For scope mounted the SWFA is my first choice. On scope mounted, I place it behind and up against the front ring set to the left side so I can view it with my off eye. I usually make a witness mark across the scope, ring, level so it's obvious is anything has slipped.

Ring top mounted like the Hawkin Hybrids is my favorite. On ring mounted, I use them on the rear ring so I can view them with my off eye. I always install the front ring first making sure the scope is level. At that point I gradually tighten the rear/bubble top keeping it level until it's torqued correctly.

With either one of these methods, if using the off eye, it's worth taking the time after they're mounted to place the leveled rifle in a vice that you can get in shooting position to verify the view through your off eye and understand exactly what it should look like from that angle...you're not viewing it from directly in line.

I don't have a lot of experience with chassis mounted levels. I've been using two Grayboe Trekker stocks that have a level on the thumbshelf. It's in a good location to be visible in a direct line while on the scope, however, one of the two is not exactly level to the installed barreled action. Regardless, even if it was level, because Grayboe uses a blueish tint in the level, it is much harder to see than the yellow tint used in most levels...if shooting from a shaded position or in low light there's a massive difference in visibility. So even on those, I use a ring top or scope mounted level.

I shoot a Havak Element that has a level in the rear of the rail that's built into the action. When on the gun with a scope mounted, it's impossible to see. It's useful to know the barreled action is level when mounting a scope but when shooting it's useless.

 

[ID_Matt]

I only mount levels to the scope itself, because that’s the component that you are actually verifying level on at the time of shot.

If you scope is mounted level to your action, I wouldn't think it'd matter where your level is mounted.

 

[DangerRanger]

If you scope is mounted level to your action, I wouldn't think it'd matter where your level is mounted.

This relies on your reticle being square to your action.

 

[bmart2622]

The reticle being level is what is important

 

[ID_Matt]

This relies on your reticle being square to your action.

right, so if you reticle is plumb to the action. I wouldn't think it would matter if the bubble is mounted to the scope or the action.

 

[DangerRanger]

right, so if you reticle is plumb to the action. I wouldn't think it would matter if the bubble is mounted to the scope or the action.

Yes if your reticle is perfectly plumb to your action then theoretically an action level would work. though you’re now stacking and leveling something off of the concept that the other is perfectly level.

Vs just leveling to the thing that matters more

In reality whatever you prefer will probably work fine. I hate getting scopes absolutely perfect to actions, so I don’t care for trusting that that is perfect

 

[rratzlaff1490]

Thanks for all the advice guys! I ordered a MKM machining bubble this morning! Looks like a good setup, I really like the looks of the flatline ops and might buy one for my other rifle and compare the two.

 

[bmart2622]

right, so if you reticle is plumb to the action. I wouldn't think it would matter if the bubble is mounted to the scope or the action.

Unless the action isnt true

 

[ID_Matt]

Guess it depends. Is it level with the scope rail, is it plumb with the boreline, both? Are the action screws exactly perpendicular to the boreline? Is the foreend parallel & perpendicular to the boreline? I can't use the level in my Anvil 30 on about 2/3 of my rifles due to the stacking errors, for example.

In addition to all that, is the scope reticle canted relative to the tracking path? Nightforce's internal "standard" is very....generous, for example & you might need to choose if you want to match the reticle or the tracking path. Depending on the cartridge you're shooting and the distance, all of these things add-up and matter, or don't.

Chassis levels can work, but they don't work all the time for everyone. Scope rail levels can work, but they don't work all the time for everyone. Ring mounted levels can work, but they also can either block the elevation turret or be blocked by the elevation turret. If the level is mounted to the based of the scope ring (instead of the ring cap), they have the same potential issues as a scope rail mounted level.

Mounting on the scope tube eliminates many of the stacking variables. Tube mounted levels can match the reticle or tracking path (hopefully both), and can work regardless of all the other variables. You can set-up so that you don't block any of your optic's controls. This is the easy button answer for how I set-up my guns.

Maybe I caused some confusion and should have kept quiet, or maybe I am confused. When I take my time mounting scopes, I level the action in a vise of some sort. Then install the scope, double checking with a plumb bob and a level on the turret. Once everything is torqued, I verify that the bubble on the turret, reticle to a plumb bob, and bubble on the action match up - they usually do. If I have a scope mounted level and an action mounted level that both line up with each other, does it matter which one is used?

 

[bmart2622]

Can you see the level on the action when you are in a shooting position and on target?

 

[Juan_ID]

I have a couple of the holland’s levels. I like them, seem to be just the right size to be plenty visible and not in the way of anything if placed between the parallax knob and the bell of the scope. To me my reticles always look canted but they seem to shoot ok so

 

[bojangles808]

for torque settings are we just using whatever we torqued the scope rings too for bubble level on the tube?

 

[HuntHarder]

Hawkins rings with integrated level on all my longer than, slam dunk, rifles.

 

[PineBrook413]

I prefer the vortex lo pro level that mounts to scope tube. I run one on my NX8