I really don't get the kerfuffle that the vaunted "Scout Rifle" concept always raises. Except that it eternally illustrates just how small are the nits which gear enthusiasts will pick and squabble over. And how the mythos of our legendary figures ossifies from "he's a guy with some strong ideas, which might be cool to try out," to "he's Moses with chiseled stone tablets full of '
thou shalt...'" verbiage. As if Elmer, O'Conner, and Skeeter, and Wiley, and the good Colonel were not interesting men of their time, working with the varied but limited experiences and opinions their lives provided, but are somehow prophets of a bygone age who's mystical knowledge can't be touched or (gasp!) improved upon by the benighted simpletons of today.
The Scout Rifle is the epitome of one man's (well, a group of his pals) idea of how to shave that last sliver off of a very mature idea to get something that might be 1% more suitable for this kind of esoteric idea he had of an idealized use case.
The ideas were pretty banal, honestly. Nothing ground shaking. Let's make it a little lighter. Cool. Let's make it a little shorter ... as carbines had been made for centuries. Nifty. Let's use this innovative sling. Fine. Let's use the most common, cheapest, roundly capable ammo... well, duh.
At the time -- and certainly throughout most of Jeff Cooper's lifetime, most bolt-action rifles had integral magazines, and even those that did have removable box mags were intended to be loaded via stripper clip. So he went with what he knew, there. Besides, a non-detachable magazine is one less thing to lose, or carry spares of.
Scopes were becoming better and more common. And for someone who shot a lot -- even an old Luddite -- it was hard to deny the advantages. But, dang...scopes get in the way of stripper clips. Ah ha! Get a pistol scope and mount it forward of the action. Hmmm....that kind of sucks, compared to a regular telescopic sight arrangement, but it's still better than just irons. And if you squint and hold your tongue just right...yeah that'll work. But let's call this "optional." Because it isn't super awesome. (And as scopes improve, and "Scout" scopes become more refined...well, it will still not be super awesome, but it's workable. Yeah... "optional.")
None of those things makes or breaks a rifle to be used in the quasi-mythical "Scout" milieu that he came up with to justify it. They're just slivers shaved off an already well-developed theme. Over time, a handful of nearly inconsequential modifications solidifies into a quest for a holy grail. ("
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place.") And like all holy grails, the more mysterious and hard to make distinct, the more furiously it will be pursued and argued over.
And the Scout? The Scout is simply a romantic notion. An epic character in the imaginations of manly men. Jeff Cooper was just as much a romantic lover of the ephemeral ideal of masculine adventure as James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville, Teddy Roosevelt, Hemingway, Frederick Remington, etc. How do we define a need for a rifle? You have to start by picturing the owner of this rifle. He's going to be a loner ... 'cause America!... and he's just the sort of guy who will be providing for himself, while behind enemy lines, carrying only what he needs to survive, shooting and scooting, exploring wild places, in fringed buckskin shirt, boonie hat, tall boots, and maybe a pair of those tiny little
shorts the Selous scouts wore. Observing without detection, reporting on troop formations, and occasionally shooting a moose for dinner. He's probably a friend to the Indians, an inherent conservationist, a natural healer, able to rebuild an engine with a pocket knife, can swim like a fish, drives everything from Ferraris to steam locomotives to biplanes with aplomb, is uncomfortable in effete polite society, has a pet badger named Vernon who wears a bandanna. He looks suave in a tux and just slays the ladies, too.
Just as we all do. And that's why we each need a Scout rifle!
