Jim Watson
New member
[Citation Needed]
I read G&A, GG, and CC for a long time, stuff just kind of sticks.
I'm an engineer. I get paid for providing cites.
[Citation Needed]
Very nice looking rifle and just what I want. But, 800$ plus is totally out of my budget.
Honestly I don't think a few ounces either way is a huge deal, the whole point is a handy, lightweight utility rifle.
The forward mounted scope is not a hard/fast requirement either, a traditionally mounted low power scope would also work. Contrary to popular belief, the [forward] position of the scope was not to facilitate stripper clip loading (although that is a bonus if the rifle is capable of using them), but because it is fast, and allows use with both eyes open and doesn't interfere with peripheral vision.
Picked up the Savage 110 Scout today.
Initial impression is very positive on the stock (light years ahead of their First Gens), but I'm not liking the iron sights.
Too small, too hard & slow to find the front blade with the optic rail covering much of it.
Heck, Cooper said that if you were satisfied with iron sights, a Krag would be all you needed.
I think Savage missed the boat on those sights.
There's only a small section of the front blade visible above the optic rail.
If you had quick-detach mounts & needed to use the irons as backups, they'd work, but they don't meet Cooper's original quick-reaction ghostring suggestion.
Using the irons, the rail fills up the bottom 50% of the aperture, limiting target visibility.
If you didn't plan on using a scope, removing the rail would help greatly.
I'll reserve judgement on the comp, but the only two things I can't say good things about are the sights & the mag latch spring. That spring's probably adequate, but could be a little stronger.
The Savage makes a dandy scout, and right in line with Jeff Cooper's parameters.