Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello all. I received a new Leupold FXII 2.5x20mm scope for Christmas that I’m putting on my 1895 Guide Gun, and I want to get it as low as possible. Since the scope has a straight 1” tube all the way out to the objective, and since the front end of the ocular lens bell is behind the base, I hope to find rings that will get the turret structure almost touching the base. The tube will be a little higher off the base since it’s smaller than the turret structure.

I know that “low” rings vary in height between different manufacturers, so I thought I’d ask if any MO member knew which Weaver / Picatinny type ring is the lowest of the low rings.

Thanks in advance.
 

·
Premium Member
All kinds. Enamored of their mechanisms!
Joined
·
10,764 Posts
Weaver brand rings are about as low as I've seen. I'm talking about the bent steel strap type. Not pretty, but very functional - and near perfect repeat ability when removing and replacing.

The Picatinny rail was inspired by the weaver system and interchanges well.

AC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,116 Posts
A couple other brands make rings that use Weaver bases. I replace any rings I take off with steel conventional rings. Some of cheap rings are aluminum which I don’t care for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,713 Posts
Steel rings are usually smaller, thinner, lower than aluminum rings. The aluminum needs to be thicker to approach the strength of the steel. Any steel rings you get in "low" will only be a mm or two different in height.

To tell for sure, you'll probably need to compare them side to side. That likely means a trip to a box store or large LGS that has several different makes of rings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunscrewguy

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Weaver brand rings are about as low as I've seen. I'm talking about the bent steel strap type. Not pretty, but very functional - and near perfect repeat ability when removing and replacing.

The Picatinny rail was inspired by the weaver system and interchanges well.

AC
From the info I’ve been able to find, you are turning out to be correct. The Weaver “original” ring in low height is 0.089” from the base of the ring (where the ring contacts the top of the cross-slotted base) to the bottom of the scope tube. The closest thing I’ve found to it is 0.173”. I know that’s a small difference, but what I have now is taller than 0.200, so it should help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunscrewguy

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Steel rings are usually smaller, thinner, lower than aluminum rings. The aluminum needs to be thicker to approach the strength of the steel. Any steel rings you get in "low" will only be a mm or two different in height.

To tell for sure, you'll probably need to compare them side to side. That likely means a trip to a box store or large LGS that has several different makes of rings.
I’ve been finding pretty much the opposite. The very lowest I’ve found so far is the Weaver Original, and it’s aluminum on the bottom half with a steel strap on top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunscrewguy

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
The very lowest I’ve found so far is the Weaver Original, and it’s aluminum on the bottom half with a steel strap on top.

I'm very interested to see this scope, and those rings you speak of here.

I have an 1895 GS and have considered purchasing the XS ghost ring and rail setup (as was factory equipped on my recent 1894 SBL). I have an FX II 2.5 X 28, but I've not seen the 2.5 X 20...

Thanks for your time. I'll be watching your progress here with interest. :beer:
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunscrewguy

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
I'm very interested to see this scope, and those rings you speak of here.

I have an 1895 GS and have considered purchasing the XS ghost ring and rail setup (as was factory equipped on my recent 1894 SBL). I have an FX II 2.5 X 28, but I've not seen the 2.5 X 20...

Thanks for your time. I'll be watching your progress here with interest. :beer:
Two significantly different scopes. Linear field of view at 100 yards is the big one for me. I’ve been through the scout scope phase with an XS Lever Rail system and a Burris 2.75x20. I found that I can’t use a magnifying sight with both eyes open (can do fine with a red dot), and can’t live with the field of view or the reflection off the ocular lens of a scout scope, so it’s back to a conventional scope for me albeit one with a little longer than typical eye relief.

FX-II 2.5 x 20; https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rimfire-scopes/fx-ii-ultralight-2-5x20mm

FX-II Scout IER 2.5 x 28; https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/fx-ii-scout-ier-2-5x28mm

.....and the rings; https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1477113938?pid=792508
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apples.357

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Discussion Starter #10

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,976 Posts
I think Leupold or Talley make a super low ring. I was told this by a gunsmith the other day. I know for sure that there used to be a forum member by the name of Jake that got Talley to make a super low ring for Marlins but he is no longer around and I don't know if they still make them. I like the Weaver quad locks but you can only get them in a Medium height. Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I think Leupold or Talley make a super low ring. I was told this by a gunsmith the other day. I know for sure that there used to be a forum member by the name of Jake that got Talley to make a super low ring for Marlins but he is no longer around and I don't know if they still make them. I like the Weaver quad locks but you can only get them in a Medium height. Good luck.
I checked in to the Leupold super low rings. The rings themselves are quite low, but the Leupold base for a Marlin is very thick to allow for the dovetail on the front ring to be inserted in the slot of the base and rotated into place. That thickness makes the overall height about the same as I have now. Further measurement from when I originally posted; the point limiting how low I can get the scope is indeed the gap between the turret housing and the top of the scope ring base (currently an XS Lever rail base). That gap is about 9/64” - 0.140” and I can actually lay the scope on the base with no rings and the turret housing keeps the ocular lens bell high enough to clear the hammer. I can go with the Weaver top mount rings with a height of 0.089, which will get me down almost 2/3 of that gap (63.5%). That’s probably the best I can do using a base. A ring that attaches directly to the receiver with no separate base (like a Talley) might get me a little lower if anything like that exists. A Tally low is not lower than what I get with the old style Weaver rings.

It’s all higher than open sights, which I would love to be able to use, but that’s not practical with my eyesight if I actually want to hit what I try to shoot.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
Not all Weaver style bases are created equal.
Warne's version are much lower in profile and will get your scope closer to the bore.




Vooch

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Remus Redbone

Two significantly different scopes. Linear field of view at 100 yards is the big one for me. I’ve been through the scout scope phase with an XS Lever Rail system and a Burris 2.75x20. I found that I can’t use a magnifying sight with both eyes open (can do fine with a red dot), and can’t live withe the field of view or the reflection off the ocular lens of a scout scope, so it’s back to a conventional scope for me albeit one with a little longer than typical eye relief.

FX-II 2.5 x 20; https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rimfire-scopes/fx-ii-ultralight-2-5x20mm

FX-II Scout IER 2.5 x 28; https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle-scopes/fx-ii-scout-ier-2-5x28mm

.....and the rings; https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1477113938?pid=792508

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. It is appreciated. :)~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Not all Weaver style bases are created equal.
Warne's version are much lower in profile and will get your scope closer to the bore.
Agree. I have Warne basses on two of the three lever guns I own and just ordered a third this evening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,454 Posts
as long as the center of the scope is within 1" or 1.5" of the center-line of the bore, you'll be good to go.

A good cheek weld, meaning your pupil lines up with the center of the scope when you lay your face down on the comb, is super important for long distance shooting. If your pupil is not lined up with the exact center in a 2X20mm scope, mounted on a 45-70, because the scope is mounted a skosh too high, it won't affect your short range accuracy enough to matter.

If you were working on a 338 Lapua or a Barret 50, a lot of effort to get the right rings and bases would pay big dividends.

I have 1 rifle where I went to a great deal of effort to get everything perfect - my 308 target rifle. My actual hunting guns, well, good enough is good enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HIKayaker and Vooch

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,713 Posts
If you can't find a low enough base to suit you, there's always duct tape....



(I'm kidding)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgt_zim

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
I have a Weaver 63A base (.283") which is longer and lower than the 63B (.370") with Gloss Weaver Quad Lock rings. I don't think you are getting any lower than that. The base is over 6 inches long. Most if not all of the added length is forward. It nearly touches the rear sight. The front of the front ring is flush with the base; the rear of the rear ring is approx one inch forward of the rear of the base.

ETA: I don't know how these rings could be considered Medium (.155") from the top of base to bottom of scope, but they are pretty close to Low height Weaver conventional rings. This measures to .455" from the top of the receiver to the bottom of the scope.

ETA: I didn't realize how old this post was. Offer rescinded.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top