Scout rifle over a normal rifle?
- Thread starter stoop14
- Start date
It's supposed to be compact, so it's easier to handle. The "specification" calls for a detachable magazine, which is handy in some ways but a matter of personal preference. The forward mounting of the scope seems to make it easier to keep both eyes open for a full field of vision. These benefits aren't significant in every application, and to some people they aren't benefits at all.
I have the Steyr scout rifle and some experience shooting it. I am not the expert of Jeff Cooper's concept or anything, but my take on it is this:
- it is absolutely not a mini-sniper rifle, it is not even a proper hunting rifle;
- it is designed to be both very light, and reasonably short;
- it is supposed to be accurate enough to drop... what is it... a man-sized target at 400 yards.... which is nothing for any decent hunting rifle let alone a sniper rifle;
- you should be able to fire it accurately from any position... light enough to fire effectively off-hand from a standing position;
- detachable mag;
- forward mounted scope.... (the Leupold scout scope on mine is fixed 2.5x, which isn't a lot of magnification... to say the least)... is for shooting with both eyes open.... wide field of view... shooting at moving targets... that kind of thing. Close range, at some distance. It can do a little bit of everything. You can rapidly aquire a (ah-hem... man sized) target a 25 yards and drop it; you could (in theory, if you are a good shot) pick off a jack rabbit on the move at 50-75 yards, you could take a deer at 300-400 yards. It does a little bit of everything. It does not do any of these things the best.
Having said that, Scout rifles are cool. I like mine.
Strangely, even though the concept is sort of the "one rifle for everything", if I could only have one rifle... it would not be this one. It would be more like a "Mountain Rifle" type thing with a 2.5-10x42 (like the Schmitt & Bender "Summitt"). In a true "one rifle for eveything" thought experiment, I would likely be considering something semi-auto with greater mag capacity as well.
- it is absolutely not a mini-sniper rifle, it is not even a proper hunting rifle;
- it is designed to be both very light, and reasonably short;
- it is supposed to be accurate enough to drop... what is it... a man-sized target at 400 yards.... which is nothing for any decent hunting rifle let alone a sniper rifle;
- you should be able to fire it accurately from any position... light enough to fire effectively off-hand from a standing position;
- detachable mag;
- forward mounted scope.... (the Leupold scout scope on mine is fixed 2.5x, which isn't a lot of magnification... to say the least)... is for shooting with both eyes open.... wide field of view... shooting at moving targets... that kind of thing. Close range, at some distance. It can do a little bit of everything. You can rapidly aquire a (ah-hem... man sized) target a 25 yards and drop it; you could (in theory, if you are a good shot) pick off a jack rabbit on the move at 50-75 yards, you could take a deer at 300-400 yards. It does a little bit of everything. It does not do any of these things the best.
Having said that, Scout rifles are cool. I like mine.
Strangely, even though the concept is sort of the "one rifle for everything", if I could only have one rifle... it would not be this one. It would be more like a "Mountain Rifle" type thing with a 2.5-10x42 (like the Schmitt & Bender "Summitt"). In a true "one rifle for eveything" thought experiment, I would likely be considering something semi-auto with greater mag capacity as well.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The original concept was to produce a rifle of .30/06 power but in a package a meter long and 3 kilos in weight. The perceived advantage of the forward telescope was that eye relief was never an issue regardless of the position being fired from and that target acquisition was faster than with a conventional scope; shooting clay birds going straight away while in the air could be demonstrated. Cooper's first "scout" a M-600 Remington in .308, didn’t wear a scope, he just replaced the factory sights with a ghost ring and post, and I believe he carried that rig while exploring in Central America. It wasn't till later that he experimented with mounting an extended eye relief scope to the rib.
How the scout concept ever became associated with precision rifles I don't know, as that was never the intent. The intent was to produce a handy, powerful, shooter friendly, general-purpose rifle that could do many things better than rifles that were designed to fill specific roles. It would be equally at home in a rain forest, on open savanna, in woodlands, or in the mountains and would be useful for medium sized big game.
As with many of Cooper’s ideas, the scout rifle was also seen to have a military potential. It was for the scout it was named for, whose job it was to work alone in forward areas and who was responsible for the collection of intelligence, but needed a handy small rifle for protection. He quoted a story that I can't recall the name of at the moment, but the hero was taken prisoner on a ship, he escaped, managed to take possession of a K-98, and from various positions on the beach brought fire onto the deck of the boat, causing quite a stir, and convincing those aboard they were facing a strong force, which allowed him to escape. Cooper's point was to establish that a sturmgewehr is not necessary to prevail in a fight. In fact, an auto rifle could be a disadvantage to a lone man who is badly outnumbered; as long as he moves, and fires from cover, he cannot be pinned down and moved upon, becasue it would be impossible to predict where he might be. With an auto rifle, the temptation would be to bring sustained fire onto your enemy, thus pin-pointing your position, allowing you to be dealt with swiftly and effectively.
Edited to add . . .
The story was Brown on Resolution by CS Forester
While my "quasi scout" doesn't strictly fit the definition, it comes close enough to make me happy in that it is shorter and lighter than a full sized rifle of similar power, it is fast to get into action, and it is accurate enough for what I need to accomplish with it; which includes taking small game with reduced loads. MOA is doable out to 300 even with a 2X scope, in fact under favorable conditions I can make a first round hit on a pop can at 300 yards, providing I know where it is (preferably taped to the top of a stick) the reticle completely covers it at that distance, but I can hit it. It has the advantage over a .308 in that is it suitable for anything that walks on the planet.
How the scout concept ever became associated with precision rifles I don't know, as that was never the intent. The intent was to produce a handy, powerful, shooter friendly, general-purpose rifle that could do many things better than rifles that were designed to fill specific roles. It would be equally at home in a rain forest, on open savanna, in woodlands, or in the mountains and would be useful for medium sized big game.
As with many of Cooper’s ideas, the scout rifle was also seen to have a military potential. It was for the scout it was named for, whose job it was to work alone in forward areas and who was responsible for the collection of intelligence, but needed a handy small rifle for protection. He quoted a story that I can't recall the name of at the moment, but the hero was taken prisoner on a ship, he escaped, managed to take possession of a K-98, and from various positions on the beach brought fire onto the deck of the boat, causing quite a stir, and convincing those aboard they were facing a strong force, which allowed him to escape. Cooper's point was to establish that a sturmgewehr is not necessary to prevail in a fight. In fact, an auto rifle could be a disadvantage to a lone man who is badly outnumbered; as long as he moves, and fires from cover, he cannot be pinned down and moved upon, becasue it would be impossible to predict where he might be. With an auto rifle, the temptation would be to bring sustained fire onto your enemy, thus pin-pointing your position, allowing you to be dealt with swiftly and effectively.
Edited to add . . .
The story was Brown on Resolution by CS Forester
While my "quasi scout" doesn't strictly fit the definition, it comes close enough to make me happy in that it is shorter and lighter than a full sized rifle of similar power, it is fast to get into action, and it is accurate enough for what I need to accomplish with it; which includes taking small game with reduced loads. MOA is doable out to 300 even with a 2X scope, in fact under favorable conditions I can make a first round hit on a pop can at 300 yards, providing I know where it is (preferably taped to the top of a stick) the reticle completely covers it at that distance, but I can hit it. It has the advantage over a .308 in that is it suitable for anything that walks on the planet.
Last edited:
+1. I have two Scout rifles I built on Rem 600's. They will do everything Cooper claimed for them, and do it well. They aren't a LR precision or sniper rifle at all, and that's not what they were designed to be. FWIW - dan
Bolivar
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Ruger Gunsite scout? Ugggg IMO. Fairly heavy at 7lbs, and the long mag makes carry for hunting at least, not very convenient.
Seems more like a bolt action M14 Socom. The benefits of this package over other offerings (say Savage) escape me. The Savage is lighter (6lbs) has the accutrigger and is cheaper I think.
I am not sure why this would be good in a tactical situation. This is not likely to be a precision rifle for long range and for short I would think a semi would be best.
Now if you like the Scout idea, there are several Savages for sale on EE (shameless plug
)
Seems more like a bolt action M14 Socom. The benefits of this package over other offerings (say Savage) escape me. The Savage is lighter (6lbs) has the accutrigger and is cheaper I think.
I am not sure why this would be good in a tactical situation. This is not likely to be a precision rifle for long range and for short I would think a semi would be best.
Now if you like the Scout idea, there are several Savages for sale on EE (shameless plug
)
The benifits of a scout rifle are handiness,handiness,a good trigger,cw sling and more handiness + you will never catch a scope in the face.
Jeff Cooper was intelegent , articulate and persuaseive.It's pretty obvious he spent a lot of time thinking about how rifles are really used in the field and using them.
I like scout rifles ,I even got to handle scout ll(sweetheart) at SCI about ten years ago.
But I may never own one because you can get most of the benifits in a reasonably well sorted hunting rifle.
Jeff Cooper was intelegent , articulate and persuaseive.It's pretty obvious he spent a lot of time thinking about how rifles are really used in the field and using them.
I like scout rifles ,I even got to handle scout ll(sweetheart) at SCI about ten years ago.
But I may never own one because you can get most of the benifits in a reasonably well sorted hunting rifle.
Here are some pictures and videos of my scout rifle.
Like so many things in firearms, I think that the reputation of the Steyr Scout as a sniper rifle comes from video games - specifically "Counterstrike" and "Rainbow Six", where the rifle shows up as "scout tactical" or something similar. I don't know how many comments I've gotten on this rifle at the range and in comments on my YouTube videos in this direction. It may be based on come confusion over the difference between the "scout", "scout tactical" and the "elite" (which is a heavy barrel, and the only one that has any chance at doing a good job filling a "sniper" type role).
In any event, the barrel is way too skinny to be anything like a sniper rifle - and the skinny, tapered, fluted barrel is all about weight reduction. As the various guys have been saying here... I think light weight is probably the main aspect of the scout concept.
With the Steyr SSG 69. Note the massive difference in the size of the barrel, despite being the same calibre (.308 WIN).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IfL7CpJGs8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E33vooyA8n4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCQbwthwhk
Like so many things in firearms, I think that the reputation of the Steyr Scout as a sniper rifle comes from video games - specifically "Counterstrike" and "Rainbow Six", where the rifle shows up as "scout tactical" or something similar. I don't know how many comments I've gotten on this rifle at the range and in comments on my YouTube videos in this direction. It may be based on come confusion over the difference between the "scout", "scout tactical" and the "elite" (which is a heavy barrel, and the only one that has any chance at doing a good job filling a "sniper" type role).
In any event, the barrel is way too skinny to be anything like a sniper rifle - and the skinny, tapered, fluted barrel is all about weight reduction. As the various guys have been saying here... I think light weight is probably the main aspect of the scout concept.
With the Steyr SSG 69. Note the massive difference in the size of the barrel, despite being the same calibre (.308 WIN).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IfL7CpJGs8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E33vooyA8n4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCQbwthwhk
Personally, I think that one of Ruger's Compact models would fill the niche better than their Scout rifle, as they are lighter and have a more compact magazine. I would prefer a conventionally mounted 1-4x scope and I don't think that giving up a detachable magazine or charger loading is a big deal, given that the bolt action has been long superseded as a battle rifle.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Of the various scout rifles that Jeff Cooper experimented with, which included the Remington 600/660s, SAKO (57?), Brno ZKK 601, Winchester M-70, Ruger 77, culminating with the Styer Scout, I think the one I like the best is the Brno 601. It probably wasn't the lightest, but I have a great deal of respect for that action.
There is an article on the net somewhere written by Barry Needham who took the basic rifle coarse with a Springfield M-1A Bush Rifle in 1994. While that rifle had little advantage over most stages of the course, his ACOG in low light did much better than the Burris Scout Scopes mounted on most of the other bolt guns, and a variable power Leupold on one. There was no mention that he was disadvantaged by the additional weight of the Springfield, but his gas operated action provided to be more resilient than most of the bolt guns; by the end of the coarse his rifle and a pre 64 M-70 in .35 Whelen were the only two rifles that did not require a visit to the gunsmith to keep it in service. That is a point to consider. Over the coarse of the week he had fired a total of 765 rounds. His down side was that while his rifle fired 7.62X51 flawlessly it would hang up with commercial .308. On balance, a bolt action scout rifle is lighter, has a better trigger, and is less particular about what its fed, but it might prove to be less resilient than a gas operated battle rifle.
There is an article on the net somewhere written by Barry Needham who took the basic rifle coarse with a Springfield M-1A Bush Rifle in 1994. While that rifle had little advantage over most stages of the course, his ACOG in low light did much better than the Burris Scout Scopes mounted on most of the other bolt guns, and a variable power Leupold on one. There was no mention that he was disadvantaged by the additional weight of the Springfield, but his gas operated action provided to be more resilient than most of the bolt guns; by the end of the coarse his rifle and a pre 64 M-70 in .35 Whelen were the only two rifles that did not require a visit to the gunsmith to keep it in service. That is a point to consider. Over the coarse of the week he had fired a total of 765 rounds. His down side was that while his rifle fired 7.62X51 flawlessly it would hang up with commercial .308. On balance, a bolt action scout rifle is lighter, has a better trigger, and is less particular about what its fed, but it might prove to be less resilient than a gas operated battle rifle.
"On balance, a bolt action scout rifle is lighter, has a better trigger, and is less particular about what its fed, but it might prove to be less resilient than a gas operated battle rifle."
Probably not if you built it on an actual '98 Mauser. Which would give you the advantage of the stripper clips for quick reloads. I think that the Scout scope concept was what was used because it was available at the time (pre-Acog, red dot, etc). There are probably better options. Very little magnification is required for man sized targets out to 400 meters, and making hits with a ghost ring style peep sight is not that difficult. The built in bipod is another of those ideas that seem good on paper but haven't worked out that well in practice, all the ones I've tried have been either too bulky or too flimsy. You could build a very handy rifle using a 98 action (good durability and spare parts supply), short barrel, synthetic stock, ghost ring peep sights, a forward scope mount (easily detachable, and re-zeroing), a CW sling (or Ching sling), and perhaps some form of easily attached/removed bipod. The Parker Hale style is very robust, although heavy. Chamber it in 308 for ammo compatibility with government agencies for ease of ammo supply in case of emergency, and you are set for about 90% of what most folks will ever use a rifle for. FWIW - dan
Probably not if you built it on an actual '98 Mauser. Which would give you the advantage of the stripper clips for quick reloads. I think that the Scout scope concept was what was used because it was available at the time (pre-Acog, red dot, etc). There are probably better options. Very little magnification is required for man sized targets out to 400 meters, and making hits with a ghost ring style peep sight is not that difficult. The built in bipod is another of those ideas that seem good on paper but haven't worked out that well in practice, all the ones I've tried have been either too bulky or too flimsy. You could build a very handy rifle using a 98 action (good durability and spare parts supply), short barrel, synthetic stock, ghost ring peep sights, a forward scope mount (easily detachable, and re-zeroing), a CW sling (or Ching sling), and perhaps some form of easily attached/removed bipod. The Parker Hale style is very robust, although heavy. Chamber it in 308 for ammo compatibility with government agencies for ease of ammo supply in case of emergency, and you are set for about 90% of what most folks will ever use a rifle for. FWIW - dan
I tried the scout rifle thing and it didn't take long for me to decide I much preferred a conventional 1.5-5X to the scout scope. Not only did I prefer the 1.5 power I was consistently faster with it.
The short action thing is also lost on me.
The idea that a short action is much quicker than a standard action is just not true...The difference is measured in tenths of a second and I think I'm being generous here.
As a general observation I find short action rifles and cartridges are much more likely to jamb while the good old 30-06/270/280 well...never do. Short CRF actions even more so.
To me the perfect rifle is a 8-8.5 pound 30-06 in a trim (McMillan) stock. Give it a reasonable barrel length of say 22 inches and a 1.5-5X Leupold and I can't see were the scout is superior.
Combine an elevated heart rate with offhand shooting and I think it will kick the anorexic scout around the block.
Of course that is just me and my experience and preferences.
No disrespect to those that love the scout concept intended.
Rifle selection is as personal as picking a wife...Beauty and function is in the eye of the beholder.
The short action thing is also lost on me.
The idea that a short action is much quicker than a standard action is just not true...The difference is measured in tenths of a second and I think I'm being generous here.
As a general observation I find short action rifles and cartridges are much more likely to jamb while the good old 30-06/270/280 well...never do. Short CRF actions even more so.
To me the perfect rifle is a 8-8.5 pound 30-06 in a trim (McMillan) stock. Give it a reasonable barrel length of say 22 inches and a 1.5-5X Leupold and I can't see were the scout is superior.
Combine an elevated heart rate with offhand shooting and I think it will kick the anorexic scout around the block.
Of course that is just me and my experience and preferences.
No disrespect to those that love the scout concept intended.
Rifle selection is as personal as picking a wife...Beauty and function is in the eye of the beholder.
1riot1ranger
CGN Regular
- Location
- Calgary, AB
The one shortcoming of the Scout design is the IER scope. While it is great for close-in work, it is too limiting for small targets at distance.
If the longest shot one had to make is 250m, then the 2.5 IER is sufficient. However, at 300+ yards smaller targets can get "lost in the reticle". I prefer a conventionally mounted scope (on the Steyr Scout) as one can use an adjustable power scope and increase the flexibility of the rifle. My current scope is a NF 2.5-10 X 32 mounted as low to the axis of the barrel as possible.
At 2.5X the conventional scope can be brought into play (with practice) as quickly as the IER scope and still offers the ability to increase power for longer shots.
IMHO the IER scope is one of the few things for which Cooper didn't get an "A". I agree that mounting the scope ahead of the action - and in doing so giving access to the action - offers up benefits that may (or may not) outweigh the costs of a fixed power scope. I feel (specifically in relation to the Stery scout, where the action is accessed from the side, not the top), an adjustable scope with a low power setting is superior to the IER fixed power.
If the longest shot one had to make is 250m, then the 2.5 IER is sufficient. However, at 300+ yards smaller targets can get "lost in the reticle". I prefer a conventionally mounted scope (on the Steyr Scout) as one can use an adjustable power scope and increase the flexibility of the rifle. My current scope is a NF 2.5-10 X 32 mounted as low to the axis of the barrel as possible.
At 2.5X the conventional scope can be brought into play (with practice) as quickly as the IER scope and still offers the ability to increase power for longer shots.
IMHO the IER scope is one of the few things for which Cooper didn't get an "A". I agree that mounting the scope ahead of the action - and in doing so giving access to the action - offers up benefits that may (or may not) outweigh the costs of a fixed power scope. I feel (specifically in relation to the Stery scout, where the action is accessed from the side, not the top), an adjustable scope with a low power setting is superior to the IER fixed power.
The short action was used to make the weight required, not because of any perceived advantage in action cycling. As to the scope, again, it was designed for man sized targets in a military scenario, and if you can't hit a torso at that distance with a 2.5-2.75x scope, you probably should switch to a shotgun. The scout concept was designed to be a light (compared to a battle rifle) weapon for Rangers or Scouts who needed occasional reasonably accurate fire rather then unit sized firing solutions. Cooper proved it out in the hunting fields as that was what was available to him, but it's not what the gun was designed for. Works alright in that situation, and makes a fairly handy all around gun though. Again, FWIW. - dan
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
If no one asked the question, its because the focus of rifle marksmanship since the 1950s and '60s has changed. Today’s focus is on accuracy for its own sake. Shooting from the bench has mostly replaced practical shooting, target rifles have largely replaced hunting rifles, and paper has largely replaced meat. The scout rifle is only appreciated by a few, because it exits outside the needs and life experience of most shooters. We live in an age of specialization to the extent that we no longer understand the concept of versatility. We can see this in may of the posts we regularly come across. Everyone shoots game at a quarter mile or further with 10X scopes mounted on rifles that will keep a 5 shot group in a shot glass at 500 yards. Yet was it really that long ago that a hunter was considered on the cutting edge with his M-54 Winchester and a 2.5X Alaskan scope? No North American game was safe at 300 yards from that outfit with a competent marksman behind the trigger.
Those who hunt today cry for lighter and lighter rifles, the scout is an answer. In many hunting situations iron sights are better than a high-powered scope; the scout is an answer. But because the scope puts both the target and reticle in sharp simultaneous focus, a low power scope mounted far enough ahead to eliminate the field of view when both eyes are open, it is better than the irons. The scout is an answer. What is the purpose of the scope, the answer should be, to make it easier to see the target. If I can see my target with a 2X scope, why do I need a 10X or even a 5X. If I understand that a 2X scope is the better choice than either irons or a powerful scope, isn't it better yet when the field of view is unencumbered by the ocular lens and when the rifle's action is unencumbered by the tube? The scout rifle is an answer.
As for Jeff Cooper sticking to what he knew, he knew war and peace, he knew hunting and competition, he knew sports cars and racing, he knew how to appreciate the gifts of life, he knew history, but what he will be remembered for; is his knowledge of firearms and their practical application towards solving real world problems.
Personally I don't agree. A standard bolt action with a decent scope is superior to a scout rifle in most hunting situations except hard off the muzzle shooting. To me scout rifles tend to be muzzle heavy due to forward mounted glass. Scopes mounted over the action place the bulk of a rifles weight between the hands much like a side by side shotgun. Small objective lens don't admit as much light coupled with long eye relief results in poor low light performance. Most standard weight rifles are plenty light enough for a day afield and really light rifles are not conducive to good offhand shooting. Short barrels increase muzzle jump and greatly increase LOUD. It would be a boring world if we all thought the same but I think the average guy is better armed with a standard weight bolt action sporter with a decent scope mounted low over the action.
After reading an article written by Finn Aagaard in Rifle magazine years ago about the scout rifle concept i decided to try it out. I put together a M98 action, a 20 inch barrel in 30-06 and a Boyds laminated wood stock. First i tried the long eye relief scope which i did not like, then i tried the red dot sight which was adequate but i ended up with a 3x9 compact scope which is the best in my opinion. This gun weighs too much and could really use a detachable magazine. Although i like this rifle and shoot it at the range, but i prefer to use my Winchester 94 trapper for bush hunting and use my 300 mag for everything else. I have been lusting after a Ruger compact or the new Gunsite model and it is only a matter of time until i buy one.
Wrong Way
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I have a Frontier Scout (SS/Lam) in .338 Federal. I used it with a Leupold 2.5 IER scope for a season, then gave up and went with a conventionally mounted VX III 2.5-8 X 36.
I found I much prefer the latter
I found I much prefer the latter
