GTA
Support Equipment For PCP/HPA/CO2 and springers ,rams => Optics, Range estimation & related subjects => Topic started by: Not The Brightest Bulb on August 29, 2013, 10:27:34 PM
-
I read that when purchasing a new scope before mounting windage should be run all the way to a stop, it should then be run the opposite way, lets say 400 clicks till it stops then back it up 200 clicks. This is done to both adjustments. Up and down and side to side.
Then you mount scope and start adjusting scope sights. Would not a new scope already have this adjustment done.
I just get a scope, mount it and adjust scope sights while I shoot. Hope I explained it properly
-
What you are doing is optically centering the scope. Counting the clicks will get you pretty close on a well made scope.
Using the mirror or cradle method will do a better job. Do a search on optically centering a scope on You Tube or Google for more info.
Edit to add in;
A scope that is optically centered is more repeatable with adjusting and leaves the most room/clicks to work with.
-
Thank you CR,
I will do the google thing.
-
Supposedly, a scope performs best when its near optical center, which is what doing the procedure you described accomplishes. But optical center doesn't always even get you "on the paper". You are still gonna have to adjust the scope to get it zeroed. However, if you have to max out the scope in either direction to get it sighted in, then you have a mount or barrel droop problem that needs addressed. Usually barrel droop on break barrels will cause you to run out of upward adjustment.
Some guys go to great lengths with custom mounts, shims in the rings, etc to get their scope sighted in near optical center. That may be beneficial to some degree on a heavy recoiling powder burner shooting at a 1,000 yards, but I don't think it makes a lick of difference on an airgun. I just mount mine and sight it in, and if its near the end of its adjustment range, I'll try and see whats out of whack. But if it will sight in, and hold zero without shifting around, I don't worry about it. And counting clicks doesnt always get you in optical center anyways. Heres a better way, and it's more fun than counting clicks ;D :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5HCgQ5hIsU# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5HCgQ5hIsU#)
Now if you have a cheap scope and its clicked way out in either direction to get zeroed, and you are getting slight POI shifts with a springer, changing mounts and getting the scope more near optical center may fix it. But in my opinion, a scope that shifts isnt worth fooling with in the first place.
This is all just my two cents. But if you're bored, just try it as it is fun to tinker with! ;)
-
I will take help/knowledge anyway I can and your 2 cents is fine.
-
Just as a tidbit of completely unrelated interesting info, that US Optics scope in that video is probably a $3,000 scope :o Hahaha I'm gettin one of those to put on my Daisy 880! ;D
Check out their website! http://www.usoptics.com/optics.html (http://www.usoptics.com/optics.html) WOW!!
-
LOL.....then there are those that use Draconian methods like me who first optically center the scope via the "mirror method"........then bend the barrel till the point of impact is within about 1/2" of the aim point at 30 yards, then I use the scope turrets to fine tune the zero. My barrel tweaking tools.........
A forked tree for adding "snoop" and "left right adjustment" to a break barrel gun.........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/wved/Field%20Target/BarrelBendCrotch.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/wved/media/Field%20Target/BarrelBendCrotch.jpg.html)
My "tweaking clamp" if I have to add "droop" to my break barrel gun...........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/wved/Airgun%20Mods/BarrelTweaker.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/wved/media/Airgun%20Mods/BarrelTweaker.jpg.html)
The only scopes I've owned that couldn't be optically centered via the "mirror method" and have the result close to the "mechanical centering method" of counting clicks stop to stop and dividing by two were the two 4-12 Hawke Airmax scopes I had and the 4-12 Hawke Panorama. When I used the Hawke recommended "mechanical centering method" and checked the adjustment via the "mirror method" the view in the mirror showed the reticle WAAAAAY off center in the upper right corner of the view! I don't know what it was with the three Hawkes I owned but I tried centering the reticle via "mirror", "counting clicks stop to stop", and the tedious "spin the scope in vees" methods and NONE of those methods had agreement concerning the centering of the reticle!
LOL.....my Bushnell, weaver, Vortex ( and even the $70 4-16 Center Point scope) had a reasonable agreement between the optical and mechanical centering the reticle, but not the Hawkes!!!
-
I think it may be a good idea to just "exercise" the turrets by rotating them in each direction by a turn and then returning them to home. Just to move everything. I'm one of the fans of using the "Plum Line" method to center the scope. Also "tap on the turret" a few times, after adjusting, to make sure the springs and everything settles properly.
-
Truthfully so far I just use the pull it out of box and shoot at the target and sight it in. Been Lucky I Guess)
Ist 21 shots WITH HW50s and when done I had it hitting in general 1.5 to 2.0 inch, but then I noticed scope had slpped back a hair well maybe 3 to 5 hairs.
I stopped and loosened scope mount and went over everything, even some loctite liguid on dovetail rail.I then put loctite tape on the 3 mount screws and 8 ring screws. Then I put piece of scotch tape directly back of mount and each ring to make it easier for me to see if there was slippage on any component.
I waited 36 hours and I checked the scotch tape after every 5 shot grouping, NOTHING MOVED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
I had dime quarter groupings and I even killed an insect. This is only at 5 yards so it's nothing to write home about. I am also sitting and using a tripod. Other news is I'm learning how to cock it and close correctly at least better than first outing.
We are in a heat spell here so shooting for me is limited if I don't get out early I had other chores this morning.
The Rekford trigger is a big jump up from the other 2 stock rifles. Quest/Whisper.
-
Supposedly, a scope performs best when its near optical center, which is what doing the procedure you described accomplishes. But optical center doesn't always even get you "on the paper". You are still gonna have to adjust the scope to get it zeroed. However, if you have to max out the scope in either direction to get it sighted in, then you have a mount or barrel droop problem that needs addressed. Usually barrel droop on break barrels will cause you to run out of upward adjustment.
Some guys go to great lengths with custom mounts, shims in the rings, etc to get their scope sighted in near optical center. That may be beneficial to some degree on a heavy recoiling powder burner shooting at a 1,000 yards, but I don't think it makes a lick of difference on an airgun. I just mount mine and sight it in, and if its near the end of its adjustment range, I'll try and see whats out of whack. But if it will sight in, and hold zero without shifting around, I don't worry about it. And counting clicks doesnt always get you in optical center anyways. Heres a better way, and it's more fun than counting clicks ;D :
Now if you have a cheap scope and its clicked way out in either direction to get zeroed, and you are getting slight POI shifts with a springer, changing mounts and getting the scope more near optical center may fix it. But in my opinion, a scope that shifts isnt worth fooling with in the first place.
This is all just my two cents. But if you're bored, just try it as it is fun to tinker with! ;)
+1 Very well said, I concur. Tapping on a scope is like knocking on wood, maybe it'll bring some 'Good Luck'?
-
Tapping on the Turret, is old school. It's to ensure that the springs inside get a chance to neutralize, in their newly compressed position. It helps in their rotation, as they move. It is very small and important as a detail.
If nothing else.... I'll keep "Tapping the Turret", even if it only gives me a "Luck" factor... Heck Yeah. :D
-
RE the "mirror method", a question and a few comments.... Doesn't it rely on the outside rim of the objective lense being perfectly square with the centerline of the scope?.... I've checked a few scopes to see how square the front is to the tube, and some are good, some are out by quite a bit.... I have one (a $200 scope) where if you put a Machinists square on the front of the Objective and then measure from the square to the tube just in front of the turrets, the difference is about 0.080" (2mm).... To me, that means that the reflection of the crosshairs would not align with the crosshairs by half that amount (eg. 0.040" or 1 mm) over a distance of 7 inches.... Over 100 yards (3600"), that would be 3600/7 = 514mm or about 20".... That would be about 80 clicks off center, by my calculations.... Not only that, but rotating the Objective may or may not cause the reflection to "walk around" in a circle, depending on if the lack of squareness is in the rotating part of the bell or in the threads that it rotates on....
It would seem to me, therefore, that using a mirror to center the crosshairs "optically" may not be the best method.... If the Objective is not square to the tube, I would think that the mirror, likewise, would not reflect the image of the crosshairs straight back down the center of the optical path.... Counting clicks relies on the manufacturer centering the parts in the tube properly, which may or may not be the case.... That leaves us with rotating the scope in vee-blocks bearing as far apart as possible on the tube as likely being the best method, IMO....
Bob
-
RE the "mirror method", a question and a few comments.... Doesn't it rely on the outside rim of the objective lense being perfectly square with the centerline of the scope?.... I've checked a few scopes to see how square the front is to the tube, and some are good, some are out by quite a bit.... I have one (a $200 scope) where if you put a Machinists square on the front of the Objective and then measure from the square to the tube just in front of the turrets, the difference is about 0.080" (2mm).... To me, that means that the reflection of the crosshairs would not align with the crosshairs by half that amount (eg. 0.040" or 1 mm) over a distance of 7 inches.... Over 100 yards (3600"), that would be 3600/7 = 514mm or about 20".... That would be about 80 clicks off center, by my calculations.... Not only that, but rotating the Objective may or may not cause the reflection to "walk around" in a circle, depending on if the lack of squareness is in the rotating part of the bell or in the threads that it rotates on....
It would seem to me, therefore, that using a mirror to center the crosshairs "optically" may not be the best method.... If the Objective is not square to the tube, I would think that the mirror, likewise, would not reflect the image of the crosshairs straight back down the center of the optical path.... Counting clicks relies on the manufacturer centering the parts in the tube properly, which may or may not be the case.... That leaves us with rotating the scope in vee-blocks bearing as far apart as possible on the tube as likely being the best method, IMO....
Bob
Perhaps all you've said is true, however the result I get when centering via the "mirror method" and "counting clicks dividing by two" were close enough that I used the simple "mirror method" for all my scopes except the three Hawke scopes I owned. What I'm wondering about the 4-12 Hawke Airmax and Panorama is how I could get three DIFFERENT reticle centerings if I used the "count clicks divide by two", "rotate the scope in vees", or the "mirror method"! Seems that the reticule should have the same centering with the Hawke scopes if I "counted clicks/2" or the tedious centering method of "spinning it in vees".......but not so with the three scopes of that brand which I owned.
Actually, I'm not concerned with reticle centering to a tenth millimeter precision, just that the reticle is close to the optical center since I fine tune the point of impact with the turrets after bending my barrel till the poi is within about 1/2" or the aim point at 30 yards.
-
It's a simple matter to confirm that if the objective bell is not square to the centerline of the scope any attempt at centering by using a mirror against it is futile.... Tilt the mirror and watch the image move around relative to the crosshairs.... proof positive that to use the mirror method, the bell must be perfectly square to the centerline.... For a 50mm objective, every thou (0.001") it is out of square will create an error in optical centering of about 2 MOA using the mirror method....
Bob
-
It's a simple matter to confirm that if the objective bell is not square to the centerline of the scope any attempt at centering by using a mirror against it is futile.... Tilt the mirror and watch the image move around relative to the crosshairs.... proof positive that to use the mirror method, the bell must be perfectly square to the centerline.... For a 50mm objective, every thou (0.001") it is out of square will create an error in optical centering of about 2 MOA using the mirror method....
Bob
Well......I ONLY have 40mm scope belles, however if the mirror method and the click/2 method gives similar results (it does with my Vortex Diamondback, Bushnell Elites, and even the cheap $70 WallyMart CP) I'm satisfied with the simple mirror method results I get.
I still don't understand why the Hawke scopes I owned would give different results using the click/2 ot spin in vee method unless the reticle isn't centered in the scope to begin with! Perhaps this has something to do with the reason BOTH 4-12 Hawke Airmax scopes I owned would laterally shift the poi simply by focusing from 18 yards to 10 yards.........
Here's a scan of the target shot with my first Hawke Airmax before even zeroing the brand new scope........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/wved/Airgun%20Targets/Hawke1018YardGroups.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/wved/media/Airgun%20Targets/Hawke1018YardGroups.jpg.html)
Here is a scan of the target shot by the second Hawke Airmax that was sent after the first was returned to Hawke.............
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/wved/Airgun%20Targets/HawkeTarget.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/wved/media/Airgun%20Targets/HawkeTarget.jpg.html)
It's obvious to me that the precision of the two samples of this particular Hawke line isn't good enough to be concerned with the objective being "out of square" enough to create a 2 MOA deviation!
What I don't understand with the
-
My brain would suggest that the reason your Hawke gave a different result using the mirror method than the vee blocks is that the end bell wasn't square to the tube.... I have a scope here that is out 20 MOA....
Bob
-
It would seem to me, therefore, that using a mirror to center the crosshairs "optically" may not be the best method.... If the Objective is not square to the tube, I would think that the mirror, likewise, would not reflect the image of the crosshairs straight back down the center of the optical path.... Counting clicks relies on the manufacturer centering the parts in the tube properly, which may or may not be the case.... That leaves us with rotating the scope in vee-blocks bearing as far apart as possible on the tube as likely being the best method, IMO....
Concur, though no scope expert, this is exactly what I found recently. The mirror and counting method require too many mechanical things to be correct to be reliable.
Had good luck with the mirror method on a Burris and a Hawke, it was a joke on a Center Point. Same with the mechanical click counting, was way off on the scopes I tried, and a beast to do on itty-bitty adjustment nibs with big fingers.
I just made up another vee block and it works great. The more I use that method, the faster I get at the centering.
What I need to remember is the tapping on the turrets after setting it at zero and rechecking to make sure it stays set.
-
It's a simple matter to confirm that if the objective bell is not square to the centerline of the scope any attempt at centering by using a mirror against it is futile.... Tilt the mirror and watch the image move around relative to the crosshairs.... proof positive that to use the mirror method, the bell must be perfectly square to the centerline.... For a 50mm objective, every thou (0.001") it is out of square will create an error in optical centering of about 2 MOA using the mirror method....
Bob
Actually, the objective lens isn't the only one in the "stack" and the purpose of the "mirror test" is to determine that the reticle is in the center of the image AFTER the image gets twisted and contorted going through the objective, erector, ocular and other lenses in the "stack". It's hard for me to imagine that all lenses in the "stack" are in a precise position in the tube within a couple thousandths. Matter of fact, I even wonder if the AO threads may occasionally be crooked skewing the image a bit. I still don't know why the two 4-12 Hawke Airmax scopes I owned would laterally shift the point of impact simply by focusing from 18 yards to 10 yards but they did. The only other scope I've owned that did the same was a 4-12 Barska AO that I tried years ago!
Anywhoo........I think I'll go back and re-try the manufacturer recommended "clicks/2" method, adjust the barrel accordingly, and actually SEE if the new adjustment makes any difference at all as it pertains to the preciseness of a scope rangefind or the optical performance in general.
Perhaps I'm being a bit too concerned about "minutia" that has no bearing on scope performance between 10 yards and 55 yards.
-
I'll try one more time to explain that it's not the LENS being crooked that is the problem, it is the front edge of the objective bell, which is the surface you place the mirror against.... If that surface isn't square to the centerline of the scope, then using a mirror is a waste of time, and in fact will give you the wrong results....
Bob
-
I'll try one more time to explain that it's not the LENS being crooked that is the problem, it is the front edge of the objective bell, which is the surface you place the mirror against.... If that surface isn't square to the centerline of the scope, then using a mirror is a waste of time, and in fact will give you the wrong results....
Bob
This afternoon I verified that centering the reticle of my 4-12 Vortex Diamondback scope using the "clicks/2" gives ALMOST the same poi at 18 yards as using the "mirror method". I had about 1/4" poi difference at 18 yards but this deviation might even be attributed to the fact that I dismounted & remounted the scope during the testing.
I DO realize that an AO with a crooked front edge will affect the image in the mirror, however I never thought that the AOs of BOTH Hawke Airmax and the Panorama I owned would be so "crooked" while my Vortex, Bushnells and even the $70 Center Point didn't have this issue to the degree that I found an issue! Perhaps this is the reason I got focusing related horizontal point of impact shifts when focusing the Airmax, however the Panorama also had a considerable discrepancy between the "mirror centered" and "clicks/2" reticle centering methods.....yet no focus related poi shifting!
Peace my friend, thanks for your feedback! The test did show to my satisfaction that my long held practice of "mirror method reticle centering" isn't really necessary with my Diamondback.........but perhaps all that's necessary is a "mechanical reticle centering" via "clicks/2" that basically only puts the reticle carriage in the center of the tube so there is equal "spring pressure". Funny thing is that once the scope is zero'd on a particular gun (especially one with barrel droop or snoop) this "equal spring pressure" gets upset anyway which defeats the mechanical centering done in the first place. Enter the adjustable mount or perhaps barrel bending!
I shoot hunter class field target where I use scope rangefinding at 12x so I've been partial to optically centering the reticle (via mirror) rather than mechanically centering. I think that I'll do another test when the weather clears up to see if "clicks/2" makes any difference in the accuracy of 12x scope rangefinding from 10 yards to 50yards. LOL....at 12x max the deapth of field for the scope is so deep that it's difficult to scope rangefind with any accuracy past 30 yards!
-
I'll try one more time to explain that it's not the LENS being crooked that is the problem, it is the front edge of the objective bell, which is the surface you place the mirror against.... If that surface isn't square to the centerline of the scope, then using a mirror is a waste of time, and in fact will give you the wrong results....
Bob
Thanks Bob for the help!
See my "old dog learnin' new tricks" post on the "Optics forum"!
-
If I learned anything, it was that scope centering takes patience!
Great idea on the barrel straightening tool, I have a crooked barrel beggin' for that. Thanks 8)
-
Alright, another dumb question (don't have any other kind) I'm assuming the lower the scope mount the better. But I like a higher mount, for whatever reason it's easier on my neck etc.
-
Alright, another dumb question (don't have any other kind) I'm assuming the lower the scope mount the better. But I like a higher mount, for whatever reason it's easier on my neck etc.
Higher mounts benefit the mid and longer range pellet trajectory, however for the lower mounts benefit the short to mid range pellet trajectory. At the field target course where the shooter is "clicking on" I frequently see VERY high scope mounts, but for the hunter class shooters like myself that must use only "hold over/under" aiming I've found the lower mounts to be an asset. The problem with high mounts and holdover aiming (like when hunting and hunter class field target) is the fact that the pellet is rising quickly to the line of sight so there needs to be extremely precise holdover/under (determined by the zero distance) to get the pellet through a small 3/8" killzone at say 11 yards.
-
Thank you nced
I'm now getting worried, I have been hanging around here too long. I actually understood that and new scope is going on a lower mount.
-
Thank you nced
I'm now getting worried, I have been hanging around here too long. I actually understood that and new scope is going on a lower mount.
Actually, you can get a Leapers high ring set from Pyramyd for around $10 and the medium rings for around $8. Get BOTH and see which works best for YOU! A;; shooters are different and one size definitely doesn't fit all!
I recently bought a newer version of a 4-16x Center Point scope and found that the "knobs" on the scope AO wouldn't allow focusing the scope if it was mounted in a Sportsmatch medium mount, however it would work if I put the scope in my medium BKL mount since it's about 1/16" taller. Here's a pic of the "knobs" I'm referring to..........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/wved/Airguns/Scopes_Mounts/CPointScope.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/wved/media/Airguns/Scopes_Mounts/CPointScope.jpg.html)
Even with the BKL mounts the scope can't be focused if the supplied flip up lense covers. While the "smooth AO" type scope like the 4-12x40 Vortex Diamondback and Bushnell scopes with a 40mm AO works fine with Leapers medium mounts, I still need to notch the scope cover to span the close distance between the AO and the R8 receiver..........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/wved/Airguns/Scopes_Mounts/NotchedScopeCover.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/wved/media/Airguns/Scopes_Mounts/NotchedScopeCover.jpg.html)
Anywhoo.......this brings up another point.........all "medium" mounts aren't the same height, the scope AOs also aren't all the same size so you may need a high mount especially if the scope has one of those 50mm+ Mount Palomar telescope size AOs! ::)
-
Higher mounts benefit the mid and longer range pellet trajectory, however for the lower mounts benefit the short to mid range pellet trajectory. At the field target course where the shooter is "clicking on" I frequently see VERY high scope mounts, but for the hunter class shooters like myself that must use only "hold over/under" aiming I've found the lower mounts to be an asset. The problem with high mounts and holdover aiming (like when hunting and hunter class field target) is the fact that the pellet is rising quickly to the line of sight so there needs to be extremely precise holdover/under (determined by the zero distance) to get the pellet through a small 3/8" killzone at say 11 yards.
Interesting topic. My CZ200s uses a UTG 30mm HIGH mount with a Weaver Kaspa 3-12X 44mm scope. This gives a little better cheek weld for me, and I have learned to shoot it fairly well out to 55yds. Initially, I installed this High mount, thinking the Medium would not give enough bell clearance. But, for the reasons you site, I have -- coincidentally -- found the High mounts good at the longer range, too.
However,
My CZ200s/Pardini FT Pistol uses the same scope with a UTG 30mm MEDIUM mount. Clears the Weaver bell just fine, and great for the 10-30yd range in FT Pistol matches, and has all the advantages you note.
I continue to wonder if I should convert the rifle to the medium mounts. But since I seem to shoot well with it as is, I'm really reluctant to change it out. Your concise and well written explanation of the differences convinces has me thinking I have the right mounts for the applicable ranges (High out to 55yds, Medium out to 30yds). I'd like to be convinced otherwise, but I'm starting to feel there is no real reason to hurry along with any change.
-
I continue to wonder if I should convert the rifle to the medium mounts. But since I seem to shoot well with it as is
Well I think if the gun/mount properly works for you it's a done deal.
-
Anybody ever tried the mount below.
Instapark® One Piece High Power Magnum Airgun Scope Mount Stop Pin.
-
I read that when purchasing a new scope before mounting windage should be run all the way to a stop, it should then be run the opposite way, lets say 400 clicks till it stops then back it up 200 clicks. This is done to both adjustments. Up and down and side to side.
Then you mount scope and start adjusting scope sights. Would not a new scope already have this adjustment done.
I just get a scope, mount it and adjust scope sights while I shoot. Hope I explained it properly
A month or so ago I tried a scope on my old Quest and it did not happen. I adjusted as high as it would go and still was 2 or 3 inches below ctr. I was more interested in HW 50s and did not go further.
Yesterday after doing the count clicks program I remounted scope and I had 195 clicks to play with on elevation. Long story short, after moving elevation up 90 clicks all was good. The last 6 shots were on the button of quarter sized bullseyes and 2 were actually dead ctr. This was only 15 ft but it also was a breezy day. Again I became a legend in my own mind.
Now it's the only way I will ever adjust the ctring of a scope and actually thought it was not gonna change anything. No way I understand the mirror stuff and don't believe I have enough years left to accomplish the mirror feat.
Still wondering why they don't come new with I guess you would call a rough click centering progam. The good news is now when I get future new scopes I will at least do the click progam.
One last thing does anybody do the tapping of scope while adjusting.
-
Although my scope arrived before my gun, I couldn't resist trying out the mirror method with my new scope. Lo and behold i could actually see cross-hairs and the reflection without difficulty. It only took 4-5 clicks on both axis to get the images to overlap. Then as a sanity check I took the scope to a different mirror and it was still spot on.
so, am I to assume that Hawke (in this case) sends their scopes with the reticle somewhat centered rather than just randomly assembled?
I realized that the mirror method is to get the scope close to alignment and until it is put on the rifle it doesn't make much difference. I watched the video (earlier post) of the man rolling the scope back and forth 90 degrees but he really wasn't explaining what he was doing. Could someone elaborate as to what to watch for?
as far as getting the vertical cross-hair aligned with the scope, i plan to use the plumb bob method. that reduces the procedure down to one thing, is the gun level? the string from the plumb bob is as close to vertical as one can get, so the dependent variable here is the leveling device on the scope.
has anybody compared a bubble level vs a leveling app on a smart phone? the app i have can measure down to .1 degree. If it "is" accurate, i doubt i could detect .1 degrees on a bubble level...or could i? time do some tests!
-
so, am I to assume that Hawke (in this case) sends their scopes with the reticle somewhat centered rather than just randomly assembled?
Well I assumed all scopes were sent with reticles somewhat centered. But if they are why would Hawke give instructions on how to get reticles "somewhat centered".
-
Gun doesn't have to be level with the plumb bob method, or any long vertical line. Think about it, and you'll see.
-
Gun doesn't have to be level with the plumb bob method, or any long vertical line. Think about it, and you'll see.
OK.....now this old timer is again confused!
I shoot hunter class field target and I use holdover to adjust the poi at various ranges. Aligning the vertical scope crosshair with the plumb bob at least aligns the row of dots on my vertical reticle with the pull of gravity. Since the pellet rises from the bore about 1 1/2" lower than the line of sight the pellet will then fall due the the force of gravity. Even at my zero distance the poi will fall left or right of the aim point depending on the tilt of the rifle. Now if my vertical reticle isn't aligned with gravity (crooked) and I use the crosshair for zeroing at 25 yards, then I use my second lower dot on the reticle (also not aligned with gravity) to aim at a 50 yard killzone, my pellet will fall off to the side.
This is the reason I take pains to align the vertical reticle to gravity with a level on the barrel pivot block. That way I get a "feel" of when the vertical crosshair is indeed vertical and aligned with gravity.
-
so, am I to assume that Hawke (in this case) sends their scopes with the reticle somewhat centered rather than just randomly assembled?
Well I assumed all scopes were sent with reticles somewhat centered. But if they are why would Hawke give instructions on how to get reticles "somewhat centered".
LOL.....I owned three hawke scopes (two AirMax + one Panorama) and the reticle centering of none of them agreed when I centered the same scope using a mirror, counted clicks stop to stop and divide by two (the Hawke recommended method), or the spin the scope in vees method (recommended by Mike at Hawke support). The hawkes were indeed a rare bird relative to reticle centering by different methods, well, compared to my cheap $80 4-16 Center Point, my 4-12 Vortex Diamondback, or the 4-16 Bushnell Elite 4200 I used to own!
-
i still don't understand why folks bother to "center the reticle" on their scopes . once it's mounted on the gun it'll have to be taken off center to adjust to the chosen range of the shooter .
.................. but ........... i'm a newbie ???
-
i still don't understand why folks bother to "center the reticle" on their scopes . once it's mounted on the gun it'll have to be taken off center to adjust to the chosen range of the shooter .
.................. but ........... i'm a newbie ???
If the scope is centered the turret movement is more precise. So that's where the mounts have to be adjusted to compensate for the POA to match the POI when sighting in. Also not to run out of adjustment at longer range.
-
Yesterday after doing the count clicks program I remounted scope and I had 195 clicks to play with on elevation. Long story short, after moving elevation up 90 clicks all was good. The last 6 shots were on the button of quarter sized bullseyes and 2 were actually dead ctr. This was only 15 ft but it also was a breezy day. Again I became a legend in my own mind.
Above was done on my Quest that I previously tried to mount the scope on and ran out of adjustment trying to raise POI.
I was a sceptic but thought I'll give it a try and lo and behold it actually worked. It was kinda a pain in the butt doing it and not thinking it would work but it did.
Now the next pain in the butt are the warnings that if you use that method it can sometimes damage scope instead of help it. aaaaaggggggghhhHHHHHHH!!! This stuff can get confusing.
-
Gun doesn't have to be level with the plumb bob method, or any long vertical line. Think about it, and you'll see.
NCED. If the muzzle is pointing up or down, the scope still tracks the vertical line, with the vertical reticle that you are adjusting. Even with a canted rifle, using the scoperings to rest the scope in, you will still swivel the scope reticle, to the vertical line, for centering adjustments. The gun is nothing but a rest at this point. Once the scope is properly centered, add the tops to the rings, and set the scope leveled with the rifle. I've used the box with cut Vee notches method, and it's worked for me. Either way works. Hope this helps. ;)
-
i just watched this video on youtube
http://youtu.be/SoJhvFpjlDA (http://youtu.be/SoJhvFpjlDA)
by Tom Gaylord.
he talks about looking through the scope with both eyes open in order to align the vertical cross-hair with the rifle.
Unfortunately, he never explains what he is looking at or looking for?
can anybody explain or provide a link to a video that explains it?
-
...basically you look at the rifle, and into the scope, and mentally check that you aren't canting the rifle, and being "hypnotized" by just the vertical reticle. Just a vertical rifle check. Everything straight up/down/\