Leveling a scope

[DML908]

I was looking through my Nov. issue of GUNS magazine and saw a review of the Real Avid Level-Right. I have always wondered, what is level on a rifle? I never had a problem because I never shot at more than 100 yards. That has been the maximum range at most of the shooting ranges that I shot at. I can see how a scope that is not properly leveled can cause problems at extreme ranges. Anyway, back to my question, what is level on a rifle? What is level on a scope? According to Real Avid, the turrets on a scope are not necessarily level with the reticle. For practical purposes, they are close enough, but when we level the rifle, what do we use? I have mounted the rings and put the level on the lower half before attaching the scope. Close enough, but is it really aligned with the bore? Are those little levels that clamp on the grooves on the receiver really accurate? Who knows?

I posted the link to Real Avid. Is it worth $70? Elifino.

https://www.realavid.com/product/level-right-pro/

 

[nervoustrig]

I haven’t studied the product at the link yet but the requirements are:

1. Scope is oriented properly to the bore (reticle aligned to the muzzle)
2. Gun is held with the reticle level/plumb.

Step 1 deals with scope cant. Step 2 deals with gun cant. Many times these two factors get conflated or confused.

The amount of cant error is a function of the angle and the amount of projectile drop at whatever distance you are shooting...thus generally a bigger impact for pellet rifles vs powderburners.

Some prior discussion here:
https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/leveling-your-rifle-scope

https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/canting

https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/scope-reticle

 

[bandg]

"According to Real Avid, the turrets on a scope are not necessarily level with the reticle. For practical purposes, they are close enough,"

Also, is it possible for the reticle to be "not necessarily level" with the tracking movement or with the turrets (or one or the other).

I've read reports of such. Not sure that it ever happens or how much of a problem it would be unless it was a major mismatch. But I use a simple verification method out of habit for all my scope mounting because of the reports-

Mount the scope as close to level as possible and then shoot (on a still day) at a target with a verified vertical line (any weighted object on a string can be used to make the vertical line). Then track the scope up and down in elevation while holding point of aim in the same center spot (vertical cross hair on the vertical line). If the scope TRACKING matches the pellet flight then the points of impact will move up and down with turret changes but they will stay on the vertical line. If the points of impact move to one side with up elevation and to the other side with down elevation then things aren't "mounted level" and the scope would need to be rotated in the mounts to get the tracking level.

This can also serve as a test of tracking consistency if one counts the revolutions up and down and tries to return to a set zero in between up and down rotations.

 

[GeneT]

First off, don't overthink it. If you bought a scope where the reticle isn't perpendicular / parallel to the bottom of the scope, you probably weren't buying it for a rifle where it would matter. (I don't see a lot of Bushnell Sportviews attached to 1000yd bench guns.) The higher end makers guarantee the relation between the bottom of the scope turret area and the reticle - perfect when precision really matters.

If you're shooting at 100yds or less, you really shouldn't care. 'About right' is good enough (ooh, I'll catch flak for that, but let's see the groups). 

'Level' on a rifle is arbitrary, except that you want your scope's horizontal adjustment to coincide with whatever you decide is level, for the sake of making meaningful adjustments. Most people, and convention, aim for "true" level, which would have the buttock vertically aligned with the scope, and any manner of receiver rail square to gravity. BUT, if you can shoulder your rifle at a perfect 13.427* angle each time, that can be 'level' as well, and it's just as good - it's just harder to set, track, and verify.

G. David Tubb is one of, if not *the*, best rifle shooters in the world. He holds his rifle canted in the offhand position and is successful doing so. I think he calculates the difference required in adjustments (because he holds the rifle vertically when shooting other positions). 

As for tools. Where it matters, I use high quality scopes and a Starrett adjustable parallel under the turret section of the scope to achieve level (assumes pic rail / flat top to receiver). Where that's not possible, I use the Wheeler scope leveling system, which works well but has too many transfer elements to be super-precise in my opinion. All the leveling aids are just convenience, and you can level a scope by deciding what is level on the rifle (always a requirement) and then aligning the vertical crosshair with a plumb line ... errr... weighted string. Nothing wrong with the cheap approach, it's not as convenient, but it is just as accurate.

GsT

 

[Hangtown-Shooter]

Spank me for admitting this in public, but I just “eyeball” my reticle for level by holding it at a arms length distance and taking turns looking through with each eye one at a time (camera one, camera two) until it appears to be aligned vertically with the seam in the but pad... btw I own a “wheeler scope leveling kit” ... it doesn’t work any better, save your money...

Ideally, if you could mount your rifle in such a way that you were confident it was sitting perfectly level (good luck with that), then at that point you could set up a “plumb bob” hanging down range at a distance, and use it as a reference to align your reticle to.

 

[nervoustrig]

A lingering cause of confusion seems to be the notion that the starting point is to level the rifle.

Actually there is no physical feature on a rifle that can be relied upon for the purpose of installing a scope properly. Not saying this approach won’t work out, but it relies on many, many assumptions that may or may not be correct.

The necessary condition that must be met is that the reticle is aligned to the muzzle. That can be accomplished with a boresighter or with nothing but a mirror as described in this post:

https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/canting/#post-379913

 

[biohazardman]

I used to spend fifteen or twenty minutes with a level and a plumb bob to get my scope just right. When I buy a new scope for a gun the scope that was on it gets moved to another and then that one to another so the time can add up. Then I found this little kit and it does the job as fast as you can loosen and tighten the screws on your rings.

https://www.recoilweb.com/arisaka-defense-optic-leveler-74995.html

 

[nervoustrig]

FYI, the Arisaka jig assumes a mechanically perfect gun and scope rings that center perfectly on the rail. It was discussed previously in this topic:

https://www.airgunnation.com/topic/check-out-this-scope-leveler

In most cases it will be better than eyeballing it but it can lead one astray if treated as gospel.

 

[biohazardman]

On the guns I just checked with a level and plumb bob the thing told me I was right on so it does werq pretty good for the most part. Unless as you stated there is a problem with your rings or scope.

 

[MacGyver]

These are awesome squared. Pop the scope on the gun and tighten it down in the dark. It'll be fine:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00W8AXZ98/?coliid=I1FCS89GKT1XBL&colid=3EJ9OUSYS2KSW&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

 

[Peskådot671]

These are awesome squared. Pop the scope on the gun and tighten it down in the dark. It'll be fine:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00W8AXZ98/?coliid=I1FCS89GKT1XBL&colid=3EJ9OUSYS2KSW&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

There's already a knock off version of it. I don't care to reveal what brand it is. These guys should come up with their own ingenuity and products instead of a straight rip off. For not much more, I would rather buy the original. 

 

[Dairyboy]

I'm with Jason on this. And yes if you shoot out to 100yds with an airgun it's definitely necessary to level the cross hairs to the bore of the rifle or chances are you'll be off to one side the further you go out. Not all rings line up perfectly center on the rail or dovetails. Then after you line up the cross hairs with the bore you then need to put a level on your scope using a plumb bob or similar. 

 

[Bigragu]

And if using inexpensive rings plan on doing this-

Preliminary step to lapping, which is checking for concentricity and proper alignment. These FX no limits were good, so no lapping required

 

[MacGyver]

I wasn't aware of the knock-off, The real question on something like that would be, "Is the machining true." Like you I would rather it be right than a few bucks cheaper.

 

[lbc_PSI]

Possible issues with the Real Avid system is bubble level mounting and bubble travel relative to the bubble holder. The same problem could exist on levels attached to the scope to show system level.



As mentioned earlier..

Arisaka jig assumes a mechanically perfect gun and scope rings that center perfectly on the rail.

The Arisake system also assumes the flat on the scope turret is a perfect 90 degrees to the reticle. <--This may have been mentioned previously

 

[bigHUN]

... bubble level mounting and bubble travel relative to the bubble holder. ..

Couple years ago I needed a little longer but a realy accurate level (I have a Starret but was short for a project) so I went to a HomeDepot. I put 5-6 of those levels on top of each other in a sandwich, no two show the same...but some longer once not really cheap. Plastic bubbles nah.

Also for tuning my compound bow long time ago I had some cheap plastic bubble levels, never good enough, after some years of frustration I bought a solid material machined level.

 

[lbc_PSI]

... bubble level mounting and bubble travel relative to the bubble holder. ..

Couple years ago I needed a little longer but a realy accurate level (I have a Starret but was short for a project) so I went to a HomeDepot. I put 5-6 of those levels on top of each other in a sandwich, no two show the same...but some longer once not really cheap. Plastic bubbles nah.

Also for tuning my compound bow long time ago I had some cheap plastic bubble levels, never good enough, after some years of frustration I bought a solid material machined level.

Yep. There can always be an issue with bubble levels. That's why most high-end archery sights have a 3rd-axis micro adjust. So when the level is not really level, it can be adjusted so it is. That 3rd-axis adjusting is absent on the scope levels I've seen. The have no way to adjust for faulty alignment. Curious.

I have a set of levels from SureLoc that I can use for all my bow leveling stuff. I've even used them to level scopes.

 

[nervoustrig]

It may be useful to note that a scope-mounted level like this:
https://www.amazon.com/JIALITTE-Riflescope-Precision-Shooting-Competition/dp/B075V4HNYY
has no need to show level relative to any of its physical features (unlike a carpenter’s level). One simply rotates it the scope tube until it shows level to the scope reticle.

 

[FredAZ]

The flat on scopes is NOT aligned to the reticle.

It will be close, but that flat is not intended to imply the reticle orientation.

Check your scope's specs - rertical alignment is only held to something like +/- 1 degree --> random error from the flat to the reticle.

 

[GeneT]

The flat on a scope may or may not be aligned - it varies by manufacturer. Nightforce guarantees that alignment. In my experience, Leupolds are aligned to the flat, but I've never seen them advertise such.

GsT