Those beautiful lines of a Marlin 336, with open sights.....every time I think about puttin a scope on it, I just can't bring myself to doing it. Are there any scopes that don't just foul up the lines of a lever-action rifle?

IMO that is totally personal!!!

Nothing like making the hunt more interesting with iron sights!!!

Straight objective tube scopes look best in my opinion.Only problem is they don't gather light as well as others. I currently have two Leupold 4X on mine and think they look OK.

Yes. But you don't need one.

Two seasons ago I killed a spike bull elk with my .356win M94. It was wearing a Leupold 1-4, and I definitely would not have had a shot if I did not have a scope mounted, it was too dark to see a front sight at first legal light.
A couple years before, I killed a moose with the same rifle, at exactly 250 steps away. Hit it 2x out of three shots, both in the lungs. Would not have tried that shot without a scope. I used that rifle for years with a receiver sight, and I much prefer how it handled without a scope, but success beats convenience for me most times. The scope has stayed on.

Go for it.

I had 3 good bucks I had to let go the last day of deer season because while I could see horns with the binoculars I couldn't see them with the iron sights on my .45-70 marlin. I was in heavy brush, there were bucks and does both, milling around, changing positions. The first buck i saw, I put horns on, good rack. dropped the 'nocs, brought up the gun, decided to slow down and take a 2nd look to confirm. Wasn't a buck anymore, they'd changed positions and I'd dang near shot a doe I didn't have a tag for. After that I got even more cautious. Never could get a shot I was confident of. Even with a 4X they'd have been easy, real easy.

So, IMHO it's not only ok, I'd recommend it. Personally, I'm done with iron sights on rifles.

Tom

I have a leupold 4x compact on my 35 Rem and a old Redfield on my 45-70. I use one of those when I'm going to need a scope. Then when I can use open sights I use my model 71 .348 Win, 444, or 32 Sp. I guess for me it boils down to where I hunt. The post above is something to think about for sure. Feed the lever guns!!!

Joseph

Just my $.02 and I don't see too well either but I'm going to resist putting a scope on my levers (Browning B-92 .44 mag, Winchester Model 71 Deluxe .348 Win, Winchester repro 92 in .357, Browning Model 53 in .32-20 and Winchester Tribute 9422 Mag)because it just doesn't look/feel right to me. I did manage to get a deer this year and as long as I can still do that and shoot squirrels with the rimfire I hope I can stay with the factory irons for awhile at least...but no beef with those who scope...

Nope, not heresy.. though I consider it heresy to d&t any old lever that isn't already mangled. My eyes suck and I don't want to risk wounding an animal, so always a scope for me. Thrilled that others are good enough to hunt without though!

I have an old Weaver 2.5 on a Marlin .357. Shoots good, sits low and looks good. On other lever guns I have more modern scopes. Don't look as slick, but better for my eyes.

I like both, so I keep a Browning BLR with a scope on it, and I am far more deadly with it, then any of my non scoped leveractions, when the light starts to fade or distance starts to stretch a little, plus unless at very close range, I do better on running shots with a low powered scope, also.

I wouldn't have any problems scoping a Marlin, they were designed for it, and they don't carry quite a well as a Pre-64 Model 94 Winchester, anyway. Some of my guns like my Model 94's, my model 71's will never get a scope, but I have a nice little straight gripped Marlin 30/30 that I am considering mounting a scope on.

A 2x7 Leupold works pretty good on leveractions, and so does the 1.5x5 Leupold, but larger objective of the 2x7 is brighter at dusk. A fixed 4 power would be good too. Putting too bulky a scope on a leveraction would be a mistake, IMHO.

I won't own a rifle without a scope, and I prefer a Zeiss.

My old Marlin 336 st. grip carbine has a 3X Leupold in QD Talley mounts and it looks fine to me..I think the Marlins are nice with a scope as they were designed for scope use, so take advantage of it..You may need to shoot a doe in the head or a turkey, that scope would be handy for that.

I would never scope my Winchesters as they are not designed for scope use and I really like iron sights anyway..

These guns are ment to be used up to 200 yards and I don't need a scope for 200 yards and under.

Bottom line is the option is yours, do what you want to do, why ask?

Nice mother-in-law picture...

A friend had a Marlin levergun with a Zeiss 4x -- he used to joke that the scope was worth more than twice what the rifle was, but after looking through his scope after sunset I could sure see the advantages over iron sights!

He had made a nice traditonal-looking leather lace on "thingy" to give himself a good solid cheek weld because it was an older rifle with quite a low stock.

John

To my way of thinking, installing a scope on a "traditional" lever gun spoils what it was intended for. Quick shooting. As for the Savage 99 and BLR, they are fine for scopes,just don't want them on my Winchesters or Marlins. I've got bolt guns for scope hunting, but to each his own.
Virgil B.

Of course it's heresy! However, knowing what can happen to eyes and often as they age, I don't always think it is wrong to commit such a heinous act. I'll quit shooting my M94s before I scope them. However, the blockier Marlins I have are not so spoiled in balance by the addition of a small single power scope and I have scoped them from time to time.

Less svelte rifles or non-traditional types like the Sav 99 and BLR don't fall into my opinionated grouping of non-scopers. However, I still prefer scopes that don't rival the Hubble space telescope.

You can't scope a winchester. It just shouldnt be done, ruins the handling. Marlins are fine for those who wish to. (although I wouldn't personally scope a Marlin either.)
The Winchester rifles weren't intended for it.
(For example, I dont put scopes on Lee Enfields either. They weren't designed for them either.)
In a backwards way, I have a Sako that doesnt have open sights. I hvant gone and put some on even as a back up, although Ive thought of it, becasue those Finnish engineers never intended that rifle to be shot with anything except a scope.

One of these days you will not have the eyes of youth and you will still want to hunt with your lever action. Then you will see why we old guys put scopes on our LE.

You can trust me on this.

W

I have a Pecar 4x32 in a Weaver Pivot Mount on my Winchester 88, but I would not even consider it on my Winchester 94BB. On the latter I've got a Williams FP, but I seriously thinking on taking that away and putting the old irons back.

Peter

It's really personal preference. I certainly think it kills the handling characteristics of them, but you do what you need to do. I have some that have them and some that don't.







I put the scope on the Marlin 1894 for a hunt to Indiana. I think it will come back off now that I am back. I think it just "looks" a lot better and handles better this way.

If you need one, then by all means, mount one. I chose my lever rifles because I love how they pack and I love the challenge of open sights.

I have rifles set up both ways, but at 47 my 'iron' sights are peeps. One with a globe front. Caint quite do the original sight thing very well anymore.

At my age (almost 50) my eyes demand a scope. I do put smaller scopes on my lever actions compared to my bolt action rifles. I have a 6x fixed on my 30-30 and a 4x fixed for my 45-70. But I have not been able to allow myself to put a scope on my 39A. I don't hunt with the 39A so it's not as critical for a casual target gun.

I'm with Klik,
At 55 my eyes aren't what the used to be, but with the invention of fiber optics combined with a peep sight I do OK. When I can't see these, I'll prolly quit hunting.
Virgil B.

You might ... want to take a look at the: A O Sight Systems, Lever Scope mount & The Leupold M8 (2 1/2) Scout Scope combo.

This stuff's specifically designed for Marlin & Winchester lever-guns.

When used with a set of Weaver 'low rings', the result is very compact; the Leupold intermediate eye-relief scope is only 10" in length and adds very little weight to the rifle- and does not adversly affect the handling or the looks of your fine lever action rifle.

Call it denial, if you will (although sitting in front of the puter with strong reading glasses is simply my reality - no denying that), but I think there are many good choices to be had in sights other than factory opens before one needs to concede the "need" for a scope on a lever. At 50, I certainly know what the loss of my youthful vision means. However, I have found, since I yet have good distance vision, that a rear peep has extended my ability to use "opens." I also know that the use of a second aperture on the front - a globe sight- can allow very functional use of iron sights for target work.

Handgun sights are another story. However, I have learned from them, even though my eyes and brain tell me that they are quite fuzzy, that, with practice, I can still use them in a functional and productive manner. I just need to practice more. Imagine that. I get - make that "need" - to do again, what I did as a youngster; get out and shoot more. It is less of an option than it was when my vision was better. And who said getting older has no benefits?

These old eyes use all the advantages I can get.

I guess my feeling on the M94s is that when they are the multi-purpose "lawn and woods" versions, the ones set up both for hunting and golfing - they have the tee-off divot in the receiver - then do whatever you do with them. I have intentionally avoided those for personal reasons - not just because I don't golf .

This of course is the "heresy" option...

Just another old guy with Presbyopia here. I have scopes on all my lever guns. I am sold on the El Paso Weaver V4.5 20mm variable scope, and I love the old Denver Redfield 5 Star 20mm low power variables.

I have weaver 2 peice grand slam bases and Leupold quick release scope rings on all of my 336's. Open iron sights, then return to zero scope (1.5x5 Leupy) mounts. Best of both worlds.

I agree that leverguns look and handle better without a scope. But as I get older I find that I can't be accurate enough with open sights. (I can stay on an 8 inch shoot-n-see at 100 yds, really in about 6", but that's about it.) Aperture sights are a good compromise, as has been suggested. But, I still can shoot much more precisely with even a low-power scope.

I think a smaller scope in the 2-4x range with a 20 mm objective looks and handles best. A compact of some kind might also be a contender. But, you may find that you would like a bit more magnification. In that case you just have to live with the mismatched looks and be happy with better performance.

Good shooting!

Now that's an idea! I hadn't really considered the quick-release rings due to accuracy issues, but being as we're talking lever actions and not long range F-class rigs I don't see why they won't work just fine.

When I scope my lever I opt for the small compact scopes (Leupy 1-4x20, 1.5-5x20, 2-7x28, 2.5 etc) mounted as low as possible. They do not ruin the handling qualities of the levergun and are much better than open sights for aging eyes. I like a Williams FP peer with hi vis front sight as well.

At 51 I can still use a peep sight with success. I just hate the aesthetics of a scope on a levergun, other than a BLR or Savage. I have bolt guns with scopes when I feel the need to really reach out there.

That said, use what you want and need to!!!

I agree with McCann, well said.

Yes, scopes on lever guns is a heresy!!

Oh yes, I have 5 or 6 heresys in the safe.


.

Bushnell Scopechief 1.5-4.5 on a Mossberg 472. It is my rifle. I didn't buy it for it's looks. I didn't buy it to hang it on the wall. I bought it to shoot deer.

New Leupold FX 2.5 on a Marlin 1894S .44 Mag. I think it looks like it belongs there.

I find nothing wrong with scopes on levers. Makes all of them much better 150 yd rifles.

Scopes are anathema on a levergun, especially if handy carry, balance, and clean lines are important to you. If you hunt in the thick stuff at reasonable ranges the iron sights are fine. Go with a ghost ring rear sight instead. If ranges and eyes beg for a scope, the Leupie FX 2.5 looks more in place than all the others and answers the mail for more precise shot placement and 50+ year old eyes. Mannlicher's setup is a nice one.

Only if it interfers with ones access to the hammer and it requires installation of one of those offset thingys. The eye piece on my Leupold 2.5X Scout unit atop my Marlin 1895 sits about 4 to 5 inches in front of the hammer. I'll try to snap a photo tonight.

Here's the promised photo. Not too artistic as the light was low when I arrived home. I had never contemplated owning a lever unit until I saw the Scout scope setup. The front of the base anchors in the rear sight dovetail and rear of the base anchors to the front scope mount holes on the receiver. In my mind the ideal brush gun as access to the hammer area is not impeded at all.


1Minute

Of course it is heresy. Just like mixing Martells with ginger ale or putting catsup on a New York steak.

I've got dozens of scoped rifles and I like them for what they were developed to do. But to put a scope on a 94, a 303 Savage in the 99 or anything like a 66 or a 73 is just like putting flaming decals on a Bently. Can be done, but should it be?

Wayne

I picked up a 1964 336 RC straight stock in 35 Rem recently, and took the old Weaver 2 1/2X (post reticle) scope off my 336 Texan to put on it. Worked out great. But I had the 30-30 Texan at the range last week and I was amazed at how well I shot it offhand at 100 yards. I was dinging the 100-yard steel plate on almost every shot with the iron sights. I think I'll leave it alone or Scout it up with an XS rail and ghost ring rear. I can always add a scope in QR rings later if I feel the need.

...The straight answer is "NO". I've got a Weaver K-1 on my Winchester WranglerII 94AE in 38/55. It beats any peep sight I've ever used for quick target acquision, with no magnification it's lightning fast, super wide field of view , and in close cover it's deadly, even on running game! With 65 year old eyes it's just what the doctor ordered..

....Savage 99F in 284 Winchester carries a vintage Redfield scope, and although a bit heavy for my taste, the old Savage is a great old gun that delivers the best of nostalga with modern performance. A couple years back it dropped a fat doe for the table at 357 yards, my longest shot ever in Georgia.

My Savage 99s are scoped and they are my saddle guns when I get serious...

My 25-35 Win. SRC has iron sights and I hunt deer with it almost every year out behind my house if I draw a permit..I enjoy that. I also have a family 30-30 Win. SRC that I hunt with also..

I have a marlin 30-30 with a 1x4 Leupold scope that is a nice very accurate gun..

I also have a bunch of bolt actions...

Do what you want to do, why ask? You'll just end up more confused than ever if you read all the pros and cons you get on the internet about any subject!

I don't like 'em; but who cares what I like? If all I owned was a lever action I may be singin a different song. I love my peep sight over a '94.

Sacrilidge on an a pre-'64 Winchester but post '64's that are DT and newer Marlins all get 4x scopes on my end.

I would never drill and tap a collectible lever gun. Generally, scopes would look awful on 19th century lever guns. But, Marlin 336s, Savage 99s, BLR's all look just fine with scopes provided it isn't the Hubble telescope. In fact, I think a 336 or a Savage 99 looks naked without a low-end variable.

As Ray said, it's up to you. Personally, I don't scope any levers. I have a M70 .270 Win. for such duties. My main lever sports a Wiiliams FP and works just fine.

Looking at jbmi's picture above, the Marlin second-from-the-bottom is what I see when I have nightmares about scoped levers. The see-through mounts, not to mention the ultimate Marlin sin: A sling stud erroneously screwed into the decorative Marlin Bullseye. Egad!!!

Scott

I agree, I can't stand see through mounts. Still don't see the problem with scopes in general on levers though. Worked for me on Monday.

I have two Marlin levers both scoped. One with a vintage Redfield 2.5 widefield the other with a of all things a shotgun 1.5X5 scope I picked up pretty cheaply. Both scopes look good and can pick out deer in the brush I can no longer see with iron and naked eyes. The family has taken three deer with these rifles. I know what you mean about the clean lines of iron sighted levers (especially on a Winchester). But I don't feel the Scoped marlins lose any dignity at all!

I Minute, is that an AO Scout Mount?

I have one on my 336 in .35 Rem with the Leupold and I'm wondering which set of the mounts slots your scope sits in. My front mount can either go in the 4th back from the front of the 6th. The 4th gives a little better sight picture but seems muzzle heavy. The 6th balances better. Ideal would be the 5th but the mounting screws are in that one.

FWIW my barrel was cut back to 18.5".

I agree with Ray, do what YOU want. When some one else starts buying my gun for me then they can tell me how to use them. I have eight Marlins, six wear scopes. I like the old "El Paso" Weaver K3 or K4s on the older Marlins, they fit the guns and me better.

.

Well I might add that a scope add little to a 30-30 as its a 250 yard rifle at best. I don't really need a scope for a 200 or 250 yard shot, but I learned to shoot iron sights from childhood and in the high desert country where some shots were long..Many of todays baby boomers learned to shoot with scopes and they would be best advised to stay with them, or take a lot of time learning to shoot irons off hand.

My personal opinion, and its mine ONLY, is NEVER!!!!!! If I need a scoped rifle I have some of those too but they are not lever actions. Hard to ruin the looks of a bolt action---they are cluncky to look at in the very least, so throw a scope on it. But I wouldnt ruin the beautiful lines of a classic hammerless rifle like the 99.

Maybe the Williams peep fire sight is an option for the traditionalist. They make them for different models and most require no drilling fitting in the factory holes.
http://www.williamsgunsight.com

Tim Skinner makes wonderful sights as well!

http://www.skinnersights.com

I approach this topic pragmatic.

On the pig drive and dog work gun its Ghost/Post for field of view and quickness. 1895 G .45-70 above. A similar rifle rests in AK for work.
On the roe deer rifle, 336 .30-30 below, a have a 2,5 Weaver. This even so I am quite young (still) and have exellent vision. For roe deer (~ 35 pounds) I find the scope most helpful.

I put a 3-9x40 on my Winchester 94 this year, and shot the largest deer I've ever seen on the property I hunt (a large 8-pointer), and a bobcat about 5 seconds later. One of the best hunting days in my life. The deer was 179 paces and the bobcat 109. No way I could have done that with my open sights, which are HiViz fiber optic sights I installed about 4 years ago.

It is heresy to mount a scope on a 94, if you have to drill and tap the receiver. I used an S&K side-mount though, which they just started producing. It mounted easily into an existing action screw slot and the 2 receiver sight slots. Check it out... http://www.scopemounts.com

I have a Weaver 1-3 variable on my 30-30 336 and a Leupold 2-7X33 VX2 on my .243 Savage 99.

Scopes increase the practical capabilities of any rifle. As for the 99,..it's as accurate as a quality bolt rifle and the .243's useful range is far beyond most people's ability to shoot with open sights.

In my opinion, a rifle is incomplete without a scope.

To me it is heresy. They are meant to be fast handling rifles. You can make full use of their range (most of them) with a set of Lyman peep sights. Want a scoped rifle, look to a bolt action. That's the way I feel about it. YMMV.

While I will never put a scope on my old 92 Winchester I can see the reason why one would put a scope on a Lever Gun. When you get older your eyesight goes so scope up. My "new" Savage 99 looks great with a scope.

Scope



No Scope



It's all a matter of personal preference.

Yes, and no......













[img]http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0271.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0272.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0164.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0453.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0451.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0466.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/2muchgun/100_0454.jpg[/img]

I didnt read through all the replies so someone else has probably answered this but a scope with a 20mm objective,usually looks fine on a lever rifle. Something like the Leupold 1-5X 20mm vari X lll is a fine place to start.

I use a 1.5-5x20 Pro-Diamond shotgun scope on my .45-70 Marlin Guide Gun. Works good for me and looks good. I have replaced the rear sight blade to a One Ragged Hole peep on some of my levers. I like them, but some folks don't. Good luck.