Scout Rifle thoughts solicited- Got one? Shot one?

As for the scope vs. iron sight debate, I submit that anything that would damage or shift the adjustment on a quality scope (Leupold or better) would do the same to 90% of the adjustable sights out there and some of the nonadjustable ones as well.

I'm not familiar with Steyr's safe bolt system and I haven't seen figures regarding how much pressure it can withstand. Has Steyr said anything about it?
 
Damn, I thought I escaped having to find it! :D

It is not great writing, but it paid for the rifle.

I will look.
 
I dunno 'bout the whole sights/ no sights debate. I've been on a couple hunts now that I would have been SOL if I hadn't been able to strip my scope and use iron sights instead. a decent Leupold, Burris, etc. is gonna be darn difficult to break, but back up systems are still nice to have.

Terry; yeah, they quit makin' 'em a few years ago, but I still see 'em pretty regularly on Gun Broker and Guns America. It still surprises the heck outta me that they didn't stick around longer.
 
Dave Rishar;

Well, I dunno about anything knocking a scope out of whack hurting iron sights as well. One thing, iron sights represent a lost less area to be hit. Many of the more rugged ones have rabbit ears, etc. You know more about M16's than I do- I don't recall my Colt being easy to damage, though.



munk
 
M16's are among the better ones -- they hardly ever break.

Garands, M14's...forget about it. The front posts shift or literally shear the retaining screw if you look at them wrong and they do not have ears -- or rather, they do have ears, but it's the sight base that's weak and the ears do nothing for that. More than a click or two of elevation on the rear leaves it sitting above the ears; one decent smack and, at best, you merely lost zero and introduced some additional play into the mechanism. At worst, you damaged the receiver. I spent a lot of time fixing M14 sights. A lot.

And they're considered to be sturdy ones!

Look at the cute little contrivances on your average sporting rifle if it even came with them in the first place. "Durable" is not the term that I would use to describe 99% of them.

Shotgun bead sights? Heh. Replaced a lot of those too. Whether military or civilian in origin, they're quite easy to snap off and it's a pain getting the shank out afterwards.

Now, if one is conveying the firearm from the safe to the range or field in a padded case and takes care while handling it, these sights are plenty durable...but so are scopes in the same conditions.

Thus, I repeat: anything that will break a good scope (that's properly mounted, which I failed to mention before) will break most iron sights as well.
 
Dave Rishar :
[I'm not familiar with Steyr's safe bolt system and I haven't seen figures regarding how much pressure it can withstand. Has Steyr said anything about it?
/QUOTE]

I don't remember exactly where I read it, or who was doing the review, but I do remember that the article stressed that it could withstand an over-charged cartridge, and to the best of my recolection, it was in the area of 130,000 c.u.p. , but I could be wrong. I do know this is substantially higher than standard-issue .308 rounds produce.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Dave. :thumbup:

I once had an AK fall and a thin metal door edge right hit the post right smack between the front sight ears. Can happen.

Bowieman, the S&K mount doesn't allow for irons, but this isn't a serious rifle for any purpose, just an 8mm plinker/range toy.

7.62x51 NATO pressure is 47,000 CUP max. while .308 Winchester goes up to 62,000 CUP, I believe.... Going to be reloading for an Ishapore 2A SMLE soon.... which will get a conventional scope mount.
 
124,000 cup...hmmm.

IIRC, Julian Hatcher detailed some "experiments" (read: blowing guns up) with Springfield 1903's at sickeningly high pressures. I haven't read the Notebook in a while and my copy seems to have wandered off but if memory serves, he took some over 100,000. Granted, they either deformed or exploded, but the explosions were relatively minor and would not have seriously injured a shooter with eye protection.

By "safe," do we mean that this action could withstand a 124,000 cup load without grenading, or do we mean that it could withstand such a load and still be fit for service afterwards?

I'll do some looking around. If Clark Magnuson ever wins the lottery, I suppose that we'll know for sure. ;)
 
By "safe," do we mean that this action could withstand a 124,000 cup load without grenading, or do we mean that it could withstand such a load and still be fit for service afterwards?
Click to expand...

Again I must stress I'm going on memory, could be wrong, but I belive it was designed to withstand that pressure and still be serviceable.The bolt and receiver had some kind of groves or channeling that would re-direct the extra gas through or around the bolt somehow and throw it right out the barrel.At least this is my recall of the article, but it does ring a bell; an odd and practicle way of releasing over pressure is sure to get my attention.
 
Own the styer scout. VERY GOOD SHORT RANGE hunting rifle for mountain areas when you hunt in thicker brush, deers just pop out of no where and the fast sight picture rocks for those situations.

Hunt coo's (spelling?) whitetail in Mt. Graham.

Has its advantages - but you have to remember that it was purpose or specific built/designed.

Obviously im taking no 700yd shots with it.
 
I know tac geeks with overpriced everthing which was very intimidating untill i saw them shoot.I will stick with my ruger 338 win bag any day.
 
grhawn said:
Own the styer scout. VERY GOOD SHORT RANGE hunting rifle for mountain areas when you hunt in thicker brush, deers just pop out of no where and the fast sight picture rocks for those situations.
.
Click to expand...

Note my coments on the Steyr in combat, Post#12, this thread. I specifically dislike the out of balance feeling caused by the weight of the receiver at the butt, rather than between the hands where it should be. Likewise, the horrible, draggy trigger pull is the result of trigger linkage that can be up to a foot long. For me the Ruger 77 RSI is much better balanced, on target significantly faster, and the factory trigger was acceptable....I chose to replace it with a Timmeny trigger. As far as I know, NO ONE makes a replacement, aftermarket trigger for the Styer because of the long linkage.
 
Since this has been bumped...

The back-ordered Bushnell Banner scope finally came, and I am impressed with the S&K scope mount; I would endorse them. Well-thought out. :thumbup: Want one for Mosin-Nagant now.

Takes getting used to (scout rifle concept) but finally what sinks in is that it's like a large, well-visible peep sight. It definitely grows on you.

Loc-titeing and shooting this weekend.


Mike
 
Jurassic,

It sounds to me like you're talking about the Steyr AUG bullpup.

Everyone else is talking about the Steyr Scout, which although also ugly as an abomination, is NOT a bullpup...and which therefore does not suffer that long linkage problem that tends to gives BPs such horrible triggers.

J
 
Thanks for straightening this out.....I am most assuredly talking about the Steyr AUG....not apparently this ?newer? model. I will, however, stick to my preference for the Ruger 77 RSI as a sweet handling little carbine with a solid punch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top