Why don't all scope have internal anti cant bubbles?

[Deleted member 20812]

Recess bell must have rang.

Shouldn’t you be heading in?

 

[MTHeifer]

Addressing the original question about why rifle scopes don't have a built in bubble level inside the scope: it would be too hard to manufacture. In general, the lenses in riflescopes are spherical or slightly aspherical surfaces made with extreme precision grinding. Any significant defect in the glass or misalignment would cause some nasty aberrations and lead to a blurry image of your target. To machine a slot in a piece of glass, fill it with a fluid, and to do it in a way that wouldn't ruin your image of the target would take extreme precision that would add thousands of dollars to the cost of the scope. A reticle is easy to manufacture because they can simply put a pattern on top of an already ground piece of glass, and the reticle doesn't introduce any aberrations because it isn't transparent.

The illuminated reticle that lights up when the scope is off level is a much easier product for the manufacturer to create than actually putting a mechanical level inside the lens assembly. In short, it's a good idea, but putting a mechanical level inside a scope is too difficult and expensive.

As far as the shooting, it seems like the cant angle of the reticle is on the same order of magnitude of parallax, which is about an MOA. If you're getting into long-range shooting, then it's something to worry about, but out to about 400 yards the kill zone on an animal is large compared to the error from cant.

 

[mtmiller]

Keep in mind I shoot a LOT of moving targets, usually three thousand rounds or more a year. My Springfield, though a little on the heavy side, is perfectly balanced right ahead of the magazine and fits me like a glove.

OntarioHunter:
I FINALLY got my old Springfield rebarrelled and to the range ... just in time for Africa. It put up a decent group inside the bull diamond in 30 mph gusts at 100 yards. No wind today and someone donated a hundred primers so I have enough ammo to fine tune. How high should 165 gr 30-06 shoot at 100 yards to be in the boiler room at 200 yards? Unfortunately, this gravel pit range does not extend past 100 yards.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I’d bet over 75% of people when mounting a scope just eyeball the reticle to level instead of actually using levels and or a plumb bob

I dont bother to make sure the reticle is perfectly plumb with my receiver because in general it doesn't matter. I can get it very close by eyeballing it. It's more important that your reticle is plumb when your rifle is shouldered how you will shoulder it than it is to make your reticle perfectly plumb with the rifle. I use a plumb line or plumb object validated with a 4' level (lately a 30" calibrated tracking target https://www.boxtobenchprecision.com/store/snipers-hide-100-yard-scope-tracking-target) to make sure my reticle is plumb when setting bubble level on scope.

A small amount of reticle to axis of bore misalignment has a truly negligible impact on POI compared to reticle cant from plumb so IMO if you're not going to know your reticle is plumb when shooting, it really doesn't matter that your reticle is perfectly plumb to the bore.

Big fin did a youtube video showing how to mount a scope plumb to the rifle but didn't mention any way to make sure the reticle is plumb to the world which misses the mark on what's actually important.

I agree with the general sentiment that at normal common hunting distances it doesn't matter. At the edge of where I feel I can make ethical shots It matters enough to have a level on my scopes.

 

[noharleyyet]

anti cant...weight notwithstanding.

 

[noharleyyet]

I’d bet over 75% of people when mounting a scope just eyeball the reticle to level instead of actually using levels and or a plumb bob

Guilty...

 

[Sasquatchewan]

If the gun fits you properly and scope installed vertically, the crosshairs should square up when the gun is shouldered. Mine does. View attachment 203604

But what if you are on uneven terrain?!?!?!

 

[OntarioHunter]

To clarify for the children in attendance, the thousands of rounds per year shot at moving targets are on the trap/skeet/clays range. While a shotgun is not a scoped rifle, the basics of shooting at moving targets are the same. Watch the target not the gun (or crosshairs) and follow through. After time it becomes natural.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Shooting a shotgun pattern inside 40 yards is not the same as a rifle at a running target. Not looking at the crosshairs in a scope, i can't comprehend the theory.

 

[tjones]

Ya along with scopes some guys seem to be a half bubble off.

 

[TOGIE]

ontario as he wakes up each morning to go drop limitless infallible knowledge in HT threads

 

[Rzrbck918]

Ontario makes me miss StaySharp and MTNPRST

 

[Deleted member 16014]

@mtmiller I'll raise you:

In very stiff sidewind gusting to 30 mph I dropped a very nice black wildebeest bull in his tracks at 350 metres with my PH's 270 WSM. Shot it broadside right behind the ear. PH said it was a great shot. Not quite. Crosshairs were about six inches the other side of his shoulder. Whew!

Rather than mess with fixing it I shot my PH's lovely CZ 270 WSM. And I shot it very well. Black wildebeest at 350 meters in a hard wind ... through the neck right behind the ear. Down he went in a cloud of dust.

330 meters for this kudu. And I wouldn't have taken the shot if PH had given me the distance. He said take the shot so I did. It was the eleventh hour just before dark of last day. I was using a borrowed 30-06 CZ Ebony Edition with 165 Barnes. I missed the same bull a half hour earlier. Gun was 1.5 ft low at 200 meters. I made the adjustment, aimed way up between his horns, and dropped him with a neck shot standing facing us downhill.

 

[Irrelevant]

@mtmiller I'll raise you:

I like this game... @mtmiller the ball is in your court

 

[noharleyyet]

Alphas on a hunting site...#shock'dface

 

[Dave N]

Ontario makes me miss StaySharp and MTNPRST

Maybe they're kin.

 

[Elkmagnet]

4" off at 400, compounded with an unstable field position/wind/game movement is not a recipe for success. Making shots is about eliminating uncertainty.

Exactly my thoughts on this.
Scenario,
Let's say you shoot a 1 MOA rifle at a deer ranged 400yd. You also shoot. 4" left as shooter's error due to poor shooting position.
Now if you add 4" of error due to a canted rifle you are now chancing everything lining up the wrong way and you are now 12" from point of aim. But with equally bad luck in the other direction you could also shoot 12" right of center.
Potentially a 20"+ group depending on luck. Now add a couple inches for a slight breeze.

It seems like eliminating a variable has no down sides.
To answer the original question there has to be some logical or demand reasons.

 

[Elkmagnet]

+1.16”

+.97" if shooting a more masculine caliber

 

[SAJ-99]

Going to guess at the answer to the OP's question- cost. Not impossible to build, but not cheap. I'm thinking of something like a plane's display where there is an altimeter (horizontal level) and a gyroscope pitch-bank indicator. Don;t want to derail the thread, but at some point do we end up not looking though glass at all and the scope being a camera at one end and a screen at the other? Don;t really like the idea, but everything goes seems to go high tech eventually.

 

[winmag]

Springfield Armory used to make optics, and some of their models had a bubble level in the bottom of the reticle. Seemed like a good idea to me. I’ve used one but never owned one to give any opinion on durability.

There are plenty of level options on the market that weigh next to nothing and cost $30-$50.