I have already posted on the optics and lever action forums and was directed here.

Has anyone here on the fire had any experience with them.

I am thinking about putting one on an Turnbull 45-90. The Winchester B series

Any advice.

Don't think they make a side mount, which would be required on a top eject lever gun like the '86.

I was kind of wondering about the brass ejector situation my self.

Some of the old westerns had hem in it but that is Hollyweard not real life

Hollyweard magic. Kinda like 8 shots out of a SAA without reloading

They are pretty good little scopes. The cross hair is a little fine,but I believe they'll let you pick the crosshairs in them now.
Mounting on a top eject levergun will take a side mount, but you might ask them if they have one or know of where to get one.

I have both a 23" MVA in their conventional vernier mounts, and a MVA B5 in the "grasshopper" mount that comes with it.

I can't envision a practical way to mount one on a top ejecting lever rifle. Even if possible, it would be an expensive royal PITA.

Put a good tang sight on it and you'll be both period cool and have a good shooter.

JMO

Paul

MVA scopes are good equipment, but inappropriate for that rifle. Think tang sight....as Paul suggested. They just plain work.

I don't know if inappropriate is quite the right word, it sure is something that Winchester spent 4 total pages in their 1916 catalog extoling the virtues of their telescopic sights...on all their lever action rifles...
Hard part will be finding a decent side mount for that scope.

Well, I'm looking at it from the perspective of necessity, utility and maybe a dash of blasphemy, hence "inappropriate".

Find a side mount and what, drill holes in that piece of art? No way...

Saddle it up with a scope and convert a handy functional saddle gun into something a bit awkward? Nah....

Jimmy Stewart never did such a thing in the movies.

Nope, there ain't but one practical, functional and graceful way to make that one run. Tang sight. Cheap, proper and effective.



You got two screws on the left side, widely spaced. Not a lot of stability inherent in that geometry.



Maybe irrelevant to the OP, but methinks a lot of folks are wary of apertures and peeps due more to lack of familiarity than anything else. They just work on so many levels it is silly to ignore them for either target or field use.

Went to the range awhile back, put my 66 year old eyes on the flinter and popped 5 into 2" at 50 offhand. Good enough for field work given cataracts in the aiming eye IMO. That works due to the sight radius being looooong on a 42" barrel.

Then put the Stevens 44 on the bags for the first time,using a MVA schuetzen verier. .25-20 SS, 19 gr Swiss 1.5 and a Lyman 257283 etc. 10 in less than 2" is a good start, but not great. Such sloppy shooting was not the fault of the sight. Another gun, a 513T has a Redfield Olympic sight system on board and will do 10 for less than an inch by fair margin at the same distance. My point is that aperture sights are functional for both short and long range work. Most any BPCR or schuetzen style shooter recognizes such things.

Ramble over,

Dan

Could care less what some Hollywood historian says or does..
I will refer you to pages 105-109 of the 1916 Winchester catalog for the final word in "authenticity"
Stevens 44? you mean like this?


The hell ya beller....

Yeah, sorta, you betcha.

My ol' 44 is bone stock original save for the hole in the forearm where the palm rest was once mounted. Tight as a drum and about 90% exterior condition. It do have a very minute ding in the crown which needs attention. There's a little crack in the forearm too. I call it character. It ain't all gussied up like your'ns. Pretty piece rat thar.

I see no scope on either piece. I fergot that cowboys tend to wear striped shirts. Rednecks trend toward checked shirts. Damn ol' Mississippi River anyhoo.

Was doing ok on this one until the rattlebug started gnawing on my ankle.



Was done by this one at 50, elbow rest with a Lyman tang sight. .25-20 Win.



Fella wants to scope an old gun it ought be appropriate.



The 44



Food, and yes, I can't spell.

Scopes? Somebody hasn't seen any scopes


Oh yeah and that middle one is the MVA B5.

Oh Yeah!?









What ya gonna do?

CallGHost Busters...

Dang it, you win!

What is that rig in the top of the rack?

OK, since we're into show and tell, here are my two Miroku "walls", each wearing an MVA scope.

I recently made a post about the .22 low wall on another forum, and got a fairly predictable response from a purist type offering the usual disparagements of the japwalls: not a true 1885, complex lawyer designed innards that are hard to work on, no set trigger, etc., etc. When I posted recent groups from the .22 including one five shot group of 1.4 inches at 200, and three consecutive 10 shot groups running an inch or under at 100, he didn't have any more to say. In the interest of full disclosure and honesty, the low wall wears a Lilja barrel, but the trigger with a Shaver modification has held crisp 1.5 pounds for a few thousand rounds. The add-on ebony pistol grip of my own making might not be to everybody's aesthetic tastes, but I guarandamntee you that it feels good and works, just like the rest of the rig.

No, I wouldn't choose a Miroku action as a basis for a full custom job, but I doubt any builder could guarantee better accuracy than either of these rifles produces.

Paul

I would love to have a Browning/Winchester low wall stocked just like their BPCR high walls. Even better if they offered a custom grade barrel, like the Badgers that really made the BPCR version what it is.

Those who know these rifles are aware that a big weakness of the .22 low walls has been their hit-or-miss accuracy, due mostly to variable quality in their barrels. My son's has been a tack driver from day one, but the factory barrel on mine was a basket case, and that led eventually to the Lilja it now wears.

Business decisions, the market, and all of that.

Paul

I see on their site the lenses are coated. Knowing these are simple optical designs, how do they rate, optically? Are they inert gas filled?

I hunted this past year with one of Dad's old rifles, which had a Weaver k4 on board. I was successful, but with the sun in my face the glare was tough. I mention that because, vintage scopes are cool, unless you can't see through them.

Tex, I don't know the particulars of the MVA builds, but my single example is as clear and precise as any scope I own. I also have a a fair number of K series Weaver scopes, all rebuilds from Ironsight Never had a problem with glare with the finished product but optically they are not quite a match. Little challenged in low light, but otherwise perfectly functional for field use.

good resource, thanks!

Top of the rack is a C Sharps 75 wearing the 18in Leatherwood in DZ mounts.

Thanks, a trimmer leaner style I'd not seen in the past.