All-Purpose Rifle Review

[corncob]

This thread is meant to be kind of half equipment review, half “lessons learned,” regarding the “all-purpose” rifle I have been living with for the last year-and-a-half. Hopefully someone out on THR gets some use from it.

History: After a long spell of being without a centerfire rifle, and being short on cash, I decided to try out the “scout rifle” concept I used to read so much about when I was relatively new to shooting a decade ago (happy birthday, THR!). I have used it for a year-and-a-half and fired maybe 300 rounds of mixed 308. “Used” means something like 80% carrying around the farm, in and out of an old compact pickup, 15% “practice” (mostly offhand, sitting, or with some kind of improvised rest (tree, fence post, truck door)), and 5% shooting at feral dogs. Also some of that carrying was in pursuit of whitetail deer.

Results: The rifle, scope, etc. I have ended up with is nearly perfect for my needs, assuming I can only have one, but it is definitely a compromise on all fronts. Despite all the negatives (which are real) I totally believe in the “one rifle” concept, although Cooper’s “scout” may not be just the right compromise for everyone depending on their needs (it isn’t for me). I also totally believe in my rifle. This is the gun I grab when I grab a gun and run outside.

I can shoot (and have shot) a running animal in the neck at 35 yards. I can shoot the middle out of a paper plate at 100 yards standing, if I take my time. Although I didn’t get a chance last season, I would not hesitate to make a boiler room shot on a whitetail at 300 yards, which is as far a shot as there is around here. I can jump in and out of a vehicle and walk as far as I please with my rifle with NO trouble. My rifle is not ammo sensitive, nor does it ever jam. It is plenty powerful enough to shoot big giant permanent holes in mean angry critters. I don’t mind taking it out in the rain.

BUT, it is not a soft shooter--the (excellent) new Savage recoil pad keeps it from being painful (except when shooting prone), but the recoil is more than enough to upset my form. It is really loud. The muzzle flash is significant and startling. Follow up shots are a long time coming compared to the now-ubiquitous AR-15, and after 4 “rapid” shots the rifle becomes a single shot. The recoil limits accuracy when shooting from bags to about 1.5-2 MOA, not to mention the collar bone bashing. Also it is not much to look at.

My one rifle as it is now:

Left hand Savage short action in 308. 4-round centerfeed blind magazine. Blued factory barrel, cut to 17 inches. Factory Tupperware stock with the new really soft recoil pad. Leupold VX-3 1.75-6 X 32, matte, duplex in Talley one-piece rings, low. Allen elastic cartridge holder. 36 ¼ inches long and 7 ¼ pounds heavy, as shown with 8 rounds total (I keep the mag full and the chamber empty). Also I sometimes attach a plain nylon carry sling. Relatively vanilla, I know, but it works for me.

 

[corncob]

The Rifle: I ordered a left handed Savage “hunter” series when Bud’s was blowing out the last of the stagger feed models. I got good deal, but apparently they sold the last of them right as I was placing my order, because they sent me one of the new models. They did it without asking, but I didn’t complain since they let me have it for the “blow out” price. I might have started with a lever action (I always liked old Win 94s) but I wanted to be able to make longer shots on deer than the 30-30 will do easily. I am glad I didn’t go that route, because of how much the low power scope ended up figuring into my winning one rifle formula.

The good: It comes in a left handed model--eye dominance is not to be trifled with. The accutrigger--not just because of the pull (which is totally pretty decent), but because it adds a layer of bump-safety to the totally inadequate Remington-style trigger block. I like a safety that stops the firing pin, but the accutrigger arrangement is just as safe, really. The location of the safety is great. The action feeds, fires, and ejects just like it should. It even runs the steel-cased Russian stuff (after about a hundred-round-break-in). The recoil pad is great. Light as a feather (due in part to the short barrel and crappy stock, see below).

The bad: The bolt has too many parts in it, but so far it hasn’t caused me any trouble whatsoever. The stock is extremely flexible. Forget about using a shooting sling. The new centerfeed magazine is not so good in it’s non-detachable form. Much harder to load than Mr. Mauser’s good old stagger feed. This would be a major drawback if I needed to fire more than 4 rounds quickly, but I don’t. Dropping a single round on top of the feed lips and chambering it works great for me, but would be nearly impossible with a smaller diameter cartridge, as it could fall outside the feed lips and jam when pushed forward. I know about Savage’s reputation, but my factory barrel would not shoot. It strung from the first shot, really really bad. So I had it cut down. It shoots fine now. I suspect much better than I can shoot it in such a lightweight package.

What I would/will change: Nothing except the addition of 3 inches of barrel, or a flash hider. I am going to go with the latter, as the barrel stretcher has been out of order for some time now. It really works for 16-inch AR-10s. Detachable magazine? Maybe. On the one hand, they change out awfully quick, and solve the centerfeed loading problem. BUT, they are fragile (relatively) and only good for changing out if you have another one on hand--which you would not, if you grabbed your gun and ran outside. I’ll take the butt cuff, unless I plan to face more than 2 or 3 monsters at once. But then my whole calculus would change, really, and I would go for a heavier gun. Stainless? Maybe. Part of the utility of this rifle lies in the fact that I don’t think twice about beating it up. Spending a single additional nickel on anything cosmetic might make me think twice, and thus reduce its utility. At any kind of similar price point, I would still go with the Savage brand plain vanilla bolt action, if for no other reason than the fact that bumping the firing pin off the sear won’t fire the gun unless the trigger is pulled. I am not trying to start a fight--I know lots of guys toting lots of other brands of rifles that have never bumped off even though they theoretically could, but that’s just how I figure it in my little world.

The Optic: I started with an Aimpoint Micro, thinking that access to the breech would make loading/unloading easier, which it did. It mounted just fine on just the front of a set of IOR steel extended picatinny bases. The Aimpoint was top notch, but there were two problems that led to its replacement. It was too high. Way too high for a proper cheek weld. Also I couldn’t shoot with it due to the dot not having any “edges.” With a 2 MOA dot, turned way down to reduce flare, the best I could do was about 3 MOA groups from bags.I had an EOTech years ago and never got used to it for the same reason. I found that without a sharp edge on the aiming point, I couldn’t even shoot as well as I could with irons.

Replaced with a Leupold VX-3 1.75-6 X 32 (with the regular plex reticle), which has been the bee’s knees. It is the perfect rifle scope for me. Light as a feather, bright, crisp, with a bold, sharp reticle. Works as advertised, and the magnification is perfect. 1.75x is low enough to shoot fast. I mean fast like an iron-sighted pistol, if you set it up to fit you and practice your cheek weld. In my experience this is not possible with a 3x scope. And 6x is high enough to shoot as small a group as you want at 300 yards, so long as you have good glass and your target is at least an inch across. Others may disagree, but this is my recent experience. People get crazy about magnification, but in reality you can shoot things way too small to see, as long as you have a crisp aiming point (we all do this with irons all the time). The magic of the rifle scope is that it allows you to see the target and the “sight” both in focus at the same time. Also the reticle on this scope could not be more perfect for both fast and slow shooting. I have never looked through a scope with anything similar, and the “regular plex” on other Leupold scopes is always way different. (The fat part of the cross hairs comes nearly all the way to the middle of the field of view on this one, in case the picture doesn’t display.)

The only downside to this scope, at all, is that the eye relief changes drastically with magnification. This is not a problem for me, because I set it up at low power and never turn it up unless I am shooting from bags, in which case speed is not really a factor.

What I would/will change: Nothing except I would get the “medium” Talley one-piece rings instead of the “low,” but that might be a mistake since the low ones fit me so well. Unless the scope shifts under recoil, and it hasn’t yet, I won’t change anything.

Odds and ends:

Brown Bear 308 shoots pretty good in my Savage. I took a chance and bought a case of it (the 140 gr. soft point) when I bought the rifle. I don’t reload, so shooting the steel cased stuff is the only way I can afford to get much trigger time with a big rifle. I might rather have a 6.5mm in a rifle like this, but I wouldn’t shoot it nearly as well because I wouldn’t be able to practice. 25% of the first 100 rounds of the stuff would extract but not eject, now almost all eject just fine. 10% of them take 2 hits to pop the primer. I only use this ammo for practice, because I had one fail to expand on a big animal, otherwise I would take a few thousandths off the inside face of the extractor and replace the firing pin spring with a stiffer one (available from Wolf, I believe). Those 2 mods would likely make this rifle 100% with the Russian stuff, which seems to have thick rims and hard, hard primers. Brown Bear consistently shoots 2 minutes to the right of my normal ammo’s POI (strange), and 2 or 4 MOA groups at the best, depending on who knows what.

A word on Cooper’s Scout: I like rifles without scope tubes obscuring the breech. They are aesthetically appealing, comfortable to handle, and easier and quicker to load from the top. But in my unscientific opinion, the traditionally-mounted rifle scope is just as good as the forward-mounted one for all kinds of shooting, and better for most. That assumes a low-power scope that facilitates both-eyes-open aiming, a bold-enough retical to be seen against a busy moving background, and a decent fit of the rifle/scope to the shooter. Also I have used shooting slings. I own a Ching sling. They help when you have time and room to sling up, and I have found that I never do when actually trying to kill something.

Also, all things being equal, I hate loud, blasty, short-barreled rifles. A 308 properly has a 22-inch barrel at least. But then I couldn’t get it in and out of my truck in a flash, which would reduce utility. The velocity loss is not a big deal, but the noise can be (I also find that I never have a second to put earmuffs on when I am trying to kill something with a firearm). I might one day talk myself into re-barrelling to 7.62x39 or something, or I might take up reloading and work up something cheap and weak with faster powder.

 

[35 Whelen]

Good review.

Mine:



My wife's:



I did both of these myself. Been using mine for around 20 years and although I have many, many other centerfire rifles, this is the one I grab first. As such, it's killed a pickup bed load of deer and hogs. Last year I made an 80 yd. running shot on an 11 pt. buck. The forward mounted scope makes for super easy target acquisition, IF you're used to it.

Mine has an 18 1/2" barrel and isn't in the least "blasty" but then again I load strictly with extruded powder. Mine also, for some strange reason, will shoot a 172 gr. cast hollowpoint @ 1850 fps to P.O.A. @ 100 yds. when my hunting load is sighte 2.75" high at the same range. The aforementioned load makes great starter hunting load for kids and the forward mounted scope is MUCH easier for folks that aren't familiar with using scopes.

35W

 

[Edarnold]

You've got your universal rifle, from your description. The recoil can be tamed by handloading, say a 150gr cast bullet at 1800 fps would turn your gun into a powderpuff. Brownell has an article in their newsletter about a muzzle brake that has good recoil reduction without excessive muzzle blast, so that might be a way to go.
I'd say that your discussion about 'upgrading' versus usability is right on the mark: the more gadgetry you add, the more unwieldy the gun becomes and less it serves your need for a knockabout truck gun. If you can't resist tinkering, get another gun and play with it: a Ruger 10-22 if you need a plinker, an AR if you feel the need to prepare for the Apocalypse. What you've got in your Scout rifle right now does the job, why mess with your version of perfection?

 

[corncob]

35, those are awesome guns. That's exactly what I would be shooting of only they had made a few left handed ones. Stripper clips are unarguably cool. And old guns are just solid compared to today's offerings.

What do you say about the forward mounted scope in low light? I have heard it both ways, but never used one myself.

 

[dprice3844444]

corncob,
you mentioned a flash hider,try a gentry custom brake(http://www.gentrycustom.com/)
it will lesson recoil and should help diffuse the flash.have it threaded for the same thread size the suppressor makers are using, in case you later decide on a suppressor.

 

[corncob]

Is that "quiet for a muzzle brake" or truly quiet? I have to occasionally shoot without muffs, and the muzzle brakes I've been around would not be good for that at all. Have you ever shot yours without "ears?"

 

[YZ]

Corncob

Well done on the rifle. Not overdone, just right. All purpose doesn't mean presentation grips etc.
On the Cooper concept, I agree also. The whole idea of the scout scope was to allow quicker target acquisition offhand. For deliberate shots, especially from a supported position, you lose nothing with a conventional scope.

 

[tomrkba]

The Optic: I started with an Aimpoint Micro, thinking that access to the breech would make loading/unloading easier, which it did. It mounted just fine on just the front of a set of IOR steel extended picatinny bases. The Aimpoint was top notch, but there were two problems that led to its replacement. It was too high. Way too high for a proper cheek weld. Also I couldn’t shoot with it due to the dot not having any “edges.” With a 2 MOA dot, turned way down to reduce flare, the best I could do was about 3 MOA groups from bags.I had an EOTech years ago and never got used to it for the same reason. I found that without a sharp edge on the aiming point, I couldn’t even shoot as well as I could with irons.

The trick is to zero the gun using the topmost edge of a crisp dot. Shooting through the center of the dot will increase group size up to the MOA of the dot. This can be "good enough" in many circumstances, but does not yield impressive results.

 

[35 Whelen]

35, those are awesome guns. That's exactly what I would be shooting of only they had made a few left handed ones. Stripper clips are unarguably cool. And old guns are just solid compared to today's offerings.

What do you say about the forward mounted scope in low light? I have heard it both ways, but never used one myself.

CC you're almost there with the rifle you already have. Brownell's sells these Scout type scope mounts. Both of the rifles pictured in my post use them and they're really not at all difficult to install.
There are a few gunsmiths that will mill a stripper slot in your receiver or one can be made out of a Weaver type scope base. A good receiver sight and a simple Patridge front sight and you're all good to go.

Regarding the forward scope in low light, as long as you buy a quality scope (both of mine are Burris, but Leupolds are good too) the ocular/objective lens size relationship is such that the scopes gather plenty of light. The only problem I've ever had with a forward mounted scope was two seasons ago when I was trying to take a shot at a buck at dusk and there was a bad glare off the ocular lense. Like I said in an earlier post, I've killed a @#$%-pot-full of game with this rifle. If the forward mounted scope was a handicap, I wouldn't have used it.

I personally would avoid a muzzle brake like the plague. The few I've been around were absolutely deafening.

Good luck,
35W

 

[taliv]

yep, nice review!