pauli
Member
we wouldn't have this problem if hubris hadn't lead to using such a spectacularly generic name.
Col. Cooper & "Substitute Scouts"
- Thread starter freedomlover
- Start date
- Status
MrAcheson
Member
Please, if Cooper had called the gun an expialadocious rifle people here would be talking about their pseudo-expies. It isn't the word. It is the attractiveness of the concept and the fact that forward mounted scopes are now considered "scout" scopes. Anything with a forward scope is now considered a "scout" rifle, even if it meets none of Cooper's other well-thought-out criteria.
I'm guilty of this too of course. I've put an ultimak rail and handgun scope on my M1 carbine and referred to it as a mini-scout before. It meets the weight and size limits, but doesn't have the accuracy or power to count as a true scout.
The fact is that good ideas only become great things when those good ideas have been tested and modified in the Research Institute of Hard Knocks.
The Scout Rifle ain't one of those things. It's a "well thought out" creation of a professional muser that hasn't been allowed to evolve.
BTW I am aware that Cooper did more than muse. But his writings tend to be professional musings. That means they should be used to PROVOKE creative thought, not end it.
The Scout Rifle ain't one of those things. It's a "well thought out" creation of a professional muser that hasn't been allowed to evolve.
BTW I am aware that Cooper did more than muse. But his writings tend to be professional musings. That means they should be used to PROVOKE creative thought, not end it.
"but is a short and handy rifle that can cut a tight group."
Let's think back to the criteria of a scout rifle and note that nowhere does he discuss shooting tight groups. Speaking only for myself, I believe the reason he didn't mention this is because there is no real point to it when discussing practical field rifles for realistic senarios. Gun owners and gun magazines constantly discuss shooting groups from a bench. Most agree that a minute of angle sized group is what seperates the really good rifles from the also ran rifles. The reality of the situation is that if you can hit a dinner plate at the range you are shooting, you have more than enough accuracy for man or beast. If you can place your shots into an approx. 12 inch diameter circle and are using a .308 rifle with good civilian ammo at a given range, you are going to accomplish your goal. That's approx. 12 MOA at 100 yards. In defensive shooting you can attempt to shoot the third shirt button, but if you hit anywhere within a six inch radius of that button with a .308 rifle, the guy is in bad trouble. Same goes for a deer, elk, bear, moose, or elephant.
Well what about long range ? ""Aimpoints are nice, but lack the high precision for long shots." First of all, a scout rifle is not a precision rifle (see above). Second, one of the drawbacks to a scout rifle is that it is a jack of all trades and master of none: it isn't designed to make precision long range shots. It is designed to make reasonable shots at reasonable ranges. Ranges where a decent rifleman can honestly expect to make a humane shot on a game animal. Ranges that it might be reasonable to fire a shot at an enemy soldier who is probably moving, wearing camoflauge clothing, trying not to be seen, and probably not just standing out in the open facing you so you have the best possible target.
So what about Aimpoints ? Well, lets start off by mentioning that people have been using iron sights for the last hundred fifty years or so for the very applications we intend for this scout rifle. They have been pretty successful in doing so, I might add. They have hunted game, defended themselves, and accomplished military missions. The Aimpoint is better than iron sights in several ways: first of all, it is easier to use. You don't have to line up the front sight in the back sight and on the target all at the same time. The US Army has PROVEN that our soldiers have a much higher percentage of first round hits using a dot optic as opposed to iron sights. It is also easier to use because you don't need to have a good cheekweld. As long as you can see the dot and put the dot on the target, you are good to go. Second, you can see the dot in all lighting conditons: not so of iron sights. One of the missions of the scout rifle is personal defense and quasi military type use. Since the Aimpoint is currently being used successfully right now for this very mission by our military, it is hard to say that it would be inadequate for you.
At this point we get back to the precision accuracy thing. I am going to make a bold assumption here that you don't own a dot optic and never shot at longish range with one ? The fact is that the dot optic is capable of far greater precision than most people realize. For some reason, a lot of people on this board got the idea that you cover your target with the dot, thus eliminating any kind of precsion aiming point. This is an obvious mistake: I am not even sure why you would think of this. You zero the dot just like you would iron sights. The tip of the dot (just like the tip of the front sight) is the point of impact at your zero range. Again, covering your target with the sight is not the way to go. Ever notice how benchrest shooters have a point on their target where they aim and their intended point of impact is at a different place ? This is so you don't obscure you aiming point by shooting it. Again, common sense. The same thing goes for a dot optic: by covering the target with the dot, you are not capable of making a precision shot. Note that the size of the dot doesn't matter since you arn't covering the target with the dot. The dot could appear to be like a beachball on the target, but you put the top of the beachball in the center of mass and squeeze off a shot.
I have not done a lot of shooting on paper targets for groups off a bench with a dot sighted rifle, but I have done some. Using a bipod and an AR15 with an Aimpoint ML3 and a 4 MOA dot, I have fired approx. 4 inch groups at 200 yards. I have easily hit steel plates and pepper poppers at 400 yards. I have hit IDPA silhouettes at 550 yards, but not consistently: the AR15/55 grain bullets/shifting wind are not the best combination but I feel the cartridge and wind were far more to blame than the red dot optic.
Bottom line, I would feel completely comfortable with a dot optic on a general purpose rifle. If a target visible to my naked eye appeared, assuming I had a solid shooting position etc, I would feel confident in making the shot.
Not to nit pick, but I don't see how the rifle/conventional scope that you recommend in your post solves any of the problems that guy has in that article.
Let's think back to the criteria of a scout rifle and note that nowhere does he discuss shooting tight groups. Speaking only for myself, I believe the reason he didn't mention this is because there is no real point to it when discussing practical field rifles for realistic senarios. Gun owners and gun magazines constantly discuss shooting groups from a bench. Most agree that a minute of angle sized group is what seperates the really good rifles from the also ran rifles. The reality of the situation is that if you can hit a dinner plate at the range you are shooting, you have more than enough accuracy for man or beast. If you can place your shots into an approx. 12 inch diameter circle and are using a .308 rifle with good civilian ammo at a given range, you are going to accomplish your goal. That's approx. 12 MOA at 100 yards. In defensive shooting you can attempt to shoot the third shirt button, but if you hit anywhere within a six inch radius of that button with a .308 rifle, the guy is in bad trouble. Same goes for a deer, elk, bear, moose, or elephant.
Well what about long range ? ""Aimpoints are nice, but lack the high precision for long shots." First of all, a scout rifle is not a precision rifle (see above). Second, one of the drawbacks to a scout rifle is that it is a jack of all trades and master of none: it isn't designed to make precision long range shots. It is designed to make reasonable shots at reasonable ranges. Ranges where a decent rifleman can honestly expect to make a humane shot on a game animal. Ranges that it might be reasonable to fire a shot at an enemy soldier who is probably moving, wearing camoflauge clothing, trying not to be seen, and probably not just standing out in the open facing you so you have the best possible target.
So what about Aimpoints ? Well, lets start off by mentioning that people have been using iron sights for the last hundred fifty years or so for the very applications we intend for this scout rifle. They have been pretty successful in doing so, I might add. They have hunted game, defended themselves, and accomplished military missions. The Aimpoint is better than iron sights in several ways: first of all, it is easier to use. You don't have to line up the front sight in the back sight and on the target all at the same time. The US Army has PROVEN that our soldiers have a much higher percentage of first round hits using a dot optic as opposed to iron sights. It is also easier to use because you don't need to have a good cheekweld. As long as you can see the dot and put the dot on the target, you are good to go. Second, you can see the dot in all lighting conditons: not so of iron sights. One of the missions of the scout rifle is personal defense and quasi military type use. Since the Aimpoint is currently being used successfully right now for this very mission by our military, it is hard to say that it would be inadequate for you.
At this point we get back to the precision accuracy thing. I am going to make a bold assumption here that you don't own a dot optic and never shot at longish range with one ? The fact is that the dot optic is capable of far greater precision than most people realize. For some reason, a lot of people on this board got the idea that you cover your target with the dot, thus eliminating any kind of precsion aiming point. This is an obvious mistake: I am not even sure why you would think of this. You zero the dot just like you would iron sights. The tip of the dot (just like the tip of the front sight) is the point of impact at your zero range. Again, covering your target with the sight is not the way to go. Ever notice how benchrest shooters have a point on their target where they aim and their intended point of impact is at a different place ? This is so you don't obscure you aiming point by shooting it. Again, common sense. The same thing goes for a dot optic: by covering the target with the dot, you are not capable of making a precision shot. Note that the size of the dot doesn't matter since you arn't covering the target with the dot. The dot could appear to be like a beachball on the target, but you put the top of the beachball in the center of mass and squeeze off a shot.
I have not done a lot of shooting on paper targets for groups off a bench with a dot sighted rifle, but I have done some. Using a bipod and an AR15 with an Aimpoint ML3 and a 4 MOA dot, I have fired approx. 4 inch groups at 200 yards. I have easily hit steel plates and pepper poppers at 400 yards. I have hit IDPA silhouettes at 550 yards, but not consistently: the AR15/55 grain bullets/shifting wind are not the best combination but I feel the cartridge and wind were far more to blame than the red dot optic.
Bottom line, I would feel completely comfortable with a dot optic on a general purpose rifle. If a target visible to my naked eye appeared, assuming I had a solid shooting position etc, I would feel confident in making the shot.
Not to nit pick, but I don't see how the rifle/conventional scope that you recommend in your post solves any of the problems that guy has in that article.
cracked butt
Member
An illuminated reticle makes for easy aiming and certainly is better than iron sights in almost all conditions, but a conventional scope has far better light gathering properties. This is extremely important during times when animals are most active at dusk and dawn. A good scope will make the difference in a hunter being able to pick out the animal or not, a wider field of view helps in this instance also. The scout setup allows for faster target aquisition,but if you have to rely on your non dominant eye to help get on target faster in low light because of a smaller field of view, you might not be able to find the target before it bolts off into the next county.
I've shot a friend's TC Omega muzzleloader that had an aimpoint mounted on it. I feel the setup works spectacularly well if you take in consideration that the particular rifle has a very limited range.
I'm not sure of what kind of animals you have running around in your area, but if all a person can do is hit a 12 inch plate at a range, their marksmanship and/or rifle is completely inadequate for any form of hunting where I live. The heart/lung area on a whitetail deer is about 3/4 of the size you mentioned. being able to hit within 6" of the heart means a lot of gut shots, misses, and broken front legs are to be expected. Then there's the stress factor- if a person shoots 4" groups at the range, he can be expect to shoot groups double that size after he's experienced fatigue from walking all day, or has an adrenalin boost from unexpectedly seeing game animals.
444, Good backup for your criteria, but my post said my rifle didn't meet Cooper's criteria, but met my criteria while being handy. I'm shooting for better than 12" at 300 yards from a field rest, much better.
Dots can be great for close and fast, but aren't my choice for a number of reasons.
Dots can be great for close and fast, but aren't my choice for a number of reasons.
cracked butt
Member
Oh, crap that's right
Back to the drawing board.
Nice truck, I haven't seen one of those in at least 10 years.
Back to the drawing board.Nice truck, I haven't seen one of those in at least 10 years.
carebear
Member
cracked butt said:Oh, crap that's right
Nice truck, I haven't seen one of those in at least 10 years.
And don't be thinking you could write a novel about a rape case in a racially charged small southern town and be naming a main character after it either.
smince
Member.
thereisnospoon
Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nice looking rig.
Tell me about the sling...
Nice looking rig.
Tell me about the sling...
smince
Member.
thereisnospoon said:
Homemade Ching-Sling. I made it from a modified Outdoor Connection Super Sling. I added another swivel to the stock, and ran a short piece of webbing from it to a buckle on the the Super Sling.
thereisnospoon
Member
Sling pics
Close ups please....I need one.
Close ups please....I need one.
smince
Member.
Might be a while. I don't have a digi-cam at the moment.thereisnospoon said:
Gordon
Member
When some body showed up to the American Pistol Institute with a Springfield like that Jeff uesed to get all smiley and say how great it was and even truer to the Scout concept ect. He always would add 'it needs to lose a little weight, though'
thereisnospoon
Member
Hmmmm.....
I find this interesting...
Let's start here...
The Bolt gun was the mainstay for what, 70 years? The Afghans did quite well against the Russians who were armed with current issue AK rifles. Some of the pics I saw had some of the Afghans using stuff from WWI or older. Dead Russians can attest to the fact that, while not perfect, a bolt gun IS in fact a viable combat rifle.
Not true. I have seen .30 cal sabots that turn 55 and 75gr .22 bullets at >4000fps. Gets them Varmits every time.
Think you answered that one yourself...
I am not sure why it is a "joke" other than you think so...based on anything other than your opinion? And what gave you the idea a .30 cal cartridge was a "short range[d] bolt action?
.30 cal velocities an bullets give substantial energy out past 400 yards...
smince
Member.
thereisnospoon said:
Most people believe the following equation (thanks in part to gun writers):
Low-Power Scope+Short Barrel=close-range only.
A little experience is all that is needed...
Preacherman
Member
Brule, I'm sorry, but you're way off base with your comments. For a start, if you're shooting at game further out than 300 yards, this begs the question - WHY??? Very few riflemen (one in a hundred, if that) can make accurate, reliable hits at further than 300 yards. Most hunting shots are taken at less than 100 yards in the lower 48, anyway!
As for velocity issues, I agree that having enough to expand a softpoint is a Good Thing - but where do you get your figure of 1,800 fps being a minimum velocity to do so? I've seen slower softpoints expand every time at speeds below 1,500 fps - it all depends on the bullet construction.
As for bolt-action rifles not being suitable for combat, there are tens - hundreds! - of thousands of souls in the beyond who would dispute that point with you. Quite frankly, for aimed fire, a bolt is just about as good, and almost as fast, as any semi-auto battle rifle you care to mention. For rapid fire, sure, the SA wins every time, but that's not always the main criterion.
I strongly recommend Col. Cooper's book "The Art Of The Rifle" to anyone seriously interested in the all-around use of rifles, for hunting, defence, and target practice. It's perhaps the best textbook ever written on the subject.
As for velocity issues, I agree that having enough to expand a softpoint is a Good Thing - but where do you get your figure of 1,800 fps being a minimum velocity to do so? I've seen slower softpoints expand every time at speeds below 1,500 fps - it all depends on the bullet construction.
As for bolt-action rifles not being suitable for combat, there are tens - hundreds! - of thousands of souls in the beyond who would dispute that point with you. Quite frankly, for aimed fire, a bolt is just about as good, and almost as fast, as any semi-auto battle rifle you care to mention. For rapid fire, sure, the SA wins every time, but that's not always the main criterion.
I strongly recommend Col. Cooper's book "The Art Of The Rifle" to anyone seriously interested in the all-around use of rifles, for hunting, defence, and target practice. It's perhaps the best textbook ever written on the subject.
thereisnospoon
Member
And all those people said there would be WMDs in Iraq too, but they were wrong.
Just cause someone repeats something that supports there own theory over and over again doesn't make it true.I won't be using my
gun to shoot any game beyond 70 -100 yards here in Alabama, so it is a moot point anyway
rbernie
Contributing Member
But we weren't talking about 223/5.56NATO - we were talking about thirty cal hunting rounds. Compare the rate of fire between a boltie 308 and a semiauto 308, if rate of fire is important to you. But that begs the point, because rate of fire is but one relatively minor criteria for a decent all-around rifle, and the bolt action is demonstrably 'fast enough' for general-purpose work.
Yes, it's true - if you want to hunt sheep on a distant ridge or engage hordes of mutant zombie ninjas, there are better tools for those jobs. But if you want one rifle that can cover almost any situation adequately, the scout concept has merit.
thereisnospoon
Member
Dude,
You've missed the point of this whole thread. The Scout rifle is a concept designed to give someone a general purpose rifle that could be used in pinch to do several things.
If I paid a bunch of $$$$$ for a Ram hunt, I'd make sure I had the right tool for the job.
In the case of the scout, it is a tool that can do many jobs...
Okay, let's think about this.
The writers who said nothing expands under 1800 fps are wrong. It can be shown.
But...
No first-world military scout goes out with a Cooper "scout rifle" AFAIK. Cooper says it's field proven all over the world. This is hogwash, if he means it has been proven AS a scout's rifle. It may work for hunting, but I don't see anything that says military scouts have used them.
There is little point that I can see in having a small-eyepiece 2x pistol scope on a long gun, given the reflex sight technology now available (and also the non-critical eye-relief conventional scopes now available). Of course, some people like the things, and that's fine.
Bottom line: if you can get close enough to hit an adversary with a single, fatal shot from a Scout Rifle, you probably won't be coming back to tell about it.
Whoever said to come up with a better idea way back in the thread...
It's been done. AR platform, 6.8SPC with an ACOG. Among other things. How many SEALS, exactly, are using Steyr Scouts?
I will stand thoroughly corrected if there are any.
The writers who said nothing expands under 1800 fps are wrong. It can be shown.
But...
No first-world military scout goes out with a Cooper "scout rifle" AFAIK. Cooper says it's field proven all over the world. This is hogwash, if he means it has been proven AS a scout's rifle. It may work for hunting, but I don't see anything that says military scouts have used them.
There is little point that I can see in having a small-eyepiece 2x pistol scope on a long gun, given the reflex sight technology now available (and also the non-critical eye-relief conventional scopes now available). Of course, some people like the things, and that's fine.
Bottom line: if you can get close enough to hit an adversary with a single, fatal shot from a Scout Rifle, you probably won't be coming back to tell about it.
Whoever said to come up with a better idea way back in the thread...
It's been done. AR platform, 6.8SPC with an ACOG. Among other things. How many SEALS, exactly, are using Steyr Scouts?
I will stand thoroughly corrected if there are any.
freedomlover
Member
Brule, you're correct in that the scout concept was based on a 300-meter max range. Though that's pretty short-range for a .30 caliber bullet launcher, it's a trade-off for rapid target acquisition. TANSTAAFL, that's for sure.
The platform is definitely good for longer shots, I mean there are guys who shoot 1,000 yard matches with Garands and open sights--but how many people in the civilian world have the skill and/or opportunity to consistently make 300+yard shots? Preacherman estimates one in a hundred, and I'm (sadly enough) NOT one of them. But if you are, more power to ya, and the scout concept probably won't float your boat.
But it's still a great idea for us lesser mortals! smince's example looks perfect to me, and (per Gordon's post) even to the good Colonel apparently...I'd take that over a Steyr anyday.
The platform is definitely good for longer shots, I mean there are guys who shoot 1,000 yard matches with Garands and open sights--but how many people in the civilian world have the skill and/or opportunity to consistently make 300+yard shots? Preacherman estimates one in a hundred, and I'm (sadly enough) NOT one of them. But if you are, more power to ya, and the scout concept probably won't float your boat.
But it's still a great idea for us lesser mortals! smince's example looks perfect to me, and (per Gordon's post) even to the good Colonel apparently...I'd take that over a Steyr anyday.
- Status
