Nomercy448

Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14x40mm on a Weaver base and Millet Medium rings. On a Marlin 1985 .45-70, same receiver as a 336. I'd call it a "comfortable" clearance under the front objective.

Note a few other things:

• Cheek riser on the stock to correct comb height.
  
• It's my wife's rifle, she mounts scopes far rearward based on how she holds rifles (criticize it if you like, but you better eat your Wheaties if you want to outshoot her). But it DOES place the hammer under the bevel of the scope mag ring, giving a bit extra clearance.
  
• Hammer spur is a necessity, even with the clearance you see in the pic. I've tried using the rifle without it, not great. The gap looks a LOT bigger in the pic than it feels in the field, I'm certain of that!
  
• Rear sight has to be folded, and the elevation ramp slid all the way down to give clearance. If Mrs. NM didn't ride the scope so far rearward, maybe it'd be better, but as it sits, it's tight between the sight and objective bell.

Not really on topic, but that's something to consider, comparing that 40mm Nikon to your selected scope of choice, and the ring heights you're considering.

jerry d

IMO its tuff to beat the FXII 4X32. I use plain jane weavers low with my 4X32 and have a hammer spur.

Zeak

The 2x7x33 would be my choice on the 336. I own several bolt actions and was putting 3x9x40 on them. The last 3 have 2x7x33 and like them better than the 3x9s. less weight smaller in size and can use low mounts. Have a Rem 700 in 270 with 2x7 and this is my go to gun. Zeak