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

wapitibob

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
5,883
Location
Bend Oregon
It still applies. A canted rifle with a plumb to ground scope will still need an offset entered into the solver to correct for the cant. If you don't there will be horizontal error just as in purely canting the rifle. It may be different with the level scope but there will still be error if not corrected for.

agreed
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2024
Messages
359
It still applies. A canted rifle with a plumb to ground scope will still need an offset entered into the solver to correct for the cant. If you don't there will be horizontal error just as in purely canting the rifle. It may be different with the level scope but there will still be error if not corrected for.
Isn’t that true for all long range shots? It’s just a math problem. Yes, this adds another variable. But it can be solved for just like all the other multitude of variables.

If it puts shooter in a more natural firing position it might be worth the other variable.

I relate this to a golf swing or throwing a football. For years coaches tried to “correct” poor mechanics in both at all costs.

Now, they correct some but allow others to continue if they are getting good results. Look at Scottie shefflers swing or Patrick mahomes throws. In the past some coach would have ruined them trying to retrain them to the “standard.” Thank God both continued with tweaking only of their flaws.
 

BBob

WKR
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
4,404
Location
Southern AZ
However it doesnt address the horizontal portion of error caused by the height over bore angle(s) introduced by offsetting the scope from the vertical plane of the barrel in the first place.
This is exactly why the offset function in AB and Shooter exists.
 

mxgsfmdpx

WKR
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
5,802
Location
Outside
A bit of a red herring, but related to some comments when scrolling through this thread...

In having shot with and/or instructed multiple hundreds of shooters over the years, I can tell you that without a doubt the least safe, poorly trained, and lack of competency after day 1 of instruction places current and ex military members in dead last place overall. If you think our military is churning out Bucky Barnes on a whim you are sadly mistaken. My youngest brother received some "expert level" marksmanship badge in the army back in the early 2000's and he is the first to admit that he sucked, and still sucks at shooting because he never does it anymore.

The most effective and repeatable shooters after instruction, on average, are females aged 20ish to 50ish.
 

Shortschaf

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
686
This is exactly why the offset function in AB and Shooter exists.

AB cannot account for a scope that is out-of-plumb with a rifle bore. The sight-in offset function does not work that way do anything in the app
 
Last edited:

Marbles

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
4,413
Location
AK
It still applies. A canted rifle with a plumb to ground scope will still need an offset entered into the solver to correct for the cant. If you don't there will be horizontal error just as in purely canting the rifle. It may be different with the level scope but there will still be error if not corrected for.
No, it is discussing two different things. Result of a horizontal offset from POI doesn't chang that.

The error induced by an offset scope is a fixed angular error at all ranges. The error induced by a scope out of plumb is a variable angler error that changes as you dial.

Mathematically simple example. If you cant the scope at 45 degrees then every 1 mil of elevation adjustment up will move the impact point up 0.5 mils up and 0.5 mils lateral.

The first key to avoid
So many of these dumb arguments
is to know what is being discussed.

Mindlessly quoting things one doesn't understand, while a favorite pass time of mine when it comes to @Formidilosus , is not particularly helpful. Now, I'm going to get back to loading TMKs in my 22 LR for an upcoming elephant hunt while chugging Kool aid.
 

Bugger

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jul 24, 2024
Messages
140
edit, cancelled that thought. I was thinking about just the zero angle between the two styles and not the compounding effect of scope offset.
 
Last edited:

BBob

WKR
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
4,404
Location
Southern AZ
AB cannot account for a scope that is out-of-plumb with a rifle bore. The sight-in offset function does not work that way

If you cant a rifle the scope is not mounted directly over the bore of the barrel anymore.

What exactly does AB's description of Sight Offset mean or do then??? Please tell.

Screen Shot 2024-10-28 at 3.22.39 PM.png
 
Last edited:

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,725
I believe this is the setting in AB:


IMG_6115.jpeg

It is grouped with the height over bore so it seems to be “measurement to the side of bore”. If it isnt what’s being discussed, what is it?
 

Shortschaf

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
686
If you cant a rifle the scope is not mounted directly over the bore of the barrel anymore.

What exactly does AB's description of Sight Offset mean or do then??? Please tell.

View attachment 783080
Input a scope offset of something crazy like 6" and run the calc. It doesnt do anything to the result

I'll edit my above comment. I agree that that function SHOULD BE the solution to the problem posed by the OP, based on description you shared. I simply have noticed that it does nothing at all to the calculator

Having agreed with your point, it would be very difficult to accurately measure your scope cant and then put in the scope-offset accordingly. Far simpler to just mount it close to plumb with the bore
 
Last edited:

Dobermann

WKR
Joined
Sep 17, 2016
Messages
1,908
Location
EnZed
Not sure that your post helps the OP, so you may want to expand on the story with Accuracy 1st.
Some of the story is in the public domain for those who want to look. Some is not.

It's not something I'm particularly interested in, but it is relevant when people start quoting that source.
 

BBob

WKR
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
4,404
Location
Southern AZ
I agree that that function SHOULD BE the solution to the problem posed by the OP, based on description you shared. I simply have noticed that it does nothing at all to the calculator
I do not have AB but I do however have Shooter. If you add a sight offset into Shooter it most definitely affects horizontal adjustments.
 

Shortschaf

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
686
I do not have AB but I do however have Shooter. If you add a sight offset into Shooter it most definitely affects horizontal adjustments.
Despite all the odds, I learned something from this thread. Thanks, never heard of the Shooter app. They clearly do something right that AB Mobile does not
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
861
Location
Lyon County, NV
I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread, I need eye bleach.

It's amazing how much truly stupid $h*t starts on a flat range by some charismatic instructor, that becomes virulent through the shooting community, crippling it by convincing themselves its awesome, that only truly starts to die the brutal death it so rightfully deserves when beaten in the face by the 2x4 of unpredictable reality.

Flat range does not equal field realities.

It took the entire GWOT up until the late teens to kill off so much stupid shooting $h*t that became endemic in the 1990s and early 2000s. This qualifies. It's dumb as hell.

Level and true the g*ddamned rifle and scope and bubble level to the g*ddamned direction of gravity the g*ddamned bullet is governed by, and stop making it complicated. That's the only thing that's repeatable in the realities of the field.
 

5811

WKR
Joined
Jan 25, 2023
Messages
589
I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread, I need eye bleach.

It's amazing how much truly stupid $h*t starts on a flat range by some charismatic instructor, that becomes virulent through the shooting community, crippling it by convincing themselves its awesome, that only truly starts to die the brutal death it so rightfully deserves when beaten in the face by the 2x4 of unpredictable reality.

Flat range does not equal field realities.

It took the entire GWOT up until the late teens to kill off so much stupid shooting $h*t that became endemic in the 1990s and early 2000s. This qualifies. It's dumb as hell.

Level and true the g*ddamned rifle and scope and bubble level to the g*ddamned direction of gravity the g*ddamned bullet is governed by, and stop making it complicated. That's the only thing that's repeatable in the realities of the field.
What if I introduce just enough cant to cancel out the coriolis effect and spin drift?
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,725
Thanks, Ive never seen that chart. It sort of confirms—yes, it creates error…but its likely small enough error that it’s less than the resolution of the scope (.25moa or .1mil).
So in my mind the question becomes not WHETHER there is error as a result—this clearly creates error that needs to be added on top of all the other sources of error—but is getting a “better fit” across enough positions and situations enough to more than offset that error? As a longtime student of shotgun gun fit I think its possible, if unlikely. In other words if you introduce .02mils of error, can you ON AVERAGE shoot .03+ mils better as a result? Seems like something that with specific conditions and a “pro” coach could be an asset, but that 99% of folks would only be guessing at, and you’d need a lot of rounds in a very highly controlled environment to determine either way.


I dont think I’ll stop leveling the rifle.
 
Top