Savage scout rifle

Or you could join the Scout Rifle Forum for free.

Really good thread on the subject here: http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=6707.0

One clarification on the weight thing, evidently according to Col Cooper, 3 KG/6.6 lbs was the ideal weight, with 7lbs being the maximum in the Col's eyes for a "True" scout rifle. 3.5KG/7.7 lbs was the maximum for a "Pseudo Scout".

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 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.
 
Honestly I don't think a few ounces either way is a huge deal, the whole point is a handy, lightweight utility rifle.
Click to expand...

Correct - plus reliable and durable.

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.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but there are at least four advantages to a forward-mounted, IER low power scope (2x, 3x, or 4x -max):

* Better for target ID than iron-sights alone, although that's an advantage it shares with a traditional receiver-mounted scope;

* Allows for uninhibited peripheral vision;

* Allows for quick re-charging of a fixed or detachable magazine with stripper clips (assuming the receiver has a stripper clip guide);

* Doesn't interfere with immediate resort to using the rear aperture sight if the optic for some reason becomes unusable.

That last one is an often overlooked advantage which the forward mount has over the receiver mount, especially if using QD rings. Most folks running a low-power receiver-mounted scope are doing so in 'fixed' (non-QD) rings that take time to remove in the field, even if you've got the tools in a pouch on your belt. Plus, none of the receiver-mounting systems I'm aware of incorporate an aperture sight that can be pre-zeroed for just this contingency.

Cooper like the old BRNO 600 short-action (.308) rifles for exactly that reason: they had a "pop-up" peep aperture built into the rear of the receiver bridge. You could mount a scope over the receiver, or even run a forward-mounted IER scope, and if something went bad with the optic, after removing it you just pressed a little button on the side of the receiver and up popped that 'peep' sight, and you were still good to go with the hunt.
 
Last edited:
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.
Denis
 
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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound good.
 
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.
Denis
 
Heck, Cooper said that if you were satisfied with iron sights, a Krag would be all you needed.
Click to expand...

Huge red B.S. flag on that.

Yeah, you're gonna need to document that claim in relation to the descriptions and specs Cooper set out in his Scout doctrine.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Fuddleys built the gun, but never spent the time to vet it at the range - by shooting it irons-only and with a scope. They should've caught that issue.

See, ... this is what I'm talking about.

"Scout Rifle" sounds marketable to gun-makers, but few want to invest the dollars and the time to build one (and then vet it) that actually adheres to Cooper's specs and is both usable and practical in the field, not just shooting off sand bags on a cushy bench at the range.
 
The gun is, overall, very decent.
The stock's configurable without getting ugly & ungainly, the trigger's very good, the weight's good, the length's good, the .308's good.

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.
Denis
 
I like my Savage Scout M11 just fine. The iron sights are fine. I prefer the adjustable comb. The new 110 is okay looking, but again, I prefer the stock on the M11. I like to carry mine with a flush magazine.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

That spring can be easily replaced (and fairly cheaply) with a stronger one.

The sights are a different story.
 
The Savage makes a dandy scout, and right in line with Jeff Cooper's parameters.
Click to expand...

How much does it weigh, unloaded but scoped and slung?

The old version didn't make even the pseudo-scout 7.7 lb weight without the scope and sling, I have heard the new one is even heavier.
 
I've seen it listed at 7.72 pounds, which surprises me.
That's heavier than Ruger's 16-inch wood-stocked Scout.

The Savage's stock gives a solid impression, and the steel insert could add some notable weight.

Was discussing the Savage's latch spring with the gunsmith. It could easily be replaced by a stronger one.
He'd prefer a wider latch engagement, but at the very least the spring should probably be beefed up if I were keeping the gun.

The rear sight is a Williams, and I can get the ghost ring effect by removing the aperture insert, which can speed up acquisition a bit, but the bottom half is still obscured by the rail.
Denis
 
The annoying thing is the Savage 11/111 Lightweight Hunter in .308 is listed at 5.5 lbs, had they just used that as a base, skipped the tactical crap (Huge flash hider and bigger than needed magazine) and stuck it in the same stock, they would have been a lot closer to the goal.
 
They wanted adjustable plastic, so they went with adjustable plastic. :)
If they'd built it as a woodie with a flush mag, I coulda lived with it.
Denis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top