Marlin 1894/scope base/scope combinations?

[Big Paulie]

Dear Folks,

   If I get a Marlin 1894, I would need to mount a scope over the receiver (not scout style).  But, the scope base provided by Weaver (63B) is so very short, with only a couple of ring slots, that it looks impossible to get a decent small scope (such as a Weaver K-2.5) mounted with proper eye relief.  I know that Weaver sells top mount "extension rings,"  but these are so high that they would look ridiculous on such a gun.

    I saw a guy at the range with one of the new Picatinney style bases for the 1894 being sold out of Gunlist. Thes are about 5 inches long.   But, these have so many slots cut in them (about every 1/4 of an inch), that they are as ugly as sin and look like a black saw blade sitting on top of the rifle.

   What are folks using, to mount a compact scope such as the Weaver K series (with no front bell) on top of the 1894s?  This must be a very common thing and hopefully there is an answer.  Does a compact Burris scope, or a Burris 2.75 shotgun scope,  mount better?

Thanks for all info.

Big Paulie

[Ringo Steele]

I use a Weaver or Leupold base (very similar to the Weaver, except not quite as high) for my 1894s and the 336 I used to have, with low to medium height steel rings. I mounted a Bushnell 2.5x (also without a front bell) and had no problems with the eye relief with that combination.

[Ringo Steele]

double-tapped!

[CJ]

I have an old  steel tube Weaver variable 1.5X4.5 IIRC in Warne rings in a Weaver mount on my 1894. As Ringo said scopes with no objective bell are pretty forgiving. And if its absolutely necessary and you have basic mechanical skills its pretty easy to cut an extra slot in a Weaver base with a file.

[Big Paulie]

Thanks for all replies.

   Ringo, you mention a Leupold base.   Is this the standard type one-piece steel Leupold base, where you have to insert and "turn in" the front ring?  Or, does Leupold make a base where you "clamp on" the top rings from the top (with a Weaver top claw system).

    I am a little confused by the information you provided, to the effect that the Weaver base and the Leupold base are very similar.  Any clarifying comments would be appreciated.

   Best Regards,

  Big Paulie

[TennesseeNuc]

Big Paulie,
Redfield makes a steele "twist in" mount for the 1894.  I've used them on a couple of 1894's and they worked quite well.  You can use Redfield, Leupold or Burris rings with them.
Best,
TnNuc

[Mannlicher]

My gunsmith made a base from some steel Weaver style stock.  
The base is 5.5 inches long, and extends over the barrel up to the base of the rear sight.  There are only two cuts, for the mounts.   I use Warne rings to mount a old El Paso steel 20mm Weaver V4.5 Scope.  While I have changed scopes a few times, I will never change rings or the base.  :grin:

I have another older El Paso Weaver K2.5 on my Marlin 336Y. That scope is mounted with standard Weaver bases and rings.

[Echo4Lima]

wish I could get ahold of a Weaver/Picatiny rail about as long as the rear sight slot. This would allow for just about any eye relief desired.  The XS scout scope mount is ugly!

[357magnum]

You can get a Warne 2-piece base for the 1894.  This is what I use for all three of my leverguns.

[gallatin]

you can also get weaver grand slam 2 piece bases and grand slam low med high rings for it in gloss matte or "stainless"
john

[Mannlicher]

I use Weaver bases and rings.  The scopes I like on lever guns are 20mm tubes, low power variables.  The older Weaver and Redfields are perfect.  The picture is my 1894S with a Weaver V4.5[/img]

[DirtyDan]

I have a 63B on a 30TK (336) w/ old Leupold 3x 20 and have no problems. The 1894 action is a little shorter though.

[HiVelocity]

357 Magnum,

Thanks for your photo of your Marlin/Scope combo above............I'd been looking for a neat background for use on my computer........your photo worked and looks great; try it!

Thanks,

HiVelocity (in SC)