Gunsite Scout - What For?

Other than the stripper clip thing, how about being able to work the bolt fast? Trying to work the bolt and busting your knuckles up against the scope/mount wouldn't be very conducive to speed. Having the scope up out of the way means you can get as fast as you want with the bolt without banging into things.

Just a thought, I've definitely noticed the difference in my scoped vs. unscoped rifles. LER scope should give the same speed and ease as a rifle without a scope at all.

The Leupold IER scout scope is 2.5X and has a FOV of 22ft @ 100 yds. So, not the greatest, but it's supposedly easier to pick up your target because you can see more of the background leading up to it.

Personally, I would prefer a forward mounted red dot or holographic sight if I was going to go with any optics at all.

My wife and daughter gave me a left-hand Gunsite Scout for Christmas 2011. I like it a great deal. Smooth action and nice trigger right from the factory.

Not subscribing to the forward-mounted scope theory, the Picatinny rail was removed within minutes of opening the box. A shooter who understands shooting with scopes knows that having both eyes open allows VERY fast target acquisition and a full field of view....especially if the sight happens to be of low magnification.

I once mounted a Weaver K1.5 on my .404 Jeffery, and I could see everything from the rear express sight forward...meaning, at least half of the barrel. It was like looking out a picture window, and I could easily have fired accurately at a target two feet off the muzzle.

On this GSR, I mounted a new Redfield 3-9X on the receiver, because of my decreasing visual capability, and at 3X I can still easily pick up moving targets at close range.

The absence of the stripper-clip feature doesn't bother me. magazine changes are fast, so I have one 3-round mag which fits almost flush for comfy carry, and several ten-rounders for serious shooting. (The polymer mags are VERY nice, and function well).

having killed many moose, bears and caribou with rifles of the same general energy class, this rifle would suit me just fine as an all-round hunting rifle AS WELL AS a "serious social accessory" if needed.

I seriously dislike the Ruger flash-hider, so it was removed and replaced with an L1A1 'hider from a British FAL-type rifle. The threads match, it's a better flash-hider.....and I can even even mount the FAL BAYONET if the deer get too aggressive...

It's a nice rifle. Not the very best for any specific job, but perfectly capable of filling virtually ANY need a man might have for a reasonably powerful rifle... and I believe THAT is the proof of Colonel Cooper's Scout concept and Ruger's execution of the same.

Leupold also makes an IER Scout Scope in 1.5-5X with a 30mm main tube, and Fire-Dot reticle. As it is not in the regular catalog, you can see it at SWFA. They are the exclusive distributor. While it is a bit larger than the other more often cited 2.5X28, after using both on the same rifle I can say that the variable is for my uses much better. The new plastic 10 round mags are also much of an improvement. I have found this rifle is great for my ranch work, and easy to remove/replace in the Jeep really easily. I use the Leupold quick detachable rings so in the event the scope is damaged (unlikely) the transition will be possible in the field without tools. The short barrel also makes it much easier to remove from my saddle scabbard when I must make the rounds on a horse. In that case a five round mag fits closer with the bottom of the stock and will not snag.
I would have to say that the GSR is now my favorite rifle, and has done very well for my uses, which tend to be hard on gear. It so far has proven very durable, reliable, and accurate.

Triumph, I'd say anything under $350 would be a good deal on an FR-8.

I mentioned why I like it in a previous post. In the past, I could not find an affordable rifle that took a 10 round magazine. Some of the other comments have shown me additional benefits.

Let's talk about iron sights for this gun. I do not like the ones that come with it. I do know I really like Garand rear sights. Is it possible to mount something similar?

tomrkba said:

The forward mounted scope may be a dud, but the forward mounted rail is perfect for a red dot optic. I'd prefer that the rail was farther back so I could mount a variable scope, but that's the way it comes.

Click to expand...

The GSR comes with rings that enable the mounting of a traditional scope directly to the receiver.

Nothing a Scout can do an AR can't do better.

Buttstroke a rhino?

Paul7 said:

Nothing a Scout can do an AR can't do better.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I agree. YMMV

Is the receiver drilled for an aperture peep sight on the Ruger? That would make an awesome quick handling setup if you wanted to skip the scope/red dot. It'd be even faster with a large aperture, but you'd trade off some accuracy.

Paul7 said:

Nothing a Scout can do an AR can't do better.

Click to expand...

1. Cost much less
2. Fire a .308 (unless you're talking an AR-10 variant, which is a much more expensive proposition with hard to find magazines)
3. Skip being meticulously cleaned and not jam
4. Get dropped in the sand/mud and not jam
5. Hunt something bigger than deer
6. Not get banned?

I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but there's a starter list.

I am often confused about people's lack of faith in a 2-3x Scout scope for long range. I have seen many shooters use metallic sights to make bullseye hits at 1000 yards at Camp Perry. I think a good man with a scout scoped, accurate rifle can easily do the same.

AR can take anything short of elephant.
Just get into archery range and shoot carefully for the brain, it's not that hard, at all. The Scout is nothing special at all, and the Scout from Steyr was $2500, many years ago already. once the stupidity is over, AR's will fall back to below $700, just watch. There are millions of them. The anti's are not going to let you keep the bolt actions, either. they have not done so in any other country in the world, once you break weak, you lose all the guns

Click to expand...

While I have admiration for the .223/5.56 I am not sure about your statement. I believe the scout does not have to get as close to animals to take them out or relie on a head shot. Trust me I know .223 will work on animals and I even use my Handi in .223 to hunt with but I have no illusions on what it can do. Also if no one has noticed Ruger also now has an 18" version too.

xio2 said:

Just get into archery range and shoot carefully for the brain, it's not that hard, at all. The Scout is nothing special at all, and the Scout from Steyr was $2500, many years ago already. once the stupidity is over, AR's will fall back to below $700, just watch. There are millions of them. The anti's are not going to let you keep the bolt actions, either. they have not done so in any other country in the world, once you break weak, you lose all the guns.

Click to expand...

Hahahaha. Right. Lets see you take your carefully aimed brain shot against a charging bear. There's a reason why dangerous game in Africa cannot be legally hunted with anything less than a .375 H&H or 9.3x62. Running angry beasts don't get brought down by .223s. This isn't Africa, and the dangerous game isn't as tough, but you're still going to need way more than a .223. .308 is not something I would choose to go hunting bear, but I won't feel helpless if I ran into one either.

A Ruger scout rifle does not cost $2500, they cost $1000. I agree that they are way overpriced new, that's why I suggested a cut down military bolt like a Mauser. However, even for a grand, it will still do many things that an AR won't.

I think it is bad enough we have 14.5" and 16" guns shooting .223, but to me a 16" barrel is too short for .308. Noise, blast, as well as loss of velocity.

For that reason, I built my own Scout'ish rifle. I started with a Tikka T3 CTR (20" heavy barrel) and did a CDI modified bottom metal so I could use 10rd AICS mags. I then added a 3x9 Zeiss Conquest and a Harris bipod. All is good.

A Ruger scout rifle does not cost $2500, they cost $1000

Click to expand...

Paid $749 shipped for mine... LOve this rifel!

valnar said:

I think it is bad enough we have 14.5" and 16" guns shooting .223, but to me a 16" barrel is too short for .308. Noise, blast, as well as loss of velocity.

For that reason, I built my own Scout'ish rifle. I started with a Tikka T3 CTR (20" heavy barrel) and did a CDI modified bottom metal so I could use 10rd AICS mags. I then added a 3x9 Zeiss Conquest and a Harris bipod. All is good.

Click to expand...

The Ruger doesn't have a 16" barrel, it has an 18" barrel. Ideal for a rifle that you have to carry day in day out, especially in brush. You aren't losing much with that barrel length in .308.

Seventhsword, that's a great deal. I was just going off the MSRP. Good looking rifle.

I seriously thought about getting a Gunsite....until I noticed the short barrel length. Instead, I'll stick to wanting an M77 Target in 308 for the use I want the gun for - long distance shots. I've had a Ruger M77 Target in 223 since 1994 that I love and have been wanting a 308 version to go with it for about 15 years. I predict having one in less than a year, if not for any reason than I have a bunch of nice 308 ammo with reloadable brass and my only 308 is an SAR-8 that destroys the case when ejecting it.

The point is not to go hunting bears. The point is to have a rifle that's handy enough to carry all day, and powerful enough to drop one if you should encounter it. It's not just bears either, there's lots of animals that are considered too large for a .223. Arguing with that is just nonsense. People have killed bears with a .357 Revolver and a bow and arrow too, but you bet your butt they had plenty of backup standing around with heavy caliber weapons just in case.

Many, many deer have been poached with a .22LR. That doesn't mean that .22LR is a good cartridge for hunting deer. There's also such a thing as killing humanely. Your chance of doing that with a .223 is not nearly as great as a .308.

And sorry, but a .223 SP is going to have virtually zero effect on an angry animal of any sort. Unless you manage to not only hit the spot where the brain would be, but also punch through to the brain (much harder to do with a .223). You need to deliver aimed energy for stopping power, not rapidly spraying nonsense.

You also don't get charged by animals that are already dead from being shot with an adequate round. You get charged by animals you pissed off by shooting with a caliber that was way too small to be using in the first place.

Do you see anyone roaming the backwoods of Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon, and Alaska with a .223 AR? Nope. You sure see a heck of a lot of them carrying .308, .358, .30-06, and .35 Whelen bolt actions though. I rest my case.

Getting away from bears and back to the subject: To repeat, for those hardheads who won't read through the first pages, the benefit of the forward-mounted scope is more rapid acquisition of a target.

This was proven in competition at Gunsite. Discussed thoroughly "back in the day" of Cooper's ownership there. Personally, I'm happy with the conventional mounting, but I have no argument with proponents of the forward mount.

The Ruger doesn't have a 16" barrel, it has an 18" barrel

Click to expand...

The original ones did, and still do. I see now they came out with an 18" model, which was originally reserved for International shipments. It's good that Ruger listened to complaints (there were many regarding the 16" barrel).

A whole lot of Alaska and Canadian Native Americans carry and use ar15 for everything from bear, to caribou and moose. This is not saying that they always make a clean kill but they are subsistance hunters and don't miss much.