Anyone know what commonly available scopes have the smallest

What rifle?

>>33722511
Remington Model 34

>>33722695
You're probably going to want to just get high rise rings or a riser. The little scopes suck. What kind of mount does it have now?

>>33722771
>What kind of mount does it have now?

Ha, good one. It will need to be drilled and tapped for top mount or side mount Weaver bases.

>>33722912
I assumed you already had mounts since you were putting a scope. Just have weaver bases put on than high rings/riser and a cheek piece. Any idea what the angle of bolt throw is?

File: model 34.jpg (878KB, 900x1800px)

878KB, 900x1800px

>>33722953
The bolt points due north when unlocked, hence the issues trying to scope these guns.

>>33723056
That picture doesn't show it as straight up. If it is a straight bolt, you be able to bend it more, be mindful of it hitting the stock, or you could shorten the handle

>>33723056
Your angle is high, but the bend is only an inch or so above the barrel. Like >>33722953 said, get a higher rise. My Sears Model 41 had 3/8" mounting grooves on the receiver so it was basically a done deal once I found scope rings.

Looking online I found that you have weaver mounting options, but you may need to have all rings mount pretty far forward of the bolt. At the very least, consider keeping your iron sight picture clear so you can use that whenever you get bored.

>>33723176
Sorry for the confusion. The bolt handle lug points straight up, and then the bolt handle is bent over to the side. The bottom of the eyepiece would have to sit at least 0.5 inches above the top of the receiver in order to clear the bolt handle.

It's certainly possible to make almost any scope clear it with risers, but I'd rather keep the scope as close to bore axis as possible.

>>33723284
Yeah, as far as I can tell the only commonly available mounts for this are the Weaver #2 side mount (which may or may not give enough clearance) or the #42/#43 top mounts. I've looked into see through rings for the latter, but the combined thickness of the scope base and the mounting structure at the bottom of the rings is likely enough to obscure the iron sights anyways.

>>33723401
Mind if I ask your reasons for putting on a scope? It's a .22, so it isn't like you're reaching out very far.

>>33723912
Literally go away faggot

>>33723912
Cheap precision shooting. The model 34 tends to be a very accurate gun. I'm not getting a huge scope; if I do go with a Leupold it will probably either be a 4x fixed or 2-7x variable.

>>33723954

what am i missing here?

>>33724078
Ignore him.

File: 20170421_214237.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>33723954
Suck a dick. I had reason to ask.

>>33723956
Ok. Makes sense, actually. The reason I stuck one on mine was because a) I had a spare scope intended for a .22 and b) I wanted to make a scope work with irons and have a way to practice it.

So, because I'm a guy that wants to not overly modify guns (pictured is an heirloom gun from the Great Depression), I wanted to make sure you wanted to actually modify it and not go back on it later.

>>33724116
The model 34 will be a companion gun to my great-grandfather's model 33 which I have no interest in modifying (the farthest I would consider going would be mounting a period-correct peep sight). The model 34 however has no particular sentimental, historical, or collector value.