Scout Rifle thoughts solicited- Got one? Shot one?

Ad Astra

Ad Astra

Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
3,833
Most of you know what a "scout rifle" is. Who owns one, or has made one? Dave? Who wants one?

Basically, it is a scope-forward, fast handling rifle. The scope being set so forward acts as a ghost ring, a concept which works well on shotguns.

These setups look awkward- few are really attractive. But many writers are swearing by them.

A 'Scout' rifle is (as defined by Col. Cooper):

* Weight-sighted and slung: 3 kilograms (6.6 lb). This has been set as the ideal weight but the maximum has been stated as being 3.5 kg (7.7 pounds ).
* Length: 1 meter (39 inches)
* Barrel length: .48 meter (19 inches)
* Sighting system: Forward and low mounted (ahead of the action opening) long eye relief telescope of between 2x and 3x. Reserve iron sights desirable but not necessary.
* Action: Magazine fed bolt action. Detachable box magazine and/or stripper clip charging is desirable but not necessary.
* Sling: Fast loop-up type, i.e. Ching or CW style.
* Caliber: Nominally .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 mm) or 7 mm - 08 Winchester (7 x 51 mm), with .243 Winchester (6 x 51 mm) being considered for frail individuals or where "military" calibers are proscribed.
* Built-in bipod: Desirable but not mandatory.
* Accuracy: Should be capable of shooting into 2 minutes of angle or less at 200 yards/meters (3 shot groups).

Does it work, or a bad idea? Love it or hate it?


Mike
 
I hear them compared with Glocks often -- butt ugly, but the concept is sound and the job gets done. I won't presume to speak for the esteemed colonel but as I understand it, while any of the benefits by themselves are usually desirable, it's a bit of a synergistic combination between all of them that really makes the concept come together. In short, it's about doing everything well enough: small enough, light enough, powerful enough, accurate enough, etc. There are some interesting ideas involved, although it's worth noting that Cooper didn't come up with any of them -- he simply put existing ideas together. Sometimes that in itself is noteworthy.

I do not own a Steyr Scout and probably never will. I'm not dropping $2500 for a bolt action .308, period, full stop, end of story. I don't care who the hell made it and who the hell endorses it. That being said, I approve of the concept and find myself moving along the same lines but in different ways. (Consider my Marlin, for example; while it doesn't make the cut as Cooper's Scout for several reasons, it fulfills the same role and then some around here and may actually be better than the real deal in this area.)

My main problem with this, and Cooper's writing in general, is what I perceive to be a focus on specifics rather than details and a tendency to provide information about a world as one thinks it should be, rather than how it actually is; instead of pointing out a problem and inviting one to provide a solution, he provides one solution that must be adhered to, regardless of the current situation. I don't like this way of thinking. It works for him but it does not work for me. Note the caliber restrictions (one preferred, one for areas that don't allow the first, and one for panzies in so many words -- and that's it) and the restrictions on action type; I understand his avoidance for larger and heavier autoloaders, but there are lever actions available that can handle anything a bolt action can handle in a smaller size and with less weight. Cooper likes bolt actions and thus, it must be a bolt action to fit his definition of the concept. He does mention that he's not against autoloaders and if one could meet the size and weight requirements it would be considered, but he neatly sidesteps the levergun issue by not mentioning it at all as it's not conveniant for his argument.

So, we want to make a rifle that's easy to carry, easy to aim, easy to hit with, easy to load, and lands blows with authority. What's not to like about that? And really, what's new about this idea? Sign me up, but I'm going to do it my way. We'll call it a "scout" instead of a "Scout", but the target will probably not know the difference.

I have a tendency to implement at least some of his ideas with most of my rifles -- again, note my Guide Gun; I simply take other roads to the same destination. The ideas are sound. (Again, they're not new -- all had been proven before being brought together by him.)

I do think that the magazine cutoff (which he praises) is a needless complication. It is not a big deal to open the action on a bolt gun and slam another round in on top of what's already there. (Unless it's a Mosin-Nagant.) With a tubular magazine it's even easier.
 
Savage makes one or something similar in 308 and 223, IIRC its a model 110 tactical or something like that. Handled the 308 version and it felt good but didn't shoot it unfortunately.
 
The Scout rifle is a fine idea and I'm glad it's here. I've fired forward mounted scopes on other rifles, those with some but not all of Cooper's requirements. The sighting system has merit. I don't own one, and that means I never thought it neccesary to do the things I require from a firearm. I think Savage had one out for awhile, I don't know if it still is.
Always sorta wanted a Scout. The idea didn't take fire in my brain, though.

munk
 
I used to be enamored of the concept. I now believe it's a decent woods concept, but without the all-around utility Cooper would like to believe.

John
 
Scout rifles are ugly as all get out. I honestly think it was dreamt up by gunwriters desperate to get their kids into braces or a swimming pool for their retirement homes. When it gets down to brass tacks it seemed that they came up with something quite similar, only not as easy to shoot, as a 1903 Mannlicher Schoenauer carbine.
If I wanted to really get into something like a scout rifle I'd go to a 6.5 grendel on an AR platform and totally blow Mr. Cooper's et al dream rifle out of the water.
 
I made one. Cost about $200. Wrote an article about it. I'll look around and see if I can find it.

I think Mr. Cooper had a good idea. I think it may be dated to his ideas of how a conflict occurs and particularly, WHERE it occurs. I'm not sure it is appropriate for current situations, particularly urban areas.

His scoping was basically a quick acquisition concept. If I were to do it over, I'd specify a 2x 40mm minimum, and readily expect it to go out of true. I'd mount it on ghost ring mounts so that the rear sight would provide the same tunnel to the front sight, and make darned sure that I was capable with the iron sights.

The caliber? Eh...not going down that road. But he was making a pronouncement, a definitive one, and such things need specifics. The .308 is fine. So are a bunch of others.

I have no idea how Steyr can justify their prices for that rig. Nice gun and all, but so are a bunch of others.

But if you like to screw around with a mil-surp, you can have fun and get a decent shooter out of it.

YMMV
 
Ah! I'm not a "Cooper is gawd" person. I just put that definition in for a starter. I'm building one, and will not adhere to those rules or *any* others. Rules are just a starting point.

Hm. Ordered an S&K mount for a Mauser 24/47, along with a Bushnell Banner 1.5-4 scope with long eye relief. Idea is to build a quick-pointing, low cost plinker to use the 5-cent-a-round corrosive 8mm ammo. If it performs really well, I may take it hunting this fall. (with softpoints :foot: )

Can't decide. They mostly ARE fuggly, but if it works well, it'll get shot a lot. If it's not accurate, I'll switch the scoping setup to another cheap Mauser that is. Already it doesn't meet Cooper's definition, 'cause the iron sights will be ruled out.


Mike
 
I love the Steyr so well it hurts. That rifle fits like it was made for me.

They won't make one in a left hand action, however. :barf:
 
Savage makes a useable one that does not fit as well in either hand, just not as nice.

I like the new Ruger as well, but they don't make a left hand either.
 
It makes no sense to me. I want my scope low and close to my eye.

If I want to have close, quick shooting, then a low power scope makes sense. I like the idea of a 2-7 variable. It gives you a good field of view and good reach for long shots. These scopes are light.

I can't see the sense in taking an expensive rifle and mounting a scope way forward. It made more sense when you wanted to avoid bending the bolt handle on a cheap foreign military surplus rifle.
 
I have some overseas experience with the Steyr AUG.....didn't like it. The relationship between receiver (back next to shoulder) and trigger a foot forward (with the grip) makes for a long linkage and a long, draggy trigger pull and, I'm sure, Col. Cooper's hopeful 2" at 100 yards. I will not buy one. But if you like the design style, I'd bet on the new Ruger (good engineering and price much more reasonable than the Steyr).

While you're at it, check out the Ruger 77 RSI Mannlicher (.308, .270, or 30-06) at 37" and only 7 lbs. With the ONLY addition being a piece of plastic credit card placed inside the forend, and a old Leupold scope with post, mine in .270 groups 1" to 1 1/4" all day long with 130 Noslers over 55 gr IMR4350 and Fed 210M primers. I had another one of these in .250/3000, but very foolishly sold it. I wish I had it back!!!
 
I like the "Scout Rifle" concept...One of my buds has a Nugget that he modded into a scout Rifle and it works just fine for what it is...

Fast shots are easier for me anyway...

I will prolly end up making one for myself someday, but I would use a Mauser or Savage as the base
 
I can't see the sense in taking an expensive rifle and mounting a scope way forward.
Click to expand...

While I also like the set up you are talking about, the scout scope set up allows me to keep both eyes open.

I also don't see the optic on a scout or AR when it is way out there, only the dot/reticle. That gives me an even great field of view than a low power scope on which I have to close my nondominant eye.
 
The scout rifle idea is something I've read alot about and I have a few candidate rifles for. Just haven't gotten to it myself. It sounds good and very practicle.

I like the 24/47 / low power LER scope combo.

Sure would like a report on how it turns out.
 
I've got one of the Savage 110 Scouts, and like it really well overall. It, like the Ruger is definitely a worthy option, especially when compared to the Steyr rifles. It truly is the "Jack of all trades, master of none" type of rifle (which gives it a personality much like it's owner)

The things I don't like about it are pretty nitpicky.

The Ghost ring sight mounted on back is ginormous, definitely more of a fast aquisition combat sight than a back up hunting sight.

Last time I priced spare mags they were $65 a piece!:eek:

Those are my biggest complaints. On the brighter side, it's nimble, well balanced, accurate as all get out, and the oversized bolt handle is great.

That being said, It has been replaced as a dedicated hunting rifle by a pre-64 Featherweight Winchester '06 with bbl shortened to 21" and a 2-7X Leupold compact scope on it. Not sure how to explain it, the Winchester is just a better companion to me. The scope picture aquisition is only negibly slower, if at all. I guess I do like the slight power gain, ammo availability and magnification options presented by it.

All things told, the Winchester is a nicer boondockin' rifle, but the Scout remains my Parachuting Communist Zombies run for the hills type of gun.

Overall, I pretty much agree with Dave re: the lever actions. a guy up here would be VERY well served by a scoped Guide rifle.

Talk about Guide guns, take a look at this:

http://www.wildwestguns.com/Bushwacker/bushwacker.html

I'm NOT a huge fan of Jim West, but I gotta give credit where it's due, that thing is freakin' cool!:D

in closing, I'd also say that the concept of an expensive scout rifle doesn't suit me. To me a scout rifle is best utilized in the same fashion as a rusty, beat up old Winchester '94, which means it WILL be dropped, rained on, snowed on, thrown in the back of canoes, airplanes, etc. and expected to function. Sorry, but I'm more secure with the idea of using my $500 Scout Rifle as a canoe paddle than a $2,500 one. if ya' make one outta an old military surplus rifle, so much the better, me thinks.:D
 
I've got one of the Savage 110 Scouts
Click to expand...

I assume you have the 308? Right hand?

How well does it shoot? What type of ammo does it prefer?

What type of optics do you have on it?

I feel for you on the DM for a bolt action. I love the idea, but they never sell any more so they are always through the roof. :D
 
Sorry it took me so long to respond Terry, I've been on the Slope for the past five weeks or so, and internet availability is sketchy at best.

My Savage Scout Rifle is chambered for .308, and right handed. It handles like a dream, very light, nimble, and well balanced. also very...friendly to carry...it gets through brush particularly well without hanging up.. The detachable mag is very nice and handy, It would be even nicer if I had a couple more. If for no other reason than the ability to drop a caribou with a lighter load, and then change to a heavier load for bear while cleaning it.

The oversized bolt handle is fantastic as well. It about the size of a golf ball, and damn near impossible to screw up on, irregardless of how excited you are or how thick your gloves are.

It's currently got a Leupold 2.5x Scout scope on it with Warne quick detach mounts/ Very handly on nasty days when I have to revert to iron sights. The scope typically remounts within two or three inches of zero.

As far as accuracy it's a typical Savage in my opinion- Way the hell more accurate than it's price would have indicated. I'm not good enough with a rifle to tell you about MOA, etc. But I can tell you that it shoots every damn bit as well as Remingtons, Winchesters, and Rugers of similar caliber at 200 yds. and never ceases to impress my shooting buddies. (Past 200 yds. is where I REALLY wish for more scope) It's pretty versatile with loads, but most comfortable with 168, and 180 grain loads. Haven't shot a wide array of loads out of it mind you, other than a couple boxes or Remington 168 grain loads and Federal 180 grain loads the only thing it's shot has been 150 grain PMC ball ammo.

As far as idiosyncracies and glitches- The trigger was way too heavy when I got it, and the safety was way too stiff. An evening tinkering and adjusting brought it right up to par, The triggers right at three pounds, and very safe.

The rear peep sight as previously mentioned is ginormous. I'm sure it could be rectified by someone with a modicum of determination, but...it don't bother me enough to do anything about it....:D

Oh...and the reticles on the scope...very, very fine...kind of against the nature of a scout rifle. They bother me when I'm trying to shoot quickly, but I love 'em when I'm shooting at longer ranges.

I paid $550 for the rifle, a shade more than $250 for the scope, and a shade less than a hundred for the mounts. In my mind the rifle has been worth every penny I spent.
 
Quote by Ad Astra:
Reserve iron sights desirable but not necessary.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are absolutly necessary. Scopes, even well made ones, are mechanical contrivences, with many internal parts that can go kaput, and as per Murphy's Law, usually at the worst time possible. I want to know what the rifle will do with iron sights. Another point about the Styer Scout rifle that was'nt touched on is the bolt/ receiver, and how it, due to the way it is made, can handle, if I remember correctly, twice the chamber pressure of a standard .308! I belive all the extra pressure/ gas is re-routed back out the barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top