glenfield model 30
06-02-2014, 02:12 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,905
Weaver scope mount/base is hard to complain about. Been using them on Marlin leverguns for a long time.
The scope you choose is up to you. I personally like scopes in the 4-16x ballpark for my leverguns (4-12x, 4.5-14x, 4-16x, etc) that might see service from 0-300yrds. I prefer 44-50mm objectives, but I don't prefer paying for that sometimes. For super short work in the brush, a 2-7x or 3-9x with a wide FOV (i.e. not a 24 or 32mm, but full size objective, preferably 44-50mm) isn't a bad way to go either.
The scope you choose is up to you. I personally like scopes in the 4-16x ballpark for my leverguns (4-12x, 4.5-14x, 4-16x, etc) that might see service from 0-300yrds. I prefer 44-50mm objectives, but I don't prefer paying for that sometimes. For super short work in the brush, a 2-7x or 3-9x with a wide FOV (i.e. not a 24 or 32mm, but full size objective, preferably 44-50mm) isn't a bad way to go either.
06-02-2014, 04:47 PM
#6
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: SW, missouri
Posts: 822
Weaver scope mount/base is hard to complain about. Been using them on Marlin leverguns for a long time.
The scope you choose is up to you. I personally like scopes in the 4-16x ballpark for my leverguns (4-12x, 4.5-14x, 4-16x, etc) that might see service from 0-300yrds. I prefer 44-50mm objectives, but I don't prefer paying for that sometimes. For super short work in the brush, a 2-7x or 3-9x with a wide FOV (i.e. not a 24 or 32mm, but full size objective, preferably 44-50mm) isn't a bad way to go either.
The scope you choose is up to you. I personally like scopes in the 4-16x ballpark for my leverguns (4-12x, 4.5-14x, 4-16x, etc) that might see service from 0-300yrds. I prefer 44-50mm objectives, but I don't prefer paying for that sometimes. For super short work in the brush, a 2-7x or 3-9x with a wide FOV (i.e. not a 24 or 32mm, but full size objective, preferably 44-50mm) isn't a bad way to go either.
06-03-2014, 03:35 AM
#7
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 129
see through
Yes, I don't like them. Always try to keep the scope mounting as close to the BBl as possible.There ok when you use the see through part, but you will have to raise your head a little to use the scope. I like the same cheek position all the time. Low mounted scope's make better accuracy. Also that was my first new 336, in 1964, for my first hunt.My son has it now, I put a 4X scope on her yrs ago. Rifle is still deadly to deer.
Last edited by troutbum; 06-03-2014 at 03:38 AM.
06-03-2014, 08:10 AM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,905
Waste of time and money.
Great in theory, but terrible in practice.
I won't get into the nitty-gritty details about the disadvantages of having your scope too far off of your bore, but it DOES promote problems for hunters.
The biggest problem with see-through mounts is that a master of all is a master of none. To get a proper cheekweld with super tall mounts like that, you have to add a cheekpiece/comb riser. But in doing so, you've taken away your ability to get down on the bore to use the open sights effectively.
Alternatively, if you DON'T use a riser such that your eye placement is ideal for the open sights, then your eye alignment and cheekweld when using the scope will be compromised, degrading your accuracy.
When you consider using see-through mounts, you're going after something. In general, that something is 1) versatility & handling- meaning a person thinks they can't shoot well with a scope at short ranges or 2) better light capture for low light hunting. Both of these benefits are flat out rumor-mill misconceptions.
1) The see through mounts and the scope sitting on top occlude too much of your open-eyed FOV to offer the benefit of fast target acquisition. Bluntly: when wanting a clear open-eyed view, the worst thing you can do is put something in front of your eye. So the sight acquisition benefit is largely fictional. I'm a he11 of a lot faster getting my gun on target with a 6x minimum zoom scope than I ever was with a see-through mount rig. with a 2x -4x minimum power scope, even faster. ONE OR THE OTHER will be more versatile.
2) The low-light visibility benefit for open sights compared to a quality scope is debatable at best, but when you strap a scope on top of your open sights, it's no contest! The scope will win, hands down. Light has to get to your sights for you to see them, putting a big scope shaped umbrella over the top of your rear sight and a halo around it will only cast a shadow on your sights and reduce your low-light visibility.
So both of the typical benefits that often get touted are really just bunk.
Beyond that, the barrel mounted rear sight of the Marlin 336/30A is quite low (front sight is quite low as well). Just the Weaver base itself occludes my view of my rear sight, stack rings on top of that and I can't see my sights at all. I have 5 scoped Marlins in my safe right now, the mounts are all too tall for see-through mounts to work at all.
Better options:
1) Pick one or the other. Open sights or scope. A low zoom scope with a 2-4x bottom end will still be as fast handling on target as open sights, and a good QUALITY version will have as good or better low light visibility.
2) QD mounts/rings. The weaver base itself may still occlude a lot of your rear sight, but good quality QD rings will let you pull the scope if you know you're going into thick brush where you think it might be a disadvantage.
3) A red-dot sight with a magnifier. Might seem out of place on a levergun, but the goals for both are the same. Fast handling, but accurate enough to play long on occasion.
4) Red dot sight on top of or beside the scope. I personally prefer hanging the red-dot sights on a 45degree mount, since it lets me keep a proper cheekweld (cant the rifle 45degrees), but I have used Warne and Burris ring-top red dot mounts and liked them.
I would never encourage anyone to spend (read WASTE) their money on see through scope mounts.
Great in theory, but terrible in practice.
I won't get into the nitty-gritty details about the disadvantages of having your scope too far off of your bore, but it DOES promote problems for hunters.
The biggest problem with see-through mounts is that a master of all is a master of none. To get a proper cheekweld with super tall mounts like that, you have to add a cheekpiece/comb riser. But in doing so, you've taken away your ability to get down on the bore to use the open sights effectively.
Alternatively, if you DON'T use a riser such that your eye placement is ideal for the open sights, then your eye alignment and cheekweld when using the scope will be compromised, degrading your accuracy.
When you consider using see-through mounts, you're going after something. In general, that something is 1) versatility & handling- meaning a person thinks they can't shoot well with a scope at short ranges or 2) better light capture for low light hunting. Both of these benefits are flat out rumor-mill misconceptions.
1) The see through mounts and the scope sitting on top occlude too much of your open-eyed FOV to offer the benefit of fast target acquisition. Bluntly: when wanting a clear open-eyed view, the worst thing you can do is put something in front of your eye. So the sight acquisition benefit is largely fictional. I'm a he11 of a lot faster getting my gun on target with a 6x minimum zoom scope than I ever was with a see-through mount rig. with a 2x -4x minimum power scope, even faster. ONE OR THE OTHER will be more versatile.
2) The low-light visibility benefit for open sights compared to a quality scope is debatable at best, but when you strap a scope on top of your open sights, it's no contest! The scope will win, hands down. Light has to get to your sights for you to see them, putting a big scope shaped umbrella over the top of your rear sight and a halo around it will only cast a shadow on your sights and reduce your low-light visibility.
So both of the typical benefits that often get touted are really just bunk.
Beyond that, the barrel mounted rear sight of the Marlin 336/30A is quite low (front sight is quite low as well). Just the Weaver base itself occludes my view of my rear sight, stack rings on top of that and I can't see my sights at all. I have 5 scoped Marlins in my safe right now, the mounts are all too tall for see-through mounts to work at all.
Better options:
1) Pick one or the other. Open sights or scope. A low zoom scope with a 2-4x bottom end will still be as fast handling on target as open sights, and a good QUALITY version will have as good or better low light visibility.
2) QD mounts/rings. The weaver base itself may still occlude a lot of your rear sight, but good quality QD rings will let you pull the scope if you know you're going into thick brush where you think it might be a disadvantage.
3) A red-dot sight with a magnifier. Might seem out of place on a levergun, but the goals for both are the same. Fast handling, but accurate enough to play long on occasion.
4) Red dot sight on top of or beside the scope. I personally prefer hanging the red-dot sights on a 45degree mount, since it lets me keep a proper cheekweld (cant the rifle 45degrees), but I have used Warne and Burris ring-top red dot mounts and liked them.
I would never encourage anyone to spend (read WASTE) their money on see through scope mounts.
06-05-2014, 06:25 AM
#10
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 129
low mounts
buckman, you won't be sorry. just make sure the mount's you use are able to keep the front rectical on the scope from touching the bbl. Any 2x7x 32 or 3x9x40 should be able to take the lowest mount's. When you get to 44 or 50 front rectical you will have to go with higher mount's. Good luck and let us know how you make out.