Jeff Cooper and the "General Purpose Rifle"

>>>>>I can see maybe wanting the extra range of the 308 but why a bolt gun.<<<<

355,

Cooper never said it had to be a bolt rifle, it just had to "make weight" - 6 pounds or thereabouts.
 
Why a bolt gun??

Because a controlled feed bolt gun, which Cooper (and I) DID say is the ideal, will not have the feed problems, gravity/orientation cycling sensitivity, or bullet limitations of a lever gun, and they are less maintenance intensive than a semi auto. They are also easier to clear malfs from than a lever or semi.
They generally exhibit superior accuracy, have fewer moving parts, and cost less to boot.

As far as scopes go, Art Eatman is right on the money.
Leupold =Good.
I dislike the forward mounted nonsense of the Scoout, but a good standard scope with backup ironsights is definitely the way to go. The scope broadens the utility and increases accuracy of the rifle dramatically, without adding much weight.

BTW: I don't personally care so much if a gun "makes weight" for most things, so long as it is durable and accurate. My favorite model 70 weighs about eight pounds, and is iron sights only.

I have however, demonstrated repeatedly that my seven pound 308 or 30-06 custom bolt guns (like the LURCR) can and will print 1/2 MOA or better at 200 meters, allow dismount and remount of the scopes with excellent return to zero, and superb reliability with all types of ammo.

Try that with a lever gun.

Bolt guns uber alles,
Mad Dog
 
...If a semi-automatic 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.
Jeff Cooper


This is what the man said, so...

I think he makes a mistake in overlooking the lever action rifles such as the Savage 99 and especially the Browning BLR which in all particulars, meet the criteria he has established.
 
To get back to basics, the following is Cooper's concept distilled to a couple of paragraph's (in his own words). Note that while he gives some examples of rifles that approach it, he doesn't rule out alternate means of achieving those ends. Ie: he gives you the goal, but leaves it up to you how to get there.


Cooper on the Scout:

The Concept

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 30-30 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 and fitted it with a Leupold 2X intermediate-eye-relief telescope. This laid the groundwork of the scout concept...

...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 weapon 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...


http://pw1.netcom.com/~chingesh/scoutrifle.html#What
 
Art, In regards to fragility, my point is that you and I probably baby our rifles in the field. Soldiers don't. A scout would be concerned about his mission, not his rifle. A mild fall, just the rifle tipping over after being leaned against a tree or boulder, can knock the scope out of adjustment and you won't know it until you shoot.

I find it interesting that recently in the Cooper Commentaries he has spoken more of all the scope breakage in his classes, yet he still insists on the scope.

If you are a sniper or a hunter a scope is worth the fragility trade off.
 
Cooper appeared on "American Shooter" a while back, and demonstrated his Scout. My favorite quote from that show was his "I missed! I'm not supposed to do that!" I was mildly surprised he didn't say "WE" missed. ;) (Okay, okay, he's older than dirt, so I'll cut him some slack!) I've tried the Scout myself, and it's a good - NOT great! - rifle. But looking over the features, workmanship, and performance, the price is at least twice what it should be.

As far as being an "all around" rifle, if I had to choose ONE rifle for everything, it would NOT be a Scout - it would be an M70, stocked to fit me and barreled to my specs, with a Leupold 'scope, and I'd have a better "all around" rifle. (Hey, that's what I have now!) It weighs a bit more than a Scout, but so what? The package is still a tad lighter than an M1 Garand - and lots of guys lugged those over lots of territory.

My Dad had a fairly lightweight 7x57 Oberndorf Mauser sporter on an M98 action...with the right scope, that would fit the "all around" niche quite well. I wish I had that little rifle . . . :(

BTW, any ideas about who originated the forward-mounted scope? I know the Wehrmacht used a forward-mounted scope on some of their rifles, but I'm wondering if anyone earlier did? (In fairness, I don't recall Cooper claiming he invented the forward 'scope location.)
 
AC, I read Cooper's comment about scope breakage. I also read a novel written by an ex-Special Forces guy who had a passage alluding to "300 or 400 rounds fired" as the longevity of a scope.

This puzzles me. I put my Leupold on my Weatherby '06 in 1973; it was there until the summer of 1997. Lordy, back in the 1970s I put 300 or 400 rounds each year through that gun! Way over 2,000 shots, at least! That scope is now on my Ruger 77 .223 and still working just fine.

What can I say? I seem to go through life just plumb iggerunt of all these problems. I'll take luck over brains, any day.

But I've always sorta "babied" stuff, including my Garand in Basic Training, and my Carbine in Korea. Heck, I even keep my boots in good shape and my toenails trimmed. "Take care of your tools and they'll take care of you."

HankB: Cooper didn't say "We" because he wasn't writing his column. The "editorial we", still in use by editors much younger than Cooper, was part and parcel of his education as to formal writing. If there is anybody at TFL who should resent the "We" bit, it's me. I spent twenty years hearing way too much, "We are not amused!", coming from my now-ex-wife. So, "Guess what, Darlin'? WE are not married, and I'M outta here!" :D

:), Art
 
Art, I have never broken a scope either. It occurred to me that Cooper may be setting himself up for this by insisting on 7lb. full power rifles and then putting the rings out where the scope tube will be subject to barrel whip. Does that seem like it could cause his problems? Most of the guys in his classes would show up with a Scout, I think.

I have a little M7 Remington in .308 with a Burris scout scope in a Burris mount and a three position sling (which all cost about $550 to put together in the early '90s). My goal is to shoot out the barrel so I can put on a 22-24" heavier barrel and go back to a conventional scope. The problem with this approach is the little rifle makes me cry 'no mas' after 30-40 rds, especially when I go to the seated with sling position where my shoulder has no give. So far it only has 1,000 rds through it so time will tell on scope durability.

The forward scope helps weight distribution on the M7, but it is still too muzzle light, in my opinion, with that wispy 18.5" tube.
 
Hee. The "pseudo scout" I'm having built will have a 21" #4 bl- and be in 6mm Remington. I don't think I'll have that problem! :D
 
AC, my lad, have I got intel for you! In the immortal words of H. V. Kaltenborn, "Ah, there's good news, tonight!" (Looking up this possibly obscure reference is left as an excercise for the student. :D )

In the August, 2001 issue of Guns & Ammo is an article about the "Kick-Eez" recoil pad. It's space-age material, 'tis said, and is supposedly 20% more effective the the competition's best stuff.

Anyhow, the article goes on with a good "How to" for do-it-yourselfers.

Maybe this could help your shoulder,

Art
 
For more on the "origin" of the Scout rifle concept see Mcbride's "A Rifleman went to War"

In my reprint by Lancer Militaria Mcbride mentions many of the elements that Cooper later adopts for his Scout rifle concept. Start on page 336 and read to the end of that chapter.

My reprint also contains a prologue by Cooper. In which Cooper states, "I hope it is not true that I got all my ideas about fighting from him [Mcbride], as has been suggested, but I certainly got a lot of them."

Mcbride makes a clear distinction between a general purpose rifle and a true sniper rifle. Cooper's scout rifle follows Mcbride's ideas on a GP rifle.

Remember the context though the rifles Mcbride got stuck with were not very short or light, and they were usually ordered to fix bayonets besides with made marksmanship even more difficult.
 
Cooper has made it abundantly clear that he is not satisfied with the current scope - its the best available but there is room for improvement.
What he has asked for is a scope where the rings are etched onto the glass and then adjusted via some sort of bomb-proof mounting system outside the scope itself. Sort of a great step backwards to the original scope systems, but something sturdier than the old systems. He hasn't gotten what he has asked for and I doubt that he will.
As is, the scope is fixed power and somewhat sturdier and smaller (less likely to get whacked) than the current popular scopes.
I suppose it's how and where you hunt that determines if your scope is sturdy enough. I've been lucky myself but I've seen a number of scopes get wrecked in the field. Just a few weeks ago a friend showed me a 3x9 scope that had been dropped on rocks during a hunt and had the reticles knocked loose - a Leupold luckily, so he sent it back to the factory under the lifetime warranty. His hunt was ruined though because he didn't have iron sights on his rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top