Good day...I am currently looking at putting a mount and some optics on my Marlin model 30AS 30-30 lever action rifle for some hunting this year. The past couple of years I've been using this rifle with the iron sights and they have worked great, but want to change it up. Anybody have any experience with this type of rifle of what kind of kit I should look for? Thanks!
Marlin 30-30 Lever Action
- Thread starter PrairieSnake
- Start date
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
I've got a 3-9 and see thru mounts... Irons on at 50, scope on at about 150 and change..
stickhunter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Victoria, B.C.
I use a couple of options...
1) On some of my Marlins I have peep sights, in particularly, the Williams FP-336 and Skinner. I find the peeps much faster/accurate than the standard iron sights, but they don't increase my "confidence" range much.
2) On others I have the standard/cheap aluminum Weaver mount (#63 I believe), as low rings as I can find (either the Weaver top straps or Burris Z-rings), and a Weaver 1-3x20 scope.
A low power, small objective scope is ideal on a lever gun as it still gives you a wide field of view for close in shots, but helps extend the range out quite a bit. A fixed Weaver K3 or one of the Leupold Ultralight 2.5 would be great too.
I'd hesitate to put a scope larger than 2-7x33 on a lever gun; larger would work fine, but I prefer to have a compact, low scope.
Awesome, thanks for all the ideas!
Judging by the reactions I think low mount is the way to go with a smaller scope. I was initially going to try to utilize an mount and rings that I have never used that came with my Armalite AR-15 when I bought that some years back with 30mm rings. Its most likely too high profile for what I should have for the Marlin, but was hoping I could have used it as it would save me a couple bucks.
Oh well, its probably better to do something right than butcher it with with scraps to save a buck!
Judging by the reactions I think low mount is the way to go with a smaller scope. I was initially going to try to utilize an mount and rings that I have never used that came with my Armalite AR-15 when I bought that some years back with 30mm rings. Its most likely too high profile for what I should have for the Marlin, but was hoping I could have used it as it would save me a couple bucks.
Oh well, its probably better to do something right than butcher it with with scraps to save a buck!
stickhunter
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Victoria, B.C.
Good on you. The cheap Weaver one piece base works great on Marlins and has two sets of slots so you have a bit more freedom with scope position. The 30-30 is not a pounder, so the Weaver base holds up just as well as a more expensive steel one.
The standard Weaver topstrap rings are about as low a setup as I've been able to find, with the Burris Zee rings a close second. An added bonus is that the Weaver rings are a dime-a-dozen and are actually quite well made as well as being easily detachable --- their only detraction is the single sided strap can cause the scope to rotate as it's tightened down, so you have to sometimes do a bit of fiddling to get the reticle straight.
All told, I think a brand new Weaver base and rings should put you back about $30. A set of Zee rings is about $35, so there is pretty good economy in the Weaver setup.
Yes, for several coons ages the Weaver bases and rings have been used, and for a lot of that time were actually the standard, that other mounts were judged by. I've used them for a long time and never had any problem.
In 1965 I bought a Sako in 270, complete with the Sako rings, which I thought was a dream set up. The heavy rings dovetailed into solid, tapered mounts on the rifle.
Only one trouble, I could not hold the scope in the rings, which had only one screw in each end. The scope kept slipping, until I gave up. Weaver made bases that fit the Sako dovetail. Got those and Weaver rings and the scope never moved again.
When scopes became popular, after World War Two, it was the very low power units that sold well. The Weaver K2.5 soon ruled the roost in that department. Jack O'Connor had his jocular moments in print and here is what he said about the K2.5 when it came out. "If you want to shoot black cats at midnight in a coal mine, the Weaver K2.5 is your scope!"
Never tried that. However, the 2½ power Weaver adorned some mighty fancy rifles on major hunting safaris in the almost unknown northern BC mountains.
Then Lyman came along with their much hyped and better quality 2½ power, the first Lyman Alaskan. It became King of the Hill with the well heeled hunters going to Alaska, at least, as well as northern BC.
Oh, the grand old times of the glory days of hunting and shooting!
Gee, I forgot, were you asking if a low power scope was OK for a 30-30?
In 1965 I bought a Sako in 270, complete with the Sako rings, which I thought was a dream set up. The heavy rings dovetailed into solid, tapered mounts on the rifle.
Only one trouble, I could not hold the scope in the rings, which had only one screw in each end. The scope kept slipping, until I gave up. Weaver made bases that fit the Sako dovetail. Got those and Weaver rings and the scope never moved again.
When scopes became popular, after World War Two, it was the very low power units that sold well. The Weaver K2.5 soon ruled the roost in that department. Jack O'Connor had his jocular moments in print and here is what he said about the K2.5 when it came out. "If you want to shoot black cats at midnight in a coal mine, the Weaver K2.5 is your scope!"
Never tried that. However, the 2½ power Weaver adorned some mighty fancy rifles on major hunting safaris in the almost unknown northern BC mountains.
Then Lyman came along with their much hyped and better quality 2½ power, the first Lyman Alaskan. It became King of the Hill with the well heeled hunters going to Alaska, at least, as well as northern BC.
Oh, the grand old times of the glory days of hunting and shooting!
Gee, I forgot, were you asking if a low power scope was OK for a 30-30?
I put the Weaver one piece mount on my 336 (actually branded Sears 45) and what rings I had around here and the darn thing shot so high I couldn't adjust the scope down far enough without running out of clicks. So I tore it off and put a receiver sight on it.
I think my rings were too high.
I think my rings were too high.
The low power scope is the way to go. Outside of that a Williams Foolproof or Redfield receiver sight is the next best thing. I find the scope(good quality) better in low light but the peep sights are quicker to get on a deer with.
- Location
- Yellowknife, NWT
I had a 336 carbine with an old Tasco 1-3.5X scope. I always left the scope on 3.5X; it had lots of FOV even in brushy areas. I used low Williams rings and bases. Very accurate.
I absolutely hate see-throughs, and can see no use for them. I have used a scope set to 4X on deer as close as 15 feet with no problems.
40 years ago, with scopes that had narrow FOV and very critical eye relief, see-throughs may have had some merit. And although I have seen posts from a few sitew members who have shot game with the iron sights on a see-through mount equipped rifle, I have asked at least a dozen owners of such rigs and not one has ever needed the iron sights.
I absolutely hate see-throughs, and can see no use for them. I have used a scope set to 4X on deer as close as 15 feet with no problems.
40 years ago, with scopes that had narrow FOV and very critical eye relief, see-throughs may have had some merit. And although I have seen posts from a few sitew members who have shot game with the iron sights on a see-through mount equipped rifle, I have asked at least a dozen owners of such rigs and not one has ever needed the iron sights.
