[Spence]

I just bought a Marlin 336C and mounted a scope on it. Not being suspicious enough of advertising claims, I first opted for a 3x-9x 50 mm scope on Weaver see-through mounts. Mistake. You could see the iron sights, alright, but not what you were aiming at. Backed off and switched to a 40 mm objective bell and standard medium Weaver mounts, and the situation was much improved. I'm still not happy, though. I like to get a good cheek weld when I shoot, and I can't do that, not quite. I hope I can do better. With the rear iron sight removed the objective bell of the scope is still 1/4-inch above the barrel, and the ocular bell is more than that above the hammer. Can anyone suggest a mounting system which will reduce that clearance?

 

[Tnhunter]

Call me old fashioned, but all my scoped Marlins wear low rings, and only have scopes with 20mm objectives on them. I'm figuring I won't need high magnification with the calibers they're chambered in and I also prefer the look of the smaller sized scopes on these trim rifles. I simply use one or two piece Weaver bases with low height Weaver (or other) rings and that seems to be a really good fit for me. All my Marlin lever rifles have hammer spurs, even the one with a Lyman peep sight. Hope that helps some.

 

[Spence]

I agree with you on the low power scopes and their looks on this trim gun. As for the looks, I actually would prefer no scope at all. I seriously considered a set up similar to yours when I began putting this outfit together. In my hunting situation, though, I can profit from higher power, and also from a large exit pupil. The two don't come in the same scope, so I opted for the 3x-9x 40 mm. I'll stick with it for a while, at least, but would like to lower it, if possible, but I can't seem to find Weaver rings shorter than medium.

I'm new to the smokeless deer rifle game, and it has been many a year since I put together a rifle/scope combination. I remember it as being easier.

 

[Tnhunter]

Take your pick:
http://www.midwayusa.com/browse/Bro...tring=657***698***8582***8587***&brandId=1477

Good Luck!

 

[yankee bill]

Spence,

Evidently I'm from the same school as Tnhunter with these 336's.

I've messed with some larger objective scopes on them over the past 35 years or so, but IMHO, anything over 4x and a 20mm objective is just plain overkill for these guns and the ranges they're intended to be used at. The larger scopes also tend to negate the fast handeling qualities of the 336.

For me, the better Cheek weld I get with a 20mm objective was much more important than unneeded extra magnification of larger scopes which I could never get a good cheek weld with. And I doubt most folks can unless they got a Turkey neck, which I certainly don't.

Regardless of the scope I have mounted on any gun, I want the bottom of my objective as close to the top bbl as I can get it (without touching of course) in order to obtain the best possible cheek weld and accuracy.

To achieve this with the VX-II 1-4x20 on my 336 I went with a set of Burris Super-Low Zee rings and Weaver 1 piece base.

I removed the sights from the gun as I don't have a need for them, but when they were on it I could see the front sight with the scope set at 1x. It wasn't much of a distraction during huting situations, but would pluck my nerves a bit at the range.

As far as the See-Thru mounts go, you will find that most folks that have been around a while don't have much regard for them. Aside from placing the center of the scope way too high above the bore, which will also cause a cheek weld issue along with a larger ojectives, they also tend to be more "flimsey" if you will, than standard height mounts. By flimsey, I mean their added height provides the "extra leverage" that makes them prone to being more easily knocked out if alignment should your scope get banged around a bit. Ask me how I know this .

Lastly, if using a low power scope in the 1x-2x range there really is no need for open sights (unless as a back up on a remote hunt) as at these powers you can pretty much shoot from the base of your tree on out.

Hope this has been of some help.

YB

 

[Spence]

Thanks. Strange that I hadn't found them, because I just did business with midwayusa. Didn't find them at the Weaver site, either.

Is there some way to find the actual dimensions in order to find the difference between medium and low rings?

 

[yankee bill]

I can't get my cut and paste thingy to work at the moment but go to weaveroptics.com they have charts for their rings and bases with that info.

YB

 

[Spence]

Spence,

Evidently I'm from the same school as Tnhunter with these 336's.

YB

I understand, Yankee Bill. I can't disagree with anything you or TnHunter have said. The 336 certainly has a reputation as a handy, quick and easily handled rifle, and I'm sure it deserves it. I understand that the low power small objective scopes you recommend would take maximum advantage of those characteristics. I will probably never find that out, first hand, though. In my situation I never brush hunt or jump shoot deer, I sit on the ground and ambush them as they come to me. I've never killed a deer with a smokeless rifle, but i know my hunting site and the behavior of the deer on it intimately, and I know that my rifle and the scope I have will do the job for me even if I don't change anything. Not having a solid cheek weld isn't as much of a problem for me as if I were jumping deer and throwing my rifle to my shoulder. I have the time to adjust, and the experience to adjust, I just want to fix things so I don't have to adjust.

I think I need lower rings, and I hope I can find a set which will get the scope down as much as possible and still clear the barrel. If I can do that I'll be a happy camper. But, if for any reason I ever decide to change scopes, I'll certainly remember the advice I've gotten.

 

[yankee bill]

Spence,

The Weaver low mounts should get your objective pretty close to your bbl. Check their website for the actual height and calculate along with your base height to ensure they will not be too low.

Another option you may want to consider if you're still having a cheek weld issue after lowering your rings is a slip on adjustable comb package. You may already be aware of these, but if not, basically they are an elastic type sleeve that slips over the stock of your rifle and come with several foam inserts in different thicknesses that you place between the inside of the sleeve and top of stocks comb to your desired height.

The sleeves look very similar to those black elastic shell holders (minus the loops) made by allen, uncle mikes, etc. that you slip onto your stock. As a matter of fact, I substitute these shellholder sleeves for the originals that come with the comb kit and use them along with the foam inserts on several of my guns and they work great. They ain't too purty, but I don't care much about purty when i'm making meat.

I can't recall the name of the kits off the top of my head, but if you search the internet supply sites and catalogues they'll be easy to find around the recoil pads and such.

YB

 

[Spence]

Spence,

Another option you may want to consider if you're still having a cheek weld issue after lowering your rings is a slip on adjustable comb package.

YB

I've looked at those, and they seem a reasonable option if I can't get the scope lowered enough. I think the Marlin stock has a fairly low comb which isn't the best for a solid cheek weld unless your are using the iron sights. With those the gun fits me like a dream, comes to the shoulder like it grew there.

Spence

 

[yankee bill]

I've looked at those, and they seem a reasonable option if I can't get the scope lowered enough. I think the Marlin stock has a fairly low comb which isn't the best for a solid cheek weld unless your are using the iron sights. With those the gun fits me like a dream, comes to the shoulder like it grew there.

Spence

As they were designed for

YB

 

[PAX]

I've picked up a 30AS to set up as a pig getter. Added hammer spur, see thru mounts, 4x32 and a Blackhawk lace up cheek pad (tried the slip on type but it didn't fit tight). Comes up fast and comfortable for the scope, awkward when trying to use the iron sites. After a couple outings with that set up, I decided I'll probably change to lower rings and commit to scope only. In the past (as in when I could see good), I put peeps on the rear and hoods on the front, very quick aquisition. Still have rigs set up that way. On my deer gun, a Savage 99 in 308, I have a 2x7x40, which is great.

 

[cturpin]

Thanks. Strange that I hadn't found them, because I just did business with midwayusa. Didn't find them at the Weaver site, either.

Is there some way to find the actual dimensions in order to find the difference between medium and low rings?

Spence,
Go to this link on the Midway site and in the R section of the index there are a lot of charts with information to help you with this question.
http://www.midwayusa.com/General.mvc/Index/ApplicationCharts
If you still have questions give them a call and have them connect you with one of their gun techs. I have found Midway to be very helpful.
Cary

 

[Spence]

As they were designed for

YB

Exactly so. Wish I could use it that way.

Spence

 

[Spence]

Spence,
Go to this link on the Midway site and in the R section of the index there are a lot of charts...

Cary

Thanks, Gary, that is a very helpful link.

I have only dealt with MidwayUSA for one minor transaction, am glad to hear you have had good experience with them.

Spence

 

[cturpin]

Spence,
I hope you end up with what will work for you.
Cary

 

[Spence]

Spence,
I hope you end up with what will work for you.
Cary

Thanks, Gary. I will insist on it.

Spence

 

[Spence]

Cary

I see that Gary = Cary. Mea culpa.

Spence

 

[andy]

Call me old fashioned, but all my scoped Marlins wear low rings, and only have scopes with 20mm objectives on them. I'm figuring I won't need high magnification with the calibers they're chambered in and I also prefer the look of the smaller sized scopes on these trim rifles. I simply use one or two piece Weaver bases with low height Weaver (or other) rings and that seems to be a really good fit for me. All my Marlin lever rifles have hammer spurs, even the one with a Lyman peep sight. Hope that helps some.

I am using a Leupold Weaver Style base with Weaver low rings. I had a (steel) Weaver K-4 mounted and it was small enough to clear the rear sight, then I replaced it with a Weaver K-3 straight tube.

It seems to me that you have to have a 32mm or smaller objective to use low rings with the Marlins.

Another benefit besides "cheek weld"; the low mounted scopes are closer the center of balance on the rifle, and don't feel as "clumsy" to me.

Andy

 

[Tnhunter]

I actually find that with the low rings and 20mm objective that my hand still fits comfortably around both receiver and scope for a comfy one hand carry so enjoyed with a short lever rifle. Not quite as comfy as the no scope feel, true, but still very handy.