are most rifles/scopes really centered

[kzin]

Are most rifles really '0 MOA' and scopes centered in their range?

It seems like a waste if they are.
Half the adjustment range is then virtually useless.
Why would we ever want the bore pointing below the target?
seems like manufacturers would cheat a little towards aiming the bore above the target.

Like a '0 MOA' setup would really be 5 or 10 moa.

 

[sawcarver]

Put a 20 MOA rail from EGW and you'll be set in most situations

 

[NateHaler]

The average shooter probably doesn't shoot past 100y, and probably doesn't adjust their scope after they sight it in at 100y. And the average shooter probably doesn't know (or care) what the increment of adjustment is. How many of us have seen this hypothetical shooter at the local range, the weekend before the deer opener? Goes through 1.5 boxes of ammo just trying to hit paper, while his buddy "spots" for him.

So the fundamental design of a scope's adjustment mechanism might have its origins in that premise. Or not. I could totally be FOS.

I think if you want to research this subject more, then Ilya Koshkin is your huckleberry. See his blog (i.e. his old site, which has a link to the new pay-per-subscription site) here: https://opticsthoughts.com/

The forward cant of a scope rail can indeed help put the short range zero in the center of the adjustment range, but sometimes it results in the inability to get a short range zero because you've tilted the scope too far forward and the scope's adjustment range is small. You can also address this issue with tilt-adjustable scope rings, like the excellent Burris 'Signature' (formerly Pos-Align) rings. Google them...

On my first setup where I was concerned about scope adjustment -- because the course of fire was 200y to 1,000y and I had started getting a clue about "real" rifle shooting -- I had mounted my 1" tube mildot reticle scope on a flat base. (I said "started getting a clue"...)

I was using Redfield style rings, i.e. the front turned in via a dovetail mortise in the front base and the rear ring was held in place by opposing screws (which I suppose could also be used for gross windage adjustment, mamma mia!).

For my 100y zero, my scope was already 'up' about 10 MOA from center. In this case, I had just about 18 MOA of 'up' before I ran out. So, beyond 600y, I used the mildots for holdover aiming.

A scope with a range-estimating reticle and a sh*t load of internal elevation will most likely enable you to get a short range zero and shoot long range, maybe really long range, even with a flat base. But you need to know how to use your scope's adjustments and how to interpret the reticle.

 

[cdgaydos]

If you use a rail... you would need the “downward” elevation to sight at short ranges. However, you are correct... usually much is wasted. Disclaimer, I’ve never checked.

 

[ronemus]

Burris has caught on: the elevation on the XTR II 8-40x50 F-Class MOA scope runs 0-70 MOA instead of +/-35. However, they blew it with the windage which is marked 4.5L to 4.5R; have to stop and think for a moment if I dial more than 5 MOA.

 

[KY_Windage]

Are most rifles really '0 MOA' and scopes centered in their range?

It seems like a waste if they are.
Half the adjustment range is then virtually useless.
Why would we ever want the bore pointing below the target?
seems like manufacturers would cheat a little towards aiming the bore above the target.

Like a '0 MOA' setup would really be 5 or 10 moa.

With most of my rifles I center the windage but not the elevation. I want it just a few MOA above rock-bottom, so that I have (almost) all of the adjustment available for LR shooting. I always use Burris Signature rings, and usually a 20 or 25 MOA base, to accomplish that.

 

[kzin]

Put a 20 MOA rail from EGW and you'll be set in most situations

That's kinda my point.
Why isn't that the standard factory setup?

 

[dkhunt14]

That's kinda my point.
Why isn't that the standard factory setup?

I thought I read somewhere that the scope performs better in the center of adjustments. I use tapered bases because I like all the adjustment range available because I shoot far. Matt

 

[Ackman]

I thought I read somewhere that the scope performs better in the center of adjustments. I use tapered bases because I like all the adjustment range available because I shoot far. Matt

I've discussed several things with the service guy at Burris. One thing he told me was that the adjustments don't work well when maxed out and not do it. What I've always done with windage is center it and then use ring adjustments to get it zeroed. With elevation centered the whole bottom half of adjustments are useless. So I find center and then go down about 1/3 or so to get it centered on target. Most of the time I'll wind up using a .005" or .010" insert set in the front of Burris Signature rings

 

[wkdickinson]

For most situations, where you want to shoot from 200 to 1,000 yds. a 20 MOA rail does exactly what you are proposing - the 200 yd. zero is close to the bottom of the internal travel, so you have the majority of the elevation adjustment available for longer distances. I don't know if you can zero that set up at 100 yds. though, because I never shoot that close with those kinds of rifles.