wind gypsy
WKR
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 9,470
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.
My take is that I can mount a scope/reticle plumb enough to the barrel by eyeballing it and I see no reason to look for a rifle cant that is slightly more comfortable to shoulder. I also use scope levels to make sure it’s plumb when I’m shooting.
The main thing that irritates me is it seems like a lot of people focus a ton on getting a scope perfectly plumb with the bore then don’t use a scope level. Then they talk about why making a scope plumb with bore is important citing error #s caused by reticle not being plumb with gravity (rather than the bore). Ex: Tract guy made a thread about leveling a scope to a rifle and doesn’t seem to know the difference in error between leveling to rifle and being plumb to gravity when shooting. https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/tips-for-leveling-your-scope.355047/