Marlin Firearms Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a -72 336C which I want to scope.

I plan on mounting a Bushnell 4200 3-9 x 40 using the existing weaver bases and Leupold QRW low rings.
However; I am not at all sure if the QRW low rings are too low for a 40 mm scope mount?
Please help me out here, don't want to have the trouble of returning the rings if they do not fit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
661 Posts
I'm going to step out on a limb and suggest they might be too low for the 40mm objective.

Here's an image of those same low quick release Leupold rings with a 20mm objective lense on a scout scope mounted on a GBL.








Not the best angles, but I hope it helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks for the pictures and info!

However, I will not use a scout scope but a regular one and from what I gather it may actually be ok with low mounts on 40 mm
but seems like the hammer might be an issue.
I have heard from several sources that with low QRW rings the eyepiece of the scope will actually come in contact with the hammer...

Would be good if anyone with this kind of a setup could prove it right or wrong :-\
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,463 Posts
With 40mm objectives, I use medium Weaver Quad-Lock rings if the rear sight folds down, high if it doesn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,037 Posts
I think ght only way for it to work with the low mounts is if the bell overhung the rail. It would be tight.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,517 Posts
Big Swede said:
Thanks for the pictures and info!
I have heard from several sources that with low QRW rings the eyepiece of the scope will actually come in contact with the hammer...
Here's a couple of my guns which have Leupold 1.5-5x20mm scopes, Leupold low QRW rings and tactical style bases. As you can see there's plenty of room at the ocular end and the hammer extension makes it easier to use though is not required. I could easily use a Leupold 40mm scope but it would probably require removing the rear sight. Also your Bushnell might be larger..


You might want to check
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,670 Posts
I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

I've got a Leupold VX-I 2-7x33 mounted on my 336 using Leupold QRW low profile rings. It works well. But there isn't a whole lot of clearance at the rear iron sight, and thus I kinda doubt that there would be enough clearance for a 40mm bell. Unless, that is, you ditch the rear sight. But then, why use QRW rings? I'd go with medium height rings with a 40mm scope.

I have a hammer extension mounted and use it, but it is possible to operate the hammer with the scope mounted without the hammer extension. In my case, it is more of a convenience than a necessity. The Bushnell, however, may be another matter.

BTW -- one thing to keep in mind is that using the low profile rings and that rifle/scope, I can see the front sight hood when zoomed out to 2x magnification. It doesn't really bother me, but I understand that it does bother other folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for all the feedback, much appreciated!
After taking your advice into consideration I finally have decided to skip the 40 mm and go for a 33 mm (Leupold VX-R 2-7x33).
Afraid a 40 mm would look out of place on the thin receiver of the 336 and I would probably not be able to use the low mount I want.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,511 Posts
I wish I could remember if the rings are low or medium, probably mediums though, anyhow I put a Nikon Omega 1.65-5x36 BDC muzzleloader scope on the .444 with the quick release rings. Gives 5" of eye relief so no worries about scope eye :eek: . There's enough clearance there as you can see. Mr fixit
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top