I hope that set-up works for you, but I will say that very few people end up liking those see-thru mounts. While it seems to be a problem that your iron sights are obscured by the scope, scopes are reliable these days, and the arrangement makes it difficult to use either sighting system well. I feel the better situation is to depend on the scope -- but use rings that allow you to remove your scope in the field if something goes bad with the scope. Plain old Weaver rings, medium height, will do.

 

Thanks! I think I’m really liking it!

 

For some reason the see-through mounts are big here in PA. I could never get used to them and took them off of the gun that i bought with them mounted.
But I don't use anything that big on my guns.

 

Wanted another 32 mm sportview, but bushnell sent me a 40mm and a 50 mm. Maybe some overkill but I really like it.

 

That scope and rings will double as a handle to carry the gun.

 

I didn’t detect any sarcasm there! That set up only with a 32 mm that finally played out has lain several nice bucks in the shade. Running shots with the irons in the cutover taking it slow tossing rocks down in ravines has proven very successful. Then when he stops across the hollow after being broken down with the irons, the scope then puts the end to it. I just have trouble keeping the crosshairs on him running. When still hunting distances up to 500 yards I take my 7mag, not the 35.

 

To each his own but why would you mount a scope like that then use your iron sights? I've mounted all manner of see through and tip off scope mounts over the years and can't remember ever using the iron sights. When you get into the dark swamp, the scope is invaluable in identifying your target and finding a path through the brush. The scopes that we have now, even the budget ones, are reliable enough that you don't have to worry about them failing. When the weather gets funky, you might have to pay a little bit of attention to making sure that the scope stays clear but it's not something that's ever become problematic for me. I do invest in a good set of Butler Creek lens covers for my scopes and they make a big difference. The other thing is that scope is really big on that gun and is going to throw the whole balance of it off kilter. To me the 35 is a 150 yard in, deer cartridge and the biggest advantage to using that 336 is it's speed and balance. Although I've never had a 35, I have used 336's and 1894's for deer hunting. In fact, they are what I tend to grab when I know I'm going into a place where the hunting is going to be close and fast. Don't take this as a put down, it's your gun and you have to do what right for you, but it's just observations based of my experiences in the Maine woods.

This is how my newest Marlin hunting gun is set up.

 

I kinda explained a little in the one above yours.

 

DITCH those see through mounts........You will NEVER use them.......They went out of style in the 70's. .........BTW all my hunting marlins wear 50mm scopes. Shown 336SS LTD 35 Rem with 50mm Leupold Var-X III.

 

Yea, I’m kinda set in my ways! Shoots really good for me!

 

See-thru was back when scopes failed in the rain and you could still hunt.Keep'em low.Good quality scope in 1-4 or 1.5-5 is good.
I just think levers are best with no bell scopes.

 

'
No bell scopes???? You only hunt from 10an till 2 pm??........Those of us (that like to see) when hunting early and late use BIG scopes. Those little weiner scopes just won't cut it.

 

I'm a big fan of all these guys on the forum. You guys are awesome. But I'm going to have to stray and say I'm a huge huge fan of see-through mounts have them on all my Marlin levers and Remington pumps. I've been using them since the 1980s and just love the versatility and find the accuracy just fine after many rounds down range via handloads. I think one of my favorite things about the see-thru mounts is I don't have to twist my neck looking through a scope when I can almost look straight ahead. And I love how goofy they look.

 

Could not have said it any better myself! Many great advantages! We can take our 7mags when we hunt the power lines! Thanks!

 

We've had this conversation before. I put see-throughs on my new in 1981 336c .30-30 with a Timber King 3x9x40 and I haven't changed either out in 41 years. The mounts don't loosen and the scope doesn't lose zero. One shot before opening day confirms that every year. I use high mounts on all my rifles. OP, if you like them, keep them. Don't listen to the naysayers.

 

We've had this conversation before. I put see-throughs on my new in 1983 336c .30-30 with a Timber King 2x7 and I haven't changed either out in 41 years. The mounts don't loosen and the scope doesn't lose zero. One shot before opening day confirms that every year. I don't like having to press my face on the stock to see through the scope. I use high mounts on all my rifles. OP, if you like them, keep them. Don't listen to the naysayers.

Amen!

 

Side flip mounts give the option of scope or open sights plus they mount low.
I have 2 that have them.I was going to change them till I tried them and found how accurate they really are when flipped.

 

Welcome.

I've tried several types of see-through mounts and didn't like any of them. The advantages of iron sights, for me, are a BIG field of view and quick target aquisition. See-through mounts don't give you that. Accordinly, I became a quick release scope guy long ago.

But all the varied responses above just go to show that there is no one right answer. It all boils down to personal preference.

 

Yea, I’m kinda set in my ways! Shoots really good for me! I don’t know why but it’s very comfortable for me.

 

Excuse me while I go use my toothbrush on my eyeballs. Just kidding. Your rifle, your call. Studies have proven a low power scope with an illuminated reticle is the quickest and most accurate sighting system when jumping game. Like others have said, scopes are so much more dependable these days that back up sights are pretty much unnecessary.

 

Lol, pretty good I had to laugh. I wrote a reply to all the comments here somewhere. You may take a minute and find it. But anyway I appreciate your comment. Thanks Steve

 

I just use a fixed 4 X power scope on my 336/M 45. I'm not shooting 200 to 400 yards. I always mount my scopes as close to the bbl as possible, eliminating the iron sights .

 

That's the best part of this forum. We all love these fun lever action rifles. We don't always agree on what to stick on top of them or not...some like scopes low hanging, some like em popping up high. Some like scopeless.

I for one would love to have my 20 year old vision back for the rest of my days and be able to see at dawn and dusk. Thank goodness for quality binoculars and optics. Any critters I take appreciate it too.

 

Very true!

 

A lot people poo pooing on your set up. One of the few negatives on this forum is there are a bunch of curmudgeons who seem to actively seek posts so they can say something negative. SCREW EM! They probably have self esteem issues. You like it? Does it shoot straight? Then enjoy the hell out of it. Never read a post where someone missed a deer because of see through mounts. Once again nice gun.

 

Generally when you post things on an internet forum, you are inviting comment. In fact, sometimes you post things to get the comments. Not everyone does things the same way so you have to expect that you may get some comments that don't necessarily go along with your ideas. There's about a million years of experience posting here and as hard as it may be to believe, some of that experience may have led to different conclusions than you hold. In my case, that experience has led me to the conclusion that see through mounts are an answer looking for a question. It has also led me to believe that big scopes don't necessarily work on small guns for hunting. I really don't care how the OP sets up his gun but he posted here and I added my thoughts, based on my experience, to the conversation. All of the posts in response here were respectful. Some don't agree with the OP's premise. I'm not sure if that makes anyone a "curmudgeon" and I certainly wouldn't call them negative just because they are contrary to what someone else may think.

 

My 1x4 and 1.5x5 Leupolds are just as bright at dawn and dusk as my 6x20 Leupold.

 

To each their own. Why a 50mm objective? A 2-7-28 mm objective at 4 power is exactly as bright as a a 4-12-50 at 7 power (same version of same scope maker). A healthy eye can only take 7mm of light.

 

NO is is not. The larger the front bell the more light it pulls in and therefore you can see better early or late.....I know from many years of expirience in the early and late deer woods.

 

I found this interesting...
The Truth About Riflescope Brightness (And How to Pick the Best Hunting Scope for Low Light) (outdoorlife.com)

 

I’m a fan of see through rings for many years. They are inexpensive less parts easy to install. If something should go wrong while a field you have backup sight. I like the see through rings that attach right to the receiver because I can see the iron sights clearly. IMO a scope mounted in see thru rings should have adjective lens no bigger than 33 mm, I like scopes in 1x3x20mm to 2x7x33mm especially in lever carbine 35 Rem. and 30-30, the smaller the lighter the scope setup the better for woodland hunting.

I do have a Marlin XLR 308 express sporting a good set of see thru rings scope is a Weaver 2x10x38mm that shoots three shot groups the size of a quarter at 150 yards with my hand load Leverevolution rounds.
Tony

 

All things being equal, the larger the objective, the more light that can enter the scope. All things are seldom equal. There's a ton of other factors that come into play when judging scope brightness. Objective lens size is one of them. There's also glass quality, coatings, physical construction and more. What we put on top of our guns is a compromise among these factors, including price. Sometimes mostly price. Optics is one of the few consumer items where you get what you pay for. If you don't believe that, go to your local box store and actually look through some scopes. When you do, don't test them by looking out at the sunny parking lot. Find the darkest corner of the store and look there. You will be amazed at the difference in image quality between a $300 Vortex and a $3000 Ziess. They are not on the same planet. So to say that a 28mm at 4 power transmits the same amount of light as a 50mm at 7 power is a bit of fuzzy math. If you are comparing a high end 28mm with a cheep, budget 50mm, then you might get away with saying that the image quality with the 28 is better but even that is subjective. The laws of physics say that you can't get the same amount of light through a 28mm hole as you can through a 50mm hole. The other compromise we make is what scope FITS on the gun. I think that's the main argument in this post. In my case, I put that Leupold 2x4 on my 1894 because it fits on the gun. That and cost were my compromises. As I said, if you don't believe any of this, do the box store test. Approach it with an open mind and you might have an eye opening epiphany, literally.

 

At the beginning of the above post I thought I wasn’t going to agree, but at in the end I agree. In my long life of owning scoped rifles I accumulated about fifteen scopes that I still have. About thirty years ago I bought a Redfield 3-9x50mm but never mounted it it’s still in its original box, perhaps some day I’ll mounted.
I now have switched from see thru rings to base and detached Weave style rings, scopes that fit rifle and its caliber and at the range I should see the target quickly and clearly out to one hundred yards because that to me is practical hunting in NYS.
I have small collection of Japanese Weave, Redfield, Leupold and Leupold Redfield.
Tony

 

Well, I’m somewhat old-school I’ve been shooting 35s since I was a teenager. I’m 65 now had the Bushnell sport view on a few with the see-through mount walked a lot of cut over was able to kill several running deer with the iron sides not being able to get on them running with the scope, so I just was going to replace the 32 mm that developed over the years some POI issues wound up with this 50 mm with the 1 inch tube. Just wanted to show it. I thought it was nice. I load several several different powders and some fact ammo with 200 gr rn and now shooting 1 inch groups at 100 yards LVR does really good less than one inch with this set up with this scope with 200 gr rn interlock. Oh well, I like it don’t really need The 3 x 9 and don’t really need the 50 for that matter. I only use it for thick cover anyway when I wanna shoot 400 yards I take my seven mag so I like it I guess.

 

My biggest concern with see-thru mounts has always been the lack of rigidity an possibility of losing zero with a hard bump. I do have scopes on almost everything, most in Weaver style mounts. Weaver/Picatinny style rings can easily be removed should a scope be damaged somehow. Take your scope off, zero your iron sights, clamp the scope back on and check zero, easily done with properly mounted Weaver/Picatinny setups. One of the benefits of the larger objective lens is that it expands the area of light that you look through, making it easier to find the target through the scope, a 3-9X40 set on 4x gives a 10mm circle to look thru, a 4x32 gives an 8mm circle. If your eye is not centered, it is easier to find the target when the objective is larger. As far as 'light-gathering', there are many factors that come into play when using a scope in lower light conditions, lens coatings and there is a 'twilight factor that involves calculations that involve both scope power, objective lens and maybe other stuff. I do know that over many years, I find my scopes set at 3-4(3.5) in the timber(elk) and 5-6 in the open(antelope), usually a Leupold or Burris with a 33 to 40mm objective. We (wife and I) carry binoculars, so we do not play with our scopes when looking at game.

 

I am not a fan of see-throughs, and never used them due to a too high head position, but many folks are fans and if it gives them confidence, go for it. Plus as a Pennsylvania native, they were very common. I suspect it is a traditional thing handed down in deer camps from father to son, and veteran hunter to newbies, in a state that had an unwritten natural law that opening day was either rain, wet snow, or fog, and frequently all three together, and WAYYY back in the day coming in from the cold could internally fog a scope. That ws also when folks avoided variables due to fogging, which is no longer the case.

I would not use a 50mm objective except on a long range, high magnification rifle/scope setup. With modern lens coatings, the need for that much light gathering and resolving (assuming a quality scope) is not needed on a shorter range lever gun. However, my main resistance is I do not want to carry that much scope weight.

The 50mm objectives were very popular in Europe for driven hunts in very heavy woods at twilight, with low-light shooting, even on 4X scopes. However, optical coatings have advanced to the point that a side-by-side comparison of a 10 year old scope and a new scope of comparable quality, it is obvious which one is new.

 

Seems to be a discussion between importance of "exit pupil" and "twilight factor". Both are important. Exit pupil is calculated by dividing the objective diameter by the magnification. So, the old European standard 4x28mm, 6x42mm, and 8x56mm scopes all have a 7mm exit pupils. Twilight factor is calculated by multiplying the objective diameter by the magnification and taking the square root of the result. So, the same European scopes above would have twilight factors of 10.6, 15.9, and 21.2, respectively. Yes, all else being equal, the larger the objective lense the brighter the view.

Where quality and expense enter in is with the quality of glass material, precision of the lens grind and polish, type and number of lens coatings, and so on. All these can, and do make a difference.

For example, consider the lens coatings of a hypothetical scope with six lenses. Its high-tech multi-flouride coated lenses allow 99% light transmission. That's 99% per each lens so:
99%×99%×99%×99%x99%×99%= 94.1% combined light transmission.
But if a less expensive multi-coating giving 98% light transmission per lens is used then:
98%×98%×98%×98%x98%×98%= 88.6% combined light transmission. And thus it is with many other differentiating qualities.

When it comes to optics, quality makes a difference and quality costs more. If you want to see a big difference you have to spend a lot more OR make tradeoffs. For example, using a less expensive 50mm objective scope might get you the brightness of a top dollar 32mm objective scope and save you enough money to buy another rifle.

 

I agree with that! 🧐

 

stsiegel
Nice set up. If that works for you keep it. Over the last 50 odd years I have tried many different scopes and set-ups on my levers - low / medium and high rings, fixed power, different objective lens, adjustible power well you name it. Congratulations on your set up and good hunting.