Call it a failed experiment... Model 94 no good for deer(for me)

[entropy]

I hunted with mine, (now my son's) WWII era (can't date it exactly), .30 WCF, a couple times. I love the cool factor, and had I seen deer when I took it out, I have no doubt it'd have done the job. My Dad's best friend killed a moose with his. But the lack of a safety on them makes carrying a Mosin safer in the woods, unless you carry one 'cruiser ready'. I wasn't fond of that idea, nor using the half cock.

d2wing, my son (who definitely isn't anti-gun, nor voted for Biden) lost two magazines for my Mossberg .22, at $45 a pop. And countless knives and multi-tools, including the Leatherman Wave my Dad bought him for his 15th BD. I won't get into the guns I've given (not sold, like my Dad, given) him that he traded or sold. The other son did lose a gun in a truck he traded off..........

Sorry Hokkmike, drifting again. I understand why you don't want to scope or peep sight that .32 Spl. A classic.

 

[ontarget]

I think he voted for Biden.

Well that explains it perfectly.

 

[Old Dog]

Well, I took my first whitetail in Northern Michigan with an iron-sighted Win Model 94 (in .30-30, of course, and I had the eyesight of a 13-year-old)... but you'd better believe, as soon as I could, I picked up a used bolt-action with a scope, especially after I saw the results in our family deer camp. Work smarter, not harder, right?

Fast forward to last good summer (pre-pandemic 2019) when I got my daughter out and her first ever tries with a lever-action (Marlin 336). I demonstrated some shots for her, and was totally embarrassed because... with my crap eyesight, those semi-buckhorn sights are pretty much invisible to me.

Have some Skinners (peep sight system) on a 1895 and a 1894C (just bought from a member here). On the .45-70, they work well for my aging eyes (but of course, I've been shooting iron-sighted ARs since the late 70s).

Call me a heretic if you will, but I'm gonna scope my 336 and keep on shooting it. Lever rifles are simply too much fun to give up on (even if us oldsters can't hunt with 'em anymore).

 

[Daveboone]

I have two pre-64 model 94s, both were drilled and tapped at the factory for aperture sights. and both now wear the pretty inexpensive Lyman fully adj. aperture. I shoot it 10 times better than with the buckhorns, and it is just as quick, or quicker, doesnt change the handling in the slightest.

 

[JDeere]

I can't see anymore either and buckhorns are useless. I did not want to give up on my old lever actions. If the receiver is drilled and tapped I have gone with Skinner peeps and they work well and are affordable. I have an old model 94 built in 1896, 38-55 and did not want to alter it so I put a Lyman tang sight on her. Problem solved.

 

[SwampWolf]

My eyes aren't flexible enough anymore to switch back and forth from the target to the sights like they used to.

No "switching" on an aperture sight. Just look through the peep (not trying to "center" it or making the front sight coincide with the rear) and simply put the bead on the target. And for close range hunting applications, use a wide open aperture for making quick shots.

 

[SwampWolf]

recently I had my rigger pull weighed and it came it a scary one pound - too light, too light.

Yeah, something's really not right with your Model 94's trigger.

 

[Officers'Wife]

When my Grandfather's eyes couldn't handle the 92 he gave it to me. Hopefully I'll be able to give it to one of my grandchildren.

 

[35 Whelen]

An aperture sight is the answer. I used to shoot local High Power matches with some older dudes shot Garand's and AR's and they definitely benefitted from aperture sights and beat our butts repeatedly.

Regarding scopes on levers, some folks just seem to go overboard, especially with magnification. I could never understand why someone would put a 3-9X scope on a 30-30 or 35 Remington, or for that matter even a 4X. I have a couple of older Marlin's; a 375 and an 1895, and I always scoped them with the old steel Weaver 2 1/2X scopes. Plenty of magnification for the ballistics of your typical lever action cartridge, and mounted low to the receiver, they help maintain the trim lines of the rifle.



35W

 

[ATCDoktor]

If want to hunt with your newly acquired Winchester 94 and you can manage a “scout”/forward mounted scope arrangement Dr Pearson’s no drill scope mount for the Winchester model 94 may be the answer


https://mod94scoperail.com/

 

[cdb1]

I could never understand why someone would put a 3-9X scope on a 30-30 or 35 Remington, or for that matter even a 4X. I have a couple of older Marlin's; a 375 and an 1895, and I always scoped them with the old steel Weaver 2 1/2X scopes.

So according to your statement the VX-3 1.75-6x32 mounted on my 30-30 is overkill. I don’t think so.

 

[35 Whelen]

So according to your statement the VX-3 1.75-6x32 mounted on my 30-30 is overkill. I don’t think so.

You can mount a 36X benchrest scope on it and call it good if you want, it's your rifle. But next time you're at the range, set your scope to 2X and shoot some 100, 150 and 200 yd. targets and tell me why it just didn't work on the lower setting.

35W

 

[cdb1]

We aren’t talking about 36X and for the record 36X is way more than I need on any rifle I own. 1.75-6 is not overkill on a 30-30 to most people. I can see what I’m shooting at much better at 150-200 yards on 6X than 2X.

 

[wild willy]

We aren’t talking about 36X and for the record 36X is way more than I need on any rifle I own. 1.75-6 is not overkill on a 30-30 to most people. I can see what I’m shooting at much better at 150-200 yards on 5X than 2X.

Plus the OP is from Pa and Pa has antler restrictions much easier making sure your on the right deer with 6 or 7 power at the top .A lot of 2-7 aren't much bigger than those old Weavers.I've shot groups at 2x and 7x wasn't much difference actually surprised me how close the size of the groups were.But why not have the advantages of 2x and 7x or 1.75 and 6

 

[35 Whelen]

Using a scope in place of binoculars to identify game is a bad idea. We teach in Texas Hunter Education to never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot.

One other thing regarding these large scopes on lever rifles. If you look at the stock of a lever rifle, most have quite a bit of drop in the comb. This is by design, to facilitate the use of the sights using a good cheek to stock contact on the stock. When one mounts scopes with large-ish objective lenses, it requires using tall scope mounts to raise the scope so the objective lens will clear the barrel. Shooting rifles with scopes raised in this manner requires the shooter to elevate their head in order to align their eye with the scope, which is awkward, at best.

But again, to each his own.

35W

 

[wild willy]

No one said anything about using a scope to identify game.Deer move around and in brush its easier with a little more power to make sure its the right deer.A 2-7 or other low powered variable do not have large-ish objectives.Look at your own picture there's room for a larger objective and still have the scope low.

 

[entropy]

You can mount a 36X benchrest scope on it and call it good if you want, it's your rifle. But next time you're at the range, set your scope to 2X and shoot some 100, 150 and 200 yd. targets and tell me why it just didn't work on the lower setting.

35W

The only caveat I'd have about a variable, and this is from personal experience, is it seems to be on the wrong end of the power range when you need it.

No one said anything about using a scope to identify game.Deer move around and in brush its easier with a little more power to make sure its the right deer.A 2-7 or other low powered variable do not have large-ish objectives.Look at your own picture there's room for a larger objective and still have the scope low.

This is why I had 2-7x scopes on my deer rifles if scoped. Low enough power to shoot at moving deer if necessary, and can be high enough for power line swath shots or making sure there are antlers, or not depending on your tag.

Today I'd probably go with a 1-6x or 1-8x, but those weren't options years ago.

 

[cdb1]

When one mounts scopes with large-ish objective lenses, it requires using tall scope mounts to raise the scope so the objective lens will clear the barrel. Shooting rifles with scopes raised in this manner requires the shooter to elevate their head in order to align their eye with the scope, which is awkward, at best.

You don’t understand why someone would use a 4X scope on a 30-30 or .35 Remington-your own words. When questioned about that you bring 36X in to the conversation. When questioned about 36X you brought up using a rifle scope in lieu of binoculars and started talking about large objectives and the design of lever gun stocks. I do believe most of us posting on this thread know this already. In addition it’s pretty easy to raise the comb on a lever gun, it cost me $20.00 but I could have done it for much less. If you don’t want magnification on your lever guns over 2.5X that’s fine. If you can use an aperture sight on a lever gun I believe that’s great. But aperture sights haven’t worked for me for a while now, I’m 61, and it is much easier for me to make a shot at 150+ yards with more magnification than 2.5X. There are many people in the same boat as me. You don’t have to understand it, but it is true.

 

[army_eod]

This is why I no longer have levers.

 

[natman]

No "switching" on an aperture sight. Just look through the peep (not trying to "center" it or making the front sight coincide with the rear) and simply put the bead on the target. And for close range hunting applications, use a wide open aperture for making quick shots.

Still can't see the target and the front sight using the same spot on my trifocals. If you don't understand why this is an issue, just wait, you will eventually.

 

[CraigC]

So according to your statement the VX-3 1.75-6x32 mounted on my 30-30 is overkill. I don’t think so.

I prefer a straight tube if I'm going to scope a lever but the 1.75-6x is one of my favorite compact boltgun scopes. Sadly, I only managed to snag one after they all dried up. It's a shame the market wouldn't support it.

 

[entropy]

Still can't see the target and the front sight using the same spot on my trifocals. If you don't understand why this is an issue, just wait, you will eventually.

I'd be glad to explain it in detail for him.

 

[cdb1]

I prefer a straight tube if I'm going to scope a lever but the 1.75-6x is one of my favorite compact boltgun scopes. Sadly, I only managed to snag one after they all dried up. It's a shame the market wouldn't support it.

I purchased mine specifically for my Marlin 336. At the time they came in Duplex and Heavy Duplex. I got Heavy Duplex. Out of the box there was a problem, the windage turret didn’t work. Sent it to Leupold and once they received it I inquired about the cost of getting a German #4 installed. They did at no charge as recompense for me having to send it in.

I didn’t realize how much I’d like it, it’s my favorite of the several Leupolds I own. I would have scrounged up the money for another if I’d known the 1.75-6x32 was going to be canceled. The only thing I’d like better on my 336 would be a straight tube also, 1X-6X or 1X-8x with true 1X at the bottom. Something along the lines of a Leica Magnus 1-6.3x24 i, but that’s way out of my price range.

 

[CraigC]

Mine has the heavy duplex and I'd like to have it changed to a duplex or the German #4. Back when they were still catalogued, I wanted to have one set parallax free at 60yds for use on rimfires but they're too hard to come by now.

 

[cdb1]

Mine has the heavy duplex and I'd like to have it changed to a duplex or the German #4. Back when they were still catalogued, I wanted to have one set parallax free at 60yds for use on rimfires but they're too hard to come by now.

I use my 336 for hunting hogs at low light and when it’s dark. Don’t have night vision equipment but use an Elusive Wildlife Technologies hunting light. The German #4 helps.