The FXII 2.5 shows almost 5" of eye relief and I've always found that extra bit of relief let me get on target much faster-something to be concerned about when you're no better hunter than I am! 44? Everything else looks "right" about that particular scope except for the comparative shortness of the eye relief. Isn't that a bit tight for a gun that tosses a heavy bullet like the. Looking at the Weaver 1-3X20, it shows the eye relief at just a tick over 3". While the Burris Fastfire is intriguing, there's just something sacrilegious in my mind about putting something that modern on a Winchester 94AE. I especially liked the picture of the Marlin with the Sightron scope mounted on it-that really gave me a feel for how one of these smaller 20-28mm scopes will affect the 'look' of a lever gun. Thank you for all the excellent quality replies.
Is there some reason that would be a bad choice based upon some else's experience? It's certainly lightweight and comparatively short, but I was wondering if anyone else had any experience that they could share.
I don't want to spend over $300 so I was thinking the UltraLight series Leupold 2.5x FXII might be the right choice. I've never had a need for one of those 20mm, short scopes before, but it seems like the right fit for this gun. It changes the handling of the gun too much. I had a 3x9x40 Burris on the shelf of the gun cabinet and mounted it on Leupold mounts, but I tell ya', it's just too long and adds too much weight. It's a great handling gun and Indiana now allows. The 94AE is a "Trapper" style, 1999 vintage, straight gripped version with the big lever loop. I need glass because I'm old enough to wear spectacles for more than just reading. I know there are folks out there who are going to suggest an aperture sight and while I appreciate the 'purity' of an aperture, I'm just not a fan. 44 magnum that I can't seem to shoot well at 50 yards with iron sights.