Lever Guns

[awp_101]

Scope line of sight height was an issue to me in scoping a lever gun, The old simple Weaver base on Marlins with low Weaver rings was as low as I found back when i was messing with them. Not as sexy as many mounts available today, but were simple and worked well and werent jacked up in the air.

Some of the base/rings available for levers really give me a case of the "WTF were they thinking?" in how high they are. Some give the instant sight picture through the scope with normal handling, anything taller is pretty much a no go to me.

I cut my centerfire teeth on an early-70s 94 with a scope on the left side (Redfield mount comes to mind) so tilting my head to the side doesn't bother me but anything requiring a chin-weld is a pass if I can help it. I was trying to use a Warne QD mount (probably for an AR) on an XS Lever Scout. If I pull the XS Scout rail, replace it with a regular receiver rail and just get the appropriate rings for that scope it will probably be just fine. I just need to break down and get the parts, want to and a round tuit.

Or just rock the PA dot as-is and drive on.

[Malamute]

I had one of those mounts, but the one I had was pretty sloppy and ultimately not really something I wanted to depend on. About the middle of my 92 clone period, I was toying with getting a stainless, octagon-barreled 92 Rossi short rifle, getting it cut down to 16" and having a long section of Picatinny/Weaver rail from Brownell's with some of the bottom metal milled off and then attached to the top flat with five screws. I actually thought of this after looking at F.W. Mann's old patent for the full-length barrel dovetail for the scope mounts he developed at the time. Old books often lead me onto some odd tangents.

I figured with any compact optic and low rings, it would withstand whatever I was likely to bump it with. It was not a complex idea, but I was no longer willing to invest the effort and lost interest... but I still think the idea had merit on a top-ejector. On a Marlin, maybe not so much. It probably would have looked like hell, but no worse than some of the tacticooled stuff out there now.

Ive kicked various ideas around, I wanted a forward mounted scope on something, I thought one good way was machining down some Ruger ring bases so they sat very low and screwing and sweating them on the barrel where they needed to be, then when the scope was off, they woudlnt be as big and clunky as weaver/picatinny type mounts are.

I eventually just caved in to the Angle Eject 94 as the simple answer. They can use a little cleaning up of edges and such, but seem to function fine and are relatively slick.

Im looking at parts, I may commit a heresy and make an older 94 into an angle eject. The bolt and extractor cut are the main differences, the existing barrel would been to be clearanced if a replacement AE barrel wasnt used, and of course the receiver sidewall would need to be beveled some besides the drill and tap for scope bases. The bolt is the main part, they can be had around $30-$40 complete.

Im also kind of wondering if a 94 bolt could be adapted to a 92 to make an angle eject. The rear section might possibly be able to be machined to work, the fronts look pretty similar.

[Malamute]

I cut my centerfire teeth on an early-70s 94 with a scope on the left side (Redfield mount comes to mind) so tilting my head to the side doesn't bother me but anything requiring a chin-weld is a pass if I can help it. I was trying to use a Warne QD mount (probably for an AR) on an XS Lever Scout. If I pull the XS Scout rail, replace it with a regular receiver rail and just get the appropriate rings for that scope it will probably be just fine. I just need to break down and get the parts, want to and a round tuit.

Or just rock the PA dot as-is and drive on.

Ive messed with the Weaver side mounts some, they work, I cant seem to stick with them though. They are often criticized because of the bullet crossover when zeroed and who knows where its going to be at X range etc. That never bothered me, if its zeroed an inch right of POA it should be an inch right of POA at any distance, not that hard to remember and pretty inconsequential in most uses Im going to put a 94 to.

Needing to rotate the scope so the adjuster turrets were not in the way of the ejecting shell caused some heartburn for people that didnt realize the elevation and windage adjustment turrets were now reversed. I know at least one person that gave up entirely on it rather than adapt and think it through. I do the same with the AE, it gives more room to single load and clear the chamber. Its not that difficult of a concept to deal with.

I had a front screw made to fit pre-64 lever pin plug screw hole so the 3 hole post-64 base utilizing the peep sight holes would work, with no need to make more holes in the gun.

[awp_101]

Ive messed with the Weaver side mounts some, they work, I cant seem to stick with them though. They are often criticized because of the bullet crossover when zeroed and who knows where its going to be at X range etc. That never bothered me, if its zeroed an inch right of POA it should be an inch right of POA at any distance, not that hard to remember and pretty inconsequential in most uses Im going to put a 94 to.

Exactly! No need to complicate things anymore than they already are!

[entropy]

All the above reasons are why I have no desire to go down the scope road. After learning how important a consistent cheek weld is (for me at least) the idea of sticking my head on the stock like a stork has my OCD in hyperdrive. Although not “perfect”, the Turnbull mount is pretty low. For my purposes, I need something that carries well, sights quickly, and is robust. We’ll see how it works out. The height-over-bore isn’t that much greater than the receiver sight it’s replacing.

If it goes well, the next project will be addressing the same thing on a Mini-30. There’s a place that makes an extremely low profile rail that clamps on and replaces the factory top hand guard. Kinda like an UltiMak but lower profile. I consider both the levergun (as discussed above) and the Mini to be 3moa guns at best. Putting a 2 or 3moa mini dot on it I think will suffice for my needs. If I need more accuracy or longer range, I’ll drag out a bolt gun.

[Malamute]

All the above reasons are why I have no desire to go down the scope road. After learning how important a consistent cheek weld is (for me at least) the idea of sticking my head on the stock like a stork has my OCD in hyperdrive. Although not “perfect”, the Turnbull mount is pretty low. For my purposes, I need something that carries well, sights quickly, and is robust. We’ll see how it works out. The height-over-bore isn’t that much greater than the receiver sight it’s replacing.

If it goes well, the next project will be addressing the same thing on a Mini-30. There’s a place that makes an extremely low profile rail that clamps on and replaces the factory top hand guard. Kinda like an UltiMak but lower profile. I consider both the levergun (as discussed above) and the Mini to be 3moa guns at best. Putting a 2 or 3moa mini dot on it I think will suffice for my needs. If I need more accuracy or longer range, I’ll drag out a bolt gun.

Part of what may have been lost in the shuffle above is the old Weaver base and low rings on marlins give a low scope height and the Leupold two piece bases and low rings give a low scope height on Winchester Angle Eject guns. I really like mine. With the Leupold 1-4 its instant and right where Im looking when I throw it up to my shoulder.

[gato naranja]

Part of what may have been lost in the shuffle above is the old Weaver base and low rings on marlins give a low scope height and the Leupold two piece bases and low rings give a low scope height on Winchester Angle Eject guns. I really like mine. With the Leupold 1-4 its instant and right where Im looking when I throw it up to my shoulder.

The old guys who had the lowest-mounted scopes all seemed to use Weaver bases and rings.

I know there were objections to the Weaver rings, but the things seemed to work.

[Noah]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ction-supreme/

[gato naranja]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ction-supreme/

Looks kind of like a Browning BLR without the craftsmanship.

[Malamute]

The old guys who had the lowest-mounted scopes all seemed to use Weaver bases and rings.

I know there were objections to the Weaver rings, but the things seemed to work.

In many applications this is correct, though in the case of the Winchester 94 AE its definitely not the lowest by a significant amount. They are some that elicited the "WTF" reaction when compared to other offerings, like the Leupold.

I recall ages ago I think it was one of the gun writer guys that hunted Africa a fair bit commenting that the Weaver rings worked well on 375 H&H rifles.

They have some quirks, like the scope rotates some when torqued down, at least most of the time, but its not insurmountable by any means. The "most of the time" part means about when you figure out how much to compensate, then it doesnt turn.....so you go again. Anyway, its sort of a keep trying til it ends up where you want it process some of the time.

I think one lesson to be taken from this is to not be stuck on a particular brand or type just because its good or even best in other applications.