To Scope or not to Scope....... Marlin 30-30


PDA






Sly Fox
February 5, 2006, 10:35 PM
Just bought a Marlin 30-30.

I'm a newbie and have never shot a 30-30 before. I've shot .22's and .308.

The 30-30 will be my "truck" gun, and for hunting hogs and deer under 150 yards. Should I put a scope on it?

If so..... would a "scout scope" be a good choice? I have used regular scopes but never had a chance to use one of them "scout scopes". Is there an advantage to them?

If you enjoyed reading about "To Scope or not to Scope....... Marlin 30-30" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
texasguy
February 5, 2006, 10:44 PM
Just bought a Marlin 30-30.

I'm a newbie and have never shot a 30-30 before. I've shot .22's and .308.

The 30-30 will be my "truck" gun, and for hunting hogs and deer under 150 yards. Should I put a scope on it?

If so..... would a "scout scope" be a good choice? I have used regular scopes but never had a chance to use one of them "scout scopes". Is there an advantage to them?

I have a 4x on my winchester .30-30 and its great. If it makes you feel better about your shots I would go with the scope. How good are you with open sights?

Basically, the scout scopes are low-powered rifle scopes with long eye relief so that you can see them from 6-10 inches away from your face. You dont need to worry about a scout scope for your marlin, because it is a side eject. Top ejection guns need them, like a winchester 94, because a scope would block the shell. All you need is a regular riflescope.

6inch
February 5, 2006, 10:58 PM
Go out and put a box or two of rounds down range and see what you think.

lawson
February 6, 2006, 03:21 AM
if you can hit consistently at 150 yards with open sights, then you don't need a scope.

for a truck gun, you're better off without a scope, and if you can get consistent hits at that range, then more power to ya.

i also have a Marlin .30-30, and i don't have a scope on it. in the arizona desert, i rarely get a line of sight more than 50 yards anyway.

KadicDeshi
February 6, 2006, 10:29 AM
Personally, I put a XS Sight ghost ring sight set and Leverscout scope mount on my 336. I then got a Burris 1x scope. I have no illusions that I'd ever need a shot past 100 yards in the woods and hills around my area but I like having a scope for just a little quicker work. And the forward mount really facilitates quick targeting. The ghost ring is extremely fast too, and if you don't want to have to bother with a mount, I'd suggest that.

Just to let you know how someone else has gone with the idea. (I've really got to get a camera.)

Barrett

belton-deer-hunter
February 6, 2006, 11:22 AM
i got mine a while back and put a tasco 3-9x40 on it and sighted it in on friday so i would say that if you put a scope put see-thru mounts on it i did mine and i love it

foghornl
February 6, 2006, 11:33 AM
My Marlin .30-30 has a 4x32 scope on it, sitting in see-though rings.

Irons are dead-on @75, scope @150.

Guyon
February 6, 2006, 12:43 PM
I put a compact 1-4x20 on mine recently. Mainly an ethical decision since I use it for deer hunting.

Lots of folks like their iron sights or their peep sights though.

Sly Fox
February 6, 2006, 04:09 PM
Just wanted to thank you guys for helping me out.

I'm going to go through a few boxes of various ammo this weekend and see how consistent I am with this rifle.

We'll see about the scope................

:)

Guyon
February 6, 2006, 05:58 PM
i got mine a while back and put a tasco 3-9x40 on it and sighted it in on friday so i would say that if you put a scope put see-thru mounts on it i did mine and i love itYou know, lots of guys knock the see-thrus because of two main problems: high cheek weld and instability.

That said, my .30-30 with that same set-up was a one-shot check two years in a row. Shot it before hunting season, saw it was all good, and went about my business. Maybe it's because I took great care not to bump the scope, or because I didn't put all that many rounds down tube.

I finally caved this year and put a smaller scope on--not because of any accuracy issues, but because (a) I never had time to use the see-thrus in actual hunting situations and (b) the big setup made the rifle a little bit cumbersome IMO.

Still, I took a deer with the big 3-9X40 and see-thrus just this December before switching over. It put the bullet right where I wanted it to.

The Real Hawkeye
February 6, 2006, 06:17 PM
Just bought a Marlin 30-30.

I'm a newbie and have never shot a 30-30 before. I've shot .22's and .308.

The 30-30 will be my "truck" gun, and for hunting hogs and deer under 150 yards. Should I put a scope on it?

If so..... would a "scout scope" be a good choice? I have used regular scopes but never had a chance to use one of them "scout scopes". Is there an advantage to them?The Scout scope is a forward mounted low power scope that let's you easily keep both eyes open for a full field of view. It is superior to the conventional mounting and magnification for the application you are thinking of. I, however, like to leave all of my lever actions scopeless. Instead, I put a Lyman receiver mounted aperture sight on them. This is a huge improvement over the open sights, yet is still perfectly appropriate for shots out to 150 yards. It is also perfect for close up shots, which the scope wouldn't be. I'd use a Lyman aperture peep sight instead of a scope, but certainly don't put a scope on any higher power than 2X or 3X magnification.

Somehow, scopes don't seem right on lever actions. Kind of defeats the intended purpose. keep the scopes for your bolt actions, is my advice. I can consistently, using conventional open sights on a lever .30-30, keep every shot, from a standing off-hand position, inside of two inches at 50 yards, and inside of four at 100. Give me any kind of rest and/or a peep sight, and it only gets better, but that's more than accurate enough for deer hunting. If you can, off hand, keep them inside of six inches at 100 yards with open sights, you don't need anything else.

Deer Hunter
February 6, 2006, 07:04 PM
I'm never going to put a scope on my 30-30, it's just too pretty for that.

Other than the looks catagory, I can consistantly hit targets at 75 yards with very nice accuracy with my iron sights. I'm not going to be shooting anything with that gun any farther out than that, so what's the point of having the scope?

RugerSAFan
February 6, 2006, 08:02 PM
I was talking to a friend of mine last night while watching the game. He's a former Army Col., and talking about getting a .22 for his grandson.

He said one would never be a good marksman if one didn't learn first to be a good shot with iron sights. May not apply here, just his comments...

Tylden
February 7, 2006, 06:34 AM
I recently went through the same "dilemma" and opted for a Brockman peep sight for my '71 Marlin 336 to keep the clean classic lines of the leveraction. The peeps work awful well on my .22, and since I never shoot the .30-30 further than 100 yards anyway, I didn't really need a scope.

Now I'm looking for the right apeture for my Marlin 39A which should be here this week :D

rbernie
February 7, 2006, 07:45 AM
Statr with a good aperture rear and stock front iron sight, and see how you do.

Here's a Marlin, done up scout style... http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=33366&stc=1&d=1136248612
By moving the scope forward, the offhand balance of the rifle is enhanced and one-hand carryability is retained (since you can still wrap your mitt around the receiver at its natural balance point). It also seems to 'point' faster than a rifle with a scope in a more traditional position.

I'd still try to stick with a non-optical sight for a truck gun; less to break, less to go wrong, less to get stolen.

Guyon
February 7, 2006, 03:34 PM
Other than the looks catagory, I can consistantly hit targets at 75 yards with very nice accuracy with my iron sights. I'm not going to be shooting anything with that gun any farther out than that, so what's the point of having the scope?I'm surprised at this question, given your username.

Hunt a deer in heavy cover. The scope more than pays off in terms of following the deer and making an ethical shot when it counts.

I finally opted for a small scope in 1-4x20, but a scope nonetheless.

Guyon
February 7, 2006, 03:38 PM
Here's a Marlin, done up scout style... http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=33366&stc=1&d=1136248612
I'm sure the scout arrangement works great, but I've never been fond of how it makes the rifle look.

Here's a different look with a compact. My set up is very similar.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jflovvorn/DSCF0229[1].jpg

Roadkill
February 7, 2006, 03:40 PM
I use a wide angel scope set on 6x on my 336. Works for me.

_N4Z_
February 7, 2006, 07:38 PM
You know I scoped my 336 up once just to try it and had no luck. Used the peep type mounts that sit up high so the irons are still available, on a weaver type rail mounted onto those tapped holes in the reciever.

It was so far off to the right I couldn't hit paper at 50 yards. Tried a different set of rings to the same result. Decided it wasn't worth it to me to continue on and the scope came off. It shoots dead nuts bullseyes with the irons at that same distance so why...... :banghead:

Deer Hunter
February 7, 2006, 08:58 PM
I'm surprised at this question, given your username.

Hunt a deer in heavy cover. The scope more than pays off in terms of following the deer and making an ethical shot when it counts.

I finally opted for a small scope in 1-4x20, but a scope nonetheless.
I hunt tree stands, and my shots are never more than 40 yards away. Any farther than that, and I could be lucky to see the deer clearly, due to all the brush. Most of the time, I know a deer is coming by hearing it coming through the woods. And when it's that close, a scope would only get in the way. Every deer I've taken with my 25 year old 336 has put them down in one shot, without it running anywhere. I aim for the heart.

The gun I have was drilled for a scope, but I guess I'm too old-fashioned (coming from a 17 year old, imagine that) for it.

The Real Hawkeye
February 7, 2006, 11:18 PM
Good for you, Deer Hunter. You are a true sportsman. If you don't need the scope, why put it on there, is what I say.

Guyon
February 8, 2006, 09:39 AM
Good for you, Deer Hunter. You are a true sportsman. If you don't need the scope, why put it on there, is what I say.Scoping or not scoping has nothing to do with being a sportsman. If you following this line of reasoning backwards, all "sportsmen" would still be using flintlocks (or maybe atlatls). IMHO, making sure that you take the animal quickly and ethically has a lot more to do with sportsmanship than what your rifle looks like.

In the fairly dense wooded areas where I hunt, I find the scope to be useful in terms of spying on deer when they get behind brush or trees. Sometimes hard to watch with the naked eye, but the scope allows me to see better when and where I'm going to have a clean shot.

Scopes also allow for early and late hunting (right at dusk and dark) because of the light transmission. Those are always good times for seeing deer.

Deer Hunter, I'm not knocking your choice. I just think that a scope, even a small one, gives you a few advantages--advantages I'm willing to take.

danurve
February 8, 2006, 10:37 AM
I do plan on a lever sooner or later. Probably in 30-30, although I know a nice 35... anyhow while my eyes are still working well I think to stick with irons. Going for a 'traditional feel', but that is just me. I'd say depending on your vision and where you hunt it's a matter of use. A scope on a lever if you need one shouldn't take attention away from the rifle so to say. To me a nice lever represents a different kind of shooting, like a style. So would I scope it up like I would a bolt action? Probably not. On the other hand that 35 had peeps and that would work without taking the aesthetics away from the rifle.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 10:57 AM
Scoping or not scoping has nothing to do with being a sportsman. If you following this line of reasoning backwards, all "sportsmen" would still be using flintlocks (or maybe atlatls). IMHO, making sure that you take the animal quickly and ethically has a lot more to do with sportsmanship than what your rifle looks like.

In the fairly dense wooded areas where I hunt, I find the scope to be useful in terms of spying on deer when they get behind brush or trees. Sometimes hard to watch with the naked eye, but the scope allows me to see better when and where I'm going to have a clean shot.

Scopes also allow for early and late hunting (right at dusk and dark) because of the light transmission. Those are always good times for seeing deer.

Deer Hunter, I'm not knocking your choice. I just think that a scope, even a small one, gives you a few advantages--advantages I'm willing to take.Didn't mean to offend you Guyon. If you feel you need a scope, then that's fine. There are degrees of sportsmanship, in my opinion, however. You don't use 20 LB test line to fish for brook trout, and you don't use a scope, unless you actually, as an individual, need it for some reason, for stand hunting in thick brush. As between the two, a stand hunter who uses a scope and one who does not, my vote goes to the one who does not as the more sportsmanlike of the two. I don't see how you could argue against that. Less technology requires greater skill and patience. That's the definition of being sporting. Not saying it is somehow unethical to hunt with a scope from a stand in thick brush. Perfectly ethical, but so is cutting a pig's throat at a slaughter house, so long as you are quick with it. The question of being sporting is not the same as being ethical. I hope you didn't think I was saying you were unethical. I was not. Just not AS sporting as someone who uses less technology and more skill/patience.

Guyon
February 8, 2006, 03:40 PM
As between the two, a stand hunter who uses a scope and one who does not, my vote goes to the one who does not as the more sportsmanlike of the two. I don't see how you could argue against that. Less technology requires greater skill and patience. That's the definition of being sporting.Not offended at all, but I respectfully disagree on some points. You and I are differing somewhat on the sporting/sportsman distinction. I don't see the two as quite the same.

If you want to talk about giving a deer a sporting chance, then there's not all that much "sport" about shooting an unexpecting deer from an elevated stand with a modern centerfire rifle at close range--scope or no scope. Yes, it takes some skill to get your stand in the right spot, but at the moment of the shot, I doubt that deer cares whether or not you had a scope on your gun.

As far as aim, I don't really think the scope gives much advantage at 30 yards with full light. Takes about the same amount of skill IMO. Go out to 75 or 100 yards, and I'll give you your due on this point. In that case, I might concede the iron sights as more "sporting," but I would follow up with the caveat that you have no business using iron sights at that distance if you don't know precisely where your bullet is going. At short range, however, the distinction is really negligible.

As I said before though, there is some advantages in a scope for hunting in low light and picking up on deer movements when they're behind heavy cover. I'm willing to scope up to get those advantages--in part because I can make a cleaner shot in those conditions when the opportunity arises.

Sporting chance? Maybe stalk hunt with a traditional muzzleloader? Or a bow? There are levels of "sporting" that I haven't tried, but whose practitioners I do admire because of their patience and abilities.

For me at least, embedded in the notion of a "sportsman" is one who is ethical in the way he/she goes about hunting. For those who use iron sights in low light, then I would expect them to pass up on shots when they're not absolutely sure of a clean shot. To shoot at a large, dim target would be neither sporting or sportsmanlike. But because I see so many deer right at dawn or dusk, I'm willing to be a little less "sporting" at those moments to put meat in the freezer. My .30-30 wears a scope mainly for that reason.

Guyon
February 8, 2006, 03:45 PM
As between the two, a stand hunter who uses a scope and one who does not, my vote goes to the one who does not as the more sportsmanlike of the two. I don't see how you could argue against that. Less technology requires greater skill and patience. That's the definition of being sporting.Not offended at all, but I respectfully disagree on some points. You and I are differing somewhat on the sporting/sportsman distinction. I don't see the two as quite the same.

If you want to talk about giving a deer a sporting chance, then there's not all that much "sport" about shooting an unexpecting deer from an elevated stand with a modern centerfire rifle at close range--scope or no scope. Yes, it takes some skill to get your stand in the right spot, but at the moment of the shot, I doubt that deer cares whether or not you had a scope on your gun.

As far as aim, I don't really think the scope gives much advantage at 30 yards with full light. Takes about the same amount of skill IMO. Go out to 75 or 100 yards, and I'll give you your due on this point. In that case, I might concede the iron sights as more "sporting," but I would follow up with the caveat that you have no business using iron sights at that distance if you don't know precisely where your bullet is going. At short range, however, the distinction in terms of "sporting" is really neglible. In those conditions, one might even argue that the iron sights are actually easier to use--i.e. easier to pick up on the target when the deer is out in the open.

As I said before though, there are some advantages in a scope for hunting in low light and picking up on deer movements when they're behind heavy cover. I'm willing to scope up to get those advantages--in part because I can make a cleaner shot in those conditions when the opportunity arises.

Sporting chance? Maybe stalk hunt with a traditional muzzleloader? Or a bow? There are levels of "sporting" that I haven't tried, but whose practitioners I do admire because of their patience and abilities.

For me at least, embedded in the notion of a "sportsman" is one who is ethical in the way he/she goes about hunting. For those who use iron sights in low light, then I would expect them to pass up on shots when they're not absolutely sure of a clean shot. To shoot at a large, dim target would be neither sporting or sportsmanlike.

However, because I see so many deer at dawn and dusk, I'm willing to be a little less "sporting" at those moments so I can put meat in the freezer. Mainly for this reason, my .30-30 wears a scope.

If you enjoyed reading about "To Scope or not to Scope....... Marlin 30-30" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!