my Savage "Scout"

Why do people think the scout is intended to be a military rifle? It is and always was a general purpose rifle.

Proceedings of the first Scout Rifle Conference said:
The objective of the conference was declared to be the critical evaluation of the all-purpose utility rifle, as it exists in standard as well as component form at this time, and as it may be improved in the future
Click to expand...

People seem to get hung up on the name and assume it was intended for military scouts, but his writings on the subject never mentioned it as a combat weapon, that I saw anyway.

I believe Cooper named it that because it was something a scout could have carried back when there was such a thing, but he didn't seem to have any illusions about that.

Jeff Cooper in 1984 said:
"Times have changed, and the true scout is no longer found in today's armies. The enemy is located from the air, pinned by artillery , and then smashed by mechanized infantry and tanks. The scout's rifle has been replaced by the Sturmgewehr, and the character and qualities of the rifle for use by a lone rifleman have been all but forgotten."
Click to expand...
 
general purpose

Quite right. But tactical sells these days, and the makers know it. Put a big box under it, a muzzle device, bunch of rails onto which you hang lights, lasers, more grips, and they will fly off the rack.

Oh yeah, paint it black......or camo.
 
I would have considered the Hog model had it offered the flexibility of the different magazines sand the aluminum bedded Accustock.
Click to expand...

Another problem with the Hog Hunter is that it's heavy, mainly due to the thick heavy barrel. Got to handle one when a dude at our range had his there to get it zero-ed for 100-yds.

Handy for what it's intended for, but too weighty for a 'general purpose'/utility Scout.
 
People seem to get hung up on the name and assume it was intended for military scouts, but his writings on the subject never mentioned it as a combat weapon, that I saw anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually, Cooper does talk about having to use (fire) the scout rifle in a defensive context when the 'Scout' - the man, not the weapon - is out and about in the field getting eyes-on the enemy's troop movements (i.e., spying, doing reconnaissance, etc.). The Scout, in doing his job, might occasionally be forced to fire his weapon defensively in order to "escape and evade" his way back to Friendly Lines. So that's the "military" aspect or element Cooper talks about.

The real problem with Cooper's statements on the role of the Scout (along with all the field-craft theory) is that it was always drawn from his rather romanticized notions of what snooping (reconnaissance) and sniping with bolt-action rifles was like on the battlefields of WW1, which, in turn, he had absorbed in his youth from reading McBride's tome mentioned above, A Rifleman Went to War.

That's obviously obsolete today (or mostly so) when the military can send up flying drones to give our troops real-time info on where the enemy is and what he's up to.

Still, notwithstanding the 'military' element of Cooper's Scout Rifle concept, there's still the 'hunting'/foraging/woods-walking element to it, where a good argument can be made for the field utility of a simple, light-weight .308 bolt gun running a forward-mounted, low-power (max of 4x) scope.
 
Last edited:
I believe Cooper named it that because it was something a scout could have carried back when there was such a thing, but he didn't seem to have any illusions about that.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Jeff Cooper in 1984
"Times have changed, and the true scout is no longer found in today's armies. The enemy is located from the air, pinned by artillery , and then smashed by mechanized infantry and tanks. The scout's rifle has been replaced by the Sturmgewehr, and the character and qualities of the rifle for use by a lone rifleman have been all but forgotten."
Click to expand...

No, he named it a "Scout" rifle because that's exactly the sort of activity that military "Scouts" ("true scouts," i.e., recon teams) did back in the WW1-era, and actually long before that.
 
agtman said:
No, he named it a "Scout" rifle because that's exactly the sort of activity that military "Scouts" ("true scouts," i.e., recon teams) did back in the WW1-era, and actually long before that.
Click to expand...

So you are agreeing with me.

Me said:
Cooper named it that because it was something a scout could have carried back when there was such a thing,
Click to expand...
 
I imagine, pretty sure, the Savage Scout M11 is as heavy or heavier than the Hog model due to the inclusion of a (threaded and removable) brake and the aluminum bedded AccuStock. The Savage is pretty stoutly built in either version.

3C
 
the Savage Scout M11 is as heavy or heavier than the Hog model due to the inclusion of a (threaded and removable) brake and the aluminum bedded AccuStock.
Click to expand...

What's that Scout M11 weigh in at - without the scope?
 
The Savage web site lists both rifles very close in weight. Not enough of a difference to make weight the reason to choose one over the other.
 
Guv said:
The Savage web site lists both rifles very close in weight. Not enough of a difference to make weight the reason to choose one over the other.
Click to expand...
Please do not take this as argument, we just talking. I agree. The difference is with the Hog the non-Accustock is lighter than the Scout's aluminum bed Accustock but the medium profile 20 inch barrel of the Hog is heaver than the Scout's 18.5 inch standard profile barrel, both threaded. The flush 4 round and extended 10 round mags of the Scout are probably a bit extra weight since they are metal as opposed to the Hogs box mag built in. Thus the two rifles average out about the same weight. The rails and sights in weight, though different, are probably close to a wash. The Scout appears to have a larger bolt knob.

3C
 
weight

There's no doubt my early first generation Savage Scout (w/ the 5 rd, side button release mag) is far lighter than the Savage Hog rifles. Naked, or all up. No doubt in my mind which I would carry all day afoot.

That medium barrel on the Hog Rifle is no doubt intended to deal with the addition of a suppressor, just as the hi-rise sights and threaded muzzle .
I take the sights off my Hogs, likely will never shoot a suppresor, and have considered getting the Hog tubes fluted (to cut weight) ......but likely never will due to cost.

On the same line of thought, firearms weights empty, and with no hardware, serve only as a baseline in comparisons. Add the usual hardware, and depending on one's choices, weights can change quickly. Ditto a 10 rd or larger box mag. Fill that big box with cartridges, and it's heavy. Plunk a 30mm tube, 50mm bell scope on any rifle, heavier still. I keep an ammo cuff on several of my frequently used rifles....more weight again. Sling, bipod, cheek piece, light (trendy these days) laser (ditto), altimeter, AM/FM radio and disk player.......

Ideal Savage Scout? Like maybe from their custom shop? Standard taper barrel, like on the old models, I think 18-1/2", not 20". No muzzle gadget. Blind magazine, like the Hog rifle.......no mag to forget or lose. No cheek piece. XS sights, low power IER scope. Maybe an IER variable 1.5-5X (?) but lighter/smaller than the Burris 2-7x. Coarse, chunky reticle, I might even stay with the German #1. Detachable rings, or rings easily removed with an Torx or allen key. I tape the key under the ammo butt 'cuff. Caliber, .308. Standard trigger, no accu trigger, simpler. I'd keep the oversize factory bolt knob.
 
Ideal Savage Scout?
Standard taper barrel, like on the old models, I think 18-1/2", not 20". No muzzle gadget. Blind magazine, like the Hog rifle.......no mag to forget or lose. No cheek piece. XS sights, low power IER scope. Maybe an IER variable 1.5-5X (?) but lighter/smaller than the Burris 2-7x. Coarse, chunky reticle, I might even stay with the German #1. Detachable rings, or rings easily removed with an Torx or allen key. I tape the key under the ammo butt 'cuff. Caliber, .308. Standard trigger, no accu trigger, simpler. I'd keep the oversize factory bolt knob.
Click to expand...

Actually, with one modification, that's a great Scout check list. :cool:

The mod would be that if you're going to omit a DBM in favor of the "blind" magazine system, then for quick reloading in the field, the rear receiver needs to be tailored to accept mil-style 5-rd stripper clips to re-charge the mag. Quicker than finger-fumbling them in one at a time, plus the clips themselves make carrying extra ammo (that's not on the butt cuff) handier.

On the scope, the fixed 2.75x IER Burris is what I run on my Mini-G faux-Scout. Nothing wrong with it for the distances I'm shooting it (generally inside 200yds), but I'm seriously considering Weaver's fixed 4x Scout scope for my next build. Specs indicate that it weighs less than the Burris. Anyone have the Weaver?
 
Last edited:
Just an update, I suppose I had never appreciated a forward mounted scope and had never given them a chance. But, I picked up a forward mounted scope at Cabela's, a Vortex 2X7 Crossfire II. I mounted it on my Savage Model 11 "Scout" and removed the Nikon 3X9 I had mounted rearwards. I was immediately taken by how quickly I could acquire a target with both eyes open which I find difficult with a standard mounted scope at anything much over 1X. But even at 5X I can see decently with both eyes, even if crossed a little. I used Warne QR mounts in medium which set the new optic nicely low on the rail.

So I guess my Savage .308 multi-purpose rifle now wears a forward mounted optic. And this impressed me enough that I ordered a Burris 2.75X "Scout" forward mount optic for my Marlin 45-70 SBL. The SBL has a Nikon 1X4 African mounted on medium Warne QR mounts conventionally and while it has never whacked me, with full on Buffalo Bore or HSM Bear Loads it has come close. So, I will see how the Burris does on the Marlin, should get here this week. To be clear, on the Nikon African, love that scope. It has around 4 inches of ER. It is meant for heavy hitters. I am not really worried especially about getting hit by it with normal 45-70 rounds sufficient to knock a buffalo on it's arse. But with dino-elephant loads I find it needed to rather tightly hang on to the SBL and use due caution, 430 grain hard casts at 2000 fps in a Marlin can come back at you :eek:.
 
Last edited:
3Crows: FWIW, I think you'll like the Burris scout scope.

I finally did get Weaver's 4x SS, and have since mounted it on my '06 Mini-G Scout. The extra bit of magnification is nice for glassing beyond 200yds, although virtually all the shots on deer where I hunt would be well inside that. Probably the same for hogs.

That said, among the fixed-power SSs, Burris' 2.75x magnification is right in the middle between the Leupold 2.5x and the Weaver, and is probably the most useful.

Still might get the Leupy anyway if I do another scout build off an M1 action, although after reading positive reviews of Mossberg's Scout entry I've got my eye on it. Having one bolt Scout in .308 that makes weight and reliably runs Magpul 7.62/.308 (SR-25) mags would be a useful addition to the battery.

Mann's review here, FYI:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=be8NzsFvp1k
 
Last edited:
Just an update, I suppose I had never appreciated a forward mounted scope and had never given them a chance
Click to expand...

If folks gave 10% of the time and effort to learn to use an IER scope that they expend on squalling loudly on the internetz that they do not work ......
 
Very nice. Glad you like the forward mount. I also went with a variable 2-7, I personally went with the Leatherwood. At this point, I think I would rather have the fixed magnification right around that 2.75x. I have just found with my limited use of it that the adjustability really isn't necessary. 7x was nice at 300yds, but I don't think I need it. The variable magnification also adds a bunch of weight. Not that it's a heavy rifle, but it could be lighter. I'll have to save up and give either the Leupold or the Burris a shot in the future.
 
I got the new Burris on my SBL today and hopefully can sight it in this weekend. Really nice scope and the 2.75X is perfect with the extended eye relief. I certainly will no longer need to worry about the scope hitting me with Buffalo Bore or heavy load 45-70. I like that is it quite light and very compact and mounts very low on the Warne QR Low rings. I do wish they made a 1X4 range forward optic (note I how I try not to use the word bad word "scout") because I really like my Nikon African 1X4 but it only has 4 inches of eye relief, which of course is quite generous itself!



I have not used either the Vortex 2X7 Crossfire on my Savage multi-purpose rifle other than sighting work with it but I like it too. I think the Burris is a superior optic but it coast another $100 and it is fixed power so not a fair comparison. The Crossfire is a good scope, I would rate both it and the Burris 2.75X as "Good" quality.

3C
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top