Old School Original Scout Rifle

[Willie Sutton]

As many know, the concept of a Scout Rifle by name and formal definition began taking place in the late 1970's and early 1980's at Gunsite, as run by Colonel Jeff Cooper. Rather than do a "top down" decree, Colonel Cooper invited a group of people to participate in a series of Scout Rifle Conferences, at which (among good fellowship, strong drink, and evening declaimations) the concept and actual hardware was discussed, analyzed, a proceeding statement was written, and the participants went forth, built rifles, and then came back to another conference. The rifles, of a variety of patterns, were shot side-by-side against the clock for score, and their strengths & weaknesses discovered. Over time this process distilled down what was good from what was not as good, and the final concept was laid down and defined.


The working synopsis of the mission was agreed on and published as follows:

"a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target."


The working definition was agreed on and published as follows:

Weight-sighted and slung: 3 kilograms (6.6 lb). This has been set as the ideal weight but the maximum has been stated as being 3.5 kg (7.7 pounds ).

Length: 1 meter (39 inches), Barrel length: .48 meter (19 inches)

Sighting system: Forward and low mounted (ahead of the action opening) long eye relief telescope of between 2x and 3x, Reserve iron sights desirable but not necessary.

Action: Magazine fed bolt action.

Sling: Fast loop-up type, i.e. Ching or CW style.

Caliber: Nominally .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 mm).

Accuracy: Should be capable of shooting into 2 minutes of angle or less at 200 yards/meters (3 shot groups).


The original set of rifles built were generally built on Remington 600 and 660 actions, which at the time were the most suitable off the shelf designs available. Other actions studied were those of CZ (which were impossible to import at the time), Krag Jorgensen (loved due to being able to be topped off while the bolt was closed), Springfield 03 (studied for it's magazine disconnector that allows it to be used as a single shot until flipped, at which point the reserve magazine is available), as well as a few others. But in the end, the Remington 600/660 series was the go-to rifle for building up the first prototypes.


The rifle I show is one of the first beta-test Scouts put together at Gunsite in the early 1980's. It's a 660 Mohawk, stocked in synthetic, with Burris IER scope, Williams aperature rear backup sight, three sling swivels for Ching Sling, and that's about it. It is shown on a digital scale to prove weight. It shoots into about an inch and a half with military ball ammo and into about 7/8 of an inch with handloads. It's one of the very first true Scouts, and is both a practical rifle and a small piece of history.

I have also a further development, the Lion Scout, in my collection that I will show later. It's a Remington Model 7 in .350 Rem Mag that I had built at the Smithy, which has some refinements that were defined and then tried after a subsequent Scout Rifle Conference. I've also got two of Eric Chings personal rifles bought from him just before his death, his .458 Winchester, set up by Ken Brockman as an African heavy rifle, and a CZ in 9.3x62, also set up by Brockman as an African medium rifle. One rifle at a time, guys....

Willie's comments: "Scout Rifles" have become popular, and the design has been perverted by some for the sake of commercial sales. Example: The current Ruger "Gunsite Scout Rifle". Regarding it's name, the "Ruger" part is truth in advertising, but the rest isn't. It isn't a Scout, doesn't make weight, has features not appropriate to a pure Scout, and would not be recognized as a Scout by any of the old hands at Orange Gunsite. I am certain that Colonel Jeff would never have permitted the Gunsite name to be attached to it. This is not to denigrate a fine tacti-cool commercial success in the marketplace, but... it's not a Scout Rifle. The following photos are of the real thing: Designed at Gunsite. Built at Gunsite, Tested at Gunsite by Colonel Cooper and many others, and now safely in my safe, where it's often the go-to rifle taken out for a day of shooting. It's DNA is pure, and it's projectiles shoot true. It's a privilege to posess it. When I pass it will be returned to The Sconce, from whence it came.


Willie

.

 

[Gordon]

Thank you sir!

 

[desidog]

Willie, how is one meant to employ the sling swivel stud by the magazine?

I've seen a similar location on a No4 Enfield, and presumed it didn't work well, which is why i haven't seen it subsequently....until now.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

It's a beauty Willie.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Willie, how is one meant to employ the sling swivel stud by the magazine?

It's for a Ching sling, a shooting sling that allows faster slinging up.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Desidog, the Ching Sling is a system developed by the Late Eric Ching (who owned this rifle) that permits a rifleman to take a very quick fully-slung position with forward tension while still having a usable carry sling. Google "Ching Sling" and read about it a bit. Since this was Erics rifle, it's likely that this was the first rifle so slung. Sadly it did not come with one of his own manufacture slings. Later on in the Scout Rifle development we went to using flush mounted Pachmeyer sling swivels, which are lower profile and more rugged. I'm debating if I should "correct" this rifle or leave it as-is as a historical snapshot of the state of the art circa 1982. I'll probably change it, as the rifle still has many years of use ahead of it, and nothing stands set in concrete.


Willie

.

 

[CraigC]

It isn't a Scout...

And the difference is what, exactly???

Critics of the Ruger act as if a "true scout rifle" is such a difficult to pull off miracle in rifle design. Let's be realistic, all it is is a short, relatively light rifle with iron sights, a forward scope mount and an all weather stock. Well, the Ruger has all those things PLUS it has a picatinny rail for more flexible optic mounting, proprietary scope mount cuts in the receiver, rugged iron sights and detachable magazines.

Cooper oversaw the development of the Steyr Scout and it had features your rifle above does not. It also had pitiful iron sights with a very short radius AND a detachable magazine.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"And the difference is what, exactly??? "


Overweight.

Un-needed Flash Hider (Scouts are designed to be carried a lot, shot a little, and irrespective of the name, are essentially hunting rifles upon which a flash hider is... "gauche")

Protruding box magazine preventing balance point carry (see above)

Lack of Ching-Sling stud.


More?


The essence of the Scout is to strip off everything not needed. Add more stuff and you defeat the entire philosophy *as defined by the Scout Rifle Conference Attendees*. I respectfully submit that if you desire to offer a rifle as a "Scout", that you do so with the ethic and spirit of the "Original Framers", so to speak. There are many fine rifles. Just don't call them a Scout if they are not.

This might be the time to offer this tidbit, which has caused many of the old hands to smile over the years. Always in good cheer, I might add:


http://www.donath.org/Rants/ScoutRifleTaxonomy/


If you study my rifle, and then the Taxonomy, you will find that my rifle is one of a half dozen original Gunsite built to "Scout 1 Standard" rifles. "Scout 1" preceeded this small semi-production batch, meaning that a half dozen more-or-less identical rifles were built for further study after Scout 1 itself was built.

Now:

The point of the thread I started is to respectfully offer for examination a rare, original, Gunsite built, very early prototype that was one of the study rifles used by Gunsite and the staff and students there for the further study and development of the concept. It's not to be compared, other than as an early benchmark, to other excellent rifles that have been built since that time. I consider the GSR to be an excellent rifle, just not a "Scout" rifle. Perhaps my worldview is formed by having participated in the early development of the concept, and holding a particularly skeptical outlook towards things that don't need to be included. Flash hider and large capacity box magazine? The Scout Rifle Conference attendees would have cheerfully laughed it outta the room *as a Scout Rifle*, but not as a "good rifle" if that makes sense.


I'm not going to engage in any additional confrontation regarding the Ruger GSR however. Why bother? A very faithful true Scout can be made with ease from a Remington Model 7 or a Ruger Compact in .308 (which makes weight with ease, being a full pound lighter than the GSR without any of the "additional features" that causes Scout purists to cringe).


"Cooper oversaw the development of the Steyr Scout and it had features your rifle above does not."

I would hope it was more evolved, as the concept had some 10 years to mature between when this prototype was built and when the Steyr came out. The most unique feature of the Steyr is the fully integrated bipod, a feature that we wanted from Day-1, but that was VERY hard to build into existing rifles. The Steyr has that, and that places it in a unique status. I'm not an aesthetic fan of the Steyr, BTW, but against the stopwatch in drills you would be very hard pressed to do better. It's an ugly duckling that shoots like crazy. I just wish it were prettier...




Willie

.

 

[200Apples]

.
Thank you for posting this thread, Mr. Sutton!

I just wanted to add my perspective as a recent purchaser of a Ruger Gunsite Scout rifle. One would think that since it is *called* a "Scout" rifle that it would actually fall within the guidelines set forth by the Conference.

I am not offended that this particular model does not pass muster. I accept it's weaknesses: it is certainly overweight, it has the perhaps too-large, physically, good-capacity detachable magazine, the tacticool muzzle flash hider (?!), the Picatinny rail (although there would have been something else there to facilitate the forward-mounted telescope...).

That said, I have little remorse over it's acquisition. I wanted it even after I became aware of it's shortcomings. It remains a seriously-stout, high-powered bolt-action carbine, pure and simple. I'm glad to have it. Perhaps that is one reason why the rifle continues to sell well: there are blowhards like me that are buying them! Hahaha... I look forward, too, to the time that I may acquire a better Scout rifle candidate (a Rem 600/660 or Model 7).

I also have in my collection a CZ Model 527 chambered in 7.62 X 39... a contemporary equivalent in power and range, cartridge-wise, to the .30-30 Winchester. This svelt CZ continues to grow on me... and especially when in the company of the larger, heavier Ruger. I hadn't used the CZ for some time... until again recently after I remedied a couple of issues; the first being that one magazine of three that rubbed the bolt with far too much force, and a weaker, factory striker spring replacement performed to mitigate light primer strikes w/ certain brass-cased loads. (The CZ action in 7.62 X 39 was developed around the eastern-bloc steel-cased cartridge...) The carbine is back to snuff! and I'm very pleased to have it. I've also upped the inventory of steel-cased, lead-core-bullet cartidges for it.




I find myself, then, in possession of rifles positioned on either side of the true "Scout" definition... and for good measure I have, too, a Grandfather Scout: a 1922-manufactured Winchester Model '94 SRC in .30-30. Hee!

The point! of my now long-winded post is to state that I labor under no illusion regarding my most recent acquisition. However, I thoroughly enjoy using all of these rifles, and I wish to remain loyal (for lack of a better way of putting it) to the true "Scout" rifle concept. Here's raising a glass to the Colonel.

 

[200Apples]

.
It seems that I was typing my sincere impressions, becoming carried away (my apologies!), and forgot to add that I very much enjoyed seeing the Remington in the pictures that the OP first posted.

 

[Sam1911]

Willie, I know this is much more of a modern phenomenon, but do you ever recall any of those involved with the concept development discussing the possibility and utility of using a silencer with a Scout rifle?

There are two obvious drawbacks (length and weight) and some quite clear advantages as well, especially for a Scout (the person). I've, from the start, assumed Ruger's inclusion of the muzzle device was merely as a thread-protector, and that they saw a clear possibility/probability of their most tactical rifle's users appreciating ease of suppression.

I know the use of rifle silencers was almost non-existent during his day, but with them being now almost "required equipment" for the serious rifle shootist, what would the Colonel, et. al., have said?

 

[bainter1212]

With the exception of one or two of the rifles mentioned utilized as prototype "scout" rifles, almost all of those listed lack a detachable magazine and are stripper clip fed.
I was always led to believe that the use of an action fed by stripper clips was more desireable and was the real purpose behind the forward mounted optic.
With practice, stripper clips can be used very quickly. They enable one to carry a larger amount of ammo at less cost to the carrier weight wise.

Am I wrong here?

Not trying to argue, just making an observation. I have handled a Ruger GSR and the only thing I HATED about it was that stupid bulky detachable mag.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I was always led to believe that the use of an action fed by stripper clips was more desireable and was the real purpose behind the forward mounted optic"

This misconception has followed for years, but it's the cart before the horse. The forward mounted scope was/is there for one reason: By moving the bell of the scope forward, it subtends less arc-angle as seen from the design eye position, and as a result blocks far less of the area of the target for two-eyes open shooting. Do some basic trig and you will see that the area blocked is reduced by a VERY large degree by moving the scope forward. All else followed this. The secondary reason is access to the loading port of the rifle, and it was a VERY distant last "wish list" item for the end rifle to be able to accept stripper clips. Those in the "stripper clip camp" (which included me, I might say) played much with Number 5 Enfields while exploring the concept. It was mooted that a shortened Springfield 03A3 action might prove ideal. I still think that has a lot of merit and often contemplate building one.


Sam, we never thought about suppressors, as NFA stuff was really off the radar at the time, and Mitch Werbell was about the only game in town and made stuff that was not appropriate to the Scout. I have to say that the idea of adding a modern can to a Scout has a lot of merit. As you might know, the next-gen Scouts had the front sight machined integrally with the forward end of the scope mount, to give a zero-snag muzzle while still offering usable backup sights. Those rifles would adapt to threading with ease. Nobody then envisioned the modern lightweight can, so supposing what Jeff would have thought then is easy (too big and why bother?) but nowadays as a snap-on accessory? I don't think he would object. And again, the concept was promoted by him, but was democratically developed. He didn't get everything that he wanted out of the conferences, although for the most part at the end of the day everyone pretty much agreed on what was probably best. It was all then tested and retested and re-retested, and timed, and... well, you get it. I think that suppressors would have been endorsed by the group. I'm an advocate.

Apples, It is my belief that even the Colonel would now accept the 7.62x39 cartridge as one that is worthy of a Scout. The simple fact is that it was always envisioned to use the most available .30 caliber ammunition available to the end user. During the development period the Russian stuff was very rare (as was all Eastern stuff, bearing in mind that we were NUTS for finding CZ actions and could not get them.. Nowadays the caliober is so common as to be a "gold standard". I'm looking forward to shooting with you. I'll drag this one out to play.


Willie

.

 

[buzz meeks]

Based solely on your title, I expected to see either a Winchester '94 or a Mannlicher-Schoenauer.

Was there any discussion of the merits of push feed vs. CRF?

PS - thanks for posting this

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^

Oh yes, Indeed. That was a major discussion point.

Extractors as well. Several of the Model 7 prototypes were fitted with Sako extractors to overcome the objections regarding the Remington extractor.

You see, we all envisioned that we were testing mechanical *portions* of what would become a newly manufactured design that would incorporate the very best of what we distilled. Nothing was off the table, and creativity flowed. So "they" went off and tested extractors, while "those guys" went off and played with stripper clips, and "them" went and designed slings, etc., etc. Bear in mind this was pre-internet, and collaboration meant writing letters, making phone calls, and meeting with peers at Gunsite. Today collaboration would be an entirely different animal.

Cooper tried to leverage all of this "crowd-sourcing" as we call it now, in many discussions with many manufacturers, in an attempt to get the perfect rifle built. It would have had engineering features from many other rifles, with the added few new things that were developed by the gang. It really never came to fruition. When Steyr offered to work with him, he took the opportunity, but I don't think that even Jeff thought that this was the right final end-solution, just another evolutionary step. This is one of the reasons I think that Ruger really dropped the ball, and that their version represents a lost opportunity to excel. Tjey could have made a perfect one... all they needed to do was to read what had been written and interview a few key people and design accordingly.


Willie

.

 

[200Apples]

.

Willie Sutton

...it was always envisioned to use the most available .30 caliber ammunition available to the end user. During the development period the Russian stuff was very rare (as was all Eastern stuff, bearing in mind that we were NUTS for finding CZ actions and could not get them.. Nowadays the caliber is so common as to be a "gold standard".

Interesting. Good to know. And, thanks!

Since the CZ is rather diminutive as well as the type having been so desirable in the day... (who knew? other than those involved) I'll humorously call it the "Baby Scout". Heh.

Five years ago, the fella that sold me that CZ had first shown me several other rifles chambered in .308 as I requested. One that shouldered quickly, the sights came right! to my eye... as if the rifle were made for me. That one was a Remington 750 (an autoloader). This was before I knew I wanted a carbine, per se. When he at last handed me this little, tiny CZ, I asked, "What is THIS?". He replied, "It's a SURPRISE..."

I figured that since he'd spent some time showing me various rifles and that he seemed to know what he was talking about, I'd better pay attention. I told him I'd come back the next day. I went home, researched the CZ 527 Carbine and discovered that anyone that had one loved it... and that anyone that had sold one, regretted it. I went back the next day and DROS'd the CZ.

Now, for anyone that wants one: the CZ arrives on our shores in batches and they sell quickly. Don't wait to get one if you see it on the rack. The next batch could be six or nine months off.

 

[ECVMatt]

I know that folks subscribe to the pure scout concept, but it seems Ruger legitimized the scout concept for the masses. The Steyer was too pricey for most folks and customs even more so. Ruger was able to produce a rifle that contains most of the scout features and that most folks can afford. It helped spur new models of scout scopes and brought back interest to an almost forgotten idea.

Ruger's are also now making weight for those that find that aspect important:

http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=4079.0

I think the JC would be pleased...

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I know that folks subscribe to the pure scout concept, but it seems Ruger legitimized the scout concept for the masses."

Well, they are sure selling them to the masses. I'm not sure the masses understand that they are getting a watered down version, but that flash hider and magazione sure look tacticool...



"It helped spur new models of scout scopes and brought back interest to an almost forgotten idea. "

I'd agree with the scopes. Forgotten is relative term though. Knowlegable riflemen never forgot it. The masses were never expected to understand it. They don't understand it now.


"Ruger's are also now making weight for those that find that aspect important"


A real Scout, as I wrote above, can be built with ease from a Ruger Compact in .308 (Or a Remington Model 7, the worthy successor to the 600) for about 1/2 the cost of the custom rifle shown. Take a Ruger Compact, add a correct IER scope and a third sling swivel & Ching Sling and you're done. The above cited rifle is a custom one that at least doubled the entry price, and is still more complex and less handy than what can be bolted together by anyone at home. That's simply not needed.

Features do sell though....



"I think the JC (I assume Jeff Cooper?) would be pleased... "

I'm sure he would be smiling... with absolutely delighted amusement.



Willie

.

 

[armoredman]

200 Apples, the CZ 527M was the base for my modified version, which I call the 527 CSR, for Camp Scout Rifle. It is obviously not a true scout with only irons - but I like irons.



I love the detachable magazine setup, enough that I asked LAGS, the genius who made this pillared and bedded stock happen, to build me a spare magazine holder in the stock.



As noted, the caliber is lighter than originally specified, and with irons I am limited in range - I have hit my steel target Thugly at 200 yards with it, but not repeatably as in five for five every time.



It is reliable and durable, and the original stock is still here, too, also pillared and bedded in case I ever want to switch back.

Even though I am not a great rifle shooter...nah, not likely, this version is just too much fun.



Back to the OP - that is a beautiful rifle, sir, a work of art, and I personally would leave it as is, and as you are planning on passing it on when you pass on, how about the NRA Museum instead?

 

[vedearduff]

I have a rifle that fits most of the PScout description. Where it falls short is the fact that it lacks an optic.

My PScout is a sporterized (before I traded for it) '03 Springfield. This rifle has a Redfield aperture rear sight, with 1/4 MOA adjustments and a hooded Lyman bead front sight. The bead is 2MOA and appears to be ivory.

The stripper clip guide is intact as is the cutoff (though I'd need to relieve the stock for it to work).

At this point, I'm undecided about a scope. While I do see the advantage to a low power forward mounted scope, I hate the thought of spoiling the balance the rifle has as currently configured.

Here are a few photos.




Vernon in Indiana

 

[chicharrones]

Thanks for the good read, Willie.

 

[taliv]

thanks for posting those pics willie. interesting read! it is a cool piece of history and too bad you didn't get a ching sling to go with it.

i find the scout debates a lot like debating buggy whips. there are much more effective options now, so why waste a lot of energy arguing about it?

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I find the scout debates a lot like debating buggy whips."

It's an interesting way to engage people to see how far we have come from mooting and worrying about tiny things like extractor designs at one end (and to have Conference Attendees declaim on their view for an hour at a time on this small detail), to having a (lovely) 1903 Springfield hunting rifle with absolutely no Scout Rifle features shown and described as a "Pseudo Scout". I suppose that all bolt action rifles are Pseudo Scouts by that definition. The Ruger is particularly offensive to the purists: It's a commercial use of two immediately identifiable names, "Gunsite" and "Scout", noting that it is a rifle that would have been discarded as inappropriate at Orange Gunsite, and is, by definition, not a Scout. That speaks to ethics and marketing, and offends the sensibilities. I think that "we" made a mistake when we named the first product a "Scout" anyhow. That was part of Coopers dry humor, but the rifle was always intended as a Hunting rifle, not a tactical rifle by any stretch of the imagination. Note the "200 kilo" weight of the intended target in the definition. Had we called it the "Woodsmans Pal", nobody would be marketing dumbed-down (or tacti-cooled-up) versions of it. Ruger coopting the name(s) "Gunsite" and "Scout" to market a rifle that more properly should be called the Ruger Tactical Carbine, is offensive, and to be frank is a dishonest description. What it does is to diminish the interest and progress towards more development of an HONEST Scout rifle, as the "masses-o-bubbas" use it as a jumping off point for their "projects" rather than emulating and then working from the premise of an "Honest Scout". Thus we have an endless procession of Abortion-Scouts to contend with, and the "Honest Scout Rifle" is lost in the clamor and noise of the horde of poor copies.

Writing this, I find that I've used the term "Honest Scout" three times, without deliberate attempt. In retrospect, I think that's a nice term, and one that Cooper would have smiled over (along with the terms "Boy Scout", in .22, and the "Luft-Scout", as an air-rifle). Methinks that I will continue to use the term to humorously describe pure Scouts in the future, and suggest that others do likewise. "Honest Scout": It has a nice ring to it, but I digress....

"there are much more effective options now"

In a way I both disagree and agree. There is no more effective general purpose rifle than a real Scout in the hands of a man who knows how to use it, so "more effective" is a point to contend. But as far as options available now, that's true. It's MUCH easier to build a Scout today. An Honest Scout is so easy and simple to build, and the result so immediately correct, that it comes as a surprise to many how simple they are. That was, and is, the entire point. Pick any of the 6 pound class .308 carbines. Add a forward mounted scope (and here, I agree, the options have vastly improved). Install a third sling swivel, and buy a Ching Sling (noting that you no longer need to beg Eric to make one). You're done. Now spend the rest of your budget shooting 10,000 rounds of ammunition and when you're done you will be able to understand what you've built.


Armoredman, that's a very nice rifle. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it's a beauty. The second mag in the stock is a nice addition. Lose the pistol grip and add a scope and you would be onto something. Why? You've likely doubled the time needed to cycle the bolt compared to the correct method. There's no way to use the "salute-flick" bolt cycle that puts a second shot on target in less than a second, as done by trained riflemen using a conventionally stocked boltgun, who never unshoulder the rifle and never lose sight picture. This is what we end up with when measured performance in the hands of experts is not part of the design of rifles. So, beautiful rifle, but it's going to be very slow against the stopwatch.

Vedearduff, that's a beauty also. It's a straight old fashioned 03 Sporter. It has absolutely nothing in common with a Scout rifle. Honor it for what it is, which is a beautiful hunting rifle. I'd be proud to have it in my rack.



Willie

.

 

[bannockburn]

Willie Sutton

Great thread and very fascinating in terms of the history and the concept of the Scout Rifle.

 

[CraigC]

This is not a confrontation. I don't own a Ruger GSR and even if I did, I would not feel the need to relentlessly defend it just because I had one. However, you did make it part of the discussion. If you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up.

Weight, it is 0.4lbs heavier than the Steyr with no sights. Big deal. Most of that weight difference is going to be the laminated stock versus a synthetic.

The protruding magazine. The 10rd Steyr magazine protrudes and is no less a hamper than the Ruger version. Yeah, I believed all the whining about the Winchester 1895's magazine until I actually handled one.



If you want flush, there's the 3rd magazine, which would be no different from the rifle you pictured above.



If you don't like the flash hider, take it off and install a thread protector. This is beyond simple if it offends so much. As has been suggested, the factory threaded muzzle makes it simple for suppressor use. No after-the-fact threading and losing your front sight base. This is a plus, looked at from the proper perspective.

A real Scout, as I wrote above, can be built with ease from a Ruger Compact in .308 (Or a Remington Model 7, the worthy successor to the 600) for about 1/2 the cost of the custom rifle shown. Take a Ruger Compact, add a correct IER scope and a third sling swivel & Ching Sling and you're done. The above cited rifle is a custom one that at least doubled the entry price, and is still more complex and less handy than what can be bolted together by anyone at home. That's simply not needed.

Okay, I thought an "Honest Scout" is supposed to have good iron sights? You picture one with a good receiver sight but none is listed in your list of modifications above. The Ruger Compact comes with none. The Steyr also has abysmal sights. So which makes the grade for an "Honest Scout"? No sights, good sights or minimal sights? The Ruger Compact also has an extremely short LOP, which would definitely be an issue for taller shooters. I'm 6' 1" and I know I can't handle one comfortably. Could it be that the requirements are perhaps not quite so stringent as you've outlined?

On another forum you wrote, "Only the Steyr Scout is a definitive Scout Rifle as defined by the Colonel." So again, which is it? The conventional front sight and lack of a bipod make your "Honest Scout" fail to make the grade. In which case the Ruger fails too. By that definition, only the Steyr should be called a "Scout Rifle". Seems that you and Cooper may have different views on what is a proper "Scout Rifle". If that's the case, why is any other perspective invalid?

It's obvious that you're offended by the Ruger GSR but it seems to me that you're not looking at it very objectively.

Personally, I don't have a passionate position on the whole scout rifle concept. I don't particularly like a forward mounted optic. That said, I don't like the Steyr because the sights are a joke, the integral bipod is silly and unnecessary and the price tag is ridiculous. As I recall, they were well over $2000 back in the `90's when they came out. As a Scout Rifle, I do like your rifle above. I've always had a "thing" for the model 7 and 600/660 but never owned one. I like that it has real sights. Were I in the market for one, I'd buy the Ruger in the stainless 18.5" version. I like the picatinny rail in case I want to mount an Aimpoint instead of a scope, I like the rugged sights and the peep rear that attaches to the scope ring cuts. I like that the receiver has the cuts in case I want to mount a traditional scope. I also like the adjustable length of pull but wish the stock were a brown laminate instead of black. I despise synthetic stocks so the Ruger appeals to me more in that regard. The detachable magazines are not a huge deal to me but it is nice to have the 3rd, 5rd and 10rd options. No Ching sling for me so a standard 1903 will do just fine. The rifle should fit MY requirements, not yours and not Jeff Coopers. Know what I mean?