Need a scope for my Henry .327

T

TruthTellers

New member
I've got my Henry Big Boy in .327 and it's a great shooter with my handloads, but I know the iron sights are holding it back. With it being a .32 my plan all along has been to use subsonic loads for small game and max power .327 for deer out to 100, maybe 150 yards.

So, I need a scope that can do both. For the ranges I'm looking at using on deer, a variable 3-9x would do, but for small game I really feel I need higher magnification, something 12x or higher, but the higher the power the larger the scope and big scopes on a lever gun aren't a good fit.

So, what should I do? A scope is going on this rifle, it's just a question of which ones should I be looking at?
 
I'm guessing one of the many manufacturers 4-12 scopes will work (Leopold, Vortex, etc.), but you may wish to look for one that has parallax adjustment down to 25 yds. as it could be fun to shoot close as well as far.
 
If it's in the budget to go with a higher quality scope, you can probably get by with lower magnification.

I've found that better glass, coatings, construction etc. result in better image quality and light gathering that can make up for a lower top end magnification.

If it were me, I'd look for the best 2-7x33 that I could buy. Given the range restraints of the .327 (say, 200 yards max?), even in the higher powered loadings, I bet that 7x through a GOOD scope will be more than clear enough, and you won't have a monster scope overpowering the handiness of your rifle.

I'll admit to a little bias though, in my eyes, a 33mm scope is about the best looking thing you can hang off of any hunting rifles. To me they just look right.
 
I don't feel a 7x will do what I want with small game out to 100 yards or more, I really feel 9x or 12x is as low as I can go without the scope being a monstrosity on the rifle. Also, I'm going to mount using the lowest rings possible as there's no bolt throw to be concerned about, which means the 33mm may be as large as I can probably go.
 
OP here, I haven't put a scope on it yet, but I'm looking at rings and I'm not sure whether to go with Medium height quad lock Weavers or a Weaver top mount that's look really weird, I've never seen scope rings look like this before.

p_955490001_1.jpg


p_955000001_1.jpg


I have the quad locks on two of my .22 rifles, they work well, but the other set or rings looks interesting. Anybody ever used them before?

I ask about these because they appear to be lower than the quad locks and lower on a lever action is good.
 
The other rings are the long time standard Weaver.
With screws on one side, they tend to roll the scope as they are tightened. You have to learn how to allow for it.
 
I understand your desire for the higher magnification.
I am not aware of any quality scope with an objective in the 33 mm range that is 12x.

So I have to second dw on this.
I would go with a Leupold 2x7x33 MK II.

I have that scope mounted on quite a few rimfires as well as my Marlins in .357, 44,
and 45-70.
Don't know that you have had a chance to use one, but like dw says,
7x (the same power as an antelope's vision)
through a GOOD QUALITY scope should do the trick.

Will we get a write up on the Henry soon?

Best answer I can offer,
JT
 
JT-AR-MG42 said:
I understand your desire for the higher magnification.
I am not aware of any quality scope with an objective in the 33 mm range that is 12x.

So I have to second dw on this.
I would go with a Leupold 2x7x33 MK II.

I have that scope mounted on quite a few rimfires as well as my Marlins in .357, 44,
and 45-70.
Don't know that you have had a chance to use one, but like dw says,
7x (the same power as an antelope's vision)
through a GOOD QUALITY scope should do the trick.

Will we get a write up on the Henry soon?

Best answer I can offer,
JT
Click to expand...
Wish I could edit my first post... I have a scope, it's a Mueller 4.5-14x40mm APV.

Should get a better write up in the next month or two, I'll soon be moving the reloading equipment to a new room in the house.

But, I do have about 130 rounds of 100 grain Federal .327 JSP that I could use to sight in the scope after I get the rings.

That I can get done by month's end.
 
Jim Watson said:
The other rings are the long time standard Weaver.
With screws on one side, they tend to roll the scope as they are tightened. You have to learn how to allow for it.
Click to expand...
Do you see any benefit to those one piece rings over the quad rings? Like I said, only reason I'm interested in them is they're lower than the quad rings.
 
Both will work. The solid top strap type rings are the older classic Weaver design, but I prefer the quad type. The strap with screws only on one side will rotate the scope in the rings as it is tightened making it harder to get the scope mounted with the cross hairs vertical. You have to start off with it off a little bit to one side and count on it to shift as you tighten the screws. It is a guessing game that requires the trial and error method. Sometimes several tries to get it right.

You're rifle isn't accurate enough to be capable of taking advantage of a scope with that much magnification. A simple 1-4X scope is a lot smaller, would look a lot better on that rifle and has more magnification than you can use. With an accurate rifle I've shot 1" groups at 200 yards with one set on 4X.

And if you insist on a bigger scope a 3-9X40 offers the most for the money. That is where the competition is and all manufacturers try to build the best scope on the market in that segment at the best price. Going up to a 4-12X etc. will either result in a much more expensive scope or if near the same price much lower quality than that manufacturers 3-9X.
 
jmr40 said:
Both will work. The solid top strap type rings are the older classic Weaver design, but I prefer the quad type. The strap with screws only on one side will rotate the scope in the rings as it is tightened making it harder to get the scope mounted with the cross hairs vertical. You have to start off with it off a little bit to one side and count on it to shift as you tighten the screws. It is a guessing game that requires the trial and error method. Sometimes several tries to get it right.

You're rifle isn't accurate enough to be capable of taking advantage of a scope with that much magnification. A simple 1-4X scope is a lot smaller, would look a lot better on that rifle and has more magnification than you can use. With an accurate rifle I've shot 1" groups at 200 yards with one set on 4X.

And if you insist on a bigger scope a 3-9X40 offers the most for the money. That is where the competition is and all manufacturers try to build the best scope on the market in that segment at the best price. Going up to a 4-12X etc. will either result in a much more expensive scope or if near the same price much lower quality than that manufacturers 3-9X.
Click to expand...
Probably right on the scope magnification, but the Mueller I have isn't on another rifle and isn't going to cost me any money as I already own it. If I don't care for the weight of it on the rifle or I don't find it shoots to the scopes potential, yeah, then I'll go down to a 2-7x or a 3-9x

I'll probably go quad lock on the rings, if the Henry doesn't end up being that accurate, then I'll abandon the project and use the rings on an AR.
 
To start with, I own a Marlin 1894c in .357 and have also entertained the notion of a combination deer/small game gun by choosing appropriate ammo. I've tried various sights and optics on it (though I eventually left it with peep sights).

I once had a Burris Timberline 4-14.5x32mm scope. Like you, I wanted a lot of magnification without a lot of bulk. It also had an adjustable objective. Unfortunately, the high end of the magnification was too much for the 32mm objective. The image was dim and would black out if my eye position wasn't just right. I sold it and have never missed it.

Since you intend to use subsonic ammo for small game, I'd guess the trajectory may be comparable to a .22lr, but just hit harder? My favorite plinker/small game rifle is a .22 with a Leupold VX-II 1-4x20 scope. Shooting off hand, I hit a 4" plate pretty consistently from 80 yards. I realize this isn't great, but the limiting factor is my own steadiness, not magnification. For me, increasing magnification would have minor benefits compared to using a good rest or supported shooting position. I'll add that my "long range" .22 has a Burris Droptine 2-7x35 scope (I tried a Leupold VX-I 2-7x33, but the less expensive Burris is optically superior to my eyes).

I have a few sets of the Weaver Top Mount rings, and I got them for the exact reason you listed--they are the lowest I could find. As others have said, getting the crosshairs straight is a minor nuisance, but it's not too bad. Like you noted, the big knobs are a little off-putting, but I found I was able to take the hex screw and retaining piece from a set of cheap B-Square rings and they fit well with Top Mount rings, and it stays tighter than it did with the knob.
 
Last edited:
"small game at 100 yds" ????

I'm not sure what kind of small game the OP is referencing, but I think very certainly that :
1) a good 2- 7X scope will be more than sufficient for the trajectory of the .327 to 100 yds . I ran a cheap small bell 3-9x33 for years on a 5mm rimfire magnum, and later, a much better quality 2-7x33mm and shot a lot of groundhogs with that rig out to 150 yds+ and never felt the need for more magnification.

2) What "small game" are we talking about. Typical really small game, like squirrels, cotton tails, are often shot inside 50 yds with a simple .22lr and a modest 4x. Those type critters are hard to see in the woodlot or briarpatch much beyond that distance if at all, and you sure don't need 12X

3) A bigger scope will simply make your Henry Big Boy even bigger, something to be avoided
 
bamaranger said:
I'm not sure what kind of small game the OP is referencing, but I think very certainly that :
1) a good 2- 7X scope will be more than sufficient for the trajectory of the .327 to 100 yds . I ran a cheap small bell 3-9x33 for years on a 5mm rimfire magnum, and later, a much better quality 2-7x33mm and shot a lot of groundhogs with that rig out to 150 yds+ and never felt the need for more magnification.

2) What "small game" are we talking about. Typical really small game, like squirrels, cotton tails, are often shot inside 50 yds with a simple .22lr and a modest 4x. Those type critters are hard to see in the woodlot or briarpatch much beyond that distance if at all, and you sure don't need 12X

3) A bigger scope will simply make your Henry Big Boy even bigger, something to be avoided
Click to expand...
2) It's not just small game (squirrels and rabbits) I'm thinking of, with full power .327 I feel confident I can take a deer within 150 yards. At 150, I'd like more than 9x magnification.

3) It's been decided since I have a scope that's not mounted on anything else that I'll be using that Mueller APV. Rings will be in tomorrow, so I'll be spending my Friday night mounting the scope to the Henry.
 
3) It's been decided since I have a scope that's not mounted on anything else that I'll be using that Mueller APV. Rings will be in tomorrow, so I'll be spending my Friday night mounting the scope to the Henry.
Click to expand...

Let us know how it goes. I’m especially interested to hear about or see pics of scope clearance and what height rings you chose.
 
deer

I completely missed the deer hunting portion of the post, but that does not change my suggestion on what scope you should consider, as you initially inquired. I understand "using the tools we have" ie, the Mueller scope as it's on hand w/ no cost. I've been in a quandary for 3 months over what to do about scopes for 3 rifles presently, and cost is a big concern. I get it.

Certainly, it's your rifle and you can do what you want.

Can I ask why you are so confident in the .327 Fed as a deer round?
 
Rings came in yesterday, just mounted the scope to the rifle. No clearance issues with the Mueller and medium height Weaver 1" rings, plenty of space for my thumb to safely drop the hammer.

The base raises the scope up pretty high, I wish it was about a 1/4" lower, but it is what is is as only Henry makes bases for their Big Boy rifles. It looks like I'll be buying another Blackhawk cheek riser pad. I guess that's not too bad, it'll protect the wood some.

No pics for now, the rifle's already in the case and I'm leaving for the range in the next 30 mins.
 
bamaranger said:
I completely missed the deer hunting portion of the post, but that does not change my suggestion on what scope you should consider, as you initially inquired. I understand "using the tools we have" ie, the Mueller scope as it's on hand w/ no cost. I've been in a quandary for 3 months over what to do about scopes for 3 rifles presently, and cost is a big concern. I get it.

Certainly, it's your rifle and you can do what you want.

Can I ask why you are so confident in the .327 Fed as a deer round?
Click to expand...
It's not that I think it's better than .357 or other straight walled cartridges, it's just that I've read .32-20 was popular around the turn of the 20th Century for deer hunting and .327 is much more powerful than .32-20, we have better bullets available today, better scopes, etc. so there's no reason not to view .327 as an ineffective caliber for deer.

Not when it's also so capable for smaller game either. I see on Wikipedia that William Lyman, founder of the Lyman company, once said that .32-20, "comes nearer to being an all-around cartridge in my opinion than any other." and at that time, I couldn't disagree with him. Fast forward 125 years later and I look at .327 (and .32 H&R Mag) and I think the same. I've had some issues with .327 in revolvers, but in the rifles I find it to be excellent, while .32 H&R is great in revolvers, but decent in rifles.
 
Pics will come later, but for now I wanted to update all of you on the results.
Please note distance for all shooting was at 50 yards.

So, with 100 grain American Eagle in my 20 inch Big Boy was about a 1 inch to 1.125", which is 2 MOA. There did seem to be some issues with diagonal stringing, but some of the groups came in a more normal pattern. Some 3 shot groups were under 1 inch, but my 5 shot groups seemed to be at an inch or slightly more.

Dunno how much was probably on me tho. Not only did I not have much cheek to rest my face on, the Mueller scope has a really poor eyebox; you have to get your face in the perfect spot to get the best picture. Also, every time I worked the lever I had to take it off the rest, so I can't say I had a perfectly repeatable shot every time.

However, I don't expect to ever have that in the field and for taking a deer at 150 yards a 3 inch group is doable for a clean kill.

That said, I think it's time I invest in a better rest. I only have a plastic MTM rest that I bought because it was both for rifle and pistols, the buttstock section can be removed leaving just the front and has a flat spot to rest your hands on when pistol shooting. Shooting with pistols is better than rifles for this rest.

So, I do think the 2 MOA I got can be improved. I don't think 1 MOA is possible, but 1.5 MOA I can see. I do wish some JSP bullets were available in the caliber so I could load my own and I would like to see Federal offer a 115 grain JSP bullet in the future as I've noticed that the .32's tend to like heavier bullets.

Anyway, I'll have to load up some low power/subsonic ammo in the future and see what it does. I would think that the groups will shrink down to 1 MOA, which for small game out to 100 yards is ideal. I also have a 125 grain gas checked LRN that I plan to load in .327 and see what results that gives.

I'm not sure how well 2 MOA is for a lever action rifle in a magnum revolver caliber. I recall reading that 1 MOA is really good, but 2 MOA is about average. For those who shoot .357 lever actions, what MOA are you guys getting?

As for general shooting, recoil is mild, noise is not as loud as some have claimed it is in a rifle, and blast is also manageable. It was certainly a lot better than the guy blasting .308 next to me.

PS: Overall, I'm pleased I finally got this done. I got this rifle in March 2018 and shot it with the iron sights and some .32 Mag ammo I handloaded and was happy with the results at 125 yards on steel plates, but ever since before I bought it I had planned to scope it and something else always came up or I just never got motivated to do it.

Then I had a job interview that looked like I'd be getting a lot of overtime available, looked like I was going to get it and I decided I needed to focus on getting this accomplished, so I blocked out an hour today to mount the base, rings, and scope. Sadly I'm not getting the job, but at least it got me motivated to finally do this, so it's not a total wash.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top