bought a leatherwood scope and put on my 1895 and I have always liked it. clear optics and sighted in once and stays that way

 

I had one on a scout rifle when the scout craze was first going on. I believe it was a Leopold 2x7 from their custom shop. Did not have enough eye relief and was a 1" tube. I ended up mounting it conventionally. I thought the whole system was so so and its just been sitting in the back of my gun safe. If I had to do it over I would go with a 30mm tube and one with a lot more eye relief.

 

I run a Leupold VR-X 1.25-4x20 Patrol in Leupold medium QRW2 rings on the XS Scout Rail coupled with an 1894 SBL. I mounted the scope just in front of the peep sight. Surprisingly, this position works for me even with the scope cranked up to 4 power. The VR-X has a fairly large eye box. I'm tall enough that I normally lean into a scope and there was very little shadow around the edges of the eyepiece at max magnification. If I turn down the scope to 3.5 or lower, the shadow completely disappears.

 

I put an intermediate eye relief Burris Timberline on a 450 Bushmaster rifle hearing it called "Thumper" and wanting space for my spectacles. it works just fine.

 

I have used them quite a bit on pistols but don't like them for rifles.
I don't really get why people want them on rifles.

 

Well, they were made popular in the 1980s by the late Col Jeff Cooper (Who I knew). What many never got about the forward mounted scope on his 'Scout Rifle' was that it was there mainly so stripper clips could be used, from above. The introduction of replaceable box mags on many bolt guns since has made that unnecessary. The second reason is that some say, (and find) they can use a forward mounted scope with both eyes open, and thus get a wide field of view around the scope. Keeping in mind in Coopers day red dot sights were in their infancy, that option has also, arguably, become better served since.

In short, while I think they must work for some, I see very few who use them and the lack of range offered by the manufactures rather suggests demand is low. As a footnote I once read a book written by a German sniper in WW2. In it he complained about the forward mounted scope on the K98 and compared them very unfavourably with the rear mounted scopes on the Soviet Mosin Nagants. He also said how happy he was when the K98s were later issued with rear mounted scopes. I guess some would argue the forward mounted scope is an instinctive both eyes open short to medium range set up. But then, we now have excellent and reliable red dots for that.

In my case, the reason for considering it is for a K98. A rifle I have tried to scope for years, and failed to do satisfactorily.

 

I have 3 identical Swift 2x LER compact/scout/pistol scopes, one each for my 70P, 60 and 1894CS Marlins. They are lightweight which helps this old lady hold up the rifle. :burnout:I had a big, heavy Nikon on the Henry 30-30. Nice scope but too big for me.

 

I gave the long eye relief scout scope setup a try with my friends Ruger Gunsite. He has his rifle set-up scout style and he loves it. I gave it a try but it wasn't for me (I shoot traditional scope setup w/ both eyes open.)
With the scout set-up, I didn't care for the weight (scope) being forward or the long eye relief.
I understand the whole Jeff Cooper scout scope concept, and it's great...quick target acquisition, shoot with both eyes open, able to use loading strips on (certain) rifles. but it just wasn't for me, your mileage may vary.

 

Pros;

• Quick site on target
• Eliminates scope to forehead contact on heavy recoil calibers.
• Scope can be mounted low as allowable with no hammer / bolt clearance concern

Cons;

• Narrow field of view (unless you can aim with both eyes open. I can't)
• Low powered scope advised (unless you want to make a narrow field of view even worse)
• Glare / reflection on ocular lens in some conditions (sun behind you)
• Not as low as open sights, so some cheek riser might be required on some guns.

An intermediate eye relief scope like azdover shows helps reduce the cons list. I went with a micro red dot (Vortex Venom 3 MOA dot on a Burris 336 / 1895 Marlin mounting plate) on my 1895 Guide gun in 45-70. No magnification, but I can shoot with both eyes open to improve field of view, the dot is almost as low as open sights, gun handles like it has open sights, no danger of getting my eye "dotted" (I did get my glasses bumped many times with a conventional mounted scope on this gun).

If I could see open sights, I probably would have gone that route, or a ghost ring rear on the of the receiver to increase the sight radius. I have other longer range, lower recoil rifles with conventionally mounted scopes, so I wanted gun that handled like it had no scope.

 

Depends on what you are using it on and the length of your arms. Pistol scopes are LER but they differ in eye relief distances so it boils down to if it will work with your arm length. I you are getting one for a scout rifle or shotgun the eye distance is kind of set by your length of pull on the stock and where you put your cheek. All of the top name brands are good so just make sure the eye relief will work for your setup.

 

To me, regular rifle scopes look great on regular rifles (bolt, semi-auto) but just don't look right on a lever action receiver. Lever actions are mainly used for fast shots...bring it to the shoulder (or any point between), point and pull the trigger. It's a lot easier for me to do that without refocusing into a scope that blocks your vision.

If I hunted, I'd go for the regular scope where I could get good distance on a regular bolt or semi auto.

 

A few years ago, some 6 or 7 years after "failed" lasic surgery, my eyes had gotten pretty bad. The lasic surgery had gotten my long time nearsightedness from 20/2000 down to only 20/600 but caused an immediate problem with farsightedness in addition. My optometrist at the time (who also inspired me to do the lasic thing) put me back in contacts (already 30+ years experience with them) which lasted a couple of years ... if I wore reading glasses to do close up stuff. It only took a couple of years until I found that wearing readers to even drive or just everyday activities was necessary. After a few short years of that fiasco I couldn't see iron sights on handguns or long guns and be able to actually focus on a target. So, I opted to scope my Rossi R92 being top eject it required a LER scope. From some very good advise I opted for the Weaver Scout Scope, 4X, and was immediately impressed. In 2017 I found a new "eye guy" that understood my needs and fitted me with tri-focal contact lenses that have themselves been amazing. If it weren't for the brain surgery stuff in late 2016 the new trifocal lenses would probably be much more "amazing", but needless to say, I can again see iron sights as well as targets again. Having weighed the options though, I've decided that the Weaver Scout Scope will stay on that R92. It's been a good investment in my opinion.


jd

 

Thanks for the replies. For the record the idea was not for my 1894c. That mostly wares only Skinner irons, and sometimes a dot sight. I do have a low power scope for it but only for group/ new load testing. Nothing else. Doesn't bother me if the groups are off, as long as I can estimate size.

The forward scope thought is for a K98, and after much thought I am about ready to shelve the project, again.

 

T, my son put a Leupold "PigPlex" LER scope on a Ruger M77/.357 bolt gun several years ago. The last I saw of it (at least 3 years ago) the set up was really nice. I'm not sure that I would have done it on the Ruger .357, at least not now with having halfway decent vision again. It was a good scope though.


jd

 

I only have one. Its on a top eject Win94. It performs well enough out to 100 yards. I didn't spend a lot of cash but this Bushnell Trophy Scout is a decent scope none the less.

redhawk