Recommend solid,economical, lower-powered scope for Marlin 30-30

[MIL-DOT]

I just stumbled into an older, mint-condition marlin 336 (lever action 30-30 for those not familiar), that has a very cheap Bushnell on it. I'm a big fan of Bushnell's Elite series ( I have two already), but not so much their lower-end stuff (based on experience).
I'd like to put on something a little better and more reliable, but nothing too spendy, and prefer something a little smaller than the standard-sized scopes with 40mm objective.
Since the 30-30 is pretty much a sub-200 yard round, I can go with a lower power (say, 2-7 ? ).
Also, I shouldn't need anything with parallax adjustment, which I know will also help keep the cost down.
I have a small Japanese V-series Weaver on a Marlin .22 that I'm real pleased with, and I hear great stuff about the new Redfields.
There's a little Nikon that looks interesting and could work, the P-223 3x32, that runs $149 delivered, including the mounts.(but, it's sort of a 'tactical' scope, and might be goofy on a classic old lever gun.)
I don't believe I'd be open to any Tascos, Barskas, etc.
Anyway, ya'll get the idea, any suggestions or advice is, as always, much appreciated......

 

[EchoM70]

Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35... Best $150 you can spend IMO.

http://swfa.com/Burris-2-7x35-Fullfield-II-Rifle-Scope-P5972.aspx

 

[kona9]

Nikon prostaff 3-7x32. I have one on my mini 14 and it is working well. Not tactical looking too. I would put another on a 30-30. $140 at LL Bean. $150 amazon, etc.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Thanks guys, both great suggestions. I've liked Nikon and Burris for some time, but never owned any.
It's a tough call between the two: both are fully, multi-coated, both made overseas (the Burris in the Pillipines, probably the same for the Nikon).
The Burris is $145 delivered at Amazon, the Nikon, $150,delivered.
The Burris seems to have the slight edge in the reviews I've read. Being a little cheaper, and having the slightly larger objective probably pushes the Burris to the front of contention.
Thanks again, guys. And welcome to the forum, Kona !!

 

[CraigC]

I think a 2-7x is still too much scope for a levergun. I like the Leupold VXII 1-4x and VXIII 1.5-5x.

 

[BigBore44]

Throwing my vote for the Nikon. I have/had Tasco(1), Bushnell(1), BSA(1), Simmons(2), Nikon(4), and Leupold(1). I listed in order of quality. For economics, quality, and durability, I go Nikon. Haven't owned a Burris. But have looked through many of them. They are quality scopes. It I hadn't found Nikon, I would probably have Burris. But will never get rid of my Leupold.

 

[Sock Puppet]

If you decide a 2-7 works for you, take a hard look at the Redfield Revolution. I recently looked at everything I could get my hands on in that range, and priced below $250, and found the Revolution to be just right. Nice and light, good optics, great warranty, and made in the USA. I'm well pleased with it so far.

 

[Corn-Picker]

The one problem I have with Leupold/Redfield is that they exaggerate their power ratings; a 2-7 is actually a 2.5-6.5, and likewise with the other power ratings. The lower zoom ratio does make for a lightweight scope, but be aware that you're not getting a true 2-7. Personally I think 1-4 is great for a 30-30, but I've got good eyes.

If you don't absolutely need a new unit check optics planet for their "demo" models, they carry full factory warranties and are normally 50%+ off MSRP.

 

[WestKentucky]

You may be missing out by eliminating tasco from your options. They have some great scopes for what your looking for, for very reasonable prices. I have a tasco pronghorn 3? Power, maybe 4... On my 336 and it's a real shooter. I also have a tasco world class 3x9x40 on my .270 which is a 1.5"@200yd gun. I'm not sure why so many people dismiss tasco so quick. Much better than a lot of redfield and Simmons glass. I personally would look either at higher end tasco or lower end Nikon for nearly any gun, but I am looking at a vortex viper for my .270 for some reason. That would push the tasco world class onto the .243 which has an abhorable junk Simmons on it.

 

[jmr40]

A 1-4X would be my 1st choice, but the 2-7X Burris is a lot of scope for $150. The 1-4's are a lot lighter and more compact. It is hard to describe just how much better 1X is than 2X for up close and fast shooting until you try it. At 4X you have as much magnification as you will ever be able to use with a 30-30.

My preference.

http://swfa.com/Leupold-1-4x20-VX-1-ShotgunMuzzleloader-Scope-P51851.aspx

If $70 savings is the deal breaker this is good too.

http://swfa.com/Burris-2-7x35-Fullfield-II-Rifle-Scope-P5972.aspx

Another good choice. I have actually used the 1st 2 and like them a lot. This I have not, but read good things about them. Might be a good compromise

http://swfa.com/Weaver-1-3x20-Classic-V-Rifle-Scope-P2864.aspx

 

[back40]

i prefer aperture sights on my lever guns. however, if you must have glass i'd likely stick to a 1-4x. as jmr40 said, 1x really is much, much better for quick close shots than 2x. it'll also be lighter and capable of being mounted lower on the gun. i can't see needing much more than 4x for a 30-30.

 

[Walkalong]

I went with a Vortex Viper 2X7 for my Marlin in .35 Remington, because it was on sale for nearly half price. I like it. 2X gives a big field of view.

I have a Nikon 2X7 Prostaff on my .458 Win Mag, and I like it too. My eyes just like Nikon glass. A buddy has a Burris Fullfield 2X7 on his .06, and it is a nice scope as well.

Either the Fullfield or the Prostaff would be a good choice and both are nice scopes for the money.

 

[witchhunter]

Take a gander on Ebay, I have seen Leupold Vari-XII 4X go for under $150.00. You would not go wrong with a Leupold in my opinion.

 

[Zeke/PA]

Personally, I don't think that you can go wrong with any of the current Nikon offerings. I own several and have NO complaints at all.

 

[krimmie]

I went with a Leupold 1x4 for my Marlin...it's a great scope for the rifle.

 

[Robert]

Weaver K4. I have one on my 1895G and it is perfect.

 

[jaysouth]

I have a Weaver V-3 on one Marlin 336 and a Tasco Bantam 2.5X on another. Either works great for where I hunt. The Tasco was on closeout from Natchez Shooters at $19.99. I bought 3. The Tasco fixed power has taken a lot more punishment that I expected. I may not get to wear out all 3.

If wishes could come true, I would prefer a Weaver K-2.5 Steel tube. But they have not been made for decades. If money were no object, a Leupold 2.5 Lightweight.

 

[Rob96]

Weaver has a nice 1-3x power that would be good for a lever. Have you thought about a red dot?

 

[Field Tester]

You really can't go wrong with the Nikon or Redfield. With the Redfield you know you'll have a good warranty.
Are you dead set on a variable? For the distance you're talking about how about a fixed 4?

 

[FSJeeper]

The Weaver V-3 is the best value for the dollar for a lever 30-30. Light, compact, huge field of view, fast handling. Mounts low to work with the stock unlike the others. Everything you need for a brush gun.

The fact that the V3 is popular with the 3 gun crowd speaks for itself.

They come on sale occasionally at Midway and other places for $150.00.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Boy, did this thread take off, many thanks for all the useful comments and suggestions.
After digging around a while, I'm thinking the Redfields and especially the Leupolds are more than I want to spend (especially with the Burris and the Nikon both hovering under $150,delivered.) But they are sweet, I've had a MK IV PR on a .308 Tikka T3 Lite for several years now (actually, it's that very scope that years ago gave me the idea for my forum handle "MIL-DOT" )
Anyway, to answer some posts: I had an older Tasco a few years ago, and it had surprisingly good glass in it. I gave it to a freind for one of his .22's, and he's still happy with it. But there appears to be nothing really wrong with the old Bushnell that came on this rifle, so "upgrading" to a $30 tasco wouldn't really change much.
As for a red-dot, my slowly aging eyes really like having a little magnification these days, and I'm thinking a mere 4x will be less than I'll like. I think the 2-7 will probably be ideal.
I like the suggestions for the Weavers, I already have a small V-series on a stainless Marlin 60, and I absolutely LOVE that scope. I looked up the K4, and liked that they're also Japanese-made, but I'd prefer a parallax setting at 100 yds rather than the 50 that this is. The V3 is lower power than I think I'd like, and more expensive at $180.
I checked Optics Planet for demo-model deals, but no joy. Same with E-bay (though I didn't dig too deeply there.)
I'll keep listening to suggestions and digging around, but so far, I'm still leaning towards that Burris Fullfield II, followed closely by the Nikon Prostaff.
Thanks again to all for chiming in here.........

 

[greyling22]

The smaller the scope the better it looks on a 336. I put a weaver 1-3x20 on my 10/22 but discovered that at anything under 1.75x or so I saw the front sight and a lot of barrel in my scope, which bothered me a lot. I decided to pass on mounting it on the 336 because witha longer barrel it would have been even worse. I have a burris timberline 2-7x26 on my 336 now, and it's perfect. The burris 2-7x35 I bought to put on the 10/22 is a lot larger.

I would take a serious look at the vortex diamonback 1.75-5. It's about the smallest affordable currently made scope I know of that has a power range that will not put the barrel in my scope and still give my failing eyes enough power to see the target down range if I need some extra oomph.


in the pictures that is a 2 year old burris ff2 2-7x35 on the 10/22 and a discontinued burris timberline 2-7x26 on the marlin. It is mounted on a warne 1 piece mount and burris low rings. I cannot mount it any lower to the barrel without the hammer hitting the scope. The real limitation for how low a scope can be mounted is the rear ocular bell.

Weaver and leupold/redfield revolution have the smallest rear bells. if money was no object I would be looking at a leupold ultralight 2-7x28. or maybe even a leupold rimfire because it is a lot cheaper.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Thanks for those perspective photos, greyling. And that is one SCHWEEEET Texan you got there, I am truly jealous !!!

 

[greyling22]

Thanks for those perspective photos, greyling. And that is one SCHWEEEET Texan you got there, I am truly jealous !!!

Perspective is always helpful. And you really will want the scope as low as possible, else you will have cheek rest problems. MY biggest issue with nikon scopes (an with a growing number of other brands) is the size of the rear ocular bell. They are just getting bigger and bigger, which makes mounting them a little tricky.

thanks for the rifle compliment. I put a lot of time and effort into it. Cerakoting, made a new stock set, etc. Fortunately it shoots as good as it looks. I had a panicky feeling the first time I took it out and my first load shot all over the place, but the next bullet type worked great. I had stupidly gone and rebuilt it before I had ever shot it. DOH!
I slicked the action up too. My only complaint is that for some reason I have to run a full power hammer spring to get reliable detonation. None of my other marlins require it.

This is what it looked like before I got it. scope on there was an old tasco pronghorn 4x32. I'm not a glass snob, but it wasn't very good.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Just thought I'd update the thread. After some serious rooting around on the interwebz, I found a place that had a couple Burris FF2's in-stock for only $118 (not refurbs). Totalled out to $133,delivered, which I couldn't touch anywhere else. From some operation up in Maryland called BigSupplyShop. I quick search yielded largely positive reviews of them, so I jumped.
Thanks again to all for helping out here.
And Greyling, you did an amazing job with that Texan's walnut, again, I am jealous. ( Almost looks like you matte-blued it,too). I'd rather that than a 94. I was talking with a guy on Armslist up in Atlanta last year that had one, but I couldn't get around to making the trip up there before he sold it.:banghead: