Marlin 39A cut the barrel????

[Varminterror]

if you're actually interested in ranges that merit the scope, then you probably wouldn't have cut the barrel to begin with!

I am talking in terms of iron sights and my own personally imposed limits.

Now I’m intrigued - how do your personally imposed limits negate use of a scope on a 16” 22LR vs. finding it applicable on a 20”, and/or how are you quantifying even the difference in personal range limits between these two lengths?

 

[Varminterror]

And another mag tube assembly, if you go the extra barrel route.

Agreed. I took this point for granted when suggesting a new barrel, simply because it makes far more sense to source another tube assembly than to cut one.

I did a similar project a few years ago, a Marlin 60 which I cut down to 16” (kind of a train wreck, due to the mag hanger dovetail), and I used a Marlin 99M1 mag tube so I wouldn’t have to mess with cutting and re-rolling or repinning an M60 tube. Just a fun little project with no real purpose - and honestly, I wish I would have cut it to 12-14” and made it an SBR, but using a standard length mag tube for another model worked out much more easily than modifying a tube.

 

[.45Coltguy]

In fairness, we’re talking 22LR here. Adding barrel length really doesn’t add anything to ballistic performance, and equally, cutting barrel down doesn’t do anything to penalize that performance either. It’s just as easy to shoot 350yrds with my 10” barreled 22’s as it is with my 21” 22’s.

In fairness, you don't own a older 39A do you?

 

[tubeshooter]

Now I’m intrigued - how do your personally imposed limits negate use of a scope on a 16” 22LR vs. finding it applicable on a 20”, and/or how are you quantifying even the difference in personal range limits between these two lengths?

I guess I wasn't clear. I'll take blame for that.

At the ranges I tend to shoot, I seem to hit better past 50 yards with a longer barrel.

At the ranges I can easily hit with a 16" barrel - I see no point in using a scope.

If I was trying to shoot a lot past 50 yards, I would rather have the longer barrel.

I can't imagine trying to shoot at anything that deserved a clean kill much over 100 yards.
Inanimate targets; doesn't matter.

So for me, the longer barrel makes more sense to me for longer range shooting.
Since I "personally" don't use scopes very much.

I have 1 .22 rifle with a scope.
Had it a couple years.
Haven't fired it yet.

You can probably hit things with .22LR out to 350 yards if you try hard enough.
I never have.

I "personally" find hitting things much past 100 yards or so with irons a challenge. But it could just be me and my own personal shortcomings. I'll admit that I don't get to shoot very much and don't know any of my rifles as well as I'd like.


I'm happy to answer any more questions. But it's all relative to me. That's the "personally imposed" part. I'm not saying to not use a scope, or to not shoot targets at 350 yards, or anything of the sort.

 

[chicharrones]

Agreed. I took this point for granted when suggesting a new barrel, simply because it makes far more sense to source another tube assembly than to cut one.

I did a similar project a few years ago, a Marlin 60 which I cut down to 16” (kind of a train wreck, due to the mag hanger dovetail), and I used a Marlin 99M1 mag tube so I wouldn’t have to mess with cutting and re-rolling or repinning an M60 tube. Just a fun little project with no real purpose - and honestly, I wish I would have cut it to 12-14” and made it an SBR, but using a standard length mag tube for another model worked out much more easily than modifying a tube.

I've admired the 99 for the fully protected short tube magazine. It holds plenty of ammo for a rimfire gun.

 

[Varminterror]

You can probably hit things with .22LR out to 350 yards if you try hard enough.
I never have.

I can. And I do. Even with a 10” 22LR.

I just found it intriguing that you see or feel SOMETHING at some distance out there where 16” becomes inadequate but 20” would do the job. That’s pretty curious to me.

I've admired the 99 for the fully protected short tube magazine. It holds plenty of ammo for a rimfire gun.

My first 22Lr was a 99 M1. Absolutely love it - high favor even over the 60. I’ve wanted for a long time to refurb mine, which is now in 4th generation hands, but it runs right and it still shoots small, so I left it be as it is for my son. I love a short, handy 22 carbine. A 16” 39A, threaded for a can with a short mag tube would be nearly perfect. I drool over the idea of a stock inserted tube mag Win 63 with a 12” barrel and a can out front. I’d even enjoy the work figuring out the extra spring and bolt mass to get it to run quietly and reliably, just to have the end product…

 

[tubeshooter]

I don't doubt you at all.


Did you do it without a scope?
Now that would be very impressive...

 

[tubeshooter]

You came up with 16/20/whatever.

I never said I would or had scoped anything at all.
Just like you never said you made a clean hunting kill @ 350 yds.


Maybe we just aren't on the same page here... and that's perfectly fine.

 

[Varminterror]

In fairness, you don't own an older 39A do you?

Do older 39A’s defy the laws of physics which rule all other 22’s ever made?

Or are you just playing the “it’s old, don’t modify it” boomer game?

 

[Brian Williams]

OBTW it is in Pennsylvania where I will be returning to this Aug.

 

[.45Coltguy]

Do older 39A’s defy the laws of physics which rule all other 22’s ever made?

Or are you just playing the “it’s old, don’t modify it” boomer game?

Hmm. To your first sentence, the obvious answer is no. To the other, please explain to all what "boomer game" is.
You also seem to have issues with others who can't or won't shoot at far distances as you say you can. Not everyone here shoots 350 yards with a 10" barreled .22lr and hits the intended target. Please try to answer questions in a respectful and helpful way.

 

[Varminterror]

You also seem to have issues with others who can't or won't shoot at far distances as you say you can.

Another user stated that if the OP is “actually interested in distances which merit the scope, they wouldn’t cut the barrel to begin with.” I found that an odd statement for a 22LR, so I asked about the personal calculus behind the claim being presented.

This claim largely doesn’t make sense to me BECAUSE I find both of these to be true:

1) The benefit of a scope is not dependent upon distance

and

2) Barrel length is not an indicator for 22LR performance at any range

I mentioned in my response that the claim being made didn’t make sense, hence my purpose in questioning it, using the example that shooting as far as 350yrds is the same with 22LR whether using 10” or 21” - while this claimant is implying they perceive a significant difference between shooting 16” vs. 20”.

As I expected, upon asking, the claim devolves into unsubstantiated personal subjectivism, rather than any actual fact to back the statement “if you’re shooting far enough to merit a scope, you wouldn’t cut the barrel.”

It’s really that simple. I had hoped to actually learn something of interest, as to why they felt there was a significant difference in performance for 16” vs. 20”, beyond the obvious difference in handling and balance.

I’m not terribly certain what your point in attempting an ad hominem jab at me with “you don’t own an older 39A,” implying I can’t give input to the claim being made if I don’t own an older 39A... The only 39A I own currently is on long term loan to a friend for his grandson, I expect I don’t “own” that rifle any more. I also suppose, considering the ~80yr production span of the 39A, mine likely doesn’t meet your personal criteria for “older,” as though I don’t recall it’s exact age, I picked it up used in the 2008-9 ballpark, I’d venture it’s a mid-to-late ‘90s vintage. But again, if physics changed between whatever age you note as “older,” I suppose I missed it.

Or if you might explicate why putting a scope on an “older” 39A would not make sense if the barrel were but 16”, but WOULD make sense if the barrel were left at 20”, again, I remain interested to learn something new.

Rather, since I don’t expect there is objective reason to scope a 20” but not scope a 16”, I’m expecting your implied ad hominem affront is really just meant to support that an “older” 39A shouldn’t be modified, yes?

 

[tubeshooter]

I guess my basic point was that, for an iron sight rifle shooter, you have cut a barrel that is ostensibly easier to shoot long range and are now asking a scope to make up the difference for you. Maybe this has been done in the name of easier handling, which is perfectly fine.

My other basic point is that I don't really feel the need for a scope inside of 30 yards or so. At least not for the type of .22LR shooting I normally do.


Sorry none of that was enlightening to the world-at-large. It was just a casual statement towards somebody's "scout" vision of a Marlin 39A. I said "personally imposed" a little while back. Anybody is free to put a red dot on their NAA Mini if they feel the need, and I promise I won't say a word.

 

[.45Coltguy]

Another user stated that if the OP is “actually interested in distances which merit the scope, they wouldn’t cut the barrel to begin with.” I found that an odd statement for a 22LR, so I asked about the personal calculus behind the claim being presented.

This claim largely doesn’t make sense to me BECAUSE I find both of these to be true:

1) The benefit of a scope is not dependent upon distance

and

2) Barrel length is not an indicator for 22LR performance at any range

I mentioned in my response that the claim being made didn’t make sense, hence my purpose in questioning it, using the example that shooting as far as 350yrds is the same with 22LR whether using 10” or 21” - while this claimant is implying they perceive a significant difference between shooting 16” vs. 20”.

As I expected, upon asking, the claim devolves into unsubstantiated personal subjectivism, rather than any actual fact to back the statement “if you’re shooting far enough to merit a scope, you wouldn’t cut the barrel.”

It’s really that simple. I had hoped to actually learn something of interest, as to why they felt there was a significant difference in performance for 16” vs. 20”, beyond the obvious difference in handling and balance.

I’m not terribly certain what your point in attempting an ad hominem jab at me with “you don’t own an older 39A,” implying I can’t give input to the claim being made if I don’t own an older 39A... The only 39A I own currently is on long term loan to a friend for his grandson, I expect I don’t “own” that rifle any more. I also suppose, considering the ~80yr production span of the 39A, mine likely doesn’t meet your personal criteria for “older,” as though I don’t recall it’s exact age, I picked it up used in the 2008-9 ballpark, I’d venture it’s a mid-to-late ‘90s vintage. But again, if physics changed between whatever age you note as “older,” I suppose I missed it.

Or if you might explicate why putting a scope on an “older” 39A would not make sense if the barrel were but 16”, but WOULD make sense if the barrel were left at 20”, again, I remain interested to learn something new.

Rather, since I don’t expect there is objective reason to scope a 20” but not scope a 16”, I’m expecting your implied ad hominem affront is really just meant to support that an “older” 39A shouldn’t be modified, yes?

Never have scoped my 39A, btw, it's a 1957 with a 24" barrel. Never saw the need to, as I usually only shoot that one at 50-75 yards. When I said "older 39A", my meaning was/is I'm not going to alter it in that way. Anyone else can do as they wish to any of their own firearms.
Not all shooters can shoot at long distance as well as others may. Why not leave it at that? Lastly, what is "boomer game" again?
Have a good one.

 

[tubeshooter]

I do get that a scope will likely help a shooter out at the 110 yard line, whether the gun has a 16" barrel or 24" barrel or anything in between. I was never making an argument otherwise.

Somehow my statement seems to be taken as an argument against scopes in general. To the point of offense, I guess.


I would invite anyone to try shooting a soda can @ 150 yards with a 16" and a 24" rifle with iron sights. I am guessing you will waste more ammo and have less hits with the shorter tube. Neither gun will present nearly as much challenge @ 25 yards. That's pretty much all I was saying.

 

[.45Coltguy]

tubeshooter, I totally get what you meant. In fact, my 39A is the only unscoped rifle I have, as my eyesight isn't what it used to be.
I'm in your camp on this. Some just have to belabor the point.

 

[Varminterror]

Anyone else can do as they wish to any of their own firearms.

But you still felt the need to challenge when I offered my opinion to replace the barrel, rather than modify it, that I must not have a valid opinion because I don’t own an “older 39A” like yours?

Doesn’t make a lot of sense.

 

[Varminterror]

I would invite anyone to try shooting a soda can @ 150 yards with a 16" and a 24" rifle with iron sights. I am guessing you will waste more ammo and have less hits with the shorter tube. Neither gun will present nearly as much challenge @ 25 yards. That's pretty much all I was saying.

But it’s not what you said - and it’s not what the OP owns. He has a 20”, wants to put a scope on it and cut it to 16”. Iron sight shooting of pop cans at 150yrds notwithstanding with either length…

If guys wanna just say, “don’t modify old guns because they’re old,” or “don’t put scopes on rifles because I don’t like scopes on rifles,” just say that.

 

[tubeshooter]

My response had nothing to do with what the OP owns.

That's actually pretty cool - thanks!

But the funny thing is... if you're actually interested in ranges that merit the scope, then you probably wouldn't have cut the barrel to begin with!

On the other hand - I have a really hard time with open sights past the 50-yard line nowadays, especially with short barrels. The scope would help quite a bit here.


Looks pretty handy either way. I have a couple of Henry levers with the large loop, which has grown on me a little. Easily swapped out in any case if you prefer otherwise.

And maybe if I want to say that about this scout rifle - then I'll just say that.

If it's all the same to you. Or not. Jeez Louise. Your input is no more or less valid than anyone else's here, even if you lob .22LR at 1000+ feet regularly.

 

[Bazoo]

If you pack the rifle, or intend to pack the rifle, then I can see it being a worthy endeavor. If you never pack it and just want it to be shorter when broken down for forum pics... well, might as well go for it if you really want to; at that juncture, it's pointless though. There is nothing wrong with having something shorter and the way you want though. It might be a sweet little gun. So...in short... I say consider why you want it, then go for it.

 

[mavracer]

I would invite anyone to try shooting a soda can @ 150 yards with a 16" and a 24" rifle with iron sights. I am guessing you will waste more ammo and have less hits with the shorter tube. Neither gun will present nearly as much challenge @ 25 yards. That's pretty much all I was saying.

To me this is somewhat counter intuitive.

But the funny thing is... if you're actually interested in ranges that merit the scope, then you probably wouldn't have cut the barrel to begin with!

The only advantage the longer barrel will have with 22 LR ballistics is the longer sight radius. If you're using a scope there's not much reason to have a longer barrel.

 

[tubeshooter]

And if you aren't using a scope - maybe there is.

I never needed a scope at short range. But they can help quite a bit at long range.

 

[mavracer]

I never needed a scope at short range. But they can help quite a bit at long range.

Of course. If you shoot big enough targets close enough you don't need any sights at all. These are really tough at 50 feet with irons, but I usually shoot them at 25 yards with a scope.

 

[JumboJVT]

Do older 39A’s defy the laws of physics which rule all other 22’s ever made?

Or are you just playing the “it’s old, don’t modify it” boomer game?

You sir, are exceedingly tiresome. Mods, ban me please.

 

[halfmoonclip]

I've a Rossi/'06 Winchester clone, 16" barrel, with a 19th century Lyman tang sight...with that darn thing, if you can see it, you can hit it. Yeah, I understand about older eyes.
The tang sight forgives some of the sight radius you give away with the short barrel.
I had a 24" 39A a long time ago; it was a heavy bugger, with a pistol grip. Wish I'd thought of having it cut to a handy 16".
I did have a 20" M94 Marlin whacked to 16"; that used a scope, it was a .44 Mag, and it never failed to take down a deer, or to shoot straight.
Anyway, for the OP, if you have a decent 'smith, have at it, and let us know how it comes out. Have him D&T the tang for a sight as well.
Moon