Scoped Marlin 1894C - Questions About Scoping

[bhk]

I am a new member here, though I have read these pages often and enjoyed them greatly. Right now my only levers are a Browning 53 (32-20) and a Winchester 9422.

I am thinking of getting 1894C Marlin and scoping it due to my aging eyes. I can use an aperture rear sight on barrels 20 or more inches long just fine (have one on my 53), but just can't do it with shorter barrels. Anyway, my plans right now are to mount a straight-tube low power scope in Leupold Quick-Detachable mounts/low rings so I could easily remove the scope and use the iron sights should circumstances make that the best option. With these mounts, return to zero should be fairly accurate.

Three questions:

1. Does anyone have any photos of these guns with smaller scopes on them ?

2. Will the mounts be low enough (with scope removed) for me to see over them and still use the iron sights?

3. Will my check weld be ok with a low-mounted scope on these rifles? I will not use any kind of 'see-through' mount for this very reason.

I know putting a scope on any lever action is controversial (and I agree), but I may have to do it on this particular rifle.

Thank you.

[J Miller]

bhk,

I'd just like to welcome you to the forum.

Can't help with pics of scoped lever guns. Even with my 55 YO eyes I just won't do it. Peep sights will work just fine for me. When they don't I'll just shoot where I hear a noise ...... just kidding.
There are quite a few guys here who have those strange carrying handles mounted on their lever guns. I'm sure they will post some pics for you.


Joe

[AJMD429]

Three questions:

1. Does anyone have any photos of these guns with smaller scopes on them ?

2. Will the mounts be low enough (with scope removed) for me to see over them and still use the iron sights?

3. Will my check weld be ok with a low-mounted scope on these rifles? I will not use any kind of 'see-through' mount for this very reason.

I know putting a scope on any lever action is controversial (and I agree), but I may have to do it on this particular rifle.

Thank you.

1. Someone will no doubt post those. The little Bushnell 'Bantam' works well, as do 'red dot' scopes, or even the Barska 3-9's you see - all under $100. Unless your gun shoots sub-MOA groups these scopes will be adequate to the task.

2. There is one 'Weaver' rail I've seen which has a VERY thin mid-section, and the factory sights are easily useable over it - the higher rail edges form almost a 'buckhorn' appearance. NOT ALL RAILS are that thin, so shop around. They're all inexpensive. If all else fails, get a 'thin' one and drill the holes to fit the Marlin (use a too-thick one with the holes in the right place as a template if you want).

3. I am not a 'schooled' shooter - I just grew up with guns and shot alot. Maybe because of that, or because I am nearsighted, or just strange, I never found 'proper cheek weld' that critical to hitting a reasonable target at a reasonable range - a pop can at 75-100 yards for instance. Because of that, I use 'see through' rings on my 1894 44 Mag. I guess on that gun, I use more of a 'proper jaw weld' or something . Anyway, it works for me, so you might try it before you go to the trouble of quick-detach rings, although you will ALSO have the advantage of getting the extra bulk of the scope off the gun when you want to go 'light' or if it is raining heavily and you know you won't be using the scope anyway. OTOH, my son and daughter shoot a .357 Marlin with a low-mounted scope like you're talking about, and they get good 'cheek weld' from the looks of it. My son doesn't look like John Kerry or Mr. Ed, but manages to get cheek weld pretty well with an 1894 44 Mag using HIGH rings so he can use a 3-9x50 scope he likes for early dawn woods whitetail.

...So I think with a straight-tube scope you'll have NO problem!

They also make some nice lace-up leather 'cheek pieces' which double as storage for extra rounds or other 'possibles bag' items.

4. 'Controversial?' - heck - just do WHAT WORKS for YOU...!
For awhile I had a 16x scope on one of my lever actions that was huge and looked funny, but at the time it was my 'shoot a squirrel in the head' gun and happened to be accurate enough to do just that at 75 yards, consistently. I took the scope off a .270 heavy barrel gun I had at the time that didn't group under 3 MOA, and put a 2.5 x 'shotgun' scope or some such on the gun hoping to HUMILIATE it into becoming accurate. (It didn't work, but re-bedding it did so eventually it 'earned' a better scope). Lots of folks will tell you they can't see with iron sights (open or peep or tang) well enough to hunt in poor light - myself included. Love 'em in the daylight, but not when trying to figure out which branches to shoot between in a 7 a.m. thicket whitetail.

[otteray]

With the Weaver #63B base you can see the factory sights with the scope removed; it has a wide groove down the middle of the one piece base.

Your cheek will be welded to the stock with this base. At least, mine is.

Marlin d&ts the receiver for scopes; so they must not think it is too controversial.
Here is a link from their website showing a scoped 336
http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Order_Onl ... /336w.aspx

I think the Marlins come with an offset hammer spur for use with a scope, if you feel you want to install it. Some folks say it can get hung up on your thicker gloves.
I've scoped my 1895G and 1894S for hunting, but they are not the small kind of scope that you are talking about. Mine have Bushnell variables mounted; but I did have an older fixed power Weaver K1.5 on it a while back.
All my very old Marlins have open sights, receiver sights or tang sights.
That's how they will stay.
Somehow, I just can't visualize a modern scope on my century old leverguns. Newer leverguns? No probemo; That's why they are drilled and tapped.
That's just me.

[Dirty Dan]

Here's my 2006 buck taken with the 30 TK in the photo.

I also have and 1894 that wears a Weaver 1-3, neither is in QD rings, but you get the idea. I love 'em both.

[Jason_W]

I had my 1894c scoped for a bit and I'm thinking about going back to it.

Ammo and components simply aren't getting cheaper, and I'll use almost any aide to put more semi-precious metal where I want it with minimal sighting in.

one part cheap, one part lazy

Anyway, the scope that worked on my 1894 was a BSA 2.5x20mm shotgun scope coupled with an XS scout scope mount. This puts the eyepiece about even with the rear most plug screw, keeping it out of the way of the hammer and putting it where a peep sight would be.

[Old Savage]

This is a Cowboy 20" but it has the same receiver. The scope is the old Leupold 4x Compact if you can find one.

[gundownunder]

I'll second the vote for the Weaver #63B base its so good it virtually acts as a runway from your eyes to the rear sight.
I have actually been told I need to remove my rail prior to the classic calibre state championships next month because it could be seen as unfair advantage. ( the way I shoot I need all the advantage I can get )
Another scope you could look at is a 2.5x shotgun scope, they look very neat and compact.

[jkbrea]

bhk, I have the quick release mounted on an XS rail with XS ghost ring sights. They work great for me and the scope is right back on zero when taken off and replaced. The scope is a Leupold scout scope, 2.5x.

[bhk]

Thanks for the welcome, thoughts, and photos. Still don't know if I am going to get a 1894C or a 1894SS - I have handguns that will match with each. I might have to go with the 1894SS because this will be mainly a truck gun and I live in a rather humid area. I have a an old steel, straight-tubed Weaver 1.5 - 4x that may be the first scope I try on it.

[Pete44ru]

[Warhawk]

The one on the left is my 1894c with a Weaver V3 scope in Weaver mounts and rings.

[JP_TX]

I have a 336 in 35 Rem that I mounted a 4x Bushnell on an old almost unfindable Weaver "Pivot Mount and Rings" VERY low mount. But the scope pivots on hinges, of course, over to the side and I can use the open sights.
The scope snaps back in place. Works. but hard to find the pieces. And you couldn't use it with a scope that had a front bell much bigger than an inch. Its that low. The Bushnell has a 32mm eye piece and the rest is a one inch tube. Nice scope. I wouldn't enter any matches with the set up but it work well enough for hunting.

Sorry I don't have a pic and don't know how to load it into this doc if I did.