I have a new found affection for the old .25-20 WCF and recently picked up a near mint Marlin 1894CL chambered for this round. Just a hoot to shoot and play with and Im just itchin to shoot some coyotes with it.

I mounted a Vortex Crossfire 1-4X scope on it, [i know the purists won't like that], and it works but not ideal. The 30mm body scope is just too big for the slim little Marlin, it just doesn't look right. And I couldn't get it far enough forward for proper eye relief.

I am looking for recommendations for a nice, smaller eyepiece, less bulky style scope with a good track record. I've been looking at old Leupold 2-7x33mm and 2-7x28mm rimfire scopes on eBay. Anybody have any experience with them? I've got some forward offset 1" rings I could use. 7-8x magnification would help me squeeze a little more accuracy out of it from the bench as well.

I have also been considering a mini red dot sight, but my eyes are good, Id probably shoot irons before I did that.

Thanks. Love this website and I value any and all suggestions. Cheers

Those Leupolds are great scopes and would be more in keeping with the size of your Marlin.

For years I had a Leupold fixed 4 power scope on my Savage 99A. It did the job and fit the size and shape of the rifle. But I recently replaced it with a Leupold 2.5-8x variable.

That’s also a smaller scope that looks right on a slim and trim rifle. And my eyes have come to appreciate the higher end magnification.

I couldn’t bear to put a scope on my Marlin 1895, however. I use a Williams aperture sight on that rifle and I like it very much.

If you want to go even more classic or old style, you may consider an older steel tube Weaver.

I found a nice V 1.5-4.5 Weaver for my old Marlin 30-30.

I would go with one of the little Leupold VX3i 1.5-5x20mm scopes. I have one on a Ruger 1a and it looks good. I also have a Marlin 1894cl but in 32-20 and have a Skinner aperture sight on mine. At age 75 with cataracts and thousands of floaters I just prefer iron sights on these rifles and do fine with mine.

How about an old El Paso J2.5 Weaver. Slim, clear and good for about the right distance you would use a .25-20 ! 3/4 inch diameter tube.

Hip

A Leupold 3X suits that gun, best of all is one of the 1981 Leupold Alaskans now discontinued, 7/8s tube, center focus and came in 2.5, 4X and 6X, but if you can find one, they bring big bucks it seems, I have a 2.5X on my fwt 7x57 and I love it..I cannot abide by big heavy varibles on a hunting rifle..A good Leupold 4X is a nice scope also on about any gun..I had a 32-20 in my youth and later a 25-20, the 32-20 killed deer and antelope noticeably better btw, but still wasn't a barn burner at best, so offed both and got me a 25-35 adn still like that one..but the 25-20 and 32-20 are fun guns..I liked both for running my trap lines..

I have an old but as new J.25 on my 22, and yes it would work well on a 25-20..Ive always wanted one of those remington pumps in a 32-20, but a 25-20 would be nice too..

If you can find one, I'd take a look at a Weaver Classic V series 1-3x20. I recently installed one on my Browning BLR in 7mm-08 and I'm liking it. It's small enough and doesn't overwhelm the rifle. It has decent glass and at 1x and 1.5x you can shoot with both eyes open.

You sure don't need much scope power on a 25-20 or 32-20, the bullets fall out of the sky at 150 yards

WELL PUT RAY !!!

Hip

quote:

the bullets fall out of the sky at 150 yards

Good expression!

At that range a peep sight may work - it does for me for such close shots.

I shot an antelope one time on our ranch witha 25-20! 14 times btw all body hits and took half a day, and ended up chasing him in the Pickup or lose him, sold the gun and went back to my 25-35 after that experience..at least he didn't get away and suffer for several days..Not a good experience and nobodys fault but mine, thats what happens when folks don't use enough gun..

Follow up question. I snagged a really nice Leupold compact on eBay. Now the rings I need [and have] involve and extension ring to get the scope forward enough for proper eye relief.

The problem is they are the early style Weaver rings with the hook on one side and screws on the other. Every single time I put the final torque on the screws, the scope crosshair turns away from proper alignment.

I am not seeing much available for other brands of cross slot extension rings. I might be stuck with what I have. Is there a trick to using these old style Weaver rings?

Thanks as always. Some days I just feel stupid...

quote:

I am not seeing much available for other brands of cross slot extension rings. I might be stuck with what I have. Is there a trick to using these old style Weaver rings?

Yes buy the extended Weaver mount for your Marlin not rings.

Here's a Leupold 2x7x33 in Weaver rings on my Marlin 336. Even this seems a bit big for my liking. I've been thinking about a 1x4 instead. I also want to change the mount to the extended mount to get the scope a little farther forward.

Roger, I am using virtually the same scope, just the "compact" version. Are you aware of a forward extended Weaver base? I am not. I have looked and so far all I see is the Weaver 48069.

Caution: The issue with the Weaver 48069 [and nearly identical Warne A997] is the front ring moves just a tad forward of the 1894 receiver, I am talking like a 1/2-3/4 inch. The problem is Weaver kept the rear ring slot in the same position, so you cannot move the scope forward without using an extended ring for the rear slot, pointed forward of course. That's what I have been trying right now, but I am fighting the darn Weaver ring "canting issue" at the moment. Frustrating...

At least for me, this combo is still not quite enough forward scope movement, I still feel like I have to push my head back on the stock to get proper eye box, at least on low power.

Right now, I am looking at an Ashley Performance one piece forward offset base. Mounts to the same action hole pattern, but it puts the rear ring in front of the ejection port and the front ring over the barrel closer to the iron sight. It uses dual dovetail style Leupold or Burris rings. In my case this is wayyy overkill from a strength standpoint, but would be a lot better for proper scope/head position on the rifle stock.

I believe it is Picatinny that makes a base with many slots instead of just two like Weaver which would give many more mounting combos. I have one on a Marlin .375 but I have never taken it off so I don't know the make for sure. I see you have two piece bases, mine are a one piece.

Hip

P.S. You could always cut it up so it would be two piece and paint it with Rustolium.

quote:

Originally posted by 257 Roberts:
Roger, I am using virtually the same scope, just the "compact" version. Are you aware of a forward extended Weaver base? I am not. I have looked and so far all I see is the Weaver 48069.

Caution: The issue with the Weaver 48069 [and nearly identical Warne A997] is the front ring moves just a tad forward of the 1894 receiver, I am talking like a 1/2-3/4 inch. The problem is Weaver kept the rear ring slot in the same position, so you cannot move the scope forward without using an extended ring for the rear slot, pointed forward of course. That's what I have been trying right now, but I am fighting the darn Weaver ring "canting issue" at the moment. Frustrating...

At least for me, this combo is still not quite enough forward scope movement, I still feel like I have to push my head back on the stock to get proper eye box, at least on low power.

Here's the Weaver forward mount on my Remington 660. It's identical to what it be on a 336 or 1895. What Weaver makes for the 1894, 336, and 1895 are the same part number. The rings are definitely farther forward. If that's not far forward enough you might have to go with a Picatinny or scout scope mount.

The Weaver mount: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1477189486

The Warne mount: https://www.midwayusa.com/prod...022378937?pid=785157

tHATS ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM WITH WEAVER RINGS..YOU JUST HAVE TO ALLOW FOR THAT SO WHEN YOU TIGHTEN THEM THE SCOPE TURNS TO LEVEL..IT STILL BOTHERS ME BUT I KNOW AT SOME POINT I WILL GET IT RIGHT..

Of course you don't need to use Weaver rings just because you have a Weaver base. Lots of other choices out there. Those are Leupold rings on the Rem 660 above.

To answer your question, I have a couple of both of the 2-7X and they are my favorite scopes. However, for your .25-20, you might also consider the Leupold 4X compact, or as others have suggested, a smaller scope like the 1-4X Vari-X II. You might also look at an older Leupold 4X, as they are trim, but a bit longer in the tube.

You won,t need extension rings or bases with the 4X Leupold, its longer than most scopes..and its trim enough to look right on your gun, and all the power the caliber can handle.