Questioning the Scout Rifle concept.

Status
Not open for further replies.
grampajack said:
Apparently there have been recent advancements in scope technology. The 4x I can almost believe, depending on how far forward it is, but the 2-7x I'm having trouble with.
Click to expand...

@grandpajack, sorry to backtrack in this thread since this was a couple days ago, but I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind expanding a little on what you're meaning about 4x vs. 2-7x as scout scopes?
 
CraigC said:
I like the Scout Rifle concept but have never had the urge to own one. I do think the Ruger is a good example of an evolution of the concept. The primary reason for the forward mounted scope was clearance to load from stripper clips. I don't think that is the most important aspect of the rifle and the detachable mags of the Ruger are an improvement over it, with some minor trade-offs. A good 1-4x mounted on the receiver gives up nothing to the forward mounted setup but has benefits of its own and greatly opens your options for an optic. I would probably use an XS full length rail to mount a traditional 1-4x scope and keep the iron sights.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/436943

But the intermediate eye relief 1-4x pictured above looks like a nice setup too.
Click to expand...

I had one of the XS rails on my Ruger GSR but pulled it off and went back to the original rail. Compared with the factory rail the XS rail adds a little weight and more stuff over the ejection port. If you use the XS rail to mount a conventional scope it puts it too high, IMO.
 
Varminterror said:
@grandpajack, sorry to backtrack in this thread since this was a couple days ago, but I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind expanding a little on what you're meaning about 4x vs. 2-7x as scout scopes?
Click to expand...

I've just never seen a scope that was above 2.5x that had unlimited eye relief. I know scopes have come a long ways in recent years, but I'm just skeptical that you could get enough eye relief on a 7x to mount in a scout position.
 
Dave Markowitz said:
If you use the XS rail to mount a conventional scope it puts it too high, IMO.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty common problem with ANY Ruger M77MkII/Hawkeye/GSR - the comb heights have been "iron sight friendly" for all Ruger's for a long time, put any optic with a decent objective on top and you end up reaching up to the optic. I've had cheek pieces on almost all of my Rugers for over 20yrs.
 
Has anyone compared weight of the Boyd's Featherlight thumbhole stock for the GSR with the original laminate? I like my GSR, but that stock makes it too heavy to meet the Col's specifications, and you can feel that weight if you carry it any length of time.

The Scout is a rifle that is carried much and shot little, thus the emphasis on it being light and handy.
 
grampajack said:
I've just never seen a scope that was above 2.5x that had unlimited eye relief. I know scopes have come a long ways in recent years, but I'm just skeptical that you could get enough eye relief on a 7x to mount in a scout position.
Click to expand...

Gotcha - that makes sense. The reason I ask is simply that I've used a lot of 2-6x and 2-8x handgun scopes which are surprisingly good quality optics. They're on the other end of the spectrum, of course, having too much eye relief for a scout set up.

I don't spend much time stalking the scout scope market, since I'm generally not satisfied with the concept, but I do use a lot of long eye relief scopes on handguns, and I go back and forth between rifle scopes and handgun scopes. I don't think ANY of them truly have "unlimited" eye relief, but there are several options for different lengths out there - I find some models which seem to be designed to be mounted over the cylinder frame of revolvers with eye relief specs somewhere in the 12-15" ballpark, and then others which seem to be designed to be barrel mounted on revolvers, designed in the 19-23" eye relief range - and mixing the two mounting vs. eye relief specs can be a pain in the butt. I've used some of my shorter handgun scopes on scout rifles, in addition to the few scout scopes I have used.

For handgun scopes, I almost unilaterally use 2-6x and 2-8x scopes, I've taken a pass on the 2x and 4x Fixies for about the last 10yrs or so, as when I want a scope on a handgun, I want more than 2 or 4x. If I need more than 8x, I typically just convert to a rifle scope (this is ONE application where I can justify a red dot riding on top of the scope, instead of a 45degree mount). If I could find a side focus parallax 4-16x44mm optic with a 19-21" eye relief, adjustable turrets, and a FFP milling reticle, I'd go broke overnight. Burris swung and missed with me by offering the AO 3-12x model, but it only has a paltry 28MOA of internal adjustment... Fully recognizing here, not many folks talk about handgun scopes in the same context as I.

At the end of the day, a guy really needs to pay attention to the spec pages and compare that to his real world relief. If your rifle and body don't let you put the scope close enough or far enough away for its specs, then its not the right scope.
 
Sistema1927 said:
The Scout is a rifle that is carried much and shot little, thus the emphasis on it being light and handy.
Click to expand...

I have read this said a lot, but I'm not sure I really agree with it. If it's carried a lot and shot little, then reloading or topping off isn't a major consideration. If it's only shot little, a guy is fine with a single shot, and doesn't have to worry about where the optic is positioned. Cooper meant for the Scout rifles to be shot quickly, and sometimes in high volume.

It's more of a rifle which is carried IN HAND a lot which needs to be quickly deployed, and might need to refilled equally fast.
 
Varminterror said:
Gotcha - that makes sense. The reason I ask is simply that I've used a lot of 2-6x and 2-8x handgun scopes which are surprisingly good quality optics. They're on the other end of the spectrum, of course, having too much eye relief for a scout set up.

I don't spend much time stalking the scout scope market, since I'm generally not satisfied with the concept, but I do use a lot of long eye relief scopes on handguns, and I go back and forth between rifle scopes and handgun scopes. I don't think ANY of them truly have "unlimited" eye relief, but there are several options for different lengths out there - I find some models which seem to be designed to be mounted over the cylinder frame of revolvers with eye relief specs somewhere in the 12-15" ballpark, and then others which seem to be designed to be barrel mounted on revolvers, designed in the 19-23" eye relief range - and mixing the two mounting vs. eye relief specs can be a pain in the butt. I've used some of my shorter handgun scopes on scout rifles, in addition to the few scout scopes I have used.

For handgun scopes, I almost unilaterally use 2-6x and 2-8x scopes, I've taken a pass on the 2x and 4x Fixies for about the last 10yrs or so, as when I want a scope on a handgun, I want more than 2 or 4x. If I need more than 8x, I typically just convert to a rifle scope (this is ONE application where I can justify a red dot riding on top of the scope, instead of a 45degree mount). If I could find a side focus parallax 4-16x44mm optic with a 19-21" eye relief, adjustable turrets, and a FFP milling reticle, I'd go broke overnight. Burris swung and missed with me by offering the AO 3-12x model, but it only has a paltry 28MOA of internal adjustment... Fully recognizing here, not many folks talk about handgun scopes in the same context as I.

At the end of the day, a guy really needs to pay attention to the spec pages and compare that to his real world relief. If your rifle and body don't let you put the scope close enough or far enough away for its specs, then its not the right scope.
Click to expand...

I had no idea. I was looking for a scout scope for my M1A a while back, and I didn't see anything even close to that. Why would someone buy a 2.5x scout scope when they could have a 2-8x pistol scope that did the same thing? There must be some kind of trade off, or...?
 
Sistema1927 said:
Has anyone compared weight of the Boyd's Featherlight thumbhole stock for the GSR with the original laminate? I like my GSR, but that stock makes it too heavy to meet the Col's specifications, and you can feel that weight if you carry it any length of time.
Click to expand...

Per Ruger's website:
the 16.1" laminate stocked GSR is 7.1 lbs.
the 16.1" synthetic stocked GSR is 6.2 lbs.
the bare synthetic GSR stock is 1.8 lbs.

So, I'd have to guess the laminate GSR stock averages around 2.7 lbs.

It looks like that Boyd's stock averages 2.4 lbs.
 
Last edited:
grampajack said:
I had no idea. I was looking for a scout scope for my M1A a while back, and I didn't see anything even close to that. Why would someone buy a 2.5x scout scope when they could have a 2-8x pistol scope that did the same thing? There must be some kind of trade off, or...?
Click to expand...

Weight and simplicity.

If you find Scout Rifle aficionados that chase the ideal weight, they usually prefer small mounts soldered to the barrel, aluminum scope rings, and lightweight scopes. The rest of the rifle usually follows as well including Biothane slings.

One example of a current gunsmith that converts rifles to the scout configuration.
http://granitemountaintactical.com/?page_id=301

Another factor is the field of view on a scout scope is smaller than the field of view of a traditional scope. At 7x, the field of view can get downright small on a scout scope.

Between these two 2-7x Vortex scopes, the scout version has less than half the field of view of the traditional scope.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/crossfire-II-2-7x32-scout-scope
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/crossfire-II-2-7x32-with-v-plex-moa-reticle
 
Last edited:
grampajack said:
Why would someone buy a 2.5x scout scope when they could have a 2-8x pistol scope that did the same thing? There must be some kind of trade off, or...?
Click to expand...

Just gotta find a way to convince manufacturers to put out scout scopes which split the middle between rifle and pistol eye relief ranges. I have a RGSR, had an older Frontier, and my wife has a Marlin 1895SBL, for which I tend to need 12" of eye relief for the set ups to work, whereas a SHORT pistol eye relief is 15".

I'm not sure if Leupold still uses this nomenclature, but they used to use EER and IER for their pistol and scout scopes, respectively. Extended Eye Relief and Intermediate Eye Relief. Of course, folks colloquially thought the IER meant INFINITE eye relief, but we all know there really is no such animal in a magnified optic.

"Criticality" of these optics also changes - a 2x or 4x fixie will be less critical for eye relief, in general, than a variable, so that's one challenge with handgun and scout optics. The proportionate eye relief shift due to magnification change in a rifle scope near your eye might be a quarter to half inch adjustment of your cheek weld on a ~4" eye relief, but when you kick up to a 19" eye relief, you're talking about a lot bigger shift, something over 2" of head position change. I can draw my shoulders and tilt my head to accommodate 2" easily enough since I'm not anchored to a buttstock with a pistol - but when a 12" eye relief moves an inch or more on a scout rifle, I just can't shift with it without sacrificing technique.

So I think limited market appeal and eye relief shift vs. magnification are the two reasons you don't see broader offerings in the scout scope arena.
 
Varminterror said:
Just gotta find a way to convince manufacturers to put out scout scopes which split the middle between rifle and pistol eye relief ranges. I have a RGSR, had an older Frontier, and my wife has a Marlin 1895SBL, for which I tend to need 12" of eye relief for the set ups to work, whereas a SHORT pistol eye relief is 15".
Click to expand...

Speaking of eye relief, the max I can work with is 9" to 10" with a scout mounted scope.

That 2-7x32 Vortex eye relief linked above is listed as 9.45". The two scopes I have on my pseudo scouts have eye reliefs starting at 10" on the GSR and 9" on the Zastava. Both are pistol scopes (Burris 2x and Simmons 2x).

I've tried 12"+ eye relief pistol scopes on bolt action rifles I own and it's just too far. I have to slide my head back on the stock, or use a slip on butt pad, or do both.
 
Frankly I think most of the confusion about the scout rifle stems from that fact that very few people know how to shoot from field positions or take their rifles afield any more. At this point something like 80% of gun owners don't hunt, and fewer still have the kind of land where having a general purpose rifle with you a high percentage of the time makes sense. For the average "shooter" seeking to decorate their closet with a rifle, the Scout has no appeal. It's expensive, and unable to match the shear menacing blackness of an AR sitting next to the laundry basket.

The scout is first and foremost about being transportable - light weight and small size. A rifle that you don't have with you is useless. Most people's rifles are useless.
The scout is second about accurate speed - the fastest possible loop sling and magnified optic. There are slings that are more stable, and optics that facilitate longer shots better. But none with the same combination of speed and accuracy.
The scout is third about rate of fire - fast reloads from a box mag or stripper clips if needed. Note that for aimed fire, the bolt action imposes only a tiny penalty on speed.
Last up the scout is about ballistics - exterior and terminal. A powerful enough round for a wide variety of game and good terminal ballistics at range.

I can't see any particular reason that the exact specs of the scout are sacrosanct. But the idea is a good one.
 
Llama Bob said:
Note that for aimed fire, the bolt action imposes only a tiny penalty on speed.
Click to expand...

Army trials in the thirties suggested that the aimed fire rate at distance was similar between the 1903 and the Garand. What was different was operator efficiency, with the Springfield users becoming fatigued.

Mo bullets be mo bettah.
 
I fail to see how the "scout" is really inherently different from any other bolt action, save for the scope being mounted up front. Probably the sole benefit of the scout, save for being able to use stripper clips (but why???), is that it forces people into low magnification, which will help their speed and accuracy in the kinds of situations the scout was intended for. Someone mentioned those using Steyr scouts dominated gunsite competitions, and I would be willing to bet the reason is that they were across the board using a lower magnification than their non scout competition. People have a tendency to use too much magnification, which is one thing when you're shooting from a bench, but another entirely when you're running around and being timed. If the others had simply dialed back a little they probably would have evened things up.
 
Llama Bob said:
Frankly I think most of the confusion about the scout rifle stems from that fact that very few people know how to shoot from field positions or take their rifles afield any more. At this point something like 80% of gun owners don't hunt, and fewer still have the kind of land where having a general purpose rifle with you a high percentage of the time makes sense. For the average "shooter" seeking to decorate their closet with a rifle, the Scout has no appeal. It's expensive, and unable to match the shear menacing blackness of an AR sitting next to the laundry basket.

The scout is first and foremost about being transportable - light weight and small size. A rifle that you don't have with you is useless. Most people's rifles are useless.
The scout is second about accurate speed - the fastest possible loop sling and magnified optic. There are slings that are more stable, and optics that facilitate longer shots better. But none with the same combination of speed and accuracy.
The scout is third about rate of fire - fast reloads from a box mag or stripper clips if needed. Note that for aimed fire, the bolt action imposes only a tiny penalty on speed.
Last up the scout is about ballistics - exterior and terminal. A powerful enough round for a wide variety of game and good terminal ballistics at range.

I can't see any particular reason that the exact specs of the scout are sacrosanct. But the idea is a good one.
Click to expand...

This sums it up well, imo! This is why I like the concept!
 
From what I've read, Jeff Cooper often took his scout rifles hunting, so he wasn't just looking at the traditional scout role.

I think what he was advocating was that a person who wanted to master the art of the rifle would benefit from owning a scout rifle so that they can shoot proficiently (speed and accuracy) from all field positions under most conditions, and once the art was mastered, it would then be possible to use the scout rifle for most shooting applications. So I see the scout rifle as a part of a process that goes beyond a single particular use.

Maybe there is a parallel between the scout rifle and the blending of martial arts, where the goal is to create a general purpose system whose value is expressed in terms of versatility.
 
grampajack said:
Apparently there have been recent advancements in scope technology. The 4x I can almost believe, depending on how far forward it is, but the 2-7x I'm having trouble with.
Click to expand...

It is a Hi Lux Leatherman 2-7x EER scout scope, just got it for my 6.5 Creedmor Ruger GSR Scout Rifle. Have not collumated and test fired it yet, but I have high expectations for it. If rain quits, will fire it maybe Thursday.
 
Don't understand the appeal of a scout rifle? Don't buy one. An AR-15 as a "modern" scout rifle?? Cooper did not care for "poodle" shooting calibers like the .223 Remington. People that like the scout rifle concept use the scout rifle. People that don't spend far too much time wondering why they don't.
 
johnnydollar said:
Don't understand the appeal of a scout rifle? Don't buy one. An AR-15 as a "modern" scout rifle?? Cooper did not care for "poodle" shooting calibers like the .223 Remington. People that like the scout rifle concept use the scout rifle. People that don't spend far too much time wondering why they don't.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. Something either makes sense or it doesn't. I don't wonder at all why I don't have any scout rifles. They just don't make sense. If they did, I would go out and buy one tomorrow. What I do spend time wondering is why other people have scout rifles. It's like teets on a boar; you simply cannot help but wonder why.
 
grampajack said:
I fail to see how the "scout" is really inherently different from any other bolt action, save for the scope being mounted up front.
Click to expand...
Well then you didn't pay much attention. The differences between a Scout and a typical .308 hunting bolt action are as follows:
  • Length
  • Weight
  • Speed loop sling
  • Forward mounted telescope (optional)
  • Peep/ghost ring iron sights
  • Detachable box magazine or stripper clip cut + magazine cutoff
Somehow you picked out the one aspect that's actually optional, and thought it was the point. Oops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rockrivr1
  • Locked
Show off your Scout Rifle
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
129
Views
6K
Blkhrt13
Blkhrt13
M
  • Locked
Scout Rifle... variations, concepts, projects... Your ideas.
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
Stiletto Null
S
M
  • Locked
Will someone please help me with the scout rifle concept?
2 3
Replies
74
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
Ruger Scout .308 or Remington VS .308
Replies
8
Views
767
scaatylobo
S
V
  • Locked
Explain the Scout rifle to me
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
waterhouse
W
Back
Top