Scout rifles - worthwhile? - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Firearms General Discussion Rifles, pistols, shotguns, scopes, grips and everything in between.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-16-2019, 11:29 AM
ajole ajole is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,716
Thanks: 7,691
Thanked 21,919 Times in 6,963 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuteandfuzzybunnies View Post
There are levergun scout builds.
Yeah, they build all sorts of stuff...but are they good, and useful?
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2019, 11:50 AM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 382
Thanks: 226
Thanked 601 Times in 259 Posts
Default

I've had a couple and really enjoy the concept, but with the realization that it's a bit outdated. A 16" R700 with a red dot and an MVP Patrol, both in 308 with detachable mags. They're my hunting guns and they can be defense rifles. They're mostly a good defense against dangerous game, though.

I actually transcribed Art of the Rifle. It's out if print and copies on Amazon are over $50, so don't worry, Jeff nor his publisher lose cash by you reading this. Here's a full online copy of Art of the Rifle.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t?usp=drivesdk
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2019, 12:55 PM
Peter's Avatar
Peter Peter is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Above ground
Posts: 7,865
Thanks: 4,282
Thanked 7,607 Times in 3,745 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rustednail View Post
I like all the features of the Ruger Scout but for one....the magazine.....rather have internal five round....with stripper clips. As did Col Cooper...

I like the box magazine on the Ruger Scout, the steel ones drop freely from the magazine well as intended. While the polymer magazines may or may not as they weigh less and fit the magazine well more snugly.


When using an internal magazine stripper clips make sense as they are faster than loading one round at a time into the magazine. Since semi auto rifles use box magazines, it just seems natural that a scout rifle employ the same system.


From a practical perspective, inserting a fresh magazine (usually of higher capacity) makes sense. From a purist perspective using a stripper clip makes sense. Given the choice I will take a box magazine over a stripper clip as I tend to be more practical than purist when it comes to such things.


OTOH I would assume there are Scout rifles that employ both detachable box magazines and stripper clips. While the Ruger scout uses only a detachable box magazine, it is far and away more efficient and practical than internal magazines and stripper clips. If Ruger had added a stripper clip cutout to the Ruger Scout rifle receiver I doubt few if any would use it.
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-16-2019, 02:04 PM
Wallimiyama Wallimiyama is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 241
Thanks: 532
Thanked 684 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
I always wondered if a lever gun could make a decent scout rifle.
I've seen some builds... but they're a pain in the ass if you have to shoot from a prone position.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2019, 02:24 PM
animalspooker animalspooker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 60
Thanks: 165
Thanked 59 Times in 31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7.5x55 Swiss View Post
I was thinking about getting myself a Browning BAR Stalker, which weighs under 7lbs unscoped but loaded and fills all the criteria of Coopers concept minus the bolt action platform and stripper clip use to mount a fixed (though not forward mounted) scope on it.

Alternatively, while limiting myself in cartridge capability, I also have a Norinco Hunter in 7.62x39 that I think would fill most of the criteria as well. Advantage is that I already have the Hunter, and just need to get an AK master mount, scope mount, and a scope. It's light and well balanced, and I can use anything from a 75rd drum to the 5rd Chinese and Romanian magazines I got. It's accurate, has a 19" barrel and has been reliable so far. Ammo is cheap and plentiful, plus the .308 bullets I have seem to work well with minimal accuracy/fps loss.

I do really like the fixed power scope concept, but I don't want to stick with a 4x prism scope/ACOG. I would prefer either a 6x or 8x, but not knowing much about scopes, what do you guys recommend in that magnification range?
7.5, the 6x and 8x are both fine scopes, but you do have (at least I do) quick acquisition problems at close range (inside 20 yards) with that high power. Here's what I'd suggest. This 1-8X gives you up close and far away range. Find where you like it and leave it alone for quick draw, or sit down, get stable and take a long shot on 8x. And don't panic...you can find it a lot cheaper than listed on this site.

https://vortexoptics.com/vortex-stri...iflescope.html
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2019, 02:47 PM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,688
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 13,349 Times in 4,315 Posts
Default

I have an intense dislike for internal magazines. Even if you are not going up in capacity or only have one magazine and its a flush fit its very handy to be able to remove the magazine, even if just to count rounds or clear malfunctions.

I will say....its too bad that Scout rifles don't really make sense anymore, I've always liked their proportions.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2019, 04:58 PM
Plagued707's Avatar
Plagued707 Plagued707 is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Idaho
Age: 34
Posts: 781
Thanks: 624
Thanked 986 Times in 404 Posts
Default



Super light weight, especially with the scope off.

I tried the scout setup but with a variable 1-4x conventional it just balances better and is a better shooter for me.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Plagued707 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-17-2019, 07:58 AM
ROCK6's Avatar
ROCK6 ROCK6 is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia/Virginia
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 6,500
Thanked 12,903 Times in 4,202 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
I will say....its too bad that Scout rifles don't really make sense anymore, I've always liked their proportions.
I think they still make sense, but not as a dedicated fighting rifle. They are simply a general purpose rifle best suited to a rural environment, long scouting missions, and hunting. The weight is the important factor for me. Hauling around a 10+pound rifle all day is for the young, fit, and stupid

My POF is the lightest option with LPVO as a more versatile semi-auto, but even a 9.5 pounds (with optics) it's slightly more heavy than I really like.

If you can accept a little less range (under 300 meters), I think my AR15 pistol in 300BO is a far more modern and capable "scout rifle". Still 30 caliber, easily suppressed, excellent accuracy (even with a 7.5" barrel) out to 150 meters and acceptable out to 300 meters with a little extra effort; and the biggest advantage is size and weight.



With about a pound and a half of holo-sight and 3x magnifier, my 300BO pistol is still less than 7.5lbs (7lbs, 6oz). With a much lighter ACOG, it comes in a 6.5 pounds. That's something that is easy to carry around all day, still take larger game out between 200-300 meters, can serve as a very viable self-defensive weapon, and can be on target extremely fast.

ROCK6
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ROCK6 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-17-2019, 10:19 AM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is online now
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,518
Thanks: 679
Thanked 10,101 Times in 3,884 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
I always wondered if a lever gun could make a decent scout rifle.
Marlin 336C in 35 Remington meets the length requirement but will be about a pound over weight after the optic is added. There are options that can reduce the weight a little, maybe enough to make the requirements.

It is a project I have been giving a good amount of thought. I like the capability to top off the mag without having to open the action for one. The mag tube holds 6 which is in line with most of the bolt ones. With practice a lever can be operated faster than can a bolt gun.

Yes I believe a lever would make a good Scout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallimiyama View Post
I've seen some builds... but they're a pain in the ass if you have to shoot from a prone position.
An issue that can be overcome with training.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snyper708 View Post
The "scout" concept is ok for old military rifles that make it difficult to mount a scope in a normal fashion.

Beyond that I see no real advantages at all.
One of the other reasons besides the loading access is that if you keep both eyes open your peripheral vision allows you to see potential threats outside the scopes view.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to JDH For This Useful Post:
Old 08-17-2019, 05:12 PM
HappyinID's Avatar
HappyinID HappyinID is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,159
Thanks: 2,418
Thanked 4,020 Times in 1,874 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plagued707 View Post


Super light weight, especially with the scope off.

I tried the scout setup but with a variable 1-4x conventional it just balances better and is a better shooter for me.
Me too.

I built several Scouts before most knew what one was, with direct input from Cooper. They were, (and are), fast, handy, and useful.

But as I've said before, when I got my first true 1X variable, they mostly replaced my forward mounted scopes. A good 1X4 or 1X6 with an illuminated dot and a cattail, for me is just as fast or faster, less likely to catch on things and tear your scope off, and is far better for a precision shot.

I felt much better on a stalk in Africa with a scope set on 1X then I would have with a Scout scope on 3X, with things around that can kill you. When it was time for a shot, a flick of the wrist gave me 6X when I carried that rifle.



.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HappyinID For This Useful Post:
Old 08-17-2019, 05:32 PM
Snyper708 Snyper708 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 1,761
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2,757 Times in 1,050 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
Marlin 336C in 35 Remington meets the length requirement but will be about a pound over weight after the optic is added. There are options that can reduce the weight a little, maybe enough to make the requirements.

It is a project I have been giving a good amount of thought. I like the capability to top off the mag without having to open the action for one. The mag tube holds 6 which is in line with most of the bolt ones. With practice a lever can be operated faster than can a bolt gun.

Yes I believe a lever would make a good Scout.



An issue that can be overcome with training.



One of the other reasons besides the loading access is that if you keep both eyes open your peripheral vision allows you to see potential threats outside the scopes view.
Keeping both eyes open isn't dependent on the location of the scope.

My A-bolt Micro Medallion is as short and light as any "scout" rifle and one should always have both eyes open all the time anyway.

Long extended mags get in the way if shooting from a rest, and forward mounted optics can be harder to use in some low light conditions.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-18-2019, 07:51 AM
0002S's Avatar
0002S 0002S is offline
μολὼν λαβέ
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 3,025
Thanks: 2,350
Thanked 4,082 Times in 1,688 Posts
Default

For its day, the concept was sound.

Today there are better options and optics that keep with the spirt of what the Col Cooper was trying to achieve.

A 300BO W/Aimpoint and BUIS with a 14.5” configuration is one example.

The same could be said for a lightweight 6.5CM set up.

Both offer suppressed options and an infinite amount of QD optics options.

Options like the above were not available when the Colonel came up with his concept.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 0002S For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2019, 08:25 AM
Jack Swilling's Avatar
Jack Swilling Jack Swilling is online now
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 3,038
Thanks: 4,910
Thanked 6,890 Times in 2,170 Posts
Default

Still a viable alternative
There were always options
Soon may be one of the best options
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jack Swilling For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2019, 11:06 AM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is online now
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,518
Thanks: 679
Thanked 10,101 Times in 3,884 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snyper708 View Post
Keeping both eyes open isn't dependent on the location of the scope.
Right, but the closer to the eye the scope body is the more it blocks the field of view.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JDH For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2019, 11:33 AM
0002S's Avatar
0002S 0002S is offline
μολὼν λαβέ
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 3,025
Thanks: 2,350
Thanked 4,082 Times in 1,688 Posts
Default

The Scout Rifle
by Jeff Cooper

The progress of modern technology has been curiously uneven. We have conquered polio and smallpox, but not the common cold. We have landed on the moon, but we cannot move conveniently around our cities. We build word processors, but not a satisfactory writing stylus. And while certain kinds of missilery have taken great strides, little of importance has been done to improve the rifles with which we greeted the turn of the century.

Well hold on now! We have semiautomatic actions and telescope sights, haven't we?

Of course we have, and these improvements do deserve consideration, but the first matters only in the military mode and the second is still only partly understood. Rapid repeat shots do little for the individual rifleman, whose primary object is to hit with his first shot, and glass sights have, in a sense, retrogressed since the pioneering efforts of Rudolph Noske and some others in the 1920s.

When I first went after big game in 1937, I used a rifle very similar in style, weight, size, practical accuracy and ballistic potential to one that might be bought over the counter today. It worked very well (and it still does), so we might well ask why anyone should wish to improve upon it. This is like asking why we should improve on anything that works. If an outhouse works, why install indoor plumbing? The fact is that we improve things for three reasons: to make our lives more convenient, to gratify our curiosity, and to* make money. These motives have not conspicuously affected riflery until quite recently. We have dwelt too heavily on cartridge variation, forgetting that all modern cartridges will do very well if they are shot well. In a sense we have concentrated so hard on the aircraft that we have ignored the carrier. It is only in the last 10 years or so that rifle design has come alive, but now it has (though only a few realize it), and today we stand on the brink of a new era.

Any instrument is built for a purpose—presumably. What is it for? Certainly we see endless gadgetry being promoted for which the purposes are pretty obscure— answers in search of questions— but that does not invalidate the premise. We cannot sensibly improve on rifle design unless we decide what a rifle is to be required to do. If we specialize overmuch in this thinking, we come up with instruments well-suited to a specific task but not to any others.

Scout III built on a Ruger Model 77 Ultralight used a Ruger No. 1 rib to secure the forward-mount scoot.

It is much easier to specialize than to generalize, and the definition of a general-purpose rifle is a complex task. Let us attempt it by declaring that: a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target. This involved statement will not meet with everyone's approval, but certain elements of it must be accepted before we proceed. Convenience is important. Power is important. Practical accuracy, as opposed to intrinsic accuracy, is important. If we add the desirability of ruggedness, versatility and speed of operation, and finally throw in a touch of aesthetics, we complete a workable set of parameters. Such a piece is eminently suited for taking the vast predominance of four-footed game, and equally so for men.

In 1983 a conference was convened at the Gunsite Training Center in Arizona to examine the subject of the modernization of rifle design. The members of the conference included gunsmiths, stocksmiths, journalists, marksmanship instructors, inventors and hunters. It was called the First Scout Rifle Conference ("scout" being the term settled upon for the definition of the new concept), and it adjourned with the objective of exploring all elements of design during 1984 and meeting again in October. When the second meeting was held much progress had been made. The project is not complete and at this point certain technical innovations remain to be perfected.

Another conference will be held this winter, and at that time the prototype, or prototypes, of the "rifle of the future" should be ready for inspection. At this time we are held up by the unavailability of certain important components, but when the completed instrument is ready for demonstration and examination, it ought not be too difficult to persuade certain manufacturers to accommodate us. Riflemen tend to be a conservative lot, and anything which departs from past procedures is usually viewed with skepticism. There is also the problem of cost, for innovations are always expensive. However, the scout project has proceeded on the assumption that a better mousetrap will sell itself in the marketplace—eventually.

Remington's Model 600 provided the first prototype, Scout I. It and successors are all .308 Wins.
The idea behind the scout rifle is not new. The famous old Mannlicher 6.5 carbine was a step in this direction, as was the equally famous Winchester Model 94.SO-SO carbine. The British "Jungle Carbine" of World War II was another example of the breed, and finally there came the ill-fated Remington 600 carbines of a decade ago—excellent guns in most ways but ahead of their time. I acquired a 600 in .308 Win. and fitted it with a Leupold 2X extended-eye-relief telescope. This laid the groundwork for the scout concept now being studied by the conference. This little gun was an absolute delight, and it sits in my rack today. Its decisive drawback, of course, is that neither the rifle nor the telescope is any longer manufactured. Also it is imperfect in some other ways, and the builders of new versions of the scout rifle will seek to overcome all such apparent weaknesses.

The consensus of the conference was that modern technology enables us to produce a rifle which need not sacrifice either power or accuracy to convenience. The new-wave rifle is neither more powerful nor intrinsically more accurate than the rifles of the past, but it is much, much handier—shorter, lighter and quicker to operate. The current guideline is a length limit of one meter and a weight limit of three kilos. (This weight is measured with all accessories in place but with the rifle unloaded.) Immediately these limitations point us toward short actions, short barrels, compact sights, and synthetic stocks. A further feature which distinguishes the modern scout rifle from its predecessors is the telescope sight, but that in a certain particular mode. The modern scout uses a low-power telescope mounted just forward of the magazine well. In recent decades, progress in the development of telescope sights has been to a certain extent negative in that telescopes, instead of becoming stronger, smaller and faster to use have become larger, more cumbersome, more fragile and almost necessarily mounted too high above the bore. Since most modern shooters are used to these things, they do not understand the advantages of a radically different system, but there is little doubt in the minds of those who have used the scout telescope concept on snap shots that it is the only proper general-purpose sighting system for a rifle.

For those who have not tried it, an explanation of the advantages of the forward telescope is in order. First, and most important, the forward glass does not obscure the landscape. With both eyes open the shooter sees the entire countryside as well as the cross-wire printed on his target. For this reason it is important that the magnification of the telescope be no greater than 3X (some hold that 2X is maximum) in order to avoid excessive disparity between the vision of the two eyes. This forward mount, properly used and understood, is the fastest sighting arrangement available to the rifleman. (Many students at Gun-site are capable of taking straight-away clay birds at the end of one full training session.) There are those who think that a glass of low power is necessarily less precise for long-range precision work, but we have not found this to be the case in any sort of realistic test.

There are many additional advantages to the forward telescope mount. It is out of the way when the rifle is carried at the balance. It may be mounted as low over the bore as the diameter of the bell permits. It avoids pinching between thumb and bolt handle when the bolt is operated. It permits stripper loading if desired. It greatly facilitates single-loading with eyes on target. It completely eliminates "telescope eye." Without exception, those who have tried the forward-mounted glass in a full course of rifle training are unanimous in their conviction that it is a superior system.

Unfortunately telescopes of proper eye-relief (minimum 6", maximum 12", optimum 9") are not readily available. The old issue of the Leupold M8-2X is the glass most used on the prototypes, but it is out of production and no longer obtainable. The new versions of this glass have an optimum eye relief of 14". On the positive side, we now have installed on Scout II a prototype Burris 3X scope that seems to be working out splendidly. This new glass has a 9.5" optimum eye-relief. Additionally, negotiations are now under way with a Japanese firm to build a telescope of proper characteristics for inclusion in future scout research.

The problem of mounting a telescope properly in its forward position is severe, since no current manufacturer is ready to produce the necessary components. On Scout I the old Buehler mount locked the Leupold glass to the plastic rib on top of the barrel in a most satisfactory way, but such equipment is no longer manufactured. The mounting system pictured on Scout II is extremely efficient, being strong, low and simple, and utilizing the barrel lug to resist recoil in compression. It is a custom proposition at this time, and thus expensive, but when the entire project is completed standardization will reduce this difficulty. Since scout barrels are as thin as compatible with safety there is no way to screw anything onto the barrel at the forward telescope mount ring. Therefore some sort of extrusion must be applied to the barrel in order to provide a proper base for the front mount. On Scout I this was the plastic rib that came on the Remington 600. On Scout II a machined steel ring was slid over the barrel and sweated into place to offer foothold. On Scout III the standard Ruger quarter rib of the single-shot rifle was affixed to the Ruger Ultralight to provide a forward footing. Other systems will doubtless be developed as the demand increases.

A Sako action was the basis for Scout II, a prototype with a camp-painted McMillan stock. Innovations included a cartridge trap in the stock and custom mount for the 3X Burris.
Reserve iron sights were held to be desirable for a proper scout rifle, but a proper set has not yet been devised. The forward-mounted telescope allows the positioning of an aperture sight on the receiver bridge, and the barrel extrusion which constitutes the forward telescope mount offers a proper base for a front sight. An aperture sight on the receiver bridge, in combination with a front sight at the forward telescope mount, will offer a sight radius of about 11"—quite sufficient for reserve use. This system will avoid the necessity of hanging the front sight out on the end of the barrel, where it catches on things, breaks, snags and muddies up. The Brno ZKK 601 action incorporates a retractable aperture sight in the bridge and therefore will be used in conjunction with the new type front sight on Scout IV.

Light weight is important in a scout, and therefore the conference has settled upon synthetic rather than wood stocks. I think we must admit that wood stocks on rifles are in their closing period. Wood is warm to the touch, traditional, and in its luxury aspect very beautiful. However a good piece of wood is frighteningly expensive, and old-fashioned hand-checkering is pretty much a thing of the past. Wood is also somewhat fragile, subject to thermal deformation, ambient moisture and staining. Synthetics—when properly constructed—are better in every way except one. They look cheap. Fortunately this can be corrected. It is possible to make a modern synthetic stock look very handsome to the eye—as in the illustrations you see. A synthetic stock need not be checkered, since its whole finish may be made "crinkly" and thus non-skid. Attractive forest-leaf patterns have been worked up which may offend the traditionalists but have a definite beauty of their own. And a high-grade fiberglass or graphite stock is stronger, lighter and much cheaper than good-grade wood, in addition to being inert and unaffected by moisture or heat. The stock on Scout II was manufactured by McMillan of Phoenix and finished by Brown of California, and the complete rifle meets the prescribed weight limitation of three kilos.

The barrels of the scouts are short and light. A short barrel does sacrifice something in velocity but not enough to balance considerations of handiness. All scouts up to now have been in .308 cat., and the chronograph insists that proper loading can start the 150-gr. bullet from a 19" barrel at a couple of clicks over 2700 f.p.s. These ballistics served Theodore Roosevelt and Stuart White very well in Africa, and they still can. The 7 mm-'08 affords slightly better ballistics, if that matters, and one can go to the now defunct 6.5 and .350 Rem. Mags, while still using a short action. For targets of greater weight than 400 lbs., a standard-length action will be necessary, adding about an inch and perhaps 3/4 lb, to the whole assembly. (Medium caliber scouts have been built up now on the .350 Rem. and .35 Whelen cartridges.)

The consensus at the first conference was that stainless was the proper material for barrels, not so much because it is resistant to corrosion but because it offers a better coefficient of friction. It is "slipperier" than normal steel and therefore should provide slightly greater velocity for the same charge. In practice it has been found that stainless steel is very difficult to control as to quality, and that it differs from batch to batch. There are barrel makers now who will not attempt a light-weight stainless steel barrel, not because it could not be made but because they do not know that they could make it—since they do not make their own barrel steel.

Whether a barrel is cut, buttoned, or hammer-forged does not seem to be as important as some maintain. Hammer-forging has many advantages, but it is necessarily expensive and can only be applied to production runs in large numbers. The handsome Mannlicher barrels are uniformly brilliant in accuracy, and offer the curious advantage of being slightly tighter at the muzzle than at the breech, but they cannot be had as components at this time.

The heavy barrels so popular on target guns have no place on the general-purpose rifle. Barrel diameter, adds weight without any appreciable increase in accuracy, and serves mainly to delay heating. This is desirable on the range but not in the field, and the natural habitat of the scout is the field.

Much thought has been given by the conference to the subject of semi-automatic actions for scout rifles. If a semiautomatic action were made which was sufficiently compact and otherwise acceptable, it should certainly be considered, but at this time there is no such action available. The whole concept of great rapidity of fire in a rifle has been weighed and found, not exactly wanting, but somewhat inconsequential. About the only circumstance in which a rifleman might need a volley of quickly repeated shots would be in the unfortunate and unexpected event of a "house clearing." Such a problem mightarise for a lone rifleman but the chances are very low. The primary purpose of a rifle is a first-shot hit, whether the target is game or a human antagonist. Semi-automatic fire does not assure this. As a matter of fact it sometimes detracts from it by letting the shooter believe that if he misses with his first shot he can always make up with a second. This is a bad attitude for a rifleman. As a result of these deliberations all prototype scouts will be bolt-actions unless and until something new in the way of the semi-automatic action appears.

The conference was unable to reach a consensus as to action desirability. Actions considered have been the domestic Remington, Winchester and Ruger, plus the '03 Springfield, and the foreign ZKK, Sako and Mannlicher. All have drawbacks, though the ZKK 601 is the closest to the guidelines.

While the conference was not fully content with any one action now available, it did conclude that certain things are desirable in a proper bolt-action. Two-lug, 90° rotation was favored, as was the traditional Mauser claw extractor and positive ejector. Smoothness and reliability were found wanting in most modern commercial actions, and these things should be given attention. The bolt knob should be smooth and round—not checkered—and positioned far enough forward of the trigger to avoid pounding of the index finger during firing. The safety should be positive and include three positions. It should disconnect the trigger mechanism rather than blocking it. It should be strong and positive and work from front to rear—rear position "safe" and forward "fire." The magazine should be so constructed as to protect the points of soft-point spitzer bullets as they ride in the magazine. The action should offer a built-in aperture sight on the receiver bridge, and some sort of magazine cutoff permitting the rifle to be used in the single-shot mode with the magazine in reserve. The trigger system should be smooth and clean, and provide a crisp 3-lb. release. No rifle action now in production offers all these features, though some come reasonably close. Various members of the Scout Conference will endeavor to interest manufacturers in the production of an idealized rifle action between now and the next meeting of the conference.

Only the Mannlicher now affords a shoulder-holder to protect points in the magazine, and also a detachable rotary box magazine. No current action offers a magazine cut-off, such as that found on the '03 Springfield. This device is being worked up for installation on standard actions prior to the next Scout Conference in 1985. (The magazine cut-off was not put on the '03 rifle by accident. It is an extremely useful accessory, allowing the rifle to be single loaded while retaining the magazine in reserve for emergencies. In the game fields it permits the rifle to be topped off continually without the danger of a double feed.)

As an alternative to the magazine cutoff, thought has been given to the fitting of a detachable box magazine with a double intent. Such a magazine could be inserted to its first stop, which would not allow the bolt to feed it. When desired, the magazine could be pressed into its second stop, permitting the bolt to pick up the top cartridge.

Three additional improvements were displayed at the 1984 conference. The C.W. sling, discovered in Guatemala and described in the June, 1984, American Rifleman is now standard. After a year's work there is no doubt that this sling system is best. It is most efficiently installed with Pachmayr flush sockets— three on each stock, permitting two modes of attachment.

On all forthcoming prototypes the heel of the butt will be rounded to avoid snagging on the shirt in quick mounting.

In 1983 the leather butt cuff was used to provide ready ammunition for shoot-one-load-one situations. Since that time Robbie Barrkman of Gunsite has engineered the butt magazine illustrated, which neatly carries ready ammunition out of the way and instantly available at the fingertips as needed. This not only facilitates instantaneous one-round loading in the single-shot mode with eyes on the target, but it offers a most convenient way of carrying ready ammunition when the rifle is unloaded in camp.

At the 1983 conference it was decided that a form of retractable bipod should be perfected which would not be offensive to the eye nor protrude from the stock. Two systems have been designed which will be fabricated prior to the next conference. Both are limited to synthetic stocks since wood will not provide the necessary strength. One conceals the bipod entirely within the fore-end and is extended by pulling forward on the fore-end cap. The other folds backward from a mounting in the fore-end and fits into recesses in the stock, forming a smooth contour when retracted. Both systems will include enough rotation to permit the bipod to be used on uneven ground. There are those who claim that any sort of bipod is somehow "cheating." but the purpose of shooting is hitting, and if a bipod increases the certainty of hitting it should not be scorned. Which form of retractable bipod is most suitable will be determined in 1985.

Scout I was improvised from available equipment and it worked very well, but its components have become obsolete. Scout II has been assembled from components and is an extremely successful rifle—light, quick to operate, handy, convenient and extremely accurate. Unfortunately it is very expensive. Scout III was made up nearly stock from the Ruger Ultralight and the Ruger Number 1 rib. Unfortunately, it is fitted with a telescope which is no longer available. Scout IV will be made up on a ZKK 601 action and will use a telescope made up to the demands of the Scout Conference. It will also be the first prototype to feature the new iron-sight system and a disappearing bipod. Scout V will be made up on the Mannlicher L action and barrel, affording quick-detachable box magazine, a superb barrel, a superb trigger action—and some way of fitting a forward telescope. Scout VI will be made up on the Winchester Model 70 short action. All of these should be ready this year.

For the time being the scouts stand as described, and Scout II, even though it does not include everything we desire, is so far ahead of anything which can currently be purchased as to make enthusiasts very discontented.

Accuracy in Scouts I and III is quite satisfactory—fully up to any reasonable field requirements—while Scout II is a tack-driver. If it were half as accurate as it is, it would still be twice as accurate as it need be. And it is hardly more cumbersome than a swagger stick. Of course it features a hand-cut premium barrel. One usually receives just what he pays for.

The Scout Conference is in no position to produce rifles—only to assemble them. At such time as all the proper instruments have been assembled completely, there will be an opportunity for a forward-looking manufacturer to take advantage of modern technology and make a great leap forward for the rifleman. Meanwhile we must build to order.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 0002S For This Useful Post:
Old 08-18-2019, 12:58 PM
ROCK6's Avatar
ROCK6 ROCK6 is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia/Virginia
Posts: 5,710
Thanks: 6,500
Thanked 12,903 Times in 4,202 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0002S View Post
For its day, the concept was sound.

Today there are better options and optics that keep with the spirt of what the Col Cooper was trying to achieve.

A 300BO W/Aimpoint and BUIS with a 14.5” configuration is one example.

The same could be said for a lightweight 6.5CM set up.

Both offer suppressed options and an infinite amount of QD optics options.

Options like the above were not available when the Colonel came up with his concept.
Agreed. I think many (including me), look at the "scout" concept as primary means of what Col Cooper initially drew up, but we've added in more of a self-defensive purpose (at least I have). I would be interested in how well the 300BO performs on larger game (400-500 pounds) out to 300-400 meters? Velocity isn't the greatest out of the shorter barrel I have, but it has a lot more punch than 5.56 and for most locations, is a legal caliber to hunt with.

Weight is the biggest factor for me and as much as I train with the AR system, that "first shot" accuracy is quite good. Being a semi-auto vs. bolt action is less of an issue as it's more about being a disciplined rifleman regardless of the tool in one's hands.

I have a holographic sight and 3x magnifier right now, but would like to experiment with a 1.5x or 2x ACOG to both reduce weight and provide a little more clarity at those distances out to 300 meters. Another option is a light weight LPVO (i.e. Leupold) that also has a red-dot for low-magnification, fast target acquisition. They are slightly heavier than the lower, fixed powered ACOGs, but still a good option to replicate the IER/EER type scope advantages (which really are negated by modern, quality RDS).

For me, the Scout Rifle concept only needs to range out to 400 meters maximum for my location, and even most black bears rarely surpass 500 pounds, where most deer are barely a quarter of that and hogs are in-between. I see a 300BO AR doing everything a 308 bolt-gun can and still offer more utility as a "general purpose" gun in a mobile platform (for my location).

I just think the good'ol Col Cooper preferred the bolt action as it was and still is a common choice for dangerous game hunting. Many combat-proven platforms are just as reliable under harsh conditions.

The only downside is aesthetics. A compact 300BO AR (pistol in my case) just doesn't look "utilitarian" or meet the eye as a "general purpose" rifle:

Quote:
Let us attempt it by declaring that: a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target.
ROCK6
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ROCK6 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-22-2019, 12:31 PM
Late2Prep Late2Prep is offline
Pusher of brooms
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SW WY
Posts: 405
Thanks: 564
Thanked 642 Times in 266 Posts
Default

I don't understand.

How can a concept be outdated?

The Scout was supposed to be a grab and go option for most circumstances.
Not a target gun, not a true fighting rifle, but it could do these things.

And unlike so many other guns, it's legal nationwide. I have to drive from California to New York through Illinois, with the Scout I'm legal.

And if I remember correctly, the Scout was supposed to be good on various targets out to 500. My BO is good, but not that good. And I don't think that I want to start poking holes in Elk with it.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Late2Prep For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2019, 02:42 PM
Peter's Avatar
Peter Peter is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Above ground
Posts: 7,865
Thanks: 4,282
Thanked 7,607 Times in 3,745 Posts
Default

The initial idea of what constitutes a scout rifle is dated, however the concept itself is not, it has grown over time incorporating advances in technology. The Ruger Gunsite scout and may other rifles bearing the scout moniker are good example of what can be accomplished using an old concept and modern technology.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2019, 03:57 PM
hatchet jack's Avatar
hatchet jack hatchet jack is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South of Dallas
Posts: 709
Thanks: 878
Thanked 1,034 Times in 456 Posts
Default

I wanted a scout rifle until I held one for a bit and looked through the scope and then decided it wasn't for me. A scout is supposed to be someone who makes it into an area to gather intelligence and make it back out undetected. I believe that was the way Cooper said it long ago. The rifle was for quick defense if needed. But if the gun was used the mission was a failure.

My scout rifle is an older Remington model 7 with 18.5" barrel in 7-08 with a 2x7 scope mounted on it. Its light weight, has a caliber that will match the 308 in power and with its low powered scope I am on target as soon as I raise the rifle to my shoulder. Thats close enough for me for a Scout rifle.

And I remember Cooper saying the Winchester 94 in 30-30 would make a passable scout rifle. A quick pointing lightweight rifle of any sort chambered in a mid power round should work for Coopers concept.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hatchet jack For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2019, 04:50 PM
HappyinID's Avatar
HappyinID HappyinID is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,159
Thanks: 2,418
Thanked 4,020 Times in 1,874 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK6 View Post
I just think the good'ol Col Cooper preferred the bolt action as it was and still is a common choice for dangerous game hunting. Many combat-proven platforms are just as reliable under harsh conditions.
Cooper was certainly not opposed to the idea of a semi auto Scout, and said so. But nothing was available then that met his other requirements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK6 View Post
The only downside is aesthetics. A compact 300BO AR (pistol in my case) just doesn't look "utilitarian" or meet the eye as a "general purpose" rifle:
I agree the 9"+/- B/O is a very good weapon for many things, but still a little light for a general purpose rifle. He actually spoke highly of the M1 Carbine, other than it's underpowered cartridge, (though it wasn't as bad as many veterans thought it was.) I think he'd like the short barrel Blackout. Almost reminiscent of his Thumper concept. Different ballistically, but more useful in other ways, penetration, accuracy, longer range, etc.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HappyinID For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net