Scope Rings for Marlin 1894

Captains1911 · January 11, 2021, 05:03 PM

I need rings for a Marlin 1894 (.44 Mag) that will put a Leupold VX-Freedom 1.5-4x20 scope (https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle...eedom-1-5-4x20) as low as possible using a Warne Maxima Base (https://www.brownells.com/optics-mou...rod126604.aspx). I'd prefer aluminum for the weight savings. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

LeverGunFan · January 11, 2021, 06:07 PM

Warne has recently introduced lightweight aluminum rings called the "Vapor" series. The V400M model is only 1.6 ounces for the pair, and are .725 inch from the base to the center of the scope. That's about the lowest I've seen for low Weaver/Picatinny rings. I have no experience with the Vapor rings, but I have used other Warne rings and they have worked well.

idek · January 19, 2021, 02:42 AM

I have a Marlin 1894c with the same Warne base (but mine might be steel?) as you. I wanted to mount a Leupold FX-2 2.5x20 scope as low as possible.

I tried several rings. The lowest I ever found was Weaver Top Mount low rings.

LeverGunFan · January 19, 2021, 07:42 AM

I saw these Talley lightweight rings and bases on another forum, they are a combination ring and base and come in an extra low version. They can be turned front to rear to allow for proper scope positioning.

FrankenMauser · January 19, 2021, 10:41 AM

Low is good. Until the hammer hits the eyepiece.

I can't make a specific recommendation. I haven't compared rings for a long time.

But if you want some more forum posts to dig through, you can search for Marlin 336 applications. The receiver of an 1894 may be shorter, but stock comb, and scope mounts and height work out the same.
(Same for standard stock Model 444s and 1895s.)

**44 AMP** · January 26, 2021, 03:22 PM

Weaver low rings and I use a Weaver base.

You will want a hammer extension. Some like the round ones, I like the flat one, some extend to the right, I do mine to the left. Choose which ever you like best.

I don't find the weight difference between steel and aluminum in scope bases or rings to be significant. Again, your personal choice.

I use Weaver for nearly all my mounts and rings they're not expensive and are about everywhere. The Weaver base for the Marlin leverguns still allows the use of the iron sights with the scope removed, and with low rings you can still get a reasonable cheek weld with the factory stock comb height.

Did I mention you'll want a hammer extension??

Captains1911 · January 31, 2021, 12:17 PM

I mounted the scope with the Warne base and low rings (see photo below). I like the height with this setup, however, the problem I have is that I can’t quite get the scope far enough forward for the best eye relief. I only need to move it about 1/2” to 1” forward, but the Warne base only has one rear pic slot so I can’t move the rear ring forward at all (stupid design to not provide a few different slot locations).

So now I’m considering this EGW base that should allow me to move the rings where I need to for proper eye relief, but it looks like it’s going to put the scope a bit higher than I want. I was also looking at the DMZ one piece mounts but they also look too high. Do I have any better options? Any help here is appreciated.

LeverGunFan · January 31, 2021, 01:24 PM

Yes, that Warne base with only two slots doesn't allow for much variation.

If you bought the Warne base from Brownells you should be able to return it under their lifetime guarantee.

Here is the scope base chart from Marlin for compatible bases. Perhaps the Weaver base may give you more adjustment of scope position. I don't have one to look at and the images on the web vary.

EGW does make a good base. I have one on a Henry Long Ranger and it is very accurately made; after mounting a new scope and not adjusting anything it was 1-1/2 inches high and on center at 50 yards. The safest bet would be the EGW base, it has multiple slots so you know it will work.

Captains1911 · January 31, 2021, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeverGunFan

Yes, that Warne base with only two slots doesn't allow for much variation.

If you bought the Warne base from Brownells you should be able to return it under their lifetime guarantee.

Here is the scope base chart from Marlin for compatible bases. Perhaps the Weaver base may give you more adjustment of scope position. I don't have one to look at and the images on the web vary.

EGW does make a good base. I have one on a Henry Long Ranger and it is very accurately made; after mounting a new scope and not adjusting anything it was 1-1/2 inches high and on center at 50 yards. The safest bet would be the EGW base, it has multiple slots so you know it will work.

Sounds good, I think I will try that EGW base. If the scope ends up too high I could always add a cheek riser.

**44 AMP** · January 31, 2021, 01:37 PM

Alternately, simply take the base to a gunsmith (or a machine shop) and have another slot milled in to allow for placing the rear ring further forward which should give you the eye relief you're looking for.

eastbank · February 2, 2021, 05:51 PM

i took a file to a weaver base for my rem 760 years ago so i could get better eye relief with the scope i had. worked very well.

January 11, 2021, 05:03 PM	#1
Captains1911 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: West of the Blue Ridge, VA Posts: 684	Scope Rings for Marlin 1894 I need rings for a Marlin 1894 (.44 Mag) that will put a Leupold VX-Freedom 1.5-4x20 scope (https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rifle...eedom-1-5-4x20) as low as possible using a Warne Maxima Base (https://www.brownells.com/optics-mou...rod126604.aspx). I'd prefer aluminum for the weight savings. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

January 11, 2021, 06:07 PM	#2
LeverGunFan Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 407	Warne has recently introduced lightweight aluminum rings called the "Vapor" series. The *V400M* model is only 1.6 ounces for the pair, and are .725 inch from the base to the center of the scope. That's about the lowest I've seen for low Weaver/Picatinny rings. I have no experience with the Vapor rings, but I have used other Warne rings and they have worked well. __________________ *Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition*

January 19, 2021, 02:42 AM	#3
idek Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2009 Posts: 903	I have a Marlin 1894c with the same Warne base (but mine might be steel?) as you. I wanted to mount a Leupold FX-2 2.5x20 scope as low as possible. I tried several rings. The lowest I ever found was Weaver Top Mount low rings. Last edited by idek; January 19, 2021 at 02:52 AM.

January 19, 2021, 07:42 AM	#4
LeverGunFan Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 407	I saw these Talley lightweight rings and bases on another forum, they are a combination ring and base and come in an extra low version. They can be turned front to rear to allow for proper scope positioning. __________________ *Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition*

January 19, 2021, 10:41 AM	#5
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	Low is good. Until the hammer hits the eyepiece. I can't make a specific recommendation. I haven't compared rings for a long time. But if you want some more forum posts to dig through, you can search for Marlin 336 applications. The receiver of an 1894 may be shorter, but stock comb, and scope mounts and height work out the same. (Same for standard stock Model 444s and 1895s.) __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

January 26, 2021, 03:22 PM	#6
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,817	Weaver low rings and I use a Weaver base. You will want a hammer extension. Some like the round ones, I like the flat one, some extend to the right, I do mine to the left. Choose which ever you like best. I don't find the weight difference between steel and aluminum in scope bases or rings to be significant. Again, your personal choice. I use Weaver for nearly all my mounts and rings they're not expensive and are about everywhere. The Weaver base for the Marlin leverguns still allows the use of the iron sights with the scope removed, and with low rings you can still get a reasonable cheek weld with the factory stock comb height. Did I mention you'll want a hammer extension?? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

January 31, 2021, 12:17 PM	#7
Captains1911 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2009 Location: West of the Blue Ridge, VA Posts: 684	I mounted the scope with the Warne base and low rings (see photo below). I like the height with this setup, however, the problem I have is that I can’t quite get the scope far enough forward for the best eye relief. I only need to move it about 1/2” to 1” forward, but the Warne base only has one rear pic slot so I can’t move the rear ring forward at all (stupid design to not provide a few different slot locations). So now I’m considering this EGW base that should allow me to move the rings where I need to for proper eye relief, but it looks like it’s going to put the scope a bit higher than I want. I was also looking at the DMZ one piece mounts but they also look too high. Do I have any better options? Any help here is appreciated.

January 31, 2021, 01:24 PM	#8
LeverGunFan Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 407	Yes, that Warne base with only two slots doesn't allow for much variation. If you bought the Warne base from Brownells you should be able to return it under their lifetime guarantee. Here is the scope base chart from Marlin for compatible bases. Perhaps the Weaver base may give you more adjustment of scope position. I don't have one to look at and the images on the web vary. EGW does make a good base. I have one on a Henry Long Ranger and it is very accurately made; after mounting a new scope and not adjusting anything it was 1-1/2 inches high and on center at 50 yards. The safest bet would be the EGW base, it has multiple slots so you know it will work. __________________ *Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition*

January 31, 2021, 01:37 PM	#10
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,817	Alternately, simply take the base to a gunsmith (or a machine shop) and have another slot milled in to allow for placing the rear ring further forward which should give you the eye relief you're looking for. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

February 2, 2021, 05:51 PM	#11
eastbank Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2008 Location: pa. Posts: 2,450	i took a file to a weaver base for my rem 760 years ago so i could get better eye relief with the scope i had. worked very well.