Scout Rifle Fail?
- Thread starter MrPuffyPants
- Start date
Damn right
Redneck Hippy
Regular
Hate to kinda pile on here, but I’m another guy who loved the idea of the scout rifle with forward mounted scope that hated it when I tried it.
Then I actually read his book, The Art of the Rifle… seemed he focused more on what can you do with the rifle vs what does it look like. I was heavily influenced by the now defunct art of the rifle blog which survives as RifleCraft slings (which are quite good in the scout role) as well as the mentioned LuckyGunner YouTube videos.
Ended up with short, light 308’s with LPVO with detachable mags and a loop sling for positional shooting.
I get the desire to build a “clone correct” scout and probably will again some day but for now the “general purpose rifle” is what goes with me everywhere.
Then I actually read his book, The Art of the Rifle… seemed he focused more on what can you do with the rifle vs what does it look like. I was heavily influenced by the now defunct art of the rifle blog which survives as RifleCraft slings (which are quite good in the scout role) as well as the mentioned LuckyGunner YouTube videos.
Ended up with short, light 308’s with LPVO with detachable mags and a loop sling for positional shooting.
I get the desire to build a “clone correct” scout and probably will again some day but for now the “general purpose rifle” is what goes with me everywhere.
I'm a fan of Cooper's writings; he's good with words, has a bunch of experience and many interesting ideas, but I don't worship the guy. Gotta chuckle when the rabid scout fanboys argue that a rifle is 1/2-inch too long or weighs 2 ounces too much or whatever to be a "real" scout...just cuz Cooper chose those numbers. It's not gospel. The guy had to quantify length and weight and other features to clarify what he meant as a general idea, not to split hairs.
I like the scout concept very much myself, but of course it's not perfect. Nothing is. But, for the record, my Steyr Scout, owned by me since purchased new back around 2000, is the only rifle for which I have 4 different optical setups all pre-sighted and ready to go. It's one of my most-fired centerfire rifles (and one of the ugliest...). Am I in love with the idea rather than the rifle? I'm in love with both! I've used them so much that there's an almost-nostalgic appeal to them. And certainly, the most-used optic solution for my Steyr is, you guessed it, the 2.5x Leupold Scout scope it came with back in the day. That's the one that is normally mounted on the Steyr, rather than the variable Leupold scout, or the variable Leupold standard-mount or the Aimpoint.
LPVO's are a thing right now, I get that. But there's no way I would ever put a 1-4x or 1-6x or 1-8x scope that weights a pound and a half, replete with 34mm tube, power throw lever and an illuminated reticle, on a light handy do-everything rifle. Just personal preference.
Forward mounted scopes can suffer from glare when the sun is at just the wrong angle, far more than standard scopes. But they do offer a vastly increased off-eye awareness of the entire field of fire in front of you; this of course assumes that you aren't shooting with the off-eye all squinty-closed like many experts on TV. When fitted on a properly-fitting rifle, they are just as fast as any optic, red dot included, but I don't pretend that they're faster. Sure, they let you use stripper clips...not that I give a s**t about that. Depending upon the balance of the rifle in question, they allow the most comfortable one-handed carry possible in a scoped rifle. Mostly, they offer a different experience that may or may not be to your personal taste.
And that last point is good enough all by itself. If you just don't like a scout scope, then don't use one. Simple. The desperate rationalizing that tries to point out why a scout is "inferior" to a standard unit is just silly. If we were concerned only about bare-bones functionality and efficiency...why would so many of us use lever-actions and single shots and muzzleloaders? All of those styles of firearm have definite disadvantages compared to a modern bolt action or semi-auto. I use them all, and enjoy them all. Shooting is supposed to be fun...so have fun.
Scouts aren't for everybody. They're not "better" or "worse" than standards. They're just different; for many of us that is their appeal.
If some folks can't quite grasp that...that's okay, no need to be ashamed.
I like the scout concept very much myself, but of course it's not perfect. Nothing is. But, for the record, my Steyr Scout, owned by me since purchased new back around 2000, is the only rifle for which I have 4 different optical setups all pre-sighted and ready to go. It's one of my most-fired centerfire rifles (and one of the ugliest...). Am I in love with the idea rather than the rifle? I'm in love with both! I've used them so much that there's an almost-nostalgic appeal to them. And certainly, the most-used optic solution for my Steyr is, you guessed it, the 2.5x Leupold Scout scope it came with back in the day. That's the one that is normally mounted on the Steyr, rather than the variable Leupold scout, or the variable Leupold standard-mount or the Aimpoint.
LPVO's are a thing right now, I get that. But there's no way I would ever put a 1-4x or 1-6x or 1-8x scope that weights a pound and a half, replete with 34mm tube, power throw lever and an illuminated reticle, on a light handy do-everything rifle. Just personal preference.
Forward mounted scopes can suffer from glare when the sun is at just the wrong angle, far more than standard scopes. But they do offer a vastly increased off-eye awareness of the entire field of fire in front of you; this of course assumes that you aren't shooting with the off-eye all squinty-closed like many experts on TV. When fitted on a properly-fitting rifle, they are just as fast as any optic, red dot included, but I don't pretend that they're faster. Sure, they let you use stripper clips...not that I give a s**t about that. Depending upon the balance of the rifle in question, they allow the most comfortable one-handed carry possible in a scoped rifle. Mostly, they offer a different experience that may or may not be to your personal taste.
And that last point is good enough all by itself. If you just don't like a scout scope, then don't use one. Simple. The desperate rationalizing that tries to point out why a scout is "inferior" to a standard unit is just silly. If we were concerned only about bare-bones functionality and efficiency...why would so many of us use lever-actions and single shots and muzzleloaders? All of those styles of firearm have definite disadvantages compared to a modern bolt action or semi-auto. I use them all, and enjoy them all. Shooting is supposed to be fun...so have fun.
Scouts aren't for everybody. They're not "better" or "worse" than standards. They're just different; for many of us that is their appeal.
If some folks can't quite grasp that...that's okay, no need to be ashamed.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
People have to remember the environment that lead Cooper do flesh out the Scout Rifle concept. It was the 80s-90s, and the technology of the day is nothing compared to what we have today, particularly with regard to optics. The most rugged scope of the day was the Leupold M8 series, and that was what Cooper chose. Today we are "blessed" to have had 20 years of modern war to spur development in the small arms industry, with massive amounts of bleed over into the civilian realm. In the 80s and 90s, the AR market was a fraction of what it is today. Soldiers that carried the M16A2 were not exactly rushing out to carry the same rifle as a civilian. Bolts still ruled the roost and semis were still seen as being inherently less accurate.
Fast forward to today. If you proposed a surplus Mauser bolt action in 308 with a forward mounted scope as the ultimate carry/survival/insurrection rifle, you would be laughed out of the room. That doesn't mean that the Scout concept is bad, but in a world where there are probably 2000 makes and models built on the AR platform and made of a wide range of materials, three or four dozen LPVO or holographic sights available, and carbon fiber barrels and furniture to bring the weight down. Build it smart and you'll have a significantly more capable platform that is the most interchangeable and modular ever created.
I love a trim little bolt rifle, but you cannot argue with the AR as the logical evolution of the concept.
Fast forward to today. If you proposed a surplus Mauser bolt action in 308 with a forward mounted scope as the ultimate carry/survival/insurrection rifle, you would be laughed out of the room. That doesn't mean that the Scout concept is bad, but in a world where there are probably 2000 makes and models built on the AR platform and made of a wide range of materials, three or four dozen LPVO or holographic sights available, and carbon fiber barrels and furniture to bring the weight down. Build it smart and you'll have a significantly more capable platform that is the most interchangeable and modular ever created.
I love a trim little bolt rifle, but you cannot argue with the AR as the logical evolution of the concept.
Well, you can if you live in canuckistan. - dan
I know a couple guys who love pump guns, whether rifle or shotgun. They'd be on that like a fat kid on a smartie. - dan
Excellent post! I agree with all of it, and it makes me realize that my affinity for the scout rifle idea never really followed Cooper's arguments for it. The benefits he outlined were largely aimed at a military or para-millitary mindset; I remember his comments about firing only once or perhaps twice from any given position and then moving on quickly before being located by one's foes. That's never been a concern for me, and hopefully never will be. But, following that same logic...if stealth and evasion and a minimum of actual gunfire are the order of the day, then what's the benefit of a semi over a bolt gun?
As a combat weapon, obviously a semi is the logical choice today. But there have been times in the past when the cutting edge of military ordnance was a percussion muzzleloader, or a single shot breechloader, or a levergun, or a bolt gun. Cooper himself clarified that the scout was specifically not a combat weapon. It was meant to be a jack-of-all-trades; its specialty was versatility.
I don't and never did feel that had any bearing on my use of the rifle. I, like you, appreciate a light, handy bolt rifle as a hunter, a plinker, a casual walking-around gun. My military experience began and ended with a couple years of mandatory cadet stuff in school. At my age, I don't worry about "engaging" anybody in a gunfight, or "bugging out" in the face of an apocalypse or anything else of the sort. The idea is completely ridiculous. If we are invaded by aliens or Chinese or Americans, my primary defense would be trying to stay beneath the radar and not attracting attention. If a well-trained and well-armed squad of any of those aggressors is heading up my driveway, I'm dead, plain and simple. My best hope would be to get one of them, resulting in a quick death for me and mine, rather than being taken prisoner and sent to forced labour or eaten or whatever.
Anybody who thinks that a basement full of ammo and magazines and black guns will somehow make them any more likely to survive such an encounter and even come out on top is delusional with a capitol D.
So, for me as a recreational shooter, the things about the scout rifle that I find appealing are entirely personal choice. I know that this will sound unbelievable to many people, but I gave up on the AR long before the gummint made that mandatory. It was one of many rifle types that I found interesting, played with, and eventually abandoned because I found it lacking in many ways.
Yes, it's amazingly modular and adaptable and wonderful and blah, blah, blah; but it is possible to simply not care for it. And it is absolutely "a" logical evolution of the scout rifle concept, indeed one of the best...but it's not the only one.
Thinking it over now, I'd likely have to say that the best scout rifle I've had...and I've had quite a few, both factory scouts and DIY jobs...was probably a takedown BLR in .308, with a barrel-mounted scope rail in addition to the receiver-mounted one, and a couple of different optics choices set up in QD mounts. It was a repeater, for those who insist upon that.
It was very fast for a follow-up shot or shots, for those who regularly need those. It even looked very innocuous, for those who worry about what others think. But I don't have it anymore, because it...like the AR... just didn't turn my crank once I had played with it for awhile.
tactical lever
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Fox Creek, Alberta
I'm a fan of Cooper's writings; he's good with words, has a bunch of experience and many interesting ideas, but I don't worship the guy. Gotta chuckle when the rabid scout fanboys argue that a rifle is 1/2-inch too long or weighs 2 ounces too much or whatever to be a "real" scout...just cuz Cooper chose those numbers. It's not gospel. The guy had to quantify length and weight and other features to clarify what he meant as a general idea, not to split hairs.
I like the scout concept very much myself, but of course it's not perfect. Nothing is. But, for the record, my Steyr Scout, owned by me since purchased new back around 2000, is the only rifle for which I have 4 different optical setups all pre-sighted and ready to go. It's one of my most-fired centerfire rifles (and one of the ugliest...). Am I in love with the idea rather than the rifle? I'm in love with both! I've used them so much that there's an almost-nostalgic appeal to them. And certainly, the most-used optic solution for my Steyr is, you guessed it, the 2.5x Leupold Scout scope it came with back in the day. That's the one that is normally mounted on the Steyr, rather than the variable Leupold scout, or the variable Leupold standard-mount or the Aimpoint.
LPVO's are a thing right now, I get that. But there's no way I would ever put a 1-4x or 1-6x or 1-8x scope that weights a pound and a half, replete with 34mm tube, power throw lever and an illuminated reticle, on a light handy do-everything rifle. Just personal preference.
Forward mounted scopes can suffer from glare when the sun is at just the wrong angle, far more than standard scopes. But they do offer a vastly increased off-eye awareness of the entire field of fire in front of you; this of course assumes that you aren't shooting with the off-eye all squinty-closed like many experts on TV. When fitted on a properly-fitting rifle, they are just as fast as any optic, red dot included, but I don't pretend that they're faster. Sure, they let you use stripper clips...not that I give a s**t about that. Depending upon the balance of the rifle in question, they allow the most comfortable one-handed carry possible in a scoped rifle. Mostly, they offer a different experience that may or may not be to your personal taste.
And that last point is good enough all by itself. If you just don't like a scout scope, then don't use one. Simple. The desperate rationalizing that tries to point out why a scout is "inferior" to a standard unit is just silly. If we were concerned only about bare-bones functionality and efficiency...why would so many of us use lever-actions and single shots and muzzleloaders? All of those styles of firearm have definite disadvantages compared to a modern bolt action or semi-auto. I use them all, and enjoy them all. Shooting is supposed to be fun...so have fun.
Scouts aren't for everybody. They're not "better" or "worse" than standards. They're just different; for many of us that is their appeal.
If some folks can't quite grasp that...that's okay, no need to be ashamed.
Plenty of lightweight conventional scopes out there that aren't big and heavy. Have a straight 1x on a combo gun with a one inch tube (weighs practically nothing), and a couple low powered variables with 30 mm. Really didn't want to go that big either. But having an extra couple oz won't kill me either. A fixed power low magnification scope isn't going to weigh more than than the same scope with extended eye relief.
The 1.5-4 or 4.5x used to be fairly popular with a one inch tube. Harder to find these days for some reason.
I favour 2-7x32(ish) scopes for rifles I'll use up close on big game. I don't have to tell you, but the FOV over a low powered scout scope is about three times. And maybe a bit more(?) on a pistol.
Different actions have strengths and weaknesses. Not talking about single shots and BP guns, but there's reasons I'd want a pump or lever over a bolt or semi. Or vice versa
tactical lever
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Fox Creek, Alberta
As the AR was was already about 4 decades old, and the Garand and all it's iterations had been out for nearly 70 years and competing in long range matches to 1000 yards when Cooper thought up the scout concept, I don't think it was due to some thought of inferiority.
He envisioned a lightweight rifle in a medium cartridge with some long range capability. It was never about engagement, but evading, traveling light, and only shooting if necessary. Probably just as likely at a dangerous animal. One shot is hard to pinpoint.
A lightweight, handy bolt action is still a good choice for a survival rifle. There's a reason most dangerous game is taken with a bolt action, and it's double when there's no squad as back up, and when casual neglect is thrown in the mix.
Wouldn't want to get in a gunfight with one, but most encounters are decided a few shots, and I can see the advantage of the manual and simple action.
Maintaining target acquisition
I think differently about that scenario... I.may go down, but I will not go quietly into that dark night...
Likely true, but better to go with my boots on, rather than in my flannel jammies...
According to Cooper, after your single carefully aimed and planned shot, you should be moving rather than sitting in place while the bad guys surround you.
I agree, but again, I'm thinking more along the lines of "live to fight another day..."
Hey, my jammies are in camo...that alone pretty much doubles the degree of bad-assed-ness I exude and makes me near-invincible.
I used to shoot a lot of casual competitions with relatives when we were very young. I was always into slow, careful aimed fire; my competitors were firm believers in high-volume firepower. As my father used to say when observing us: "You know...you can't miss fast enough to win..."
When I saw the videos of a Hamas fire team of 4 fighters carefully moving into a Kibbutz during the October attack it was obvious that if you were alone and made a stand you could send one to meet his 24 virgins but then the other three would send you to meet yours.
Shoot and scoot if you want to survive after the initial pleasantries but then you probably can't save the unarmed residents from the remaining bad guys.
The solution is to have a squad of rifle armed defenders all of whom are trained and willing to send the other guys to meet their virgins.
Now if we are talking North America and simple criminals/home invaders they will probably be easier to convince that retreating is their best option. After all there are not 24 virgins waiting for them after they get Mozambiqued.............
Shoot and scoot if you want to survive after the initial pleasantries but then you probably can't save the unarmed residents from the remaining bad guys.
The solution is to have a squad of rifle armed defenders all of whom are trained and willing to send the other guys to meet their virgins.
Now if we are talking North America and simple criminals/home invaders they will probably be easier to convince that retreating is their best option. After all there are not 24 virgins waiting for them after they get Mozambiqued.............
About that I am sure - very sure.
What he would have done today with all the available hardware, I do not know and I just cannot guess. So, I will not.
Interesting, no ?
