I went to mount a 30mm scope on my Marlin 1895. I was using a Leupold base with twist-in front ring and a rear ring locked in by windage screws.

The front ring went in well. (It may be a wee bit crooked in the photo, but I was messing with it after I took the base off off.

The rear ring is the issue. I went in shockingly crooked.

The rear ring, which I assume is self aligning due to the windage screws, should at least have installed square to the base, but ended up at a significant angle. I took it off, turned it around, remounted it, and same thing, it went in crooked. I gave some thought to leaving it as-is because these rings have nylon inserts, but I simply couldn't get past how canted the ring is.

I pulled the ring off completely and checked the cuts in the bottom of the ring that are engaged by the windage screws and one is cut ahead of the other.

Has anyone else experienced this?

I bought a fresh base and I ordered another set of rings. I'll see how they are before I mount them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Micropterus,

Before I worked on my 1895, I mounted a scope on my Marlin 336 .30-30 using the model Leupold base and Burris Signature 1" rings. After inspecting it, I think the rear ring on it is very slightly canted, too. I'm not going to mess with it since it is so slightly canted that the nylon inserts can compensate for it. But it does bug me. Not sure if I did something wrong or if this is the way the rings were milled.

Also, the front 30mm ring on my 1895 turned in with moderate pressure. On the 1" ring on my 336, I had to put a lot of force into turning it into the base.

I've give up completely on this scope mounting system. I've tried it and found it inferior. I wanted a solid mount and a traditional look, and got a traditional look with boogered screws and a precarious mount.

On both my 1" set up and 30mm set up, I used a Leupold STD base and Burris Signature STD rings.

On the 1" set up, the front ring turned in only with much force. I know they are tight, but the front 1" ring actually cut into a 1" dowel rod when turning it. Leupold's plastic ring wrench would have never survived. The rear ring went in slightly crooked. The windage screws, which have both a slot and a Torx hole are supposed to be torqued to 40-60 inch pounds (depending on the source). The Torx hole on one blew out at 32 inch pounds. And it was impossible to get anything like 40 inch lbs in the slot. The surface of the screw is rounded and the slot depth is next to nothing at either end of the slot. Putting even 30 inch lbs of pressure on that slot caused the balde to slip out and booger the edges.

One the 30mm set up, the front rings was so easy to turn it I could do it by hand - finger pressure. The rear ring went in shockingly crooked. And, again, the windage screws were unable to take anything close to the torque either Leupold or Burris recommends. Both Torx holes blew out at a little over 30 inch pounds. I got a new base and new rings. The front ring, again, turned in with only a little hand pressure. The rear ring, again, went in crooked, but not as bad as the first time. I had to limit the torque on the windage screws to 30 inch pounds - half that recommended by Burris.

Not happy at all. There's something about the rear Burris STD rings that cause them to twist as the windage screws are tightening. Once the twisting starts, it seems impossible to correct. And the windage screws themselves seem to be extremely soft and torquing them to the recommended torque WILL result in a blown out torx hole.

I used the right tools, too. I have a Wheeler FAT Torque Screwdriver and Brownell's Magna Tip Screw drivers.

So this system has been abandoned on both guns. I've removed them. And I've ordered Warne Maxima bases for both and Warne Maxima rings. Should have gone with these to begin with. I've got them on other guns and they have been rock solid.

Thanks for that comprehensive report. If a company is going to sell a product even at a moderate price, it should meet minimum quality standards.

I've never cared for the Redfield style base and rings of any manufacturer. I use only Burris Signature rings with a Weaver style base on all my firearms.

The Leupold STD bases and the Burris Signature STD rings are gone. I replaced the bases with Warne MAXIMA Weaver-style bases. These use all 4 screw holes on the receiver instead of just 3. And I went with Warne MAXIMA QD rings. All self-aligning. And I was able to reinstall the rear sights on both rifles, and I can see those sights over the bases.

My Marlin 336C .30-30 with a Burris Fullfield E1 2-7x35 scope.





My Marlin 1895 .45-70 with a Burris MTAC 1-3x 30mm scope.

That is exactly the base and ring choice I’ve made. Couple lever turns and you have unimpeded access to the irons. If you find yourself horseback you’ll further appreciate your choice.

The Warnes mount further back than the Leupolds, too. I had to crawl the stock to get a good sight picture using the Leupold/Burris mounts. The Warnes sit further back and I can rest more comfortably on the stock and get a good sight picture.

Micropterus, I would like to setup my Marlin similar to yours. Can you please share with me the exact model # of Warne MAXIMA Weaver-style base and Warne MAXIMA QD rings you used?
Did you use low or medium height rings?
Thank you

I’ve had the Warne QD system on my 1895 for 10 years or so. VX III 1.5-5 IR rock solid and the bases are low enough to use the irons if I want. I went with medium height due to concerns about the clearance over the hammer, probably unfounded.

quote:

Originally posted by reflex/deflex 64:
I’ve had the Warne QD system on my 1895 for 10 years or so. VX III 1.5-5 IR rock solid and the bases are low enough to use the irons if I want. I went with medium height due to concerns about the clearance over the hammer, probably unfounded.

It's not unfounded. You are right, it is absolutely an issue. I bought the low rings initially based on Warne's selector without realizing it didn't take into consideration having the clear the reart sight. I also didn't anticipate the hammer extension coming into contact with the scope power ring.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashfinder77:
Micropterus, I would like to setup my Marlin similar to yours. Can you please share with me the exact model # of Warne MAXIMA Weaver-style base and Warne MAXIMA QD rings you used?
Did you use low or medium height rings?
Thank you

I used the one piece A997M base on both rifles:
https://warnescopemounts.com/p...ions-matte-aluminum/

I used the medium height MAXIMA rings. 1" on the 336 .30-30 and 30mm on the 1895 .45-70.

The low rings had two issues:

1) on the 336, the front bell of the scope would not clear the front sight, and I really wanted that on there if possible when using QD rings. On the 1895 that was not an issue since the front of the scope is a straight tube and doesn't even reach the rear sight.

2) with low rings, the hammer would clear the bottom of the scope power adjustment ring, but NOT with the hammer extension on. And without the hammer extension, it's extremely difficult to cock the hammer by thumb if that extension isn't on the hammer and there is a scope on the gun. Using the low rings and the hammer extension, when the hammer drops the extension will rub the scope power adjustment ring and will not fall all the way home.

The Warnes are very easy to install. All screws, bases and rings, take 25 inch pounds of torque.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Micropterus,

8 inch Cresent Wrench is your friend!

I've always detested Leupold rings and mounts. By the nature of their design they're fussy and inexact, always requiring me to pull out the Wheeler leveling/lapping tools (either at work or at home) in order to get front and rear rings into correct alignment with one another. If the mount itself was inaccurately milled, then things get exacerbated and it's near impossible to get a scope centerline parallel let alone aligned with the barrel bore. Fortunately it's been my experience that this kind of manufacturing error rarely happens with Leupold, but I have encountered it at least once over the years.

I generally have encountered more manufacturing problems with Ruger (specifically their American-series rifles) and Savage factory mounts than with any other. But specific to Marlin, in the past 3 to 4 years we've had to send lever rifles back to the factory because of inaccurately placed tap points on the receiver that are only discovered when trying to use aftermarket mounts. So based upon our shop's experiences, I wouldn't necessarily say that problems such as yours was completely the fault of Leupold.

I don't think it was Leupold's fault, either. Except in this respect: they call for more torque on the windage screws than they can take. Leupold (and Brownells) calls for 45 inch pound of torque on those screws. The screws provided have a TORX fitting with a traditional slot through it. It won't take 45 inch pounds. The Torx hole blows out at just under 35 inch lbs. I called Leupold and to their credit they sent me 4 sets of new windage screws at no charge (good on them!) but reiterated 45 inch lbs was the proper torque. I settled on 30 inch pounds and I think that's all they need.

With respect to the rings, I think that's on Burris. I think they mis-machined the slots on the bottom of the rings because every set I tried appears to have one slot machined ever so slightly ahead of the opposite slot. Every rear ring I tried started to cant as the windage screws were tightened. Once the canting starts, there's no stopping or reversing it.

In the end, I'm glad things turned out the way they did. The Warne base (as did the Leupold) both went on the rifle easily. But the Warne base is held on with 4 screws torqued to 25 inch/lbs each, while the Leupold base is held on with 3 screws torqued to 14 inch/lbs each. And there is no lapping or aligning the Warne rings.

I liked the looks of the Leupold (Redfield) system, and by all accounts it's entirely sturdy enough for a lifetime of use. I do think the Warne system is better in every way, except perhaps, aesthetics.