Pricey scope leveling tool

[Mrmetals]

So after reading what joedirt posted it got me thinking. My K1 has the built in level and ironically that is the rifle that just seems to be naturally level (or real close to it) every time I go to shoot. My prophet is just the opposite. I set it up with an add on anti-cant level and every time I go to shoot I find myself having to "twist" it just a hair to bring it to level.

My approach has been to train myself to where to hold the prophet so it's level. The more I shoot, the more it becomes natural. So my question is, should I have just leveled the scope while holding the gun the way it wants to be held???

I haven't analyzed it enough to say yes, it does make a difference with poi in regards to weather the gun is slightly tilted or not. But I would hedge towards it does make a difference.

 

[qball]

Excellent points @nervoustrig! 


After thinking about it the hanging string method still achieves the end goal of both leveling the scope with almost no error(gravity is constant) and validates the scope to bore alignment by cutting the string at a different location below the crosshair along the vertical reticle or dial up all the way and cut the string at the crosshair, that’s the ultimate goal right? 


There are many ways to skin a cat. 

 

[biohazardman]

 

I use one of these. Bought mine from the original maker some years back. I have found it to be very accurate and when it is off, on one of my guns, it is only off by a tiny amount. I will often check it with a level on the receiver and string with a plum bob, when I am done, cuz I am a little OCD with this sort of thing. Still I would have to agree with nervoustrig with the points he brings up though.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1021763218

 

[nervoustrig]

After thinking about it the hanging string method still achieves the end goal of both leveling the scope with almost no error(gravity is constant) and validates the scope to bore alignment by cutting the string at a different location below the crosshair along the vertical reticle or dial up all the way and cut the string at the crosshair, that’s the ultimate goal right?

Yes sir. When I commented about verifying afterwards, I meant it as a recognition that you described a sensible “trust but verify” approach. I hope it did not come across differently.

Perhaps I should have also acknowledged that it’s a good idea even when using a method that is not vulnerable to machining or assembly variables. For example the mirror method seems to be 100% reliable, at least within my ability to group at longer distances but I always double check. The one time I recall it not working ended up being my fault because I tried doing it without a suitable support and I didn’t have the scope rotated correctly.

But yeah overall I think we agree. Trust but verify.