No complaints on mine. Bolt runs smooth, good trigger, positive safety, moa gun with right ammo, nice fit and finish. Chromed bolt and cerakote paint are nice touches. Two minor complaints: plastic cheek riser is held in position with clips so that it can be swapped out for different heights. After a few mags it would regularly loosen off so i glued it in place. Second one is that the flip up sights are plastic. Having said that when in the down position (as in photo above) they serve as a handy close quarters sight (front post, rear notch like a handgun). In the up position, anyone familiar with AR type sights will appreciate their design. Mated with a LPVO on a quick release pic rail it makes for a very practical multi purpose rifle. 5 round AICS mags are also available if 10 isn’t your thing. MLOK on stock is handy if you want quick release sling studs, bipod or weapon mounted light. I haven’t seen one yet but Franchi also has a shorter 16 1/2 inch barrel instead of the 18. I believe they call that version the “Mule”.
What is a Cooper scout / Gunsite Ranch rifle?
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
To tell the truth, I would not be too sure about that. You seem to have known him pretty well.
Have you ever met Jeff Cooper - in person ?
Last edited:
No, just going by what he wrote.
I fully agree; you're definitely patting yourself on the back here.
I like your gun very much, but I expect that Cooper would have a lot to say about it, both good and bad...and I'm sure he would not believe it was superior to a scout. First and foremost...what does your gun weight with that fat little scope on it? I'll bet it's enough that Cooper would dismiss it immediately as a viable scout. He also did not seem to be enamoured of high magnification; I seem to recall him specifically mentioning 3x as the maximum scope power he wanted on a scout. He envisioned it as being used on man-size and larger (up to I think 500 pounds?) targets, and out to a max of only 400 or 500 yards IIRC. It's not a target rifle, it's not meant for shooting tiny stuff like eggs or rodents at insane distances; it's a practical rifle for practical purposes. A lower-power scope is definitely faster on target, and Cooper valued that more highly than extreme range group shooting.The forward mounted scout scope obviously allows for stripper clips, but I don't think that's its only benefit. It allows for a more-or-less unhindered peripheral view of the entire field of fire, and I'm not referring here strictly to one-eye-squinted know-nothing TV-show shooters either. I know lots of folks who shoot very well, with both eyes open as they should, and some of them don't find too much difference between a standard scope and a scout in terms of what their non-shooting eye sees of the surroundings. But there are definitely some who seem to have a better awareness of those surroundings when the scope is further away from their eyes. I admit I don't feel that way personally, but these are people who definitely prefer that added space and I accept that opinion as valid, at least for them.
I've got relatively little experience with stripper clips, but I like them well enough when used with an SKS; in fact, I spent a fair bit of time one year practicing with them, which included taking out half the rounds and then inserting them into empty clips to produce a supply of 5-round strippers. I got reasonably proficient with them, and can see how a person committed to their use could become much faster than I was.
They may not be cool or new, but I'd opine that they have a lot of advantages over "modern, reliable detachable magazines" for some folks under some circumstances. For those numerous modern shooters to whom "firepower" is a be-all and end-all, strippers certainly allow one to carry more ammo in less space. I don't particularly care about that, but the guys who actually like carrying around a bolt-action rifle with an extended magazine holding 10 or more rounds should logically see a benefit to strippers.
I like that Franchi All Terrain Elite, but it's not quite perfect. I love the use of AICS magazines rather than proprietary mags, especially with MDT's 3-round near-flush-fit for hunting. So why oh why did Franchi use a bottom-metal assembly that sticks that far down even without a mag in place? And the iron sights on the Steyr, which fold completely out of the way for unobstructed scope mounting in any position, are much better backup sights IMHO than ones that permanently jut upwards from the receiver. Do the Franchi sights fold right down? The rear looks like there is quite a lump there.
Here's a pic of my current "ideal" scout rifle.
My beloved Steyr Scout posing with the three scopes I currently have it sighted-in with, shown in more or less the correct relative positions in which each sits on the rifle. At the top is the classic Leupold Steyr-branded Scout M8 2.5x28mm that came with the gun when new. Leupold calls it an I.E.R. (intermediate eye relief). It mounts with the rear of the eyepiece just slightly ahead of the front of the loading/ejection port. In the middle is a traditional scope, in this case a Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x36mm, mounted in my preferred position with the rear of the eyepiece about even with the rear of the triggerguard. Both of these scopes are in QD rings so that if I want to play with them they're all set to go.
On the gun is my favourite, a Leupold VX-2 1.5-4x28mm Scout, which sits with the rear of the eyepiece in line with the front of the triggerguard. Aside from preventing the use of stripper clips...which the Steyr is not machined to accept anyway...this is perfection to my way of thinking. It sits far enough forward to closely duplicate the original scout scope's minimal intrusion into the field of view, but it is at least as fast as the original one, offers the advantage of variable power, and generally works exactly the way I want it to. It's also the perfect scope for leverguns or other exposed-hammer types. It sits nice and low, right in front of the hammer instead of straddling it way up in the air. Nobody will ever get scoped in the eye when the eyepiece is this far forward, but just about anybody will be comfortable looking through it. I've got three of these and will probably have more.
Edited to add: Lol, I just noticed that the top scope, the original, is backwards in the pic! With no magnification-change ring and no diopter adjustment, and very similar eyepiece and objective ends, this turned out to be an easy mistake to make when just grabbing it off the shelf for the pic. Before anybody comments...no, I mount it right-way-forward when actually shooting.
Or, no...better yet, I put it this way on purpose so that the nifty "Steyr Scout" lettering on the turret would be visible in the pic. Yeah, yeah, that's it...I meant to do that...
Last edited:
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. Cooper died 20 years ago. He may have been rigid in some ways but he also wasn't scared to look at new technology.
A LPVO on 1x offers about as much peripheral view as a red dot or a scout scope and on 1x close range shots would be quicker than 3x. And a single 1-6 LPVO offers everything your 3 scopes do.
I recall one scout set up that Cooper used that was slightly heavier than his ideal and he didn't seem to think it was that big of a crime. Maybe it was his "Lion Scout?"
Anyway my point is that if Cooper had come up with his original Scout Concept in 2026 rather than 40 years ago it might look completely different.
A LPVO on 1x offers about as much peripheral view as a red dot or a scout scope and on 1x close range shots would be quicker than 3x. And a single 1-6 LPVO offers everything your 3 scopes do.
I recall one scout set up that Cooper used that was slightly heavier than his ideal and he didn't seem to think it was that big of a crime. Maybe it was his "Lion Scout?"
Anyway my point is that if Cooper had come up with his original Scout Concept in 2026 rather than 40 years ago it might look completely different.
- Location
- AB foothills
The wind is blowing on this thread too! 
Maybe. And then maybe not.
I know what Jeff Cooper has written for decades about the Scout Rifle. The whole Scout Rifle project was his concept and his intellectual property, from day one. I cannot and will not presume to guess what he would have thought and written about his Scout Rifle, as of today, in 2026. This is conjecture.
Pure conjecture.
Big Bad
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Well, as I see it when building on a concept there is blindly following a leader and then there's practicality and personal preferences. I strive for practicality myself and my preferences follow. Were zoom-able 1 to 6 power quick acquisition reticle rifle scopes available in Cooper's day? I don't know, but one of those suited me best and man is that illuminated reticle helpful.
Last edited:
It's entirely up to you if you want to believe that Cooper would have made the exact same choices in 2026 as he did in 1983.
You are actually standing on pretty shaky ground. You have never even met Jeff Cooper or talked to him, once in your life, but you are telling me with a poker face that you know him well enough to decide what choices he would have made about his concept - the Scout Rifle - in 2026, right ?
And, by the way, I did meet Jeff Cooper - in person.
Last edited:
Actually I'm telling you that I'm at all not concerned what you believe.
Many people have opinions that evolve over time. Cooper used several configurations of 1911 pistols over his lifetime for example. It's not a real stretch to suggest his definition of an ideal scout rifle would have evolved, too.
Absolutety. People have opinions that evolve over time - over their lifetime. Not after their death. Jeff Cooper died over twenty years ago and, as far as I know, he has not written anything about the Scout Rifle since the day he died but some people - like you - have decided that they know what would be his opinions about his concept - the Scout Rifle - today, in 2026.
It is highly probable that Jeff Cooper's opinion on the Scout Rifle could have evolved if he had lived twenty more years but the fact is that nobody knows for sure - in 2026 - what would be his opinion. N-O-B-O-D-Y. And that includes you - and me. We do not know, so we cannot speak for Jeff Cooper!
I have met Jeff Cooper - in person - but that does not put me in a position to presume to know what he would have said and written about the Scout Rifle more than twenty years after his death. On the other hand, for some reason that eludes me, it does for you, even if you have never even met him or spoke with him. Very but very peculiar - and weird - to say the least.
You are playing diviner, Gatehouse, pure and simple!
Last edited:
Well, as I said before-
It's entirely up to you if you want to believe that Cooper would have made the exact same choices in 2026 as he did in 1983. What you think isn't my concern.
Considering the upgrades in bullet and cartridge technology he may have even advocated for a different round than the .308.
Last edited:
Well...no...
The peripheral vision factor that I mentioned above relates directly to how much of your field of view is obscured by the scope itself. Shooting with both eyes open allows your full peripheral vision regardless of how much visual space the scope occupies in the center, since your off eye sees everything around it. But the further away the eyepiece, the less room it takes up in your field of view and therefore the more "peripheral stuff" you can see...with both eyes... without obstruction. I know that some people are affected by this, I've heard them describe it and I believe them.
Well...no...
Two of the three scopes I use weigh less than 10 ounces each, and the third is still less than 11. I'm not sure which Vortex Razor you show on your rifle, but the ones I've looked at were all around 20 ounces or more. It had dang well better offer me somewhat more in the optical sense, since it forces more than twice the mass on me in the physical sense.
IMHO, this is one of the biggest flaws with LPVO's as they are marketed today. The manufacturers trumpet about how wonderful their optical quality, how great their magnification range, how impressive their "advanced" reticles are...but the cost of all that cool capability is the loss of what makes a lightweight compact scope so wonderful in the first place. Hell...why are they LPVO's, rather than just compact scopes? Marketing!
Would Cooper really have been willing to abandon the light weight requirement for his pet project rifle to that extent? Seems doubtful to me that he would...and frankly silly to pretend that this much extra weight is inconsequential.
I would think and hope so! As Ali said: "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life". Cooper would certainly have made refinements to his system over the years...but would he change his idea of what he wanted? Or would he simply select from the newer gear to better approach the ideal he envisioned?
Read what he wrote about the subject of weight in a rifle. Do you seriously believe that, were he alive today, he would read all the marketing BS out there and conclude "Yeah, they're right. I can accept an extra pound in weight if I can get all this cool stuff along with it!"
Yeah, sure...
Last edited:
I can’t speak for what copper would of said at any stage of his life (or death), but it seems practical that weight and balance would be a concern for any rifle that is used in a ‘scout’ setting.
If weight and balance of a rifle are off, it affects your ability to raise and operate the rifle quickly and efficiently. Not to mention scouting around for a few miles carrying the thing.
I generally prefer a 2-7 or a 1.5-5 or something in that realm as you can find options that weigh around half of your average lpvo, with generous eye relief and good FoV. Mounted on QR rings. Having an illuminated reticle is definitely a useful addition but not something I would sacrifice too much weight for. Iron sights as backup.
These are just my parameters.
If weight and balance of a rifle are off, it affects your ability to raise and operate the rifle quickly and efficiently. Not to mention scouting around for a few miles carrying the thing.
I generally prefer a 2-7 or a 1.5-5 or something in that realm as you can find options that weigh around half of your average lpvo, with generous eye relief and good FoV. Mounted on QR rings. Having an illuminated reticle is definitely a useful addition but not something I would sacrifice too much weight for. Iron sights as backup.
These are just my parameters.
MosinMan13
CGN Regular
- Location
- Thornbury Ontario
So by your line of thought;
https://ca.gogun.co/products/interceptor
- this is a candidate to be a scout rifle?
Obviously.
What started as a good discussion has devolved into the ridiculous. As optics, materials, manufacturing and technology advances, so too does the concept of anything. It’s called evolution. Can’t believe that some get all butt hurt because others don’t conform to their rigid definitions.
MosinMan13
CGN Regular
- Location
- Thornbury Ontario
Who decides the fine line between debate and butt hurt? The question was asked and answered in the OP more or less, people wanted to debate that and now we’re discussing the obscurity between definition and doctrine. If you can’t afford offending someone to have a conversation that’s a problem, but as far as I can see nobody here is “butthurt” and it’s stayed relatively on topic.
Point I made though, you can literally call anything a scout rifle if you’re willing to bend or break enough rules.
In terms of Jeff Cooper, his feelings about variations and takes on his concept aren’t conjecture, they published articles of it, he wasn’t a fan overall.
