Lever gun scope

mount a scope on a CF lever rifle? ABSOfreakinLUTELY!

Marlin (new) Model 1895 .45-70 Weaver 2.5x POST reticule.
Marlin 336 .30-30, Weaver 1.5x POST
Browning BLR .308 WIN 3x9x duplex

Ruger No.3 .22 Hornet 3x9x standard crosshairs
Ruger No.3 .45-70 Weaver 2,5x POST
Ruger No.1 .375H&H 1.5x4.5x duplex
(they are lever guns, just not repeaters)

I don't consider my guns crippled. I consider them improved. And I don't particularly give a rat's hindquarters about how you feel about how MY rifle looks.

I also (oh the horror!:rolleyes:) put oversize Pachmyr grips on most of my Single Action revolvers.

All for the same reason, I can shoot them better that way.

I did read somewhere that some folks are putting those "moon scopes" (50mm objectives or even bigger) on the old classic Marlin/Win .30-30s. Not for any long range shooting, not for stalking, but for stand hunting, where the big scope gives a few more minutes of usable light, at the beginning and ending of shooting hours. I've seen plenty of times when, at first or last light your eye can tell its a deer, but not if it is a legal deer.

Its a specialized application for a general woods rifle, but really, what matters most, what works or what you look like?
 
Hands down they are better and that holds true even if your comb isn't just right for it. Sight and game on one focal plain and a brighter, clearer picture being most of the advantage.
Click to expand...

If your head can't get into the same place (the correct place, with crosshairs/post centered in the scope) consistantly, and quickly, none of that matters, especially on running game or game that shows itself only briefly.

If you have to spend a second finding the reticle and then more time finding the game .... 2 seconds late may as well be never in many cases ..... a scope is only an advantage if it helps make the shot: that crystal clear view of the reticle on the black inside of the scope won't help hit anything ..... I see people spending hundreds of dollars on glass and mounts and won't drop 20 bucks to make sure their gun fits, or spend any time practicing shouldering the thing to find their target quickly.
 
In reviewing the comments made on this thread by the person that stated that installing a scope cripples it, they must either be having a bad thread or he/she is using a troll account to stir things up. I think that he/she was just spouting off outdated dogma from overhearing it somewhere. Or it could just be the alcohol and/or medication talking. But most of things posted by them are really off the mark and not in keeping with the thread.

Additionally, I did take time to research the reviews of the sightmark mini sight on the website that he/she was recommending (post #61 ). First off, it is listed for 20% more there that at Amazon or Midway. It is also one of the poorest reviewed dot sights out there. One site had 15 review of which 8 were the lowest possible mark that could be given. Comments on reviews are "Won't hold Zero", Cheap Mounts, Fell apart after 8 shots, and sent back 3 of them and now the 4th one has failed after 2 shots. Nice recommend, but I will pass.

I am sure that he/she is a good person, but jumps to assumptions and then convinces themselves that they're facts. I suggested that they should do some research, but I am also sure that it will go in one ear and straight out the other.

I am new to lever action firearms, but have over 40 years shooting and hunting experience. But really never had an application where it was the best choice. However, I find the Henry big boy a real fun gun and one that it is easy to teach new shooters on.

I also know that the big boy only comes in pistol calibers and all the talk about hunting on this thread puzzles me. But, I hunt in Idaho and the thought of bringing down our big game here, with pistol cartridge is questionable at best. I personally have harvested over 50 Big game animals in my life and have never had one walk more then 2 steps after being shot. But, I don't take running shots, as most deer and elk around here will stop running after a while, if not when you still have them in sight, at least over the next ridge. If they keep running, then wait for one that will cooperate. I have seen other hunters do the running shot thing, but they mostly miss or hit the hind quarters. Trust me, you wound an animal and it gets away, you will remember it …….often.
 
Last edited:
I have seen other hunters do the running shot thing, but they mostly miss or hit the hind quarters. Trust me, you wound an animal and it gets away, you will remember it …….often.
Click to expand...

Or at least you SHOULD remember it often... :mad:

I, also, don't like to take a shot at a running animal. I've only done it twice, once on a coyote, and once on a deer that was supposedly dead when I walked up to it (too soon after the shot), only to see my "dead" deer leap to its feet and take off. Once I recovered from the shock, I rolled it with the first shot,(which was actually the second shot at the deer), but hit it too far back, behind the ribcage, and it got to its feet and started off again. My third shot anchored it... finally. The most shots I've ever fired at a deer... and my worst performance on a hunt. It taught me several good lessons.... one, I don't want to purposely take a shot at a running animal...emergencies only. two, I can hit a deer when it's running, but can't be sure to put the bullet exactly where I want to. three, don't ever walk up on a "dead" deer immediately after the shot. It was probably just under 10 minutes from the time it dropped to the shot, until I walked up the side of the gully to the deer. It was a high lung shot, and the deer hadn't died yet.

That having been said, I've seen videos of guys that take running shots all the time, and they are amazingly accurate. I suppose practice helps. :rolleyes:
But in the immortal words of "Dirty" Harry Callahan..... "a man's got to know his limitations".... :D
 
Idahosd, I'm curious as to which parts are trolling or alcohol induced? The part about having a proper cheek weld maybe? Or about scout scopes and red dots? Maybe you're offended by the crippling comment because of your extensive use of lever actions?

Ohhh, maybe you like glassing with a loaded rifle and don't care who or what you point your rifle at? Or maybe you think scopes are magical devices and are sold on the marketing hype of them gathering light?

The minishot being mounted on a lever was what caught my eye, since reddots had been brought up in this thread AND skinner peep sights. Since I was looking at what mr skinner had and saw the mini shot mounted I figured I'd pass that along. I didn't go googling reddots or even offer up that sight as being the best reddot available. Unless you know of more places that make low profile mounts for lever actions, you can keep your rehashed amazon reviews to a relevant thread. Or read post #60 where the reddot I DID suggest is. Maybe you could review them after another impressive example of your marksmanship using a scoped rifle at archery distances?

I couldn't care less if you chose to hammer in screws with a saw. You do what you like with your time. But if you're going to be sitting in a stand using a scoped rifle, you might want to use something made for a scope. It doesn't matter what your eye relief is if you still have to bobble head looking for your reticle. It doesn't matter how good you zeroed or what kind of scope you have if you can't get a repeatable sight picture. I'd hope 40 years of hunting taught you that.

Furthermore, since you are ignorent of hunting with pistol cartridges, let me educate you a bit.... Nevermind, I'm a pill popping drunk just out to troll. Here, read this instead you probably don't know who paco kelly is, but use your google fu and you'll find out.

"A better comparison indicator for me, of where a handloaded round is in the scale of killing ability...is to compare it’s standing against other rounds without the over rated muzzle energy figures. If you multiply the velocity times the bullet weight, and then divide by 7000 (number of grains in a lb, it’s the old Keith method) you get a better picture of actual power/killing levels compared to other rounds. 2000 X 275 div 7000 = KS(Killing Scale) of 79 for this 45 long Colt load from the Rossi 1892. A 44 magnum Ruger revolver with a 275 grain (same nose shape) cast WFN bullet at 1400 FPS velocity reaches a level of KS 55, and that’s a heavy handgun load that’s harvests larger medium game very well.

A 30-30 with a 170 gr bullet at 2200 FPS gives a level of power ranking at KS 53.4... ahh yes dear reader, the 44 mag from a long gun really does have more power at 100 yards than a 30-30/170 commercial load. Of course the 44 mag/275 gr. load above from a rifle, at basically the same velocity as the 275 gr./45 long Colt from a rifle has the same killing level potential as the 45 long Colt. There are difficulties with all measuring methods of bullet energy and killing ability since so much more is involved than just velocity and weight...but this works for me when we are comparing the same bullet shape/content and construct with changes in weight or velocity.

The neat thing about this method is you can take the down range velocities all the way out to your longest range and compare them with the down range velocities of other rounds, calibers and see the changes compared to each other. The 45 long Colt at 100 yards has slowed to 1600 FPS and the killing level has dropped to almost KS of 63 from 79. Where the 30-30 load has dropped to 1930FPS to a KS 46 from 53.4.....that should make a few yell ‘foul...can’t be’, but it is! And from my use of these 45 loads in the field for years on large game....I can tell you it is.....! As many gunwriters have stated over the years, a 44 mag or heavy loaded 45 long Colt fired from a rifle is more powerful than a 30-30 at 100 yards....actually they are more powerful than the great 30-30, at a lot further than 100 yards.....

So the next time someone states the 44 mag and 45 long Colt from rifles only has an advantage over the 30-30 under 100 yards...show him the error of his reality. But remember bullet drop with the larger calibers, is more than the 308 calibers ....But that never bothered me....mainly because I started rifle shooting without scopes and learned how to compensate....scopes were far from being seen, much less using them, when we were boys."
 
Last edited:
.45 Colt, 275gr bullet, 2000fps out of a Rossi Mdl 92? Wow.

Wonder what pressure it takes to do that with a .45colt or .44mag size case?

Also wonder what the .30-30 would do at that same pressure?

I've seen a lot of different scales used for comparisons, straight energy figures, Keith's system, Hatcher's, Cooper's short form, even Taylor's "knock down power".

They all correspond to real world observed results to a greater or lesser degree, and can be a useful means of comparison, provided one remembers that they are really all generalities in many ways.

A fine topic for discussion, provided one does not get dogmatic about it, or take other's doubts about their chosen system as a personal matter.

But it is not the topic of this thread, and serious thread drift is one of the things that gets threads closed.

The OP has a "classic" levergun. Lots of folks don't think scopes belong on those kinds of guns. But there are other kinds of lever guns, too.

If you are one of those people who feel a scope doesn't belong on a levergun, is it ALL lever guns, or only those with the classic look?

What about a Savage 99, or a Winchester 88? What about a Browning BLR?
BLRs come in calibers that in any other action type, adding a scope is virtually automatic. Most other action types in those calibers don't even come with iron sights anymore...

So what is it that offends your sensibilities, a scope changing the looks/weight/balance of just certain lever guns? or is it all of them? Its a personal opinion, and as valid as any, I'm just curious.
 
I'd put all my reasonings about scoping a lever in post #31. It has nothing to do with looks and rest solely on function.

We were refering to hunting use of a big boy and it was brought up that they'd never use pistol rounds to hunt with. So I added some info about hunting with pistol cartridges.

And since the BLR was brought up, compare the comb height and design on the blr vs the comb height and design on the henry big boy. The blr's comb is much higher and comes almost straight back compared to the downward slope of the henry's. So yes, with my vague statement towards levers I deffinately fell into the old trap of over generalization. But with the rifles being discussed and traditional styled lever action rifles, I think it is still sound.
 
Last edited:
As I see it, people are painting scopes and lever guns with a broad brush, or a roller, and giving their reasons in calligraphy.

The reasons, both pro and con all apply, in certain situations. None of the broad statements apply fully to all situations.

Certainly, an incorrectly mounted scope is not as good as one correctly mounted. But even a poorly mounted scope (too high, eye relief, etc) is better for a shooter who cannot see the irons well enough to accurately use them. That's one situation, there are lots of others.

The fact that a lot of people are not doing the best job of fitting the rifle, scope and themselves together does not invalidate the concept of putting a scope on a levergun.

Also, from the way some people talk, all leverguns are only for 150yd shots or less, under 100 is better. Certainly, some leverguns are in this category, perhaps most, but by no means all.

Don't say "scopes on leverguns are a bad idea", and point to the guy who mounted the Hubble telescope on his .30-30 as if it was complete justification. Its not. All that does is weaken your creditability.

If you think mounting a large scope on see thru mounts on a Marlin 336 is a poor idea because..., say that, and we'll discuss pros and cons.

The OP said "CF leverguns" and that includes ALL of them.

An argument about a given scope on a .30-30 may not apply when the levergun is a .308, or a .284, or a .243.
 
1) I never said scopes were bad on any lever gun. I said "if I were to cripple a lever gun with any sights but irons I would use a scout scope or red dot". I've already mentioned why and did suggest both a scope set-up and a red dot as alternative sights. Also, "IF I" means for me. It does not mean everyone else, and I did not say "if you" I said IF I.

2) true, any device that makes a gun you cannot aim aimable, is beneficial. But one could also say (as I did) that using a gun that is made for a scope is much better than scoping one NOT made for a scope. Which is, what I've said repeatedly. So Since the BLR IS made to be scoped, it does exclude it from "rifles not made to be scoped", wouldn't you think?

3) I did say that mounting a large scope on see through rings is a bad idea and explained why. I don't know anyone who actually mounted the hubble telescope so I could not give that as an example, I simply said if you wanted to, its your gun so do it. It was never used as an example.

4) sure, there are a very select few lever action rifles that are suitable for scoping and/or long range shots. They are also, generally, made to be scoped which would remove them from "scoping a rifle not made to be scoped". If we were including every lever action rifle ever produced (or semi auto, pump, shotgun...whatever) then there would be no chance for any discussion because anything you say could be wrong for any other rifle. As it were, since the BLR comes set-up for a scope, and henry big boy was the only rifle mentioned in the OP's origional post, it seems doubtful that he was refering to every lever action center fire rifle ever made. Also, as I have just mentioned
 
Last edited:
semi_problomatic said:
1) I never said scopes were bad on any lever gun. I said "if I were to cripple a lever gun with any sights but irons I would use a scout scope or red dot". I've already mentioned why and did suggest both a scope set-up and a red dot as alternative sights. Also, "IF I" means for me. It does not mean everyone else, and I did not say "if you" I said IF I.

2) true, any device that makes a gun you cannot aim aimable, is beneficial. But one could also say (as I did) that using a gun that is made for a scope is much better than scoping one NOT made for a scope. Which is, what I've said repeatedly. So Since the BLR IS made to be scoped, it does exclude it from "rifles not made to be scoped", wouldn't you think?

3) I did say that mounting a large scope on see through rings is a bad idea and explained why. I don't know anyone who actually mounted the hubble telescope so I could not give that as an example, I simply said if you wanted to, its your gun so do it. It was never used as an example.

4) sure, there are a very select few lever action rifles that are suitable for scoping and/or long range shots. They are also, generally, made to be scoped which would remove them from "scoping a rifle not made to be scoped". If we were including every lever action rifle ever produced (or semi auto, pump, shotgun...whatever) then there would be no chance for any discussion because anything you say could be wrong for any other rifle. As it were, since the BLR comes set-up for a scope, and henry big boy was the only rifle mentioned in the OP's origional post, it seems doubtful that he was refering to every lever action center fire rifle ever made. Also, as I have just mentioned
Click to expand...

So what was the OPs question. I've lost track. Its amazing how one or two posts can turn into banter ruining someone post.
 
Lever gun scope

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone mounted a scope on their Henry Big Boy or any other CF lever gun.
What power did you get.
Click to expand...

Pretty simple, really. Lots of folks answered. The rest has just been chatter.
 
Yeh, I know. I going to put a Leupold FXll 4X scope on my Henry BB 357. With my old eyes, the sights are blurry. End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top