Bought a Bushnell Trophy 1.75-5X and mounted it on the 444 using a weaver style solid base (one piece) and weaver low rings - now I can see my front site and barrel through it at lower magnification - what dumb thing am I missing? Should I have used high rings instead? ops:
It came with see through mounts and a cheaper scope that I wanted to upgrade - suggestions are appreciated!
You didn't miss anything - but there's a trade-off......It's usually best to try to get the scope as low as possible, but when the rifle has irons on it, then the front may be visible thru the scope as you've found out. The easy fix is to just remove the front sight (and replace the rear with a dovetail filler as well) and stick it and the screws in a platic bag and file it where it can be found( I'm famous for selecting such safe and secure stashing spots, I can't find them again :roll: )
The only down side to removing the front sight is you won't have as a backup if you ever need to remove a damaged scope on a hunt......
If you believe there's good in everyone, you obviously haven't met everyone.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
I use med rings to get me above the front site..
"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington
Nope, that's just the nature of the beast. This characteristic is more common with low-power variables than it is with fixed power scopes.
I use factory open sights as my back-up sight system should I ever need to remove a scope during a hunt. That's never happened but it's my plan.
My 444S wears a Weaver K2.5 with duplex reticle. I can just see a shadow of the front sight when I look through the scope. This becomes much less visible if I remove the front sight hood which I will do during hunting season.
Finally, the more you shoot the gun the less you will notice that front sight in the scope. If you are concentrating on your target your attention is focused downrange. That little blur is still there but you will eventually pay it no attention. A good low-power scope adds so much to my precision and accuracy that a little shadow at the bottom of the picture is a small price to pay.
As they say, "Just get over it!"
"Hunt close, then get closer."
Team .444 -- Member #22
agree with WyoStillhunter. The blur tends to dissappear at about 2.5x. Lower mounting is better for getting a fast sight picture. I haven't needed backup fixed sights in about 45 years of big game hunting. (I have hunted with fixed sights w/o a scope). I leave the front sights on just because the levers look better that way. I have a fixed 2.5, 1-4, and 1.5-4.5 on my Marlins. All are absolutely fast to bring into action. Just shoot lots and you won't even notice the sight or blur.
Team 444 - Member #140 (retired)
I can see half the on my BLR barrel with the 1-4 x 20 set on 1. At one time I took a little issue with it but that was 30 years ago not a big deal now.
I'd much rather have the scope mounted as low as possible and see a bit of the sight or the barrel than use higher rings than needed especially on a Marlin.
quot;The second amendment is obscure only when history is ignored."
Thanks all - I was feeling a lil sheepish there for a bit but it's exactly as you describe - I may move to Med just to reduce the amount of blur (and then get used to what's left!)
Low rings may also create conflict with folded down rear sight on the scope objective bell.
But, the stock of the Marlin is low and I caution against medium rings. You may want to try the low rings as mounted at the range and feel the recoil on your face. Higher rings will put your rifle lower relative to your face and you will have less of a cheek weld on the stock and potentially more jaw thrust as the rifle recoils upward.
1895 GBL "Marlington"
Team 45-70 #430