You have an assault rifle and a pistol. How much more armed can you legally be?
Wow...Now bolt action rifles are "Assault Rifles".
I think I understand what you mean, but I personally get very concerned when any U.S. citizen questions the legality of owning something with more firepower than a 5-round, bolt-action rifle. 100+ year-old technology.
A little reminder:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To answer your question - he could "legally" be much better armed for overthrowing a tyrannical government with a Springfield M1A SOCOM II with a boatload of easily-relaodable magazines.
If you look at what was legal at the time of the founding of our country, he could own a gunship armed with modern cannons.
Or, under popular, current interpretation of the US Contitution, he could own and use a cheaper WASR-10 (AK-47) and cheaper magazines that hold a lot more cartridges, or an AR15. The WASR-10and AR15 would allow for carrying more rounds per pound on his person than the .308, so he would then be better "armed" for an extended field engagement.
None of these are even officially "assault rifles" because they do not have full-auto firing capability.
Of course, full-auto firing capability is perfectly legal in the USA if you buy the right federal stamps.
So, he could legally be much better armed in terms of magazine capacity, firepower and rounds per second.
I like having my rights to keep and bear arms. I want to keep that right for my children. We need to define and defend our terms if we want to keep our rights.
P.S. - I love the Savage Scout. It's what I use for deer hunting. Great choice for an all-around rifle. As such, it will be targeted next if we let them take away the M1As, AK-47s and AR15s.
P.P.S. - To the original poster - replace the red-dot sight idea with a nice Leupold M8 IER scope. It's an awesome setup for getting off a fast, accurate "snap" shot from an easy-to-carry rifle.