FoMoGo
Member
Kind of like saying that if you dont like mausers... you dont like rifles?
Makes the same amount of sense eh?
Jim
Ruger Gunsite Scout first impressions.
- Thread starter mikeone
- Start date
- Status
Makes the same amount of sense eh?
Jim
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
I neither bashed the rifle nor, had I indeed bashed it, would have done so because it was a Mauser.
I didn't like the action. It compared less favorably to other Mauser actions I've handled. That was a deal breaker on an otherwise very nice rifle.
Enough, already.
Robert Wilson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 402
I'm giving you two a hard time because you're posting nonsense. Eventually I'll probably get bored and go away, but "I don't like Rugers because they're too much like Mausers except that I like Mausers" was bound to get you made fun of. Especially in concert with "...but those Savages sure are slick!"
FoMoGo
Member
Yes... posting nonsense.
Preference on how a firearm operates is nonsense.
First part of your second sentence in the above post would be the High Road thing to do.
Jim
Preference on how a firearm operates is nonsense.
First part of your second sentence in the above post would be the High Road thing to do.
Jim
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
For the sake of the thread, I concede to the troll.
Has anyone found cheaper mags for these? I have to admit I'm still attracted to the Gunsite Scout.
Has anyone found cheaper mags for these? I have to admit I'm still attracted to the Gunsite Scout.
Mikeone,
What is the gun scabbard/case in your photo?
I got a GSR three weeks ago. I've taken out three times shooting. I love it so far. Felt recoil & muzzle blast were much less than I expected. Accuracy was more than acceptable for my use. Out of the box, the trigger was 4.5 lbs.
What is the gun scabbard/case in your photo?
I got a GSR three weeks ago. I've taken out three times shooting. I love it so far. Felt recoil & muzzle blast were much less than I expected. Accuracy was more than acceptable for my use. Out of the box, the trigger was 4.5 lbs.
ECVMatt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,870
Just bought two of the C-Product mags and my initial impression is good. They fit prefect, feed well, and have no obvious flaws. I am going shooting on Friday, so I will get a chance to give them a good wring out. I have several C-Products AR mags and they all work great. I have heard that some folks are also trying to come up the a polymer magazine. MagPul was one company, but they seem so busy with AR mags, I can't see them cutting production for these.
Polymer mags at a greatly reduced price will be available at Ruger in the coming weeks.
Sheepdog1968
Member
Mikeone,
Would it be possible for you to weigh the laminate stock? I want to get the Ruger Scout and I can see putting a synthetic stock on it to shave weight. I'm just curious how much weight I can save by doing to. Thanks.
Would it be possible for you to weigh the laminate stock? I want to get the Ruger Scout and I can see putting a synthetic stock on it to shave weight. I'm just curious how much weight I can save by doing to. Thanks.
Owner’s Review.
I own one. I was going to get the Ruger Hawkeye Compact in 308 because I wanted a short handy “truck gun” style rifle that would still reach out to about 300 yards. I was ready to make my purchase when in a fit of lust I saw the Gunsite. I figured that it had the iron sights I wanted for less extra than I could get a gunsmith to mount them. I knew the magazine would be annoying, but I bought it anyway.
I did not buy it because its tacticool. I am not afraid of zombies, and I without getting too political, I spent enough time as a prosecutor to know that in the United States there just isn’t really gonna be a situation where a civilian can make a shot over about 25 yards at a human being and not be guilty of premeditated murder. I’m sure many of you can come up with thousands of “what if . . .”, but the reality is that it’s a toy. And we are all little boys inside that want cooler toys. Me included. And it does look cool.
The good. This rifle will absolutely do anything I want it to do.
It will shoot 3 inch groups at 100 yards using iron sights. I can do better with my Garand, but that has more to do with sight radius than accuracy. It will do anything that my old eyes will do with iron sights.
It is spectacularly short and handy. I was worried about the length of pull, but I can shoot it without any problem with a conventionally mounted scope in the included Ruger scope rings. But you do have to take the rear sight off to mount it that way. I am told that XS is making a rail that will mount in the same place and allow you to mount a co-witnessing rear sight and a conventional scope. That’s probably what I’ll end up with.
I took off the flash suppressor and all of the spacers from the stock. What’s left is about 35 inches long.
I am not going to give a verdict for scoped accuracy. I had some sub-MOA groups going at 100 yards, but I kept pulling shots and opening the group up. They were called flyers, but I didn’t have enough time and ammo to get a clean one. I am satisfied that it will shoot 1-1.5 inch groups if I do my part. That is straight out of the box. The dollar bill test tells me I could probably float the barrel, but I’m not sure if its worth the trouble.
The bad.
The magazine is much more annoying than I thought it would be. I bought a five rounder because the ten just looked ridiculous. So all of these opinions are based on the five. They are slow to load, rattle, and sit right where your hand wants to be when you carry the gun. It is much SLOWER to load, unload, and top-off than a conventional internal magazine. This alone makes me wish I had bought the regular Hawkeye Compact. I am thinking about ordering the bottom metal from Brownell’s to convert it to a conventional internal magazine. If the stock will accommodate that, then I may throw more money down that hole. It really is that annoying. I can probably pay for it by selling the magazines. I bought the gun for how it would carry, and the magazine detracts from the gun’s best feature.
The rear sight would not adjust enough to get rounds in the center of the target. The closest I can get is 1.5 inches left of center at 100 yards. There is no provision for adjusting elevation that I could find. Fortunately, it was dead on for elevation at 100.
The “Scout” thing:
I don’t care what the “real” definition of a “scout rifle” is. It is an abstract concept that only matters to armchair theorists. But “truck gun” is a practical concept that interests hunters and landowners. We outnumber the armchair guys everywhere but the internet. I read all of the stuff about the fast target acquisition with the forward mounted scope and wanted to give it a try. I tried it, but not thoroughly. Now I was using an old shotgun scope that I had lying around, and may see better results with quality glass. So far, I am not convinced, but I’ll play with it some more because I enjoy shooting. But for now, I still favor the conventional scope position.
Muzzle Blast and recoil:
It is loud, but so is every other .308. It kicks, but not near as much as a 12 gauge and shotguns get shot a lot more than bolt guns. If you are grown up enough to shoot any rifle of significant caliber then this just isn’t any different. Recoil on this rifle is something you will only notice when you miss. So don’t miss.
Conclusion:
I like it, and I will keep it. Its fantastically handy and the ability to reach out confidently with something that small and handy is great. I spent too much money ($723) and will spend more to fix the magazine “feature.” But even as it is, its better at what I want to do than anything I’ve ever owned. But the magazine just annoys the %$#^&%$ out of me. If you are dying to forward mount the scope, then look for a used Frontier. If you really want to kill zombies with a bolt action then get an Enfield. I’ll keep it, but I wish I had bought the regular Hawkeye Compact.
I own one. I was going to get the Ruger Hawkeye Compact in 308 because I wanted a short handy “truck gun” style rifle that would still reach out to about 300 yards. I was ready to make my purchase when in a fit of lust I saw the Gunsite. I figured that it had the iron sights I wanted for less extra than I could get a gunsmith to mount them. I knew the magazine would be annoying, but I bought it anyway.
I did not buy it because its tacticool. I am not afraid of zombies, and I without getting too political, I spent enough time as a prosecutor to know that in the United States there just isn’t really gonna be a situation where a civilian can make a shot over about 25 yards at a human being and not be guilty of premeditated murder. I’m sure many of you can come up with thousands of “what if . . .”, but the reality is that it’s a toy. And we are all little boys inside that want cooler toys. Me included. And it does look cool.
The good. This rifle will absolutely do anything I want it to do.
It will shoot 3 inch groups at 100 yards using iron sights. I can do better with my Garand, but that has more to do with sight radius than accuracy. It will do anything that my old eyes will do with iron sights.
It is spectacularly short and handy. I was worried about the length of pull, but I can shoot it without any problem with a conventionally mounted scope in the included Ruger scope rings. But you do have to take the rear sight off to mount it that way. I am told that XS is making a rail that will mount in the same place and allow you to mount a co-witnessing rear sight and a conventional scope. That’s probably what I’ll end up with.
I took off the flash suppressor and all of the spacers from the stock. What’s left is about 35 inches long.
I am not going to give a verdict for scoped accuracy. I had some sub-MOA groups going at 100 yards, but I kept pulling shots and opening the group up. They were called flyers, but I didn’t have enough time and ammo to get a clean one. I am satisfied that it will shoot 1-1.5 inch groups if I do my part. That is straight out of the box. The dollar bill test tells me I could probably float the barrel, but I’m not sure if its worth the trouble.
The bad.
The magazine is much more annoying than I thought it would be. I bought a five rounder because the ten just looked ridiculous. So all of these opinions are based on the five. They are slow to load, rattle, and sit right where your hand wants to be when you carry the gun. It is much SLOWER to load, unload, and top-off than a conventional internal magazine. This alone makes me wish I had bought the regular Hawkeye Compact. I am thinking about ordering the bottom metal from Brownell’s to convert it to a conventional internal magazine. If the stock will accommodate that, then I may throw more money down that hole. It really is that annoying. I can probably pay for it by selling the magazines. I bought the gun for how it would carry, and the magazine detracts from the gun’s best feature.
The rear sight would not adjust enough to get rounds in the center of the target. The closest I can get is 1.5 inches left of center at 100 yards. There is no provision for adjusting elevation that I could find. Fortunately, it was dead on for elevation at 100.
The “Scout” thing:
I don’t care what the “real” definition of a “scout rifle” is. It is an abstract concept that only matters to armchair theorists. But “truck gun” is a practical concept that interests hunters and landowners. We outnumber the armchair guys everywhere but the internet. I read all of the stuff about the fast target acquisition with the forward mounted scope and wanted to give it a try. I tried it, but not thoroughly. Now I was using an old shotgun scope that I had lying around, and may see better results with quality glass. So far, I am not convinced, but I’ll play with it some more because I enjoy shooting. But for now, I still favor the conventional scope position.
Muzzle Blast and recoil:
It is loud, but so is every other .308. It kicks, but not near as much as a 12 gauge and shotguns get shot a lot more than bolt guns. If you are grown up enough to shoot any rifle of significant caliber then this just isn’t any different. Recoil on this rifle is something you will only notice when you miss. So don’t miss.
Conclusion:
I like it, and I will keep it. Its fantastically handy and the ability to reach out confidently with something that small and handy is great. I spent too much money ($723) and will spend more to fix the magazine “feature.” But even as it is, its better at what I want to do than anything I’ve ever owned. But the magazine just annoys the %$#^&%$ out of me. If you are dying to forward mount the scope, then look for a used Frontier. If you really want to kill zombies with a bolt action then get an Enfield. I’ll keep it, but I wish I had bought the regular Hawkeye Compact.
I haven't taken mine off yet, but I expect it will weigh at least as much as others I've weighed that were 2-3 lbs. Some of the lightweight synthetics are closer to 1 lb. I'll be anxiously awaiting one of the manufacturers to offer one for the Ruger Scout.
To adjust elevation - loosen same 2 screws used for windage then screw the peep sight in or out to change elevation.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
the whole point behind a detachable magazine is that you have more than one.
If you need to top off the gun, reload with a fresh magazine and stow the partially empty one, and top that off when you're not busy shooting things.
My issue with the detachable magazine is not a criticism of the gun, but rather of its suitability for how I will use it.
The detachable magazine is a compromise that you make in the ergonomics of the gun in order to be able to quickly shoot more rounds than the gun can hold internally. In thirty years of hunting I have never shot more than three rounds at a time in the field. And in all of the occaisions where i have shot more than two, the last was after I walked over to the down animal. I can pull a round out of my shirt pocket and top off a conventional bolt gun while I am walking through the brush. I don't think I can do that with this magazine. And I don't want to carry another magazine.
The only time I ever need to shoot more than 4 is going to be on a range, where by definition, I am not going to need to reload quickly.
For me it is much quicker to load the rounds into an internal magazine than to take the mag out, sling the weapon, wrestle the rounds into the AICS mags, then unsling the weapon, then insert the magazine. With every other bolt gun I have it is simply pull a round out of my shirt pocket and put it in the gun. The rifle stays in my hand. My eyes stay downrange.
The magazine is also another point of failure for the rifle. I am sure that the AICS magazines are well made, but if I step on the receiver of a rifle with an internal magazine it will still feed. I cannot fail to insert it all the way, the mag release cannot fail or be inadvertently pushed. If I step on that high quality AICS magazine, I might end up with a single-shot rifle.
Detachable magazines are a feature that enable the rifle to do things that a rifle with an internal magazine will not do. But these features come at the cost of some level of ergonomics and reliability. I appreciate the features, but they bring performance that I personally do not need, at the price of ergonomics and reliability that I value.
The detachable magazine is a compromise that you make in the ergonomics of the gun in order to be able to quickly shoot more rounds than the gun can hold internally. In thirty years of hunting I have never shot more than three rounds at a time in the field. And in all of the occaisions where i have shot more than two, the last was after I walked over to the down animal. I can pull a round out of my shirt pocket and top off a conventional bolt gun while I am walking through the brush. I don't think I can do that with this magazine. And I don't want to carry another magazine.
The only time I ever need to shoot more than 4 is going to be on a range, where by definition, I am not going to need to reload quickly.
For me it is much quicker to load the rounds into an internal magazine than to take the mag out, sling the weapon, wrestle the rounds into the AICS mags, then unsling the weapon, then insert the magazine. With every other bolt gun I have it is simply pull a round out of my shirt pocket and put it in the gun. The rifle stays in my hand. My eyes stay downrange.
The magazine is also another point of failure for the rifle. I am sure that the AICS magazines are well made, but if I step on the receiver of a rifle with an internal magazine it will still feed. I cannot fail to insert it all the way, the mag release cannot fail or be inadvertently pushed. If I step on that high quality AICS magazine, I might end up with a single-shot rifle.
Detachable magazines are a feature that enable the rifle to do things that a rifle with an internal magazine will not do. But these features come at the cost of some level of ergonomics and reliability. I appreciate the features, but they bring performance that I personally do not need, at the price of ergonomics and reliability that I value.
Sheepdog1968
Member
Thanks for elaboration. Out of curiosity, is it any more annoying than putting a new mag into a mini-14 or M1A?
Not if you want to carry the extra magazines. But I don't. I want to carry 4 or 5 rounds in the gun and a couple more in my pocket if the deer are especially blood thirsty. Ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain.
It is however, a lot more annoying to load these magazines than it is to load M1A mags. You have to press on the rear of the top cartridge with your thumb, and then slide the new round back and in like a pistol magazine. I can sit on a chair and hold an M1A mag between my knees and load it without putting down my beer. I can do the same thing with a conventional bolt gun. I can't do that with an AICS mag. So not only does it slow down the gun loadin. It also slows down the beer drinkin. Inefficiency drives me crazy.
It is however, a lot more annoying to load these magazines than it is to load M1A mags. You have to press on the rear of the top cartridge with your thumb, and then slide the new round back and in like a pistol magazine. I can sit on a chair and hold an M1A mag between my knees and load it without putting down my beer. I can do the same thing with a conventional bolt gun. I can't do that with an AICS mag. So not only does it slow down the gun loadin. It also slows down the beer drinkin. Inefficiency drives me crazy.
Last edited:
I don't see the need for bolts through the stock. What do they accomplish?
Also, I don't like detachable magazines for hunting rifles. They make the rifle heavier and also more difficult to carry one-handed. The large capacity magazine is not functional for any of my hunting/shooting situations.
Flash hider? Hmm, I don't see the need in a hunting rifle and it doesn't seem to be a military rifle.
Forward mounted scopes also don't work for me.
It's obviously not my kind of rifle, but if it's yours, go for it!
Also, I don't like detachable magazines for hunting rifles. They make the rifle heavier and also more difficult to carry one-handed. The large capacity magazine is not functional for any of my hunting/shooting situations.
Flash hider? Hmm, I don't see the need in a hunting rifle and it doesn't seem to be a military rifle.
Forward mounted scopes also don't work for me.
It's obviously not my kind of rifle, but if it's yours, go for it!
In my time as a cop I'm familiar with several shootings involving civilians at more than 25 yards, that were found to be legally justifiable, including one where an AK47 armed civilian engaged someone shooting at him with a rifle from over 100 yards. iirc, they also happened during Katrina, and the LA riots, though as I remember the stories, they weren't necessarily reported as such.
Those of us old enough to remember Charles Whitman, the Austin sniper, remember it was civilians armed with rifles, that first effectively returned his fire.
Certainly, and your point is valid. But if we really used that logic, the chance of a civilian needing any type of firearm for self defense are fairly small, to say nothing of earthquake insurance, etc.
Elmer,
Your points are all valid. I did not intend to start an internet debate, just to explain my my point of view so that people reading the review could understand my reasons for purchasing this rifle and what I wanted it to be good at. My comments were just to give readers some perspective on my review. Whether a feature is good or bad can depend on what you're using the rifle for. I didn't want to get in to a debate about the tactical merits of a weapon system that I don't view as being the right tool for that job.
And that's the last thing I'll post on that.
Your points are all valid. I did not intend to start an internet debate, just to explain my my point of view so that people reading the review could understand my reasons for purchasing this rifle and what I wanted it to be good at. My comments were just to give readers some perspective on my review. Whether a feature is good or bad can depend on what you're using the rifle for. I didn't want to get in to a debate about the tactical merits of a weapon system that I don't view as being the right tool for that job.
And that's the last thing I'll post on that.
You're welcome to your opinions, and your review was well written. I was just responding to your incorrect postulation of:
It's really nice to be able to carry a rifle AT its point of balance, not NEAR its POB. I feel your pain.
It's a question of managing expectations. If Ruger had been honest about it and called it the "Ruger Tactical Carbine" or the "Ruger Truck Gun", then Scout fans could simply decide that it wasn't their cup of tea and let it go.
But when you call a rifle the "Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle", Scout fans have every right to expect it to be a REAL Scout and to meet Jeff Cooper's criteria for one. Which it doesn't.
Perhaps.
But, at least it incorporates the many of the concepts, at a 6th of the price of comparable guns that are more true to the ideal.
- Status
Similar threads
