Ruger Gunsite Scout first impressions.


PDA






mikeone
January 31, 2011, 07:03 PM
To start this off I modded a Ruger Frontier in 7mm-08 to work with m14 mags a few years ago and I posted it here. I never got it 100% and ended in :banghead:

Now magically Ruger makes the rifle I wanted the first time and with iron sights :evil: Well $720 later Im a real happy customer!!!

Out of the box the length of pull was perfect for me (1 spacer). Even with my eberlestock minime rifle pack on. The ease of use and quick handling of this rifle make me really confident in shooting a moving target. The barrel profile is very interesting with two steps reducing from the shank, reminds me of an AR barrel.

The mini 14 sight are fantastic on this rifle super fast. I put my old Nikon Monarc eer 2x20 on and really like this set up. heres an old vid of the 7-08 at Whittington Center in NM yes you can hit stuff far away with a low power scope http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWqIkjqXeFk

Now for mags. These are AI spec mags the one that came with the rifle was made by Accurate http://www.accurate-mag.com/. I have run my AI factory and some JP 10 rounders and the coolest mag is the Alpha 10 round mag http://www.alphaindmfg.com/products.html it is almost half the size of the AI and JP 10 rounders and makes for a much more compact package:)

The bottom metal is actually plastic or nylon but the LEVER that locks the mag in place is metal. Thats good, im really hard on my guns and if it's gonna break I can definitely accomplish it with ease. Time will tell lol.

The trigger is about 4.5lbs on mine at least thats what 10 pulls on the Lyman averaged to . For a rifle like this I like it, it feels lighter I have no reason to mess with it.

I put about 300 rnds through the gun in 2 days all handloads 147gr mil projectile. Im running a 50yd zero for flat trajectory to 300+ yds (-12in@300) I did shoot on a bench at 100 for about 20 rnds and 1.25in is very easy with this setup. If you can shoot, this rifle will be right there with you. My loads chronoed at about 2690avg from this little barrel with rl-15.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/mikeone_photo/boomie.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/mikeone_photo/hap.jpg

I like this rifle Im glad I bought it and it seems like a really good buy for what you get.

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Gunsite Scout first impressions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ECVMatt
January 31, 2011, 07:58 PM
Thanks for the post. How did the Alpha mags work?? Any problems?? I too never got the M1A mags to be 100% in my Frontier, so I gave up that project. I hope to be able to shoot my GSR soon. Glad to see you added some info about velocity, I know folks seem to be worried about the short tube.

mikeone
January 31, 2011, 08:09 PM
The Alphas were tight at first. But after slamming em home a few times with the bolt closed. They were good to go. As for the velocity thing goes, I have 5 308s all with 18in or shorter tubes. Everything I have ever killed with those rifles has never known it was going 100-200 fps slower than in a 24in tube. I know my dope on each load I shoot and amazingly things drop when hit by rifle rounds in vital areas. Reloading your own can negate almost all of the velocity loss by lack of barrel length. SHORT 308s rock its really just as simple as that.

JustsayMo
January 31, 2011, 11:04 PM
Thank you for the range report.

That alpha 10 magazine is of great interest to me. Would you say it is as reliable as the AI?

Have you cycled anything but spire points through? I'm have some cast loads I'm wanting to try in mine.
http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/Pathfinder/308fmjhrndy165041008.jpg

I would not have guessed RE15 would produce that velocity. I went with quicker powders IMR 3031 and the slowest I used was Varget. I'll see what they do over the chronograph but your results are very encouraging.

Any pics with Alpha 10 mag in?

Thanks again! Sure makes it hard to be patient waiting for mine to arrive.

redactor
February 1, 2011, 07:59 AM
Love that Eberlestock Mini-Me!

mikeone
February 1, 2011, 12:23 PM
@ Justsaymo the Alphas are a very well built mag with a HDPE follower. Last night I ran some 110vmax as well as some 180rn subsonics. The 110s occasionally hung up on a flat vertical portion of the feed ramp next to the mag face. Im gonna polish the feed ramp as its gritty.
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/mikeone_photo/feed.jpg

With zee Alpha
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/mikeone_photo/alpha.jpg

My next set of loads are gonna be HEAVY. 190gr to 210gr These puppys will produce big energy numbers down range and stay super sonic to 1200+ yds simply because of a BC over .5.

@ redactor, MIME MEE ROCKS!!! It took forever to get this one, but its the best small go to pack I've ever owned. Plus it has hydration

redactor
February 1, 2011, 12:47 PM
@ Justsaymo the Alphas are a very well built mag with a HDPE follower. Last night I ran some 110vmax as well as some 180rn subsonics. The 110s occasionally hung up on a flat vertical portion of the feed ramp next to the mag face. Im gonna polish the feed ramp as its gritty.
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/mikeone_photo/feed.jpg

With zee Alpha
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/mikeone_photo/alpha.jpg

My next set of loads are gonna be HEAVY. 190gr to 210gr These puppys will produce big energy numbers down range and stay super sonic to 1200+ yds simply because of a BC over .5.

@ redactor, MIME MEE ROCKS!!! It took forever to get this one, but its the best small go to pack I've ever owned. Plus it has hydration

I hunted with one all over Mt. St. Helens last November. I have an Eberlestock J107, which would have come out had I actually found a shootable elk. The Mini-Me held up well, and was just about the perfect size.

Sorry for the thread hijack. The Ruger looks great too, and I am surprised by the velocities you are seeing, which I consider great news.

shane justice
February 2, 2011, 08:33 PM
Sadly I am a left handed shooter.

Letters to RUGER always say. TOO BAD...maybe someday...on a cold day in Hell.

Both my kids are right handed. This would be a great rifle to set aside for them when they are ready.

Shane

ECVMatt
February 3, 2011, 02:06 AM
Shane,

I heard they will release this one in a Lefty version. Hopefully it will be soon for you.

BikerRN
February 5, 2011, 12:32 AM
Shane,

Watch the left handed technique of the guy in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlsA0BYgeJo&feature=related

BikerRN

Andrew Wyatt
February 5, 2011, 03:16 AM
Shane,

Watch the left handed technique of the guy in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlsA0BYgeJo&feature=related

BikerRN
Im not paying that price for a rifle with the bolt handle on the wrong side.

BikerRN
February 5, 2011, 04:29 AM
LOL, OK suit yourself.

I too shoot left handed, but don't consider the bolt to be on the wrong side. It's a matter of technique. Also, you must've missed the part where I said they are planning to come out with a left handed version. That means that for you it would be on the proper side.

BikerRN

jem375
February 5, 2011, 12:26 PM
The only thing I don't like about it, is the scout type scope system, would rather put a regular type scope system on it and according to some you can do..... I realize that it is a scout type rifle, but the regular system would be a nice rifle also...

JustsayMo
February 5, 2011, 03:14 PM
Ruger supplies the traditional rings with the rifle.

LemmyCaution
February 5, 2011, 05:35 PM
I handled one at the Barre gun show today. I liked everything about it save for one thing:

I hate the way Ruger bolts flop around in the receiver. The fit is way too loose and feels like the wrong bolt is in there and the bolt doesn't operate smoothly as a result. This is something I've hated about every Ruger bolt action I've ever handled, however.

Asking price from the dealer at the gun show was $789. Much as I like the design of this rifle, I wouldn't pay more than $400 for a rifle with such a sloppy, cheap feeling action. And doubtful even that.

LemmyCaution
February 5, 2011, 05:42 PM
Whoops. DT.

dshortone
February 5, 2011, 09:54 PM
I've been looking at getting one since they came out, and finally ordered mine from Bud's today. Hopefully I'll have it by Thursday or Friday, lest the wife finds out about it!

This is the thread that caused me to join THR. :) Can't wait to hear more about the chrono results!

Dobe
February 5, 2011, 09:55 PM
I sure do like mine.

Robert Wilson
February 5, 2011, 10:06 PM
I hate the way Ruger bolts flop around in the receiver. The fit is way too loose and feels like the wrong bolt is in there and the bolt doesn't operate smoothly as a result. This is something I've hated about every Ruger bolt action I've ever handled, however.

It's basically a Mauser. If you don't like Mausers, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you don't like rifles.

FoMoGo
February 6, 2011, 12:02 AM
It's basically a Mauser. If you don't like Mausers, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you don't like rifles.
No, you can like rifles with non floppy bolts.
I will put one back on the shelf before shouldering it if I work the action and it feels like a spoon flopping around in a bowl of oatmeal.
All of my Savages have been wonderfully slick and precise... and shot better than 99.9% of the people who will ever shoot a rifle.
Also, the not costing an arm and a leg... and the fact that they are the tinker toy of bolt actions is a great bonus.


Jim

Andrew Wyatt
February 6, 2011, 12:12 AM
LOL, OK suit yourself.

I too shoot left handed, but don't consider the bolt to be on the wrong side.

BikerRN

It's okay, man. You just haven't broke through and realized that you deserve better than to have your rifle eject cases in your face and make you go out of your way to work the bolt handle. We were all there once. Just stay strong.

aubie515
February 6, 2011, 01:29 AM
I saw one last week...I liked it...I really like how compact and light the rifle was. I hope that Ruger will offer a synthetic stock version, but I don't it. Ruger loves their laminate stocks.

I found the FH to be a bit goofy. Looks like a Vortex would be a good choice as a replacement.

natman
February 6, 2011, 01:20 PM
How much do these really weigh with scope, sling, mag and all?

LemmyCaution
February 6, 2011, 03:08 PM
It's basically a Mauser. If you don't like Mausers, it's not too much of a stretch to say that you don't like rifles.

'Basically,' being the operative term. I've handled plenty of Mausers and Mauser style actions. Some well done, others not so much.

The Rugers tend to fall in the latter camp.

I really want to like this rifle. If the action I handled was typical, I can't get behind it. The bolt to receiver fit was way too loose.

But thanks for an amusingly fallacious syllogism.

Robert Wilson
February 6, 2011, 11:12 PM
Mauser bolts are loose in the actions. It's part of the design. It's got nothing to do with "well done" or not.

Now, I can understand not liking a rifle because the bolt wobbles. Each to his own. But bashing a rifle because it's a Mauser is, well, words fail me. It's like bashing a rifle because it's a Mauser.

FoMoGo
February 6, 2011, 11:27 PM
Mauser bolts are loose in the actions. It's part of the design. It's got nothing to do with "well done" or not.

Now, I can understand not liking a rifle because the bolt wobbles. Each to his own. But bashing a rifle because it's a Mauser is, well, words fail me. It's like bashing a rifle because it's a Mauser.
Kind of like saying that if you dont like mausers... you dont like rifles?
Makes the same amount of sense eh?


Jim

LemmyCaution
February 7, 2011, 11:48 AM
But bashing a rifle because it's a Mauser is, well, words fail me. It's like bashing a rifle because it's a Mauser.

I neither bashed the rifle nor, had I indeed bashed it, would have done so because it was a Mauser.

I didn't like the action. It compared less favorably to other Mauser actions I've handled. That was a deal breaker on an otherwise very nice rifle.

Enough, already.

Robert Wilson
February 7, 2011, 10:07 PM
I'm giving you two a hard time because you're posting nonsense. Eventually I'll probably get bored and go away, but "I don't like Rugers because they're too much like Mausers except that I like Mausers" was bound to get you made fun of. Especially in concert with "...but those Savages sure are slick!"

FoMoGo
February 7, 2011, 10:51 PM
Yes... posting nonsense.
Preference on how a firearm operates is nonsense.
First part of your second sentence in the above post would be the High Road thing to do.


Jim

Dobe
February 8, 2011, 01:19 AM
Thus another good thread comes to an end. Play nice or the mods will close it down.

LemmyCaution
February 8, 2011, 05:46 PM
For the sake of the thread, I concede to the troll.

Has anyone found cheaper mags for these? I have to admit I'm still attracted to the Gunsite Scout.

dshortone
February 8, 2011, 05:56 PM
Midway has some C-Products mags on sale. Mixed reviews, but I'm thinking about giving one 5rd, and one 10rd a try for the price.

cqbdriver
February 8, 2011, 07:35 PM
Mikeone,

What is the gun scabbard/case in your photo?
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/mikeone_photo/hap.jpg

I got a GSR three weeks ago. I've taken out three times shooting. I love it so far. Felt recoil & muzzle blast were much less than I expected. Accuracy was more than acceptable for my use. Out of the box, the trigger was 4.5 lbs.

ECVMatt
February 8, 2011, 08:37 PM
Just bought two of the C-Product mags and my initial impression is good. They fit prefect, feed well, and have no obvious flaws. I am going shooting on Friday, so I will get a chance to give them a good wring out. I have several C-Products AR mags and they all work great. I have heard that some folks are also trying to come up the a polymer magazine. MagPul was one company, but they seem so busy with AR mags, I can't see them cutting production for these.

Elmer
February 11, 2011, 12:47 PM
Has anyone found cheaper mags for these? I have to admit I'm still attracted to the Gunsite Scout.

Polymer mags at a greatly reduced price will be available at Ruger in the coming weeks.

Sheepdog1968
February 15, 2011, 09:57 AM
Mikeone,
Would it be possible for you to weigh the laminate stock? I want to get the Ruger Scout and I can see putting a synthetic stock on it to shave weight. I'm just curious how much weight I can save by doing to. Thanks.

Code Red
February 15, 2011, 12:17 PM
Owner’s Review.

I own one. I was going to get the Ruger Hawkeye Compact in 308 because I wanted a short handy “truck gun” style rifle that would still reach out to about 300 yards. I was ready to make my purchase when in a fit of lust I saw the Gunsite. I figured that it had the iron sights I wanted for less extra than I could get a gunsmith to mount them. I knew the magazine would be annoying, but I bought it anyway.

I did not buy it because its tacticool. I am not afraid of zombies, and I without getting too political, I spent enough time as a prosecutor to know that in the United States there just isn’t really gonna be a situation where a civilian can make a shot over about 25 yards at a human being and not be guilty of premeditated murder. I’m sure many of you can come up with thousands of “what if . . .”, but the reality is that it’s a toy. And we are all little boys inside that want cooler toys. Me included. And it does look cool.

The good. This rifle will absolutely do anything I want it to do.

It will shoot 3 inch groups at 100 yards using iron sights. I can do better with my Garand, but that has more to do with sight radius than accuracy. It will do anything that my old eyes will do with iron sights.

It is spectacularly short and handy. I was worried about the length of pull, but I can shoot it without any problem with a conventionally mounted scope in the included Ruger scope rings. But you do have to take the rear sight off to mount it that way. I am told that XS is making a rail that will mount in the same place and allow you to mount a co-witnessing rear sight and a conventional scope. That’s probably what I’ll end up with.

I took off the flash suppressor and all of the spacers from the stock. What’s left is about 35 inches long.

I am not going to give a verdict for scoped accuracy. I had some sub-MOA groups going at 100 yards, but I kept pulling shots and opening the group up. They were called flyers, but I didn’t have enough time and ammo to get a clean one. I am satisfied that it will shoot 1-1.5 inch groups if I do my part. That is straight out of the box. The dollar bill test tells me I could probably float the barrel, but I’m not sure if its worth the trouble.


The bad.

The magazine is much more annoying than I thought it would be. I bought a five rounder because the ten just looked ridiculous. So all of these opinions are based on the five. They are slow to load, rattle, and sit right where your hand wants to be when you carry the gun. It is much SLOWER to load, unload, and top-off than a conventional internal magazine. This alone makes me wish I had bought the regular Hawkeye Compact. I am thinking about ordering the bottom metal from Brownell’s to convert it to a conventional internal magazine. If the stock will accommodate that, then I may throw more money down that hole. It really is that annoying. I can probably pay for it by selling the magazines. I bought the gun for how it would carry, and the magazine detracts from the gun’s best feature.

The rear sight would not adjust enough to get rounds in the center of the target. The closest I can get is 1.5 inches left of center at 100 yards. There is no provision for adjusting elevation that I could find. Fortunately, it was dead on for elevation at 100.

The “Scout” thing:

I don’t care what the “real” definition of a “scout rifle” is. It is an abstract concept that only matters to armchair theorists. But “truck gun” is a practical concept that interests hunters and landowners. We outnumber the armchair guys everywhere but the internet. I read all of the stuff about the fast target acquisition with the forward mounted scope and wanted to give it a try. I tried it, but not thoroughly. Now I was using an old shotgun scope that I had lying around, and may see better results with quality glass. So far, I am not convinced, but I’ll play with it some more because I enjoy shooting. But for now, I still favor the conventional scope position.

Muzzle Blast and recoil:

It is loud, but so is every other .308. It kicks, but not near as much as a 12 gauge and shotguns get shot a lot more than bolt guns. If you are grown up enough to shoot any rifle of significant caliber then this just isn’t any different. Recoil on this rifle is something you will only notice when you miss. So don’t miss.

Conclusion:

I like it, and I will keep it. Its fantastically handy and the ability to reach out confidently with something that small and handy is great. I spent too much money ($723) and will spend more to fix the magazine “feature.” But even as it is, its better at what I want to do than anything I’ve ever owned. But the magazine just annoys the %$#^&%$ out of me. If you are dying to forward mount the scope, then look for a used Frontier. If you really want to kill zombies with a bolt action then get an Enfield. I’ll keep it, but I wish I had bought the regular Hawkeye Compact.

Elmer
February 15, 2011, 02:30 PM
Mikeone,
Would it be possible for you to weigh the laminate stock? I want to get the Ruger Scout and I can see putting a synthetic stock on it to shave weight. I'm just curious how much weight I can save by doing to. Thanks.

I haven't taken mine off yet, but I expect it will weigh at least as much as others I've weighed that were 2-3 lbs. Some of the lightweight synthetics are closer to 1 lb. I'll be anxiously awaiting one of the manufacturers to offer one for the Ruger Scout.

cqbdriver
February 15, 2011, 02:47 PM
The rear sight would not adjust enough to get rounds in the center of the target. The closest I can get is 1.5 inches left of center at 100 yards. There is no provision for adjusting elevation that I could find. Fortunately, it was dead on for elevation at 100.


To adjust elevation - loosen same 2 screws used for windage then screw the peep sight in or out to change elevation.

Code Red
February 15, 2011, 03:02 PM
Thanks for the tip cqbdriver!

Andrew Wyatt
February 15, 2011, 03:15 PM
The magazine is much more annoying than I thought it would be. I bought a five rounder because the ten just looked ridiculous. So all of these opinions are based on the five. They are slow to load, rattle, and sit right where your hand wants to be when you carry the gun. It is much SLOWER to load, unload, and top-off than a conventional internal magazine.


the whole point behind a detachable magazine is that you have more than one.

If you need to top off the gun, reload with a fresh magazine and stow the partially empty one, and top that off when you're not busy shooting things.

Code Red
February 15, 2011, 03:32 PM
My issue with the detachable magazine is not a criticism of the gun, but rather of its suitability for how I will use it.

The detachable magazine is a compromise that you make in the ergonomics of the gun in order to be able to quickly shoot more rounds than the gun can hold internally. In thirty years of hunting I have never shot more than three rounds at a time in the field. And in all of the occaisions where i have shot more than two, the last was after I walked over to the down animal. I can pull a round out of my shirt pocket and top off a conventional bolt gun while I am walking through the brush. I don't think I can do that with this magazine. And I don't want to carry another magazine.

The only time I ever need to shoot more than 4 is going to be on a range, where by definition, I am not going to need to reload quickly.

For me it is much quicker to load the rounds into an internal magazine than to take the mag out, sling the weapon, wrestle the rounds into the AICS mags, then unsling the weapon, then insert the magazine. With every other bolt gun I have it is simply pull a round out of my shirt pocket and put it in the gun. The rifle stays in my hand. My eyes stay downrange.

The magazine is also another point of failure for the rifle. I am sure that the AICS magazines are well made, but if I step on the receiver of a rifle with an internal magazine it will still feed. I cannot fail to insert it all the way, the mag release cannot fail or be inadvertently pushed. If I step on that high quality AICS magazine, I might end up with a single-shot rifle.

Detachable magazines are a feature that enable the rifle to do things that a rifle with an internal magazine will not do. But these features come at the cost of some level of ergonomics and reliability. I appreciate the features, but they bring performance that I personally do not need, at the price of ergonomics and reliability that I value.

Sheepdog1968
February 15, 2011, 03:36 PM
My issue with the detachable magazine is not a criticism of the gun, but rather of its suitability for how I will use it.

The detachable magazine is a compromise that you make in the ergonomics of the gun in order to be able to quickly shoot more rounds than the gun can hold internally. In thirty years of hunting I have never shot more than three rounds at a time in the field. And in all of the occaisions where i have shot more than two, the last was after I walked over to the down animal. I can pull a round out of my shirt pocket and top off a conventional bolt gun while I am walking through the brush. I don't think I can do that with this magazine. And I don't want to carry another magazine.

The only time I ever need to shoot more than 4 is going to be on a range, where by definition, I am not going to need to reload quickly.

For me it is much quicker to load the rounds into an internal magazine than to take the mag out, sling the weapon, wrestle the rounds into the AICS mags, then unsling the weapon, then insert the magazine. With every other bolt gun I have it is simply pull a round out of my shirt pocket and put it in the gun. The rifle stays in my hand. My eyes stay downrange.

The magazine is also another point of failure for the rifle. I am sure that the AICS magazines are well made, but if I step on the receiver of a rifle with an internal magazine it will still feed. I cannot fail to insert it all the way, the mag release cannot fail or be inadvertently pushed. If I step on that high quality AICS magazine, I might end up with a single-shot rifle.

Detachable magazines are a feature that enable the rifle to do things that a rifle with an internal magazine will not do. But these features come at the cost of some level of ergonomics and reliability. I appreciate the features, but they bring performance that I personally do not need, at the price of ergonomics and reliability that I value.
Thanks for elaboration. Out of curiosity, is it any more annoying than putting a new mag into a mini-14 or M1A?

Code Red
February 15, 2011, 03:48 PM
Not if you want to carry the extra magazines. But I don't. I want to carry 4 or 5 rounds in the gun and a couple more in my pocket if the deer are especially blood thirsty. Ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain.

It is however, a lot more annoying to load these magazines than it is to load M1A mags. You have to press on the rear of the top cartridge with your thumb, and then slide the new round back and in like a pistol magazine. I can sit on a chair and hold an M1A mag between my knees and load it without putting down my beer. I can do the same thing with a conventional bolt gun. I can't do that with an AICS mag. So not only does it slow down the gun loadin. It also slows down the beer drinkin. Inefficiency drives me crazy.

Picher
February 15, 2011, 04:07 PM
I don't see the need for bolts through the stock. What do they accomplish?

Also, I don't like detachable magazines for hunting rifles. They make the rifle heavier and also more difficult to carry one-handed. The large capacity magazine is not functional for any of my hunting/shooting situations.

Flash hider? Hmm, I don't see the need in a hunting rifle and it doesn't seem to be a military rifle.

Forward mounted scopes also don't work for me.

It's obviously not my kind of rifle, but if it's yours, go for it!

Elmer
February 15, 2011, 05:54 PM
I did not buy it because its tacticool. I am not afraid of zombies, and I without getting too political, I spent enough time as a prosecutor to know that in the United States there just isn’t really gonna be a situation where a civilian can make a shot over about 25 yards at a human being and not be guilty of premeditated murder.

In my time as a cop I'm familiar with several shootings involving civilians at more than 25 yards, that were found to be legally justifiable, including one where an AK47 armed civilian engaged someone shooting at him with a rifle from over 100 yards. iirc, they also happened during Katrina, and the LA riots, though as I remember the stories, they weren't necessarily reported as such.

Those of us old enough to remember Charles Whitman, the Austin sniper, remember it was civilians armed with rifles, that first effectively returned his fire.

I’m sure many of you can come up with thousands of “what if . . .”,

Certainly, and your point is valid. But if we really used that logic, the chance of a civilian needing any type of firearm for self defense are fairly small, to say nothing of earthquake insurance, etc.

Code Red
February 15, 2011, 06:24 PM
Elmer,

Your points are all valid. I did not intend to start an internet debate, just to explain my my point of view so that people reading the review could understand my reasons for purchasing this rifle and what I wanted it to be good at. My comments were just to give readers some perspective on my review. Whether a feature is good or bad can depend on what you're using the rifle for. I didn't want to get in to a debate about the tactical merits of a weapon system that I don't view as being the right tool for that job.

And that's the last thing I'll post on that.

Elmer
February 15, 2011, 09:39 PM
Elmer,

Your points are all valid. I did not intend to start an internet debate, just to explain my my point of view so that people reading the review could understand my reasons for purchasing this rifle and what I wanted it to be good at. My comments were just to give readers some perspective on my review. Whether a feature is good or bad can depend on what you're using the rifle for. I didn't want to get in to a debate about the tactical merits of a weapon system that I don't view as being the right tool for that job.

And that's the last thing I'll post on that.

You're welcome to your opinions, and your review was well written. I was just responding to your incorrect postulation of:

I spent enough time as a prosecutor to know that in the United States there just isn’t really gonna be a situation where a civilian can make a shot over about 25 yards at a human being and not be guilty of premeditated murder.

natman
February 16, 2011, 03:16 AM
The bad.

The magazine is much more annoying than I thought it would be. I bought a five rounder because the ten just looked ridiculous. So all of these opinions are based on the five. They are slow to load, rattle, and sit right where your hand wants to be when you carry the gun. It is much SLOWER to load, unload, and top-off than a conventional internal magazine. This alone makes me wish I had bought the regular Hawkeye Compact. I am thinking about ordering the bottom metal from Brownell’s to convert it to a conventional internal magazine. If the stock will accommodate that, then I may throw more money down that hole. It really is that annoying. I can probably pay for it by selling the magazines. I bought the gun for how it would carry, and the magazine detracts from the gun’s best feature.

It's really nice to be able to carry a rifle AT its point of balance, not NEAR its POB. I feel your pain.


The “Scout” thing:

I don’t care what the “real” definition of a “scout rifle” is. It is an abstract concept that only matters to armchair theorists. But “truck gun” is a practical concept that interests hunters and landowners. We outnumber the armchair guys everywhere but the internet.

It's a question of managing expectations. If Ruger had been honest about it and called it the "Ruger Tactical Carbine" or the "Ruger Truck Gun", then Scout fans could simply decide that it wasn't their cup of tea and let it go.

But when you call a rifle the "Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle", Scout fans have every right to expect it to be a REAL Scout and to meet Jeff Cooper's criteria for one. Which it doesn't.

Elmer
February 16, 2011, 03:28 AM
But when you call a rifle the "Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle", Scout fans have every right to expect it to be a REAL Scout and to meet Jeff Cooper's criteria for one. Which it doesn't.

Perhaps.

But, at least it incorporates the many of the concepts, at a 6th of the price of comparable guns that are more true to the ideal.

natman
February 16, 2011, 04:23 AM
But when you call a rifle the "Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle", Scout fans have every right to expect it to be a REAL Scout and to meet Jeff Cooper's criteria for one. Which it doesn't.

Perhaps.

But, at least it incorporates the many of the concepts, at a 6th of the price of comparable guns that are more true to the ideal.

It's a carbine, the sights are nice and it does have a forward scope mount.

Aside from that there's little resemblance to a Scout and price is no excuse.

A Scout should be light. The Ruger is going to be over a whopping 9 lbs with scope, mounts and sling.
A Scout should be short. The Ruger sort of meets this, but wastes useful barrel length on the flash hider.
A Scout should be handy. The Ruger has it's "tacticool" magazine hanging right at point of balance.

None of these shortcomings has anything to do with price. It's well within Ruger's capabilities to make a decent and affordable synthetic stock.

The flash hider and magazine design compromise Scout criteria in order to look tactical, i.e. for fashion reasons. If there's one thing a Scout is all about it's function over fashion.

They could have put the sights and a 19" barrel on a synthetic stocked Frontier and had a MUCH better Scout at a lower price.

WardenWolf
February 16, 2011, 05:54 AM
Im not paying that price for a rifle with the bolt handle on the wrong side.
I'm the only lefty in my family. Do I own a single left-handed gun? Nope. Do I get hit with ejected shells? Nope. Never been a problem for me. Only shells that hit me are the occasional .45 ACP shell or the jerk to the left of me with an overzealous AR-15 ejector (not bashing AR-15's, but when they have an overzealous ejector it's not pleasant for the people to the right side of them, and certain people don't seem to care where their brass goes).

I'd love to have this rifle. It's just the type of hunting rifle I'd want. Unfortunately, it's way outside my price range right now.

Elmer
February 16, 2011, 02:16 PM
It's a carbine, the sights are nice and it does have a forward scope mount.

Aside from that there's little resemblance to a Scout and price is no excuse.

A Scout should be light. The Ruger is going to be over a whopping 9 lbs with scope, mounts and sling.
A Scout should be short. The Ruger sort of meets this, but wastes useful barrel length on the flash hider.
A Scout should be handy. The Ruger has it's "tacticool" magazine hanging right at point of balance.

None of these shortcomings has anything to do with price. It's well within Ruger's capabilities to make a decent and affordable synthetic stock.

The flash hider and magazine design compromise Scout criteria in order to look tactical, i.e. for fashion reasons. If there's one thing a Scout is all about it's function over fashion.

They could have put the sights and a 19" barrel on a synthetic stocked Frontier and had a MUCH better Scout at a lower price.

Having had my first of several Scouts built over 20 years ago, (after a conversation with the Colonel), I don't disagree with your criticisms. I still appreciate the attempt, however imperfect. Cooper wasn't 100% happy with the Steyr either, iirc. I know I'm not happy with mine.

If this rifle sells, my hope is that other manufacturers step up to the plate, making product that may be more true to the concept, or even Ruger may come out with an improved model. But right now, there isn't anything better at anywhere near the price.

They could have put the sights and a 19" barrel on a synthetic stocked Frontier and had a MUCH better Scout at a lower price.

I agree.

Elmer
February 16, 2011, 02:34 PM
BTW, If XS would make a rail similar to their lever gun rails, for bolt actions, it would make building a scout from scratch a much less expensive proposition. You could take one of the the short barrel carbines built by several manufacturers, add a front sight and synthetic stock if it didn't already have them, and voila, a true Scout for $1000.00 +/- before optic, that could be used with forward mount or traditional mount.

Andrew Wyatt
February 17, 2011, 12:37 PM
Aside from that there's little resemblance to a Scout and price is no excuse.

Then purchase a “real scout” from one of the many smiths that will make you one. The wait and cost should not be onerous, since you will have a "real scout".

A Scout should be light. The Ruger is going to be over a whopping 9 lbs with scope, mounts and sling. You’re going to have to cite sources on that weight.
According to Cooper, the max weight of a scout is 7.7 pounds, and a rifle with good irons also falls into the “scout designation”. This means a base ruger makes weight.
A Scout should be short. The Ruger sort of meets this, but wastes useful barrel length on the flash hider. Have you ever fired a short barrelled .308 at night or in low light? With Ball ammo, the flash is noticeable during the day, and at dusk or at night you will lose your night vision.
A Scout should be handy. The Ruger has it's "tacticool" magazine hanging right at point of balance. I think its pretty obvious that you havent used a detachable magazine on a rifle before. leaving aside the obvious ability to reload the rifle quickly, the detachable magazine allows you to carry extra ammunition in an easy to carry form, and allows you to easily unload the rifle when you get back to the truck or when crossing fence lines or other obstacles, both things that are done far more often then discharging the gun when hunting.

None of these shortcomings has anything to do with price. It's well within Ruger's capabilities to make a decent and affordable synthetic stock. I am sure ruger would like to see your calculations, so they may rush that stock out the door posthaste. The reason it’s not synthetic is because they would have to invest lots of money into making a new mold. the manufactuing process for laminated stocks only requires that they remove more material from the stock blank.

The flash hider and magazine design compromise Scout criteria in order to look tactical, i.e. for fashion reasons. If there's one thing a Scout is all about it's function over fashion. You are probably not aware of this fact, but the scout rifle concept borrows heavily from the Lee Enfield number 5mk1. Feel free to google that.


People are hung up on the wrong aspects of the Scout rifle concept. The purpose of the downbore scope was to facilitate reloading with stripper clips. That is not necessary with a detachable magazine.

The purpose of a scout is to be at least minimally suitable for any purpose you need it for, and to be handy and easy to shoot. For a mass produced rifle, the ruger scout does a very good job at this.

Justin
February 17, 2011, 12:42 PM
The flash hider and magazine design compromise Scout criteria in order to look tactical, i.e. for fashion reasons. If there's one thing a Scout is all about it's function over fashion.

The Ruger Scout's magazine system is based on the ones used in the rifles built by Accuracy International.

How anyone can think that this is a problem is fundamentally beyond me.

I also don't understand the complaints about how a magazine that protrudes a couple of inches out of the bottom of a rifle somehow means that it's unfit for human hands, but then again, I'm primarily used to shooting AR-style rifles, where the magazines protrude a lot further, and that has never seemed to be a deal-breaker of an issue.

Andrew Wyatt
February 17, 2011, 12:45 PM
Re: magazine at balance point

Your rifle should be in both hands or slung if at all possible anyway.

natman
February 17, 2011, 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by natman Aside from that there's little resemblance to a Scout and price is no excuse.
Then purchase a “real scout” from one of the many smiths that will make you one. The wait and cost should not be onerous, since you will have a "real scout".

I've covered these two points before but they bear repeating:

If you call the gun the "Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle" it begs comparision to Jeff Cooper's criteria for a Scout Rifle.

There's no need for a custom gunsmith. Ruger could have made a much better SCOUT by putting a synthetic stock, a FLUSH detachable magazine and a 19" barrel for LESS money.

You’re going to have to cite sources on that weight.
Gladly. According to http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=785.0

“All-Up” Weight
(Rifle with scope, sling, full 5-round magazine,
buttpad, no stock spacers) 4.012 kg"

4 Kilos is 8.8 lbs. So it's about 3 oz under 9 lbs. I stand corrected. Still well overweight.

According to Cooper, the max weight of a scout is 7.7 pounds, and a rifle with good irons also falls into the “scout designation”. This means a base ruger makes weight.

According to http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=24.0 the weight spec is:

"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 )."

Now technically if you take the MAX weight and you fudge like crazy by leaving off the scope and mounts you could claim that a bare Ruger makes weight. It would be a real stretch, but you could claim it.

The point is that if Ruger really understood what a Scout was about the could have easily made weight WITH a scope.

Speaking of fudging, the 7 lb weight that Ruger claims doesn't include a magazine.

Have you ever fired a short barrelled .308 at night or in low light? With Ball ammo, the flash is noticeable during the day, and at dusk or at night you will lose your night vision.

Then again if the barrel wasn't so short, you wouldn't need the flash hider.

I offer that it would be better to offer the gun with a 19" barrel and let the small minority who actually NEED a flash hider/silencer cut and thread the barrel to suit. It would be a lot easier than stretching the existing barrel out to 19"

I think its pretty obvious that you havent used a detachable magazine on a rifle before.

Oh, please. Let's keep this on the high road, shall we? Of course I've used a gun with a DM before.


I am sure ruger would like to see your calculations, so they may rush that stock out the door posthaste. The reason it’s not synthetic is because they would have to invest lots of money into making a new mold. the manufactuing process for laminated stocks only requires that they remove more material from the stock blank.

It's well within Ruger's capabilities to make an affordable synthetic stock.

You are probably not aware of this fact, but the scout rifle concept borrows heavily from the Lee Enfield number 5mk1. Feel free to google that.

Again, high road please. I own a Jungle Carbine and am well aware of its history.

People are hung up on the wrong aspects of the Scout rifle concept. The purpose of the downbore scope was to facilitate reloading with stripper clips. That is not necessary with a detachable magazine.

There is a LOT more to the forward mounted scope than facilitating the use of stripper clips. I have no problem with a detachable magazine. I do object to a detachable magazine that sticks out like a sore thumb just so that it can look like an M14.

Justin
February 17, 2011, 01:39 PM
There is a LOT more to the forward mounted scope than facilitating the use of stripper clips. I have no problem with a detachable magazine. I do object to a detachable magazine that sticks out like a sore thumb just so that it can look like an M14.

In speaking with the Ruger rep at SHOT, at no point did he say anything about using that particular magazine setup "so it can look like an M14."

As previously stated, they went with that layout as it's based around the magazine system that Accuracy International came up with, and has since been fairly widely adopted among precision rifle makers.

Sheepdog1968
February 17, 2011, 02:05 PM
I've read Cooper's Gargantuan Gunsite Gossips. In those, he spends a lot of time explaining how a Scout rifle isn't/won't be cheap. Based on all of the conversations, I can see that this is still true today that it is expensive to make weight and have all of the right features. I am very happy with Ruger comming out with what they did. If it prooves popular, I am sure others may follow (think Taurus Judge and S&W follow up at SHOT this year).

Robert
February 17, 2011, 02:08 PM
I like the new rifle. The mag is no more obtrusive than the mag on my AR or my FAL. If I want a hunting rifle I will buy a hunting rifle.

natman
February 17, 2011, 02:12 PM
In speaking with the Ruger rep at SHOT, at no point did he say anything about using that particular magazine setup "so it can look like an M14."

As previously stated, they went with that layout as its based around the design that Accuracy International came up with, and has since been fairly widely adopted among precision rifle makers.

I suppose it's just a coincidence that it looks like an M14.

Here's my take on it:

The flash hider and the magazine styling are part of Ruger getting on the "tacticool" bandwagon along with Mossberg and others. It's the current fad, which has lead to flash hiders, muzzle breaks and breacher chokes being tacked onto everything that's not nailed down. This fad has brought us such contradictions in terms as the "tactical 10/22". I suppose the flash hider on it is so you don't lose your night vision. :rolleyes:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/nat_mann/Rugerscoutcomparison.jpg

IMO, Ruger, the people who came up with the 10 round 22LR flush magazine, could have easily come up with a 5 round detachable magazine that was flush with the stock or a 10 round that was flush with the trigger guard. But they didn't because - IMO - a magazine that looked like an M14 was tacticooler.

From a point of generating sales they may well be right. As I said in the beginning, if they had called it the "Ruger Truck Buddy" I'd just roll my eyes and chalk it up as not to my taste. But if you're going to call it the "Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle", then I expect it to be a GOOD Scout rifle, or at least the best Scout rifle Ruger is capable of making. And it's not.

Justin
February 17, 2011, 02:36 PM
So, basically, what you're saying is you have no proof that Ruger was trying to make the Scout look like an M14, but just your feelings on the issue?

I mean, you're certainly free to feel any way you like about it, and while the rifle may have a vaguely tactical appearance, I fail to see how that actually impedes the functionality of the weapon, especially when there are certain obvious utilitarian reasons for having a ten round magazine as well as a flash hider.

Besides, if you hate the ten round magazine so much, you could simply order a smaller magazine from Ruger. (http://shopruger.com/Scout-308-Mag-M77-5S/productinfo/90352/)

Andrew Wyatt
February 17, 2011, 03:28 PM
Then again if the barrel wasn't so short, you wouldn't need the flash hider. My 20” LTR is the short barrelled .308 i was referring to earlier. 3” of barrel length doesn't change the flash signature at all.


I offer that it would be better to offer the gun with a 19" barrel and let the small minority who actually NEED a flash hider/silencer cut and thread the barrel to suit. It would be a lot easier than stretching the existing barrel out to 19"



Oh, please. Let's keep this on the high road, shall we? Of course I've used a gun with a DM before. Presumably that was at a square range, carrying it from the truck and back.




It's well within Ruger's capabilities to make an affordable synthetic stock. Can you explain the specific method they can use to make a synthetic stock for a rifle they just introduced that has a different inlet than their standard rifle?


I own a Jungle Carbine and am well aware of its history. What two features does the jungle carbine share with the ruger scout? Where does it balance?

There is a LOT more to the forward mounted scope than facilitating the use of stripper clips. Enlighten me.

I have no problem with a detachable magazine. I do object to a detachable magazine that sticks out like a sore thumb just so that it can look like an M14. Yeah, this particular assertion is false. Making it bold doesn’t make it any less so.

natman
February 17, 2011, 04:25 PM
Originally Posted by natman
Oh, please. Let's keep this on the high road, shall we? Of course I've used a gun with a DM before.


Presumably that was at a square range, carrying it from the truck and back.

Is it really beyond your capabilities to have a friendly difference of opinion without stooping to insults? Is that really so much to ask?


Quote:
Originally Posted by natman
There is a LOT more to the forward mounted scope than facilitating the use of stripper clips.
Enlighten me.

Fast target acquisition:

"When placed properly close to the eye, the ghost−ring is the quickest form of rifle sight in use (with the possible exception of a properly designed Scout scope) "

Cooper's Commentaries, Vol 11, No 12
and MANY other places, this is just the first I found.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natman
I have no problem with a detachable magazine. I do object to a detachable magazine that sticks out like a sore thumb just so that it can look like an M14.

Yeah, this particular assertion is false. Making it bold doesn’t make it any less so.

Which part do you disagree with: that it sticks out, that it looks like an M14 or that Ruger is riding the tacticool fad? (see picture in my previous post) I'll freely admit that the assertion that shape was chosen for it's looks is speculation on my part, but it's well founded. But it is my opinion, feel free to disagree with it as long as you do it politely.

Elmer
February 17, 2011, 05:55 PM
So, basically, what you're saying is you have no proof that Ruger was trying to make the Scout look like an M14, but just your feelings on the issue?[/URL]

Ruger was responding to a marketplace niche, that overwhelmingly has accepted and requests a threaded barrel and DBM in bolt action rifles.

Though this rifle will make certainly make a great hunting rifle, many of it's owners will purchase it for it's LE/tactical/self defense/survival/SHTF/ etc. properties.

LemmyCaution
February 18, 2011, 09:25 AM
If only all this hand wringing and controversy over the purpose and aesthetics of this rifle guaranteed sales of it. Ruger certainly has created a buzz and reactions bordering on religious zealotry.

ECVMatt
February 18, 2011, 11:38 AM
To me this is a love it or hate it rifle. It shifts too far from the norm to create a neutral reaction from the gun buying public. Add to that fact that it is build with the capability of being configured as a "Scout Rifle" and it becomes even more controversial. I have one and I like it, but I understand the opinions of the folks who don't. I would suggest rather than arguing the minutia, it is better to look at the whole concept. Hell if you look hard enough you can find a mole on even the most beautiful woman's body.

Art Eatman
February 18, 2011, 02:33 PM
As I've said numerous times, I'm a hunter far more than a paper-puncher, and I'm certainly not a soldier. In a sense, a scout's mission is observing and hunting for people. Part of his deal is to avoid discovery and firefights if at all possible. Like the line from fifty years ago in a Little Richard song, "...peepin' and a'hidin'..." Ergo, a true combat rifle isn't the thing for a scout.

Box magazines are great for social guns. But a scout's or hunter's deal is to avoid social occasions. For a scout, a social occasion is a mission failure. And when Bambi sees a hunter before the hunter sees Bambi, that, too is a mission failure. :)

I've spent a fair amount of time in hunting, off and on for right at seventy years. An important part of carrying my rifle is to able to carry it in one hand at the balance point. Sure, sometimes it's slung. Sure, sometimes it's a two-hand carry. But not always. Anyhow, if I can't carry a rifle at the balance point, as far as I'm concerned it can stay in the truck.

I've shot coyotes at night with my 19" .243. Yeah, there's a good fireball, but nowhere near enough that I've ever considered installing a flash-hider. And a .243 is merely an non-Sanforized .308.

Justin
February 18, 2011, 02:51 PM
Ruger was responding to a marketplace niche, that overwhelmingly has accepted and requests a threaded barrel and DBM in bolt action rifles.

Though this rifle will make certainly make a great hunting rifle, many of it's owners will purchase it for it's LE/tactical/self defense/survival/SHTF/ etc. properties.

In this case, I don't see how those features (flash hider, detachable magazine) actually impede the functionality of the rifle. Both of those features can be quite useful, unlike some of the stuff that, say, Mossberg has been bolting to their guns.

Andrew Wyatt
February 18, 2011, 04:23 PM
Which part do you disagree with: that it sticks out, that it looks like an M14 or that Ruger is riding the tacticool fad? (see picture in my previous post) I'll freely admit that the assertion that shape was chosen for it's looks is speculation on my part, but it's well founded. But it is my opinion, feel free to disagree with it as long as you do it politely.

I am honestly not sure where to begin. The magazine only bears a passing resemblance to an m-14 magazine in that it has the same number of reinforcement ridges on each side. they are not in the same place, and the magazine is of an entirely different pattern. The 5 round magazine does not stick below the trigger guard to any significant degree, and the double column, single feed magazines mentioned earlier in the thread in 10 round form stick out the same amount or very slightly more. The magazine used in the ruger scout has been available for over a decade. it was originally designed by accuracy international for use in their stock system for remington 700 rifles. What i am saying is i disagree with everything you have said about the ruger scout’s magazine.

ironhead7544
February 18, 2011, 09:14 PM
It is what it is. A handy, cute little rifle. I built a similar rifle from a M77 years ago. I hope it will sell and a customizing cult will be built up around it.

chicharrones
February 18, 2011, 10:19 PM
...reactions bordering on religious zealotry.

And that is the most amazing thing to me.

I can only imagine the jerks I'd run into at the range that would feel obligated to tell me that a Ruger Scout is not a Scout. And I would have to tell them that I don't care.

Elmer
February 19, 2011, 01:47 AM
In this case, I don't see how those features (flash hider, detachable magazine) actually impede the functionality of the rifle. Both of those features can be quite useful, unlike some of the stuff that, say, Mossberg has been bolting to their guns.

I agree. I bought one, though I own several similar rifles.

natman
February 19, 2011, 04:20 AM
I am honestly not sure where to begin. The magazine only bears a passing resemblance to an m-14 magazine in that it has the same number of reinforcement ridges on each side. they are not in the same place, and the magazine is of an entirely different pattern.

I said the Ruger's magazine looks like an M14 magazine. That means is has a similar style, that it resembles one, not that it's alike in every minute detail.

You're not missing the for the forest for the trees, you're missing the forest for a pine needle.


The 5 round magazine does not stick below the trigger guard to any significant degree, and the double column, single feed magazines mentioned earlier in the thread in 10 round form stick out the same amount or very slightly more.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e166/nat_mann/RugerscoutvsJungleCarbine.jpg

stick out the same amount or very slightly more.

Look at the picture. Enfield designers managed to fit a 10 round magazine that barely passes the trigger guard in the 19th century. You could still carry an Enfield with your hand underneath the mag. Not so with the Ruger.

The bottom line is this: Regardless of whether it's for styling or budgetary reasons, the Ruger is not a very good match to the criteria of a Scout Rifle. It's too heavy and it has a magazine sticking out right where it shouldn't. No amount of rationalizations, excuses or arguments are going to change that.

HOWEVER, that does not mean it's not a useful rifle. If you want a truck rifle, it's pretty near perfect. It's short. It's rugged. The weight doesn't matter because you don't have to carry it much. The magazines are detachable, always a big plus on a truck rifle, and are flat enough to fit in a coat cargo pocket. It's just a question of horses for courses. And if you're one of the tiny minority of civilians who have a legitimate need to fire a centerfire rifle at night, well, Ruger's got you covered.

Art Eatman
February 19, 2011, 12:59 PM
Reading through all this, it looks like the deal is that it's a good, useful rifle--but mis-named. :)

Wolfeye
February 19, 2011, 01:14 PM
If people are hung up about how long the magazine is, they can try one that's double stacked: http://www.alphaindmfg.com/products.html

I'm not knocking it or recommending it until I try one. Being that I haven't even bought Ruger's scout yet, that might be a while.

natman
February 19, 2011, 01:26 PM
Reading through all this, it looks like the deal is that it's a good, useful rifle--but mis-named. :)

I agree completely.


It's a question of managing expectations. If Ruger had been honest about it and called it the "Ruger Tactical Carbine" or the "Ruger Truck Gun", then Scout fans could simply decide that it wasn't their cup of tea and let it go.

But when you call a rifle the "Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle", Scout fans have every right to expect it to be a REAL Scout and to meet Jeff Cooper's criteria for one. Which it doesn't.

cqbdriver
February 19, 2011, 01:40 PM
Reading through all this, it looks like the deal is that it's a good, useful rifle--but mis-named. :)

I agree. I really don’t care what the call it, but does it serve a purpose for me.

I have been looking for a reliable durable utility/general purpose/truck gun that I carry in my truck, on my ATV or on short walk out on my land. I wanted it to be relative light, but it didn’t have to be a feather-weight because I won’t be carrying it for days – more like hours. I can hunt with it, protect myself from predators, and I could use it for self-defense if the need arouse. It isn’t perfect any of these roles, but it does all of them well.

If people are hung up about how long the magazine is, they can try one that's double stacked: http://www.alphaindmfg.com/products.html

I have tried the Alpha mag with the GSR & like it. I did have to modify it to fit in my rifle. I posted about the mod here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=573975

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/Rifle_Alpha_mag.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/3_mags.jpg

Two interesting things about the Alpha mag:
- You don’t have to load it like the Ruger factory mags (one hand pushing down on the rear of the round already in the mag then pushing down & to the rear with the new round). You can load the Alpha like a high-cap pistol mag (don’t have to push down on the rear of the round already in mag).
-The 10-rd Alpha mag will easy fit 11 rounds with room to spare.

Elmer
February 19, 2011, 02:31 PM
Reading through all this, it looks like the deal is that it's a good, useful rifle--but mis-named. :)

Not really. It incorporates features of the Cooper vision of a scout rifle. Arguably, it's the closest yet in a mass produced, affordable rifle. I certainly didn't really know the Colonel, but in my brief talks with him, I'm of the opinion he wouldn't be nearly as wound up about Ruger's effort as some of the faithful are. He'd make the comment it didn't meet the spec, suggest improvements, and move on. I think he'd appreciate that at least efforts were being made in the right direction, 30 years later.

Perhaps he'd be less happy about the "Gunsite" moniker, but Cooper hasn't owned Gunsite in a long time. They are free to imprint their brand on products as they see fit. No one complains that an F150 isn't a Ford because it differs from Henry's ideas.

BikerRN
February 19, 2011, 03:41 PM
posted by Art Eatman:
Reading through all this, it looks like the deal is that it's a good, useful rifle--but mis-named.

I agree.
What drew me to the rifle was not the Gunsite moniker, or it's supposed approval of the departed Col. Cooper or his disciples, but rather that it could serve a valid niche I have for a rifle.

BikerRN

chicharrones
February 19, 2011, 05:25 PM
My memory is very short sometimes. I can't remember what people's reaction to Springfield Armory's Scout version of the M1A was when it was released. It doesn't appear to meet Cooper's definition for several reasons.

Was negative reaction suppressed because no one would dare insult the offspring of the All-American M1 and M14? I truly wonder. :scrutiny:

shadow9
February 20, 2011, 11:11 AM
I was diverting from a CZ 550 FS for this, but I may hold course. Jeff Coopers "Ideal" scout rifle was that - an Ideal. It was a goal. But, without some SERIOUS engineering, AND expensive materials, you're not getting a reliable (combat worthy- see firing-multi-shots-w/o-stringing), 6lb. weapon in .308. However, all the steps put into this gun DO seem appropriate, even the muzzle-flash-hider :).

The stock goes straight back, which is known to throw recoil straighter into the shoulder (if I recall O.o;), and the muzzle flash hider can reduce the visibility(change for a brake?). CRF means when you shoot (unlike an M1A), there's no "Brass-flag", and there's guaranteed feed. Albiet a slower-ROF, but in a scout situation, you don't spray-and-pray your own weap.

Also, the mag in the wrong spot - The rifle was designed to be used with a ching-sling, and if you look at the mags design (flat-bottom, sturdy), plus where the balance point is of the rifle (and how a few people have displayed it), it functions as a mid-point "Bipod", in lieu of a pack. At least for aiming purposes...

The full-length picatanny rail has some advantage, where you can put a scope anywhere, red-dot anywhere, or even a scope AND red-dot. It's versatile.
The threads/muzzle brake - yes, they're "odd", but the threading also what most high-end suppressors work with. Suppressor+Bolt-action=Quiet. The only drawback I've read is this gun is 7lbs stock, and roughly 8.8-9.8 fully decked. That 10lbs loaded-out is getting heavy for a "Scout-rifle", but it's still less than an M1A decked.
"It's $750 out the door, $995 MSRP". My thought? Wait a bit...remember guys, it came out 3 months ago. It's brand-spankin'-new. Plus, it being designed with Gunsite assistance, having a Gunsite logo (and name), and AICS mags, it's gonna be pricy. How else is Ruger gonna pay off all the ads they've done for this thing? :P

Oh - last note, saw WAAYYY Back in this thread on Bolts - there was a post about Ruger bolts being loose. Agreed...but so do Rem700s. My Turkish M38, Swedish 96, AND the CZ's I've all played with had minimal bolt-play, if none at all. Also, all liquid smooth (CZ's need a steady and accurate feed when they're new - something working with an M-N bolt teaches you WELL :-P). An advantage to a "looser-fitting bolt" is a faster rack, and as long as the edges don't hang, in theory more play and clearance to work with for reliable feeding (see AK vs AR). Just a thought.
Anyways. This said "First Thoughts", so I figured I'd drop them. Cheers!

USBP379
February 20, 2011, 12:43 PM
So now that I've got my Scout, I need to dedicated scout scope to go with it. I've played with my GSR with a traditional variable power scope as well as with a Leupold M8 2x pistol scope mounted.

I am really liking the EER scope. It's fast to the shoulder and quick on target. I also like that it keeps the receiver area clear and allows unlimited clearance for the bolt handle. No need to worry about mounting the scope too low to clear or getting a finger caught while wearing heavy gloves, etc. On the down side, the 2x magnification is limiting and probably not the best choice for exploiting the overall usefulness of this rifle or the .308 cartridge.

So what options do we have? I know Leupold and Burris both make a scout scope but these are 2.5x and 2.75x respectively. Swarovski makes a 1-6x EE scope with illumination but that particular scope runs nearly $2,000. Surely there's something with similar features in a more affordable package.

JustsayMo
February 20, 2011, 01:41 PM
When I first saw this rifle I really didn't care that it did not pedantically adhere to what was scribed on the tablets brought down from the mountain by Saint Jeff. I recognized it could serve a useful purpose for me.

I dislike synthetic stocks as they never seem to balance right. They are lighter and very weather resistant but wood stocked rifles have endured and served reliably for centuries now. I'm more concerned about the weight around my midsection that I am a few ounces (within reason) on my rifle where they may actually be useful... I would have purchased the Savage Scout years ago if not for the plastic stock.

For a number of weeks now I've been taking my GSR to the range and into the field testing it. The OP's and Code Red's observations track pretty close to mine. It does not carry in the hand as well as a levergun, but does anything? I'm getting used to the detachable magazine thing - good pouches are a MUST for that to be useful.

http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/Pathfinder/gsrscouting.jpg

It does single load over the top of a dry magazine easily so feeding from cartridge loops on the belt is easy. Using your "reaction / support hand thumb one can single feed over the magazine - useful when loading a subsonic round to take small game rather than hitting them with a full power JSP load and looking for something left to eat...

My main attractions to the GSR is that it is chambered in the VERY versatile 308, it has IRON sights as a stock feature, virtually any sighting system can be mounted on the rifle by me - no gunsmith or special tools required. Versatile cartridge + versatile rifle = handy gun in my book.

http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/Pathfinder/308fmjhrndy165041008.jpg
Full power Jacketed Soft Points and lightweight cast bullets driven super and subsonic shoot well in this rifle.


chicharonnes wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemmyCaution View Post
...reactions bordering on religious zealotry.
And that is the most amazing thing to me.

I can only imagine the jerks I'd run into at the range that would feel obligated to tell me that a Ruger Scout is not a Scout. And I would have to tell them that I don't care.

That pretty much sums it up for me too.

The buzz this rifle has generated amazes me. No it doesn't take 20 round mags and yes it is a bolt action. For some that is a good thing. I for one like choices and I'm betting everyone here is capable of picking rifles that suit their own needs better than I could for them.

I'd guess in the not too distant future accessories for this rifle will be available to address specific shooter needs and concerns. For me it came pretty darn close. That's why I bought it.

HorseSoldier
February 20, 2011, 01:57 PM
Albiet a slower-ROF, but in a scout situation, you don't spray-and-pray your own weap.


The weapon in question is not a fighting rifle. Period.

As for not needing the ability to generate a lot of firepower abruptly when working as a dismounted scout, I'm always amazed at how many people buy into Cooper's lack of thought on this matter like it's the word of God. As a scout out in front of everyone else you don't need to put a lot of lead downrange in a compressed time frame . . . except when you do. When you do need that firepower it's usually because things didn't go perfectly for you and the enemy had a better day than you did (which can never happen in manly, chest slapping militia fantasies, I know) and your life now depends on your ability to at least briefly convince them they would prefer to be anywhere else on earth rather than in the immediate vicinity of you.

A military -- or even "militia" -- scout will always be better served by something like an M4 with an ACOG than a bolt gun with a low power long eye relief scope.

As a handy gun for the truck back in the real world, Ruger looks like they have a bolt gun that will compete well with lever guns. But for that it's "combat" capabilities are irrelevant.

Coal Dragger
February 20, 2011, 03:29 PM
I find myself without a .308 literally for the first time in my adult life, as I traded off my old Steyr SSG69 in on a Cooper M57 .22LR (I have a fetish for really nice accurate .22's). Yet I have a lot of components and ammo in .308 as well as supporting reloading equipment, and I used to own a Steyr Scout. This Ruger might have to be acquired at some point despite it's shortcomings, while I would like 3" more barrel length I guess I can forgive it since it is threaded and will make putting a can on easier. It is legal to hunt big game in SD with a suppressor, so it could be useful. Would also make one hell of a pig rifle for feral hogs with a can on it when I go down to Texas.

rc109a
February 20, 2011, 03:53 PM
I think that it looks pretty neat. Like every rifle there will be those who like it and other who will hate it (or just dislike it). To each their own. Now a days we can call it what ever we like if we are the ones making the thing. It is still a neat concept...no matter what you call it:neener:

alukban
February 20, 2011, 09:20 PM
"Keep talking, I'm reloading..." :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbPbO8_J5cg

shadow9
February 24, 2011, 02:52 PM
Horse - I stand well corrected. :P Gunshop Scout reporting in for duty - I assume from your knowledge and forum-name/handle you were/are a scout at some point?

berrywood
February 24, 2011, 10:16 PM
Which Alpha mags are you using? Type 1 or 2?

cqbdriver
February 25, 2011, 09:03 AM
I am using Type 1 Alpha mag. According to their website, Type 2 mags are for rifles that can accept longer bullets. The Type 1 & 2 are the same except for a spacer in the Type 1.

berrywood
February 25, 2011, 02:09 PM
Does anyone know if the Ruger Scout can handle the longer bullets and the type 2 mag?

cqbdriver
February 25, 2011, 05:02 PM
I don't know for sure, but it looks like it may work. The rifle feed ramp has a cutout in the center that is forward of the front of the magazine.

ETA: A guy on another forum (he may be member here too) called Alpha Industries. They are supposely modifying their mags to work in the GSR. If you plan to order, you may want to call them & let them know it is for a GSR.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/Type1.jpg

Monster Zero
February 25, 2011, 05:54 PM
I agree. I really don’t care what the call it, but does it serve a purpose for me.

I have been looking for a reliable durable utility/general purpose/truck gun that I carry in my truck, on my ATV or on short walk out on my land. I wanted it to be relative light, but it didn’t have to be a feather-weight because I won’t be carrying it for days – more like hours. I can hunt with it, protect myself from predators, and I could use it for self-defense if the need arouse. It isn’t perfect any of these roles, but it does all of them well.



I have tried the Alpha mag with the GSR & like it. I did have to modify it to fit in my rifle. I posted about the mod here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=573975

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/Rifle_Alpha_mag.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/3_mags.jpg

Two interesting things about the Alpha mag:
- You don’t have to load it like the Ruger factory mags (one hand pushing down on the rear of the round already in the mag then pushing down & to the rear with the new round). You can load the Alpha like a high-cap pistol mag (don’t have to push down on the rear of the round already in mag).
-The 10-rd Alpha mag will easy fit 11 rounds with room to spare.
What kind of EER sight is that?

cqbdriver
February 25, 2011, 06:06 PM
It is an Aimpoint H-1.

I still looking at the various scopes for the GSR trying decide what I like (plus lack of money). I may stay with the Aimpoint. Where I plan to use the rifle, you usually can't see past 100 yds.

dprice3844444
April 14, 2011, 08:57 PM
guys,check out the hi lux leatherwood 2x7x32.in the shotgun news article recently,it compared equally with the others at a way lower price.try natchez shooters supply for discounts or amazon.com. i was looking at the extra magazines,but 50-60 per pop is rediculus.has anybody noticed yet,not one of the gun writers who have been hyping this rifle has ever done a 100 yard accuracy test on this rifle?i have looked,don't want to spend over 1k and find out it's a lemon in the accuracy dept.

http://hi-luxoptics.com/

Code Red
May 9, 2011, 12:02 PM
Update to my earlier review.

I passed on the forward mounted scope and conventionally mounted a Leupold ?x7. Yesterday it put the first three cold bore shots into 5/8" at 100 yards. Another 5 or so groups were consistent with that size, but moved about 3/4" lower as the barrel warmed up.

168gr Fed. GMM.

Also shot a Rem 700 SPS tactical, same ammo, same range, same everything with a fixed power 10X scope. The Remington "tactical" rifle topped out at 9/16 inch with much better visibility of the target on the 10X scope.

For 1/16" difference at 100 yards, this rifle is as accurate as I am. If I miss something it will be my fault. What more can you ask from a rifle?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Gunsite Scout first impressions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!