Do you have a review of the Savage scout you want to share?
I was thinking about aquiring a lightweight affordable rifle.
Is the stock really bad? I've heard complaints about the 10fp model's stock so I'm hoping the scout isn't the same.
If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone have a Savage scout?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
February 3, 2003, 11:32 PM
I have one, but I really haven't had a chance to put her through her paces yet. I've probably put through about 20rds just for functioning and to try out the ghost ring sight. I managed to hit an 6in steel plate every shot at 100yds. Once I save up enough for a good "scout scope", I'll really try to find how accurate it (I) can be. I don't know what kind of stock problems were happening with the 10FP, but the Scout stock seems to be pretty solid.
Savage Scout: The "Other " Scout Rifle (http://www.steyrscout.org/savscout.htm)
February 4, 2003, 12:28 AM
I believe Jeff Cooper called them an abortion scout. :uhoh:
February 4, 2003, 05:17 PM
I have one. For the money, its a good little rifle. Shoots under MOA with my reloads (165gr Ballistic Tips) off a bipod. I have a Leupold Scout scope on mine, along with a Galco Ching sling. The only thing about the stock that bugs me is the recoil pad. I hate the damn things and this one is "sticky" to boot. Other than that, I dont see anything wrong with it. I wish they would put the third swivel stud on it, or at least give you one, for the third anchor point for the Ching sling. No big deal really. The B-Square mount is a little chinzy, but it works. I would take it off and Loc-Tite it good before you use it though. Mine came with a nice trigger, and I'm pretty picky about triggers. The iron sights work fine once zeroed, I filed the front sight to a square post after the gold ball fell out. I like the square post better anyway. Savage makes a good, reasonably priced, accurate rifle. I think all the bitching comes from boys who bought high dollar rifles that dont shoot as good, or at least no better than the cheaper Savages. I got my rifle, with scope and sling for less than what a Remington Model 7 alone would cost. :)
February 4, 2003, 05:39 PM
I had one for awhile, but got rid of it. I liked the gun overall and the concept, but just could not get used to an extended eye relief scope. My only gripes were the stock (felt cheap and unsturdy) and the trigger (lawyer's delight). I even tried adjusting the trigger, but with negative results. OTOH, it fired a 1/2 MOA group while rezeroing it and gave me two deer.
Even with my gripes I would probably still get another one, but replace the trigger and stock.
February 4, 2003, 05:49 PM
I am very happy with mine and will second the above comments on accuracy. For an out of the box sout at the price it can not be beat. I tweaked the factory trigger on mine and am very pleased with it now.
February 4, 2003, 07:36 PM
I wonder, has he ever shot one?
Mine will put three shots into an inch at 100yds. Maybe even better than that If someone else shot it.
So what if it doesn't have the little built in bipod. I have a Harris on mine, but I only use it for zeroing. Any other time, I just sling it and wing it.
As far as the trigger, I got no complaints. But I'm not really a trigger snob either. I could learn to use almost any trigger.
The stock does flex a little at the forearm, but it doesn't touch the barrel.
For your $450 or so, you will get a good little rifle that handles well, is very light and carryable, and just plain works.
Pardon me if I can't justify a Steyr when a "el-cheapo redneck special" will do the same job for way less.
If you have the $2000 (?) get the Savage and buy $1500 worth of ammo. I bet that after you shoot that $1500 worth of ammo, ol' Jeff won't be able to touch you.
February 4, 2003, 08:30 PM
"I believe Jeff Cooper called them an abortion scout."
My guess is because he gets no royalties on it, like I assume he gets on the Steyr.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading the Colonels' columns. Just giving my interpretation of his comment.
February 4, 2003, 10:20 PM
I like reading his thoughts too, but that don't mean he can diss my rifle.
February 5, 2003, 02:33 AM
I've read a couple of comments Jeff Cooper made about other "Pseudo Scout" rifles, but never anything like "abortion scout." If you review all the writings in "Cooper's Commentaries" since the introduction of the Steyr Scout, I think you'll find he was not 100% happy with their execution, either.
I decided to try the Savage, and have been pretty happy with mine. It comes with probably the best out of the box iron sight setup on any sporting rifle. Some military aperture sights are a little better.
Agree with AK103K in wondering why Savage didn't set the third sling stud. It would have been very easy to include--Took me about 15 minutes to mount one on my rifle. The Savage rendition of the rapid sling is not good. I did revise the web sling with one D-ring and a couple of rivets.
The stock doesn't bother me. I can go from "African carry" to slung up, sitting, and shot gone in about three seconds.
One basis of about 300 rounds fired, I am very happy with the shooting characteristics of the Savage Scout. Rifle, Leupold Scout Scope, rings, extra sling stud, Plano case identical to that furnished by Steyer, and one extra magazine--I think I have less than $800 in mine.
The forward mount scope is not for everyone. It requires a certain amount of practice to get accustomed to it. I adapted to mine in about ten shots, and like it very much. No, it is NOT a bench rest or sniper rifle, but it sure is handy and accurate within it's parameters.
February 5, 2003, 03:29 AM
You're gonna make me surf late into the night aren't you. :evil:
Was looking for some information one night on the 376 Styer rifles and found this web sight with different scout definitions. Let me see if I can find it again.
February 5, 2003, 04:00 AM
Did a little surfing and found the sight. It was Graziano that called the Savage scout an abortion (Been over a year since I landed on this page. At my age sometime I scare myself that I can remember stuff that long.)
Its called scout rifle taxonomy
"I have yet to see more than half a dozen rifles that have been properly converted into Scouts. However, I have seen in excess of two dozen wannabe-but-have-no-idea-what-a-Scout-really-is rifles. I call these "abortion-Scouts." The several I have seen were cobbled together by people who have no idea of what it is they are trying to emulate. The overall results were so deplorable I was horrified to think that people might actually believe them to be Scouts. Two pet examples are the "Savage Scout" and "Brockman's Scouts." - Thomas K. Graziano
I've been studying the perfect scout for a while now. I've learned quite a bit.
Cooper receives no money from Steyr. A lot of people think he does. He does not. He has stated so. He is many things, but a liar, is not among them.
Running around the supplied website:
Cooper's commentaries December 1999 Vol. 7 No. 13
Colleague Paul Scarlatta, writing in Magnum magazine, implies that the Steyr Scout is the "Rolls Royce of Scout Rifles." The assumption here is that there is a whole class of rifles known as scouts, which is not clear to me. I have written up the evolution of the scout concept on several occasions, and it seems to me that at this time we have in existence the pioneer scouts (mainly constructed here at Gunsite), the Steyr Scout, and the Savage Scout, which last is simply an economy version of the general idea. Personally I would not select the Rolls Royce as an example of "getting what you pay for." One can get a better car than a Rolls Royce for less money - depending upon what he means by "better" - but one cannot buy a better rifle than a Steyr Scout for less money. If you build your own, you spend more and get less.
The summaries of what a "scout" is are generally poor. Even that on www.steyrscout.org is incomplete.
A "scout" is best learned about here:
In many ways the Brockman custom scout is closer to being a true scout than the steyr scout witness:
"The main problem I have encountered with rifles currently called sporters is fragility. In modern design their extraction and ejection systems have been rendered less reliable in the interest of greater strength to support the high pressures of what may be called freakish cartridges. Such high pressures are by no means necessary in a weapon to be used in a combat role. (For that matter I have serious doubts about their utility in the hunting field as well--but I am in the minority on this point.) I am somewhat concerned about the sixty-degree rotation on the new bolt actions and about their general daintiness in operation, though they are obviously strong enough to withstand the high pressures of their cartridges. The new sporters are seldom easy to reload and we increasingly see heavily shrouded ejection ports which make the action hard to get at. [...] I am very nervous about the extractor on the Remington bolt action but I must admit that it has not failed me on either of the two examples I own. Of course, a failure to extract is the type of malfunction that may get you killed--and you don't want to have it happen even the first time. "
-Jeff Cooper Pages 148-149 "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth"
Using the REAL requirements of a scout rifle... the Brockman Scout, is more *true* than the Steyr. Cause it has controlled round feed. But in truth, both the Steyr, AND the Brockman break weight.
The Savage meets many of the scout requirements. It meets weight (as well as the Steyr anyway), length, iron sights, action-type (as well as the Steyr anyway), Caliber (in some ways better than the Steyr), and accuracy, as well as being very "friendly" and "handy".
It does fail notably, in the sling department, barrel material (so does the Steyr), and the bipod (so do most pseudo-scouts).
If I got a Savage scout, I'd replace the scope mount with one of the Ashleys. Add the ching sling, and a Leupold scope, and be happy as a clam.
For other cheap scouts that also don't suck, I've read good things about www.scoutman308.com
almost bought one of the Enfields, but then I found out about the Kimber 84M (coming out in left hand soon), fell in love, got married.... you know the story. The Kimber 84M, I believe will make the *real* weight limit of 3KG sighted and slung. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it can be modified to feed from stripper clips. I wish I could get a stock with a built in bipod for it too. Too bad, I'll have to settle for wood. It also doesn't have a stainless steel barrel (neither does Steyr), but I think I'll get it Hard Chromed.
February 5, 2003, 10:17 AM
I honestly don't know who Thomas K Graziano is, and frankly don't care what he thinks about the Savage. A little further down on the same page you cite, there is a reference to Cooper calling the Savage "simply an economy version of the general idea."
Doesn't sound like harsh criticism to me....
Have you tried the Savage personally? For the $500 or so that I have invested in the rifle, scout scope, ching sling, etc. I have been very pleased. As goon suggested, I am spening the balance of my money on ammo and training to hone my skills.
As Dave McC says, its the injun, not the arrow.... I think I'll keep my Savage and 5,000 rounds of Portugese 308 and spend the rest of my money workin' on the injun.
February 5, 2003, 10:50 PM
No4Mk1, you say $500 total inv in your Savage Scout--I must wonder where you got your rifle and scope. It is a couple of years, but I thihnk I gave a bit over $400 for rifle, 200+ for scope, and a bit for rings and extra mag. My sling is an adaptation of the Savage web sling. A good leather Ching sling goes for, what? Fifty bucks or so? I'm well under $800 in mine, and thought I was doing pretty well at that.
Robert, I am another who doesn't know who Mr. Graziano is. Should I? Is he some latter-day P. O. Ackley or Jack O'Connor?
Caesar1 wrote of the Savage: It does fail notably, in the sling department, barrel material (so does the Steyr), and the bipod (so do most pseudo-scouts) Sling, yes, but easily remedied. Barrel material? No specs that barrel be other than steel, though a steel lined, fiber wrapped barrel sure could do wonders for the weight. As I recall, the Scout Rifle "specifications" did NOT necessarily include a built-in bipod. I believe Col Cooper mentioned that it would be nice, but neither that nor clip loading is a requirement of the concept. The original scout rifles of which he wrote--The little Mannlicher, the aperture sighted Winchester carbine, the prototype Scout 1 - - - All wore iron sights, none had a bipod, and only one of the three had clip loading. The forward mount scope came later, and improved the system. The three point sling sort of topped it off.
FWIW - - - -
February 5, 2003, 11:56 PM
I am another who doesn't know who Mr. Graziano is. Should I? Is he some latter-day P. O. Ackley or Jack O'Connor?
Don't know who he is and I'm not a follower of the Cooper either. Have seen the name come up several time with Cooper's and a couple of times mentioned as a relative. Just faintly remembered the particular page from a year ago.
February 6, 2003, 12:38 AM
Well, now that you make me do the math, it was probably closer to $600 all in. I got the rifle through a "buddy" FFL at wholesale for around $350 including an extra mag. Added scope and rings for around $200, and the sling was around another $50. All in all I am still very happy with the deal.
Guess it was more on the "or so" side of $500 or so.... ;)
February 6, 2003, 12:55 AM
I like mine. $350 with a 3x9 so so scope
It shoots well and is rugged. Mine had trigger work done when I bought it so I don't know what its like out of the box.
February 6, 2003, 08:23 PM
Barrel material? No specs that barrel be other than steel, though a steel lined, fiber wrapped barrel sure could do wonders for the weight.
"After discussion it was concluded that the barrel of a proper rifle should be made of stainless steel, for various reasons not necessarily involving its resistance to corrosion. Of the two alloys now being used for stainless barrels, both display a superior coefficient of friction, with attendant ballistic improvement." - First Scout Conference
I referenced the website above in my earlier post.
Cooper references it in his book, "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth" in the section "The General-Purpose Rifle" on pages 139-140 in my book.
"The consensus at the first conference was that stainless was the proper material for barrels, not so much because it is resistant to corrosion but because it offers a better coefficient of friction. It is "slippier" than normal steel and therefore should provide slightly greater velocity for the same charge. In practice it has been found that stainless steel is very difficult to control as to quality, and that it differs from batch to batch. There are barrel makes now who will not attempt a light-weight stainless steel barrel, not because it could not be made but because they do not know that they could make it--since they do not make their own steel."
as I recall, the Scout Rifle "specifications" did NOT necessarily include a built-in bipod.
A scout should have a bipod, even if it isn't absolutely mandatory; to be 100% a scout needs to have one:
"The subject of the flush retractable bipod was introduced. What is needed is a bipod which is incorporated into the forend of the stock which, when not extended, retracts smoothly into the stock so that it has no extrusions, protruberances, or sharp edges. Something of this sort has been attempted by Mannlicher at the factory but abandoned for lack of success. It is a quite complicated engineering notion, and no one present at the conference felt qualified to attack it mechanically. The fact remains that a fluch retractable bipod is a great step forward and should be developed by those who have the talent for it. Current bipods are alternately a tremendous help and a frustrating nuisance. The idea is to produce one that is the first but not the last. Mike Horne of California is at work on this project now and we hope to have it to show the troops at the next conference."- First Scout Conference
Further, Cooper mentions it in "To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth" in the section "The General-Purpose Rifle" on page 143 in my book.
"At the 1983 conference it was decided that a form of retractable bipod should be perfected which would not be offensive to the eye nor extrude from the stock. The Clifton system holds the most promise. There are those who claim that any sort of bipod is somewhat "cheating," but the purpose of shooting is hitting, and if a bipod increases the certainty of hitting it should not be scorned. "
Now I think the Savage is a fine rifle, and there's really nothing wrong with it. It's the only scout around that comes available in a left handed action. Something Cooper has criticized Steyr for. As fine as the Savage is, it does not meet all requirements, but then neither does the Steyr, and Cooper acknowledges this.
For people with Savage Scouts, this page: http://www.steyrscout.org/savscout.htm
has a lot of good information.
I wouldn't call the Savage an abortion scout, or anything else like that, it meets the vast majority of imporant scout requirements, and is a very affordable alternative. The Steyr's a better rifle, and closer to 100% than the Savage, that's all I'm saying.
I like stripper clip loading, and Cooper seems to think its pretty nice too. One of the problems I have with the Steyr is that it comes with an available 10rd magazine, which is great, but you can't fill that magazine up again quickly. You can't store the 10rd magazine in the butt like you can the 5 rd spare (I don't think you can anyway), and you can't fill it up fast with stripper clips cause the action is totally closed off. Stripper clips are lighter, and less bulky than magazines, and they don't have springs to fail. The scout rifle pictured in my full color version of "The Art of the Rifle" has a custom 10rd magazine on its Win Model 70 action. Way cool. Detachable magazines have two advantages, you can carry a spare in case one breaks, and you can use a double detente for single round loading. With internal magazines, if it breaks, you're pretty SOL, and your option for single feeding is a magazine cut off.
February 7, 2003, 10:39 AM
here's my "seven scout".
makes weight and length, so nothing "pseudo" about it IMHO.
the barrel and action still need some paint.
the Savage's barrel seems to be a bit on the heavy side.
February 7, 2003, 12:21 PM
I like your camo job, simple but effective. :)
February 7, 2003, 04:21 PM
Caesar1--thanks for the references and reminders–
My copy of To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth went astray at some point.
My memory of the listing of "Scout Rifle Characteristics" was that a lot of things were mentioned as "nice to have," but that most of 'em were secondary. The real essentials were handiness (including length and weight,) adequate power, and speed of use. EITHER a proper iron sight system, a forward mount scope, or, better still, a combination of these.
My first recollection of the SR discussion is that it almost always included some illustration of the item Jeff Cooper termed "Scout II," IIRC. A Remington 600 with a forward mount scope and a CW sling. No bipod, no clip loading, and certainly no stainless barrel.
I'd very much like to have a good, stiff-but-lightweight Clifton stock with integral bipod on a scout rifle. Maybe the major point that has stuck in my mind was Jeff's "At the 1983 conference it was decided that a form of retractable bipod should be perfected which would not be offensive to the eye nor extrude from the stock. The Clifton system holds the most promise. . . . My main experience with sporting rifle bipods has been with the Harris product. Very nifty for the dedicated varmint rifle, surely, but also heavy, noisy, clumsy, and constantly getting hung up on foliage. Not at all up to Jeff's specs.
Oh, yes--I did have an H&K light bipod on an HK91, and it folded (almost) out of the way.
One thing I do NOT understand is the necessity, or even desirability, of high capacity magazines in the SR. Some pretty nice pseudo scouts have been made up on the SMLE platform, which includes the ten shot mag. Riflemen the world over have appreciated the Enfield for a century. But, it originated as a BATTLE rifle, while the SR is an all around piece. Short, compact, lightweight. Adding a lengthy magazine at the balance point of such a piece impedes one of the most comfortable (non-slung) modes of carry. Please recall, with the long barrel and hand guards, the SMLE, the 1888 Mauser, and some other MILITARY rifles had a balance point rather further forward.
The SR is NOT a piece for a sustained battle. If used in an anti-personnel role, the discussion USED to be one shot, maybe two, then relocate and reload. The military or guerilla scout's main job was to look, see, return and report, NOT to engage in patched battle. MIGHT he get cornered, trapped, wounded? Sure--But he has thereby failed in his mission, and it is unlikely an extra five shots in the magazine would change the eventual outcome.
The way I understand the origin of long magazines for bolt action rifles was for aerial use in WW-I. And a balloon observer or backseater in an aeroplane really didn't have to carry his rifle very far. :D
I like having reserve ammo right with the rifle. The sliding-lid ammo box, just ahead of the rear sling stud, is excellent for the "shoot one, load one" practice. Come to think of it, Clifton offered this as an option on his retractable bipod stocks. (Is he still in operation? Glad you mentioned his name--I couldn't recall it before.)
I use a nine-loop butt cuff on my Savage, and it is okay but could be better. Man I know has made up two SRs for himself, and he did a beautiful job of machining clip slots into the actions. Gonna see if I can get him to modify my Savage that way, and then I'd carry one stripper clip and perhaps four separately looped cartridges on the butt cuff.
This is an interesting topic, Morgan and others. Please accept my comments as they are intended--General discourse and respectful exchange- - Not argument, and certainly not personal reflections.:p
February 8, 2003, 10:57 AM
The real essentials were handiness (including length and weight,) adequate power, and speed of use. EITHER a proper iron sight system, a forward mount scope, or, better still, a combination of these.
This definition, when you stay with the iron sights, can be filled by the 30/30 lever actions (Winchester 94 & Marlin 336). This idea is not original to me but comes from a conversation I had with the late Bruce Nelson. He brought it up to the Colonel and told me Cooper got irritated at the slight to his concept. Bruce thought the tried and true "30/30" did everything Cooper wanted and I tend to agree with him.
PS: I got a chance to handle and shoot Cooper's original (the 600 with the Leupold 2X pistol scope) in 1978 and built one on a 600 a couple years later. I wasn't all that taken with the idea after playing with it for a while but I think it is a matter of personal tast and preference. YMMV.
February 8, 2003, 11:14 AM
Winchester 94's with forward mounted pistol scopes are really the first Scouts, the first one I saw was in the 60's. It was necessary due to the top eject. You either had to forward mount or side mount. The forward mounted scope is not new or even Coopers idea, the Germans used this type of scope set up on some 98's in WWII.
October 13, 2003, 11:46 PM
Just wondering if anyone knew who make the scope mount for savage on the 10fcm. I'm looking to get a 10fcm and thinking about switching out the mount if it's a cheap one for an XS mount. Also, anyone know who's got a good price on one of these? I've heard of people getting them for around 400, but the best I seem to find it 450 before s&h and transfer fee, which puts it at about 500. How hard is it to put on a third sling swivle (sp?)?
October 14, 2003, 12:08 AM
well, to continue the dead thread... :)
on the whole detatchable mag/integral mag thing -- what could go wrong with the internal mag, and how likely is it? I guess it just seems to me that from a reliability standpoint, you're better off with an integral mag with feed lips machined into the receiver, a la the Mauser actions.
Detatchable mags=exposed feed lips. Exposed feed lips get banged, leading to one of the biggest causes of repeating firearm failures out there, yes?
Of course, it's not like either situation is exactly a terribly likely event. :)
October 14, 2003, 12:47 AM
Actually, to be a scout rifle as Cooper defined it,
*ALL* of the following features are OPTIONAL, NOT mandatory:
What is NOT optional; IS mandatory, are these features:
5. Weight with scope and sling: Under 7.7 lbs (3.5 kg).
6. Length: 1 meter (39 inches)
7. Barrel length: 19 inches
8. Optics: Forward and low mounted, LER, 2x - 3x.
9. Magazine-fed and turnbolt action
10. Fast loop-up type sling (Ching or CW style)
11. Caliber: .308Win or 7mm-08 (or .243 for frail individuals).
12. Capable of of 2MOA or better accuracy at 200 yards.
So, anyone who's really interested in this needs to decide which is it, with respect to 1-4? Either those things are or are not mandatory. If they're not, as Cooper says, then don't say a rifle is not a true scout just because it lacks 1-4. If you think they are required fine, but that means you disagree with Cooper's definition. And if it's not in one of those calibers, it's not a scout, as defined.
The Savage is not a true scout because it doesn't come with the 3rd swivel stud for a loop up sling, but as pointed out, that's easily remedied. Otherwise, it meets all the requirements 5-12, as well as 1 and 2 of the optional features. So it's a scout, but for 1 little swivel stud. So I find it funny that the guy whom no one's heard of (Graziano) says that the Savage is, in essence, a joke of an attempt at a scout. Maybe that's why no one's heard of him. :) Not sure about the SS barrel, because that's not in the original description.
Now, if you have your OWN definition of a scout, which you think is better than Cooper's, then all bets are off.
October 14, 2003, 02:19 AM
Your source: http://www.steyrscout.org/project.htm
from which you shamelessly took your "authoritative" information, is not, in fact, authoritative as far as I know. Unless you have evidence that those requirements were defined by Cooper, then they carry no authority. No such evidence has ever been presented to me.
As such I rely on remarks from his books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873649737/qid=1066110038/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1549576-6272160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), his commentaries (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/) , and the online account of the scout rifle conference (http://home.netcom.com/~chingesh/scoutconference.html)
Cooper has stated in his commentaries that the Steyr is not perfect, but that he is very satisfied with it.
3.5KG is only acceptable in the larger calibers.
a maximum weight of 3 kilograms and a maximum length of 1 meter, with the understanding that lighter weight and shorter length are desirable if they can be reached without loss of efficiency. - Proceedings of the First Scout Rifle Conference
Barrel length is only specified in so far as to say that "shorter is better"
The conference decided that "short is better than long". Twenty inches (50cm) may be considered a maximum for a true scout, though it is noted that if a scout is made up on a velocity cartridge (such as the 243) more length may be necessary to obtain the ballistic performance desired. In 18.5 inches a 150-grain spitzer flat-base bullet may be started at 2700 fps... Therefore a barrel 19 inches in length may be considered about optimum for the scout parameters. - Proceedings of the First Scout Rifle Conference
Thomas Graziano's remarks were supported by the fact that Cooper chose to include them in his commentaries.
What "original description" are you referring to in which the stainless steel barrel was not mentioned? His book? I've got it, and I've quoted it already. The First Scout Rifle Conference? I've quoted and linked to it too.
In his newest edition of "The Art of the Rifle" he has stated the new weight limit to be 7lbs (pg 197) as though it had always been 7lbs, when in fact it was 3KG which is a lot closer to 6.6lbs than 7lbs.
Cooper would, and has repeatedly, admonished anyone interested in a "real scout" to just buy a Steyr. If they whine about it being too expensive he'll turn a deaf ear, stating that excellence is worth paying for. If they whine that other rifles can achieve more of the goal (as I do), he'll argue that the Steyr does a whole lot, is available ready to go, and has a stock that can't be matched.
October 14, 2003, 05:50 AM
The mount for the Savage is made by B-Square. Its a little cheezy, but it does work. If you get one, just make sure you loctite the mounts screws and snug them up good. $450 sounds about right for the price. The third swivel stud is an easy fix. You need one of the studs with the short "wood screw" thread. I took the stock off the action when I did mine. There is a "meaty" area just forward of the magwell that you can screw the stud into. This is where I put mine and its worked out well.
October 14, 2003, 11:43 AM
CaeserI, if'n you're talking to me (not sure), then you don't know what you're talking about, because I'd never been to that site until you posted it, and therefore certainly didn't copy from it, let alone "shamelessly" copied from it. But in any event, is there somehow something wrong with copying information? I don't get it. Everything you post is a copy, as you admit, of Cooper's writings. You posted a LOT of stuff above without any cites. :scrutiny:
Now, look at this quote in YOUR last post:
"In his newest edition of "The Art of the Rifle" he has stated the new weight limit to be 7lbs (pg 197) as though it had always been 7lbs, when in fact it was 3KG which is a lot closer to 6.6lbs than 7lbs."
That right there proves that Cooper is full of it to a certain extent, because he changes his mind about stuff all the time, and as you point out, may or may not acknowledge that it's a break from the previous. Something that was optional yesterday is required today, and vice versa. So given his propensity to do that, is it any wonder that there are many quoted definitions of the scout rifle concept floating around, purporting to be Cooper's one true description, given the gazillion writings on the subject?
October 14, 2003, 12:34 PM
Would Eric Ching be considered a scout expert? He posts here as "slingster", if anyone wanted to ask his opinion. ;)
October 14, 2003, 02:25 PM
I wasn't really into the scout concept until I held one. I now own a Savage scout in 7-08 that came with a Burris 2.5X German post reticle. It's a pre accu-trigger. The best part, I bought it NIB with scope. The cost, my stainless Ruger mini 14, an old Argentine Mauser and $50.00. I think I came out OK.
So far, I've been grouping (off hand) about 2.5" at 75 yards, however the only bullets I have are 175 grain Hornady spire points. I'll try some 140's as soon as I can get some. Overall, I like it.
October 14, 2003, 04:10 PM
Big_R, that 140-grain bullet seems to me to be just right for the 7mm08. Oughta work well in your Scout. Has in my non-Scout.
October 14, 2003, 10:40 PM
It's not a matter of whether you are, or are not copying data from somewhere, the issue is that the data you are copying is bad data. I do apologize for the false identification of your source, but as you failed to provide one, I could only attempt to provide one for you.
Regarding Cooper's propensity to change.... I can do nothing but agree that it is most bothersome for those of us attempting to figure out exactly what a scout rifle should be. Further I'm bothered that he expanded his weigh limit. However... as I alluded to, it could be argued he was rounding up on accont of significant digits (as Cooper is rather well educated, and has noted in his commentaries, he did take Physics). None of this however, makes Cooper "full of it" to any extent, at worst it could be argued he is mercurial and difficult to decipher. Nonetheless, having exerted a good deal of effort on the matter I can state that the definition you listed is incorrect.
As far as my own posting of things without citation, I would presume that on account of the fact that I do provide citation for about half of my stuff that it would be presumed that I can back up the rest of it. As such I shall take your assertion that I do not cite everything as a request for me to provide citations, I will oblige.
Cooper has stated in his commentaries that the Steyr is not perfect, but that he is very satisfied with it.
This brings me around, of course, to the Steyr Scout rifle. This piece is really better - about 88 percent of what it should be, as compared to perhaps 50 percent or lower in other artifacts. We need a new and radically improved sight system, and the piece should be available in a left-hand version. With those two improvements it would be up there in the high 90s. As it is, it is a true joy to use in the field. - Coopers Commentaries Vol. 8 No. 6 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff8_6.html)
Thomas Graziano's remarks were supported by the fact that Cooper chose to include them in his commentaries.
this has already been linked previously in the thread. Further, Cooper refers to him with some regularity throughout his commentaries.
Cooper would, and has repeatedly, admonished anyone interested in a "real scout" to just buy a Steyr.
In more than one location... but here's one:
Now it is obvious that one can construct a Scout Rifle at home from spare parts. The process may be enjoyable, but it will be necessarily expensive and it probably will not meet all requirements. (Why not just buy a Steyr Scout as it is and avoid all the complexities?) - Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 9, No. 7 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff9_7.html)
If they whine about it being too expensive he'll turn a deaf ear, stating that excellence is worth paying for.
Quite often he remarks on such things but a prime example:
I have often preached that one's personal firearms are the last thing on which one should practice economy. A good gun is a permanent asset. It does not go out of style or wear out. To submit such a thing to what is sometimes referred to as a "budget" is to manifest confused priorities. To state that you will not buy a superior rifle because you must wait until you can afford it because at this point you can afford a cheap rifle, makes no sense. When people say they cannot afford a Steyr Scout, for example, I can point out that they should go right on using the rifle they have and not worry. - Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 8 No. 11 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff8_11.html)
Now... this thread relates specifically to the Savage Scout...
In the last rifle course we had four Savage scouts, which did not work out well. Curiously enough the owners of these rifles felt that they were being discriminated against - apparently by me. Well, I did not buy them their guns. Clearly this is no time in history for anyone to be sporting a thin emotional skin. Homemade scouts are interesting, instructive and expensive. Some work better than others, but that is hardly a reason to complain to the management. - Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 8 No. 8 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff8_8.html)
Today the only true Scout rifles are customized instruments built up here at Gunsite or the Steyr Scouts made at the factory in Austria. - Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 9 No. 11 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff9_11.html)
N.B.: the conspicuous lack of the Savage Scout on this list.
I do not pretend to own the English language, and I do not claim to own the term "scout," but the scout rifle concept is mine, and I know what I mean by it, even if others do not. The essential element of the Scout Rifle, as I see it, is "friendliness," combined with all-purpose utility. The piece should be short, light and handy, and still dispose of sufficient power and range to accomplish any reasonable task in the hands of a skilful rifleman.
The Scout Rifle need not be fitted with a telescope sight (!!!). I took "Scout I" to Central America on a series of extensive bush prowls. I subsequently mounted an intermediate-eye-relief, low power telescope on this piece, but I do not think this improved its overall desirability.
The Scout Rifle is an instrument for a man operating alone, and this does not involve volume of fire. The bolt-action, in various guises, is probably the most suitable, though there is much to be said for a single-shot action which permits shorter overall length of the assembled weapon. The self-loaders, in general, are too bulky and too complex for maximum friendliness.
I could go on, but I have written this up elsewhere. I wish to point out, however, that when somebody extols his 375 Scout, or his 223 Scout, or his Garand Scout, he is missing the target - at least my target. - Cooper's Commentaries Vol 10 No. 12 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff10_12.html)
I suppose I should not keep repeating it, but the presence of an intermediate eye relief telescope sight does not make a rifle a Scout. There are about seven essential attributes to the scout concept, and taken together they make up into a "symbiosis" - a total which is greater than the sum of its parts. - Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 10 No. 1 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff10_1.html)
I certainly do not claim to own the term "Scout Rifle." I believe I did apply it originally to a certain type of general-purpose weapon that I have found remarkably successful in the field. It is annoying, however, to have people subvert the terminology to the extent that we cannot know what we are talking about. A Scout, for example, is a general-purpose rifle and thus it must take a general-purpose cartridge, most particularly not a 223. Another point, the Scout must be comfortable to carry and easy to shoot. Thus it cannot be heavy and it must boast an excellent trigger. It need not mount a telescope sight, though usually it does, and if so that sight should be a scoutscope of long eye relief and low magnification. (Field of view does not matter since the piece is properly used with both eyes open.) -
Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 9 No. 7 (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff9_7.html)
a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target. -pg 134 from To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth
He goes on to list attributes:
3. Practical accuracy (as opposed to intrinsic accuracy)
6. Speed of Operation
7. "a touch of aesthetics"
Also on pg 134 of the 1998 edition. These, it may be assumed are the "seven essential attributes to the scout concept" quoted above.
They break down as follows:
Convenience: Here the length of 1m or less comes into play, as well as the light weight requirement. The intregral bi-pod too is "an immense convenience in the field" as it allows the user to keep the rifle out of the mud.
Power: This is stipulated to mean of sufficient power for the task, .308 works, so does 7mm-08, but this list is not all inclusive. In general the .308 is defended on the grounds that ammo is available everywhere.
Practical Accuracy: "As we have insisted for years, the most important single feature contributing to the "hitability" of a rifle is its trigger action." - Vol. 9 No. 10 (and in numerous other locations). Additionally the Ching Sling, integral bi-pod, and the fit of the stock come into play, as well as the requirement for some degree of intrinsic accuracy. Usually listed as something like: "Consistent, ten-shot, six-inch groups, at a range of 300 meters, is a goal to be pursued but not often obtained." as at the first scout conference (linked previously).
Ruggedness: Here the requirement for a synthetic stock, as well as a sturdy overall action comes into play. This could be argued (based on his complaint about a few broken ones) is the complaint Cooper has with the Savage. He also frequently remarks on the need for a sturdier scope, one with an etched reticle. In most of the pre-Steyr days this was where the argument for controlled round feed was made. Additionally the need for back-up iron sights (if glass is used) is part of the need for ruggedness.
Versatility: Here the need for a Left-handed Steyr is made clear, something Cooper occasionally notes in his Commentaries. Additionally the need for the rifle cartridge to be capable of sufficient range (usually stated by Cooper to be about 300m). The need also for a rifle to be able to serve against man or beast, 200 KG is a rather sufficient weight for most animals you're likely to encounter. Cooper has remarked often that the .308 with a 180gr bullet, and proper placement, will take down most anything, yet that same weapon can be used to take down small game too, not as well as a more specialized cartridge of course, but successfully nonetheless.
Speed of Operation: Herein lies the sighting mechanism, either the Scout-Scope, or the ghost Ring. Additionally the Ching Sling plays a role here, as it is much faster than other slings. The need for a slick action with a handle easily reachable from the trigger finger (as the Rem 600) is also needed.
Aesthetics: Cooper takes the "form follows function" approach, he often draws parallels to the Porsche when discussing the Steyr, noting that the Porsche is rather odd looking, but it still gets the job done. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the looks of the Steyr... but that's me.
So why not the .30-30 Lever-gun? 2 reasons: short range (http://www.molonlabe.net/Commentaries/jeff8_5.html) , and fragility (see his remark on "making ham" in The Art of the Rifle pg 193).
October 15, 2003, 08:22 AM
Back whenever Cooper first started talking about the Scout Rifle, I read about it and nodded, thinking it's a good idea if somebody wants to go to the trouble to retrain for the forward scope location.
Length and weight is a piece of cake; my 30+ year old Sako fits right in there. Cartridge? Nothing wrong with his comments about the .308, but there are other short cartridges that are just as good; IMO it's a wash. Most any stock can be tweaked to carry spare ammo. Ching slings are Good Things.
Since a person who is scouting has a duty to avoid firefights, IMO the ability to reload from a stripper clip is a convenience but not a necessity. IMO, the bipod is a convenience but not a necessity--as Cooper has said.
So, like any concept, the features are not cast in concrete. The specifics are not the Ten Commandments. Not at all Biblical.
Since any .308-ish rifle that's within the spirit of "short and handy, and enhancing the ability to rapidly acquire the target" would be within striking distance of the general purpose concept, it's difficult for me to get all emotional on the subject.
October 15, 2003, 08:35 AM
How about a remington 700ADL in .308 with a light barrel contour, with a sling and a Willaims receiver peep sight, no scope, pain black oxide finish (a scout aint a sniper) scout could also carry Binoculars or a spotting scope for scouting. Seems to me it would fit the bill.
Not fancy but would get the job done per Art's comments.
You could set one up like this for about $400. Sturdy light handy and nothing to snag while creeping though the brush.
I set mine up like this and at the 100 yard range I can shoot 3-4" groups with it.
October 15, 2003, 12:41 PM
For the record, cooper has said a couple times that the downbore scope is not essential to a rifle being a scout, and that a rifle that meets the other criteria sans scope is still a scout.
October 15, 2003, 12:42 PM
Now I think the Savage is a fine rifle, and there's really nothing wrong with it. It's the only scout around that comes available in a left handed action.
Really? I couldn't find one anywhere on their website, nor could my FFL dealer find one from his wholesaler. It's one of the few models that Savage doesn't APPEAR to have a lefty variant of. I've added it to my list, IF they made a left handed version, and WHEN they add the accutrigger.
BTW, have any of you guys with Savage Scouts tried to modify FN FAL mags to work in them as I've read they will? I'd love to know if that's do-able. With the low low price of FAL mags, that would be something I'd try if I had a Scout.
I was just curious. I know hi-cap mags at first don't sound like they have a place while hunting, but I will always recall a time when I was about 15 and my father and I were hunting together. 5 (drunk?) guys hunting illegally on the property we had permission to hunt on started shooting in dad's general direction but purposely not AT him because Dad had removed one of their "claw traps" they had set up. I had a mini-30 with only one five round mag and thought to myself "never again will I go hunting without more mags/ammo on me somewhere".
October 15, 2003, 08:43 PM
the page is down right now...
It can be special ordered from their custom shop as model 10 FCML
There are some other recommendations for the Savage scout, a few mods here and there the custom shop factory folks can do that'll give you a better experience. The recommendations are on the webpage as soon as it gets back up.
October 15, 2003, 09:18 PM
I finally got around to reading a book a friend gave me on the K98k Mauser rifle, and guess what; there is a scout rifle in that book. The model is a K98k with a ZF41 telescopic sight at 1.5X. It's basically a K98 carbine with that scope mounted where the rear sight normally is. The book says:
" The ZF41 was never inteded to be a pure sniping arm, but merely used for advanced sharpshooting."
Evidently, the scout concept predates Mr. Cooper's comments. Cool, huh?
October 15, 2003, 09:26 PM
Cooper acknowledges this. A lot of it came from "A Rifleman Went to War" by McBride.
If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone have a Savage scout?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!