Considering integrating a bubble into some custom scope rings, but not sure if it would be practical.  

Any input?

Someplace on the scope you can see without moving or shifting positions, plus not in the way of scope adjustments, or on the rifle if it has rails. You can check the bubble level with least dominant eye.

On my Savage FTR it is on the 30 MOA base.

I think rail mounted levels are better just in front of the scope mount personally.

I think you're right, but that defeats my idea.  I want the level as true to the reticle as possible, my thought is that putting it in the ring would best achieve that.

My idea is to have it swing out from the front ring with a detent to hold it open either way.

I've always liked Tubb's muzzle mounted level, as well as the integral level in Spuhr mounts.

My favorite location is on the scope tube mainly because I really care if the reticle is level but don't mind if the scope is slightly canted in the rings.



Having said that, you might like this bubble level integrated with the base/rail >>>

The only place a level should be mounted is to the scope tube.

It can forever stay with the scope and aid in future mountings.

If your reticle isn't perfect all you have to do is rotate the level slightly rather than the scope.

If you mount the rifle slightly canted you are screwed with a rail or ring mounted level.


Here you go $34
https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Optics-Bubble-Level-Riflescope/dp/B003JP4WU2

You're right, but that doesn't involve my milling machine.  

This doesn't either but it is fantastic.  Expensive but it's really great.

https://long-range-arms.myshopify.com

Long Range Arms Send It electronic level.

Fair enough and I understand, in that case, the front ring near the top would be best. That position is about the easiest to see with the weak eye while looking through the scope.

i disagree.

i always and only mount a level on the rifle instead of on the scope for 2 reasons:
1. in some field positions (and prone for some people with stiff necks), it can be hard to see above the scope because your head is tilted forward and you're straining to look out of the top of your eye.  you shouldn't have to break position to glance at the level.  this may not apply to everybody, but it probably applies to most.

2. the way i mount a scope is to put a level on the rifle, and rotate the scope in the rings until the reticle is true to a plumb line.

if your rifle is dedicated to a known distance like 1000 yard f-class, then go ahead and mount the rifle at whatever angle you want.
for practical/UKD shooting, your barrel had better be underneath your scope.

On the scope is better.
If you ever have to move the scope, you will not have to re-do your level adjustments and tall target test (these are the most critical for scope set-up). It is really not that big a deal if the rifle is not perfectly level under the scope. It would take a large amount of cant to create a perceptible windage error in your 100y zero. The problem comes when your scope is not tracking orthogonal to gravity.

Mine is just in front of the windage adjustment knob for primarily shooting from a left handed position. It is just a glance up with the non-dominant eye to check it.

Obviously your preference is yours but if one can look through the scope one can see the level. All that has to be done is shift focus (or not) to the weak eye. There is no breaking position.

I can actually observe my level with blurred weak eye peripheral vision. I can see where the bubble is while sighting the target.

This is what the weak eye sees
Attached File

are you just trolling me or do you really believe any of that?

for the sake of new shooters who might be reading this...

moving the scope is not an issue.  tall target tests are performed to verify the scope tracks, not that you mounted it level.

it's kinda a big deal if your rifle is not level under the scope.  in this case, "not level" means the action is actually slightly left or right of the scope, which means your scope and barrel are not parallel, which means they intersect at your "zero" and you will need to adjust for wind at any point beyond 100 yd.

"This is what the weak eye sees "

on a flat range, prone, sure
try shooting in the mountains or hills where you're laying on a downward slope and shooting at a target above you on the next ridge over.  I've shot several stages like this at places like the ridge at mammoth/LRSE and at thunder valley and its' common out west.  and on the f'd up barricades at rifles only (of course there, you shoot everything there weak side so you at least get to look at your bubble level with your dominate eye).    and i mean i had to strain to see the middle of the scope and couldn't really see the top of the FOV

Taliv, your understanding is correct that a horizontal offset between the bore axis and the crosshairs will create a problem. It can lead to a windage error at all ranges beyond 100y. But for the problem to appear, the offset on the rifle end needs to be large enough to cause the shooter to settle on a zero that is at least one scope click off from where it would be with an ideal set-up. Assuming clicks are 1/4 MOA, the scope would have to be more than 1/8" off to cause the shooter to select the wrong zero setting. This is a lot more error than you will get from a scope that "looks about level" to a precision rifle beginner. Among other things, there are more significant problems introduced by cheap rings or bases that don't get the scope centered over the bore axis.

The tall target test is a verification of scope tracking by click value, and also a verification that the high group is vertically centered over the low group. In other words, it checks that the shooter is holding the scope level. If the scope is not  level, there will be unwanted crosstalk between the elevation and windage adjustments. At extended ranges this will create significant errors. That is main reason why it is important to be careful that the rifle is level when you shoot, and to make sure the bubble level and the scope agree when setting up your equipment. Your databook can overcome tracking errors as long as the scope is repeatable, but if the scope is not vertical when the level says it is, you will have a hard time figuring out the feedback from your shots. Using the level in the mount does little to depreciate from your ability to set things up correctly, but it should make you much more wary of loosening those
ring screws.

You bring up an interesting and valid concern about seeing the level from unusual shooting positions. Even from a conventional position I think I would have trouble seeing a level built into the pic rail. It seems it would either be too close to focus on, or obscured by the ocular bezel of the scope. Usability certainly has a role in equipment selection and each individual's mileage may vary on those specific details.

Attached File
I drew up this little illustration to show the effect of bore offset (canted rifle under plumb scope) on windage past 100 yard zero.

This is on a 2" mounting, higher will be worse lower will be better.

I have a level on the scope and one on the back of the rail (KAC rail mounted level). I use the scope one pretty much all of the time. It's larger and easier to see. As my eyes age, I have trouble focusing on the rail mounted level. However, it's useful to me as it's in my peripheral vision and I can use it if I'm shooting wrong handed. It's blurry to me, but I can still tell if the bubble is in the middle.

i am also well past 40 and my eyes don't focus up close like they used to.  however, i can still see the bubble level near the back of the rail because it's large.  i will say some, like the spuhr mount are offset to clear the scope's ocular housing.  however, i am left handed, so the offset means the spuhr bubble is completely obscured to me.  so i hang a bubble off the pic rail that sticks out the weak side.   it is low and clears the scope.  easy to see with my eyes at rest or in any shooting position i have encountered to date.

I guess y'all can argue old school and cut out a half circle protractor and hang a plum bob in front of it and line up with the notch. I knew a lefty that had one attached to his scope and one on the gas block.  His reasons were if they changed his scope moved. The main thing is mount it where you can see it from the position you intend to shoot from.

I put the level just behind the bell off the left side at 11:00, think of the Vortex level (which are what I use). I keep both my eyes open so with the level in that position I see it superimposed inside the scope at the 13:00 mark or so. My head or sight picture never changes. It's like having a level inside the scope with the ridicule. Works for me.

This thread is about as argumentative as I expected as it combines the issues of "should my reticle be vertical to the rifle or canted?", "do I need a level at all", and "which eye should I be using to look at it?" with the original question of "where should I mount it?".

Yep, nothing to argue about there...

Here's my take on some of the ideas expressed.

1) Canted rifle?

Yes, if you are shooting in a match at a fixed distance, or over known in advance distances, where the sight corrections can be derived in advance, canting the rifle is just fine.  In fact it is preferable as a person's natural hold will be very consistent and that in concert with shooting from a nice level surface and looking at nice plumb target frames will eliminate the need for a level entirely.

However, in the field where you will be shooting at varying ranges that are not known in advance, a canted rifle just adds one more variable and sight adjustment that needs to be addressed.

Thus, a canted rifle has significant downsides that, in my personal opinion offset the upsides, at least on rifles I intend to use in the field rather than strictly on the range.

2) Do I need a level at all?

Similarly, if you are only going to shoot on a range at targets that offer nice vertical surfaces to  help you determine what is level, a level isn't essential.    However, if you are going to be shooting in the real world a level is very handy to have to confirm the reticle is level.

3)  Which eye should I use?

It depends.  If you are shooting off a rest or a bipod, and are using a rear bag of some sort, then using your dominant eye, and necessarily having to shift your head, is fine as leveling the rifle and the re-positioning the head/eye can be two separate steps.

However, if you don't have the time for that, and/or are not shooting off a steady rest where the rifle will remain in the vertical orientation after you've verified it is level, then using your non dominant eye is important.

That said, way too many people are making way too big a deal of this relative to where the level is placed.   Take this positioning choice as an example:



Some of the "weak eye" folks will cite this as an example of what no to do.  My response to that is "Have you actually tried it?".  In my experience, once I'm settled behind the rifle, and ready to verify the rifle is level before taking the shot, I just have to open my non dominant eye and look slightly high and left to see the bubble:



In short, if your left eye is the one not behind the scope then mounting the level on the right side of the scope/rifle is about the only thing that is off limits.

I'll add here that examples of strained and unorthodox positions in tacti-cool matches are just fine to use as a justification for using the weak eye and for positioning choices, but those examples are not worth all that much.  If it's a long range shot where you need a high first round PK, then you're going to take the time to set up a better shooting position. If you are forced to take a hurried shot, it's because the range is short enough that whether the rifle is truly level or not just doesn't matter.


4)  Where (and how) should I mount it?

Again it depends.  As noted in number 2, if you only shoot on a target range, shooting at nice plumb target frames or other objects to give you a nice vertical reference, you may not need one at all.

Again as noted in number 2, if you're planning on shooting in the field you need one.  As discussed in number 1 you want a level rifle, and per number 3 you want it mounted where you can see it with your non dominant (not behind the scope) eye.

Given that the rifle is level, a level on the rear scope ring is an easy way to make that happen.

There are some pros:

It's sturdy and reasonably well protected, much more so than a separate ring on the scope that cantilevers the level off to the side (the left side for 80% of shooters, the right side for the other 20%).

It's often easier to see than a level mounted on the rear of the scope base, where the bell for the objective can get in the way with a properly low mounted scope.

But there are some cons as well:

It's not as well protected as a level mounted on the scope base or a rail mounted level tucked in close to the scope.

It's not attached to the scope directly, so it won't make it easier to level the reticle on another rifle, but unless you swap scopes frequently, that's a total non issue.



What is important is that the level be absolutely true to the reticle, and that the adjustments themselves be absolutely true to the reticle.  The ability to pass tall target and box tests is one of the reasons to spend money on a quality scope.    If you have a lower quality scope where the adjustments are not precisely aligned with the reticle, you'll get an unwanted windage adjustment any time you make an elevation adjustment, and your elevation adjustment will be less than what you actually dialed in. Conversely any time you adjust the windage, you'll also be adding in some in wanted elevation adjustment, while not getting quite as much windage adjustment as you dialed in.  At short ranges it's no big deal, but at long range the significant elevation adjustments required will add more than enough unwanted windage to cause you to miss the target.

In that 'low quality scope" situation, you really need a level, and you need to level the rifle to the adjustments in the scope, not the reticle (using trial and error with tall target tests).  The results will however be annoying as you'll have to shoot with a canted reticle and a mil dot or MOA reticle ecomes useless for hold over and windage purposes - which means you'll quickly be in the market for a better scope if you are doing actual long range shooting.

Mine is built into my front sight.

 Who builds these ??

I don't know, but I use these.
http://harrellsprec.com/index.php/products/scope-levels

I just bought Wheeler that is Picitanny. I mounted it up against the scope mount. It folds out when in use and in when the rifle is stored. It's adjustable  but I didn't need it. When I first put it on I thought it sucked but today, when bore sighting, I found that I could easily see it with my left eye while my right eye was on the scope. I use an Atlas bipod so it was really simple to setup on level.  You have to keep in mind that a level only works to your advantage if the scope is properly mounted.

Mine is in the chassis..right under the rear sight..very simple to see, no movement needed when looking thru the optic other then to divert your eyes straight down....

Attached File

Ditto This.   I just close my right eye and I can see the bubble well enough it tell if the scope is level.