any suggestions on which side mount to use. its a pre 64 m94 30/30 which now has a williams peep sight but with the way my eyes have been i am not sure if i can use the peep anymore.the rifle has the factory pre drilled two holes were the peep goes and one forward of them i have a leupold fixed 2x and a couple of 1x4 scopes that i thought i might try with a side mount.i see kwik site has one and weaver has like 3 and i was not sure of which one to try. which side mount works for you guys. thanks

Perhaps a scout mount like this one:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/...lection...../page619

Not a single side mout ever made for a Winchester '94 ever "worked". It a terrible idea. If you action does not have any extra holes, leave it alone. Get a Marlin, Browning BLR, or a 94 angle eject. Side mount scopes on 94's are awkward to shoot. The rifle is no longer "handy". The value is greatly diminished. Basically putting a side mount scope on a Pre-64 '94 destroys every thing that makes it a great rifle.

When I see a neat old '94 on the rack appreach it and see somebody drilled a bunch of holes in it I just shake my head. Un-molested pre-'64 '94s are getting scare and valuable. There is no good reason trash any more of them.

The only folks I have seen that liked them were East Texans that shot deer out of stand while the deer were eating corn they scattered in the road..They had all the time in the world to shoot so it worked well for them.

I would not have a side mount, for one thing the 30-30 is a relitively short range caliber, say 200 or so yards max and iron sights are fine up to that range..The side mount is awkward to shoot, and won't fit well in a saddle scabbard, they ruin the resale of the gun, The Weaver mount was the least expensive and as good as any of them..If I wanted a scoped 30-30 then I would find an old Marlin and you can pick them up for around $300 to $350 on any given day..They make a neat and accurate 30-30.

thanks everyone but i bought the weaver 3D mount with the standard ring bracket and it fits like a glove. i have been using peep sights but my eyes are having trouble with them i realy like the mount and the rifle is still very handi with the 6 oz leupold 2x i mounted on it. thanks again.

scota how do you figure that putting on a side mount will decrease the value of the rifle. no drilling had to be done the mount used the 3 existing holes on the receiver, besides i have no plans on ever selling the rifle. its also my responsibility to upgrade the tools i use for
hunting. upgrading to scopes is something i have had to do over the last few years. now i am confident that i will hit my target.

I'm not Scota but I have never seen a side mount that didn't require drilling and tapping. The receiver sight holes I have seen were never used to mount a sidemount, I am wondering if your gun has been drilled and tapped prior to your getting it.

If I needed a scope I'd trade it in on a rifle that ws designed to accomodate them.

quote:

If I needed a scope I'd trade it in on a rifle that ws designed to accomodate them.

Whilst maybe not the answer the original poster was looking for I would agree that it is probably the BEST advice.

However I have seen a WEAVER sidemount that does use the existing holes in the receiver by including with it a pair of longer screws that both attach the sidemount AND replace the original factory length screws.

But I can't help agree with MIKELRAVY and suggest maybe retire your Winchester and seek a Marlin?

I had to retire my 303 SMLE for the same reason...couldn't cope with a mid-sight any longer for repeated shots.

quote:

Originally posted by Scota4570:
Not a single side mout ever made for a Winchester '94 ever "worked". It a terrible idea. If you action does not have any extra holes, leave it alone. Get a Marlin, Browning BLR, or a 94 angle eject. Side mount scopes on 94's are awkward to shoot. The rifle is no longer "handy". The value is greatly diminished. Basically putting a side mount scope on a Pre-64 '94 destroys every thing that makes it a great rifle.

When I see a neat old '94 on the rack appreach it and see somebody drilled a bunch of holes in it I just shake my head. Un-molested pre-'64 '94s are getting scare and valuable. There is no good reason trash any more of them.

That's just your opinion. Apparently you have never seen a quality side mount for a 94 such as the one pictured below with is a Paul Jaeger which is on a dovetail and you can zip it off real quick by flipping that lever and pushing the lock button. It's dead zero when you put it back on too and you can still use your open sights even when it's installed.

quote:

Originally posted: Un-molested pre-'64 '94s are getting scare and valuable. There is no good reason trash any more of them.

Values have been artificially increased both by their discontinuance and by the steep decline in the purchasing value of the dollar. But whereas some goods have had their prices increased through inflation over the last 30 years by 1,000%, Model 94s haven't gone up by anything like that.

And no gun with a scope on it is as handy as a gun without it regardless of make and model, if one means by handy "lightweight and easy to swing" or "easy to pack on a horse". Carefullly scoped 94s are still very useful for some limited circumstances though.

But Model 94s scarce? Wasn't it President Eisenhower who was given the 3,000,000th one made? I know it was some President back about then.

And modifying a rifle to suit its user is hardly a desecration or trashing the gun. That's one of the things they were made for...the use of their owners.

They were and ARE a tool for most owners. A carpenter's hammer drives nails for its owner. A Model 94 delivers deer meat or drives its own nails through the heart of a coyote. Was either designed to elicit edicts from bystanders as to what the owner "should" be doing with it?

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I'm not Scota but I have never seen a side mount that didn't require drilling and tapping. The receiver sight holes I have seen were never used to mount a sidemount, I am wondering if your gun has been drilled and tapped prior to your getting it.

KWIK-SITE sold a bunch of these mounts that attach via the 2 receiver site screw holes and the finger lever pin cover screw hole. The scope sits off center of the bore to allow for top ejection.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
The only folks I have seen that liked them were East Texans that shot deer out of stand while the deer were eating corn they scattered in the road..They had all the time in the world to shoot so it worked well for them.

I would not have a side mount, for one thing the 30-30 is a relitively short range caliber, say 200 or so yards max and iron sights are fine up to that range..The side mount is awkward to shoot, and won't fit well in a saddle scabbard, they ruin the resale of the gun, The Weaver mount was the least expensive and as good as any of them..If I wanted a scoped 30-30 then I would find an old Marlin and you can pick them up for around $300 to $350 on any given day..They make a neat and accurate 30-30.

+1. A Winchester 94 isn't meant to be scoped.

quote:

Originally posted:

A Winchester 94 isn't meant to be scoped.

And what factory-made hunting rifle WAS meant to be scoped in 1894?

Believe it or not, both times and rifle users have changed since then in regard to scopes. The change was gradual, but it occured.

Heck, back when Capt. Crossman wrote "The Book of the Springfield" (ca. 1930) he stated that the two biggest selling hunting rifle scopes in the United States were the Zeiss and the Hensoldt!!

And, even Crossman, who was an early advocate in favor of scoped hunting rifles, flatly stated that for hunters a scope's power should NEVER exceed 3-X, with 2-1/2-X being better. Times were changing, but the change was nowhere near the magnitude it has come to.


Anyway, whether the M94 was meant to be scoped or not when it was invented isn't the relevant determining factor. What is relevant is whether scoping a M94 works (or worked) for its owner and his or her uses. If it does, it is his or her business and choice, not anyone else's.

That's one of the nice things about living in America. If you want to hunt with an AR-10 or even a semi-auto 50 BMG, you can. If you want to shoot deer with a Pope-Ballard .33-40, you can. And, if you want to scope your M94, you have a perfect right to do that too. "You pays yer money, and you takes yer choice."

Anyone who doesn't want to scope theirs is under no pressure to do so. None of my own current M94s are presently scoped. But to make a flat statement that a scope never worked on one or that it should never be scoped is, to me, pure B.S.

I didn't quite mean it that way. You can make it work, I just like 94s a lot better without scopes on them.

Me too. And I respect your view highly, stated that way.

I just don't want newbies, lurkers, or anyone else put off when they ask a question here, fearing they'll be criticized for wanting to modify or use their gun for some specific purpose that others prefer not to do.

In my opinion (worth .05 of one cent after deducting for inflation), one of the upsides of this set of forums is that someone can answer almost any question a person can ask. One of the downsides is the frequency of criticism for folks who are looking for information, not life-style guidance.

Have a good day

I couldn't have said it better myself ,thankyou Alberta. the rifle has been in the family since new.(1963) winchester had two peep sight holes on the receiver , i beleive for the lyman peep sight. this is where the williams mounts and also one larger hole to the left of these.a scout mount would be handier but i wasn't about to drill and tap my 94. it works just great for me. i will be drilling and tapping my rossi 92 for a scout mount,and i would think it will be just as handi as a peep sighted rifle. to each his own guys thanks for all your replies.