Scout rifle for our current times

[chicharrones]

9 lbs. 3 oz. without a scope? I guess that will take care of recoil but if the idea is scouting, then you're not going too far.

Interesting rifle otherwise.

For all practical purposes, I doubt it does much of anything a Mini-30 with a scout scope rail can't do though.

I dunno. 9 lbs. shouldn't be hard to carry for a young, strong, and fit person. I sure had a much better power to weight ratio in my 20s than I do now in my upper 50s.

Makes me wonder how many of us middle aged (and older) fellers and gals would be scoutin' far on foot anyway?

 

[Newtosavage]

I dunno. 9 lbs. shouldn't be hard to carry for a young, strong, and fit person. I sure had a much better power to weight ratio in my 20s than I do now in my upper 50s.

Makes me wonder how many of us middle aged (and older) fellers and gals would be scoutin' far on foot anyway?

Not as far as they would with a 7 lb. rifle. LOL

 

[Gordon]

I had Chet Brown ,the originator of modern fiberglass stocks along with Lee Six in San Jose California in the 1970s , build me a Remington 7.62 N 600 scout on the pattern of Jeff Coopers original scout , but considerably lighter and more accurate with a turned barrel and action and foam cored fiberglass stock . The 2x Leupold pistol scope with heavy duplex was mounted to the barrel on Maynard Buehler mounts and rings that were the only game in town at the time and a Williams fool proof rear peep sight in the factory receiver holes . It weighed right at 6 pounds ready to go with a Vietnam era M16 sling . I took it to the gunsight rifle course , my second after Basic Pistol 200, and it was well received and I did ok on the course of fire which was rather difficult . While I waited for that build, and kept in reserve for many years afterward was an as issued Elmer Keith cartouched 30-06 1917 Enfield that was astonishingly accurate with the issue M1 ball which I had a great stock of as I found some in my US ARMY reserve unit that was being slated for destruction in the mid 80s . For a 30 something year old in shape with great eyes sight 9 pounds seemed doable and it seemed bomb proof for when the Soviets with their South American allies came thru the southern Border to pollute my precious bodily fluids. Stripper clips in bandoliers and that bomb proof rifle rifle and i knew 600 yard commies were dead meat! I made bank during the latter middle 80s and had Chet make me a second Ultra light Rem. 600 Mohawk .308 into the lightest possible scout using all he had learned in five years with his new Kevlar stocks. I recieved it around 1988 and with its NORMALLY Mounted 2-7 Burris mini scope in shaved aluminum Bushnell mounts it actually was only slightly over 5 pounds with a Magnaported 16" soda straw barrel pillar bedded and a 2 pound crisp trigger . The thin pachmayr pad at 13" LOP was extremely fast to bring to bear on target and I shot a few deer and hogs in the rugged Los Padres National coastal forests , especially in the Ventana wilderness area , the first year or so after I got it, it kicked like a mule ! The sad original Cooper version of the scout was quickly forgotten (until I was able to coon finger in the Good Col's vault all the variations of his scout concept and sit in his leather chair and look at his library in the sconce basement by myself as he napped a few months before passing) and became my oldest sons deer rifle for a couple years before it was stolen from him . I had lost two deer in the early morning/late evening sun flaring in the long eye relief optic and knew that problem well enough to not build another before this Moisin "resistance carbine" that I put up as a retirement fling ! I broke the Kevlar stock at the wrist about 20 years back on the Brown precision carbine and since the company now run by Chets son refused to warranty it I spent another $1000 or so turning it into a repeating magazine fed Bull pup In a Western Gunstocks laminated stock from my neighbor who made them, but that is another story.

 

[chicharrones]

Not as far as they would with a 7 lb. rifle. LOL

Makes me wonder where 2 lbs. would really matter? I know that low weight is a major point of handiness for the Scout Rifle Concept. But, for some folks out there 5 pounds feels like 10, and for others 15 pounds feels like 10.

Last Friday I was carrying a 23 lb. length of high speed steel in one hand while pulling 120 lbs. of tools with the other hand while dodging beggars and vehicles walking through downtown streets. It sure would have been much more awesome to carry a 7 to 9 lb. carbine in the woods with one of those hands.

Was curious, so I just did some weighing here at the shop before I head home.

 

[Newtosavage]

Makes me wonder where 2 lbs. would really matter? I know that low weight is a major point of handiness for the Scout Rifle Concept. But, for some folks out there 5 pounds feels like 10, and for others 15 pounds feels like 10.

Last Friday I was carrying a 23 lb. length of high speed steel in one hand while pulling 120 lbs. of tools with the other hand while dodging beggars and vehicles walking through downtown streets. It sure would have been much more awesome to carry a 7 to 9 lb. carbine in the woods with one of those hands.

Was curious, so I just did some weighing here at the shop before I head home.

9 lbs 3 oz is entirely too heavy for a scout rifle. Nobody is talking about tools or "high speed" steel.

It's a lazy rifle designer that can only produce a 9 lb. 3 oz. rifle.

 

[Obturation]

Hey... the subject came up... I also have a 77/357 with a forward mounted red dot, but I doubt I'd get many comments about that rather pedestrian little carbine.

I don't know, I like the 77/357 as a walking around carbine. Light, accurate and there's not much that could survive a well placed 357 at carbine velocity. At 5.5# naked and no need for long range optics you end up at or under 6#. I want to get a 1-4 scope for mine but I'll put it in the normal position , don't know if I'd call it a "scout" rifle but they are a very handy little carbine.

 

[Hesa Hard1]

Scout rifle for our current times

To be remotely viable in “current times,” the first requirement for a Scout rifle is to build it off a self-loading (i.e., semi-auto) action. Clip- or mag-fed, take your pick.

Author Brian Sheetz offers that argument after his experiences at a Gunsite SR course:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/4/20/the-self-loading-scout-rifle-worth-its-weight/

One option is to start with an M1 Garand action in .308/7.62. Here's a full-size version:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/building-a-modernized-m1-garand/

Obviously an 18.25 "Tanker" or a Shuff's 16.1" Mini-G carbine would reduce weight.

 

[chicharrones]

9 lbs 3 oz is entirely too heavy for a scout rifle. Nobody is talking about tools or "high speed" steel.

It's a lazy rifle designer that can only produce a 9 lb. 3 oz. rifle.

Not trying to say a Cooper Scout Rifle shouldn't meet a weight spec. Simply saying that 9 lbs. isn't heavy to some folks.

Isn't there a rifle-weight-to-person test where that person holds a given rifle in one hand with an outstretched arm for 30 to 60 seconds? If it couldn't be held for one of those timelines, it was considered too heavy for that person for all day sporting carry? I can't remember where a Scout Rifle fits into that, but the first time I read of this test was when reading on Scout Rifles.

Reminds me of when I got my SKS in my 20s, I thought the gun hefted just fine. Currently at age 57, I'd say that SKS is heavy for it's cartridge, mostly because 5 pounds feels closer to 10 pounds to me now, comparatively speaking.

 

[JShirley]

I posed the question on a Facebook scout rifle group asking what they thought a economical rifle and cartridge might be for a scout without having to utilize handloading to achieve the economical benifits. I received many helpful answers and thoughts, and it encouraged me to continue down the proverbial rabbit hole.

I understand Jeff Cooper gave us the criteria for what a scout was and I respect and honor his wishes, however there is no way he could have know 308 ammo of quality would hit $2-3 dollars per round. Cooper did warn the American gun owner to stock pile ammo so that is on us if we didn't.

I think for our current environment 2022 22Lr ammo is still the cheapest per 1000. I have always admired the accuracy and stoping power of small game up to coyote size offered by CCI STINGERS. In my local area they cost $209 plus tax per thousand while blasting 22 are $120 per thousand. This sucks we all can agree

I have given great thought these last few days to the many possibilities the cold War made ever day reality for many years. I believe a efficient scout to fit our current time would be a ruger 10/22 with multiple 30 round mags and a forward mounted scope. I feel this would be an amazing choice given the size of rifle, ready threaded barrels for suppressors, and the take down models could go in.

Absolutely not. The idea behind the Scout Rifle was to have an extremely versatile, fast rifle that could do a wide variety of things, and cover a range of distances. While the upper weight limits of the game Cooper thought a Scout rifle should be able to take are almost certainly not realistic, 22 LR in no way applies. it doesn't matter what the cartridge costs, if it doesn't do what you need it to do. a Honda Civic is many times cheaper than a Ford F-350, but the Honda Civic will never be suitable to convert to a functional ambulance or trailer tow vehicle.

The closest one could probably reasonably come, in a modern, high efficiency cartridge that could possibly be found for a reasonable price, would be something like 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC, and you're probably looking at 600 to $900 plus scope for a decent quality gun. The cheapest I currently find 6.5 Grendel, is about 70 cents a round for steel cased FMJ. The cheapest good ammo I can find, is over a $1.50 a round. this isn't cheap, but a combination of FMJ for things like varmints and defense at distance, combined with some higher quality expanding rounds, would be enough to reasonably cover ranges out to at least 400m, and take game up to mule deer and black bear.

John

 

[Space Ghost]

I don't know, I like the 77/357 as a walking around carbine. Light, accurate and there's not much that could survive a well placed 357 at carbine velocity. At 5.5# naked and no need for long range optics you end up at or under 6#. I want to get a 1-4 scope for mine but I'll put it in the normal position , don't know if I'd call it a "scout" rifle but they are a very handy little carbine.

My red dot is actually on a rail attached to the factory ring points, but being a tiny little red dot, it's on the very front of that rail, so kinda scout-ish, but not on the barrel. .

 

[Space Ghost]

To be remotely viable in “current times,” the first requirement for a Scout rifle is to build it off a self-loading (i.e., semi-auto) action. Clip- or mag-fed, take your pick.

Author Brian Sheetz offers that argument after his experiences at a Gunsite SR course:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/4/20/the-self-loading-scout-rifle-worth-its-weight/

One option is to start with an M1 Garand action in .308/7.62. Here's a full-size version:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/building-a-modernized-m1-garand/

Obviously an 18.25 "Tanker" or a Shuff's 16.1" Mini-G carbine would reduce weight.

Not sure I agree. Even with the Gunsite SR course crap. The original intent of a Scout Rifle, was your "scouting" with it. Sure you may have to shoot an animal or even a bad guy with a quick snap shot, but the intent (as far as I know) was a rifle that is carried around a lot... (hence the weight & length requirements) yet shot only infrequently. It was never intended to serve as a replacement battle rifle. In fact, the only reason for the recommendation of the .308 as the caliber was it's vast popularity (easy to find anywhere) and it's capability to drop pretty much any game animal. The .223 would be even better as a scouting (or combat) rifle, (lighter, and you can carry more ammo) but it's not so great at dropping large game.

 

[H&Hhunter]

I’ll just say this, I’ve carried and hunted with a Steyr Scout for 20+ years. It is one of the most shootable and carryable and useable rifles I’ve ever used. Everything you need to accurately shoot out to 500+ yards is already incorporated on the rifle, spare magazine, bipod, three point sling etc. I’ve killed and my wife has killed elk at over 500 yards with our scouts. I’ve killed multiple hogs at close range and have used it in Africa, Alaska and all over the western USA. Having actually used it and carried it in steep, high altitude terrain for days on end I can categorically state that the weight is not onerous in fact I find it about a perfect blend for carrying/shootability.

Your mileage may vary but I’ve been very pleased with my Steyr Scouts and have pressed them into all kinds of uses.

 

[Newtosavage]

I’ll just say this, I’ve carried and hunted with a Steyr Scout for 20+ years. It is one of the most shootable and carryable and useable rifles I’ve ever used. Everything you need to accurately shoot out to 500+ yards is already incorporated on the rifle, spare magazine, bipod, three point sling etc. I’ve killed and my wife has killed elk at over 500 yards with our scouts. I’ve killed multiple hogs at close range and have used it in Africa, Alaska and all over the western USA. Having actually used it and carried it in steep, high altitude terrain for days on end I can categorically state that the weight is not onerous in fact I find it about a perfect blend for carrying/shootability.

Your mileage may vary but I’ve been very pleased with my Steyr Scouts and have pressed them into all kinds of uses.

The Steyer Scout is listed at 6.6 lbs. or roughly 7.2 lbs. with a 2.75 or 4x scout scope. That is a very reasonable and shootable weight. My Savage scout rifles (one in .308 and one in 7.62x39) were right at that same weight, and they carried and pointed really well. I do miss that 7.62x39 Savage scout rifle. It was one of the most accurate rifles I've ever owned, even with "only" a 4x Weaver scout scope on it.

 

[WrongHanded]

I dunno. 9 lbs. shouldn't be hard to carry for a young, strong, and fit person. I sure had a much better power to weight ratio in my 20s than I do now in my upper 50s.

Makes me wonder how many of us middle aged (and older) fellers and gals would be scoutin' far on foot anyway?

I took a rifle weighing that much (Ruger Guide Gun) out last weekend. I'm not as young, fit, or strong as I used to be. Zero issues with that weight if it balances well. But if it doesn't, or if there are too many things to snag on tree branches and bushes, that's a problem.

 

[.38 Special]

Not trying to say a Cooper Scout Rifle shouldn't meet a weight spec. Simply saying that 9 lbs. isn't heavy to some folks.

Isn't there a rifle-weight-to-person test where that person holds a given rifle in one hand with an outstretched arm for 30 to 60 seconds? If it couldn't be held for one of those timelines, it was considered too heavy for that person for all day sporting carry? I can't remember where a Scout Rifle fits into that, but the first time I read of this test was when reading on Scout Rifles.

Reminds me of when I got my SKS in my 20s, I thought the gun hefted just fine. Currently at age 57, I'd say that SKS is heavy for it's cartridge, mostly because 5 pounds feels closer to 10 pounds to me now, comparatively speaking.

This thread caused me to re-read my copy of "Art of the Rifle", which does indeed have a picture of Cooper holding his rifle at arms' length, along with a passage which instructs the reader to do so for 60 seconds. Cooper notes that "if it is painful, or even uncomfortable, then the rifle is too heavy for you".

 

[BreechFace]

This thread caused me to re-read my copy of "Art of the Rifle" which does indeed have a picture of Cooper holding is rifle at arms' length and a passage which instructs the reader to do so for 60 seconds and notes that "if it is painful or even uncomfortable then the rifle is too heavy for you".

Agreed @.38 Special

This is more about what Cooper was getting at. If it was simply the weight of the typical rifle dropping 1-2 pounds is easy enough to lose around each of our waistlines. The general weight criteria was for shoot ability and maneuvering the rifle to the target.

I still think the scout rifle idea is dated and not very relevant with the options for today, but the general ideas are still very relevant for reconnoitering type activities.

I get served much better by a LPVO in 1-8 power with a illuminated dot in the traditional position than I do from a forward mounted scope. The precision as well as the balance of the rifle in my opinion is a big advantage to LPVO above the action.

 

[BreechFace]

All what I said above still doesn't make me stop wanting @Space Ghost Enfield Scout with it's diminutive red dot for quick acquisition.

 

[.38 Special]

I still think the scout rifle idea is dated and not very relevant with the options for today, but the general ideas are still very relevant for reconnoitering type activities.

I wonder. Certainly, the idea seems quaint in the era of the AR-15, but I personally am less than captivated by the "black rifle" and still find that a 30 caliber bolt action is a more practical choice for most activities. And I really liked the forward mounted Scout scope from the moment I tried it. It still is faster and more natural to me than any other scope. I even like the way it makes the rifle "hang" from a tight sling.

A Scout still is no kind of precision rifle, of course. Re-reading "Art of the Rifle" reminded me that the goal was a 2 MOA gun, and even that wasn't considered completely necessary...

 

[trackskippy]

I still think the scout rifle idea is dated and not very relevant with the options for today, but the general ideas are still very relevant for reconnoitering type activities.

I think it may be dated simply because most people I see shooting rifles these days, dont shoot like Cooper is talking about shooting.

In the 15 years Ive been shooting at the range I belong to now, I have yet to see anyone shooting their rifles from any kind of field position, and all were shooting from solid rests on the benches.

That also basically mimics how most around here hunt too, which is from off a rest in an elevated stand.

I think Cooper was from a time when the relationship between guns and people was still more intimate. The gun was more an extension of the shooter when being shot and both shot as one, and the rifle never "kicks" you.

The rifles were built for that too, and were made to be quickly and naturally shouldered and shot, which I dont see with most of the current hunting type rifles today. Coopers type of Scouts carries that tradition on, but I also think its a dying breed, as are those who understand that.

 

[.38 Special]

On the whole, I think it still is worth stepping back and asking ourselves, in Cooper's words, "What is it that we are trying to achieve"? Obviously there are some things that cannot be achieved, or at least cannot be easily achieved - with a Scout rifle. Again, I would not seek out a gunfight with one, nor enter a 1000 yard match, nor tackle a Cape Buffalo. The idea was to have a rifle which was easy to carry, which had adequate power for typical North American game, which could be counted upon for anything from a quick snap shot to a 200 yard (300, if considered an absolute necessity) hit on a realistically sized target, and which would be a reliable companion in the unlikely event it was needed for defense.

I personally have turned to a handgun for nearly all of my woods loafing - and have always been a handgunner rather than a rifleman - but still think that for "practical riflecraft" (which, as @trackskippy points out, is a dying game if there ever was one) the Scout concept is as valid as it ever was.

 

[BreechFace]

@trackskippy & @.38 Special

I think both of you have a good handle on what Cooper was using to justify his scout rifle criteria.

I feel even looking back as far as the revolutionary war to today, the military has gone away from open combat in which a scout rifle would make sense. In looking how modern infantry is trained, moves and shoots it is largely from a covered position with adequate means of resting a rifle for greater accuracy. There are plenty of situations in today's military where shooting on the move is necessary and quite prevalent but the tactics of today are much more tied to flanking, maneuver to cover, and pushing enemies into a indefensible position through indirect fire, etc. Gone are the days of standing out in the open as the Redcoats did (and I recognize that this comparison is the extreme of my argument), and died doing so in great numbers from the asymmetric warfare utilized by the colonists.

I think Cooper's scout rifle ideas were just a progression in the line of military tactics and strategy. Cooper's shooting techniques still are great to learn in respect to unsupported field positions and utilizing a sling for support, but largely have gone by the wayside in military tactics, other than attempting shots in between cover.

I understand it wasn't just military use that Cooper was attempting to cover in his Scout Rifle program, but an all-purpose rifle, in which a scout rifle (albeit not my first choice) makes for a handy tool.

Just my thoughts. But myself, like @trackskippy think shooters are doing themselves a great disservice by not understanding the benefits of unsupported sling shooting and various other "self-supported" positional firing.

 

[chicharrones]

This thread caused me to re-read my copy of "Art of the Rifle", which does indeed have a picture of Cooper holding his rifle at arms' length, along with a passage which instructs the reader to do so for 60 seconds. Cooper notes that "if it is painful, or even uncomfortable, then the rifle is too heavy for you".

I got a copy of that around somewhere.

60 seconds. I guess I'll see what I can hold at arm's length for 60 seconds tonight. Might only be a sub sandwich.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

To me a scout's primary function is surveying ground to gather intelligence without being detected. Avoiding detection is critical for mission success therefore the rifle Cooper designed was meant as a defensive weapon that would be effective in an emergency with minimal interference with stealth, movement and speed needed by the scout in order to carry out his mission. Why Cooper chose a bolt action rifle for this purpose I don't know but my choice would be an AR chambered in 5.56.
I don't own an AR so if I had to choose from the guns I own it would be either an open sighted Marlin 1894 in 44 Mag or a scoped Ruger M77 in 243 Win.

 

[.38 Special]

Why Cooper chose a bolt action rifle for this purpose I don't know but my choice would be an AR chambered in 5.56.

He wrote that existing semi-auto rifles were either too heavy or too complex, but that if the problem was ever solved, he would approve of them. He also did not approve of the 5.56 as anything but a pest control cartridge. I do wonder what he would have thought about a six pound AR-10...

 

[WrongHanded]

I've gotta say, if I'm out "scouting" wilderness areas, off trail (because there isn't one), and through a variety of terrain; my GSR makes as much if not more sense than any other rifle. Am I likely to need it? No. But if I did, past 25 yards it's a much better option for me than any of my handguns. And being honest, as I do practice snap shooting (dry fire too), I could probably say past 15 yards.