Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters SCOPE LEVELING QUESTION

These threads crack me up.

Gadgets,.......

A fool and his money,.......

Buddy of mine holds/has held held roughly 35 world records in benchrest and 1K yard matches as uses none of these gizmos. I have a sneekin' suspicion he knows what he's talking about so I'll continue to do it the way he does.

Carry on.

I'm definitely interested in hearing the scope mounting method of someone who holds records for shooting one million yards.

If you think of it as only a little over 568 miles, it's not nearly as impressive.

Shooting that far, you would have to consider the time of flight. I haven't shot 1,000,000 yards before, but wouldn't you have to consider the earth's rotation while the projectile is in the atmosphere?

The circumference of the earth at almost 24,000 miles and the rotation of the earth making a complete revolution in 24 hours would mean the earth is spinning at 1000 mph at the equator. The farther you get to each pole, the less the speed of rotation and the angle which you shoot would have to be allowed for.

24,000 X consign€ with a + or - of the distance to the North or South Pole using the most common Stick factor as a constant, it could be easily calculated how much the earth does rotate underneath the bullet while it is in the air.

How the scope was mounted wouldn't really be significant with a shot like that, as you certainly wouldn't want it verticals to the bore...

284LUVR,

I know several very successful long-range shooters, and every one of them uses SOME sort of system for initial mounting of a scope to get it as square as possible. But they then test-shoot the rifle considerably to make sure everything's square, tweaking the scope's mounting in necessary.

As far as I know, nobody claims the Reticle-Tru precisely squares up every scope, every time, especially for shooting at 1,000,000 yards. Instead it's designed to get things started in the right direction, and many people have found it far more effective than other tools designed for the job.

Besides, once you're sighted in for a given distance, say 1000 yards, you're sighted in. It's when you start dialing in/out a lot of vertical correction for widely varying distances that errors show up.

John, I edited my post to read 1K. Sorry,Sir.

Reticle-Tru ??? Using your shooting eye draw an imaginary centerline from the top of your vertical crosshair to the centerline of your bolt or tang. Do this several times as the human eye can pick up minute variances. After you're satisfied put your "toy Reticle-Tru," on the scope and you will find that the crosshairs are dead nuts on. It's unnecessary. Been doing it for 30 years. Same principal without using a gadget.
Hope this isn't taken in the wrong light as it wasn't meant to be as I have some Sako questions for you and want you to be of a clear head and not aggitated. Just kidding !!

Cheers, 284

alas, us mere mortal fools--who've surely been reduced down to having to suffer the use of a "gadget or a gizmo"...

like me, they too have to suffer the inconvenience of using "a gizmo" such as a razor in the morning.

followed by the handicap of stuffing breakfast into the yap via a fork, or spoon "gizmo"...each time while doing so, are reduced even further by having to use these inconvenient "gadgets"--all the while wishing they never were....

rotating tires? must suffer the inconvenience of using "gadgets" like the lug wrench and jack...

powder scale?? never mind....

after a lifetime, i've tired of suffering the use of these handy "gadgets and gizmos"...

subsequently, i made a decision this morning to inlet/bed 568 rifles before lunch. use my chisels and barrel channel scraper?? not a chance. never removed those "gizmos" from their leather case.

don't ask about this secret--because i'll never divulge....



i've always thought it best, that folks use what works best for them.

you're probably a decent guy--but i always wonder about folks that comment on some specific thing, without using it first...

Some people say God is dead.

He's not dead, He's just busy winning 1,000,000-yard rifle matches.....

Sorry if I offended but generally I avoid talking out my a$$. I bought the tool a year or so ago following another similar thread here. My friends method uses the same principle without the tool.

Sure is fun to tinker though and adds considerably to the enjoyment of our hobby.

Peace, 284.

284LUVR,

I've used exactly the technique you suggest when mounting scopes with very good success, hundreds of times over the years.

However, over even more years I've decided there are two kinds of humans: Those who assume everything they can do or use is the cat's ass, and those who have a certain amount of what the poet William Butler Yeats called "negative capability," which means several things, among them an ability to acknowledge that not all humans are exactly like our wonderful selves.

Most humans lack the understanding that other humans may not have their own abilities. This is so common that it occurs in almost every Campfire thread, and even applies to many gun writers, who somewhat surprisingly, are also humans. Many write their entire careers about THEIR perfect choices in firearms, ammo, techniques, etc., often implying that anybody who doesn't prefer, or can't use, those choices is somehow stupid or basically flawed.

Others are able to observe other shooters and accept we're not all the same, and thereby come up with advice that might actually help, even if the advice involves a different firearm, ammunition or technique than the author finds useful. I try to maintain some negative capability, though sometimes fail, because of being human.

One thing I've noticed since starting to write about optics around 25 years ago is that many shooters are incapable of using the technique you suggest--and I have used often--even after personally demonstrating how to do it.

Which is why I've tested a bunch of reticle-leveling devices to see how they work. Some have proven so flawed in either design or execution to not work at all--but the Reticle-Tru works, and is usually helpful to shooters who for whatever reason simply cannot get a reticle square by the method you describe.

At the same time, when using the Reticle-Rtu I also learned that occasionally after a mounting a scope with the technique you suggest, the reticle wasn't quite as square as I thought it was. The reticle was never as far off as seen occasionally in scopes mounted by other people, but it was enough that the Reticle-Tru saved me some shooting time and ammo money to straighten the scope out.

John, you have my vote for the role of Philosopher King. That could very well be the best post I have seen in my years at the 'fire. Thanks, John

Couldn't agree more.

Since the fellow that retails the item does not allow sales outside the US you may feel free to sell me yours, I am interested in trying one as I am heartily sick of eye-balling the reticle.

And from what I have seen of other rifles around the district there are a lot of others here that could utilise one.

regards.

And he walked on water to go and check his targets too. 568 miles one way. Even though he is god, he was probably one tired son of a biotch when he got back...

And if you would have taken the time to read that 284LUVR said it was a typo,fixed it and he even apologized.

Fuggin' internet dickwads,............

No apology from 284 was necessary. It's not that big a deal; it was just a funny typo. Some find humor in it, some can't.

The Reticle Tru sounds like an interesting device. I use the Wheeler system of levels and then double check it on a plumb line and tall target.

I would think that the Reticle Tru would be faster, though.

Talk about a fool......what an asinine statement. I knew Barry Bonds.......didn't mean I could swing the bat like him now did it?

sbhooper,

The Reticle-Tru is very fast, and as I mentioned a long time ago in this thread, tends to be more accurate than many other tools because it directly "reads" off the center of the action. Which is why mine sits in the top drawer of my scope-mounting bench.