Working class scout rifle?

[cluttonfred]

Valid points, of course, Bruce, it's your gun. My purpose in citing what I understood to be COL Cooper's definition of a scout rifle was purely to establish a baseline for the discussion.

Personally I am also kicking around ideas for a lower-powered (.30-30, .223, 7.62x39mm, .44 mag or .357 mag) scout-style carbine for short ranges (<300 yards or <200 yards for pistol calibers). It would be a light, handy, rugged and relatively inexpensive general purpose urban/suburban/woods gun with both iron sights and a forward mounted low-power, fixed magnification scope or red dot. The choice of a manual repeater vs. a semi-auto is dictated by cost, reliability and politics, otherwise I'd just get a Mini-14, Mini-30, SKS, Saiga, etc. to go with my M-1 Carbine and be done with it.

Light and cheap ammo is a draw as well--I have my Garand, M1917 Enfield, and Lee-Enfield No. 4 for longer ranges, but ammo is expensive and heavy to carry in any quantity. Such a "baby scout" carbine wouldn't be a "proper" scout rifle but would suffice for 99% of situations in which I can imagine needing a long gun for self-defense.

We have already mentioned some of the candidates in this thread: Ruger American Compact or another economy bolt action (.223), CZ 527 Carbine (.223 or 7.62x39mm), Marlin 336 (.30-30) or a pistol caliber lever-gun, even the Ruger 77/44 or 77/357. So far, no one choice jumps out as ideal: barrel too long, no iron sights, awkward when prone, not my preferred caliber, too expensive, etc. Suggestions welcome!

 

[Willie Sutton]

"-The idea of the forward-mounted scope leaves me utterly cold. It's ill-balanced, ugly, and SLOWER in use than a low-powered receiver-mounted scope...."


Money talks, words walk... (insert any desired corrections to the former)

Bring your rifle and your money to Gunsite sometime and take a rifle course. You'll finish towards the bottom on the final scoring. That's not supposition, it's a fact based on the statistics. Try shooting thrown clay birds with your rifle sometime.... easy with a real Scout.

What you have described as your own rifle is a light bolt action carbine. It's probably a lovely rifle. Just don't use the word "Scout" in the same paragraph when describing it, other than possibly to say "I have a rifle that is definately not a scout rifle, but that satisifies my needs perfectly....."



"My purpose in citing what I understood to be COL Cooper's definition of a scout rifle"

I'm sure you intended to say the Scout Rifle Conference (SRC) attendees concensus definition as initially set at SCR1, and which was refined thru SRC3? Put 40 of the smartest riflemen together for several weekends and the definition is what resulted. It's not one man's opinion, although the olonel was the one who most famously publicized it. This is what is missing from many peoples paradigm of the Scout: They think it was the opinion of one man. Truly, it was the synthesis of the ideas of a very smart group, which was then tested at Gunsite thousands of times, refined, re-testerd, re-refined, re-re-tested, and then more or less standardized. It works. The proof is in the range scores when used by a very wide variety of shooters using the rifle under time pressure, at unknown distances, from hasty positions, tens of thousands of times under the stopwatch.



Willie

.

 

[AK103K]

The idea of the forward-mounted scope leaves me utterly cold. It's ill-balanced, ugly, and SLOWER in use than a low-powered receiver-mounted scope.... if the shooter knows how to use one.

Im sorta in agreement with the "ugly" part (I always thought Savage's B Square mount was ugly and unrefined), I disagree with the balance and speed part.

Ive used Leupold and Burris Scout scopes (as well as Aimpoints), mounted at the forward edge of the "port" on a number of bolt action guns, and on the handguards of a couple of autos, and never found the guns to "unbalanced", ungainly, or muzzle heavy.

The biggest advantage to the optic being mounted forward is it doesnt block your vision, and you have less handling and in some cases, functioning issues. The rifle shoulders and shoots more like a rifle with iron sights, and you dont tend to get lost in the scope. It works more like a red dot, where you look at the target and the dot just appears where youre looking when you shoulder the gun. With the scout scope, the cross hairs just appear instead. Snap shooting and/or moving targets are a lot easier with the froward mounted scope.

I too have or have had low power scopes mounted traditionally, and do like them very much, but they still are lacking in the above cases. I currently have a Leupold 1.5x5 on a lever mount on one of my AR's. With the scope dialed down to 1.5x, its like a set of "glass irons", and quick to use, but that scope is back in your face, and just in the way and blocks your view of things. I find the same to be true of rifles Ive shot with the red dots mounted the same way.

Personally I am also kicking around ideas for a lower-powered (.30-30, .223, 7.62x39mm, .44 mag or .357 mag) scout-style carbine for short ranges (<300 yards or <200 yards for pistol calibers). It would be a light, handy, rugged and relatively inexpensive general purpose urban/suburban/woods gun with both iron sights and a forward mounted low-power, fixed magnification scope or red dot. The choice of a manual repeater vs. a semi-auto is dictated by cost, reliability and politics, otherwise I'd just get a Mini-14, Mini-30, SKS, Saiga, etc. to go with my M-1 Carbine and be done with it.

Having tried setting up a couple of "smaller" guns (Winchester Trappers) for this role, I found I really didnt like them at all, with all the extra stuff on top, and those guns really lost their handiness because of it.

Some guns are just great as they are, and really dont need or benefit from optics.

If you just have to do it, and I know we all do at some point , I think you'll find a good, small red dot will be the better choice in this case.

 

[Willie Sutton]

>describes a Poodle Scout<

"Personally I am also kicking around ideas for a lower-powered (.30-30, .223, 7.62x39mm, .44 mag or .357 mag) scout-style carbine"


So, without further ado, Colonel Jeff's observations on the matter as translated by Carl Donath:


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Abortion Scout: "I have yet to see more than half a dozen rifles that have been properly converted into Scouts. However, I have seen in excess of two dozen wannabe-but-have-no-idea-what-a-Scout-really-is rifles. I call these "abortion-Scouts." The several I have seen were cobbled together by people who have no idea of what it is they are trying to emulate. The overall results were so deplorable I was horrified to think that people might actually believe them to be Scouts. Two pet examples are the "Savage Scout" and "Brockman's Scouts."

(Willies Note: I am absolutely certain that had Jeff seen the Ruger "Scout" he would have assigned it high points as an abortion)


Pseudo Scout: Almost a scout rifle, but not quite as it violates some defined parameter, often by being a bit too heavy, too long, or using an inappropriate cartridge. Cooper observes "This is not to say that you cannot make up an excellent "pseudo-scout" from components of your choice. You may create an excellent rifle this way, and I know of several examples personally, but you are skirting the issue, and you are probably spending more money than you should." A pseudo scout is not necessarily bad or inferior, but one should clarify that it is in fact not a scout rifle. (Willie's bold)

Medium scout: A scout rifle firing something notably larger than the standard .308 round, particularly "By "medium," in this case, I mean a cartridge of 9mm or 38 bore-size propelling a 250-grain bullet at between 2400 and 2600 f/s." During development of the .376 Steyr, Cooper commented "the new medium scout cartridge may be designated the 376 JCS." Note that Cooper considers 6 x 51 mm the minimum caliber for a scout rifle.

Heavy scout: A very large caliber scout rifle, with the observation "A heavy scout will not be a true scout, of course, because it will be overweight and it will take an oddball cartridge in place of the universally available 308."

Super scout: "The 350 Rem Mag likewise, with its 250-grain bullet, formed the base for the Super Scout, a medium-bore instrument capable of taking on all heavy game short of buffalo and the pachyderms."

(Willie's note: The first purpose built Super Scout recognized as such by Jeff is the one I had built at Gunsite on a Model 7 Remington. Later this spring when I return home I will document it and put up a thread here on it.)



Poodle Scout: Cooper's name for "a curious artifact known as the "Poodle Scout" in caliber 223." Elsewhere he says "Steyr Mannlicher is manufacturing and Gun South is distributing the Poodle Scout. This is a scout-type rifle taking the 223 cartridge. One would ask what possible use there might be for that piece. An answer, of course, is "to sell!" I suppose people will buy it, but if anyone shows up here at the Ranch with one, he will be viewed with scorn." Also, "There is no possible reason for a scout-type rifle in that caliber".

Luftscout: Commenting on Steyr Mannlicher's .223 Steyr Scout, Cooper said "I now await the Luftscout, which is an airgun riding in a Scout stock."

Municipal scout: A scout rifle purchased by a local police force. Cooper tells "I noticed the piece on assembly and asked the presumed owner why he happened to get the item in black. His answer was, his department bought three of them and ordered them all in black for departmental purposes. A departmental Scout! Is that what we are doing with the city tax money? It is not easy to explain why a policeman needs a rifle of any kind, but it can be done. Why he needs an expensive rifle - a radical improvement - is somewhat harder. I did not ask, but I suspect that the squad cars in this friend's town are all Porsches."

Lever scout: A scout rifle built on a lever-action receiver. Not a bad concept, but finding an action that will fit caliber, weight and length requirements is difficult.

Semiautomatic scout: A scout rifle built on an auto-loader receiver. A fine concept, but so far it seems no such receiver will fit caliber, weight and length requirements.

Cub scout: Name often given to a scout rifle chambered for .22LR, with the intent of it being a boy's first rifle.

 

[cluttonfred]

Absolutely hilarious, Willie, thanks for sharing. Though my .223 would have to be a "Terrier Scout" as my Cairn would never forgive me for naming it after a Poodle. ;-)

 

[henschman]

My .308 Savage 11 is pretty close to what you're talking about. It is easily at scout weight the way it sits... it would be even lighter if I chopped 3 or 4 inches off the barrel to bring it to scout length (an easy enough job for an amateur gunsmith, and something I may actually end up doing if I get bored). All I really did was mount a Weaver VX3 1-3x with a Picatinny mount. A scout scope it is not, but I can tell you, on 1x you can hit as fast as you'd ever want to with both eyes open with that thing. I currently run a 1907 sling on it. If you leave the keepers up and the arm loop open, you can sling up almost as fast as a Ching. It certainly isn't a true scout, but it sure is a great rifle for the deer woods.



Also, I know you said you are more interested in new production rifles than mil surps, but here is a Scout I put together for under $400 (without the optic) that checks all the necessary boxes. It is a FR-8 Spanish Mauser in 7.62x51 on which I put an XS scout mount and a Fajen synthetic stock. It weighs 3.2 kg, and is right at 1m long. It has a quick loop sling I made myself, and shooting inside 2 MOA from prone with a sling is not a problem. Being able to load from stripper clips is a plus. The factory aperture sights are pretty decent... the fact that they co-witness with the Aimpoint is a big plus. Aside from all that, it is a nice, handy, quick-pointing, easy-carrying rifle that can put a .308 in the kill zone really fast. Amazingly I haven't had to make any permanent alterations to the rifle to get it to this point... but I will probably end up eliminating the cleaning kit/bayo mount and the circle mounting frame to shave even more weight off the muzzle end.

 

[RPRNY]

Hensch, don't know if that FR8 is a Scout but it's a jolly nice rifle well executed.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^ This. They are sleepers, and that one is particularly well done. Nice work! I'd be proud of that in my own rack.

Willie

.

 

[BruceB]

My... you gents are surely attached to that front mounted scope.

For the record: a rifle that fits the user should NOT block his vision.... the attention is focused on the TARGET, and the scope simply comes into the shooter's field of view...... if practiced, the shooter will NOT get "lost in the scope". Instead, the sight will be in perfect position for making the shot.

The 2.5X Leupold Scout scope is a pretty good example of the breed. Checking its specs, we find it has a field of view of 22 feet at 100 yards.

Now, look at the conventionally-mounted Weaver 1-3X variable:

-at 3X it has a 100-yard field of 32 feet (fifty percent larger than the Leupold) and,

-at 1X it has a field of EIGHTY-EIGHT feet at 100 yards. Now THAT, gents, is FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT more field of view than the Leupold Scout. Can we say, "fast"? How about those oh-so-tough thrown clay birds, which are so easy with the scout scope, and so difficult with a conventional mount, and at which I would be doomed to defeat??

I had considerable correspondence with Jeff Cooper for years before he passed away, and he was not nearly as dogmatic as many would paint him. We had some very interesting discussions. For one thing, the good Colonel maintained an OPEN MIND, always testing and inquiring... that's how he became the innovative man we all respect!

 

[Willie Sutton]

"if practiced, the shooter will NOT get "lost in the scope". Instead, the sight will be in perfect position for making the shot"


The issue is the peripheral visual field surrounding the scope, that allows you to detect motion and objects that are not within the optical view of the scope itself.

The reason an intermediate eye relief scope works so well is that the further the scope is from the shooter, the more peripheral cues are available due to less structrural blockage by the non-optical portions of the scope and its mounting system.

Ideally, a scope would have zero non-optical mechanical structure surrounding the optical elements. Think of this in terms of similarity to a HUD (Heads Up Display) in a modern fighter. You see thru them and are not even aware that they exist. You look at the world, and the additional data provided by the HUD is immediately assimilated into the visual field data without processing. The HUD is a semip-transparent mirror, set at about 45 degress to the eye of the pilot. You look thru it, and the electronic data is pro\jected from a projector pointing up from the bottom of the mirror. There is no frame around the glass combiner mirror: Less blockage to the surrounding area = less places for a target to hide behind the visual blockage when sighting.


Scopes, unfortunately, bring with them their own structure and the structure of their mounting system, adjustment turrets, etc.

How do we reduce this?

1: First, we reduce to a minimum the physical blockages associated with the structure of the scope itself. "Buy wisely".

2: Second, mount it as far away as possible. Imagine that you can buy the identical scope but for either normal eye relief or intermediate eye relief. Note that for any one particular scope, the blocked area is a function of the distance to your eye. Not only that, it's non linear, meaning that the dfference between 4 and 8 inches is much less than the difference between 8 inches and 12 inches. Do some trig and you can see why.

Try this before you continue to read: Hold a dime eight inches from your eye (about where the adjustment turret is of a normal scope) and see what it blocks. Do the same thing at 18 inches and see what it blocks. Imagine the dime to be a windage adjustment turrret. You've just learned one reason why a Scout Scope works so well for two eye open fast target engagement.

Taking it to a scope system: If you do a formal study of the occluded area of visual field caused by the adjustment turrets of a scope, and it's mounting and rings, and it's physical tube, etc., and do this at a distance of 8 inches and 18 inches, you will see that there is a huge difference in the area unseen due to physical occlusion by the mechanical structure of the scope itself. This is my area of professional expertise, as we do this exact thing when we evaluate an aircraft cockpit for blind spots and field of view obstructions. I ought to do a formal plot of a scope at two distances and publish it here, as the difference in percent of field of view occlusion would be eye opening to many.

This is science, not guesswork. There are many good books and papers on human factors designs and this is worth a chapter in any of them. It's not really arguable from a design standpoint. And it's provable with a stopwatch when shooting against the clock.

Cooper was, as you say, open minded and ever inquisitive. I would haveloved to have seen him experiment with the current generation of electronic sights, none of which which were fully developed in his lifetime.


And in Pun: "There's more to this than meets the eye"


Willie

.

 

[Rick R]

^^^ +1 on what he said ^^^

I've found that the field of view on a scout scope is immaterial, as Willie so eloquently stated the scope should be as thin a circle as possible. Think of it as an optical ghost ring with your vision taking in everything in and around it just as if you weren't looking through a scope at all.

I have a Leupold 2.5x compact that is very similar in dimensions to the 2.5x Scout and your brains treat them as two totally different animals when they're bolted to the top of a rifle.

I haven't tried one of the variable scout scopes that have a higher magnification than the standard version, I wonder if they cause any problems with the concept when the "screen within the screen" is significantly magnified.

 

[henschman]

Thanks fellas.

I am sure a scout scope would be quicker on target than a regular eye relief scope of the same magnification... but I'm thinking a variable optic that is set on 1x might keep up or exceed it. I have a couple on different rifles, that Savage being one of them, and they are very fast on 1x with both eyes open. I might have to do some comparison work on the clock to see. Of course the advantage with the scout scope is that you don't have to reach up and adjust magnification to be fast.

An unmagnified red dot beats them all for speed, and being parallax free is nice... but no mag makes target detection and ID more difficult. I suppose a fellow could carry binocs for that role if necessary... I frequently do.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

In response to, or rather to add, to Rick R, is there any disadvantage of running a variable scout scope? Longer reaction times? Same? Quicker (due to 1x)?

 

[chicharrones]

Thanks fellas.

I am sure a scout scope would be quicker on target than a regular eye relief scope of the same magnification... but I'm thinking a variable optic that is set on 1x might keep up or exceed it.

It makes me think of 3-gun competition rifles and their receiver mounted scopes. I understand that the Scout type scope interferes less with view around the scope, but with practice using a 1-4x receiver mounted scope is there enough difference to really matter?

 

[Palehorseman]

This little Stevens M325 bolt action in 30-30 IMO would make a great little scout rifle with larger capacity mags. But conversion will not be done by me as I really like it as is.

 

[Rick R]

I am sure a scout scope would be quicker on target than a regular eye relief scope of the same magnification... but I'm thinking a variable optic that is set on 1x might keep up or exceed it.

I imagine you'll just have to see what works best for you, I've got two rifles with the standard Leupold 1-4x, one with a Redfield 1.75-5x and one with a Zeiss 1.1-6.6x. The 2.5x Scout on two different rifles is quicker for me than all the above due to the HUD like properties that Mr. Sutton referenced. Once you get the scope out away from your eye beautiful things begin to happen.

It does have it's drawbacks for long range precision shots and some conditions with low or oblique lighting but for 90% of real shooting needs the scout scope works pretty well.

 

[cluttonfred]

I think that Steven's .30-30 would do just fine out to 200-300 yards or so with just an aftermarket aperture site.

 

[axxxel]

If I was getting a handy bolt action rifle setup, and I was on a budget, I'd go with a used remington 700 or Tikka T3. There's nothing wrong with buying a used rifle in good condition. From what I've heard the Ruger American has a flimsy plastic stock. Good bolt action rifles don't really wear out, so I don't see a great need to get a cheaply made gun just because it's less expensive than other newly produced rifles. The used guns are just as good as the new ones, but less expensive. That's what I'd go for, not cheap and crappy. With that said, I've never held a Ruger American, and they might be worth it for you. I'm on a very low income and my last rifle purchase was a 20-30 year old Sako L579 bolt action rifle in .308 winchester. Very good quality, very nice finish, beautiful wood stock, fabulous accuracy... There is less wear on an old, high quality rifle than there is machining marks and faults on a cheap new rifle.

The term scout rifle has a specific meaning. I don't think the scout scope thing is for me, but it is what it is and it's called what it's called. "Handy bolt action rifle" is a perfect way to describe a handy bolt action rifle. There's no need to anger the scout rifle aficionados by being sloppy on the definition.