Marlin Firearms Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,410 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The eyes ain't what they used to be, so I am considering scoping my 35 Remington and changing the scope mount on my 30-30.

I am interested in first hand experience with the Weaver 63B base or the B-Square 45536, both are one piece and made of aluminum. My concern is the aluminum strength and rigidity. I am mounting a Bushnell Banner BDC 3-9X40 scope. I'd like to mount them low without contacting the barrel or iron sites (I do not want to remove the rear site).

Your first hand experience with the scope mount , which height rings should work in this set up is appreciated.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
145 Posts
I use a 63B and Weaver Quad-Loc medium rings on my 336 30-30 and they were a perfect fit with a Bushnell 3200 2X7. A good solid mount system, light weight and fairly inexpensive too.
B.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,463 Posts
It all depends on whether your rear site folds down or not. If it does fold down, you should be able to use the Weaver base with medium Quad-Lock rings for mounting your 3 - 9 X 40 scope. If not, you might have to go with the highs. In any event, you'll find that the Quad-Locks are super rings at very reasonable prices. They're all I use any more, and you can find them at any WalMart. WalMart also sells the two piece Weaver bases that work very well also. I've used both the 63B's and the two piece bases and find that both work very well, except that the two piecers get too close together when mounted on a Marlin 1894. On a 336 or 1895 they're no problem at all. In fact the scope I have mounted on my Guide Gun is set on a two piece base.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
I am using both of those bases. One of the four B-Square 45536 bases was defective in that the width was not wide enough to secure the Weaver Standard low ring set. I called Safariland (B-Square) and they sent me a replacement which works fine. I prefer the B-Square 45536 over the Weaver as it is a rail with a lot more slots to provide more options for scope placement. Aside from the one defective base, all are working perfectly, no problem with strength or regidity.

The scopes I have mounted on these four (336's, 444 & 1895) are the Weaver 1-3 20mm which are considerably smaller than the one you plan on using, so my low rings might not fit your application.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
145 Posts
Brian in FL said:
It all depends on whether your rear site folds down or not. If it does fold down, you should be able to use the Weaver base with medium Quad-Lock rings for mounting your 3 - 9 X 40 scope. If not, you might have to go with the highs. In any event, you'll find that the Quad-Locks are super rings at very reasonable prices. They're all I use any more, and you can find them at any WalMart. WalMart also sells the two piece Weaver bases that work very well also. I've used both the 63B's and the two piece bases and find that both work very well, except that the two piecers get too close together when mounted on a Marlin 1894. On a 336 or 1895 they're no problem at all. In fact the scope I have mounted on my Guide Gun is set on a two piece base.

Your'e right Brian. I did have to adjust the sight elevator to the lowest notch on my rifle. It just barely cleared the obj by less than 1/8". Thanks for pointing that out. If I'd tried to mount a 3X9X40 like the OP's, I seriously doubt it would have fit w/o removing the rear sight completely.
B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,410 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Added information:

30-30 has rear sight with fold down buckhorn

35 Remington has two piece rear sight (elevator and one piece sight, non-folding).

The 1894 (357 Mag) not mentioned before with stay iron sights.

Thanks for the info, keep it coming, please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
That non folding sight on the 35 Remington is easily replaced and a Marlin folding one is inexpensive. I have purchased those parts from Midway.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top