AStone
Member
Man, I love it when we talk science.
(Or is that really disguised porn?
) 
The Marlin 39 Club
- Thread starter AStone
- Start date
- Status
(Or is that really disguised porn?
) 
Fast Frank
Member
Mal, under normal circumstances I would agree with you and laugh at the whole discussion.
Except for one thing.
When I first mounted the scope on this rifle, It wasn't shooting very good at all. Yes, there were multiple problems. The trigger was about as bad as any I have ever used, and the parallax issue in the scope wasn't helping anything either.
It would shoot a group that was about two inches wide and four inches tall at fifty yards from the bench. That's pretty embarrassing from a rifle and scope combination that cost as much as this one did.
Well, it only took a short time for me to try wiggling things up and down to see if something was loose. (That was also the time that I torqued the crap out of the mount) I found that I could flex the scope up and down about .020" with very little pressure using just one finger.
Those Millet rings are pretty wimpy in the way they grab the sight base, so I got some Bsquare rings that are bigger and beefier, and put three of them on there in an effort to prove that the flex was causing the vertical stringing of the groups.
Suddenly, the rifle started shooting nice, round groups. They were still an inch and a half at 50 yards, but the vertical stringing was gone.
Clearly, there's an issue with mounting a large, heavy scope on this mount.
I never intended to keep Bozo's Three Ring Circus mount on the rifle.
It was just an effort to prove that the flex was causing the vertical stringing.
But being the procrastinator that I am, coupled with the fact that the scope was working very well mounted like this and could do a half dozen trips to the range without needing to remove the adjuster caps, well... I never changed it.
Now that I have addressed the parallax issue, and fixed the trigger issue, it would seem like a good idea to go ahead and do something about the mount issue while I'm at it.
Don't you think?
Except for one thing.
When I first mounted the scope on this rifle, It wasn't shooting very good at all. Yes, there were multiple problems. The trigger was about as bad as any I have ever used, and the parallax issue in the scope wasn't helping anything either.
It would shoot a group that was about two inches wide and four inches tall at fifty yards from the bench. That's pretty embarrassing from a rifle and scope combination that cost as much as this one did.
Well, it only took a short time for me to try wiggling things up and down to see if something was loose. (That was also the time that I torqued the crap out of the mount
) I found that I could flex the scope up and down about .020" with very little pressure using just one finger.
Those Millet rings are pretty wimpy in the way they grab the sight base, so I got some Bsquare rings that are bigger and beefier, and put three of them on there in an effort to prove that the flex was causing the vertical stringing of the groups.
Suddenly, the rifle started shooting nice, round groups. They were still an inch and a half at 50 yards, but the vertical stringing was gone.
Clearly, there's an issue with mounting a large, heavy scope on this mount.
I never intended to keep Bozo's Three Ring Circus mount on the rifle.
It was just an effort to prove that the flex was causing the vertical stringing.
But being the procrastinator that I am, coupled with the fact that the scope was working very well mounted like this and could do a half dozen trips to the range without needing to remove the adjuster caps, well... I never changed it.
Now that I have addressed the parallax issue, and fixed the trigger issue, it would seem like a good idea to go ahead and do something about the mount issue while I'm at it.
Don't you think?
ShakyJake
Member
Quivering Base
This is a poor little rim fire, not a BAR. That borders on Model 39 abuse!
Frank, is that the Leupold rimfire model? Your tests have raised some fasinating?'s. I am going to try adjusting the position of the rings on mine to see if it will affect that flier I seem to get. Surely it is not me.. Xpermentin is fun caus it means more shootin, not that an excuse is needed By the way, your Macro photography is truly outstanding.
TaKe CaRe
Ted
This is a poor little rim fire, not a BAR. That borders on Model 39 abuse!
Frank, is that the Leupold rimfire model? Your tests have raised some fasinating?'s. I am going to try adjusting the position of the rings on mine to see if it will affect that flier I seem to get. Surely it is not me.
. Xpermentin is fun caus it means more shootin, not that an excuse is needed By the way, your Macro photography is truly outstanding.TaKe CaRe
Ted
Fast Frank
Member
No, that's not a rimfire scope.
It's a 3-9X40 VX1. I bought it because I liked the big, bright picture. At 52 years and counting, my eyes aren't what they used to be.
It's been shipped off to Leupold and is being modified right now to turn it into a rimfire scope.
Hopefully, it will work better for me when I get it back.
I'm using a Sony Cyber-shot camera for all those pics, and the movies too. It's a DSC-S600. If you want to, you can look at it here. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/s600.html
I've got it set on "Automatic", and I just point and shoot.
That camera gets all the credit for the pics, I don't have a clue about what's going on.
It's a 3-9X40 VX1. I bought it because I liked the big, bright picture. At 52 years and counting, my eyes aren't what they used to be.
It's been shipped off to Leupold and is being modified right now to turn it into a rimfire scope.
Hopefully, it will work better for me when I get it back.
I'm using a Sony Cyber-shot camera for all those pics, and the movies too. It's a DSC-S600. If you want to, you can look at it here. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/s600.html
I've got it set on "Automatic", and I just point and shoot.
That camera gets all the credit for the pics, I don't have a clue about what's going on.
mef57
Member
Here's a question from a newly joined member.
If I put a Lyman or Williams aperture sight on my new 39A will I have sight height problems with my original Marlin front sight?
I already think the Marlin bead is a little larger than what I want for shooting 25 yard targets, since it pretty much obscures the bullseye on all the paper targets I shoot. I'd like a narrower or perhaps narrow beadless front sight so I can be more precise with shot placement, but I'm wondering if sight height will need to be different with an aperture sight on the rear of the rifle. You'd think Lyman and Williams would have enough experience with this question that they'd just tell you for a 39A you need a front sight that is ____" tall. If they do that though, I have yet to see it so far.
Thanks for any input or assistance anyone might be able to offer.
MEF
If I put a Lyman or Williams aperture sight on my new 39A will I have sight height problems with my original Marlin front sight?
I already think the Marlin bead is a little larger than what I want for shooting 25 yard targets, since it pretty much obscures the bullseye on all the paper targets I shoot. I'd like a narrower or perhaps narrow beadless front sight so I can be more precise with shot placement, but I'm wondering if sight height will need to be different with an aperture sight on the rear of the rifle. You'd think Lyman and Williams would have enough experience with this question that they'd just tell you for a 39A you need a front sight that is ____" tall. If they do that though, I have yet to see it so far.
Thanks for any input or assistance anyone might be able to offer.
MEF
AStone
Member
This is a little OT, but I'll risk it ...
Time to switch cameras.
<We now return you to the regularly scheduled program about quivering bases, already in progress ...>
I just read that review. That's a $200 camera, and it generates macro quality that approaches my much more expensive Olympus 35 mm with a macro lens. My little Olympus D520 digital ($300) can't even touch that, even with a tripod.
Time to switch cameras.
<We now return you to the regularly scheduled program about quivering bases, already in progress ...>
Officers'Wife
Member
My 'entry fee' to the club is a 39A my Gramps gave me. He bought sometime just after Jesus was born and slightly before WWII. I've never been tempted to put a scope on it because it will hit the X ring @ 100 meters with the open sights.
As for Mr. Carl's question is the 39 really that popular. Perhaps it's because, like my old rifle, everybodies Gramps, or Dad or favorite uncle had one so the 39 is the one to get. Let's face facts, it's heavy and it's ugly... but, time after time it puts a ball where you want it to go. What else can you ask of any rifle?
Selena
As for Mr. Carl's question is the 39 really that popular. Perhaps it's because, like my old rifle, everybodies Gramps, or Dad or favorite uncle had one so the 39 is the one to get. Let's face facts, it's heavy and it's ugly... but, time after time it puts a ball where you want it to go. What else can you ask of any rifle?
Selena
Welcome aboard Selena, but I gotta warn ya. You're bordering on blasphemy here calling the 39A heavy and ugly! Beauty truly exists more inside than out, and is definitely in the eyes of the beholder!
I for one find the Marlin 39A a true work of art. That's why I own 4, and am always looking for more.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi au2183,
Compared to the 92 Winchester it is ugly and to someone 5'6" and 120 pounds the 39 is heavy. It's the shooting that's a thing of beauty.
Selena
Compared to the 92 Winchester it is ugly and to someone 5'6" and 120 pounds the 39 is heavy. It's the shooting that's a thing of beauty.
Selena
Fast Frank
Member
Officer's Wife said:
Ugly?
Really.
I guess everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
But I am at least a little bit curious. What part of this rifle do you consider ugly?
Is it the classic lines?
Or maybe it's the fine American Walnut... Finished nice enough to be worthy of the name "Furniture"?
Or could it be the way the rifle shoots that offers up the ugliness?
Is the way the rifle makes you feel when you shoot it the source of this ugly you speak of?
I'm just askin'...
Because those very things are what makes the model 39 beautiful in my eyes!
Ottoshot
Member
New member here. I come seeking advice.
A local gunshop has this beautiful gun that I am planning on buying.
He wants $275 CAD. I know its impossible to estimate the value of a firearm from two pics over the internet so im not asking about that. I think its a fair price considering it is in what I would call very good condition. Bear in mind this will be my first gun and I have no experience.
I am wondering if the stock gives any ideas as to how old it is. Thats what makes me really interested in this gun, as I think it is quite old. The gunsmith cant pin it down for sure, but he is thinking early sixties.
Obvious flaws that I have noticed are some very minor rusting (or is it corrosion im not quite sure) so minor in fact I didnt notice it until the third time I had handled it. The two screws that hold the butt on the stock are rusty as well, but not really damaged.
Here is a poor quality picture of that.
Any thoughts? When I open the action im not really sure what to be looking for in terms of wear. I did my best but I didnt really see any serious damage. The gunsmith says it has been kept in really good condition by the previous owner. I believe it, the finish of the stock is dulled but not scratched, chipped or cracked anywhere that I noticed.
I am going back to the shop tommorow to put down a deposit and I will try and get some really nice pics. My Cannon sd800 can do better than that.
-Otto
A local gunshop has this beautiful gun that I am planning on buying.
He wants $275 CAD. I know its impossible to estimate the value of a firearm from two pics over the internet so im not asking about that. I think its a fair price considering it is in what I would call very good condition. Bear in mind this will be my first gun and I have no experience.
I am wondering if the stock gives any ideas as to how old it is. Thats what makes me really interested in this gun, as I think it is quite old. The gunsmith cant pin it down for sure, but he is thinking early sixties.
Obvious flaws that I have noticed are some very minor rusting (or is it corrosion im not quite sure) so minor in fact I didnt notice it until the third time I had handled it. The two screws that hold the butt on the stock are rusty as well, but not really damaged.
Here is a poor quality picture of that.
Any thoughts? When I open the action im not really sure what to be looking for in terms of wear. I did my best but I didnt really see any serious damage. The gunsmith says it has been kept in really good condition by the previous owner. I believe it, the finish of the stock is dulled but not scratched, chipped or cracked anywhere that I noticed.
I am going back to the shop tommorow to put down a deposit and I will try and get some really nice pics. My Cannon sd800 can do better than that.
-Otto
Ottoshot
Member
After looking through the thread and comparing it to FastFrank's gun from the 50's, I would guess it is not as old as I think it is.
Bummer. But im still going to buy it
Bummer. But im still going to buy it
Be there at 1st AM! That's a smokin' deal. (Although I'm not sure what $275 C compares to in USD.)
I missed out on a color case hardened Winchester 1890 for $400 one time because I hesitated about 2 hours. I went back in, money in hand - "sorry, somebody just bought it about 1/2 hour ago."
Fast Frank
Member
You can determine the rifle's exact age by the serial number.
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126777
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126777
JustsayMo
Member
From the pictures I would have two concerns. One is that scope mounting rail. Hopefully it isn't tapped into the barrel. 2nd is that I'd want a rear sight of some kind even if I planned to put on putting a Skinner Peep on it or Scoping it.
Based on the wood (dark) I would guess it is probably early to mid sixties.
Based on the wood (dark) I would guess it is probably early to mid sixties.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Frank,
On my rifle the forearm is quite different than yours. It's 'fatter' and disrupts the 'lines' you speak of. But as I said before, my rifle is considerably older than yours appear to be.
The beauty in my rifle is not the lines, or even it's accuracy. It's the memory of my Gramps' taking a 12 year old girl straight out of Chicago's foster care system and teaching her the basics of rifle operation. That old rifle represents the acceptance of family and the love and attention of wise and beloved elder. He told me that when he was in France during the second world war the three things he missed most was the farm, his mother and that rifle. Then he gave the rifle to me. Just because it's ugly, doesn't mean it's unloved.
Selena
On my rifle the forearm is quite different than yours. It's 'fatter' and disrupts the 'lines' you speak of. But as I said before, my rifle is considerably older than yours appear to be.
The beauty in my rifle is not the lines, or even it's accuracy. It's the memory of my Gramps' taking a 12 year old girl straight out of Chicago's foster care system and teaching her the basics of rifle operation. That old rifle represents the acceptance of family and the love and attention of wise and beloved elder. He told me that when he was in France during the second world war the three things he missed most was the farm, his mother and that rifle. Then he gave the rifle to me. Just because it's ugly, doesn't mean it's unloved.
Selena
Rollis R. Karvellis
Member
My wife also thinks the 39a is heavy, and she thinks all guns are ugly, but she does leave my Glock on the bed stand.
Speaking of my lovely better half I, think I know what camera to buy her. THANKS
Speaking of my lovely better half I, think I know what camera to buy her. THANKS
Today I was messing about with my 39A and the lever became kind of clunky and stiff. I looked in the receiver while moving the lever back and forth and a little metal spring came out. I reloaded and tried cycling through some ammo and nothing would eject properly, so I took it apart and pulled out the breech bolt, and lo and behold it was the extractor pin that had popped out. I stuck it back in and it seems much smoother than it had before. Has this ever happened to anyone? Is there a way to keep the sucker from doing that again?
Thanks
Pat
Thanks
Pat
Fast Frank
Member
We're back!
I went through some serious withdrawals last night! No THR, and fresh range report begging to be posted. It was killing me!
OK, let's cut to the chase.
As everybody that has followed this thread knows, my model 39 had been poorly setup and has been totally spanked in the last two postal matches.
And I've been working on it.
I took it to the range Sunday, and shot it with the EOTECH.
As expected, the lack of magnification in the EOTECH made aiming precisely at fifty yards difficult.
The center dot of the holo-reticle is one MOA, and that covers half of the one inch center of the target.
Because the bull on that target is smaller than my old eyes can see, I couldn't really tell WHERE on the bull I was aiming. So, I just centered the dot on the bull as best I could and fired.
I was very surprised indeed when I got things sorted out and started shooting groups.
Here's the best group of the day.
I'm shocked to report that the EOTECH is right in there with what the rifle did with the scope.
Here's an example of the groups it shot with the Leupold 3-9X40 VX1.
I don't know about you guys, but I think the EOTECH group is better!
So, the first thing that changed is the lack of parallax that was troubling the Leupold.
The second thing that changed is the scope mount, but I doubt that it made a big difference in this group. The EOTECH wouldn't have the same problems the scope did because of the way it mounts.
The third thing that changed is the trigger. The smoothing and lightening I did has put the trigger right where I want it to be. It's probably four pounds and has a clean break. Perfect for beginners and good enough for me.
And finally... the last thing that changed. I don't understand this one. I tried Mini Mags in this rifle way back when It was new, and they didn't do very well. I made a mental note of this and never bothered to shoot them again.
When I got to the range with the EOTECH, I realized that I didn't have a very big supply of the bullets this rifle likes, so I grabbed a partial box of Mini Mags that was in my range bag. I figured I would use the "Bad" bullets to get the sight close, and then use the "Good" bullets to shoot groups.
SURPRISE! My groups shrunk a bunch as soon as I put the different bullets in the gun.
Why the rifle would change it's mind about bullet choices is a mystery. Maybe the barrel has broken in?
At any rate, I'm ready to shoot the contest, and I have high hopes that this rifle will redeem it's self when I get the properly adjusted Leupold mounted up and dialed in. If I can reduce these groups even a little, I'll have a winner on my hands.
I'm happy!
I went through some serious withdrawals last night! No THR, and fresh range report begging to be posted. It was killing me!
OK, let's cut to the chase.
As everybody that has followed this thread knows, my model 39 had been poorly setup and has been totally spanked in the last two postal matches.
And I've been working on it.
I took it to the range Sunday, and shot it with the EOTECH.
As expected, the lack of magnification in the EOTECH made aiming precisely at fifty yards difficult.
The center dot of the holo-reticle is one MOA, and that covers half of the one inch center of the target.
Because the bull on that target is smaller than my old eyes can see, I couldn't really tell WHERE on the bull I was aiming. So, I just centered the dot on the bull as best I could and fired.
I was very surprised indeed when I got things sorted out and started shooting groups.
Here's the best group of the day.
I'm shocked to report that the EOTECH is right in there with what the rifle did with the scope.
Here's an example of the groups it shot with the Leupold 3-9X40 VX1.
I don't know about you guys, but I think the EOTECH group is better!
So, the first thing that changed is the lack of parallax that was troubling the Leupold.
The second thing that changed is the scope mount, but I doubt that it made a big difference in this group. The EOTECH wouldn't have the same problems the scope did because of the way it mounts.
The third thing that changed is the trigger. The smoothing and lightening I did has put the trigger right where I want it to be. It's probably four pounds and has a clean break. Perfect for beginners and good enough for me.
And finally... the last thing that changed. I don't understand this one. I tried Mini Mags in this rifle way back when It was new, and they didn't do very well. I made a mental note of this and never bothered to shoot them again.
When I got to the range with the EOTECH, I realized that I didn't have a very big supply of the bullets this rifle likes, so I grabbed a partial box of Mini Mags that was in my range bag. I figured I would use the "Bad" bullets to get the sight close, and then use the "Good" bullets to shoot groups.
SURPRISE! My groups shrunk a bunch as soon as I put the different bullets in the gun.
Why the rifle would change it's mind about bullet choices is a mystery. Maybe the barrel has broken in?
At any rate, I'm ready to shoot the contest, and I have high hopes that this rifle will redeem it's self when I get the properly adjusted Leupold mounted up and dialed in. If I can reduce these groups even a little, I'll have a winner on my hands.
I'm happy!
Last edited:
tubeshooter
Contributing Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
I had a rare opportunity to shoot with my 39A this past Sunday, and I was pretty pleased. A relative lack of wind probably helped a lot, especially at the 50 yard mark. I haven't had a lot of luck as far as wind lately when I get these rare opportunities.
Turns out that I shoot better with the hood on; I had removed earlier it to see if I liked that way better and tried that for the past 2 or 3 sessions.
I use a Williams peep, and I found that soda can sized targets get hard to see at 50 yards. I should probably think about maybe the next size bigger as far as my aperture.
But I could still hit at that range pretty good... and 25 yards was no problem. I split the difference and set up my spinner target at 38 yards - not bad. Closer to 25 yard performance than 50. Bottom line, the guns shoots better than me, and for as far out as I can reasonably see without a scope. I know I'm not all that great a shot, but the rifle made me look good yesterday.
All in all a pretty good day with the old 39A. Just wanted to share that, most of my family doesn't shoot so this is the only place I can really even talk about it. Thanks for listening.
Turns out that I shoot better with the hood on; I had removed earlier it to see if I liked that way better and tried that for the past 2 or 3 sessions.
I use a Williams peep, and I found that soda can sized targets get hard to see at 50 yards. I should probably think about maybe the next size bigger as far as my aperture.
But I could still hit at that range pretty good... and 25 yards was no problem. I split the difference and set up my spinner target at 38 yards - not bad. Closer to 25 yard performance than 50. Bottom line, the guns shoots better than me, and for as far out as I can reasonably see without a scope. I know I'm not all that great a shot, but the rifle made me look good yesterday.
All in all a pretty good day with the old 39A. Just wanted to share that, most of my family doesn't shoot so this is the only place I can really even talk about it. Thanks for listening.
AStone
Member
That Eotech/39 combo may shine yet.
No kidding. The Internet can be a pretty lonely place w/o THR. Made me remember how much I value this forum.
We're here for you ... what else are clubs for?
Ottoshot
Member
Im back with more of my 39A pics. I put down a deposit on sunday, really looking forward to getting it.
I used the serial number and the link FastFrank gave me to determine that the gun was made in 1960.
Mo, It seems the mount is tapped into the barrel. Not sure what to think of that.
I noticed some more wear on sunday too. Let me know what you think, as I said this is my first rifle and I need some advice. Im debating weather or not to put a small scope on it or not.
Please excuse my lack of experience and poor camera skills.
-Otto
I used the serial number and the link FastFrank gave me to determine that the gun was made in 1960.
Mo, It seems the mount is tapped into the barrel. Not sure what to think of that.
I noticed some more wear on sunday too. Let me know what you think, as I said this is my first rifle and I need some advice. Im debating weather or not to put a small scope on it or not.
Please excuse my lack of experience and poor camera skills.
-Otto
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Otto
I PMd you. My 39A is 1960 as well, and they're nearly identical, except that some yahoo has varnished my stock at some point in time, which I will be refinishing in the summer. The condition looks good to me, those rusty bits arent a big issue and can be dealt with by using some steel wool, patience and blueing touch-up. You should be able to fill the taps for the rail mount with dummy screws, I bet the shop will throw them in for you at no charge. If you're ever out near Hamilton, give me a shout and we'll do some shootin with our 1960's!
Pat
I PMd you. My 39A is 1960 as well, and they're nearly identical, except that some yahoo has varnished my stock at some point in time, which I will be refinishing in the summer. The condition looks good to me, those rusty bits arent a big issue and can be dealt with by using some steel wool, patience and blueing touch-up. You should be able to fill the taps for the rail mount with dummy screws, I bet the shop will throw them in for you at no charge. If you're ever out near Hamilton, give me a shout and we'll do some shootin with our 1960's!
Pat
Well, I guess it's time for me to sign in I have had various 39's for 25 yrs. I now have a Golden 39-A that the family got me for my birthday a few years ago. Can't say enough good about the 39. Think I'm going to put on a Lyman receiver sight on it now and take off the scope.
Dave in TX
I have had various 39's for 25 yrs. I now have a Golden 39-A that the family got me for my birthday a few years ago. Can't say enough good about the 39. Think I'm going to put on a Lyman receiver sight on it now and take off the scope.Dave in TX
- Status
