As some may have read in another thread of mine, I am considering a purchase of a Marlin 1895 in 45/70. Long story short, I've decided to scope this rifle (against all traditions). I've used various brands of scopes on centerfires before and my Ruger No. 1 in 45/70 currently wears a compact Leupold 1.5-4.5 scope. The potential for heavy recoil exists with this caliber, especially if the upper-end of loads are used.

The big question is: has anyone ever had a scope fail because of recoil? Is this as big of an issue as some make it out to be? The scope I'm considering is a 1-4x20 Leupold.

Thanks- steve

So far have eaten two Weavers (K-4 on a .308 and a K-3 on a .444), a Tasco 3-9, a Redfild 4 (.375), and one Leupold 2-7. The 2-7 didn't fail completely, just started to rotate the cross hair when you rotated the power ring...the others were all DOA.

Melted the cross hair on an old Bushnell 3-9 by keaning it on a fence, getting busy and forgetting about it, and having the sun shine stright down the tube. Did "die" but the cross hair was kind of wiggly.

Also had a mount fail and bounch a Leupold 2X pistol scope off my head...scope was scrached from tme cement, but still functioning.

Good mount...solid scope...probably won't fail. The Leupold was made good. The DOA ones were written off.

I had two 45/70 rifles both marlis. one was scoped and im about to scope the second. A good scope will hold up fine.

As strong as the 1-4x20 Leupold may be, one of their fixed 4x's would be even stronger. Just a thought.

RSY

I have a Marlin in 45-70. I was not going to scope it either. I sold one of my rifles and had a Leupold 3X9X50 just sitting in my safe. I know it is over kill for the gun, but I can see real good with it. :)

I've had a Leupold VXII in 1-4 X 20mm on mine for a couple of years, with Warne maxima steel bases and their rings as well.
The loads I use might be considered within 10% of listed maximums, and throughout, I've never had a problem.

I strongly believe that the mounts are as important as the scope itself. Steel on steel is my motto.

Rick

My 1895G has had a scope on it since I got in 1998. It wears a Leupold 1x4 and I have never had to readjust the scope. It gets shot a lot.

Two scopes died on my 1895- simmons and bushnell, both were shotgun scopes- now only use Leupolds and Burris on ALL on Marlins- I'm a happy camper

I strongly believe that the mounts are as important as the scope itself. Steel on steel is my motto.

Rick

I agree. I've used a fair amount of aluminum on rimfire rifles, but I have learned the hard way when it comes to rings and mounts of centerfires with heavy recoil... you get what you pay for!

steve

I have a 2x20 weaver on weaver base's and rings. Good eye reliefand the scope looks like it belongs to the reciever . Shot the "H" out of the rifle and I really like the set up.
Happy

I have a 2x20 weaver on weaver base's and rings. Good eye reliefand the scope looks like it belongs to the reciever . Shot the "H" out of the rifle and I really like the set up.
Happy
I'm glad to here that.I just mounted a Weaver 2.5 on my 444.Nice fit.I bought it 2nd hand on ebay, never used(so he claimed).Well after handling it, he was right.This is really a shotgun scope,"micro trac"steel lite II K2.5.I'm mainly using it for load grouping.I took off a red dot that may go back on for hunting.... I said, may go back on.

You can say this is a shot gun scope. Yes it is no 3x9x40.but the magifation,seems to suit woods type short range shots were you can pick up the target quickly with both eye's open and avoid hitting a twig on the way to target. Shooting the set up at the range you might want to crank up the power.you may be happy with a 1.5 x 5 or 2x7. Put a big scope on and this is what always get's hit when you put the rifle down. It is wider than the reciever.
I will save the 3x9x40 for the bolt action