Canting, shooters, shooting methods, and points of view
- Thread starter bandg
- Start date
Overthinking & overintellectualizing this subject! It's simple physics & a simple scope level minimizes or even corrects the problem. TYPE of shooting has no bearing on the real physics & gravity. It's all the same. Done!
Upvote 0
Well, even "the other guys" don't think it's "all the same" so not particularly valid. Done!
Upvote 0
As long as your point of aim matches your intended point of impact, the cant error is not affected by scope height.
Practically speaking, if you use mildots or dial the turrets, that means you can mount your scope as low or high as you want. There is no advantage in terms of minimizing cant error.
If you don’t use mildots or the turrets, cant error will be affected by the scope height.
Practically speaking, if you use mildots or dial the turrets, that means you can mount your scope as low or high as you want. There is no advantage in terms of minimizing cant error.
If you don’t use mildots or the turrets, cant error will be affected by the scope height.
Upvote 0
Not sure if this is a math or a philosophy class. In the latter case, we will need to call on Karl Popper, who despite his name was not a shooter. He was much more than that.
Coming back to the point, I have EMPIRICALLY experienced, repeatedly with different guns, that highly mounted scopes magnify cant error. Likewise, I have been able to experience that a 2usd bubble level (mounted onto same instruments) helps avoid that distressing phenomenon. Leaving me deeply satisfied (and well fed).
Coming back to the point, I have EMPIRICALLY experienced, repeatedly with different guns, that highly mounted scopes magnify cant error. Likewise, I have been able to experience that a 2usd bubble level (mounted onto same instruments) helps avoid that distressing phenomenon. Leaving me deeply satisfied (and well fed).
Upvote 0
FWIW, I’ve mounted two scopes on guns on two occasions to test the premise and found no difference when I aim with the correct mildot.
The reason is, when using the correct mildot in each the high scope and the low scope, we have an overlapping point of aim at the target. However much I miss the point of aim as a result of canting the gun, it is by exactly the same amount for each scope.
The reason is, when using the correct mildot in each the high scope and the low scope, we have an overlapping point of aim at the target. However much I miss the point of aim as a result of canting the gun, it is by exactly the same amount for each scope.
Upvote 0
Not sure if this is a math or a philosophy class. In the latter case, we will need to call on Karl Popper, who despite his name was not a shooter. He was much more than that.
Coming back to the point, I have EMPIRICALLY experienced, repeatedly with different guns, that highly mounted scopes magnify cant error. Likewise, I have been able to experience that a 2usd bubble level (mounted onto same instruments) helps avoid that distressing phenomenon. Leaving me deeply satisfied (and well fed).
"...EMPIRICALLY experienced, repeatedly with different guns..."
Understandable. If someone has one of their rifles setup for WFTF, they would likely see that same thing. They tend to put higher scopes on their lower powered WFTF guns to make the long shots less range sensitive. They have greater sensitivity to cant errors, but it's not because of their higher scopes, it's because of their lower powered gun.
I too experienced that different guns have different gun cant errors. But, in my case, the gun with the lowest scope has the worst gun cant errors. Can you guess why?
Upvote 0
Same gun, 1.5" scope height and 3.0" scope height.
No cant:
5 degree cant:
Same horizontal cant error, regardless of scope height.
No cant:
5 degree cant:
Same horizontal cant error, regardless of scope height.
Upvote 0
I remember you,you were wrong the last time about pistol shooting,it was like because it never affects me it should never affect someone else....yet it does,,,and you remained stubborn until enough people stepped in and said it did affect them ...so then your point of view is nothing but a opinion you embrace. from your experience or others you promote...and come to think about it I have been wrong a lot to,I just don't publish it...LOL,sorry I can't help myself....
Hey Jesse who you talking about , the guy in the mirror?
Hey Jesse who you talking about , the guy in the mirror?
Upvote 0
Cant error is a matter of repeatedly mounting the rifle in a consistent fashion and in a very repeatable way. I have built scope rails as much a 10 degrees off for experienced shooters who have measured their hold cant angle. The cant error is then attributed to the shooter not holding precisely . When testing the vertical travel travel of a longer range rifle, say 600 to 1000 yards you don't go by the level. You put a plumb line out and check to make sure the turret cross wire center travels up the plumb line. Older scopes had a tolerance from the turret to the cross wire of up to 2 degrees and on some you could see the vertical cross wire and the horizontal were not 90 degrees. Newer scopes are better but that doesn't really mean the vertical cross wire and the turret travel are in line. Scope height only play into it if the shooter cannot mount the rifle consistently.
Upvote 0
OK, thats it.
I'm officially adding "cant error" to the list of words Airgunners CANNOT say. Seems there are a handful of words that will instantly ignite an argument over meaning and usage.
(BTW, I'm still not sure how I got saddled with being the keeper of this list of incendiary verbiage.....)
I'm officially adding "cant error" to the list of words Airgunners CANNOT say. Seems there are a handful of words that will instantly ignite an argument over meaning and usage.
(BTW, I'm still not sure how I got saddled with being the keeper of this list of incendiary verbiage.....)
Upvote 0
Any time I reply via my smartphone, it resists mightily any attempt to use the word. It insists upon replacing it with the contraction for can not, as if to give me a not-so-subtle hint. But I will not be denied 
Upvote 0
After mechanically centering my scopes crosshairs using a mirror. I typically adjust my scopes using a level(s) while looking at a plumb line roughly 25 yards out hanging from a tree using a five pound weight on a non-windy day to align the vertical crosshair with the plumb line while the gun is level. Then a final check after tightening the scope screws down. Seems to work very well for me. There are wedges and such other methods to align the scope with the gun as well.
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
Ding! We have a winner. This is the sum total of what needs to be taken away from the discussion. UNLESS you want to do the math, most shooters could care less about that.
Here is a really good link from BFTA that talks about setting up an optic, and the realities associated with that task. It's long but the document has a 20 year history and so we can be reasonably certain that all the "myths" have been removed and only established "fact" remains. It looks like maybe they actually understand the math. Either way the BFTA was established FORTY FIVE YEARS AGO. So they probably know this stuff a whole lot better than Joe Dirt from Toledo who claims he understands the problem but can't do the math.
British Field Target Association -- Scope Setup Manual
I figure if the BFTA says it is correct they probably have really good reason to believe that. Maybe they can do the math? Maybe they have a thousand members who CAN DO THE MATH. I bet they DO have a thousand members who can do the math. Just think about it for a moment, who do you trust? No seriously, who do you trust? Now tell me why?
Oh wait
... uh huh ...Upvote 0
"Here is a really good link from BFTA that talks about setting up an optic, and the realities associated with that task."
An interesting read. "realities" Note that the article specifically cites Szottesfeld so consider that, as some don't buy Szottesfeld. But even in this article, the "exception" to height/cant error relationship is noted along with the statement of "this is not used in FT shooting". Simple. Different methods noted. Nothing much about the use of such other "methods" other than it "requires spatial awareness" and requires that the shooter basically know his system (gun/load/optics) and know his target (relative sizes). Okey Dokey.
I would say there are probably lots of "realities" in relation to Field Target presented in that article. Not a field target shooter myself so not in my wheelhouse to discuss that concept directly. But I would not say everything in the article is a "reality" in general terms (i.e. BEYOND just FT). A specific example-scope centering. Good idea or not, this article suggests it should be done. MANY long range firearms shooters DO NOT do this. Many will set the scope up with elevation cranked down some amount. WHY? It allows for more "elevation adjustment" in the field for long range shots than the scope would provide if centered. So some "realities" (maybe all such are "realities" if Field Target is the only topic) but apparently some opinions as well, especially if FT isn't the only focus of a discussion. Nothing wrong with that at all. The article does relate to Field Target as noted. Just good to be aware of where a given writer or article is "coming from".
A couple of quotes from that article-
"It's a common myth that the higher the mounts are, the more the canting error is, but this is not true." THEN LATER IN THAT SAME SECTION "There are some exceptions with a certain aiming method (see link above) but this is not used in FT shooting."
Interesting. Something is "not true" (except for that darn exception). For those that love "the math", I wonder how SCIENCE would view the theorem that has an exception? Interesting??? But at least the exception is noted with no qualification as to it's ability to hit a target by this author, just that "this is not used in FT shooting". WOW. Okay.
"The shooter can directly aim high by a specified amount, for example: holding the central crosshair level with the top of the killzone. This requires the shooter to have good spatial awareness and to know how small distances such as an inch relate to the killzone on a distant target."
Also interesting. At least the author recognizes the "method" for an ability to hit a target for someone who has "good spatial awareness" and understands his system (HIS gun, HIS load, HIS scope, HIS drop numbers). Do note however the mention by the author of the need to "know how small distances such as an inch relate to the killzone on a distant target". Such is the view of a FT shooter-it depends on "an inch". The killzone may be well larger than an inch for various targets so stating "an inch" is a bit limiting to the "method", IMO. And I've used that "method" for most of my life. Rarely was "an inch" the determinant of a hit or miss but even if it were, does he suggest such cannnot be done by one with "good spatial awareness"? Doesn't seem so, but that level of precision would be hard to attain. But again, a FT shooters point of view so that specific focus on an "inch" is okay and understandable considering the mindset.
One final thing for those who are trying to understand the distinction in methods here to consider-AIM (whether with crosshair, or mil-dot, or "improvised") isn't likely to be the cause for any given "miss". Common sense and a little research should clearly show that the TWO primary causes for "a miss" are likely to be RANGE MIS-ESTIMATION (not as much of a problem for those lucky FT shooters considering "focus for distance") and WIND. Any error in AIM is not as likely to cause a miss as are EITHER of these other two factors. JMO, of course.
An interesting read. "realities" Note that the article specifically cites Szottesfeld so consider that, as some don't buy Szottesfeld. But even in this article, the "exception" to height/cant error relationship is noted along with the statement of "this is not used in FT shooting". Simple. Different methods noted. Nothing much about the use of such other "methods" other than it "requires spatial awareness" and requires that the shooter basically know his system (gun/load/optics) and know his target (relative sizes). Okey Dokey.
I would say there are probably lots of "realities" in relation to Field Target presented in that article. Not a field target shooter myself so not in my wheelhouse to discuss that concept directly. But I would not say everything in the article is a "reality" in general terms (i.e. BEYOND just FT). A specific example-scope centering. Good idea or not, this article suggests it should be done. MANY long range firearms shooters DO NOT do this. Many will set the scope up with elevation cranked down some amount. WHY? It allows for more "elevation adjustment" in the field for long range shots than the scope would provide if centered. So some "realities" (maybe all such are "realities" if Field Target is the only topic) but apparently some opinions as well, especially if FT isn't the only focus of a discussion. Nothing wrong with that at all. The article does relate to Field Target as noted. Just good to be aware of where a given writer or article is "coming from".
A couple of quotes from that article-
"It's a common myth that the higher the mounts are, the more the canting error is, but this is not true." THEN LATER IN THAT SAME SECTION "There are some exceptions with a certain aiming method (see link above) but this is not used in FT shooting."
Interesting. Something is "not true" (except for that darn exception). For those that love "the math", I wonder how SCIENCE would view the theorem that has an exception? Interesting??? But at least the exception is noted with no qualification as to it's ability to hit a target by this author, just that "this is not used in FT shooting". WOW. Okay.
"The shooter can directly aim high by a specified amount, for example: holding the central crosshair level with the top of the killzone. This requires the shooter to have good spatial awareness and to know how small distances such as an inch relate to the killzone on a distant target."
Also interesting. At least the author recognizes the "method" for an ability to hit a target for someone who has "good spatial awareness" and understands his system (HIS gun, HIS load, HIS scope, HIS drop numbers). Do note however the mention by the author of the need to "know how small distances such as an inch relate to the killzone on a distant target". Such is the view of a FT shooter-it depends on "an inch". The killzone may be well larger than an inch for various targets so stating "an inch" is a bit limiting to the "method", IMO. And I've used that "method" for most of my life. Rarely was "an inch" the determinant of a hit or miss but even if it were, does he suggest such cannnot be done by one with "good spatial awareness"? Doesn't seem so, but that level of precision would be hard to attain. But again, a FT shooters point of view so that specific focus on an "inch" is okay and understandable considering the mindset.
One final thing for those who are trying to understand the distinction in methods here to consider-AIM (whether with crosshair, or mil-dot, or "improvised") isn't likely to be the cause for any given "miss". Common sense and a little research should clearly show that the TWO primary causes for "a miss" are likely to be RANGE MIS-ESTIMATION (not as much of a problem for those lucky FT shooters considering "focus for distance") and WIND. Any error in AIM is not as likely to cause a miss as are EITHER of these other two factors. JMO, of course.
Upvote 0