Vertical alignment of Rifle and Scope?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

You are far more likely to cant your rifle and your reticle if you line up both straight up and down.

What statistics do you have to back up that assumption?

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

What statistics do you have to back up that assumption?

No need for statistics as it is obvious.

1 degree of cant in the scope will result in 6" at 1000 yards. Should work out to 3" with a 0.5 degree cant.
1.5" with a 0.25 degree cant
0.75" with a .125 degree cant
.07" with a .0125 degree cant
One degree of cant on a rifle with a level reticle you only get 0.07" at 1000 yards.
If naturally you are 1 degree of cant you are most likely way more than 0.0125 degrees of cant when trying to hold level as even with a bubble level you are probably 0.5 degrees of cant. Doesn't take a statistician to see the math.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

No need for statistics as it is obvious.

1 degree of cant in the scope will result in 6" at 1000 yards. Should work out to 3" with a 0.5 degree cant.
1.5" with a 0.25 degree cant
0.75" with a .125 degree cant
.07" with a .0125 degree cant
One degree of cant on a rifle with a level reticle you only get 0.07" at 1000 yards.
If naturally you are 1 degree of cant you are most likely way more than 0.0125 degrees of cant when trying to hold level as even with a bubble level you are probably 0.5 degrees of cant. Doesn't take a statistician to see the math.

Would you care to try again to actually answer the question? Using the same scope, what statistics do you have that indicate that it would it be far more likely to cant the scope if it is mounted true over a vertical rifle, than if it is mounted on a canted rifle?

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

What statistics do you have to back up that assumption?

Do you have levels on any of your scopes?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by chuck

Do you have levels on any of your scopes?

Whether I have levels on my scopes or not, doesn't prove his assumption, or disprove it. Do you have any statistics to back up his assumption?

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Would you care to try again to actually answer the question? Using the same scope, what statistics do you have that indicate that it would it be far more likely to cant the scope if it is mounted true over a vertical rifle, than if it is mounted on a canted rifle?

I will bet you that you cannot hold a rifle with less than 0.25 degrees of cant! 0.01 degrees of cant isn't even measurable for a shooter with a gun mounted in a vice. Grab a protractor and have a look. It doesn't take a stat when you cannot even measure that accurate.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

D you have any statistics to back up his assumption?

So no?

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

D you have any statistics to back up his assumption?

Hard to argue math isn't it? Much easier to post emojis.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

I will bet you that you cannot hold a rifle with less than 0.25 degrees of cant! 0.01 degrees of cant isn't even measurable for a shooter with a gun mounted in a vice. Grab a protractor and have a look. It doesn't take a stat when you cannot even measure that accurate.

How does a canted rifle make your eyes better able to distinguish whether the scope is level or not? That is the question.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

So if you cant your crosshairs this means you cannot zero your scope with your rifle? You aren't making any sense. There will always be crossover if you zero your scope with your rifle.

No. Your zero remains constant at the crosshair with any amount of cant you zero it for. If the crosshair hits bullseyes good. Now go down to the 600 yard subtension. If your scope is not level on a level rifle then it will hit off the mark horizontally, more so as the distance increases. There is no horizontal divergence of the bullet path/scope subtensions down range . The POA/POI offset just gets bigger as soon as it leaves the muzzle. If everything is level, the bullet path never leaves the horizontal plane. The only divergence will be in the vertical plane...…..there will be two divergent intersections vertically...…..none horizontally.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So how does that change based on whether the rifle is canted or not?

If you shoot natural you are 100% more likely to have less scope cant than trying to force yourself to shoot perfectly level. Prove me wrong. Math or hard shooting evidence preferred.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by chuck

So no?

I have had a couple, but not currently. But that does not answer the question that I asked. He stated that a person is far more likely to cant the scope if the scope is mounted on a vertical rifle, my question is how canting a rifle makes your eyes better able to distinguish whether a scope is canted or not. Can you answer that question?

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by CNP

No. Your zero remains constant at the crosshair with any amount of cant you zero it for. If the crosshair hits bullseyes good. Now go down to the 600 yard subtension. If your scope is not level on a level rifle then it will hit off the mark horizontally, more so as the distance increases. There is no horizontal divergence of the bullet path/scope subtensions down range . The POA/POI offset just gets bigger as soon as it leaves the muzzle. If everything is level, the bullet path never leaves the horizontal plane. The only divergence will be in the vertical plane...…..there will be two divergent intersections vertically...…..none horizontally.

If your scope is not level on a level rifle yes the distance will increase. If your scope is level there will always be a point of intersection no matter how far down the reticle you go.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

If you shoot natural you are 100% more likely to have less scope cant than trying to force yourself to shoot perfectly level. Prove me wrong. Math or hard shooting evidence preferred.

You made the statement, so it's up to you to provide proof. Math preferred, but not expected, because there is no math to prove it.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have had a couple, but not currently. But that does not answer the question that I asked. He stated that a person is far more likely to cant the scope if the scope is mounted on a vertical rifle, my question is how canting a rifle makes your eyes better able to distinguish whether a scope is canted or not. Can you answer that question?

Try to do something unnatural that you naturally do and try to repeat it. You have to think and you have to concentrate. Try to walk forwards one step with one leg and one the next which we walk naturally. Now try to force yourself to take smaller steps which is unnatural. Heck try and go for a run doing that and you will soon default back to a natural position.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You made the statement, so it's up to you to provide proof. Math preferred.

Just mount your rifle and scope level and do what you please. I am done arguing with you. For everyone else they can level their scope and naturally hold there rifle and they will be far better off.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have had a couple, but not currently. But that does not answer the question that I asked. He stated that a person is far more likely to cant the scope if the scope is mounted on a vertical rifle, my question is how canting a rifle makes your eyes better able to distinguish whether a scope is canted or not. Can you answer that question?

Why do I need to answer that question? I’m not sure what it has to do with me.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

If your scope is not level on a level rifle yes the distance will increase. If your scope is level there will always be a point of intersection no matter how far down the reticle you go.

You don't understand.


I placed some comments in a callout on your diagram.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by CNP

You don't understand.


I placed some comments in a callout on your diagram.

They are crosswise for a horizontal calculation as you don't take elevation into the math. That's an entirely different plane...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Try to do something unnatural that you naturally do and try to repeat it. You have to think and you have to concentrate. Try to walk forwards one step with one leg and one the next which we walk naturally. Now try to force yourself to take a smaller step with one leg than the other which is unnatural.

I naturally try to shoulder all of my firearms vertically with no cant. I do it all the time, and hve done so for over 50 years, so it is what is natural to me. If for some reason the firearm comes up canted, I correct automatically , I don't have to stop and think about it. If I had issues with a certain firearm coming up canted on a regular basis, I would install an adjustable butt plate, and still avoid canting the firearm.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by chuck

Here is a screenshot for those who refuse to watch it.

People must keep missing this.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I naturally try to shoulder all of my firearms vertically with no cant. I do it all the time, and hve done so for over 50 years, so it is what is natural to me. If for some reason the firearm comes up canted, I correct automatically , I don't have to stop and think about it. If I had issues with a certain firearm coming up canted on a regular basis, I would install an adjustable butt plate, and still avoid canting the firearm.

How do you know if its canted if you don't have a level? 50 years would make the unnatural feel natural.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by chuck

Why do I need to answer that question? I’m not sure what it has to do with me.

You found it necessary to quote me and interject when I asked him the question. So if you felt that you needed to involved yourself, why not answer the question that he doesn't seem to be able to answer?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

How do you know if its canted if you don't have a level? 50 years would make the unnatural feel natural.

If I was canting the scope and rifle all the time, I would not be able to sight in a rifle to be zeroed horizontally at multiple distances, but that hasn't been the case. How would you know if I was canting my rifles/scopes all these years?

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If I was canting the scope and rifle all the time, I would not be able to sight in a rifle to be zeroed horizontally at multiple distances, but that hasn't been the case.

One again you made the unnatural feel natural. Takes lots of practice and is an impressive feat on its own.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If I was canting the scope and rifle all the time, I would not be able to sight in a rifle to be zeroed horizontally at multiple distances, but that hasn't been the case. How would you know if I was canting my rifles/scopes all these years?

Just curious. Do you shoot a circle or do you shoot a cross target? o or +?

[CNP]

Originally Posted by chuck

People must keep missing this.

OCD has me levelling a rifle and mounting the scope level. Anything but that needs to be fixed.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

One again you made the unnatural feel natural. Takes lots of practice and is an impressive feat on its own.

How do you know what was natural for me ? I was shown to hold a firearm vertically, and to shoot with both eyes open, and both seemed to be natural for me.

[AndrewM]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

How do you know what was natural for me ? I was shown to hold a firearm vertically, and to shoot with both eyes open, and both seemed to be natural for me.

Are you shooting at a cross as a target or a circle?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

Just curious. Do you shoot a circle or do you shoot a cross target? o or +?

It varies with distance, and whether I am doing the initial sight in. I use the larger cross targets when doing an initial sight in or at longer range, and I use smaller circles in other situations. I don't find one or the other easier to shoot at, and my group size doesn't change.