Depends which agent responded to which letter from which guy who just had to write them , which became codified into law. Sorry, regulations. Which carry long prison sentences, and have all the force of law, just, ya know, some guy makes a decision based on his gut feeling rather than have people vote on it. So for all we know you’re right, and they may have backpedaled, forward pedaled, and did a backflip on the issue by now. (Jk about the backflip, we all saw the internal memo about the atf being fatties and the fear of pictures circulating working as anti-atf propaganda)Have to ask the atf. They might have walked back their shouldering the brace sbr bs.
youd have to see it to understand what I’m saying I guess. The way the reticle is positioned, “down” on the elevation is actually giving you diagonally down and to the left. “Right” on the windage is giving you diagonally down and to the right. It’s obvious when laid out like that, but when you’re just shooting thinking “ok shots need to come down” it can be easy to forget that aspect. Especially when you can’t see the hits because they’re a football field away and you don’t have a spotting scopeThe barrel is just a tube. It doesn't care how it's held. As long as you are holding gun in the same plane as the optic and there is now weird offset like on a Garand, up down right left are still relevant. Now if your 45° hold is actually 30° or 60°, that's a different issue.
I saw your setup and I've helped a buddy set up his just like yours. You have to have the gun laid over 45° then it's set just as it would be normally.youd have to see it to understand what I’m saying I guess. The way the reticle is positioned, “down” on the elevation is actually giving you diagonally down and to the left. “Right” on the windage is giving you diagonally down and to the right. It’s obvious when laid out like that, but when you’re just shooting thinking “ok shots need to come down” it can be easy to forget that aspect. Especially when you can’t see the hits because they’re a football field away and you don’t have a spotting scope
I found that if I was going to have to make the same holds anyway, it wasn’t worth the hassle. I was just thinking of something to do with it in the middle of the night and went with my first gut reaction as soon as the thought crossed my mind. I’ve had great success doing that, but also great failures. The latter can be great teachers. I understand what you guys are saying, and my best response is I wasn’t truly holding the gun at 45 degrees, or the Mount isn’t truly 45 degrees, OR neither of those things matter and whatever angle I needed so the reticle lined up as if it were just optimally sitting on top of the gun, i wasn’t getting. More trouble than It’s worth, I’m afraid. That thing cost a lot of my $5 too.To rephrase what Jack is saying...
If an optic is oriented in relation to gravity such that the reticle and turret adjustments are square, and it is mostly centered above the barrel (and dead center would be nice, but practically speaking, not that significant), you're good. If the optic is mounted with a 45 degree offset, and you rotate it 45 degrees to use it, and it's still above the barrel (it should be pretty close, it should be fine. If you're not rotating it 45 degrees to shoot it, that's probably pretty uncomfortable.
From a geometry standpoint, the problems most people have in terms of scope level, isn't whether the scope itself is precisely leveled in relation to the 'level' reference point of the rifle, but the consistency of level during shooting itself, and that variation really shows up at distance, where gravity and the vertical angular offset built into the optic/barrel alignment to compensate for vertical drop then gets tilted away from fighting gravity, and simply driving lateral error, and impact will drift horizontally towards the tilt, and slightly lower, based on the degree and direction of the tilt.
As such, if you're sighting in at distance, you probably want to first level your target, and shoot something with grid lines, assuming your reticle allows that with horizontal/vertical lines, so you can eliminate variations of tilt during shooting as much as possible, unless you've got a level you can see on the inside of your scope. I have heard of such things, but never had one.
My apologies, I thought I read all the replies and answered everything. I was a little depressed and have had multiple issues zeroing different optics on my socom II, aside from this zeroing issue on my mk18 experiment. Let me see what I missedHello, Sorry, but...
You're to late to the party, my friend.
The OP is Missing In Action...
I practice with irons and made sure to go out of my way to get what I perceive to be the best ones on the market (diamond head). I just really liked the idea of a 45 degree canted 3x prism. And the funny part is, I zeroed it 25/300 perfectly, then got annoyed when I couldn’t get POA = POI @ 100 yards, failing to realize I was trying to make a 25/300 zero operate as if it were a 100 yd zero, and in doing so I ruined the zero. I can zero it correctly again, but I figured why bother and just left the EOtech on. It’s a MK18, the EOtech pings steel at 300yds, and I know the closeup holds just fine. In regards to iron sights, I couldn’t agree more. I’m a big proponent of optics on pistols, and have found that once you get acclimated to them, your iron sights shooting improves exponentially. This only applies to pistols, not rifles. I also (semi)recently found a pistol that shoots so well (or I’m able to utilize it well enough) that I get no appreciable difference from an RMR vs irons, so I took it off and have been running just irons.Some optics are nice and make it easier to hit the target/bad guy/enemy/paper plate/deer/squirrel, etc. But nothing beats some practice with iron sights to keep your skills sharp.