Lever gun scope

I mounted a 2X Burris Handgun scope on Eldest daughter's Marlin 30A, on a XS Leverscout mount. Though it mounts pretty low, we still had to raise the comb 1/2 an inch or so to maintain a good cheek weld enabling a fast snap sight picture.

Pretty slick set-up now.
 
jmr had it a 1-4 leupold is great, my pops got it on his guide gun,

I almost like that more then my aimpoint mini I have on my argo

he can do pretty much everything he wants to with that and i could do even more, hmm I think I am gonna propose a trade:D my 9,3x62 could use the 1-4 more than him who won't shoot past 100 or so meters anywway with the 4570
 
If used for hunting, and a CF lever action, I'd think a good number of scopes in the 4X range or perhaps a 2 to 7X would be fine. Some of mine are Leupolds, some are not. So I'm in agreement with those that posted previously.
 
I have mounted a scope on both of my /Henry big boy rifles (357 & 45 colt). I went with 1.5 X5 powers scopes (voltrex and vx3 Leopold ), as I don't expect the range to go beyond 150 yards. I only use them for steel target shooting anyway. I like the fact that I can use them with both eyes open, when they are on low power. It does bring out the accuracy that my aging eyes are no longer compatible with open sites past 50 yards. I think that it was the best thing to do, and now I have 2 tack drivers.

I am sure that you will get several comments about scoping a lever action and just how it is sacrilege to do so. I would not give those options any weight what so ever. Maybe about 20 or 100 years ago, that could have been correct then, but not now. Scopes have changed so much.

Personally, when I put a fast fire III on my Bisley single action, I expected to get a comment or two from some passing by Range Rats. But so far nothing said to my face. However that could also be because I am 6'4" and very BIG. Likely, a smart move on their part.

I buy and out fit guns how they please me, not some old stereotype; nor would I be discouraged by comments from people less informed and lever action wise, still living in the 1940's. If you want one, put it on and enjoy it. Henry's are great firearms.
 
The only levergun I've ever scoped was a Marlin 336 in .35 Remington. In 1975 I put a 2.5 Simmons scope on it and zero'd it for the Remington 200 grain load. It's been ... durn... almost 40 years now and it's still zero'd for that load.

I do admit that I've been toying with the idea of scout scoping one of my Wincheter 94s. Both of mine are the old style, post-64, but not angle eject, so the scout setup would get the scope out of the way of ejected brass.
 
I used to have an older Japanese Tasco 4x32 fixed power on my Marlin 336 .35 rem. I recently pulled it off and I'm just using the open sights. They aren't bad, but this is what will be going on it soon:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/799753/williams-fp-336-set-receiver-peep-sight-with-front-fire-sight-marlin-336-1894-installs-at-rear-scope-mounting-holes-aluminum-black?cm_vc=subv1968159

I pulled the scope off because I find myself hunting in at least one spot every season where I'm in a treestand with a 50 yard shot or less, and always see deer right before sunrise or right after sunset. For this scenario an open sighted levergun can't be beat.

Also all of my other rifles have scopes, and I wanted to have one that didn't
 
Last edited:
My Winchester 94, .30-30 has a weaver 1-3 X. My marlin 336, .35 remington has a bausch & lomb elite, 1.5- 4.5 X with a "firefly" reticle. Since I use these rifles for brush hunting, I've grown to like an illuminated reticle. It doesn't get lost in all the brush, twigs and trees.
 
I'd like to reply to post #9.
One advantage to the small Leupold scope I use is that it gives me about an extra ten minutes of hunting each around that sun up and sun down hour. Not violating the legal shooting hours. I just mean sometimes it's pretty dark, but my Leupold "gathers light" and I can see clearly or at least a heckuva lot better using that scope on low power. You can certainly tell if you have a buck or doe and the rack if it has one, etc. Unaided approaching dark, I see a black outline of a tree. But when viewing that tree with the scope, I see the bark, the knots, and so on. I just think the light gathering ability of this scope gives me an extra total 20 minutes when it is very common to see a deer.
 
I can partially agree with you SCS.

You can see the details of that tree better because of magnification as opposed to your naked eye.

Unless you have a night vision scope, it does not "gather light." That is simply a fancy marketing term to make scopes sound better. Similar to "knockdown power" when referring to a specific cartridge or bullet.

A scope transmits light. A good scope probably transmits about 90-95% of available light on the lowest magnification setting. Losing 5% of your light isn't a big deal but in low light conditions scopes lose clarity, and sometimes develop a bit of a glare, especially if the sun just sat behind you. Of course the better the scope the less these problems arise, but I'd rather have a $70 sight than a $300 or more scope that I'm only going to use short range that isn't going to work any better for me than the sight.

Open sights aren't for everyone and that's ok. But for situations like I mentioned they are definitely worth a try.
 
There is only one ideal scope IMHO. I have an old Weaver K2.5 on a Marlin 30-30. The scope was made for the rifle. These sell on auctions for $75 to $200 depending on condition. You flat won't find a better scope for a fast action lever action rifle. Mine has the conventional cross-hairs. I actually have four of them. The post reticles bring much higher prices. Try it. You will like it , I guarantee it.
 
A telescope gathers light. It collects light. It grasps light. Even a telescopic rifle sight with a diminutive 20mm objective lens is capable of transmitting 6 or 8 times more light to an eye than the eye is capable of gathering on its own.
A 32mm lens will collect 2.5X more light than the 20mm.
 
Last edited:
If I were gonna cripple a lever gun with some kinda sight other than irons it'd be a red dot or scout scope. I'd rather just put a peep sight on it. I've been wanting one of them skinner peeps for a while now...

Aint no regular scope going to collect or gather light. Aint no glass going to transmit every bit of light that passes through it. They aint magic. Just aint. Now they do use a bigger objective and magnify...but they aint pullin nothin in. It's a passive system. It does, however, concentrate light from a bigger objective to a smaller one.
 
Last edited:
Well... I'm not a scientist, and I don't play one on TV, so I won't comment on the "light gathering" aspect... but I wanted a scope on my Marlin 1895 so I could see things better.
I was on the short side, financially at the time, so I decided to try a TruGlo 4x scope that was on sale for about $50. It has the diamond reticle (for turkey?) and has been a really nice, clear scope. I haven't had it hunting yet, but it has worked wonderfully at the shooting range. It makes a huge difference in my ability to see the target, and make good, accurate shots.
I haven't seen that it has "ruined" my rifle at all...:rolleyes:
 
Aint no regular scope going to collect or gather light. .
Click to expand...

False.

It "gathers" (transmits) all the light that enters it's objective lens, same as your eye does.

Aint no glass going to transmit every bit of light that passes through it. .
Click to expand...

True.

They ain't magic.
Click to expand...

True. It's just physics.

Now they do use a bigger objective and magnify
Click to expand...

True. And more light hits that bigger (objective) lens than hits you naked eye.

Try this: get a quality large objective scope (50mm or more) and use it on the lowest power and compare it to your naked eye .....
 
Folks that speak about "crippling" or "ruining" a levergun often say the handling of the gun suffers ..... I definitely find this to be the case if the comb height is not adjusted properly so that when you shoulder the rifle, your eye is below the line of sight for the scope ...... the stocks on the vast majority of these guns were designed for using the iron sights, which are invariably lower than any scope.

Also, putting a very large scope on heavy mounts above the reciever changes the balance of the gun considerably- add near 2 pounds of scope 3 inches above the reciever of a 6 1/2 lb gun will definitely change the handling .....
 
Last edited:
Try this: get a quality large objective scope (50mm or more) and use it on the lowest power and compare it to your naked eye .....
Click to expand...

Remember we are talking about lever action rifles here. a 50mm or larger objective scope on a lever gun would be ridiculous. I agree they are brighter though.
 
Folks that speak about "crippling" or "ruining" a levergun often say the handling of the gun suffers ..... I definitely find this to be the case if the comb height is not adjusted properly so that when you shoulder the rifle, your eye is below th eline of sight for the scope ...... the stocks on the vast majority of these guns were designed for using the iron sights, which are invariably lower than any scope.

Also, putting a very large scope on heavy mounts above the reciever changes the balance of the gun considerably- add near 2 pounds of scope 3 inches above the reciever of a 6 1/2 lb gun will definitely change the handling .....
Click to expand...

- Agree -

I had to think long and hard before I put a scope on my wife's Marlin. But the fact is, both of us need a scope to shoot well due to aging eyes, particularly me.

I went with a Leupold FX-II Ultralight 2.5X fixed power scope. It weighs 7 oz, and combined with low-rise aluminum rings and mounts, I only added 9.5 oz total to the rifle.

I like the scope a lot. It has a great field of view, and eye relief is excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top