JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
peep sight for a marlin 336 30-30??
- Thread Starter oldbrass
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,281
- Reactions
- 214
Williams or Redfield are GTG. I've used a Redfield on several rifles, I like them.
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reactions
- 6,918
The Williams 5D or FP (5D originally stood for its selling price: five dollars, and the FP stands for "FoolProof") are great sights for the money. Pick your poison depending on whether you want "set and forget", or "additional adjustments frequently required".
A Marlin 336 .30-30 usually will be well served with a "set and forget" type sight, and these are usually of a slightly more trim design (less screws, dials, and such). However, if your good Marlin is to be used with various loads (maybe you want the incredibly accurate 125g Sierra FP hollowpoints for your high-velocity rapid expansion deer load, and jump to a stout 170g for elk), you may want something with some screws and dials to fiddle with. If trimness and weight are not an issue, an old steel Redfield can offer precision click adjustments just like a scope.
The Skinner is a very finely made (and rugged) sight that dispenses with the "little brick" hanging off the side of your gun. This is nice for scabbard applications (horse or ATV), but consider before buying that you may well need to replace your FRONT sight as well to be compatible for trajectories of the given cartridge/rifle/barrel length. Side receiver peeps have a greater range of vertical adjustment, and most often replacement of the front sight is not required to make them work. The Skinner sits on top of the receiver utilizing the rear scope mount base holes for attachment. Consider also that this sight very often is significantly further forward (away from the eye) than a sight which mounts on the side receiver holes.
Thinking again about adaptability (in case you are frequently asking your 336 to do different things), the side receiver sights are almost without exception instantly removeable with one set-screw. (The "side brick" remains.) This is a great feature that might allow you to instantly install prevoiusly sighted-in optics (scope, red-dot, etc.) on an existing Weaver (Picatinny) rail. Going back to the peep from optics is a quick change as well, and the set screw allows for re-installation to zero. A Skinner sight (with all its advantages) precludes this switching around in the field.
So: for "set and forget" application (most often what one wants on a .30-30), you don't need dials. For horse or ATV applications in a scabbard, the Skinner is best (with a front sight of proper height). For frequent load changes, you will want some dials. For extreme precision, you will want the longest sight radius (distance from peep to front sight) possible, and click adjustments might be desired. For quick change to optics, you will want a side-mounted peep that offers removing of the slide portion via a repeatable set-screw.
Sure made the decision easier for you, didn't I? No charge for this service. Drive Safely.
A Marlin 336 .30-30 usually will be well served with a "set and forget" type sight, and these are usually of a slightly more trim design (less screws, dials, and such). However, if your good Marlin is to be used with various loads (maybe you want the incredibly accurate 125g Sierra FP hollowpoints for your high-velocity rapid expansion deer load, and jump to a stout 170g for elk), you may want something with some screws and dials to fiddle with. If trimness and weight are not an issue, an old steel Redfield can offer precision click adjustments just like a scope.
The Skinner is a very finely made (and rugged) sight that dispenses with the "little brick" hanging off the side of your gun. This is nice for scabbard applications (horse or ATV), but consider before buying that you may well need to replace your FRONT sight as well to be compatible for trajectories of the given cartridge/rifle/barrel length. Side receiver peeps have a greater range of vertical adjustment, and most often replacement of the front sight is not required to make them work. The Skinner sits on top of the receiver utilizing the rear scope mount base holes for attachment. Consider also that this sight very often is significantly further forward (away from the eye) than a sight which mounts on the side receiver holes.
Thinking again about adaptability (in case you are frequently asking your 336 to do different things), the side receiver sights are almost without exception instantly removeable with one set-screw. (The "side brick" remains.) This is a great feature that might allow you to instantly install prevoiusly sighted-in optics (scope, red-dot, etc.) on an existing Weaver (Picatinny) rail. Going back to the peep from optics is a quick change as well, and the set screw allows for re-installation to zero. A Skinner sight (with all its advantages) precludes this switching around in the field.
So: for "set and forget" application (most often what one wants on a .30-30), you don't need dials. For horse or ATV applications in a scabbard, the Skinner is best (with a front sight of proper height). For frequent load changes, you will want some dials. For extreme precision, you will want the longest sight radius (distance from peep to front sight) possible, and click adjustments might be desired. For quick change to optics, you will want a side-mounted peep that offers removing of the slide portion via a repeatable set-screw.
Sure made the decision easier for you, didn't I? No charge for this service. Drive Safely.
- Messages
- 802
- Reactions
- 959
My Williams is easy to adjust, has different peep disks available to attach. My Tech-Sight I had on a .22 was much harder to work with; looked good, though.
WOW Spitpatch, maybe you should write a book!
All joking aside, Spitpatch brought up allot of really good points, all of which need to be taken into consideration.
Most, of my experience has been with the Williams sights. I have put there products on many firearms, some were mine, & a number for other people. I have nothing negative to say about there sights, & I have not heard a single complaint about there sights, from any one ells!
For the most part, I think it's safe to say, that what ever sight you choose, will be an improvement to the originals.
All joking aside, Spitpatch brought up allot of really good points, all of which need to be taken into consideration.
Most, of my experience has been with the Williams sights. I have put there products on many firearms, some were mine, & a number for other people. I have nothing negative to say about there sights, & I have not heard a single complaint about there sights, from any one ells!
For the most part, I think it's safe to say, that what ever sight you choose, will be an improvement to the originals.
- Messages
- 14,911
- Reactions
- 27,441
I bought a used Marlin 39A .22 many years ago and it had a Williams on it. It is the most accurate 'open iron' .22 I have ever owned, or shot, and I attribute that partly to the Williams sight and the rest to the quality of the Marlin.
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reactions
- 6,918
My 1948 vintage 336RC happens to be one of the most accurate rifles I have ever owned (and rumor has it, I've owned a couple). A favorite recreational activity toward which it is employed is when someone shows up here to wring out their "premier super-accurate bolt action" gun at my range. All due attention is given their gun, praise delivered for its obviously inherent precision on the target, and then I'll go get the ol' West Virginia Whitetail meat-getter.
With a "period-correct" Lyman Alaskan 2.5x scope and post reticle, and the aforementioned Sierra 125g FP Hollowpoints, the ol' "thutty-thutty" will confidently walk all over not only my buddies' gun, but shine against my best fat-barreled varminters in the stable. It has prompted some Great Reconsiderations regarding what is necessary (moneywise and otherwise) for accuracy.
With a "period-correct" Lyman Alaskan 2.5x scope and post reticle, and the aforementioned Sierra 125g FP Hollowpoints, the ol' "thutty-thutty" will confidently walk all over not only my buddies' gun, but shine against my best fat-barreled varminters in the stable. It has prompted some Great Reconsiderations regarding what is necessary (moneywise and otherwise) for accuracy.
- Messages
- 14,911
- Reactions
- 27,441
Ain't that the truth! My first 30-30 (Standard Winchester 94) was incredibly accurate. 100 yard jack rabbits with the stock sights was easy. And while not 30-30 my Winchester trapper in .357 is equally as accurate. I recently PO'd a friend for 'emptying' the 100 + yard jugs of water with it he had set up and was missing with his .308 Ruger - again with the stock sights. I all fairness though he had only recently got the Ruger and did not have it completely dialed in yet. I am hoping to get the same results with my 'newest' Winchester, an octagon barreled Mod 94 which I am still getting used to and working up a load for.
- Messages
- 1,410
- Reactions
- 707
Spitpatct saved me some spit. I've done to some extent everything he said and I second it. But I would also like to draw your attention to XS sights as well. Some offer a bit more flexibility switching from peeps to scopes:
http://www.xssights.com/index.php?nID=sights&cID=Sights&pID=sights&sID=rifle
A Williams in combination with a globe front sight you can achieve some amazing shots. I have been able to shoot 2 MOA at 75yds from rest with a 20" bbl Marlin 1894 chambered to 357 magnum!
http://www.xssights.com/index.php?nID=sights&cID=Sights&pID=sights&sID=rifle
A Williams in combination with a globe front sight you can achieve some amazing shots. I have been able to shoot 2 MOA at 75yds from rest with a 20" bbl Marlin 1894 chambered to 357 magnum!
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reactions
- 6,918
Peep sights according to Spitpatch, Volume 2:
Don't let the necessity to change your front sight (should you choose the Skinner) scare you. You may even WANT to do this anyway, with any other peep, just to improve the front. Williams makes a wonderful front sight called a "Firesight" that is lucite (glows as a result of it gathering light from its surroundings). I did this for my girlfriend on her .44 Magnum Marlin, with a Williams FP on the receiver. She thought she didn't like peeps until she saw this set-up. Now she thinks it is the cat's meow. Fast target acquisition and instant eye-draw to point of aim. Blacktails and Elk in the neighborhood are in trouble when she has this powerful little carbine between the bucket seats of her Toy pickup. (All local laws apply, of course!) With the Marlin ramp extant on the front, the Firesight insert was a very economical and effective improvement. Firesight apertures are also available, and have a ring of ambient-illuminated material around the rear aperture, hole size of your choosing.
Which brings us to apertures: for a hunting gun, larger is almost always better and more adaptable to low-light. Very little accuracy is lost with a larger aperture, as your eye automatically centers the front bead. Small apertures are only beneficial for bench testing, and may well handicap you for rugged, variable hunting conditons. If you do opt for a smaller aperture this is generally not a problem when you choose to hunt in conditions that dictate a larger one is needed: simply unscrew your fine target-grade aperture, and the threaded recess instantly becomes the famed "ghost ring" (named such, because your eye actually doesn't even see it). Auto-eye-centering is again not far off from your fine aperture you have deposited in your shirt pocket. With a Marlin 336, the absence of your fine aperture will mean at 85 yards you might hit the deer in the left ventricle rather than the right ventricle. Personally, I always go for the base of the aorta, but shot placement debates might now ensue as a result of my perhaps misguided confession.
Peep sights are sorely overlooked in today's shooting community. They absolutely dwarf any practicality or accuracy that can be claimed by open "buckhorn" syle sights, and are AT LEAST as accurate as ANY telescopic sight: AS LONG AS THE TARGET CAN BE SEEN. In other words, scopes grant NO MORE accuracy. All they provide is ability to see the target better in SOME situations. If the target can be defined by the human eye, a good peep sight will equal or TRUMP the accuracy of a telescopic sight.
I proved this to myself as a competition shooter. I put a quality scope on my Anschutz 54 .22lr once, thinking that for a sage rat hunt it would be nice. Somewhat dissapointedly, I discovered I could shoot smaller groups with the peep and globe. The blackpowder cartridge guys with the Sharps, Rollingblocks, High Walls and such at ranges to 1000 yards will also testifiy repeatedly at any match you care to attend as to the premise.
Don't let the necessity to change your front sight (should you choose the Skinner) scare you. You may even WANT to do this anyway, with any other peep, just to improve the front. Williams makes a wonderful front sight called a "Firesight" that is lucite (glows as a result of it gathering light from its surroundings). I did this for my girlfriend on her .44 Magnum Marlin, with a Williams FP on the receiver. She thought she didn't like peeps until she saw this set-up. Now she thinks it is the cat's meow. Fast target acquisition and instant eye-draw to point of aim. Blacktails and Elk in the neighborhood are in trouble when she has this powerful little carbine between the bucket seats of her Toy pickup. (All local laws apply, of course!) With the Marlin ramp extant on the front, the Firesight insert was a very economical and effective improvement. Firesight apertures are also available, and have a ring of ambient-illuminated material around the rear aperture, hole size of your choosing.
Which brings us to apertures: for a hunting gun, larger is almost always better and more adaptable to low-light. Very little accuracy is lost with a larger aperture, as your eye automatically centers the front bead. Small apertures are only beneficial for bench testing, and may well handicap you for rugged, variable hunting conditons. If you do opt for a smaller aperture this is generally not a problem when you choose to hunt in conditions that dictate a larger one is needed: simply unscrew your fine target-grade aperture, and the threaded recess instantly becomes the famed "ghost ring" (named such, because your eye actually doesn't even see it). Auto-eye-centering is again not far off from your fine aperture you have deposited in your shirt pocket. With a Marlin 336, the absence of your fine aperture will mean at 85 yards you might hit the deer in the left ventricle rather than the right ventricle. Personally, I always go for the base of the aorta, but shot placement debates might now ensue as a result of my perhaps misguided confession.
Peep sights are sorely overlooked in today's shooting community. They absolutely dwarf any practicality or accuracy that can be claimed by open "buckhorn" syle sights, and are AT LEAST as accurate as ANY telescopic sight: AS LONG AS THE TARGET CAN BE SEEN. In other words, scopes grant NO MORE accuracy. All they provide is ability to see the target better in SOME situations. If the target can be defined by the human eye, a good peep sight will equal or TRUMP the accuracy of a telescopic sight.
I proved this to myself as a competition shooter. I put a quality scope on my Anschutz 54 .22lr once, thinking that for a sage rat hunt it would be nice. Somewhat dissapointedly, I discovered I could shoot smaller groups with the peep and globe. The blackpowder cartridge guys with the Sharps, Rollingblocks, High Walls and such at ranges to 1000 yards will also testifiy repeatedly at any match you care to attend as to the premise.
Thanks again Spitpatch! This brings up another good point for me. I too, really like the Williams Firesight, BUT, found the red sight did not illuminate very well, in low light conditions. I found by replacing the red fiber optic, with green, or even orange, it made a world of difference! Because, I'm "frugal" I buy the fiber optics in bulk lengths, & cut to size. I found this site to be a great distributor: Flourescent Fiber - Archery Sights-Replacement Fiber Optics
- Messages
- 2,459
- Reactions
- 718
dag gone it. I thought I had my 30-30 all set up now I get to spend more on it. In about 2 months when i recover from my latest purchases.
- Messages
- 9,715
- Reactions
- 15,415
I used one of these paired with a Williams firesight for the front sight. It was easy to get sighted in then was a "set and forget".
XS Sight Systems - Sights
XS Sight Systems - Sights
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reactions
- 6,918
Yes, the XS is very good, and I used one a short while on a Win 94 .44 Magnum. Large aperture ("ghost ring") and very rugged. They send you a set of front "try sights" with the rear. These are of black plastic (nylon?), and resemble a thick "thumbtack", with the dovetail being the head of the thumbtack. The stem is notched like a tootsie roll. Install your rear sight, install a "try sight" on the front (very tall stem to begin with), and then you shoot the gun at intended range, whack off the stem at intervals to achieve point of aim impact appropriate for your cartridge, load, and barrel length. The finished "try sight" is then your guage for ordering the correct metal front sight. If I recall correctly, they issue you a "coupon" so the final front sight is actually included in the price of the rear.
There are also "formulas" (such as on the Skinner website) that purport to calculate what height you might need for your front sight. I was born with "Barbie's" portion of my brain where ciphering is concerned ("Math is so hard!"), so I would more trust the "trial and error" of actual shooting (such as with try sights) to come to a conclusion.
There are also "formulas" (such as on the Skinner website) that purport to calculate what height you might need for your front sight. I was born with "Barbie's" portion of my brain where ciphering is concerned ("Math is so hard!"), so I would more trust the "trial and error" of actual shooting (such as with try sights) to come to a conclusion.
