Scout Scopes and Scout Scope Mounts

film495 said:

I haven't really spent too much time working with scopes; some, but really not much.

Click to expand...

If you’re new to scopes, the I recommend you do yourself a favor and skip scout set ups all together. You’ll be far better off.

film495 said:

What are some thoughts on forward mounted scopes.

Click to expand...

Waste of time, money, and energy which has been proven to be disadvantaged for every shooting application.

film495 said:

For an AR or Mini-14, it would seem this would be a benefit for closer range, and if you can still get out to 4 or 6x,

Click to expand...

This was the misguided theory, which, again, has been proven incorrect in practice.

film495 said:

is this type of set up popular?

Click to expand...

Only popular with the dwindling few aging Cooper fans which can’t seem to see the failings of the design.

I quite like Leopold fixed 2.5x magnification scout scope I have on my Ruger GSR. Lightweight, low profile, a generous range on the eye relief, and consequently easy to get behind quickly (with both eyes open). It's not a good choice for precision shooting, but I'm not good enough a shot to worry about that. Just for reference, I can hold a 4" group at 200 yards with it. Some people don't like them, and some do. There's no way to know without trying one.

I can't help with the mount though. No experience there.

Recently did up a carbine with a featherweight Burris 2.75:



It’s way cool. Go for it.

A scout scope works on a M1 Garand, primarily because a traditional scope and mount doesn’t work well, and a scout set up doesn’t disrupt the balance of that heavy a rifle.

I tried mounting a scout scope on an M1 Carbine, but the weight just shifts the balance way too far forward. The scout mount is great for a red dot on an M1 Carbine, though.

I don’t think I’d use a scout scope on a Mini-14, but if I wanted to mount a red dot, I’d go for it.

I could never get the "both eyes open" aspect to work for me. I think I'm cross eye dominant. Consequently, I'm left with a scope with a teeny tiny field of view and awkward weight distribution.

Sometimes it's your only option, like on the garand, but it's a solution to stripper clip top loading rifles, and quite frankly, it's 2021, we have better ways of loading guns now.

Varminterror said:

Waste of time, money, and energy which has been proven to be disadvantaged for every shooting application.

Click to expand...

WRONG ! I can't see the irons on my old Mauser . Optics on mine are an ADVANTAGE . I keep reading your strong opinions against these scout rigs , we get the point ! If you can't say something to actually help why bother?

I have my Scout setup with forward mounted scope on high see-through rings so I retained the option to use the fine ghost ring sights. However, I just received some medium Warne quick disconnect "QD" rings for it because the QD rings worked well on my 22LR Trainer. Now I will be able to toolessly and quickly remove the scope, use the aperture sights, then remount the scope and know that it will reliably return to zero.

Varminterror said:

Waste of time, money, and energy which has been proven to be disadvantaged for every shooting application.

Click to expand...

It has really only one issue that I could ever see, and that was the same problem peep type sights have, low light from behind over your shoulder. Other than that, mine seemed to work great for just about everything.

Ive had both the Leupold and Burris Scout scopes, both worked fine, but I preferred the Leupold. There is just a slight difference in power between them, and the Burris just being that tad heavier in power used to bug the crap out of me. Maybe its because I had the Leupold first and noticed the difference.

Having a couple of 1x8's on a couple of AR's now, I think a 1x or 1.5x for the Scout scopes would be even better. I do like the lower power for most things, but with a scope mounted in the traditional position, that scope in my face is annoying. You really get to appreciate the forward mounted optics once youve used them.

Once I popped a red dot on the forward rail, my attention was drawn away from the scopes, and the red dots became the sweet spot. For something like the Mini 14, and Carbine, etc, I think youll find they are the ticket.

sparkyv said:

I have my Scout setup with forward mounted scope on high see-through rings so I retained the option to use the fine ghost ring sights. However, I just received some medium Warne quick disconnect "QD" rings for it because the QD rings worked well on my 22LR Trainer. Now I will be able to toolessly and quickly remove the scope, use the aperture sights, then remount the scope and know that it will reliably return to zero.
View attachment 1027347

Click to expand...

I use the QD Warne rings. They seem to be working just fine for me. My setup is pretty low profile. There are a few pictures of it buried in this thread: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-the-outdoors-i-chose-to-carry.869284/page-27

trackskippy said:

mine seemed to work great for just about everything.

Click to expand...

“Working” and “working great” are different things. “Working great” lives on a spectrum of relative performance compared against alternative solutions - and compared to alternative solutions, forward mounted optics have been proven time and time again in every application to lag behind standard options. I can drive a nail with a pair of pliers, a crescent wrench, or a hammer. They all “work.” But when it comes to building houses, it’s nonsensical to discuss whether wrenches and pliers work for driving nails, rather than identifying that framing hammers in 12, 14, and 16oz all “work great,” which is to say significantly and demonstrably better than wrenches and pliers, and a true discussion of performance among appropriate choices for given individuals can be had when the chaff has been separated from the wheat.

I have a 4X Weaver scout scope mounted on a Rossi 92.

Old eyes don't do well for me with iron sights, the scope made a world of difference.

On my 582 Mini-14, I have a regular Nikon 2x7 mounted in traditional spot with Ruger included rings, and that works well.

Varminterror said:

“Working” and “working great” are different things. “Working great” lives on a spectrum of relative performance compared against alternative solutions - and compared to alternative solutions, forward mounted optics have been proven time and time again in every application to lag behind standard options. I can drive a nail with a pair of pliers, a crescent wrench, or a hammer. They all “work.” But when it comes to building houses, it’s nonsensical to discuss whether wrenches and pliers work for driving nails, rather than identifying that framing hammers in 12, 14, and 16oz all “work great,” which is to say significantly and demonstrably better than wrenches and pliers, and a true discussion of performance among appropriate choices for given individuals can be had when the chaff has been separated from the wheat.

Click to expand...

*** was all that about? Feel better?

I didn't have anywhere near the experiences you seem to have had with them. And come to think of it, you did have actual experiences with them too, right? Or, do you just not like the concept?

What exactly wasnt working for you. From what you go on about, it seems like there was a ton. Maybe you should explain what your actual problems were with it so someone can make a more informed decision.

Or, you can just keep bitching.

I’d like to try a rail with optic on my Garand. Don’t worry, the Ultimak rail does not alter the rifle permanently. Just replaces the upper hand guard. I’ve hunted with mine and even taken a decent buck with it, but I’ve decided peeps leave a lot to be desired. The aperture filled with rain and snow and I had to keep cleaning it out. Couple years later I took it out again. Nice buck comes in barely legal shooting time at dawn. I couldn’t see where I was aiming on the buck because the aperture reduced what little light there was. I could see the buck plain as day until I looked through the aperture. Buck, trees, and ground were all a grayish brown. I had to keep lifting my head to look down the barrel at the buck only 20 yards away. Finally he saw me and I figured it was now or never and I got him. But that’s the last time I took the Garand hunting. I’ll take it again only if I put an optic on it or I have enough venison in the freezer that I don’t mind letting them walk away.

if I were to do it, I’d do the ultimak and possibly a red dot. Ultimak says that low profile red dots allow a cowitness with the irons.

So, the way I look at the scout scope concept is this: It's a crosshair aiming device on the same focal plane as the target. Which is better than iron sights. The small amount of magnification is a bonus.

The trick with the forward mounted optic is, you focus on the target, not the optic. The crosshairs or dot just appear on the target where you are looking at it.

You're not focusing on looking through the tube, or looking for the target in it.

I had the Ultimak mount on a Mini some time ago. Sold the gun because it wasn't as accurate as my ARs, and mags were more expensive, but it was reliable enough, and the mount was a good one. I do like the scout scope idea, but it just never worked for me, so I always put a red dot when mounting an optic forward. You still get the great field of view of having both eyes open, but the speed of engagement is much faster with a red dot, and zero scope shadow when you don't put your face just right for that fast snap shot.

Speedo66 said:

I have a 4X Weaver scout scope mounted on a Rossi 92.

Click to expand...

That Weaver is my favorite “scout” scope.

I’ve used 2x and 4x scopes in the scout scope position, and while I like the 2x when just looking through it, I don’t like it compared to a red dot or a 4x.

For me a red dot is easier for follow up shots than the 2x, and the 4x let’s me see smaller targets better than the 2x.

trackskippy said:

The trick with the forward mounted optic is, you focus on the target, not the optic. The crosshairs or dot just appear on the target where you are looking at it.

You're not focusing on looking through the tube, or looking for the target in it.

Click to expand...

This is how it works for any optic...

Varminterror said:

This is how it works for any optic...

Click to expand...

To a point, same only different.

With a traditional scope, I always feel like I have to look through the tube and then find the target and put the crosshairs on it (for some reason, I have the same problem with the Eotech type red dots). Thats even more apparent if you shoot with one eye instead of two and/or there is some power to the optic. Not to mention, the scope blocks a lot of your peripheral vision, which is annoying.

Forward mounted, I have a clear view of the target and whats in front of me and I just see either the crosshairs or red dot appear on the target where Im looking at it as I shoulder the gun. For me anyway, it doesnt feel like a three step process like it does with a rear mounted scope. And I dont lose that peripheral vision.

trackskippy said:

even more apparent if you shoot with one eye instead of two

Click to expand...

Stop shooting with one eye. Bad technique isn’t valid justification for lesser equipment.

I dont shoot with one eye, but it seems a lot of people do.

And the forward mounted optics are not "lesser" equipment. They are an option that works very well, but not the end all. I have and use both, different set ups for different uses.

For anything that might involve quick and reactive shooting, the forward mounted optic is the winner, hands down.

Some like you, dont seem to like them, and thats fine, your choice. Use what you like. You never did tell us what your negative experiences with them were, that youre so negative about them.

A lot of us who have tried and used them beyond just maybe giving it a try with someone else gun, find the concept, and the positives, outweigh the minor negatives.

trackskippy said:

You never did tell us what your negative experiences with them were,

Click to expand...

Mislead in my youth, I bought into the Cooperism of the Scout Rifle concept around 20yrs ago, so I ran out and built an Enfield scout. Then I bought a Ruger Frontier, had an SKS with a scout mount, built a Mosin scout, built a Garand “Tanker” with a forward optic and an M1a, and have a Ruger GSR, and Marlin SBL 1895, both of which have worn forward mounted optics...

But in using these extensively for various activities, I realized, firsthand, all of the shortcomings that the rest of the shooting world were pointing to. The FoV in the optic is smaller, so we aren’t actually faster in target acquisition as promised. The Garand couldn’t really have a standard scope since it top loads en bloc clips, but every. other. rifle I had was slower to load or more finicky with strippers than their DBM - or the application simply didn’t benefit from fast reload. I shoot with both eyes open - proven proper technique, regardless of what uncle Jack might do from the hood of his bronco - and acquisition is faster with a receiver mounted optic, especially so with an LPVO, which can offer even greater magnification that typically offered in EER/scout optics. Forward mounting the optic also moves balance forward, defeating the fast handling balance between the hands of a short barreled carbine...

So yeah, as other professional and competitive shooters have all proven, the Scout Rifle design was really not a favorable design.

I dont think the field of view thing really matters, as youre really not trying to "look through" the scope, you just see the crosshair on the target. Its really more like using the scope like an OEG type sight than it is a scope.

Same with the red dots. Its just an aiming point out there, and you really dont even need to see through the tube, just see the aiming point, if youre shooting both eyes open.

The front covers on the red dots on my AR's are usually closed and the dot set to a comfortable level for lower light. That way I dont have to adjust them for different lighting levels.

I learned to load bolt guns with strippers. I prefer them over mags. You can reload the gun quicker, and with less steps/motion with strippers. The mag fed guns would be the better choice with a traditionally mounted scope.

I guess it depends on the gun as to what the balance ends up being, and with what. I still think the red dots are a better choice for these types of sights, and these days, they basically weigh nothing. Not that either of the scout scopes I had were big clunky things either.

I had a Leupold on my Savage Scout, and the gun never seemed muzzle heavy with the scope mounted forward. That was the lightest gun I had one mounted on. I had a Buris on my M1A SOCOM, and a couple of other heavier guns, and dont remember them being muzzle heavy either, but those guns were more evenly heavy across the length of the gun, and a couple of pounds heavier than the Savage too.