Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Informal Poll: Do you have canted crosshairs?

I was under the failed belief that a boresighter took care of levelling. The theory was that the crosshairs on the boresighter and the crosshairs on the scope would only align in one configuration, that being completely plumb and square. Theoretically this is true. In reality, the boresighter can be significantly rotated and still appear to align with the scope.

This was pointed out to me by a member of this august forum a few years ago. We went as far as having a phone conversation to discuss the matter. I tested his assertion and found them to be true.

A noticeably canted scope drives me nuts. I usually figure this out once I'm at the range for initial sighting in. I'm primarily a hunter of eastern whitetail. I've learned to take my boresighter with me in case I need to make such adjustments. My shots on game are historically inside 200 yards, so an imperceptible cant does not effect all that much. I sight in for a calculated PBR (something like 2" high at 100 yards) and leave the scope untouched from there on out. In this circumstance, a cant I cannot detect does nothing. I hunt in ignorant bliss. I'm sure that if I were trying to adjust for longer distances it would be a problem.

Most are perfect,a few slipped by that shifted while ring tighting just a RCH. Amazing what I've seen helping others.

That's what I like about using bubble levels. If, when tightening the screws, the scope shifts, you can catch and correct it.

One of my old instructors used to say only worry about the front two screws. Tighten them down, but not torqued, so that the scope doesn't move, then do the rest.

I like Burris Signature rings, but any quality ring will do. In the case of ones similar to those in the picture, worrying about the two front screws becomes a necessity. I hated this style when I was still in uniform. My personal belief is that having more than two screws per ring, with a few exceptions, is overkill. It does satisfy the tactical crowd however.

There is a lot to what you say. I also think that scope leveling is a great deal like knife sharpening; the key being for an individual to level a scope or sharpen a knife, and declare "There, now that's level (sharp)!", thereby establishing that there can be no disagreement on the issue.

That's one of the problems with eyeballing to get a level reticle. Most of us can't quite manage it, and you are always back and forth, looking through the scope, as you tighten the screws.

With a bubble level, you can concentrate on tightening the screws. Keep it level and when you're done, everything will be perfect, and it only takes minutes. Above all, you should use something with which you feel comfortable.

To get away from the reticle shifting while tightening screws (drives me nuts), I use two bits, and gradually tighten both sides at the same time.

Hatari, I use the hard pastic model, FWIW.

For people who are not as nimble, you can also ensure that both sides of the top part of the ring are going together evenly by keeping a finger on the top half and pressing on the metal. Alternate between the two screws each revolution. If you are using a level, you can switch to the other screw when the bubble starts to shift.

Cross hairs are all perfect, but I will occasionally cant a rifle. Did not realize such until I go a Shiloh equipped with front sight level. My greatest frustrations are using Weaver mounts. One in place though, I've never had anything move.

I am sure the level works for some one besides me and eventually the one in my shop will be given away. I find them a pain in the butt and went back to my trusty eye ball to line up my scopes reticle over a period of a day or two and once I am ok with how it looks I tighten it all down. No moose or caribou knows the difference and they look good to me.

My problem is I don't believe the bubble in these scope levels is big enough to give a precise reading any better then the human eye can do. I have several levels for building, from a few inches to 8 feet long. The bigger the better for a true reading, but the bubble area needs to be big, other wise it does not matter how big the level is.

When I retired I bought a nice 9 foot pool table and put it in one end of my shop, as that is a hobby of mine I thoroughly enjoy. When the guys that came over to set it up they had a 4 foot level that was shaped more like a half moon on the top which was about 2 feet at the top from the flat bottom part and the bubble on top was huge, never saw any thing like it. The guy said a normal level would never work for a pool table as the bubbles are to small.

Does any of this mean using a small bubble in a small level to line up a reticle is needed, I think that is up to the user.

I have one that is canted. I was done by someone other than me. I usually let someone visiting use it. I have shot it several times it shoots dead on at a hundred yards. I just never got around to adjusting the scope.

If you clamp the scope tightly in a vice and push the rifle in the right direction, you can fix the cant.

I had a Simmons scope about ten years ago and the reticle canted on its own. I would shoot and the reticle began to move. I didn't notice it at first, but after maybe 8 or 10 shots from a SS 30-30, I looked through the scope and realized that the 30-30 had shaken the scope apart. I would never have purchased a Simmons except that this new model was recommended. I should have stuck with what I knew.

Laffin... Just this evening I noticed that I have canted crosshairs on my relatively new Ruger. I can’t believe that I am just noticing this. I have an old Simmons scope that has a recticle that is crooked inside the tube. It doesn’t seem to affect the performance of it though.

Your Simmons with the wonky reticle isn't a 4x32, is it? A Prohunter perhaps? What a POS.

When i mount my scopes, I pull the bolt and line the vertical crosshair with the bore centerline. I don't care about the horizontal wire, as long as vertical is in line.

I grew up wrestling with old style Weaver rings. You had to allow some rotation of the scope as the screws were tightened. They're on one side, so a big PITA. Those were/are the hardest to fool with, IMO.

DF

For me, no. That said, if any one of my three son's holds a rifle of mine they say yes.

For years, one of my friends and I argued about whose reticles were canted, he thought mine went to the left and I thought his went to the right. Then I had cataract surgery and got my astigmatism fixed. Now my reticles went to the left and I had to change them all. And my friend's rifles all had straight reticles.......

[align:center][/align]

Graf's threw a free one in with my order a couple years ago. Works very well. I place a small pocket rule across the eypiece, line it up with the reticle horizontal, and compare to the bars on the "paddles". I do the the same with the verticle using back of the cocking piece as my center. I think mine are pretty dang straight. It was a lot easier to do when I didn't have to keep shifting my eyeglasses around in the process, though.

One reaon I stopped using the old Weavers is you have to establish some "lead" on the alignment, before you tighten the screws, because they pull the scope to the side as you tighten. That, and the crappy slotted screw heads.

I am surprised that Weaver still makes the old design.