Scope Leveling; Instruction that ran counter to everything I thought I knew

[IBA_270]

Last year, I really had a jones to get into PRC shooting. I read a lot, asked a lot of questions, spent a bunch of money and took a couple of classes (ALWAYS be a student, even when you're an expert). I took a LR class in February that while only one day, and fast paced, was hugely informative and learned a lot of new things; better understanding how different reticles worked, ballistics, rifle weights and the effect on accuracy, ballistic apps and rifle/optic set ups.

One of things taught which really threw me; leveling the scope against the level of the gun. Our instructor it wasn't important at all. He assertation is that the rifle needs to be comfortable and the reticle square and plumb to the target. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Why manipulate the rifle to get the reticle level? Why not make the rifle comfortable and then make it level? A bubble level is important too of course, level to the reticle.

I haven't found too much more about this. Everything I've ever been taught is carefully leveling the scope and reticle to the gun. But now? The instructor has solid chops; former ranger sniper and he's young, so maybe newer thinking. Regardless, the class as a whole was shooting out to 1400 yards, some farther.

So what's your take?

AD in UP

 

[WaWox]

I do no long range shooting but doesn't that make sense? The point of leveling is that your elevation and windage are perpendicular to each other. In the extreme failure case of scope being at 90 degree angle, if you wanted to achieve a 1mil drop compensation you'd have to use 1mil windage L or R ..

The rifle orientation on the other hand doesn't matter at all for this? If you zero it in, an upside down rifle will shoot to the same accuracy as a normal one. Well it matters for CONSISTENCY. If you rotate the rifle a little and don't check your scope level the scope is going to be rotated. On the other hand if you force your rifle to be leveled to the scope and then check the level to ensure the whole system is level you may shoot suboptimal because the whole system is uncomfortable.

So especially for field shooting situations where you may take quicker shots and need body to rifle fit and comfort be perfect for quick position building it'd be best to level reticle to expected rifle positon?

 

[ShooterMcgavin]

The Logic is there but I believe depending on the situation ( clothes worn, gloves, amount of coffee) and variables ( positioning, target, obstacles) that the comfort level changes shot to shot sometimes. So having 1 Level constant makes more sense for me. Interesting thoughts though

 

[WaWox]

Yeah that's of course correct -- my comfortable offhand shot with a pack on is different versus prone versus offhand no pack vs seated with heavy layering... but I think for most of these I'd not take a long shot anyway so maybe it doesn't matter because I am not messing with major windage or elevation changes? So its really about 'what's your most comfortable prone / off sticks / off a tripod' position where you'd actually dial?

 

[PredatorSlayer]

The scope has to be leveled to the gun and a bubble level used. This guy is wrong….Am I crazy? If it isn’t, any scope adjustments will be right or left depending on the crosshair cant in relation to the barrel. For an initial zero, it won’t matter, as soon as you start shooting longer distances it will mess stuff up.

 

[huntsman22]

Am I crazy?

yes......

 

[WaWox]

The scope has to be level to the ground. Imagine holding the rifle upside down. Now your elevation is flipped up/down. Now imagine turning your scope around and mounting it on the action screws. Now it's normal way up/down again. If you Now dial 1mil down the POI shifts 1mil down.

 

[Formidilosus]

Last year, I really had a jones to get into PRC shooting. I read a lot, asked a lot of questions, spent a bunch of money and took a couple of classes (ALWAYS be a student, even when you're an expert). I took a LR class in February that while only one day, and fast paced, was hugely informative and learned a lot of new things; better understanding how different reticles worked, ballistics, rifle weights and the effect on accuracy, ballistic apps and rifle/optic set ups.

One of things taught which really threw me; leveling the scope against the level of the gun. Our instructor it wasn't important at all. He assertation is that the rifle needs to be comfortable and the reticle square and plumb to the target. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Why manipulate the rifle to get the reticle level? Why not make the rifle comfortable and then make it level? A bubble level is important too of course, level to the reticle.

I haven't found too much more about this. Everything I've ever been taught is carefully leveling the scope and reticle to the gun. But now? The instructor has solid chops; former ranger sniper and he's young, so maybe newer thinking. Regardless, the class as a whole was shooting out to 1400 yards, some farther.

So what's your take?

AD in UP

Yes that is making its rounds in PRS, and unfortunately in the mil.

Let’s look at it logically.

Method #1: Gun “fit” to you and canted to earth, reticle level to earth.

Pros- it’s comfortable with no/little practice from a single position on a flat range.


Con-

1). What’s “natural” changes with clothing.

2). What’s “natural” changes with every position- prone, sitting, kneeling, standing.

3). What’s “natural” changes again in every position if you can’t get straight behind the rifle (terrain, alternate positions)

4). What is “natural” is for one person only- in every different position. So the “natural” for one, is way messed up for another making someone else using your rifle really messed up; and making it where you can’t use anyone else’s rifle without serious issues because it isn’t fit special for you.

5). What is “natural” changes with every rifle type, stock type, grip type, etc. Change a recoil pad- “natural” changes too. So now take everything apart and remount to the new “natural”.





Method #2- Gun level to earth, reticle level to gun and earth.


Pros:

1). Vertical is level- every gun, every position, all clothing, every person.

You are not “special”, you do not need a special gun, nor special fit, nor special position. Grab any gun from anyone, from any position, gun goes level- bang.

Cons:

1). Requires initial basic training to teach oneself what vertical is.



Which version is more robust and less prone to long term errors and failures?

One method is taken from games- Olympic positional and biathlon primarily- and was never meant for the variability of field shooting. The other is universal and works for everyone, everywhere.

 

[TaperPin]

He’s not right or wrong. Plenty of competitive shooters have proven there’s nothing wrong with a canted rifle as long as the scope is plumb and level - silhouette shooters have done this for decades. However, with muscle memory most of us don’t have a problem leveling the rifle. Anytime you’re purposefully setting a rifle up in a weird way, there are other issues that will constantly plague you. Simple rough leveling a bipod becomes harder. The human brain can judge level much easier than a number of degrees off.

Edit: ^^^^ what Form said is right on.

 

[Molon Labe]

Last year, I really had a jones to get into PRC shooting. I read a lot, asked a lot of questions, spent a bunch of money and took a couple of classes (ALWAYS be a student, even when you're an expert). I took a LR class in February that while only one day, and fast paced, was hugely informative and learned a lot of new things; better understanding how different reticles worked, ballistics, rifle weights and the effect on accuracy, ballistic apps and rifle/optic set ups.

One of things taught which really threw me; leveling the scope against the level of the gun. Our instructor it wasn't important at all. He assertation is that the rifle needs to be comfortable and the reticle square and plumb to the target. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Why manipulate the rifle to get the reticle level? Why not make the rifle comfortable and then make it level? A bubble level is important too of course, level to the reticle.

I haven't found too much more about this. Everything I've ever been taught is carefully leveling the scope and reticle to the gun. But now? The instructor has solid chops; former ranger sniper and he's young, so maybe newer thinking. Regardless, the class as a whole was shooting out to 1400 yards, some farther.

So what's your take?

AD in UP

Your instructor is completely wrong.

Your reticle must be level to the rifle and you must have your rifle leveled with a send it or bubble.

Not a big deal out to 300yds but as you get out further your POI will drift.

At 1400yds your POI drift would be ridiculous…you would be changing BC velocity and a bunch more false flags to solve your DOPE…but in reality it’s your unlevel scope.

I am really hoping you misunderstand your instructor or something…because that is insane for someone to be teaching that in a class!

 

[Marbles]

The angular error induced by not having the scope plumb to the bore is miniscule and not worth accounting for within a few degrees at least (too small to dial out at any range is my definition of insignificant).

The idea that the error becomes more significant at range is wrong, the angular error (error in MOA or Mils) is unchanged at any range. If 0.03 mils of error does not matter at 200 yards, the it does not matter at 2000 yards. You cannot correct for it, and that miniscule error becomes completely swallowed by the other error in the system anyway.

Now, whether it is a good idea or not is another question. I think Form covered it well. Personally I don't stress over a 2-4 degrees of cant so long as the level is true to the reticle. Start getting to 10 or more degrees and I think you are getting into the relm of limitting yourself.

 

[pacoalcracker]

Who is best trained at long range accuracy know-how and tactics than Ranger snipers? Likely, nobody. Makes perfect sense, if you take the time to think about it and forget about your opinion. Enough said.

 

[WaWox]

Your instructor is completely wrong.

Your reticle must be level to the rifle and you must have your rifle leveled with a send it or bubble.

Not a big deal out to 300yds but as you get out further your POI will drift.

At 1400yds your POI drift would be ridiculous…you would be changing BC velocity and a bunch more false flags to solve your DOPE…but in reality it’s your unlevel scope.

I am really hoping you misunderstand your instructor or something…because that is insane for someone to be teaching that in a class!

Can you explain why? The orientation of the rifle doesn't matter for changing POI with dialling unless I really misunderstand dialling... only the orientation of the reticle to the ground matters.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Can you explain why? The orientation of the rifle doesn't matter for changing POI with dialling unless I really misunderstand dialling... only the orientation of the reticle to the ground matters.

Because the scope is centered directly over the rifle barrel. If the reticle is canted and you hold the gun canted, the crosshairs are no longer on the same axis as the barrel. Exaggerate the cant and it will become very clear what the problem is.

 

[Molon Labe]

Can you explain why? The orientation of the rifle doesn't matter for changing POI with dialling unless I really misunderstand dialling... only the orientation of the reticle to the ground matters.

I will try to explain cant quickly. Using extremes.

The bullet leaves the barrel 1.5”-2.75” under your scope. Most rifles are set up between 1.75-2.25”. That is significant. We are not shooting laser beams. We are shooting a bullet that leaves the rifle and immediately pulled by gravity in an arch until it stops.

If you took your rifle and laid it on its side with a 90 degree cant and dialed 8.4mil on your scope for a 1000yd target. Would you expect to hit your target? Absolutely not. Even if you had perfect fundamentals and great npa you will miss your target by a lot.

Well now break the same shot with a 45deg cant…you will still miss by a ton. Now try 15deg cant. Still missing. As you get closer to 0deg can’t you will start seeing less drift on your POI.

This is just basic physics.

 

[Molon Labe]

Who is best trained at long range accuracy know-how and tactics than Ranger snipers? Likely, nobody. Makes perfect sense, if you take the time to think about it and forget about your opinion. Enough said.

I hope this is sarcasm.

 

[KenLee]

I adjust my crosshairs so they are level when I first throw the rifle up. Most of my shots are immediate snapshots, or within a few seconds. Doesn't make sense to me to level a scope to an unnatural position for me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Who is best trained at long range accuracy know-how and tactics than Ranger snipers? Likely, nobody. Makes perfect sense, if you take the time to think about it and forget about your opinion. Enough said.

Hmmm. What is this belief based on?

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I adjust my crosshairs so they are level when I first throw the rifle up. Most of my shots are immediate snapshots, or within a few seconds. Doesn't make sense to me to level a scope to an unnatural position for me.

If your shots are close range and within your MPBR, it won’t matter. Only relevant if you you are using holdovers or dialing for long range.

 

[pacoalcracker]

Is there better training than what the best military snipers in the world are getting? Maybe you should volunteer to set up better training for them then if you know it. Yeah, I don't think so.

Besides, I'm thinking the instructor was talking about small amounts of off-levelness that most shooters/hunters overly concern themselves with, not 10 degrees etc. and thats how I am...it has to be perfect and thats really not necessary. That is my take on it anyways.