Bought first "deer gun" 2 days ago and fired it yesterday. Loved it; however, it shoots to the left and I'm uncertain as to how to adjust the sights. I bought it at a pawn shop, so there's not much help there. I'm actually wanting to put an inexpensive scope on it. It's a Win. 94AE .30-.30. I think it's a Ranger as it has a barrel of at or close to 20". I've pretty-much decided on an Alpen (Kmart special) 1.5-4.5x32 since I'll be hunting in the woods in Tenn. Shots shouldn't be over 100 yds. and most within 60-80. So much for background, now the questions: 1) Can I put a receiver-mounted scope on it or must it be side-mounted as the pawn shop guy told me? 2) If top-mounted, how low can I go with the mounts? I'm wanting to keep it as low as possible. Any suggestions for mounts, rings, scopes, etc. and/or pics of what you have to show regarding them would be much appreciated. Oh, I read this forum for a while before settling on the 94, glad I did. You guys have a lot of good info.

Larry

If it has the general open sight just use a small punch and hammer. the rear sight is held in a dovetail just tap the
sight right to shoot to the right.

should be able to put reciever mount on. 94ae should be already drilled and tapped, 2 little screws just in front of
hammer and 2 more just in front of the bolt.

as far as how low u can go with the scope that depends on how big the objective lens is.

midwayusa.com sells some good mounts and rings. also check out some of the good reciever peep sights, such as
williams fp 94se. As far as scopes go you made a good choice keeping it low powered.

I just put one of the Williams peep sights on mine and it has the fiber optic front sight. It is accurate, fast and easy to adjust. If you shoot at running deer much I'd say you might like it better then a scope?

At 39 yrs. and wearing tri-focal glasses already, I figure peep sights are probably not the way to go for me, thanks all the same, though!

Larry

If it has the general open sight just use a small punch and hammer. the rear sight is held in a dovetail just tap the
sight right to shoot to the right.

should be able to put reciever mount on. 94ae should be already drilled and tapped, 2 little screws just in front of
hammer and 2 more just in front of the bolt.

as far as how low u can go with the scope that depends on how big the objective lens is.

midwayusa.com sells some good mounts and rings. also check out some of the good reciever peep sights, such as
williams fp 94se. As far as scopes go you made a good choice keeping it low powered.


Thanks for the encouragement on the scope and for the mount info, too. As for the punch and hammer, is there some type of flat-faced punch designed for that? I am not much on tools anymore, so I'm asking. I also don't want to do a pin-prick dent in the dovetail if I can help it. It's a practically new gun and I'm thinking it deserves some good use/wear before beating it like that. :-) It may have been $200 out-the-door, but I'd guess it hasn't had 100 rds. through it.

Try this thread on mounting a scope on an AE receiver.

http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=19319

Try this thread on mounting a scope on an AE receiver.

http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=19319


Mr. Bond-
I've been reading the thread, and looking at both the link and pics on midway for the base (Product #: 302646) and rings (Product #: 633359). I can see the front ring seems to slide into the base, twist and be clamped by the receiver screws, but what holds the rear ring to the base? You said in the thread it was strong, but I can't see how it's done.

Larry

Mr. Bond-
I've been reading the thread, and looking at both the link and pics on midway for the base (Product #: 302646) and rings (Product #: 633359). I can see the front ring seems to slide into the base, twist and be clamped by the receiver screws, but what holds the rear ring to the base? You said in the thread it was strong, but I can't see how it's done.

Larry

Larry,
As I recall, the rear mount has "lips" inboard of the two adjusting screws that mate with the bottom of the rear ring which is held tight when the two screws are tightened. These screws also allow for adjusting the scope for windage prior to making fine adjustments with the reticle knobs. By the way, both mounts come with torx screws and torx wrench that fit the factory-tapped holes on the top of the receiver.

Larry,
As I recall, the rear mount has "lips" inboard of the two adjusting screws that mate with the bottom of the rear ring which is held tight with the two screws are tightened. These screws also allow for adjusting the scope for windage prior to making fine adjustments with the reticle knobs. By the way, both mounts come with torx screws and torx wrench that fit the factory-tapped holes on the top of the receiver.

James-
thank you twice now. I couldn't really tell from the pics whether or not the rear ring-base setup was a "reverse dovetail" type of setup. I just couldn't see those two screws as being the only thing holding that ring onto the base, either :) Do you know anything about the Williams Streamline Top Mount?

Larry

I've been looking on the Scopes Forum (which I didn't know existed when I started this thread) and cannot find anything on the Williams Streamline Top Mounts. I did, however, see the Leupolds mentioned again on more than one occasion. So, it looks like I'm going to go with the Bushnell Legend 2-7x32mm, Leupold Standard base for Win. 94 and their 1" low rings. The whole setup should cost about $150 plus shipping and whatever the guy charges to bore-sight it for me. It's quite a bit more than what I'd expected, but should be worth the cost. I know I'll have less in my whole rig than many of you have in your scopes, but it's a lot to me. I thank y'all for the input.

-Larry

Larry, I'm getting in on this kinda late and you already have some good advise. Leupold mounts and rings are a very good set-up in my opinion, and very strong. Only a suggestion, but if I were you I would get at least the medium height rings. You may never want a scope with a bigger objective lens, but higher rings will give you more clearance to get your thumb on the hammer easier with less chance of slipping off. Just something to think about.
Nice gun, and good luck with it.

Larry, I'm getting in on this kinda late and you already have some good advise. Leupold mounts and rings are a very good set-up in my opinion, and very strong. Only a suggestion, but if I were you I would get at least the medium height rings. You may never want a scope with a bigger objective lens, but higher rings will give you more clearance to get your thumb on the hammer easier with less chance of slipping off. Just something to think about.
Nice gun, and good luck with it.


HDH-
:confused: I'd not thought of that one. I had supposed since I'd seen others using that setup, it wouldn't be a question. Do you know if Winchester makes a hammer extension for the 94AE?

-Larry

I have a non-scope question if someone can help, too. If I choose to put-off the scope, can anyone tell me what I might do to replace the front sight on my .30-.30 (Ranger?) with one I can see? The front blade is solid black and it makes it, for practical matters, useless in low-light situations. I'm not crazy about a glow-in-the-dark setup, just thinking of a good, old-fashioned blade with a viewable bead. Any suggestions?

Larry

Oh, forgot to mention, I am considering qajaq59's suggestion about the Williams sights but am waiting for a copy of their catalog. My connection is so bad it's impractical to view it online.

Larry

I used 1" medium height mounts/rings and have just enough clearance between the body of the scope and the factory rear sight. I would not recommend low height mounts. In my opinion you still need a hammer extension for a margin of safety. All newer 94AE's come with one in the box from the factory, but you can order one from Midway as well.

Larry, XS Sights makes a white front sight blade that works very well with the standard rear sights. I had trouble with glint off of the brass bead in some light. The white blade tightened the groups of my '92 quite a bit. There are other brands out there now, too, I think.

Well, I've tried finding info on sights on the net and didn't have much luck. Partly from desire and partly from frustration, I ordered a scope and mounts from D&R yesterday (Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40mm w/Leupold base and 1" MEDIUM--thanks JB--rings). I ordered the Winchester-style extension from a local pawn shop which also does simple gunsmithing. The guy there will be the one to mount and boresight the scope, too. Now, if I may, I have a question about sling swivels. Again, they are something I know nothing about so I'm wondering: what's a good set to buy that will work good, look good and serve the purpose for many years to come? Any input, again, would be appreciated.

Larry,

I put a Williams 5D peep sight on mine and have never regreted it. Makes all the difference and works great in low light. For a 3030 I think most scopes would be a mistake although 1-3x is not a bad choice if you must have one.

Mike

Thanks, Mike. I looked for a new low-powered scope but could only find shotgun/black powder scopes. Since their reticle is usually set for 50 yards (the rifle scopes are set for 100) and I understand they don't hold-up as well on a rifle, I ordered the lowest higher-powered rifle scope I could get (which will probably never go past 4x except at at a range), made by a company I felt comfortable with. The Bushnell Trophy seems to be a good one; having multi-coated optics, Amber-Bright lens coating, a one-piece tube, finger-adjustable windage and elevation settings and a fast-focus eyepiece it had all I wanted for what I could afford. I wound-up shying away from the Williams sights in large part because I really do wear tri-focals and didn't want to spend the money for one of them and then wind-up having to buy a scope in another year or two when my prescription changes again.

-Larry

In "going on" about the Bushnell Trophy I ordered, I forgot to mention one other thing that compelled me toward buying it; it has the Circle-X reticle, which I found rather appealing.

-Larry