How do I choose scope ring height for my "Scout" Marlin 336?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sam1911

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
34,961
Location
Central PA
Hi!

I've just acquired a 1975-vintage Marlin 336 in .35 Rem with a 20" barrel, and I think I've decided to go with the scope-forward "scout" configuration for it.

I'm looking at the XSSights scout mount and probably their ghost ring BUIS for it, too.

My big question is what height rings to get. I know everyone and every site says that the lowest rings are "appropriate."

However, I am trying to set this rifle up to really fit me and the iron sights definitely DON'T. If I take a natural off-hand stance and raise the rifle to a comfortable mount, I'm looking WAY over the sights. I have to crane my neck down, crook my head over to the right and scrunch down hard to see the correct sight picture. I know this is common and not a "problem" as most rifle shots give you time to contort into the correct position, but I think of a carbine, and the scout idea in particular, as a fast-handling rifle that will mount naturally and enable a quick shot.

If I get the lowest rings that will work with the scope I'm picking (probably a straight-tube 1-4x24 or so) then I'm sure the scope axis will be uncomfortably low for me. I've tried to use some 3/4" CPVC pipe to mock up a scope and move it to what feels comfortable to me and it seems to settle with the scope axis at or around 1-1/2" above the barrel.

Is there any other way to measure what height rings would give me that location? I hate to just buy three or four sets and try them all out as the Leupold quick detach ring sets I'm considering are about $50 each.

Thoughts?

Many thanks!

-Sam
 
That's puzzling. Ideally, you want the scope mounted as low as possible. If you're used to shooting a rifle with a high-mounted scope or sights, a low mounted scope can probably seem unnatural at first. I think it is a matter of practicing mounting the rifle so the scope is naturally aligned with no head movement at all. At least that's what works for me. Good luck.
 
Ideally, you want the scope mounted as low as possible.

Why would that be? I don't like squeezing down into an unnatural position for a shot. What is the benefit (beyond a very slight one about the scope centerline being closer to the origin of the bullet trajectory...not an issue)?

If you're used to shooting a rifle with a high-mounted scope or sights, a low mounted scope can probably seem unnatural at first.

No, I've shot standard-height scopes and iron-sighed rifles all my life. I just don't care to if I don't have to.

I think it is a matter of practicing mounting the rifle so the scope is naturally aligned with no head movement at all.

But that, in itself, is a contradiction. If I mount most scoped rifles "naturally" without moving my head, I'm looking right at the elevation turret.

IIRC, Cooper's concept of the Scout rifle included the idea that it was to be FAST on target. A real point-shooter with the capacity to shoot longer distances when needed. A scope that doesn't make me scrunch down to peer through it would help that enormously.

If it works for shotgunners -- who are always saying "bring the gun to YOU, don't bend yourself to the gun" -- then it should work for rifles, too.

Unless I'm missing something?

Thanks for your insights!

-Sam
 
You're missing something.

A Marlin lever gun has a stock on it that is intended for use with iron sights. Maybe it fits you, maybe it doesn't, but let's assume it does for now.

"Fit" means that, when you bring the gun to you, the stock is against your cheek in a natural position, but firmly, and you're looking at the target through the sights, effortlessly. This is a "cheek weld". The idea is, when you move your upper body, your head and your eye move as a unit along with the rifle. This is how you hit a moving target, and it's also how you "point" rapidly. Look at target, raise gun, fire, if the target is still. Follow target with eyes and upper body, raise gun, pass target while moving, fire, if the target is moving.

A scout scope is designed to be at a height similar to irons, or the rib on a shotgun. It's meant for a quick-pointing gun that fits you. It's also meant for both-eyes-open shooting, like a shotgun. If you want to close your off eye, and the gun doesn't fit you, get a regular scope. It'll work better.

Some rifle shooters are used to having their face in very loose or no contact with the stock as they look through a high scope. Maybe you can hit a target that way, but it's slow, physically and mentally tiring, and it's useless on a moving target.

"Cheek weld" does not mean "scrunched up." Neither does a low-mounted scope on a gun with a lot of drop in the stock.

Note the drop in the comb on this Marlin:
photo_336C.jpg


Now look at this rifle:
700_cust_c%5B1%5D.jpg


See how different the drop is? The bolt rifle will work fine with higher rings. The Marlin won't. It's not meant to.:)
 
Last edited:
See how different the drop is? The bolt rifle will work fine with higher rings. The Marlin won't. It's not meant to.

Yes, but this brings me full circle:

When I take a normal off-hand stance and bring the gun up to a comfortable (and VERY FIRM) cheek weld and solid shoulder mount, I'm looking WAAAY over the iron sights. I *can* scrunch down to see the correct sight picture over the irons, but it is not comfortable, natural, or particularly quick.

As I said before, I've mocked up different "scope" heights with a piece of pipe and it all starts to "click" with my comfort zone when that "scope's" center line is about 1-1/2" inches off the top of the barrel.

Your description of correct "FIT" is EXACTLY what I'm going for -- and you explained it quite well. I just don't fit the gun all that well, I guess.

But, a considerably higher sight line would help it fit me much better, I think. I'm just confused as no-one seems to mention this option, instead the manufacturers (and most folks I've polled) all try to find the lowest rings that could possibly work with a given rifle and scope. That just doesn't make sense to me!

I guess that now I've narrowed my problem down to figuring out how all the parts (XSSights Scout base, different height rings, the diameter of the scope itself) stack up to give me the elevation I'm looking for.

Making sense?

Thanks again for the thoughtful responses!

-Sam
 
I dug through the safe and came up with a couple of examples to compare and contrast with.

First off Rem 700 with a 4-12x Bushnell scope. The scope is mounted in high rings. High enough that you can pass a little finger under the objective lens bell. Those seem to fit just right...maybe a hair low, but that works out well for a rifle that would probably be shot from some rested position (as opposed to offhand).

Second, a conventionally scoped Marlin 444. That scope sits on the standard one-piece weaver type mount and uses very low rings. I don't think it would be possible for the rings to be lower or there wouldn't be room for the locking mechanism. That set-up is too low for me, but not as much as I would have imagined. (Obviously the long drop at the stock makes this so.) The combination of the base and the rings work to raise the center-line of the scope about 1-1/4" off the top of the barrel. Another 1/4"-1/2" would just about nail it!

Looks like if I went with medium-height rings I'd probably be fine. At least its a start! :)

Thanks again!

-Sam
 
It certainly does sound like you're getting the right scope centerline when you use higher rings.

I guess I should have said that, too... If the irons are way too low for you, then a really low scope will be also. :) Gun fit can be very individual. In shotgunning, you find that, while there are some standard dimensions that fit many people, there are also people who need pretty extreme modifications to make a gun fit, due to the proportions of their body dimensions.

Good luck! I'm toying with putting something like that together, also. I really like the forward mounted scope. My right eye has a bit of astigmatism, but I like iron sights. A "scout scope" helps me aim more precisely at longer ranges, but still feels a lot like irons.
 
A good "fit" is very important when assembling a fast handling carbine with either a Scout Scope or Ghost Ring sighting.
Col. Cooper always specified that the rear lens of the scope should be over the chamber of the rifle and as close to the receiver ring as possible.
I understand your frustration when conventional combinations don't seem to give you that. :banghead: However, in building up several dozen rifles and shotguns for clients, and teaching hundreds I have found the physical act of mounting the gun to the face and shoulder to be a crucial element of the "fit".
Please try the following - it may or may not help you...:)

(Assuming the shooter is right handed)
1. Bring the gun to the face and not the faced to the gun... i.e. do not tilt your head.

2. Your right arm should be parallel to the ground to raise the shoulder and create a "pocket" for the butt. [This is the most important aspect of a proper rifle/shotgun mount. A low elbow changes the angle of the shoulder and makes recoil absorbing more difficult because there is less contact with the butt to the shoulder. A low elbow also may also be the source of your problem of a sight line over top of the sights.]

3. Left arm (for rifle shooter) should be under the fore arm and perpendicular to the ground.

In every case that I encountered a proper mount was THE solution for a proper "FIT".

I hope this helps but it could be that because of your particular physique [Arm Length, Neck Length, etc] that it is not possible to find a conventional solution. Best of Luck!
 
Rebel: Yes! You're describing EXACTLY what I've been trying to accomplish! And most rifles, especially carbines like the 336, don't even come close to fitting me in factory form.

Lee: Right handed, right eye dominant.

Infidel: I didn't notice that, but I measured a bunch of times last night and then compared heights of the different mounts on Midway's site. I ended up ordering a set of Leupold QD "high" style rings. If they don't work, I'll send them back, but I think I'll be pretty close to perfect.

The rings on my Dad's .444 (conventional scope and mount) are the "medium" height ones, and they put the scope just a bit too low. I'm looking right into the top of the ocular bell. They are much better than the irons, but not quite perfect.

What they hey? I'll give these a shot and deal with it if they aren't right.

Thanks again to everyone!

-Sam
 
Well, all my stuff arrived today! Yaaaay!

Except that Midway sent me a Leupold FX-2 instead of the T/C handgun scope I *thought* I'd ordered. So I'm sending that back for the correct scope.

I LOVE the XSSights Scout mount, and their huge ghost-ring sights are wonderful, too. Because of their mounting location they are quite a bit higher than the stock sights which helps, but they're not high enough for perfect comfort. But as BUIS, I'll be perfectly happy with them

The Burris "HIGH" QD rings line up almost perfectly coaxial for me (still a bit low, LOL, but just millimeters off of dead centered), and they fit the rail great...once I ground one of the QD screws down 1/16" so it didn't bottom out before the rings tightened down. Funny how very little is "perfect" these days.

Also mounted the sling and a mounted and ground down the Limbsaver recoil pad.

Totally different gun, now -- and that's AWESOME!

Thanks for all the advice along the way!

-Sam
 
Oh, by the way:

I dug out and mounted my Russian PK-AS (W) red dot scope and it sits JUST right up there!

Might have to play around with that set-up, too.

Cooooool!

-Sam
 
Are you sure you want a handgun scope? The parallax might not be what you want for a rifle. Depending on what you are trying for, there might be better options available in a true rifle scope.
 
Are you sure you want a handgun scope? The parallax might not be what you want for a rifle. Depending on what you are trying for, there might be better options available in a true rifle scope.

Well, I'm going off of the suggestions of many who have built and used Scout type rifles and they seem pleased with the performance they're getting. Also, this rifle will probably never see a shot beyond 200 yds. Most more like sub-100.

We'll see if it works, and if I can't work with it, I'll have to swap on an FX-2 or whatever.

As the scope I'm buying is built for Thompson/Center Contenders (and Encores, I'd assume) it certainly should be up to some extended distance work, eh?

-Sam
 
You may be absolutely correct, and I'm not familiar with the scope you intend to use. You might want to check the manufacturer's specs and make sure the parallax isn't set to less than 100 yards. Good luck with it either way.
 
I use a Burris 2-7x handgun on a Mauser '98 and like it a lot.
Burris claims they're paralax free to 100 yds. Don't know if that's
good enough for your app, but I can generally recommend the
scope if you want that kind of eye relief.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top