OMG , I'm thinking of a scope on my '94...Help!

hightime · Post by **hightime** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:41 am

I know it's blasphemy, but my eyes, my eyes. The gun is a '06 model '94 Legacy 30-30 angle eject and is trilled and tapped. I'd like to keep the old timey look and still have a scope. Would it be a waste of time to put a straight tube 3/4'' scope on it? I don't have any and can't remember if they would be much help. Where would i get one. I'd like it to be a longer one.

Owen

gak · Post by **gak** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:32 am

I don't know about the tube, but you should be able to find a reasonably slim 4x that's not too obnoxious

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:36 am

I'd get something small and relatively unobtrusive ---- Leupold used to make a 2-7 x 20mm variable that seemed about right for leverguns (tried one out on a friend's Ruger #1 )
Both Redfield and Leupold have offerings in 2-7 x 32mm also

I wouldn't sweat the scope thing too much, after all, thats why they drilled/tapped it and made it AE in the first place. Plus you'll like your rifle better if you can hit things past 50 yards with it

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:44 am

These are both 4x and either rifle will group under and inch. You might find out that the rifle is more accurate than you thought it was an with what ammo.

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:57 am

Your thinking too much. A scope is for people like me and Old Savage who have a hard time seeing open sights.

The gun won't shoot any better with a scope with young eyes like you have.

But............if you insist.....Go to Buffalo Arms. Com and put one of those long skinny 4X on her.-------------Sixgun

madman4570 · Post by **madman4570** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:12 am

Another couple possible options----------

Might not hurt first to get a pair of yellow shooting glasses(Zinnioptical)about $15(you might be surprised)?

At our club several older gentlemen (eye problems)switched to a larger (peep sight)like on an AR15 and that solved their problem with them still getting enough accuracy what they required.

see----------------
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/180676 ... inum-black

Another one put a Aimpoint 2 MOA Red Dot on his(and loves it)

Other guys above also had great suggestions.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:19 am

I'm thinking a thin fibre optic green front and a ghost ring back. You don't need to even think about the ring, just look thru it. It will be just like a red dot without the battries

If you try to center the front sight, it won't work...the eye will exactly find the center because it's the point of the strongest light

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:49 am

Six - I would suggest to you that a rifle will shoot better with a scope and the shooter will shoot better. It stiffens the action, reduces vibration and makes that vibration more consistent as I am sure you are well aware has been done with target actions and aluminum sleeves. It reduces the recoil and the ratio of the recoil to the gun weight all these will help in the accuracy.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:55 am

Old Savage wrote:Six - I would suggest to you that a rifle will shoot better with a scope and the shooter will shoot better. It stiffens the action, reduces vibration and makes that vibration more consistent as I am sure you are well aware has been done with target actions and aluminum sleeves. It reduces the recoil and the ratio of the recoil to the gun weight all these will help in the accuracy.

Thing is, better is sometimes not faster. A 1/4 moa won't make any difference on a deer rifle...Just my opinion, of course

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:59 am

Depends on how far away the deer are and I don't think we are talking about a 1/4 minute.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:32 am

Old Savage wrote:Depends on how far away the deer are and I don't think we are talking about a 1/4 minute.

OPer has a 30WCF

My Mdl 88 in 284, or one of your Savages might be a different story.

earlmck · Post by **earlmck** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:55 am

As long as you're putting a scope on her -- well a 2X7 is awful nice for the old eyes. 2X for hunting and 7X for checking loads. Several times I've stuck a scope on one of these just so I could develop loads with more confidence in my holding. And then I get fond of seeing and the scope kinda' seems to stay put...

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:44 am

OK, you guys know I detest carrying handles so here's my take on Owen's question:

A: It's his gun.
B: If his eyes are going bad and he wants to shoot ... it's his gun.
C: The model 94 AE's are no more a traditional 94 than I am a Shakespearean actor. USRAC ruined the traditional part when they hogged the gouge out of the side of the receiver and put the damnable rebounding hammer on them.
(Romero, Romero, where for art thou Romero? Juliann, it is I Romero, stuck beneath thy balcony in the bloody rose bush.)
D: It's his gun.

E: Why did I post this???? (Hark .... behold the yonder window .... Eeeeek it is Juliann's male parental figure with a cross bow ...... ah ha, but he has no scope so he cannot see me in the darkness of the night ...... I hope.)

Joe

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:51 am

Well now Blaine - jist how fer can a 30 WCF shoot???

I know yours is good for 275-300 anyway.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:40 pm

Joe: LMAO!!

Doc, you shoot yours farther than I can....mainly, I don't like the puny field of view from those tiny scopes....my scout scope is a different story, because I can easily keep both eyes open while shooting

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:01 pm

I think you owe yourself a 1" scope, brighter is what it's all about. I have a Leupold base/rings for the Legacy if you're interested.

A low power variable will give you all you need and be bright and wide and easy to view. Some models have the straight front as well.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:08 pm

I put a Leupold 1-4X20 shotgun scope on my .22 Mag CZ a while back and love it. The shotgun scope has wider crosshairs that are easier to pick up in low light.

YMMV

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:14 pm

Blaine I never could see the advantage to one eye seeing 1x and the other seeing 4x.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:47 pm

Old Savage wrote:Blaine I never could see the advantage to one eye seeing 1x and the other seeing 4x.

That's not a scout scope....2x is more like it, and it's no problem. You need both eyes for depth perception, plus, the extra field of view both eyes afford.

1894c · Post by **1894c** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:54 pm

you have not sinned...go in peace... :)

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:14 pm

Blaine at 165 to 275 I don't need depth perception, I need to see better. In fact there is no range that I need depth.perception.

Canuck Bob · Post by **Canuck Bob** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:19 pm

I understand your pain. I'm a peep sighted lever fanatic but things are changing.

I once scoped my 444 with a Leupold 2.5X ultralight scope. It has a straight tube ahead of the eyepiece and eye relief to marvel at. I loved the look, kinda a poor man's dangerous game scope. It was a dandy hunting scope because I never shot scopes before and hated the wobbly offhand sight picture I could never fix even at 4X. The low power was like an optical peep sight, quick and deadly. I think it would look like it belonged on your rifle to my eyes.

I did pull it off after one season, a fine whitetail and my best moose (175 paces in the Alberta foothills) were the result of that experiment. I used my Williams FP because I really like the way an iron sighted lever hand carries.

I can still see the sights for big game to maybe 125 paces but my plinkers are a problem to get a good bead on a rabbit, gopher, or tin can I can hardly see! I might put that old Leupold on my 10-22 and try those new fangled scope things again. I'm starting to think they just might catch on.

As far as any romance goes for a lever if you need a scope the AE 94 is an important historic design mod of the Winchester line. I really sinned and bought a Winchester 92 made in Japan with a tang safety. Now I'm going to drill and tap it for a peep sight. I'm just as proud of it as my pre-64 94 32 Special and I wouldn't hesitate to D&T that rifle for a sight if I wanted to. My guns are working guns and by definition they must work even if they are as pretty as my Winoku take down.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:36 pm

hightime .....No I don't think it would be a waste of time to put a 3/4" diameter tube scope on your rifle because any scope sight as a sighting system is superior to a metallic sights system as far a ease of use goes, particularly if you have trouble seeing everything you need to with metallic sights like you are having. Lots that people say about field of view and such with the 3/4 in tube is correct but the pure efficiency of a any field of view compared to blindness with metallic sights can't compare... I hope OS doesn’t my me putting and old Weaver 330 scope in Redfield Junior mounts on his rifle so you can see what a 3/4 in tube rig looks like...I see them on ebay... and also there are 3/4 in Weaver rings that go on their bases...The old 330 scopes were not a 22 scope but were made for full power hunting loads and a version of it was used as the US sniper scope on the 03A3 rifle in WWII... Here’s on mounted on one of my rolling blocks too...

Copy of AE.JPG

deafrn · Post by **deafrn** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:01 pm

Rusty wrote:I put a Leupold 1-4X20 shotgun scope on my .22 Mag CZ a while back and love it. The shotgun scope has wider crosshairs that are easier to pick up in low light.

Worth repeating.

The shotgun/muzzleloader scopes are real sleepers, working well for a lot of people... especially those new to glass or those who find the crosshairs wobbling a bit too much when higher power scopes are used. Unless I have a good rest, anything more than 6 or 7 power is irritating unless I make the shot quickly. Having said all that, I confess that 2-7x33 Leupolds are my "standard" levergun scopes; I rarely crank them above 3X, but I like the option of doing so when it is beneficial, and even at the higher settings the front end is big enough to collect adequate light.

I am also finding that the thicker crosshairs (like Leupold's wide duplex) are increasingly easy for me to use effectively, whereas in the old days if I had to mount a scope on something, I wanted the finest crosshairs I could get.

hightime · Post by **hightime** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:06 pm

That's a nice look. I could enjoy that. I think it will work good enough from the stand looking on an open meadow.

It will also be great for plinking.

Owen

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:13 pm

Forgot to mention the 330 has up to 5 in of eye relief and could be mounted forward of the hammer spur and lower too if used with Weaver rings and bases... Low enough that you could possibly carry the rifle at the receiver with your thumb hooked over the scope...

Borregos · Post by **Borregos** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:22 pm

My eyes are old and not great!!
To me putting a tang sight on is just about as good as putting a scope on, so that is what I do, it works for me

junkbug · Post by **junkbug** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:30 pm

Just my opinion, but the Weaver scope bases that are basically standard for a Win 94AE are just ugly. Wish somboey made a reasonable set of QD bases for the Win 94 AE that look OK with the scope dismounted.

The Weaver bases look OK as long as the scope stays on. Guess you can still dismount scope and use irons in an pinch (scope break-down, or wet snow condition).

I had an older Win 94 that someone before me had drilled for a side mount. Looked cool, but I found it really unwieldly. Did not like it at all.

Sean

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:33 pm

Why would you take the scope off?

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:46 pm

Man, I'm wonderin' if I need to go all TERRY on y'all?

Within its light gathering capabilities & depth of field, a scope, ANY scope, is superior to irons due to its having only ONE focal plane; whereas irons have 3; rear sight, front sight & target. Like just about all the rest of us, as we age we lose muscle tone, in the case of our eyes, the ability to change focal points quickly, if at all. Hence we see blurry sights & clear target, or A sharp sight, while the other sight & target is blurry.

A scope allows you to adjust its focal point so that all we see thru it is "in focus"; again, within the limits of its depth-of-field. FWIW, in general terms, the greater the magnification, the narrower the depth of field.

Scopes with multiple magnification, i.e. a 2.5-5 or 6-20 may have paralax issues, as in, changes in focal points as the magnification changes. These are reduced in more expensive scopes. Next, two things occur as you increase magnification or add multiple magnifications to any scope; 1 - weight is increased as more lenses (thicker glass) is needed, and 2 - Translucence, (light gathering) is reduced. This may not mean much if you always shoot in bright sunny conditions and your target is never in shadow.

Now... OS since when has a coupla hunks of aluminum (mounts) and an aluminum tube with some bits of glass in it EVER stiffened an action? Yes, a steel one-piece rail might do so, but as a blanket statement? Methinks not!

Sixgun, if you meant a ¼ moa improvement, yes, that could be significant depending on range. Especially if one is relying on aged, tired eyes for your range estimation!

hightime, if you're really askin' whether this group of miscreants are gonna ostracize ya cause you put a suitcase handle on yer Winchester... just use a pretty maid to model in your photos of it! (Take a hint, OS)!

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:53 pm

Ya don't need to see a rear sight...remember?..

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:58 pm

BlaineG wrote: Ya don't need to see a rear sight...remember?..

Only at CAS distances!

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:38 pm

Griff - "me thinks" you may not be aware - True Grit kind of guy that you are

what the target boys have been up to. But,

I know you are and you are just humoring these guys that think they are more "real men"

if they keep both eyes open - for no reason that makes sense except in heavy cover

and think they can shoot better if they can't see as well

But I know

that you know

what I am saying is Obviously True

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:57 pm

Old Savage wrote:Six - I would suggest to you that a rifle will shoot better with a scope and the shooter will shoot better. It stiffens the action, reduces vibration and makes that vibration more consistent as I am sure you are well aware has been done with target actions and aluminum sleeves. It reduces the recoil and the ratio of the recoil to the gun weight all these will help in the accuracy.

I ain't usin' NO scope on ANY of John Browning's creations.

I'm 57 and still don't have a cell phone--for real. I never did like change.

Anyway, I do have many scopes but they are mounted on boltguns, single shots, and my Revolution guns. (M-1A-...Ar's)Back when I was 18 I had a nice 86 in 33 d&t for a Leupold. Oh wait a minute--maybe a couple of Marlin leverguns--.218, 219 etc. I'm tired and can't think.

Hightime--you get what you want and don't give a hoot what we "experts" think. Just don't get one of those jobs with the 50mm objective lens mounted up on high rise mounts. Nice sleek K-4 Weaver or 4X leupold----------Me-------- good night and don't let the bedbugs bite. Big gunshow tomorrow at the Reading Expo center--gotta get me zzzzz...sss.s...................xx.x...z.z..z...z.z.z.ss..s..ss.s.s..s.s.s

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:52 am

about this issue of low power scopes, I got mine because I didn't like the jiggle, but if you think about it, even low powered scopes are plenty. The deer Joe sees at 100 yards with iron sights and the deer I see at 300 yards at 3x are the same size, and I have those nice crosshairs. You are just sending a bullet out to a point in space, not watching a nature show. I consider it an aiming device not a viewing device.

I'm finding I dislike my rimfire scope because it's 2.5x-7x, I may change it to a 1-3x. I really prefer shooting offhand at 1x.

I do like some magnification when hunting; in the field I set my scope at 1.5x. I find it looks quite natural but the slight magnification makes the object just a little more prominent in the picture without compromising the field of view particularly.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:56 am

oh, and, as far as I can tell, the Weaver 1x is about the lightest weight scope on the market, correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't checked quite all of them, but it's even lighter than the 2.5 fixed was.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:26 am

Sixgun, "I ain't usin' NO scope on ANY of John Browning's creations. I'm 57 and still don't have a cell phone--for real. I never did like change."

Look here whippersnapper - so you are young

time will cure that - you gotta break out of the shell, expand your horizons, get with the program, get plugged in, get movin and a groovin, reelin' with the feelin'. I mean what is the question man?

don't miss the boat

so - old codger are you?

you got to get a new view of life.

you can't just go through life with at ballistic caution sign

I think you are looking at things upside down

you need a new coat of paint and yes that is the TV - you were only 28 when I bought that TV

big things are waiting for you

maybe 4x

Join the party.

Post by **Old Savage** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:54 am

Canuck Bob has the idea - "the AE 94 is an important historic design mod of the Winchester line." Paco Kelly said the same thing.

hightime · Post by **hightime** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:23 pm

You guys are sure intertaining at least.

Owen

Either one of these will make me forget the other for a while.

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:11 am

AFAIK, the Weaver (Kaspa) 1x scope weighs 10.5 oz.

My Simmons 2.5x20 weighs 7 oz with 5" of eye relief - I've used it on a .45.70 Ruger #1 rifle.

With the little Simmons on the Ruger, it handled like it had a peep sight.

.