Marlin 1894c - to scope or not

Tomochan

Tomochan

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
346   0   0
Location
The Cariboo, BC
I've just aquired a Marlin 1894c on trade. Chambered in .357 mag, this is actually out of the scores of firearms I own/have owned the very first lever action one that I will possess. I have some orphan scopes and was wondering what Lever Action fans think of the idea of putting a 3x9 or fixed 10x on a rifle like this. I will use it pretty much as a plinking gun shooting .38 special. Thoughts ?

Bob
 
If you have bad eyesight and need the scope then go for it. But if you can manage out to 100 yards then I'd stay with iron sights. Or at most upgrade to a tang mounted peep sight. But for closer in plinking with .38Spl I can't really see a scope unless your eyesight is pretty bad.

Just last week I took a buddy for some long gun time to my local range. Along with the other guns we shot about a dozen and a half rounds of .357 Magnum from my Rossi Puma 92 clone. I'd done a slight mod to the notch at the base of the bullhorn sights to give it a open top "C" shape at the base instead of a "V". This helped me a lot by making it into a sort of open top ghost ring sight for my cowboy action shooting. But the interesting part is that when shooting full house .357Mag loads from the rifle we were getting about 65 to 70% hits on the 12 to 14 inch diameter gong that sat out at 200 meters just by raising the aim point so that the front bead was sitting between the points of the "C". And I've got old guy eyes so the aiming was mostly centering the bead on the hole in the big tractor tire that holds the gong centered in the opening. Oh, these were rested on a front bag. No way I could hold that free style. But the point is that the rifle is fully capable. With .38Spl rounds I'd have needed a bit more hold over or sights compensation.

In any case if you do put a scope on one then a 4x would be more than enough. It's just not the sort of rifle you'd be "plinking" with at more than 200 yards.
 
Thanks fellas you confirmed what I was thinking but I'm so used to scopes my natural inclination was to put one on but now I will pass. Hell, the "Duke" never had no scope on no lever gun did he LOL !
 
Tomochan said:
Thanks fellas you confirmed what I was thinking but I'm so used to scopes my natural inclination was to put one on but now I will pass. Hell, the "Duke" never had no scope on no lever gun did he LOL !
Click to expand...

I have a Williams Fool Proof aperature on mine, I think it's perfect.
It is so easy to mount a scope, that I have slipped on a scope, just to test my reloaded lead bullets.
 
I got a Marlin 1894 (.44 mag) a year and a half ago. My eyesight is bad enough that the factory open sights were a waste of time for me. I put a set of XS Ghost-ring sights on it and could shoot better.
For load development, I put a Leupold 2-7x32 shotgun scope on it. Once I have the load figured out, the scope comes off and the XS goes back on.
 
If vision is an issue, go to a compact, low powered scope. A 3-9 or a 10 would be inappropriate.
 
My 336 30.30 wears a variable. When LeverEvolution ammo came about, making it a legit 250 yd. rifle, I swapped out the Leupold FX-II 6x for a Bushnell Elite 3200 3x10x40 Compact. (We have to count points on mulies and elk here in the Kootenays, eh?)

I don't think it sacrilegious at all to scope a Marlin...although I think common sense would dictate something appropriate.

A variable on a .357 Mag is probably overkill. A nice compact little 4x would make more sense, IMHO. Although there are a couple nice and neat compact low power variables available from Burris in their Timberline series.

I used a Leupold one piece base and Burris Signature medium rings for this set up, very solid and tidy.

Marlin003.jpg
 
My BLR's wear 2x7x32 Bushnell 3200 Elites. My 1895CB is wearing one for now. Once I have a good accurate load worked out for it, the Williams FP is going back on and the 3200 is going on an '06 for the boy's.

I feel to see how good a rifle can shoot, it needs glass.

HA
 


I put on a very light Leupold 2x7x28, and it makes a huge difference to these old eyes. I think the larger scopes (like 40mm) are an affront to the aesthetics of these amazingly compact 1894's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom