Which anti-cant device?

[NSI]

If you're going to scope mount for visibility I feel you also need a rail mount for confirmation. It's just too easy for the lever arm on that scope mounted protrusion to cause slipping force without you noticing.

-J

 

[Tony R-MkMachining]

Old thread but is their any meaningful difference between the scope mounted and rail mounted option as far as accuracy out to 500-600 yards? I know the further you shoot its more of an exponential and not necessarily a linear progression of how much a small change at the rifle can change your POI. I simply like the idea of rifle mounted on the rail if it works well enough!

We make both options for the community, but we are greatly in favor of the scope mounted level at MKM. That is not a cost or margin bias, but rather strictly performance (kinda).

The level vial we use for our models is the same, but how the product interfaces with the rifle really matters. I would say that for Most* hunting scenarios or tactical style competition formats, rail mounted levels will work... fine. However the collective crowd here are not your average hunter. Both a rail level and scope level can achieve the exact same thing, but there are a lot more things at play with a rail version.

If utmost precision is required, then a scope mounted level (or a fine tune/adjustable rail version) is the best way to ensure your level is truly plumb with the reticle. It is much less about how level the rifle is, but rather the optic or reticle. If you have an action that is not true, a dovetail/pic rail that is not machined true or installed correctly or tolerance stacking errors, a rail mounted level will not read appropriately. A scope mounted level is as tune-able to what ever degree you see fit.

The amount of people that return one of our rail levels to us that claim "it isn't level and doesn't work" is alarming. Each time we get a return like this, I chuck it up in a jig with a rail that we had machined to tight tolerances and compare against two other levels that I keep at my desk for testing standards. More than 99% of the time there were issues with the action/rail machining or instillation errors causing an issue. I have seen too many canted or twisted rails to put any trust in them alone and is why I also recommend 1 piece scope mounts if at all possible to help correct twist.

If you take a look at the technical drawings for the 1913 NATO rail system, there are areas that are unspecified or "grey", specifically the profile (left and right sides) of the rail. Companies interpret this area differently which causes issues with a universal* fit product like a rail mounted level. We solved this by using the grooves/flats, which is specified better, to index the level for our new XLP design. I'm sure the proprietary tikka dovetail is better kept on their actions as far as tolerance goes, but I can only speak to Picatinny rails from extensive experience.

 

[Tony R-MkMachining]

If you're going to scope mount for visibility I feel you also need a rail mount for confirmation. It's just too easy for the lever arm on that scope mounted protrusion to cause slipping force without you noticing.

-J

A lot of guys would use a paint pen across their scope tube mounted level to a portion of the main tube as a quick visual reference.

 

[hereinaz]

A lot of guys would use a paint pen across their scope tube mounted level to a portion of the main tube as a quick visual reference.

True. I also use paint and then loctite inside the ring…