Rimfire Central Firearm Forum banner

Poll: Is Your 39A Scoped Or Not?

40K views 218 replies 161 participants last post by  SDCromer 
#1 ·
I'd like to know how many of you shoot your Marlin 39A's either exclusively scoped, or with iron sights. Or, do you switch back and forth, depending on your mood?
Speaking for myself, I mounted a scope on my brand-new 39A the day I bought it back in 1978. In those days I was about 27 years old, and still had "young eyes", but went with a scope anyway.
Hmm... I can't seem to find a posting option enabling me to create a multiple-choice poll. Oh well! :rolleyes:
 
#199 ·
scope on a lever gun?

I like lever guns. I have a bunch of them; from a Marlin 39A to a Winchester model 71 in .348 win. That one is legitimately a rimmed magnum cartridge. It looks like a .30-30 cartridge on steroids. Back to the subject: The following statement is MY opinion only: A telescopic sight on a beautiful lever gun is like a wart or black mole on the nose of a beautiful woman. 'Nuff said. I realize that some of us are likely up in years and our eyesight isn't what it used to be so a scope is helpful if not necessary. So far, I'm fortunate in that at 76 I can still see the front sight in the notch or peep of the rear sight. Now, scopes on bolt guns are a whole 'nother subject.
 
#200 ·
To me, the lever action rifles look better without optics.

They also are supposed to be useful. When you need optics, I don’t feel bad in using them. I do not support the idea of modifying a nice lever gun to accept optics, but if the unmodified rifle will accept optics then it is no big deal. I would never D&T a lever action rifle to accept optics, but if it is factory D&T, then it is no big deal. It isn’t as if you can’t remove the optics.

That is why I like the Winchester 94AE better than the early, post 1963 model 94. It can take optics if you need them. Besides, the 94AE has a forged receiver.
 
#201 ·
I prefer most of my levers to be slick/iron sights. The only exception is the Savage 99. My 39A Mountie has always had irons. Im 60 now and its not so easy on the eyes but the Marlin 39 irons are pretty easy to pick out. Similar to the sights on my old Winchester 1886 ranch rifle.
 
#202 ·
I have a Lyman 56a peep on mine,and this means I am cooler than Steve McQueen?WOW,never thought I would see the day. BUT, he has passed on and if he still lived he may have kept getting cooler ,so I can't claim that,I am pretty cool,I have a 77 Sportster,that is real cool,even Steve would have said that!and....
 
#206 ·
The most important thing is,that we keep on shootin',I use a peep and shot it yesterday,however the half inch bull was not , by any means an easy target to see at 50 yds ,just a pinpoint.After three bulls I was tired of them and started scrapping pieces of clay pigeonns from the trap range to shoot at ,much more fun but the rifle was very able.
 
#207 ·
I always like the peep sights. But as I get older I notice that I was struggling more and more with the peeps and decided that I liked the scopes and red dots more and more. I have two 1" plates at 25 yards and it is a whole lot easier to hit those 1" plates with the scope and red dots. If nothing else it is a lot easier to see them.

1955 Marlin 39A on top, 1966 Marlin 39A on bottom. Both Mounties.



 
#213 ·
I

I am in the process of fixing up a Mountie I got last week. Right now it's out in the workshop and I am epoxying a missing bullseye back in the stock. When I found it at a local gunshop it had a cheap ultra high gloss 3-9 scope one it and I simply said that I did not want the scope. I have a couple of old Weaver K series scopes a 2.5 and a 3 power, one post and crosshair the other a German 3 reticule. I got a UTG dovetail to picatinny adapter and some Leupold QRW rings, low and they work fine except for backup irons I want my old Lyman 66 receiver sight and it's a little tight on the scope, so I have some med and high rings on order to try.
 
#211 ·
Rifles look better with a long bbl,39a 's have more capacity with a long bbl,they look better,they shoot better,because I don't hunt with a Det..Special,rifles are supposed to have a long bbl.with iron sights you have a longer sight radius ,aids in shooting accuracy,they LOOK better,there's more blue steel to admire and that makes the Walnut look better....because that's just the way their s' posed to be ....long ,sleek and beautiful,oh ..and no I don,'t have a scope!
 
#214 · (Edited)
my 2 39a's

Got the 39a Mountie 63' years ago after owning a Weatherby Mark XXII, Kimber bolt, Remington 541, Browning Belgium T-Bolt etc and etc. Everything else is gone after having the most fun ever with my two Marlins. After acquiring this old Redfield with rings WAY too cheap I just had to mount it up. It is surprisingly clear and usable for the occasional rabbit hunt. I picked up the 54 Ballard about 5 years ago and put the Lyman set on it. Using the round target sight up front it was too dark to hunt with so I put the small post up front and it is now lovely. The 54's hammer was modified by a previous owner and at first I did not like it but it has grown on me to be acceptable if not functional.
 

Attachments

#217 ·
thanks

Thanks for pointing out the not original drilled and tapped on the 54. I would not have known that detail. I would probably not ever want to scope it though. I miss-described my front sight on the previous post. I am using the one that looks like a normal front sight that has a small round bead at the top. I would like to try this rifle prone using the official 50 yard targets and will switch it out to the appropriate sized round one if I ever find a roundtuit! I have never been to any kind of organized competitive shoot but assume this one would work well for the chickens & pigs style shooting. It might be good to put a minimal scope rail on it like the Mountie has for ammo testing purposes as I have a few scopes laying around without a purpose.
 
#218 · (Edited)
scope mount

So was comparing the steel mount on the Mountie with the holes in my 54 and is not the right one for sure. In the picture the 3 holes on top of the 54 is all there is. Nothing underneath the Lyman sight at the rear. There are two on the barrel. What scope base would fit this configuration? I would like to use a full size Weaver style slot where I could use a current scope available then easily remove it to shoot the Lymans. Its too bad when they were drilling and tapping that they did not put another one on the tang to mount a tang sight! When did they stop drilling and tapping the barrel on the side for the N mount. Mine does not have them.

Just looked at the Weaver base chart and there is a #29 for the receiver and a #16 for the barrel. This might work except I might have to trim off some of the receiver mount if it interferes with the Lyman mount on the side. The description of these two mounts height suggests a difference back to front of .085. When I measured my difference from the front of the high part on the receiver I only got .055. Did they change this relationship after my 54 was built that these bases apply to? I am wondering if these will line up properly.
 

Attachments

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top