Easy DIY Method For Leveling A Scope Reticle

[Robb]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/02/16/easy-diy-method-for-leveling-a-scope-reticle/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

https://kahntrol.com/leveling-a-reticle/

I just ran across this article and thought I should share.
I have tiny levels and fuss with getting the rifle just so on the kitchen island, and then the same with the scope and then verify through the kitchen window against the edge of the neighbors house a block down. I thought this was a good alternative.



Tony’s method is to use a white background and a plumb line. He taped a white piece of paper and hung a plumb line in front of it. He puts the butt of the stock in front of the paper and as close to the plumb as possible without touching it. Then he shines a bright flashlight into the objective of the scope. He focuses the eyepiece to show a crisp reticle shadow on the white piece of paper. Now he can adjust the scope to get the reticle to be parallel with the plumb line.

l

[BPTactical]

I have used door frames for years for this purpose, they are typically the item in a house that is closest to dead plumb.

[newracer]

I have been using a plumb line for years but I look through the scope to line up the reticle with the line.

[y4m4]

I also use a plumb line and do so while holding the rifle against my shoulder. I've used levels before (with and without a line), but the scope always looks canted when I'm holding the rifle due to my grip/shoulder pocket.

I'd rather have the scope level to my body than to the rifle. Forcing myself to adjust my grip is, in my opinion, worse. The barrel doesn't care if it is rotated about the bore slightly. This is more repeatable for me.

[Grant H.]

I also use a plumb line and do so while holding the rifle against my shoulder. I've used levels before (with and without a line), but the scope always looks canted when I'm holding the rifle due to my grip/shoulder pocket.

I'd rather have the scope level to my body than to the rifle. Forcing myself to adjust my grip is, in my opinion, worse. The barrel doesn't care if it is rotated about the bore slightly. This is more repeatable for me.

While I understand what you are saying, having the scope not level to the bore of the rifle will cause scope adjustments to be angular, instead of proper.

If you only ever set a scope for zero, that's fine, but if you are going to try and dial elevation and windage, your method won't work.

[Great-Kazoo]

I lock the rifle in rest. Small level on rail / upper. Then one one scope. Here;s;alink with info about scope cant and how it affects POI. There's also info on a tool for leveling scope to bore,a little more $$ then plumb bob and string.
http://www.riflescopelevel.com/cant_tests.html

[Alpha2]

Hey, I like the idea of the light through the scope. Now, if I can only remember it...

[y4m4]

While I understand what you are saying, having the scope not level to the bore of the rifle will cause scope adjustments to be angular, instead of proper.

If you only ever set a scope for zero, that's fine, but if you are going to try and dial elevation and windage, your method won't work.

I don't follow. The bore axis is essentially a 2 dimensional line. The line of sight through a scope is also a 2 dimensional line. These two axis are aligned via the scope rings. If these axis are not aligned then you have a big problem that can't be fixed with any amount of leveling. Now that I think about it, zeroing your scope's windage would account for any misalignment. I don't have any scopes on rifles that are set to zero windage after sighting in.

If I dial a scope that is level to my grip (and the ground) with the both the barrel axis and scope axis aligned, it will go where I dial it. I've accurately dialed distances out to 975 yards with my .308 and I've participated in that Ft. Carson match at ranges from 200 to 600 yards while getting hits congruent to my experience level.

The more I think about it, the more arbitrary alignment between anything other than the scope and the ground is. As you dial elevation, you're also changing the relationship between the bore and sight axis. That's why you can see your bullet trace arc into and out of view in the scope at long distances. You are shooting "over" your line of sight. The only thing that matters is a level scope (in relationship to a "true" perpendicularity to the ground) and an accurate zero, if these are off then your adjustments mean nothing. The ground is our reference for the cross hairs, not the barrel or the buttstock.

To quote Ender's Game: "the enemy's gate is down."


I'm sure this is long winded and rambling. I'm no expert on this stuff, hopefully this link adds some credibility to my method: http://www.scout.com/military/snipers-hide/story/1540059-canted-rifle-level-scope

[Irving]

I have used door frames for years for this purpose, they are typically the item in a house that is closest to dead plumb.

What if you live on a house boat?

[Great-Kazoo]

What if you live on a house boat?

Roll with it.

[Irving]

I was going to say what if you lived on a submarine, but then you likely didn't bring along your long range rifle.

[Guylee]

I use two small levels and it seems much easier and less time consuming than the plumb line, but I've never tried it so I can't be sure. Also, you absolutely 100% want your scope plumb with your bore axis.

[sgtlmj]

Most optics companies will have an acceptable error rate for the canting of their reticles, which is why it's always preferable to level the reticle and not the exterior of the scope. I usually start by leveling the rifle and a flat part of the scope like the top of the turret, but then always check against something plumb to make sure the reticle is level. Shoot some box drills and see if the scope tracks.

[HoneyBadger]

I've never put this much thought or energy into leveling a scope, and I've never had a reason to complain about any of my rifles not performing as expected. Maybe I got lucky, maybe I just don't shoot long enough ranges.

[Guylee]

Most optics companies will have an acceptable error rate for the canting of their reticles, which is why it's always preferable to level the reticle and not the exterior of the scope. I usually start by leveling the rifle and a flat part of the scope like the top of the turret, but then always check against something plumb to make sure the reticle is level. Shoot some box drills and see if the scope tracks.

What would you say the acceptable error rate is? Just curious.

[sgtlmj]

What would you say the acceptable error rate is? Just curious.

Leupold used to say up to 2 degrees was acceptable. Don't know if that is still the case. I've seen high-end scopes like Khales need to be sent back for excessive cant.

[Storm]

If I was to use this method, I'd go with sewing thread or fishing line for the plumb line. It should make the alignment more precise.

I ran across this tool a while back. It mechanically levels your scope, without using a bubble level. It should work if the bottom of your scope's control cluster is square with your reticle and the flat on your scope mount/receiver is square with the plumb-plane through your bore axis.

http://arisakadefense.com/collections/tools/products/optic-leveler-combo

[sgtlmj]

If I was to use this method, I'd go with sewing thread or fishing line for the plumb line. It should make the alignment more precise.

I ran across this tool a while back. It mechanically levels your scope, without using a bubble level. It should work if the bottom of your scope's control cluster is square with your reticle and the flat on your scope mount/receiver is square with the plumb-plane through your bore axis.

http://arisakadefense.com/collections/tools/products/optic-leveler-combo

Arisaka copied that from Spuhr. Mile High sells the real-deal Spuhr. It's a bit more money, but it isn't IP theft. ;)

http://spuhrwebshop.com/en/spares/a-0080-81.html