Anti cant consistency

This one might be useful, head movement isn't addressed that often.

With the combined effort of the vestibular sense, head movement and "muscle memory" one is able to far outdo the 1 degree resolution a scope bubble level usually offers.

Key to reaching this resolution was learning that the eyeballs will automatically try to straighten the sight picture and then learning to recognize what "straight" really loos like by looking at the reticle alone. I have also mounted my rifle at an angle so I can hold the rifle as my anatomy dictates - the scope is not level to the rifle stock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iChDlTNmk0I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norway

I have also mounted my rifle at an angle so I can hold the rifle as my anatomy dictates - the scope is not level to the rifle stock.

---

Interesting - I presume that wouldn't work with a canted base? Or is the difference insignificant?

I dont' have a grasp on the theory behind this, but I have been doing this with 0 MOA and 20 MOA bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chalkeye

Interesting - I presume that wouldn't work with a canted base? Or is the difference insignificant?

---

wrong axis dawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

wrong axis dawg

---

A 20MOA base angles the scope down one relative to the rifle (which presumably isn't vertical), but Norway would be dialling drop vertically, right?
Evidently doesn't make any difference, in any case.

as long as you are holding the rifle such that the reticle/adjustment is oriented vertically it doesn't matter

yeah but nah, surely a 20MOA base held anything but vertical is putting your LOS on the piss horizontally?

no more than a 0moa mount

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

no more than a 0moa mount

---

Insignificant or zero?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

no more than a 0moa mount

---

huh? If you held a rifle with a 20MOA base at 90 degrees, your scope would be pointing 20MOA left or right. Not so with a 0 MOA base.

Regardless, this argument is pretty fucking pointless :yaeh am not durnk:

your line of sight through the reticle is always at an angle to the bore (vertically, looking perpendicular to the bore) that's how you can zero your rifle. A 20moa base just gives you a little more angle to use for longer range shots. Zeroed at 100m the angle of line of sight through reticle to point of impact at 100m is the same with 20moa base or 0moa base.

if your scope is mounted to be tracking vertically with the rifle held on a cant you get a tiny angular displacement (unless you're holding it at 90° for some reason in which case the angular displacement would be your scope height over bore - i.e. 1.5 inches at 0, zeroed at 100 meters, 1.5 inches at 200 meters, and so on angularly increasing). But because no-one is stupid enough to hold their rifle at 90°, the angular displacement is just an insignificant fraction of an inch. The line of sight you are using remains the same whatever the base, the canted base just allows you to angle your line of sight further than the non-canted base

terrible explanation, good lord


and it's past my bedtime

do you need the good night kiwi to come back at 830 ;)

If I understand the question correctly (big chance I don't), it is being asked wether or not the forward 20MOA cant of the scope base will alter the elevation comeups for range?

That cant equals 0,9 degrees look angle and that doesn't alter the comeups even 1 click at 1200 meters.

Did that answer the question asked???