Please explain the "Scout Rifle"

[SGW42]

I think it's fun to think about and discuss the "scout rifle" concept but when it's actually realized in steel it's just not appealing.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

I never understood the idea that a "scout", in military terms, would be well-served at all by a bolt-action rifle. Any of the immediate-action drills I am familiar with from the Marines call for putting a huge amount of lead down range when you are part of a small recon ("scout" in the big Army) team that experiences contact. The scout rifle is poorly suited. If it was as well-suited as Jeff Coopers fantasies wish it were, somebody, somewhere, in some military unit, would be using it.

Now, for a light-weight hunting rifle, it's probably a real contender. Short, easy to carry, medium-power cartridge, what's not to like? Let's just not pretend it belongs in a military role.

 

[35 Whelen]

5 years ago much of what we had as far as electronic sights were in the teething pain era. I think Trijicon has gone a long way to prove they are Battle worthy.
Things change, technology advances and we can embrace it and take what we know in to the future with us or become that Old Guy who yells "You kids get off my grass!"

Agreed. The problem with the electronic devices from a practical standpoint is that any device such as these are dependent on an external device; batteries. Your battery goes, your aiming device goes as well. I think this is evident by the HUGE number of backup sights that are currently on the market. If the electronic devices were fail-proof, there'd be no need for these, right?
I think that's also the reason Mr. Cooper stated in his definition that backup sights are desireable on the Scout platform, because even a standard scope can fail. It's happened to me numerous times in over 30 years of hunting. Occurences ranging from foul tempered horses to knuckleheaded friends mishandling my rifle to slipping on snow covered rocks are a reality. And I've never been one to follow the masses to buy the latest and greatest when what I already use serves my needs perfectly.

I never understood the idea that a "scout", in military terms, would be well-served at all by a bolt-action rifle. Any of the immediate-action drills I am familiar with from the Marines call for putting a huge amount of lead down range when you are part of a small recon ("scout" in the big Army) team that experiences contact. The scout rifle is poorly suited. If it was as well-suited as Jeff Coopers fantasies wish it were, somebody, somewhere, in some military unit, would be using it.

To my knowledge, the term Scout wasn't intended in military terms rather in terns of yore when a scout was typically a single individual. The idea was for one man to have a rifle capable of "...striking a single decisive blow, on a live target...". (as opposed to spraying little 62 gr. bullets everywhere )

The idea of a "do it all" rifle is such a personal preference that marketing any gun as a "do it all" will certainly fail.

These rifles, to my knowledge, have never been marketed as "do it all" rifles, but rather general purpose rifles much like the lever action 30-30 use to be considered.

There's a great forum called The Scout Rifle Community with alot of good information and clarification on the Scout platform. I found there a fantastic thread called Close Inspection of Coopers Scout Rifle Definition that really explains the concept. Check it out.

35W

 

[230therapy]

Why does anyone need a scope for hunting inside 100 yards? It seems to me that a red dot optic would be a better choice. At the minimum, I would just get something with a forward rail, mount an Aimpoint Micro cowitnessed with the iron sights, add a sling, and call it done. The Aimpoint is more reasonably priced than the ACOG, but both will work.

I intend to build one strictly for targets and hunting on a bolt action, but this will do for now.

My "scout" rifle (just add Federal Fusion cartridges in 7.62x39mm in a five round magazine):

 

[22lr]

Why does anyone need a scope for hunting inside 100 yards? It seems to me that a red dot optic would be a better choice.

Again here is where the personal aspect comes in, id rather have a set of quality irons inside of 150 yards. I just dont see the logic in the need for a scope when your not shooting for accuracy past minute of deer. But then again, its all preference and id see how id would help some folks.

 

[230therapy]

The reason I was advocating for a red dot is that my manager couldn't take the shot because he lost the reticle in the background. Speed was needed for that shot and he missed the opportunity.

The good news is that his neighbor shot that buck a few hours later. It was very, very nice.

 

[LoonWulf]

Ive always like lite rifles, and untill recently REALY wanted to try out a scout set up. So, before i hacked up my nagant (and afterwards actually) i ran the forward scope on it. Now i really like the idea, and the rifle design and purpose, but Ill stick to a standard scope mount.

 

[mac66]

Having been an early fan and devotee of Jeff Cooper I have to paraphrase Cooper himself and say that the scout rifle is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I really, really tried to like the forward scope. In my experience having built a number of scout type rifles the forward scope gets banged around and snags branches and brush. It also shifts the center of balance too far forward. In reality it does nothing a conventional bolt action can't do.

In regards to the rest of the scout concept, it may have had some advantage in the trenches of WWI but serves no purpose since then.

 

[Welding Rod]

To my knowledge, the term Scout wasn't intended in military terms rather in terns of yore when a scout was typically a single individual. The idea was for one man to have a rifle capable of "...striking a single decisive blow, on a live target...". (as opposed to spraying little 62 gr. bullets everywhere )

35W

Right. A living target up to 200 Kilos (440 pounds) to be exact. I don't think military application had anything to do with the Scout concept. Cooper saw his "Thumper" concept as the one applicable for military use.

 

[35 Whelen]

In my experience having built a number of scout type rifles the forward scope gets banged around and snags branches and brush. It also shifts the center of balance too far forward.

As one who has used a Scout rifle for the last 20 or so years, (and I mean USED as in killing around 90% of the red meat my family consumes) I have to ask, how does a low profile 2.75X scope mounted down against the barrel get more banged up or snag more brush than one mounted nice and high on the receiver? Especially in the case of todays popular scopes that sport 50mm objectives and salt & pepper shaker size turrets? (which also tend to shift the balance up the rifle UP)

In reality it does nothing a conventional bolt action can't do.

If you honestly were a fan and devotee of Cooper, you know that the forward mounted scope has one huge advantage over conventional scope mounting; it allows the shooter to maintain awareness of his surroundings while using the scope, provided of course said shooter is shooting with both eyes open as he or she should be. The other less obvious advantage is ease of loading even allowing the use of stripper clips in the case of converted military rifles.

You know, if a person doesn't like Scout rifles, it's more than OK to just say "I don't like them." Much better than stating reasons that make no sense!

35W

 

[Gordon]

I had a couple Scout rifles in my time all based on 600 Remington actions after I first saw the Blessed Col. demonstrate his at API. The first one was a stock .308 600 with the Bhueler mount that replaced the rear sight and with a williams Foolproof in the factory tapped holes. It was OK and I used it for hunting a few years. The 2nd .308 600Rem was built by Chet Brown out of his San Jose garage and weighed 5.5 pounds with it's Burris scout scope but was stolen before I got to hunt it . I found the gun being worked on by a gunsmith 10 years later and the "owner" claimed he had it made and it turned into a court case with the gun seized by police and "lost" . So much for justice!
The original Scout I used during the 80s was 4" accurate at 100 yards with that scope combo and I had problems with losing shots early in morning and sunset when the sun was in your back. Seems with out your head blocking the rear light in those frequent conditions the rear lens would flare out! That action and barrel now is in my Bull Pup and is a MOA gun with an 8x56 german optic!
Last month I got my version of the "thumper"out of the back of my safe ; a 1966 Remington 600 in .35 Remington with the old Bhuler mount from my first scout and the M8 IER 2x . I ordered an EGW Pic rail for the 600 action and put the original rear sight back on the rifle. I got low Warne Maxima QD rings and mounted a Leupold Varix -2 1-4 on it and loaded up 200 rounds of 180 speer semi spitzer over Ball C 2 in a load I know is accurate and makes 2300 fps in an 18" barrel. Right after thanksgiving I am going to destroy a couple dozen pumpkins after I sight it in. This .35 Remington is not as blasty out the 18" barrel like a .308 is , and the 6.5 pound combo kicks less than a .308 version- notably less sharp ! The destruction of that .35 load within 200 yards is greater than a .308 carbine IMHObservation. This combo will be my ultimate Hog gun after I figer how to get a small pic rail for a light mounted. I get pictures up after the testing!

 

[NOLAEMT]

I don't think Col. Cooper refused to have electronic sights mounted on his rifle.

When I was at gunsite, Ms. Cooper invited us to the Sconce on friday, and in his gun room was an HK 308 rifle, with a trijicon red dot sight mounted.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I never understood the idea that a "scout", in military terms, would be well-served at all by a bolt-action rifle. Any of the immediate-action drills I am familiar with from the Marines call for putting a huge amount of lead down range when you are part of a small recon ("scout" in the big Army) team that experiences contact. The scout rifle is poorly suited. If it was as well-suited as Jeff Coopers fantasies wish it were, somebody, somewhere, in some military unit, would be using it.

+1. Cooper clearly intended the scout rifle to have military/paramilitary utility, since in addition to being able to decisively kill anything up to 200 kilos he also specified that it was to have a stripper clip guide for military speed loading. This is not a feature needed for hunting, ranch rifle varmint control, etc. It's something found on fighting rifles (admittedly, fighting rifles from 70 years ago, but still).

And he clearly had no idea what was actually of utility to a military scout (having 19D in my MOS collection I feel pretty comfortable calling shenanigans on Cooper for this one, much as I like the guy on handgun related stuff, etc.).

What I think Cooper really specified was a 1970s/1980s tech solution to the ideal battle rifle for the Banana Wars the USMC fought before WW2. If I was chasing Haitian or Nicaraguan or whatever bandits across farm fields, scrub, and jungle in 1925 or so, the scout rifle as specified by Cooper would be the greatest thing since the military rum ration. But it doesn't really do anything particularly needful for a military or civilian shooter by the time he outlined the specs for the design. The end result is an almost religious mystery -- Cooper is considered a firearms guru and prophet (rightly so in some respects) and he said it's good, so it must be . . . just no one is really sure at what.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Well said, HorseSoldier. Very well said.

Allow me to expound a bit on my previous post: Immediate-action drills for a small (four men or less) recon / scout team experiencing contact consist of this:

1. Shoot. A lot. As much as possible. Don't aim, just shoot shoot shoot in the direction of the contact.

2. Run away, but while doing #1

The object is to get the hostile persons to get the heck down while you run away to break contact. #1 hopefully accomplishes the "get down" part, and you also hope and pray that they think, based on the volume of fire, that they have run into a whole stinkin' regiment. That will make them pursue slower, with much more caution (or decide not to pursue at all) while you accomplish #2 above and call for evacuation.

Jeff Cooper's scout concept is very, VERY ill-equipped for this. So I re-iterate: In a military application, the scout rifle is nearly useless. In a hunting application, I consider it a unique, under-utilized, and very viable tool.

My opinion, only.

 

[Gordon]

"Sir , you get my quote of the year award, Sir!
"If I was chasing Haitian or Nicaraguan or whatever bandits across farm fields, scrub, and jungle in 1925 or so, the scout rifle as specified by Cooper would be the greatest thing since the military rum ration."

 

[Welding Rod]

I still don't see that. Cooper was very clear that his idea of a military arm was "Thumper", a 20 round box mag'd semi auto only .44 Automag, with a 3.5 pound clean breaking trigger. A 250 meter gun. His rational was based on his observation that hits at 300 meters and beyond on partially obscured and/or moving targets by soldiers was pretty unlikely, if not unnecessary in the day of modern communications and support weapons on the battle field.

Edit: A few more specs:

18" long w/ stock folded, can be fired folded if necessary
240 grain bullet
Ghost ring sight / square front post
Can take optics
4.5 pounds unloaded
1,800 FPS from a 10" barrel
Muzzle brake
"Flash loading system" (Last round loaded discharges magazine to a half-way point)

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

I disagree with Mr. Cooper yet again. A .44 Magnum? Is he serious? Rainbow trajectory, massive recoil, heavy ammunition limiting combat load-out, and hopeless performance on body armor?

Engagements in Afghanistan average over 300m, according to the Army. Based on actual on-the-ground experience, The School of Advanced Military Studies is stressing the need to increase the effective range of Army equipment and training, not go down to an over-powered sub-machine gun. (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA512331)

A .44 Magnum is a huge step in the wrong direction. How can I take the man seriously with ideas like this?

 

[35 Whelen]

Cooper clearly intended the scout rifle to have military/paramilitary utility, since in addition to being able to decisively kill anything up to 200 kilos he also specified that it was to have a stripper clip guide for military speed loading.

Nonsense. You're inserting information to bolster your opinion. First, I don't know of any military application where a 440 lb. living creature would need to be dispatched. Second, he stated "Action: Magazine fed bolt action. Detachable box magazine and or stripper clip charging is desirable but not necessary" (emphasis is mine) I read nothing here about military "speed loading". Magazines and strippers aren't "needed", they're simply a convenient way to carry ammunition rather than loose in ones pocket. Why don't you take time to study his parameters for the rifle? I posted a link a few posts up and an even better link below.

And he clearly had no idea what was actually of utility to a military scout (having 19D in my MOS collection I feel pretty comfortable calling shenanigans on Cooper for this one, much as I like the guy on handgun related stuff, etc.).

I don't know the details of his military service, and I doubt you do either, but surely it had an influence on his designing of said rifle. You seriously need to follow the below link to the article by Cooper.

Allow me to expound a bit on my previous post: Immediate-action drills for a small (four men or less) recon / scout team experiencing contact consist of this:

1. Shoot. A lot. As much as possible. Don't aim, just shoot shoot shoot in the direction of the contact.

2. Run away, but while doing #1

The object is to get the hostile persons to get the heck down while you run away to break contact. #1 hopefully accomplishes the "get down" part, and you also hope and pray that they think, based on the volume of fire, that they have run into a whole stinkin' regiment. That will make them pursue slower, with much more caution (or decide not to pursue at all) while you accomplish #2 above and call for evacuation.

This goes 100% AGAINST Coopers vision of a scout and a Scout rifle.

Rather than try to convince the unconvinceable of Col. Coopers intentions, I submit an article my the Man himself:

The Scout Rifle Idea- By Jeff Cooper

You'll (hopefully) read that he was against the run, spray and pray tactics mentioned above. In fact if the OP'er will read this article, then there should be no more questions!

35W

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Thank you for the link, and the genteel discussion. I will read your link, and comment.

The article opens with a US Army definition of a "scout". Paragraph two reads "...obviously a scout was a very high type of soldier". Paragraph two later says "...he had to be an expert in the art of hit-and-run single combat". Paragraph three talks about "the enemy", and mentions artillery, mechanized infantry, and tanks So, we have mention of the US Army, the scout being a soldier, combat, "the enemy", artillery, mechanized infantry, and tanks in the opening three paragraphs of the article. This indicates a military purpose. I didn't see anything about hunting in the opening statements of the article.

We also see in the opening "one round one hit-and then vanish!" That doesn't reflect the reality of modern combat in the least. When a small scout team stumbles upon a larger force, they come under a massive volume of fire. This isn't conjecture, it's what has historically happened since the advent of the high-capacity, semi and full-auto military rifle, and the machine gun. Typically your first indication of contact is a barrage of machine-gun fire. If you can take a perfect, well-aimed shot and smoke one bad guy whilst enduring that onslaught, you're better than I am. Consider the fact that in my personal experience, you usually can't pin-point who is shooting at you. That means you can't even see the person to aim at them! Even if you do take out one guy, the rest of his squad will keep hammering you.

The scout rifle just doesn't have a military application. If it did, why don't the units around the world that can use whatever they want (SOCOM, SAS, etc.) use it? What do they pick? The M-4 carbine, not Cooper's scout rifle.

The article displayed in your link above, in my opinion, tries to create a romantic fantasy idea of this "scout". The purpose of that fantasy is to sell these rifles. Or the idea of these rifles, actually. This fantasy is simply not even close to the reality of modern combat.

Keep the scout rifle in the hunting woods, where it is a very compact, light, handy rifle with manageable recoil. I would say "keep it out of combat", but I don't have to since there is zero chance of it making it there in the first place. Choosing between Jeff Cooper's scout fantasy, or the military tactics developed in the US Army, Marine Corps, and Navy DevGru by professionals through real-life combat experience, well, I'll go with the pros. Take your scout rifle hunting, and enjoy it. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's a viable military arm.

 

[fal762x51]

I don't like scout rifles. I am a huge fan of Cooper otherwise. Having a general purpose rifle makes as much sense as a general purpose golf club. I have found I shoot better if I use a rifle optimized for the particular purpose at hand.

The closest I can come to a scout in my collection would be a DSA FAL with a forward mounted Aimpoint. I can't think of a reason why a bolt action with a forward mounted glass scope would be better other than weight.

 

[Fringe]

I can't think of a reason why a bolt action with a forward mounted glass scope would

That is what a Scout is suppose to be, A light compact rifle, Fast to aim not a fast loading battle rifle you would use on head on combat.

 

[fal762x51]

I know. I just can't figure out how much practical different there is in the speed of aiming, or how it could be important. How much difference do you think there is in aiming speed between 2 rifles that weigh 6 and 8 pounds respectively? I think the difference would be measured in sub-seconds.

 

[Ignition Override]

The idea of stating FR8 or Enfield "Jungle Carbine" (ten rd. magazine) popped up before going past the OP's question.

35 Whelen: at 50 yards from the bench with just the forearm on a soft support and nothing firm under the rear arm, my FR8 had two shots touching and three in a touching triangle in another, after a few practiced shots.

This is by using the 200 yard aperture (from 50 yards), having the front post replaced by a thin roll pin which is 2mm higher, super-glued on. It is fully-elevated/rotated as high as can be held by the tiny set screw. This might work also well in the HK-91, PTR and Cetme.

These FR8s cost half the price of a "Ruger "Scout", have flash hiders, hold bayonets and seem much more appealing.

 

[billymarr]

Horse Soldier I am with you on this. I my self being a Scout 84 to 94. Scouts out.

Ok the Scout concept by Mr Cooper is seriously out dated period. In a military aplication. We know that.

As for a light weight hunting rifle good idea so lets call it a Sporter oh we have that all ready.
So lets drop the Scout Rifle name at best by his defintion is out dated. You want to talk modern day we that is diffrent and lets start a new discussion.

 

[Don357]

I built mine from a M48 Yugo Mauser 8mm. I wasn't sure I would like it, but tried it anyway because I didn't really want to drill and tap the rifle, even though there is really no historical significance to it. It turned out that I like it, and it works really well. Just as it did for the Germans and Russians in WWII. The concept, not the rifle.