Scout Rifle... variations, concepts, projects... Your ideas.

[rbernie]

rbernie, would you mind offering your thoughts on what those "specific environments" are?

The forward mounted scope provides a very small magnified field of view - you cannot make the ocular and objective lens big enough to compensate for the fact that the scope sits so far from your eye as to render your view through it very 'tunnel-like'. Given this, scout scopes have evolved into low-power optics that sit low on the bore and offer excellent instinctive pointing (much like a peep sight, only magnified slightly) in exchange for their small magnified field of view. This makes them work well in close quarters, since the scope doesn't block your unmagnified peripheral vision the way that a traditional scope does. It also makes them NOT work so well when shooting at medium game that's a ways off (since they just don't have the magnification needed to reasonably target the vitals), or when trying to track moving game beyond fifty or seventy five yards - the magnified field of view is so bloody small that it's hard to keep the vitals of the animal centered in the scope.

For me, any kind of hunting or shooting sport that places a premium on dropping relatively good-sized stationary targets within one hundred and fifty yards or on tracking moving targets at close quarters (halitosis distance) is an excellent environment for a scout style optic. I still-hunt in wooded/scrub areas quite a bit where the average sight distance is less than 75 yards, and my scout-style rifles are superb at dealing with hogs and deer in that environment.

Conversely, when I hit the clear-cuts between the scrub patches and see a deer standing one hundred and seventy five yards away, I suddenly find that the scout setup (and/or my shooting capabilities) starts to fail me. Regardless of rifle chambering or bullet trajectory, I simply cannot shoot a 2.5x scope well enough to keep the bullet within a six inch circle at two hundred yards....

 

[AStone]

Excellent explanation. Thanks.

 

[BigG]

I just can't understand why they want long range cartridges with a close range sighting system?

Open sights or low power scopes work at extended ranges. Ask an old Marine if he can see 800 yards and then ask him what kind of scope was on his M14.

We are not talking shooting precision groups, we are talking successfully engaging a rather large target at 300 yards or closer.

 

[rbernie]

We are not talking shooting precision groups, we are talking successfully engaging a rather large target at 300 yards or closer.

Depends on what you're shooting at. if you target is two-legged, then maybe a hit anywhere inside of an 18" x 24" oval is good enough for Government work. Been there and done that, standing in a fighting position on the qual range and shooting at a target that didn't move between shot attempts. But if the target is a 120lb doe or a 200lb hog, then I've only got a 6"-9" diameter target of opportunity (presuming that I'm looking for a humane kill) for one shot. Better make that one shot count.

And I am honest enough with myself to admit that I cannot repeatedly and reliably, under field conditions (standing/sitting/prone only, out of breath, hot-n-sweaty, across whatever wind happens to be blowing at the instant that the shot presents itself, and so forth) hit a 9" target at 300 yards using a 2.5x or 2.75x scope. Maybe I just suck, but frankly most of the folks that I know can't make that shot either.

 

[AStone]

...hit a 9" target at 300 yards using a 2.5x or 2.75x scope. Maybe I just suck, but frankly most of the folks that I know can't make that shot either.

Aw, now, rb, what's wrong with you?

Why, I remember the time I dropped a buck @ ~ 500 m with a scout rifle built up on 7mm08 with an 18" barrel using a Leupold 2.5X front mount. And that was in a stiff crosswind! Took me less than 1.5 seconds for target acquisition, and the bullet went right through both lungs & the heart.

Oh, no, wait... that was a dream I had last week.

Never mind.

 

[MyRoad]

And I am honest enough with myself to admit that I cannot repeatedly and reliably, under field conditions (standing/sitting/prone only, out of breath, hot-n-sweaty, across whatever wind happens to be blowing at the instant that the shot presents itself, and so forth) hit a 9" target at 300 yards using a 2.5x or 2.75x scope.

I haven't been shooting rifles for very long, so I'm hoping that with practice I'll learn to be more steady, but I know from the range time I've done that under most field conditions (that I've simulated) 25 to 75 yards is my comfort zone, and 100 or 125 is the outside of my envelope. I'm lucky, because that suits the local hunting conditions.

So the bottom line for me is that I really don't have to worry about having a gun that can shoot over 150 yards, because unless my life depended on it (or I was shooting from a bench), I'd never attempt a shot of that distance. Also, on my M44 for instance, I don't have a "true" scout scope. I have a Burris handgun scope, variable 2x-7x. At 2x, I have the traditional scout scope power, and if I dial it out, I have a much clearer target assessment at 100 yards... works for me.

 

[444]

Another scout rifle thread where I gave my five cents worth is here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=178101&highlight=Scout I enjoyed going back and reading everyone's take again.


As I mentioned in that thread, people were shooting game at much longer ranges than 150 yards for many years with iron sights. Same game today, different shooters. NRA High Power shooters shoot precision bullseye targets out to 600 yards using iron sights and AR15s. Yet, we are now conditioned to believe that a magnified scout scope is somehow a handicap.

 

[ArmedBear]

I think that the primary benefit of the scope position is that with a low-powered scope it is very easy to keep both eyes open and target acquisition is faster

Bingo.

After you shoot shotguns a lot, it's hard to say goodbye to the significant advantages of shotgun pointing technique in the field. A long-range 3-9x scoped boltie is great, but it, not the scout-scoped rifle, is the "specialized rifle for specialized environments." It's actually harder and slower to acquire a target at 200 yards or less, with a standard scope, than with both-eyes-open pointing technique.

It's never a HANDICAP to be able to see what you're shooting at, and point quickly and accurately, as a forward-mounted scope lets you do. It can be pointed much like a bird gun, but at much longer range, of course. The scope functions more to provide a precise point of aim than to magnify a target a lot. Irons don't have a crosshair.

Out past 300 yards or more, of course a long-range boltie with a long-range scope is going to have an edge in precise accuracy. But the Ruger Frontier really was a pleasant surprise to me. Might have to buy one, at some point!

 

[rbernie]

NRA High Power shooters shoot precision bullseye targets out to 600 yards using iron sights and AR15s.

Well, yes, but then again those targets don't move around too much, the shooter has reasonable setup time (ten rounds in ten minutes at 600 yards from a prone position, to use your 600 yard example), the targets are situated at known distances, the shooter hasn't been stalking the targets all day long over miles of terrain. and the price of failure isn't quite as dramatic as gut-shooting a deer at dusk.

Apples and bananas, say I. Maybe biatholon shooting would be a better analogy, if not a bit extreme in the converse.

As I mentioned in that thread, people were shooting game at much longer ranges than 150 yards for many years with iron sights.

Probably true - but shooting at game and successfully dropping it with one shot are different things.

As rifle marksman come, I probably suck pretty badly. But I think that it's important for folks to live in their own reality instead of trying to plan their shooting around some Internet fantasyland whereby everyone is a sharpshooter who can place three shots inside a quarter at a hundred yards and drop a deer DRT at 500 yards offhand.

I don't believe in PLANNING for failure, but I also believe that a healthy dose of reality is useful on occasion.

It's actually harder and slower to acquire a target at 200 yards or less, with a standard scope, than with both-eyes-open pointing technique.

Interesting - I can't use the 'both-eyes-open' style with a scout scope. My brain simply will not properly manage the disparate inputs of the magnified/unmagnified views. I can (and do) shoot both-eyes-open for pistol, shotgun, and with red-dot rifle scopes, but I simply can't do it with magnified scopes.

Given that I'm shooting with my dominant eye focusing on the scope and the weak eye closed, I find that a conventional 1.5x-6x scope is not much slower at acquiring and tracking game inside of 100 yards, but is much faster to use in tracking game outside of 100 yards since the field of view is effectively ALL magnified.

The scout scope lets me see the world with both eyes open, but I can't USE the scout scope without closing the weak eye.

Does this make sense?

 

[ArmedBear]

The scout scope lets me see the world with both eyes open, but I can't USE the scout scope without closing the weak eye.

Does this make sense?

Makes perfect sense.

Everyone is different. I know people who shoot shotgun with little dots on their glasses. I never could, even though I shoot right and have a dominant left eye. I had better luck just retraining my eyes, using pistols mostly, then transferring the retraining to shotgun shooting.

I found that the Frontier worked well for me if I pointed it like a shotgun: cheek weld, move my whole upper body as a unit. Then my right eye didn't have to process anything until I was on target, at which point it became a non-issue to shift my focus to the reticle.

But again, I've done a lot to train my eyes, due to my cross-dominance issue when I started shotgunning.

I think you're absolutely right; someone who essentially shoots "one-eyed" with a rifle will find the Scout Scope to be inferior, even if they open their other eye. It's a different way that one's brain likes to process the picture, as you said.

 

[JohnKSa]

rbernie's objections are kind of along the lines that made me ask my earlier question.

I can see the benefit of a lowmounted optic with low or no magnification, but I don't see any benefit in forward mounting it once you get away from the idea of loading a box magazine from the top. Not only do you end up with possible glare problems when you're backlit, you also pretty much eliminate the possibility of using a variable mag scope since the forward mounting makes higher magnification impossible.

And, as pointed out, if you go with a low or no mag optic, you definitely limit the range at which you can make precision hits.

Seems that if we dispense with the need to rapidly load a box magazine from the top, it also does away with the need to forward mount the optics which gets us back to a more conventional design with a lowmounted variable scope.

You still have all the rapid sighting ability of a forward mount optic when the power is turned way down, but it also provides the ability to turn the magnification up when the occasion calls for it.

 

[444]

I told myself that I was going to stay out of this

That all sounds good but you are losing the concept of the scout rifle. If you are talking about variable power scopes and precision hits you are not talking about a scout rifle.

Americans insist on putting large scopes on rifles. They can't talk about rifles without talking about shooting groups off the bench. They insist on talking about ranges that 99.9% of hunters can't really make shots other than on the internet. They insist on minimum degrees of accuracy that is not needed in the field and can't be duplicated in the field. The average American shooter doesn't believe it is possible to make hits with iron sights past spitting distance. This ISN'T what scout rifles are all about.
If you want a bolt action rifle with a long barrel, big scope, and all that, there are plenty of them out there. But, the scout rifle isn't one of them.

Clear your mind.
Ok, now think about a Winchester Model of 1894.
Do you imagine yourself putting a big variable power scope on it ? How about shooting groups off the bench ?
Probably not.
Why ?
Because the '94 is a utility rifle. It's design lends itself to iron sights or at most to a minimal magnification scope. The rifle can be shot at longish range but it certainly isn't the best for long range rifle work. It has killed thousands of elk, bear, and moose but probably wouldn't be someone's first choice for game that big. It has been used for many years as a self defense weapon but again, that probably wouldn't be our first choice for that either. The '94 was once used by various militaries, but not any more.
The point is that it is a general purpose rifle. It was used as such for over 100 years. It has proven itself over and over.
THIS is a lot closer to what a scout rifle is than what you guys are trying to turn the scout rifle into. The scout rifle is not just a bolt action rifle with a big scope on it used to shoot groups off the bench. It is a rifle for the man that only owns one rifle. It is a jack of all trades and MASTER OF NONE. It can do anything asked of a rifle but isn't the best at any of them. It can kill big game, it can be used to clear a building, it can be used in military combat, it can be used to shoot a coyote........................... It IS NOT a specialized tool.

 

[rbernie]

I understand EXACTLY what a scout-style rifle is; I own 'em and hunt with 'em (although my tastes run more to 336's than '94s). I have a 16" 336 in 30-30, a 20" 335 in 35 Remington, and a 20" 2A in 308.

I also know what it's NOT good for, and that is making precision hits past 150 or 200 yards. That's all I've said, and why I contend that the scout-style scope mounting system is specialized in a way that a standard 2x-7x scoped rifle of the same form factor is not; because I can use a traditional 2x-7x in the woods as well as in the clearcuts, but you can't use the scout 2.5x to make that long shot.

 

[JohnKSa]

Americans insist on putting large scopes on rifles.

Actually, I LOVE iron sights. There are only two scoped rifles in my gunsafe. One of them is my wife's and the other is a single shot long barrel .223 that came without sights and with no reasonable provision to mount them. The other 10 or so have iron sights--mostly apertures where that's feasible.

I like aperture sights--adding them is usually the first mod I make to a rifle that doesn't already have them.

I have no problem using an iron-sighted rifle--in fact I prefer it. But if you're going to mount a scope, you might as well make it worthwhile and I just don't see that forward mounting buys you anything while it definitely costs you things.

I'll ask my question again in the new context.

Is there any reason to use forward mounted optics over conventionally mounted optics once you eliminate the requirement to rapidly load a box magazine from the top? So far, I've not seen any claimed benefits that wouldn't apply equally to conventionally mounted optics and the conventional mount would give you some flexibility not present in the forward configuration.

 

[Stiletto Null]

I'm thinking about scouting an M39. Probably with a Leupold 2.5x28 Scout.

STANDARD stock, though. None of this sporter nonsense.

 

[ArmedBear]

You still have all the rapid sighting ability of a forward mount optic when the power is turned way down

No you don't. You completely lose your 3D vision -- assuming you're pointing with both eyes open, like a bird gun.

If you're only using one eye, well, then that would be true.

Try it. You might or might not like it, but the forward-mounted low-power scope, combined with point-shooting skills and eyes-open acquisition, has advantages that have nothing to do with stripper clips or straight bolts.

If you find yourself wishing for a scope when you have irons, and irons when you have a scope, the scout mounted low-power scope will solve that problem. It, too, has its up and downsides, but it does provide pointing like irons, with the easier precision aiming of a scope.

 

[JohnKSa]

You completely lose your 3D vision

That's because you have a much larger effective field of view with the conventionally mounted scope.

Saying you lose your 3D vision because one eye is looking through the scope is like saying you lose your peripheral vision when you look through binoculars. Sure you do, but you get a lot in return. And if your 3D vision is critical to you, you could always use a 1X (no magnification) scope or something like a holosight and leave both eyes open.

If you find yourself wishing for a scope when you have irons, and irons when you have a scope, the scout mounted low-power scope will solve that problem.

I don't see that. To me it sounds more like this:

A scout scope essentially gives you iron sight performance but with all the disadvantages of having an optic on your rifle.

 

[MyRoad]

A scout scope essentially gives you iron sight performance but with all the disadvantages of having an optic on your rifle.

John, you may need to actually try one out to see if it is something that works for you. And I don't mean just hold one up look through the scope - I mean go to a range or where ever you shoot, set up some targets and and practice some quick shots. For some people it's very fast and intuitive, for others, it may present no benefit.

I don't believe anyone is saying its the perfect set up. I think a lot of people are saying that once they've tried it, they really like it. YMMV.

 

[444]

"A scout scope essentially gives you iron sight performance but with all the disadvantages of having an optic on your rifle."

I disagree.
Having 2x magnification is not the same as iron sight performance. Iron sights are perfectly capable of making any reasonable hunting shot. It was done for hundreds of years. Have you ever gone to a museum or gun show and saw the iron sights that were on original muzzleloaders or even muzzleloading target rifles ? Litle tiny bits of brass on the end of a 40" barrel ? Yet, they managed to put food on the table with those sights when making the shot meant eating vs. starvation. Today, take a rifle and put a nitrogen filled, high tech manufactured 2x optic and the modern hunter considers it a huge handicap.

Anyone using the term "precision hits" does not understand the scout rifle concept. Again, substitue the words '94 Winchester into the sentence about making precision hits at 200 yards.

Yes, the scout scope is supposed to give you a virtually unlimited field of view. It is designed to be fast on moving targets. It allows you to load the rifle EASILY from the top, preferably from a stripper clip. It allows you to carry the rifle at it's natural balance point. AND, the magnification is plenty to make realistic shots in the real world. Since the scout rifle is supposed to be a jack of all trades gun, it could also serve pretty damn well for combat situations where you might be shooting someone indoors at three yards also. Typical of hunters is that they are worried about making that mythical 843 yard shot but just as important with this rifle is making a hostage shot at five yards because once again, this is a general purpose rifle designed to be used for everything from self defense to hunting to military combat to varmint shooting. It isn't about precision. It is about putting a shot in the breadbasket of the target. It isn't about shooting the third button on a man's shirt, it is about putting a shot in the COM. It isn't about putting out a moose's eye, it is about making a double lung shot.

As has been posted in every single one of these threads, a scout rifle is more than the scope and mounting the scope on a lever action rifle a scout rifle does not make (although it makes a very handy rifle, of which I own two).

The legendary Chief AJ uses a scout scope on a Ruger 10/22 to shoot asprin tablets out of the air. That isn't something you do with your 2-7 variable.



FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight.
If you read the link I posted earlier, I think the scout scope concept should be replaced with the modern electronic red dot optic like the Aimpoint ML3.

 

[JohnKSa]

444,

You must have missed my earlier post. I have nothing against iron sights--my point wasn't that iron sights are useless, it was that a forward mount scope doesn't really offer that much compared to a good set of aperture sights.

Anyone using the term "precision hits" does not understand the scout rifle concept.

You said it yourself--this rifle is supposed to be "a jack of all trades gun". Given that is the case, why limit the performance by forward mounting a scope and taking all the limitations that come with that choice.

I think the scout scope concept should be replaced with the modern red dot optic like the Aimpoint ML3.

I think it would have if Cooper had published the concept a few years later. Just like I think a scout rifle would have had aperture sights if he had published it a few years earlier.

But that's exactly what I was thinking--even if you decide you WANT or NEED an optic, why choose a low-power forward mounted scope over something like a modern red dot or equivalent.

 

[444]

"You said it yourself--this rifle is supposed to be "a jack of all trades gun".
That is shorthand for the full version: Jack of all trades, MASTER OF NONE.

Precision, long range shooting is a job that requires specialized hardware, NOT a jack of all trades gun. A jack of all trades gun makes reasonable shots at reasonable targets, not extreme shots at extremly precise targets. There is a problem however with specialized equipment: it isn't very versitile. I guess that is why they call it specialized. A military sniper rifle isn't the thing you want if you are clearing a building. The best trap shooting shotgun in the world isn't something that you want to make a 200 yard elk shot with. A Barret .50 isn't something you want to hump through the woods on your back. Shooting a bird on the wing isn't something that is easily done with a typical prarie dog rifle. .................... The scout rifle is the ONE rifle to have when you are only going to have ONE rifle. Again, most gun owners and shooters have sat down and had a discussion of what gun they would have if they could only have one gun. This is what Jeff Cooper came up with when he considered that very question.

At this point in the thread, I am just repeating the same thing over and over. There are better options for every single job the scout rifle is intended to be used for: long range shooting, personal defense, military combat, whatever. The scout rifle is simply a general purpose tool that CAN be used for all of the above and more.
Think of the multi-tool, the Leatherman. You carry it around on your belt. It is small and easy to carry. It doesn't get in the way. Mine has a knife, pliers, files, screwdrivers etc. on it. It isn't as good as a full sized pair of pliers or a 12" long file, or a full set of screwdrivers. The blade on mine is razor sharp but I wouldn't trade a butcher knife for my Leatherman if I was carving meat. BUT, it will usually suffice for most jobs. You won't find someone building an engine for an INDY race car with one. You won't find someone doing brain surgery with one. But, if you need a tool and you don't have the more specialized, heavier, harder to lug around, more inconvienient tools, it will get you by. If it was all you had, you could build a house. You wouldn't want to, but you could.

 

[nplant]

Sounds like everyone has overlooked one of the requirements of the Cooper concept, and that is backup irons.

See a good overview here

I've read a whole lot about Scout Rifles, and am building one based on the K98 style Mauser. The Cooper concept rifle had the forward mounted scope with the express purpose of (to quote the above-linked article): "[preserving] the shooters' peripheral vision, [clearing] the ejection port of the rifle, [making] possible the use of stripper clips to reload the rifle, and [eliminating] any chance of the scope striking one's brow during recoil. Cooper has stated that a telescopic sight is not mandatory."

So, if you're like Cooper, and find that this sort of mount makes sense for those reasons, then you're set. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with mounting a scope of your choice in a location of your choice. Isn't personal preference a wonderful thing? Have your cake and eat it, too. Just don't go calling your rifle a "Scout" around anyone who really cares that much. It's not worth the name-calling.

 

[BigG]

JohnKSA: The forward mount also allows you to carry the Scout at its point of balance with one hand. You can't do that with a conventionally scoped rifle.

 

[444]

That is interesting that Cooper doesn't consider the scope to be mandatory, yet today, if someone has a forward mounted scope they call it a scout rifle as if the forward mounted scope makes it a scout rifle.

Listen, we all know that everyone is free to shoot any rifle they want. We also realize that you can call it anything you want. But, what is the point of having a thread about scout rifles if we are not going to be talking about scout rifles ?

 

[s&w 24]

I own a JC package steyr scout and I truly feel that is a fine rifle! As far as looks ? It is a well made rifle that is a joy to shoot. At some point S&W the seniors SMLE sporter will get an old redfield IER scope placed on it and his swede mauser carbine will have a no gunsmith IER scope mount put on it and we will have a little comparison test.

One of the big points with the cooper scout rifle is that it is light and short with a large enough cartrige for most game animals in the world. the old rem 788 carbine came close to what size rifle cooper wanted by I'm shure he would not be happy about the overall finish and the extractor system.