What could go wrong?

[That bald headed Geordie]

Over the past 4 months I have a vision problem in my right eye (mentioned on a previous post).

After getting a few replies I decided to continue shooting right handed but using my left eye and after purchasing a few items to get the scope up and left this is the set up. 

It looks Heath Robinson and works but I wonder if it would be detrimental to accuracy/rifle set up etc. 

A mate of mine described it as 'abortion' so feel free to say what you think, good or bad.

I could just put the scope back in the normal position and shoot left handed.

Cheers.

[Popsbengo]

my thoughts are that it will need to be clamped up good and solid as there's a lot of opportunity to get out of alignment.  If it were me I'd ensure my scope was optically centred and then bore sight with the offset of the scope maintained ie, put two marks to sight too, the same distance apart as the scope left offset. One mark for the scope cross hair and one mark for the barrel sighting. I'd then play around with the fittings to get the best sighting without touching the scope windage to ensure the best mechanical alignment. That way you know the scopes pretty much solid and all the adjustment on the windage will be predictable.

Hope that makes sense.

Best of luck

[dorg]

What got Joe West Riflestocks started was the same problem. I had a good friend who had a stroke in his right eye. We made him a stock with the coomb cut out very low so when you put your cheek on the stock which was right handed, your left eye comes in line with the scope. My mate shot the rifle for several years. This stock fits a 3 action Sako 75, its laminate. You are welcome to it if you have access to a Sako and what to try it. I think its in the heap in the corner.

[Dellboy]

2 hours ago, That bald headed Geordie said:

Over the past 4 months I have a vision problem in my right eye (mentioned on a previous post).

After getting a few replies I decided to continue shooting right handed but using my left eye and after purchasing a few items to get the scope up and left this is the set up. 

It looks Heath Robinson and works but I wonder if it would be detrimental to accuracy/rifle set up etc. 

A mate of mine described it as 'abortion' so feel free to say what you think, good or bad.

I could just put the scope back in the normal position and shoot left handed.

Cheers.

Just a thought  if it works then great  but 

Maybe quick release the main 45 deg angled rail so the scope isnt bashed in the case  and bond the other bits  together to eliminate movement  .

[The Gun Pimp]

I think it's brilliant if it works and with a low recoiling rifle it shouldn't be an issue.  Hopefully we'll find out on the 9th August.

[That bald headed Geordie]

3 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

my thoughts are that it will need to be clamped up good and solid as there's a lot of opportunity to get out of alignment.  If it were me I'd ensure my scope was optically centred and then bore sight with the offset of the scope maintained ie, put two marks to sight too, the same distance apart as the scope left offset. One mark for the scope cross hair and one mark for the barrel sighting. I'd then play around with the fittings to get the best sighting without touching the scope windage to ensure the best mechanical alignment. That way you know the scopes pretty much solid and all the adjustment on the windage will be predictable.

Hope that makes sense.

Best of luck

Thanks for your comments and although I tightened up the components I was/am concerned about scope alignment and the scope 'bending'.

I have used the rifle scope as per the photo in a tunnel range and it seems ok, but there might be a better mousetrap to eliminate any possible negative issues.    I don't like the idea of shooting left handed really but maybe as Dellboy suggested bond the bits together and have a quick release setup on the Picatinny rail on the rifle!

Cheers,  Les

[That bald headed Geordie]

1 hour ago, dorg said:

What got Joe West Riflestocks started was the same problem. I had a good friend who had a stroke in his right eye. We made him a stock with the coomb cut out very low so when you put your cheek on the stock which was right handed, your left eye comes in line with the scope. My mate shot the rifle for several years. This stock fits a 3 action Sako 75, its laminate. You are welcome to it if you have access to a Sako and what to try it. I think its in the heap in the corner.

Cheers Dorg for the info and a cut out on the comb was suggested by Des Parr.  Unfortunately due to the design of the rifle/comb that is not possible as it is made up of 3 pieces of aluminium.   The uppermost running the length of the rifle and is the main supporting piece and cannot be cut into.  The comb is made up of 2 more pieces bolted underneath the main supporting piece.

As for using the Sako stock that is very good of you but the action is a Tikka and is on a very heavy gun coming in at 46lbs approx.  

Thanks,  Les

[That bald headed Geordie]

1 hour ago, The Gun Pimp said:

I think it's brilliant if it works and with a low recoiling rifle it shouldn't be an issue.  Hopefully we'll find out on the 9th August.

Hi Vince,

I might use the extentions and use my left eye but might bond them to remove any minute movements as opposed to shooting left handed. 

Not sure yet if I will make it to the first 600yd shoot.

See you.  Les

[Silvermachine]

Would a counter balance on the right hand side not  help ?

[That bald headed Geordie]

5 hours ago, Silvermachine said:

Would a counter balance on the right hand side not  help ?

As my heavy gun weighs around 46lbs and the calibre is 6BRA I don't think it has a torque problem.  So a counter balance wouldn't be effective. But appreciated your comment Silvermachine.  

Cheers. Les

[Big Al]

Im confused about how you will zero the gun Les and whether or not you will need an offset aiming point out to distance.

With your line of sight no longer being directly over the barrel if you set the scope so the bullet converges with the barrel line at a given distance then it will cross the barrel line at that point and then be going the other way at a longer distance. This would then mean windage corrections would have to be in reverse?

Unless Im looking at this all wrong?

If your scope line of sight is say 3"-4" to the left will that means the barrel line and the scope line will remain parallel out to distance and your bullets will strike 3"-4" to the right of aim?

Its doing my head in.

Have you spoken with anyone who has actually done this successfully out to 1000yds? 

[Richiew]

Just a thought 

have you tried leaving the scope as originally and adding an i phone adapter to the eye piece , from video s on YouTube this could bring the image nicely in line for your left eye . Elevation and wind age would stay as normal and not a 45 degree vector .

 Cheers Rich 

[Big Al]

3 minutes ago, Richiew said:

Just a thought 

have you tried leaving the scope as originally and adding an i phone adapter to the eye piece , from video s on YouTube this could bring the image nicely in line for your left eye . Elevation and wind age would stay as normal and not a 45 degree vector .

 Cheers Rich 

Thats an interesting thought.

An alternative might even be a camera on the back of the scope displaying the image onto a tablet, a bit like what the cheap NV systems use.

That would really suit Les if he didnt have to hunker down behind the gun but set it up like an artillery piece using digital sighting technology! I can hear them moaning in the firing point already! 😁

[Popsbengo]

6 minutes ago, Big Al said:

Im confused about how you will zero the gun Les and whether or not you will need an offset aiming point out to distance.

With your line of sight no longer being directly over the barrel if you set the scope so the bullet converges with the barrel line at a given distance then it will cross the barrel line at that point and then be going the other way at a longer distance. This would then mean windage corrections would have to be in reverse?

Unless Im looking at this all wrong?

If your scope line of sight is say 3"-4" to the left will that means the barrel line and the scope line will remain parallel out to distance and your bullets will strike 3"-4" to the right of aim?

Its doing my head in.

Have you spoken with anyone who has actually done this successfully out to 1000yds? 

We went through this at an earlier post.  The offset is parallel and as you say, the bullet should strike the same offset at all distances.  If you just add that into your firing solution then you're back on target

 

[Popsbengo]

if you zero the scope then it can only be correct at one converging point.  The simple thing to do is use a ballistics app to do the simple geometry

 

[Big Al]

8 minutes ago, Big Al said:

An alternative might even be a camera on the back of the scope displaying the image onto a tablet, a bit like what the cheap NV systems use.

That would really suit Les if he didnt have to hunker down behind the gun but set it up like an artillery piece using digital sighting technology! I can hear them moaning in the firing point already! 😁

I can just hear Vince now, "ready to fire, your 5 mins starts now"!

 

[Big Al]

9 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

We went through this at an earlier post.  The offset is parallel and as you say, the bullet should strike the same offset at all distances.  If you just add that into your firing solution then you're back on target

 

That makes sense 👍

[Shuggy]

59 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:

We went through this at an earlier post.  The offset is parallel and as you say, the bullet should strike the same offset at all distances.  If you just add that into your firing solution then you're back on target

 

According to a ‘Forgotten Weapons’ video on YouTube, this method was often successfully used by WWI British snipers whose rifles had offset scopes.

[Ronin]

I would try it and see how it works from your zero point be that however far it is 

Then shoot it at the competition distances (preferably on a calm day ) so you have a known reference point should and I emphasise should you need any alterations due to the position of the scope I guess at 1000 your angular differences will be less than one degree and un detectable within the scope : barrel relationship 

[brown dog]

It'd be fairly easy to work out  - obviously the offset is nil at the zero distance and 'grows' either closer or beyond -  sketching in my mind, the offset will be repeated at the target at twice the zero distance.... if that makes sense

[furrybean]

You’re just allowing for spin drift lol 

[Popsbengo]

It's better to just offset a parallel scope, the error is constant and little room for mistakes in calculating for differing distance

[Popsbengo]

1 hour ago, Gluv said:

Might I suggest using the Devils hand ? 

Gluv🇬🇧

I give up, what dat ?

[Popsbengo]

ah...Sinistra

[brown dog]

6 hours ago, Popsbengo said:

It's better to just offset a parallel scope, the error is constant and little room for mistakes in calculating for differing distance

I'm struggling to get my head around the idea that the error could be constant.

I think it's more likely that tiny offsets aren't noticeable.

But looking at geordie's scope it' -what? 3" offset.

So, say collimate at 100m.

At 50m the impact will be 1.5" left

At 100 - zero

At 150m  1.5" right

200m 3" right

Etc

 

 

Collimating further out would reduce the apparent effect

Eg 300m collimate

100m 2" left

200m 1" left

400m 1" right

500m 2" right

 

Collimate at 1000m

500m 1.5" left

600m 1.2" left

800m  0.6" left

Etc

?