To those familiar with the concept, could you tell me why the scope is forward-mounted? I've read that it's so the scope does not interfere with the bolt action, but a rear-mounted scope doesn't interfere with the bolt action anyway - if it did, people wouldn't put scopes on bolt action rifles.
Scout Rifle - again
- Thread starter Futo Inu
- Start date
Destructo6
New member
Part of the original concept was to be able to charge the magazine with stripper clips. With a scope mounted in the typical location, this is difficult at best. With the scope mounted forward, no problem.
It was also designed to be used in an area where you may have to keep track of several animals (dangerous game?) simultaneously and the long eye relief allows you to see more with both eyes open. Keeps you from getting tunnel vision.
It was also designed to be used in an area where you may have to keep track of several animals (dangerous game?) simultaneously and the long eye relief allows you to see more with both eyes open. Keeps you from getting tunnel vision.
Eye relief makes sense - I can see the importance of always trying to see what's going on around you. But if you have detachable mags, then you won't be charging with stripper clips.....?
I guess what I'm getting at here is, if one were building a pseudo-scout on some existing popular action, I suppose you would still be within the scout concept to use a top loading mag (with or without a trapdoor) instead of a detachable mag, provided you forward-mounted the scope?
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited July 02, 1999).]
I guess what I'm getting at here is, if one were building a pseudo-scout on some existing popular action, I suppose you would still be within the scout concept to use a top loading mag (with or without a trapdoor) instead of a detachable mag, provided you forward-mounted the scope?
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited July 02, 1999).]
Joe the Redneck
New member
Becuase:
THUS SPAKE JEFF COOPER
This rifle is for you. Build it the way you want it. The foward mounted scope ups the price a ton and adds very little to the usefulness of the package.
THUS SPAKE JEFF COOPER
This rifle is for you. Build it the way you want it. The foward mounted scope ups the price a ton and adds very little to the usefulness of the package.
Keith Rogan
New member
Futo,
I put a Scout Scope on my Ruger #1, not because I wanted the long eye relief but because a standard scope hung right over the loading port and made it very awkward to reload.
After using the scope for a season it opened a whole new world for me. Your damned eye isn't jammed up against a scope when you're trying to track a moving animal. You aren't totally blind when a deer leaps up from its bed at short range. Its like using a red dot scope but with more precision and no batteries to worry about. I've shot deer at 5 yards and a caribou at 355 yards.
This is the way scopes should have been designed in the first place. It'll cost you about $40 extra to have your barrel drilled and tapped for the mount. You'll make that up easily because the Leupold Scout is only about $200 - a bargain. The mounts and rings are the same price as any other mounts and rings.
My advice is to try it, I think you'll like it.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
I put a Scout Scope on my Ruger #1, not because I wanted the long eye relief but because a standard scope hung right over the loading port and made it very awkward to reload.
After using the scope for a season it opened a whole new world for me. Your damned eye isn't jammed up against a scope when you're trying to track a moving animal. You aren't totally blind when a deer leaps up from its bed at short range. Its like using a red dot scope but with more precision and no batteries to worry about. I've shot deer at 5 yards and a caribou at 355 yards.
This is the way scopes should have been designed in the first place. It'll cost you about $40 extra to have your barrel drilled and tapped for the mount. You'll make that up easily because the Leupold Scout is only about $200 - a bargain. The mounts and rings are the same price as any other mounts and rings.
My advice is to try it, I think you'll like it.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Destructo6
New member
The original Scout concept didn't have a detachable magazine. Cooper built a few on standard commercial actions before hooking up with Steyr.
With the Steyr Scout, I guess they decided that since they were building a complete rifle with any mod possible, a detachable mag would be in the cards.
With the Steyr Scout, I guess they decided that since they were building a complete rifle with any mod possible, a detachable mag would be in the cards.
Cooper's main point is that, with a very low-powered intermediate-eye-relief forward-mounted scout scope, you can keep both eyes open and use your binocular vision to shoot. Target acquistion is much, MUCH faster this way. Try it sometime with a scope dialed down to 2X, or better, 1.5x. You look with both eyes, and basically see the crosshairs superimposed upon the target your non-scope eye sees. Then, for fine shooting, you shift your attention and focus to the scope-eye, while leaving your unemcumbered eye open. Cooper's point is that a rifle should be easier to apply to its task. A rifle that is handier to get on-target will yield more scores on reactive targets than the even more-accurate heavy rifle that was designed for bench accuracy that doesn't ever seem to find its target.
I used to wonder for years and years why, during hunting season, my father would give me the varminter-barreled M77 topped with a Weaver 3x9 and would shoot .75 MOA, while he carried a light sporter M77 with a K4 that wouldn't hold better than 1.5 MOA. Clearly I had the edge, right? Not so. The man consistantly got his on-target and shot before I would have mine engaged. Now the old man is saving his pennies for a Steyr, and will probably settle for a Savage Scout.
He may have something there.
[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited July 03, 1999).]
I used to wonder for years and years why, during hunting season, my father would give me the varminter-barreled M77 topped with a Weaver 3x9 and would shoot .75 MOA, while he carried a light sporter M77 with a K4 that wouldn't hold better than 1.5 MOA. Clearly I had the edge, right? Not so. The man consistantly got his on-target and shot before I would have mine engaged. Now the old man is saving his pennies for a Steyr, and will probably settle for a Savage Scout.
He may have something there.
[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited July 03, 1999).]
Rob Pincus
New member
Joe,
All due respect ( I love contradicting "gurus" too..), but your comment makes me think you have not really looked into the building of a scout rifle, nor played around with one much.
A few years ago I had one built for around $600, including a new Remington .308 and a Burris 1.5 MER scope.
With a little ingenuity a good rifelsmith can forward mount a scope with little extra expense. Even if you purchase a special mount, they are not exhorbinately expensive.
The advantages offered in speed of target acquisistion and field of view are really worht looking into, for certain applications. Hunting in dense forrest, where your game may appear quickly and disappear just as fast, is the first use that comes to mind. Obviously, as a defensive weapon, the scout concept allows quick shots on threats, while keeping your eyes open for other potential problems.
I now have two scout type rifles and I prefer them to tradiational rifles for any scenario under 125 yards. Beyond that, speed is not as important and accuracy becomes the real issue.
------------------
-Essayons
All due respect ( I love contradicting "gurus" too..), but your comment makes me think you have not really looked into the building of a scout rifle, nor played around with one much.
A few years ago I had one built for around $600, including a new Remington .308 and a Burris 1.5 MER scope.
With a little ingenuity a good rifelsmith can forward mount a scope with little extra expense. Even if you purchase a special mount, they are not exhorbinately expensive.
The advantages offered in speed of target acquisistion and field of view are really worht looking into, for certain applications. Hunting in dense forrest, where your game may appear quickly and disappear just as fast, is the first use that comes to mind. Obviously, as a defensive weapon, the scout concept allows quick shots on threats, while keeping your eyes open for other potential problems.
I now have two scout type rifles and I prefer them to tradiational rifles for any scenario under 125 yards. Beyond that, speed is not as important and accuracy becomes the real issue.
------------------
-Essayons
Keith Rogan
New member
Rob,
I would have to take issue with your characterization of the Scout as being only applicable at ranges below 125 yards.
My normal rule of thumb is to shoot at living things only when the range is below 300 yards, however, I did shoot a caribou with my scout scope at a paced range of 355 yards. No problem at all. I've shot a half dozen deer at ranges approaching that 300 yard mark, again no problem at all.
If I was shooting for groups at long range in competition or shooting prairy dogs or something like that, I'd want a higher magnification traditional scope. But for big game out to ranges that are ethical for most of us mortals, the Scout is the way to go.
The other aspect that people always overlook is those close range shots that you blow with a traditional 3X9 scope. A deer leaps up at your feet and bounds into the brush. By the time you find that critter in the scope he's gone. I don't know how many times thats happened to me!
Lat year, a fat little spike horn leaped out of the grass and BANG, a perfect neck shot at less that ten yards. I would never have made that shot with my old variable scope.
I'm sold on the concept because its proved itself to me in actual situations.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
I would have to take issue with your characterization of the Scout as being only applicable at ranges below 125 yards.
My normal rule of thumb is to shoot at living things only when the range is below 300 yards, however, I did shoot a caribou with my scout scope at a paced range of 355 yards. No problem at all. I've shot a half dozen deer at ranges approaching that 300 yard mark, again no problem at all.
If I was shooting for groups at long range in competition or shooting prairy dogs or something like that, I'd want a higher magnification traditional scope. But for big game out to ranges that are ethical for most of us mortals, the Scout is the way to go.
The other aspect that people always overlook is those close range shots that you blow with a traditional 3X9 scope. A deer leaps up at your feet and bounds into the brush. By the time you find that critter in the scope he's gone. I don't know how many times thats happened to me!
Lat year, a fat little spike horn leaped out of the grass and BANG, a perfect neck shot at less that ten yards. I would never have made that shot with my old variable scope.
I'm sold on the concept because its proved itself to me in actual situations.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Rob Pincus
New member
Attack of the Mis-quote !!
I never said thsat the concept was only applicable under 125 yards.
What I said was:
"...I prefer [the scout] to traditional rifles for any scenario under 125 yards. Beyond that speed is not as important and accuracy becomes the real issue."
I prefer the scout for close in stuff, and I prefer a traditional rifle for longer ranges. The main reason for this is that both scout scopes I have are low magnification and have thick reticles.. neither of which are preferable for long range work.
I don't think the scout is useless past 125 yards, but I don't think it is the "best" rifle for long range work. Neither would Col. Cooper, I think. The Scout is designed to be all purpose, specifically I believe, an all-purpose combat weapon. Not much combat takes place between infantrymen at ranges over 125 yards, nor would many people be in a truly defensive situation at that range.
I never said thsat the concept was only applicable under 125 yards.
What I said was:
"...I prefer [the scout] to traditional rifles for any scenario under 125 yards. Beyond that speed is not as important and accuracy becomes the real issue."
I prefer the scout for close in stuff, and I prefer a traditional rifle for longer ranges. The main reason for this is that both scout scopes I have are low magnification and have thick reticles.. neither of which are preferable for long range work.
I don't think the scout is useless past 125 yards, but I don't think it is the "best" rifle for long range work. Neither would Col. Cooper, I think. The Scout is designed to be all purpose, specifically I believe, an all-purpose combat weapon. Not much combat takes place between infantrymen at ranges over 125 yards, nor would many people be in a truly defensive situation at that range.
Keith Rogan
New member
My apologies, I misunderstood your 125 yard reasoning.
I still see no particular advantage to high magnification for big game at medium ranges (300 yards). You don't have to shoot their eye out, merely put a bullet through their chest. If you can't punch a bullet through the middle of an 18 inch target at 300 yards then you have a rifle problem and no scope will help.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I was surpised myself when I went to the range with my new 2.5X Scout scope and found that my groups out to 300 yards (my self-imposed limit) were no different than before. With my old 3x9 I could place every single round within a six inch bull at 300 yards. With the Leupold Scout I can still do the same thing.
At 300 yards I average 4 to 5 inch groups.
I shot one bragging group at 200 yards that measured less than an inch - average at 200 yards is about 2 1/2 inches. 100 yards (average) 1 to 1 1/2 inches.
I can't imagine needing more precision than that in a big game rifle.
If I was popping prairy dogs or competing in a 500 match, you'd see me with some high magnification scope.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
I still see no particular advantage to high magnification for big game at medium ranges (300 yards). You don't have to shoot their eye out, merely put a bullet through their chest. If you can't punch a bullet through the middle of an 18 inch target at 300 yards then you have a rifle problem and no scope will help.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I was surpised myself when I went to the range with my new 2.5X Scout scope and found that my groups out to 300 yards (my self-imposed limit) were no different than before. With my old 3x9 I could place every single round within a six inch bull at 300 yards. With the Leupold Scout I can still do the same thing.
At 300 yards I average 4 to 5 inch groups.
I shot one bragging group at 200 yards that measured less than an inch - average at 200 yards is about 2 1/2 inches. 100 yards (average) 1 to 1 1/2 inches.
I can't imagine needing more precision than that in a big game rifle.
If I was popping prairy dogs or competing in a 500 match, you'd see me with some high magnification scope.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
I love my custom Rem 600 scout.
I took a nice deer with it this year.
It is fun to shoot and easy to tote.
With all that said, the main weakness in my neck of the woods (SC), is that the LER scope gives no extra light transmission like a larger optic.
A good 3x9x50 will give you an honest 20-30 minutes of shooting time because of superior light transmission.
The rule of thumb with the scout is if it too dark to see with iron sights, it is too dark to hit with the scout.
My .02
I took a nice deer with it this year.
It is fun to shoot and easy to tote.
With all that said, the main weakness in my neck of the woods (SC), is that the LER scope gives no extra light transmission like a larger optic.
A good 3x9x50 will give you an honest 20-30 minutes of shooting time because of superior light transmission.
The rule of thumb with the scout is if it too dark to see with iron sights, it is too dark to hit with the scout.
My .02
Rob Pincus
New member
Again, Kieth, this is merely preference. I don't think I would have any problem hitting a deer at 300 yards with either of my scouts, but if I am 300 yards from a deer and I have a Blaser w/ Swarovski 3-10 or the either Scout, I'm going to choose the Traditional scope.
When I go out most days I prefer to take my Glock 23 instead of my 629 Power Port w/ B&L 2-6, but, I'd prefer to use the 629 to shoot a deer at 75 yards.
If one has the luxury of choosing the best weapon for the job, I think one should. I am not fanatical about the scout concept. I appreciate it, and I am a big fan, but I will not be giving up traditional rifles anytime soon.
------------------
-Essayons
When I go out most days I prefer to take my Glock 23 instead of my 629 Power Port w/ B&L 2-6, but, I'd prefer to use the 629 to shoot a deer at 75 yards.
If one has the luxury of choosing the best weapon for the job, I think one should. I am not fanatical about the scout concept. I appreciate it, and I am a big fan, but I will not be giving up traditional rifles anytime soon.
------------------
-Essayons
Keith Rogan
New member
Anthony,
You own a Remington 600? I've been searching for a 600 since last November. I really need, want and desire a 600 (assuming its in original .350 Rem Mag and not rebarreled). I have a number of fine rifles and/or handguns I'll swap you or just buy it outright if you prefer.
Condition is not a consideration as long the bore itself is in good condition.
I live in big bear country and was badly mauled last November. Since then I've been looking for a 600. I think its the perfect compromise in my part of the world. Enough weight to get a brown bears attention and yet its a credible medium range rifle for medium big game.
Check out my web page and you'll see where I'm coming from.
Please consider it. Remington 600's are impossible to find in Alaska, they're snapped up as soon as they hit the market. I'll cut you a very good deal for your 600 - I'm a collector of sorts and surely can trot out a rifle or pistol that will have your mouth watering.
My situation is that my face (although its getting much better) looks like like a Frankenstein movie. I'm missing a considerable portion of my left buttock (no jokes about buying an ass prosthesis please - heard them all), my right arm is missing most of my tricep and weakened. My head is mostly numb because I was scalped and the hair was reattached (without the nerves) My left leg is a mass of scars thats sort of grown back together but weak and stiff.
What I'm trying to say here is that I'm in a point in my life where a big bore but handy carbine thats appropriate for deer and caribou out to 300 yards, but also capable of quick response on close range bears is EXACTLY what I want.
email me and see if I can't tempt you with something from my personal battery!
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
[This message has been edited by Keith Rogan (edited July 04, 1999).]
You own a Remington 600? I've been searching for a 600 since last November. I really need, want and desire a 600 (assuming its in original .350 Rem Mag and not rebarreled). I have a number of fine rifles and/or handguns I'll swap you or just buy it outright if you prefer.
Condition is not a consideration as long the bore itself is in good condition.
I live in big bear country and was badly mauled last November. Since then I've been looking for a 600. I think its the perfect compromise in my part of the world. Enough weight to get a brown bears attention and yet its a credible medium range rifle for medium big game.
Check out my web page and you'll see where I'm coming from.
Please consider it. Remington 600's are impossible to find in Alaska, they're snapped up as soon as they hit the market. I'll cut you a very good deal for your 600 - I'm a collector of sorts and surely can trot out a rifle or pistol that will have your mouth watering.
My situation is that my face (although its getting much better) looks like like a Frankenstein movie. I'm missing a considerable portion of my left buttock (no jokes about buying an ass prosthesis please - heard them all), my right arm is missing most of my tricep and weakened. My head is mostly numb because I was scalped and the hair was reattached (without the nerves) My left leg is a mass of scars thats sort of grown back together but weak and stiff.
What I'm trying to say here is that I'm in a point in my life where a big bore but handy carbine thats appropriate for deer and caribou out to 300 yards, but also capable of quick response on close range bears is EXACTLY what I want.
email me and see if I can't tempt you with something from my personal battery!
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
[This message has been edited by Keith Rogan (edited July 04, 1999).]
Joe the Redneck
New member
You make a good point, Rob. Here in redneck country ranges are very short. Finding the game isn't usually a problem. I sometimes forget there is a world beyond the Florida boarder where 75yds isn't a long shot ;-)
I also never used the "two eye" method due to a medical condition I have. I don't have stero-scopic vision, my eyes work independly (sp) of each other. If I don't close one eye when I shoot I can't hit anything.
After reviewing you post and my collection of Cooper's writings I see the point to the foward mount. For normal people it seems to make sense. I just never had it "work for me." I keep forgetting about the rest of the world
I also never used the "two eye" method due to a medical condition I have. I don't have stero-scopic vision, my eyes work independly (sp) of each other. If I don't close one eye when I shoot I can't hit anything.
After reviewing you post and my collection of Cooper's writings I see the point to the foward mount. For normal people it seems to make sense. I just never had it "work for me." I keep forgetting about the rest of the world