Decision Time on Scope for Woods Rifle

[wrs840]

This will go on a Marlin 336 in 35 Remingtion for Hogs and Still-Hunting Whitetail.

Trying to decide between:

Weaver Classic V-3 1-3x20.

And Nikon Monarch African Series 1-4x20.

Thoughts anyone?

At $279, the Nikon costs more than I paid for the rifle, But I have found "Refurbished" ones selling online for $189. Anyone ever bought a "Refurbished" Nikon Scope, or know what "Refurbished" means at Nikon?

Thanks.

 

[Art Eatman]

Dunno about "refurbished". I'd guess that it's some sort of re-work of the internals by a factory-qualified place. Odds are that it will work okay.

I know from experience that 3X will let a fella kill Bambi at 350 yards, hitting within an inch or so of the intended point of aim. My 3x9 was set on 3X.

I had a Weaver V3 for a while. No really worthwhile reason for changing, actually. It's just that I happened to have a higher-power variable in the safe. But my hunting is not in close cover.

 

[Abel]

Either will work great. I'd rather have the Weaver for purely cosmetic reasons.

 

[brandon_mcg]

i like the reticle on the nikon much better; however, it is out of stock and the weaver is in stock if that makes a difference to you.

 

[jmr40]

Either are about equal in my experience. I could use either, but would suggest you at least consider something with a front objective in the 32mm range. Lots of good 2-7X32mm scopes. The 2X power is almost as good as the 1 or 1.5X scopes and the larger objective will help when shooting in the low light encountered in woods hunting better than the 20mm scopes.

 

[Abel]

Lots of good 2-7X32mm scopes. The 2X power is almost as good as the 1 or 1.5X scopes and the larger objective will help when shooting in the low light encountered in woods hunting better than the 20mm scopes.

I agree 100%. I use a 4x32mm or a 2-7x32mm on my 336's with scopes. My 35 has a 4x32mm.

 

[Pacsd]

Take a look at a fixed 4 power with the 40mm objective.

 

[CraigC]

A good straight tube scope with good glass will transmit all the light your eyeball can use. No need for anything bigger and I don't know why people are afraid of them. You can't assume that a bigger objective will automatically be brighter. What's important here is the exit pupil. As magnification goes up, so must the objective lens to maintain the same exit pupil size. I think you will find that when quality is comparable, a 1-4x20 will be just as bright at 4x as a 2-7x32 is at 7x. That's magnification and bulk you simply don't need on a .35Remington levergun.

Of those two I would go for the Weaver but the Leupold VXII 1-4x and VX-III 1.5-5x are my favorites.

 

[TonyAngel]

I've had both the Weaver and the Nikon. The Weaver is one of those scopes that are just really nice for the price. It's a solid little scope, but I found that I got a bit of a fisheye effect at minimum magnification. The Nikon is a better scope at twice the price.

If you really want to check out a nice scope for just a little more than the Nikon, look at the Sightron 1.5-5X20 SII Big Sky. Now, that's a nice woods scope. I tend to steer clear of the Leupolds. Some guys love 'em, but I hate the way the eye relief changes as you dial in the magnification.

The Sightron was the reason that I sold my TA33 ACOG. The Sightron wasn't all that much bigger, but it had much better glass and a bit more magnification with no draw backs.

Still, if you are trying to decide between the Weaver and Nikon, I'd go with the Nikon. It is better than the Weaver. Don't worry about light transmission. The Nikon sports Monarch glass and the exit pupil is more than big enough at max magnification.

 

[Sunray]

"...costs more than I paid for the rifle..." Happens when you've had a rifle for a long time. Current MSRP for a .35 Rem 336 is $563.63. Kind of scary isn't it? It is decidedly refreshing to see a guy who knows what magnification works well for his rifle and cartridge.
"...what "Refurbished" means at Nikon..." May not have been done by them. I'd be inclined to contact wherever you saw it and ask. Chances are they won't or can't tell you though.
"...with the 40mm objective..." Too big for a lever. 32 is plenty.

 

[shootr]

Between the two scopes you mention, I would go with the new Nikon just because I like the 4x on the high end for range shooting / sight-in, etc.

FWIW, I use a .35 Rem, Marlin 336 in the woods / swamp and use a Williams peep rear. Accurate and fast.

 

[Clipper]

My 'woods' rifles are all peep sighted. Wouldn't have a scope on 'em.

 

[SwampWolf]

A good straight tube scope with good glass will transmit all the light your eyeball can use. No need for anything bigger and I don't know why people are afraid of them.

This is true. No need to handicap a fine handling carbine with a big, top-heavy objective on a "woods" rifle.

 

[SwampWolf]

My 'woods' rifles are all peep sighted. Wouldn't have a scope on 'em.

Same here. With the exception of one (a Savage Model 99 chambered in .358 Winchester and wearing a Redfield 1X4 scope), all of my other "woods" rifles (including an early fifties Remington Model 760, a Winchester Model 1886 "Extra Lightweight" chambered in 45-70 Government and a Winchester Model 94 chambered in 30-30 Winchester) have Williams "FoolProof" receiver sights mounted on them.

 

[wrs840]

Guys I appreciate all the responses. I agree with Williams Peeps or irons on levers, I have a half-dozen that are just that. This will be my one scoped levergun.

As for Objective size, I believe this:

A good straight tube scope with good glass will transmit all the light your eyeball can use. No need for anything bigger and I don't know why people are afraid of them. You can't assume that a bigger objective will automatically be brighter. What's important here is the exit pupil. As magnification goes up, so must the objective lens to maintain the same exit pupil size. I think you will find that when quality is comparable, a 1-4x20 will be just as bright at 4x as a 2-7x32 is at 7x. That's magnification and bulk you simply don't need on a .35Remington levergun.

And this:

No need to handicap a fine handling carbine with a big, top-heavy objective on a "woods" rifle.

So that's why I narrowed it down the the Weaver for $160 shipped vs a Refurbished Nikon for $205 shipped, and that's about the top-end of the budget for this project. There's already a Weaver Mount rail on the 336 and I already have an extra set of Burris Signature rings to use.


The eye relief on the Nikon is 4.1"-4" vs 3.1"-3.08" on the Weaver. This seems to give an advantage to the Nikon, but I'm not sure how much.

The Weaver at 9.1" long and only 8.5oz, vs 10.35" and 12.16oz for the Nikon would seem to be a case of "the more compact the better, but will I notice 1-1/4" of length and 3oz difference?

The Nikon is available with a German #4 reticle and the Weaver is only available in dual-X, which seems like a strong advantage for the Nikon in my mind.

Yes, I'm picking nits. But I'm having fun and learning. Thanks very much for the help.

 

[BrocLuno]

The "pull" length on the Marlin is not that great, unless you have added a 3/4" butt pad or something? You have to careful on that rifle that the eye relief is not too long and you can't get it far enough forward? It's a try and see issue. Get the one you can return easily and try it for fit and eye relief with proper cheek weld. If OK, you are done. If not, you need to try some other combos. Fitting a proper scope to a Marlin 336 is not a slam dunk - even though it looks easy.

If the gun has good blueing and looks good (?), I'd be looking for a 2.5X Weaver steel tube (MicroTrac) as it will match the gun very well. Likely you can get a nice used one for less than $100. You can shoot it with both eyes open and you won't get weird vision. It will accurately get you on target out to 150 yds. What else do you need?

 

[steven58]

For a pure "woods" gun in .35 Rem. I'd go with compact red dot backed up by a rugged peep sight. I really like an illuminated optic when hunting deer in the woods. I frequently find myself shooting into overhung areas or deep shadows where I have difficulty seeing plain cross hairs quickly. Especially if you are going for hogs in low evening light, that dot is fast and accurate.

This one is a well reviewed "clone" of the Aimpoint Micro series. My uncle and my son have each been running one of these on their .22 for over a year with no problems. Great CS as well. $80.00

http://www.primaryarms.com/product.sc?productId=402&categoryId=419

 

[heeler]

Both are good scopes for sure.
Myself I opted for a Burris Timberline 2x7x26 mounted on a Weaver rail with low Millet rings for my old 336.
A most excellent set up.

 

[wnycollector]

So that's why I narrowed it down the the Weaver for $160 shipped vs a Refurbished Nikon for $205 shipped,

You should check out the Nitrex by Weaver line of scopes that Natchez has on closeout. I have the 1.5-5x32 on one of my AR's. The glass is crystal clear (95% light transmission!) and the scopes clicks are repeatable. on 1.5 I can shoot with both eyes open and then dial it up to 5x for 300 yard shots. This scope is essentially a re-badged Weaver grand slam. For $80 (after $50 rebate) this scope cant be beat. Here is the link http://www.natchezss.com/Category.c...2mm Rifle Scope Matte Finish TrexPlex Reticle

 

[rice]

I second the Nitrex. I have one on my 336 with the Talley rings and am perfectly happy with the setup. Shot two deer with it this year.

I was so happy I just bought another Nitrex and am considering a third.

 

[wnycollector]

I was so happy I just bought another Nitrex and am considering a third.

I did the same thing...now I have three Nitrex's!

 

[Wolfgang2000]

I have 2 "woods" rifles. My BLR in 308 and a SKS carbine. My BLR sports a Burris 1.5 to 5(I think, might be a 6) and my SKS has a Simmons 1.5 to 5. I like them both, and both serve their purpose.

You concept is correct. So pick the scope that YOUR eye finds the best, and YOU see through the best. Everyones eye is different. I've looked through optics that friends raved about but gave me a headache. So pick the one that fits YOU.