Opinions on this scope

[OrangePwrx9]

Just when I've come to appreciate them, decent 2 to 2.75X fixed power rifle scopes with 20 mm objectives have become scarce as hen's teeth. They're all many guns need; the 1894 Marlin is a prime example. Small, light, low to the receiver and nearly as reliable as irons....perfect for a light handy levergun. They really shouldn't be expensive, there's not that much there to go wrong; and at 2.5X, the optics can't be very demanding either.

Instead we get variable power optical wonders with 32mm, 40mm and 50mm objectives and fancy pants reticules. These things dominate the gun, destroy any possibility of a low sighting line and cause mounting problems. Since they cost $300-$400, the "po-boy" fixed powers just hafta be a bargain at $200, right?

It doesn't bother me that people like the big variable power scopes. I own more than a few myself. But why do the manufacturers each offer dozens of different versions of these beasts while only a very few low/fixed power 20mm scopes are available?

Wouldn't I love to see the old steel tube Weaver K2.5 back in production. China! Are you listening??
/rant off

 

[jimmyraythomason]

I had a Bushnell Sportview 4x32 low over bore on my 1894 Marlin .44 mag. I bought it from Wal-Mart in the early '80s for $32. It never lost zero, had quick target acquisition and was "clear as a bell". I have used it to kill rabbits on the run and my brother took a very large 8 point buck with it. It seemed the perfect match for the little saddle ring carbine.

 

[Maverick223]

It doesn't bother me that people like the big variable power scopes. I own more than a few myself. But why do the manufacturers each offer dozens of different versions of these beasts while only a very few low/fixed power 20mm scopes are available?

Demand. The lower magnification I can understand, but why on earth would you want a 20mm tube much less 20mm objective?

 

[Maverick223]

I had a Bushnell Sportview 4x32 low over bore on my 1894 Marlin .44 mag. I bought it from Wal-Mart in the early '80s for $32. It never lost zero, had quick target acquisition and was "clear as a bell".

I have one as well...they are very good scopes for the money. The scope that you describe was my first "real" scope (not including air rife optics), and has (and still does) served me well. I purchased mine in the mid-90s for about the same as you paid then...also bought mine at Walmart.

 

[OrangePwrx9]

Maverick: "The lower magnification I can understand, but why on earth would you want a 20mm tube much less 20mm objective"

With no objective bell, a 1" tube will mount a 20mm objective. I don't want a tube any smaller than 1"; just 1" tube diameter at the objective end.

Also, with no objective bell (and just a 1" tube), the scope can be right down tight to the receiver and the sight line will be the minimum distance over the bore. Therefore the difference between POI and POA will be minimized from the muzzle on out to the sight-in range.

Beyond that, rifles like the 1894 Marlin are generally stocked so that optimum cheek weld is acheived with iron sights (fair amt. of drop, no Monte-Carlo). Therefore a scope whose sight line is very close to that of the irons will be best for quick mounting and accurate shooting.

The big objectives are brighter, but most of the time the 20mm objective at low power is plenty bright enough while being sharper than a mediocre 40mm objective. If you're shooting coyotes by moonlight, a big objective makes sense.
Bob

 

[Maverick223]

With no objective bell, a 1" tube will mount a 20mm objective.

Alright, now I follow you. A 1" tube is more than enough for most hunting use...thought you were talking about one of the 0.75in. (about 19.05mm) tubes that were used on the old Weaver scopes. I prefer a little larger objective (about 32mm for 2-3x) but I can understand your logic.

 

[Heck]

Took a chance and ordered a Swift 1.5 X 4.5 X 20mm today.