Mounting a scope on a Marlin 336

Mount it as low to the receiver if possible. This will probably require removal of the rear sight.

Even if you don't remove the rear sight definitely look into buying one of those hammer extenders. I've an old 336 in .35 Remington with a Weaver K3 scope on it. Without the hammer extender and with gloves on it makes it kind of tricky to drop the hammer.

+1 on the hammer extender. I mounted my scope low low. but it is a fixed power job with a small lens.

Yes, removing the rear sight will give you a bit more clearance (taps out easily with a brass punch), and depending on the objective size of the scope you get, you may be able to get away with low rings. I had a Leupold 40mm on mine and it took mediums to clear the barrel.

I've used low rings with the 20mm objectives, medium with 32mm through 40mm. Last 4x32mm I had on didn't require removal of the rear sight.

As others have said, get it as low as you can go and add the hammer extension if necessary.

My Marlin 30AW (same as 336, but came bundled w/sling) has a 4x32 in medium rings.

I put a 1.75-3x20 in low rings on mine and it worked very well (with a hammer extender). I used a sight blank where the rear sight was but you can just as easily fold it down.

I went with a 3x9x40mm scope on my 1895 marlin, the mounting system is the same for the 336. Here is what I used.
Base: http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=189486

Rings:http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=346104

The medium rings are very close to the iron sight on my rifle, if you do not have the flip down sights I would say go with the high rings.

Pics of my 1895

I have these left over from my old 336 they are new
they use leupold/burris style rings
if you want them I could do $20 a set shipped
I have 3 sets

I know this is not what you are asking but.....



Before you jump into the scope and all it intails consider a set of peep sights. You are actually mounting the new rear and ueing the existing front.
A peep is much easier and more accurate than the open factory sights.
The peep is a huge leap if your eyesight is not real good . The peep costs only slightly more than the rings would cost . The shape of the stock on a lever gun is perfect for the peep , not so good for the scope.
Many of us consider peep sights to be "right" for a lever gun and a scope to be "funny looking"

If you are set on an optic keep it as low as possible and forget about the "see thru" mounts, they are horrible to use and cause all sorts of problems

I couldn't have said it better, Nhsport. Receiver sights (Williams or Lyman) and no stinking "see-thru" rings.

Mine has a Weaver base and low rings. I use a Leupold 1-4 VX II, and it still has the rear sight. The Peep sight is a good idea if your eyes will still let you use iron sights. Mine don't. The scope is in the way when you carry the rifle at its balance point.

Has anyone tried a red dot on a 336?

woof,
Yes, didn't like it and went back to open sights. Couldn't get a proper chek weld and see through the reddot.

you might give these a try

http://www.talleyrings.com/lightweight.php

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=213496

they are lightweight, strong, and low profile. I have used them several times and they are great!

Let us know how it works out,

Matt