Jeff Cooper's Scout rifle

Just today I got an e-mail from Ruger. They are making a new Scout rifle.
Laminated stock, muzzle break, iron sights and a base for a forward mounted scope. It takes five and 10 round box magazines. I don't like the quoted price but do like the way the rifle looks.

I figured on buying a Frontier to use as a scout, but didn't get to it before they were discontinued. (A bad case of .41 Magnum fever helped with that.)
 
Got the same Ruger e-mail as ACP230. Rifle looked kinda like a bolt action Mini-14 to me. But it is a .308. Looks like it would be a good truck gun.
 
I do not think Mr Cooper was at all addressing a rifle for the modern uniformed military.And,a bolt rifle is not so stone age yesterday for the military scout/sniper.
Perhaps he had a vision of difficult times to come.
Its a versatile general purpose rifle for a person who has to go a long time with nothing but what he/she can carry.Enough power for a bear or moose,or foe.300 yds is a practical capability.
If all you have is 43 rds,a stripper clip might be handy,but steel 20 rounders?
Actually,Rugers new pkg,the box might sell,but its weight and a clunky projection.
I have used 2.5x scout scopes.They are fast!Two eyes open,heads up,shotgun fast.
They allow the strong,safe,foolproof military bolt safety that allows easy bolt disassemby.And,it is very handy to not have a scope at the balance point of a rifle.The hand wraps around the rifle much better.
I'm thinking I'd match a 50 year old Jeff Cooper with a scout and a 1911,a Fairbairn and a canteen,maybe some 6x32 binoculars against 99% of the folks on this forum .
Experience counts.He had a high Darwin factor
,
 
My very conventional 700 Ti in 7mm08, with a Leupold 3x9, ammo and sling, weighs 6.5 pounds.

A long-eye-relief scope would reduce the weight a tad. The barrel could be cut back to make the one-meter length. The stock could be shortened a bit without hurting the "average fella's" length of pull.

The only thing I see that's different about the scout concept, really, is the forward mount on the scope. My L579 Sako carbine meets the weight (7 pounds) and length, for all that I have a 2x7 scope conventionally mounted.

But to repeat: In shoot and scoot competitions at Gunsite, Scout users invariably beat out folks with conventional systems.
 
I did not understand his thinking as to why a single man in indian country would be best served by a low capacity bolt action if he was compromised. It seems to me that if one has to move fast and shoot their way out of trouble, one would be best served by some thing at least semi automatic, light weight with light weight ammunition, and possibly a grenade launcher as well.
Click to expand...

For actual scouting done with WW2 era technology, an individual or small group (solo scouting isn't done in the military as a pretty constant rule) would have been better served by M1 carbines fitted with x2.5 power LER scopes.

It's possibly worth noting that when they put three man Jedburgh teams into France pre-D Day (about as all alone out there in the wind as people got) they were armed with 1911s and M1 carbines for self defense and shooting and scooting. Admittedly the scout rifle wasn't an option, but built to Cooper's exact specs it still would not have been considered desirable for the role he envisioned for it by the military.
 
ahead, not behind

We're putting optics on everything these days, to include handguns. And low magnification, long eye relief dot scopes are now the rage and accepted as a desirable accessory on a combat rifle. When Cooper came up w/ his "scout scope" concept, there were no compact, reliable dot scopes. An intermediate, low mag conventional scope was the only option. Again now we scope everything. Thirty plus years ago, Cooper was leaning that way.

I don't think the system was to be used in excessively long range shots. The scout scope is an improvement over a peep/ghost ring. It draws a bit of light, eliminates the "focus on the front sight' mantra necessary to run a peep well, and aids slightly in target/aiming point ID. It gives up nothing in speed.

It is not the equal of a 3-9x, or even a fixed 4 for precision work. It certainly is not a varminter/sniper. But it is way ahead of an aperture/peep and I believe that is all Cooper was trying to improve on.

Cooper insisted you had to shoot one to fully realize its perks. There is a bit to that. They are fast. The reticle appears in your field of view, you paste it on target and press. It is precise enough, but not so engrossing that you get hung up with attempting to split hairs w/ your shot. Put it where you need it and shoot.

I've got a German #1 in mine, and it is a big crude reticle, especially to all of us accustomed to duplexes/crosshairs. But that tapered post acts like a giant front sight. There is no missing it, even under VERY bad light. And yet, at 100, you can perch a clay pigeon on top of it and break them routinely. At least I used to could. You won't win a benchrest/smallest group competition w/ it, but that is not what its for.
 
Why make a Scout rifle in a non-military caliber? Part of the concept was to capitalize on readily available ammo...there's no 7mm/08 on the urban battlefield!
Click to expand...

In some countries it is illegal to own ammunition in "military" chamberings. So no 308 or 223, but 7mm-08 and 222 is OK.
 
Cooper himself stated that no rifle currently in production had every single feature that the Scout Commission deemed desirable. He had several based on Remington actions (no controlled feed), at least one based on the Ruger Ultralight, and a few whose origin I don't know.
Some of the specs were admittedly sort of random, but they served as guidelines and goals for the most part, rather than hard-and-fast rules.

One absolute in the thinking was the ability to fire a full power rifle cartridge. This, combined with the state of the art in the 1980s, pretty much eliminated semi-auto actions based solely on weight. He wasn't opposed to semis, but they couldn't make the 3 KG. To quote Cooper,

"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. The whole concept of great rapidity of fire has been weighed and found, not exactly wanting, but somewhat inconsequential... The primary purpose of a rifle is a first shot hit,...[and] (s)emi-automatic fire does not assure this."

I won't quote the whole page, nor the part of the next chapter where he reinforces (or at least explains) some of his conclusions, but to me, they are mostly sound.

For those who dismiss the Scout concept, I would encourage you to actually pick up a copy of his book and read it. Try to avoid your preconceived notions and keep an open mind, it might be enlightening, and it's definitely though-provoking.

I've read a lot of things where people said, "Well, Cooper said this, and it's BS."
As often as not, he didn't actually say those things, but somebody read somebody else's take on what he said, and drew the wrong conclusions.
 
When Jeff Cooper first began he was taking what was out there and what guys were already doing, evaluating it and using what he felt worked best in his opinion. Was it his own in most cases? No. But he molded and messaged it into a system that he could teach.

His defining fault was departing from the pragmatic approach to firearms training that launched him into the mainstream and became so dogmatic that he could never evolve. So, was he stuck in the past, refusing to accept change? Absolutely.

Whether or not Cooper deserves the credit for concepts that may not have been his own, or the criticism for being stuck in the past and refusing to adapt to an evolving industry, he does deserve credit for one thing. He built the concept of the modern firearms academy that still effects the way we teach, learn and train to this day.
 
As a side note: I use forward mounted Aimpoints on my AR's. That configuration works brilliantly for me. Stole the idea from a dear friend who I am positive stole it from somebody else - didn't really much care who should get the credit for the idea, just that it was effective.
 
As to one person's comment about the Scout Rifle (that is, THE Scout Rifle), I see it as conventional anyway. It is merely a combination of features that makes it and there is nothing new about any of the individual features. True, the specs are somewhat arbitrary but I take them to be either starting points or goals. But each characteristic has a good side and a bad side.

While a common caliber may be desirable, I think it is false to think that when times are bad enough to need the thing, any cartridge will be readily available. But I imagine all of you right-thinking people already have that possibility covered.

Over the years different writers have addressed weight in a rifle and clearly there are divergent opinions on the subject. Cooper wanted a lightweight rifle but insisted on having probably one of the heavier pistols in common use, the Colt Government Model. But I'm rarely consistent in my thinking, so why should he have been. However, I'd like to go along with his idea of stripper clips.

Military ammunition still comes in stripper clips, even when it's intended to be loaded into detachable magazines. But in addition to ease in reloading the rifle, usually, if good clips are used, it makes what I call "ammunition management" easy. While that isn't an issue with detachable magazines, for most rifles, you're stuck with handling loose cartridges. And while it is true that some commercial hunting rifles have detachable magazines, it isn't necessarily possible to load them without removing them from the rifle. A CZ bolt action in some calibers has a detachable five round magazine that must be removed to reload without a lot of effort and they simply aren't the slick magazines like military rifles ordinarily have, at least not in my experience. But if a bolt action is either acceptable or preferable, then that doesn't matter anyway.

Ironically, doesn't Gunsite have a course in "Urban Carbine?"
 
hater or lover

I'm no hater of Cooper, in fact, I loved the old man.

He was perhaps the gun writer with the most wit that I ever read. He made me laugh, his sarcasm was epic.

But, I think that the whole "scout rifle" concept is a gimmick. One posted here that scout shooters do "better" than others trained on other platforms. Is it that gunsite sets up their courses to the benefit of their "type" of rifle? I dunno. Perhaps a scout rifle allows quick aquisition, but so does a red dot sight.

The SF team I work with don't use scout rifles. They use sniper rifles or SCAR rifles (with regularly attached scopes) for long range and red dot M4s for close range. Now, these guys carry whatever the hell they want. If the scout rifle was of ANY benefit, they would have one, or four or a dozen. In 5 years in theater, I've never seen not one - military or civilian. Bottom line up front: folks who trust their lives to weapons don't ever (ever) carry these "scout" guns.
 
For those who dismiss the Scout concept, I would encourage you to actually pick up a copy of his book and read it. Try to avoid your preconceived notions and keep an open mind, it might be enlightening, and it's definitely though-provoking.
Click to expand...

"book"? As if he only wrote one? He was a prolific writer, and as Ticonderoga noted, "his sarcasm was epic". Read them all, if you can....... because, after all, "there is little fundamental difference between those who can not read and those who do not". ....... if nothing else, Cooper's writings and a dictionary will certainly expand your vocabulary.


......


The SF team I work with don't use scout rifles.
Click to expand...

....... they work as a team, do they not? Each team member has a role, one best filled by something other than a GP rifle. For the individual, specialization compromises utility. ..... even so, the guys with the M-4s use low power optics ..... and shoot with both eyes open to preserve periperal vision, no?

Cooper's teachings were maybe not completely new material, but he was the first one to put it all together into a teachable system, and teach it on a large scale outside of a military setting. Though the techniques he taught and equipment he suggested are not the be-all and end-all of skill at arms, much of it is still relevant today.... The color codes/ combat mindset, The 4 Rules, front sight-press, etc ........ those are irrelevant because he espoused them 40 years ago? I think not.
 
For most of us in this day and age, the scout rifle concept makes perfect sense as a survival rifle. The scout rifle concept and thoughts behind it would be well applied to those who prescribe to the survivalist's way of thinking. We have all read the threads were somebody is explaining their home defense tactics where they wax eloquent on the need for high capacity magazines and such. In reality, Cooper's scout soldier may be dated in a military sense, but the concept is still very much applicable to the civillian in troubled times. The civillian in this case, would need to maintain a low profile, yet still have the means to defend himself and BREAK away from the fight. The scout rifle allows for this. It really isn't that dated. It is just underestimated.

As for the rifles, the Steyr is way out of my price range.

The Ruger looks interesting and I can't wait to see one.

For many civillians a lever action will fill the role of the scout rifle just fine.

I am a civillian.
 
not necessarily

Jimbob86 wrote:

....... they work as a team, do they not? Each team member has a role, one best filled by something other than a GP rifle. For the individual, specialization compromises utility. .....

Not necessarily, a few of the guys go out "alone." Perhaps for hiking, maybe scouting, perhaps for bravado, but none of them would be foolish enough to take a bolt action rifle. They carry a .308 SCAR and a grenade launcher (one of those 14" inch jobs).

Seriously, NO ONE in a combat enviornment would trade an M1A1 for this folley "scout" rifle. As posted earlier, Cooper was "selling" something, he "created" a need for a rifle that has no place other than as a curio (and soon to be relic)...
 
I know this thread is a little over 5 months old, but a couple of points caught my eye.

Cooper didn't receive any royalties from the sales of Scout rifles. He did mention the possibility once, and apparently the idea made the Austrians upset. So I would hardly say that the Scout concept was an income-driven idea.

As for the rifle being made to fulfill a military function...you've missed the point. It's not FOR Scouts, it's NAMED the Scout. The characteristics that Cooper desired in this rifle were fitting to a scout of yore, but not designed for them. I think he still saw the arm as one that would be used for hunting primarily and anything else that may come up as well.
 
A buddy of mine bought one. He'd put some 200 rounds through it before I showed up for a visit. Forward mount Leupold scope.

Quite easy to hit steel at 100 and 200 yards in a "semi-offhand" casual rest style. Superb recoil pad. Adequate trigger, but IMO some TLC is needed.

I personally don't like a protruding mag in a rifle that I'm going to use for hunting. I like to carry a rifle at the balance point, on occasion. But that's just me, and it ain't my money. :)

The mag spring is a bit too stiff for easy loading of the final three or four rounds. I didn't check the mag for disassembling, but springs can be lightened.

All in all, it should prove out to be an excellent truck gun, and just fine for hunting.

Part of Cooper's scout deal was that a scout is not supposed to get in fire fights. Sneaky snake. Go look, find out, report back. A fire fight is mission failure, since nobody is supposed to know a scout drifted through an area in his snooping. Cooper also disliked shooting game beyond 300 yards, speaking of stalking closer when at all possible.
 
There are walk-through courses of fire at Gunsite, using rifles on various targets over a few hundred yards of trail. One's score is a function of hits and time.

Those who are proficient in the use of Scout rifles score higher than those who use other sorts of rifles. Target acquisition time is faster.

I've always found that results count more than opinions...
Click to expand...
I'm curious if any others of us have hunted with a scout style rifle? I have, and I believe Jimbob has, too.

Let me echo one of Art's comments. Target acquisition time is faster.

My humble opinion is that a scout-style scope is the fastest-acquiring optic there is. Faster than a red dot (or maybe equal.) Certainly faster than traditional irons, and much faster than a traditional scope.

And much better than a red-dot, because you have enough magnification to increase precision and long range ability. And you keep both eyes open, so you have better awareness, periphery, etc.

I think its the best hunting optic available, unless you're shooting beyond 300 yards.
 
I wish the ruger had a 20 inch barrel- which i consider optimal for a 308- 16 inches or the 18 on the aussie model which does not have a flash hider is too short IMHO.

I have a pre 64 94 30-30 fitted with a LER works well and hits well at AK type ranges.

I know Geoff Cooper did not like lever scouts, poodle scouts or other deviations from the theme but I think that was because the man was something of a purist who was not keen on the evolution of his concept by others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top