Old School Original Scout Rifle

[Nom de Forum]

What's the big deal? Install a lighter, properly bedded stock and a 2x scope on a Steyr Mannlicher M95/30 and you have a "Scout Rifle". The advantages and disadvantages of short and light rifles were known when Jeff Cooper was still a little boy. The whole concept is more classic Cooper pre-WW2 mindset. Real Scouts don't carry "Scout Rifles". How is it possible that so many of this man's outdated ideas still have such a hold on some people? The man had decades to comprehend how modern militaries use weaponry and still called the M16 a poodle shooter and believed Hatcher's ideas on RSP were valid. If the Cooper "Scout Rifle" is such a great idea why are most hunters and real Scouts not using them? It isn't because they don't understand what it offers.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Yeah the Ruger gunsite just isn't kosher.

Frankly I think it's somewhat of a hot mess. Too heavy, silly flash hider. Barrel is too short and the useless flash hider uses space and extra inch or two of barrel should have. Magazines are goofy long. Give me a stripper clip guide that words with NATO 7.62 stripper clips and a 5 round internal capacity box mag.

Also get a lightweight, composite stock of tough material. The laminated wood stock used on the GSR looks cool but is heavy! Also the Picatinny rail on top is silly and not needed. All the gun needs is some place to put scope rings up there for a LER scope. The Pic rail again, adds a bunch of weight but the tacticool mall ninjas just love those things.

I'm not surpirsed the GSR sells so well, it's simply rife with calculated marketing gimicks that would never be found on a TRUE scout rifle. Now the rifle is alright in general, don't get me wrong... BUT RUGER SHOULD NOT HAVE CALLED IT A SCOUT.

I agree with Willie.

 

[Gordon]

For 30 years I have been wanting to turn my 1899 Krag Bubba carbine into a real Scout. That would involve turning the barrel into an 18" soda straw cleaning up the stock some and 3 hammerhead swivel cups, maybe a couple short pieces of Pic rail at 6 and 3 oclock for bipod and light. It all ready has a cocking piece ghost ring, I think it would make weight with a forward mounted Aimpoint Micro.
FWIW when the blessed Col. passed he had more 30-40 Krag ammo stashed in the vault then anything else. Maybe he never got around to the Krag Scout either

 

[Art Eatman]

Sure would have saved a bunch of squabbling if Col. Jeff had copyrighted more.

"Cooper Scout", "Gunsite Scout Rifle", "Scout Rifle" and on and on.

 

[taliv]

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.

...a point i will contend. that statement might have been true 30 years ago. it certainly isn't today.

1. a 1-6x or 1-8x optic mounted close to the eye is far more effective at both close and far ranges, with large and small targets, short and long engagement times. it can be used with both eyes open for better situational awareness. there is absolutely zero compelling argument today for a forward mounted scope on a bolt gun.

2. a longer detachable magazine like the ruger has is a better option. the requirements for some classic definition of 'scout' may have been 'fired very little' but the ability to be fired a lot makes it applicable to more use cases and thus a better 'general purpose' gun.

more than that, it makes it more reliable. a large percent of failures with bolt guns comes with feeding. having an internal mag means if you want to shoot after a malfunction, you have to stop and fix whatever is jammed up in there. with an external mag, you can dump the rounds giving you grief and switch to a new mag to clear the malfunction and press on.

3. the weight requirement is suitable to hunting rifles, but not much else. the light weight excludes it from many uses and makes it NOT general purpose. weight is something you optimize after you've met all the other requirements. i.e. you want the lightest weight rifle that does x, y, z. our soldiers hump 20+ lb guns all over the world. my rifle is 17 lbs that i use for everything and hike with. do i wish it were lighter? sure. would i sacrifice capability to meet some arbitrary weight definition from 40 years ago? no way.

4. while not part of the rifle itself, modern slings smoke the ching sling for functionality. look at the armageddon gear sling for an example. it's better at carrying the rifle and it's better as a shooting aid.

5. i have no use for iron sights. especially on a bolt gun.

i could go on, and give dozens of examples of situations where my traditional rifle will do things the scout rifle won't do, but I can't think of anything a scout rifle can do better than my rifle.

to make comparisons much more stark, an AR15 rifle is an even better general purpose rifle and will do lots of things a scout won't do. But what can a scout do that an AR15 won't?

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^ Well, Art, we were working in the spirit of academic study, nobody thought that a carpetbagger-company would come along and try to make a buck from it wiithout seeking guidance from the originators.


"Real Scouts don't carry "Scout Rifles". How is it possible that so many of this man's outdated ideas still have such a hold on some people? The man had decades to comprehend how modern militaries use weaponry and still called the M16 a poodle shooter"


Read for comprehension please, and note that the Scout was never envisioned by any of us as a military arm of any sort. It was envisioned as a jack of all trades rifle, mainly for highly mobile hunting, for taking shots at fleeting game. Other possible uses were, naturally, contemplated by all, but in the main it's a general purpose hunting / plinking / guide type rifle, designed to be carried a lot, shot a little, and be as effective and simple as possible. So, the later "tacticalization" is a move towards a mission it was never seriously intended to fill. With that said, I note with interest and amusement that in the post-Viet-Nam jungle combat environment found in the various deserts of the world and in true urban warfare (versus "Urban Policing"), the move back to the M-14 and other 7.62mm platforms is very well established. Perhaps the "poodle-shooter" comments were more on track than not. In any event, the militarization of the Honest Scout is not what was envisioned or intended, and military missions were/are not it's intended use.

If the Cooper "Scout Rifle" is such a great idea why are most hunters and real Scouts not using them? It isn't because they don't understand what it offers."

Military scouts don't carry them because they have a better specialized rifle for the task, noting (yet again) that it was never intended for such application, and that the choice of the name is confusing to many who don't understand what it was designed to do, and for whom. The very term "Scout" was intended to bring to mind the wilderness scouts of the 18th and 19th centuries, who were wide ranging, exploring frontiermen who had no intent to engage an enemy, needed to forage for food ranging from squirrel to buffalo, who might need defense against critters from bear to man, and who would use a rifle as a general purpose utility tool without knowing in advance for what mission it would be employed for other than the fact that it was going to be carried a LOT. "Most Hunters" I run into are Bubbas, no offense intended, and are not skilled riflemen. They most certainly don't understand what it offers. I note in closing this paragraph that I've casually lent my Model 7 Remington Scout to many others in hunting camps in states far and wide, and have found universal approval once it's been shown, demonstrated, and explained. Education is the key.



"But what can a scout do that an AR15 won't?"

Shoot game animals humanely at 300 yards in the 200 Kilo + animal weight class legally in all states where rifles are permitted, for one, as well as being used for hunting in Canada, and is legal for posession in all 50 states where you might reside. Should I continue? OK: Let me know how well one AR in one caliber with one scope has worked (not hypothetically but in real life) on Moose in both Maine & Canada, Black Bear & Deer in Pennsylvania, Woodchucks in Wisconsin, wild pigs in Florida, prarie dogs in Oklahoma, Antelope in Colorado, being light enough to carry in a light airplane flying to and from Alaska for Brown Bear, and still be able to maintain a healthy shouting distance to bad folks you don't want to meet in the Mojave. When your AR can do all of that, it'll have about 10% of the experience that my Model 7 Scout has had in real life. I forgot, it's sort of fun for shooting tossed clay birds too...


AR? Pfft... Poodleshooter...

(of which I have a dozen...)



Willie

.

 

[taliv]

military uses of arms probably comprise more than half of total uses. for people who are so keen on defending terminology, they seem to have little regard for the definition of 'general'. if it can't do military work, don't call it a 'general purpose' rifle.

if you want to say the scout is a hunting rifle, then fine. we can end the conversation here. it's still not a better hunting rifle than modern ones by any measure.


i was more generally referring to ar15 pattern, to include rifles firing dozens of 308-based cartridges. however, i will also contend this point. the 223/556 with proper ammo is more than capable of clean kills at that distance. It is more than effective at that distance. Given that it is easier to shoot (both ergonomically and having less recoil), and allows for fast follow up shots, and is generally more accurate, shot placement is likely to be better which means clean kills are more likely instead of less. edit to add: also our much improved optic placement leads to better shot placement

 

[Willie Sutton]

"military uses of arms probably comprise more than half of total uses"

It comprises zero percent of the intended use of the "Honest Scout", as envisioned by it's originators (one of whom you are engaged with in a conversation). What's your point?

BTW: I'm not supposing what was the intent, I helped in a small way to define it.


If you want to say the scout is a hunting rifle, then fine. we can end the conversation here.

If you had read for comprehension starting about 30 years ago, you would know that this has always been the case. Only the modern "Tacti-Cool-Everything" sales and consumption mindset has influenced the conversation. Nobody who has ever paid attention has ever not understood that it's a general purpose hunting rifle that can be expected to be useful in about 85% of North American hunting situations. Note that I said "Useful", as in "Would work effectively in the hands of a skilled rifleman". It's "Duh" obvious that an infinately large arsenal of specialized rifles might do discrete jobs better, but it would be very rare for any to do all of it combined as well.

I refer you to the excellent Coopers Commentaries, commend them, and suggest that they be read with diligence from beginning to end before resuming reading the following, so that we might speak the same language and not find ourselves at odds over lack of agreement on definitions. My Czech wife and I suffer at times from the same problem, in that words mean different things to her than to me, and more than once a cold shoulder has been turned over mere definitions misunderstood. I suggest with all humility that we rectify this forthwith.


See: http://myweb.cebridge.net/mkeithr/Jeff/

<Willie pauses about a week for the above to be read and contemplated at leisure>


Now that that small detail has been attended to, let's proceed:


Again, I refer you to:

"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."


Note:

Conveniently Portable (6.5 pounds slung and loaded, length under one meter)

Single (meaning it is used for one aimed shot, with uncertain distance estimation, from a hasty position, under time pressure)

Decisive Blow (no poodle-shooters allowed)

On a 200 Kilo target (it's not for shooting people, it's for shooting animals...)

At any distance where the OPERATOR can place a shot in a vital area. (meaning it needs to have a balance of precision versus power, IE: if you can hit it but not have sufficient energy, it's not effective, and if it retains energy but cannot be precisely aimed, it's not effective.



"I was more generally referring to ar15 pattern"

I offered a portion of the real-world resume of one particular serial number Honest Scout.

Should any similarly diverse real world AR-15 resume, with one "sealed once and never remodified" rifle, one barrel, one caliber, and one scope wish to be presented for my edification, I would be most grateful. I find that there is a distinct "paucity of poodles" at hand needing to be shot, and instances of other actually useful purposes for owning an AR-15 are always welcomed.



Willie

.

 

[CraigC]

First and foremost, everything should be judged on merit. I see features being dismissed as "tacticool" with little or no thought to their actual utility.

Barrel is too short and the useless flash hider uses space and extra inch or two of barrel should have.

Two words, thread protector.

Also get a lightweight, composite stock of tough material. The laminated wood stock used on the GSR looks cool but is heavy!

Not everybody wants a synthetic, I surely do not.

Also the Picatinny rail on top is silly and not needed.....The Pic rail again, adds a bunch of weight but the tacticool mall ninjas just love those things.

The picatinny rail is lighter than the steel quarter rib on the rifle in the OP and offers a greater level of flexibility in mounting optics. Like I said, you're arbitrarily dismissing it as "tacticool" without for one second considering its utility. I don't like it because it's cool or because I hang out at the mall in BDU's, I like it because it's useful. Such "mall ninja" rhetoric has no place in a friendly conversation between intelligent adults.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^ I don't disregard the virtue of a rail. It's not required however for the Honest Scout.

The latter prototypes had two piece custom fitted mounts, with a front sight post milled onto the top of the forward mount, that were silver soldered onto the barrel. They never move (obviously), protect the front sight from damage and snagging, and are lighter than a rail. We used Behlert quick detachable mounts so the scope could be accessed for backup sight use. There is no intent to shoot with alternative optics, so the levers on the quick mounts were brass-mallet tapped to lock them. You needed a rock to unlock them...

Photos of the next-Gen Honest Scout after we exhaust this.


Willie

 

[taliv]

It comprises zero percent of the intended use of the "Honest Scout", as envisioned by it's originators (one of whom you are engaged with in a conversation). What's your point?

Are you really asking what my point is after criticizing my reading comprehension?

When the rest of the world uses the term "general purpose" they mean "applicable for almost all purposes" not "mostly just one purpose".

When countless descriptions of the scout rifle include the term general purpose, it is not a lack of reading comprehension that leads a rational person to include military purposes. If you want to claim insider info and that military purposes are excluded in order to make the scout design seem less defective by removing requirements, fine. I really don't care. I don't even care if you continue to misuse the term general purpose. None of the semantics change the fact that the scout config isn't good for much at all and is easily bested by lots of modern offerings as anyone would expect improvements over time.



edit:

Should any similarly diverse real world AR-15 resume, with one "sealed once and never remodified" rifle, one barrel, one caliber, and one scope wish to be presented for my edification, I would be most grateful. I find that there is a distinct "paucity of poodles" at hand needing to be shot, and instances of other actually useful purposes for owning an AR-15 are always welcomed.

sure, take an out of the box SCAR-H, add a vortex 1-6 HD or USO 1-8x and for an additional .5 Kg weight, you have a more ergonomic, more compact, better balanced, more accurate, more durable, more reliable rifle, with far greater ammo capacity and rate of fire, that can perform not just one specialized task, but all tasks better. Of course, you could replace the SCAR with dozens of others, like the SR15, GAP10, OBR, etc.

 

[Offfhand]

Scout Rifle? Check out top rifle on the cover of this 1966 Sports Afield Gun Annual.

 

[sayak]

Always entertaining to watch the scout gun guys go at it over a concept.
Meanwhile most of the 3rd World is busy taking animals and their enemies with whatever they own, like old Enfields, Mosins and such.

 

[RPRNY]

Is this The High Road or The Bicker Board?

Why all the vitriol? The whole Scout Rifle concept was very Jesuitical. How many angels will fit on the head of a pin? But it was cool. And I appreciate Willie providing first hand insight on the process as well as pictures of an early product. Why the immediate reaction is to attack him for having done so, I cannot grasp. He gave direct quotes from the "Scout Committee" about what defines their concept of a Scout Rifle. The Ruger iteration does not meet those parameters, so it seems perfectly reasonable to me to take issue with it being called the Gunsite Scout Rifle. I think Mossberg are more on point with their "Patrol" rifles. The GSR is much more a patrol rifle but other than weight, there's no reason such a rifle wouldn't be semi-auto.

Taliv and others may take issue with the concept of Cooper and the cabal that designed the Scout Rifle. Is the Scout Rifle concept valid or still relevant? That is indeed highly debatable, but there can be no debate on the subject of the GSR. It calls itself that which it is not.

To me, the whole the Scout Rifle thing was way over-thought. But that's like offering an opinion on how many angels I think will fit on the head of a pin. WGAF?

I was very interested to hear the group explored the Krag action. I love my Krag Not-Scout. If only those damned Norwegians had designed a stronger bolt....

 

[Willie Sutton]

"When countless descriptions of the scout rifle include the term general purpose, it is not a lack of reading comprehension that leads a rational person to include military purposes."

Pesky words. Sort of like coming to the wrong conclusion after reading the Second Amendment without reading the Federalist Papers. Talking about Scout Rifles without having read the background information can easially lead to the wrong set of conclusions. Sadly this seems to be the case here. Gladly, you can both read the background information and avail yourself of the opportunity to have a conversation with someone who participated. I'm not guessing at the intent of the design, and will gladly continue the conversation with those who bring an open mind and a curiousity regarding the history of this design. To be very clear, the concept, as brought to fruition by the originators *including myself* had no, or at the very most a very tiny peripheral possibility of a military-type use. Nobody ever seriously considered that it would have ANY military application. So recalibrate your mindset in that paradigm and you will better understand the concept. It's not just you, it's legions of people who have this misconception. Once again, I refer you to the fact that the term "Scout" was designed to evoke the mid 1800's, not the modern battlefield. I personally feel it is an unfortunate choice of name, and that it's use has clouded the original intent.


"Install a lighter, properly bedded stock and a 2x scope on a Steyr Mannlicher M95/30 and you have a "Scout Rifle""

Save for action length and caliber, pretty much. That's why it was studied and shot at the ranch, where most of the shooters said "I want one". I think it also influenced Steyr into taking on the final project to build the modern version. Jeff was pretty good about using historical framing to get what he wanted.


"Scout Rifle? Check out top rifle on the cover of this 1966 Sports Afield Gun Annual."

Absolutely: This photo was one of the illustrations used in the discussions. I think a copy was framed at The Smithy, to be truthful. Everything is an endless series of evolutions, all we did was to increase the rate by formal collaboration and a series of symposia that were dedicated to gaining concensus among many very bright shooters.



"take an out of the box SCAR-H, add a vortex 1-6 HD or USO 1-8x and for an additional .5 Kg weight, you have a more ergonomic, more compact, better balanced, more accurate, more durable, more reliable rifle, with far greater ammo capacity and rate of fire, that can perform not just one specialized task, but all tasks better."

(Putting aside that it's a pound overweight), a SCAR is More compact, better balanced, more durable, more reliable, & more ergonomic than a light bolt action carbine? optimized for first shot effectiveness against large game animals? You, sir, speak in jest and should avail yourself of more time with a boltgun. Rate of fire and ammunition capacity is irrelevent to the discussion. In any event, let me know when you've filled your Moose tag in Canada and your deer tag in Pennsylvania with a SCAR-H. Sayin' is one thing and doin' is another. Go forth, do, and report. After you've been arrested (twice) ya'll might not be so sanguine about your choice.... Just sayin'....


"Always entertaining to watch the scout gun guys go at it over a concept"

The "going at it over a concept" was done by "The Scout Gun Guys" at the Scout Rifle Conferences, chaired by Jeff Cooper. This is just light entertainment decades removed from the real discussions...


In any event, all the purpose of the thread was intended to do was to allow a virtual inspection of one "snapshot in steel" of a time past, with a rifle built at the source, and shot by some of the best shooters of the era. Nothing more, nothing less.

When I dig out "Lion Scout 2", I'll show it as well. It's a Model 7 done for the following conference, in .350 Rem Mag which was a favororite choice of the time for a heavier rifle. Someplace if I didn't lose it in Hurricaine Sandy, I should have a letter Jeff wrote to me about it after he had shot it for a few weeks and before I picked it up. If I can find it I'll scan it and post it here.



Smile, and remember that you're among friends.

Willie

.

 

[Gordon]

Taliv I agree with your #1 and #4 point, but not on the other points.
Rifles that weigh more than about 6 1/2 pounds tend to be very uncomfortable to carry - all the time in the field like a scout was meant to. That is why the big push in the AR crowd for a lighter "neck tie" , nicht wahr?
I went down the ultralight route in a .308 having Chet Brown made me a 5 pound carbine, that is too light so the original "standards" seem right on and I have had more than a few very accurate carbines in that weight range.
I went thru a few "sniper courses" and the AI magazine (or other magazines like I tried in the 80s) are a wash if you are not part of a police or military unit. In the real world one would shoot no more than say 5 rounds max and scoot, unless you had serious back up and a protected position. One round one kill is the credo and 3-5 targets are realistic for a single bolt gun guy as an outside maximum. With the Scout rifle one takes the shot or three of opportunity and scoots away or goes and picks up what he bagged!
So IMHO the Scout concept as envisioned is viable and stands up to testing except in my 30 year experience in some lighting situations which pop up from time to time the forward mounted magnified optic has let me down and they are all gone for me.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Willie Sutton -

Read for comprehension please, and note that the Scout was never envisioned by any of us as a military arm of any sort.

Willie Sutton -

Military scouts don't carry them because they have a better specialized rifle for the task, noting (yet again) that it was never intended for such application, and that the choice of the name is confusing to many who don't understand what it was designed to do, and for whom.

Willie Sutton responding to taliv -

"military uses of arms probably comprise more than half of total uses"

Willie Sutton - It comprises zero percent of the intended use of the "Honest Scout", as envisioned by it's originators (one of whom you are engaged with in a conversation). What's your point?

He is my point Willie: Bravo Sierra.

Just because I am not a fan does not mean I am not very familiar with John “Jeff” Cooper’s statements. I have no need to read an online link to Commentaries that are well crafted and edited versions of his statements over the past five decades. To suggest “The very term "Scout" was intended to bring to mind the wilderness scouts of the 18th and 19th centuries” as the sole inspiration for the name “Scout Rifle” is ridiculous to anyone who knows how enamored Cooper was with the Selous Scouts. I may not have been a Cooper “Family Member” like you but I know enough about Cooper to know it was not a family of equals or even one where Cooper considered himself “First among Equals”. That rifle was never going to be named anything but what Cooper wanted it named and he sure as sugar did not conceive it as just a 7.62x51 “general purpose” game rifle.

 

[Nom de Forum]

"When countless descriptions of the scout rifle include the term general purpose, it is not a lack of reading comprehension that leads a rational person to include military purposes."

Pesky words. Sort of like coming to the wrong conclusion after reading the Second Amendment without reading the Federalist Papers. ......
........ To be very clear, the concept, as brought to fruition by the originators *including myself* had no, or at the very most a very tiny peripheral possibility of a military-type use. Nobody ever seriously considered that it would have ANY military application.

There is no wrongly concluding that just within this thread you have changed from your original absolutely certain statements about the inspiration and intended purpose of the rifle to one that is not so certain.

"Install a lighter, properly bedded stock and a 2x scope on a Steyr Mannlicher M95/30 and you have a "Scout Rifle""

Save for action length and caliber, pretty much. That's why it was studied and shot at the ranch, where most of the shooters said "I want one". I think it also influenced Steyr into taking on the final project to build the modern version. Jeff was pretty good about using historical framing to get what he wanted.

I knew that and that is exactly why I mentioned it.

"Scout Rifle? Check out top rifle on the cover of this 1966 Sports Afield Gun Annual."

Absolutely: This photo was one of the illustrations used in the discussions. I think a copy was framed at The Smithy, to be truthful. Everything is an endless series of evolutions, all we did was to increase the rate by formal collaboration and a series of symposia that were dedicated to gaining concensus among many very bright shooters.

Instead of a picture from 1966, it could have easily been a picture of a M94 .30-30 from 1956, the point being the whole short, light weight, rifle with a forward mounted scope was not some great epiphany that Cooper had that you and the rest of the gang turned into a historical milestone in rifle development. Considering its general lack of adoption, the Cooper Guide Gun concept just about qualifies for inclusion in the thread on firearm flops in the General Discussion Forum. Just a few more years need to pass and it will be ready.

Smile, and remember that you're among friends.

Willie

That's right we are all on the same side in supporting the RKBA, but we should remember one of the friendliest things friends can do is give a friend a reality check when he is displaying selective or faulty memory.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"To suggest “The very term "Scout" was intended to bring to mind the wilderness scouts of the 18th and 19th centuries” as the sole inspiration for the name “Scout Rifle” is ridiculous to anyone who knows how enamored Cooper was with the Selous Scouts."

You include the word "sole" in your statement when no such certitude has been made by me. The inspiration of a man or small group living unsupported with long term presence in the wilderness, and the tools best used to be relied on in that environment, bridge epochs - never mind generations. Daniel Boone, Kit Carson, Sealous Scout, Texas Ranger, or Buffalo Scout: The genre and inspiration are the same. The point I was trying to make is that anyone visualizing the term "Scout" in the modern military sense of the term is simply visualizing the wrong picture, and that's the point.


"Instead of a picture from 1966, it could have easily been a picture of a M94 .30-30 from 1956, the point being the whole short, light weight, rifle with a forward mounted scope was not some great epiphany that Cooper had that you and the rest of the gang turned into a historical milestone in rifle development"

Nobody disagrees that the concept was long in the making, and all involved cheerfully agree that we stood on the back of much other prior work (like all scientific and academic pursuits). The formalization of the collaborative effort was what was new. It was an interesting period of time, and participation was an honor. Whether or not the impact will be long lasting can only be known in years far distant from now. In any event, it's an interesting footnote if not a cornerstone in the study of the practical rifle.


"we should remember one of the friendliest things friends can do is give a friend a reality check when he is displaying selective or faulty memory"

Were you there to remember?


Smile,


Willie

.

 

[Sam1911]

I'll agree I really don't get the agitation that the discussion of the "Scout Rifle" brings up.

It's a snapshot of history. A curiosity that a few of the "best and brightest" gunnies played with refining almost 40 years ago. A neat idea. Obviously, it isn't where rifle development stopped. I surely hope (and doubt) that the good Colonel would not be happy to see that we'd all got high-centered and hung up on that one concept as some sort of ULTIMATE anything.

Everything exists in a continuum, rifles no less than any other possession. A little more of this, a little less of that. Add these, take off that. Build to suit ... YOU. In the end, who cares what one, or even a handful, of well-meaning young codgers, and the king of their Pride, wanted back then? Truth is, constructing a "TRUE" Scout rifle isn't actually all that hard. The problem is, not very many people really -- REALLY -- want one.

It doesn't have a forward-mounted optic? Then it isn't a Scout. So what? They are interesting, but not a solution to all (or many) shooting problems.

It weighs a bit too much? Then it isn't a Scout. So what? Maybe you don't have to walk so danged far with it that you care.

Its barrel is too short? Then it isn't a Scout. So what? Again we see a fascination with JUST this velocity number or AT LEAST that energy number ... as though a few units in one direction or another really matter very much to someone who has the brains and patience to learn his rifle and his load.

It's got a magazine that sticks out? Then it isn't a Scout. So what? So it doesn't balance just right when carrying it in one hand just such a way. Meh, so use that fancy-dancy sling, sport!

It's not in .308 Win? Then it isn't a Scout. So what? Did you really want to HUNT with cheap surplus ball ammo anyway? Heck, there ain't no more cheap surplus ball ammo, so that's a moot point, but you're going to be buying your hunting ammo -- or making it -- so shoot whatever you like. .243, 7mm Mauser, 7mm-'08, .276 B-J Express, .333 Jeffry Rimless ... whatever suits you. You aren't going to be raiding dropped military battle-packs of 7.62 NATO ammo, anywhere, ever, and you shouldn't be shooting moose with FMJs.

And on, and on. These were just a collection of good ideas. Not a religion.

And that collection of good ideas made for a rifle that should appeal to one, FAIRLY UNUSUAL, type of rifleman (who we're now told is really only a hunter). There's really no reason almost any of us would give up stuff we like about other rifles to embrace the things that make a Scout rifle the very apple of Col. Cooper's eye and the thing he clutched to his breast when he had a bad dream.

It's just exactly the thing to have if you're going to hunt moose in Canada and bears in PA and prairie dogs in Kansas, and gators in Florida -- and you plan to carry it in your hand as you walk across our great land to each of those hunts! Great. I've got a car. I've never carried a rifle farther than a few miles and don't intend to. Never met a hunter who did -- and most hunters I know have WAY too many rifles, one for everything from Mice in Michigan, to Weasels in Wyoming, to Whales in Washington State, and Aardvarks in Arizona. If you suggested that they could use a .308 to fill the role a .22-250 should serve, or that of a .375, they'd look at you like you just grew a second pair of antlers!

So why do we care enough to argue? Just because Ruger did a marketing thing and paid for a name? Whop-de-doo. That's what companies DO. Heck, there's a company somewhere that will tell you they're Henry Repeating Arms, and one that calls themselves Springfield Armory, and several companies that will sell you a Hawken rifle, and heck, for a while Ford would sell you a car that promised to be an "Escort." (Boy, what a disappointment THAT was! )

So, what the heck? Willie posted exactly what he said -- a "snapshot in steel." A bit of history. That's very, very cool to get to see. Maybe its evolutionary branch didn't go much farther, but it is part of firearms development history, and a bit of nostalgia for those of us old enough to remember. Let it be.

 

[Nom de Forum]

"To suggest “The very term "Scout" was intended to bring to mind the wilderness scouts of the 18th and 19th centuries” as the sole inspiration for the name “Scout Rifle” is ridiculous to anyone who knows how enamored Cooper was with the Selous Scouts."

You include the word "sole" in your statement when no such certitude has been made by me. The inspiration of a man or small group living unsupported with long term presence in the wilderness, and the tools best used to be relied on in that environment, bridge epochs - never mind generations. Daniel Boone, Kit Carson, Sealous Scout, Texas Ranger, or Buffalo Scout: The genre and inspiration are the same. The point I was trying to make is that anyone visualizing the term "Scout" in the modern military sense of the term is simply visualizing the wrong picture, and that's the point.

My use of the word “sole” was in reply of your words “never envisioned”, “never intended”, and “zero percent of the intended use”, all of which are as limiting in meaning as the word “sole”. My point is that Cooper visualized the term “Scout” in what he considered the modern military sense. At least modern in Cooper’s mind, which was a mind living in the late 20th century but clinging to 19th and early 20th century military concepts.

"Instead of a picture from 1966, it could have easily been a picture of a M94 .30-30 from 1956, the point being the whole short, light weight, rifle with a forward mounted scope was not some great epiphany that Cooper had that you and the rest of the gang turned into a historical milestone in rifle development"

Nobody disagrees that the concept was long in the making, and all involved cheerfully agree that we stood on the back of much other prior work (like all scientific and academic pursuits). The formalization of the collaborative effort was what was new. It was an interesting period of time, and participation was an honor. Whether or not the impact will be long lasting can only be known in years far distant from now. In any event, it's an interesting footnote if not a cornerstone in the study of the practical rifle.


"we should remember one of the friendliest things friends can do is give a friend a reality check when he is displaying selective or faulty memory"

Were you there to remember?


Smile,


Willie

I was not and have never claimed to have been “there”. Neither were you “there” when the Federalist Papers and the Second Amendment were composed and that does not prevent you from having a good understanding of both. Perhaps my not being “there” is why what I know of what Cooper stated about the origin of the “Scout Rifle” is not shuffled into a small corner of memory by the many other things you heard during its development or obscured by sentiment and fond memories of camaraderie. I appreciate you creating this thread to provide THR members historical information on the “Scout Rifle”. I also appreciate the need for anyone to object to real or perceived inaccuracy and provide historical and current context. That is what I have been attempting to do.

I am smiling Willie.

.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Why does the "Scout Rifle" cause agitation in some people? Could it be that some people treat it as their magical totem that all the "insiders" know is better than what the other guys are carrying? Could it be expression of revulsion due to the cult status it enjoys with some people? Could it be just annoyance with the untruth that something, while not a particularly bad tool, is touted as being better than it is?

 

[JRH6856]

I wasn't "there", but I was out here, along with many others, reading what the Col. wrote about his concept of the Scout rifle. The idea I got was not mid 1800s, but mid to late 1700s. As I read, lurking between the lines he wrote were the Minutemen. and the type of rifle they had—a personally owned, rifle, generally suited for hunting most types of game, but with military usefulness if circumstances necessitated such use. I never got the idea that Cooper envisioned civilians in anything other than a guerrilla role, like the Minutemen, sniping from cover, hitting and running. And his idea of the Scout rifle was what he thought was the kind of hunting rifle best suited to that role.

That's how I remember it and it has been the concept I have had of the Scout rifle ever since. It's a real surprise to learn it was never part of the discussion.

 

[Art Eatman]

Maybe shoulda been called the "Outdoorsman". That's pretty much what I've been, for many and many a decade. (80 - 7 = a long, long time.) If Cooper's Scout had been available in 1950, I'd have jumped on it like a duck on a june-bug.

By the time the Steyr came out, though, I was already pretty much married up with conventional scope mounting. And my little Sako Forester carbine only totals at seven pounds, fully dressed for Bambi. Sorta scoutish, but it ain't a Scout.

The Ruger thingummie's a good rifle; I've shot one. But it's not in tune with Cooper's song.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Maybe shoulda been called the "Outdoorsman". That's pretty much what I've been, for many and many a decade. (80 - 7 = a long, long time.) If Cooper's Scout had been available in 1950, I'd have jumped on it like a duck on a june-bug.

By the time the Steyr came out, though, I was already pretty much married up with conventional scope mounting. And my little Sako Forester carbine only totals at seven pounds, fully dressed for Bambi. Sorta scoutish, but it ain't a Scout.

The Ruger thingummie's a good rifle; I've shot one. But it's not in tune with Cooper's song.

Cooper Scout, Steyr Cooper Scout, Sako Forester, or Ruger thingummie would be more than adequate for many hunters and thought a marvel by any "Scout" alive when Fredrick Selous was roaming around.