Scout Type Tactical Scopes

D

dgludwig

New member
Am I the only one who thinks a scope mounted well ahead of the receiver "Scout-style" just plain looks "wrong"? Worse, that it doesn't handle "right"? I don't deny that a scope mounted in this configuration offers greater eye relief and, in some cases, allows for a faster target acquisition; all advantages for sure in an objective sense. But, subjectively (thus, less important in a comparative sense), my old school eyes and time-worn handling expectations makes a Cooper tactically inspired "Scout-scoped" rifle look and feel wrong.

I may be alone with this opinion but I will add that most Scout-scoped rifles don't fit most of my rifle cases...:p
 
It looks weird, but it is faster and provides two-eyes-open magnification.

I think within 200y or so it's a superior system. Once you're shooting prone and farther out, a conventional scope is probably superior. I own and like a scout, but I wouldn't want it to be my only rifle.
 
I think within 200y or so it's a superior system. Once you're shooting prone and farther out, a conventional scope is probably superior. I own and like a scout, but I wouldn't want it to be my only rifle.
Click to expand...

Agree.

While a "Scout rifle" shouldn't be the only rifle in your long-gun battery, if you take the time to become proficient with it, a Scout stick can pretty much do what Cooper said it would do, out to about, say, 300yds.

My 7.62 Mini-G Scout is set up as my deer/hog slayer inside 200yds, as well as for occasional shots on coyotes inside 300yds. For those uses, it works perfectly, and its practical field accuracy is better than "minute-of-fur." :D

 
Last edited:
If you're using a scope correctly a low powered scope mounted conventionally is just as easy to use with both eyes open, just as fast, much better in low light and far more accurate at any range. And it doesn't mess up the balance. The Army is no longer even using iron sights, they tested all options and concluded the same before going to conventional mounting of low powered glass.

The only real advantage is if conventional mounting is impossible or if you want optics and the ability to load with stripper clips.
 
For the kind of hunting I do, where 75 yards is a long shot, it's the only way to go. I've got two rifles set up that way and may get another.
 
If you're using a scope correctly a low powered scope mounted conventionally is just as easy to use with both eyes open, just as fast
Click to expand...
I think Cooper proved fairly convincingly that's not true with the shoot'n'scoot competitions.
 
I think Cooper proved fairly convincingly that's not true with the shoot'n'scoot competitions.
Click to expand...

Which is why lower powered conventionally placed compact optics and red dots are winning the 3 gun matches... /sarc

But snarkiness aside (my point is that a scout rifle being faster than a traditional hunting rifle is like being the tallest midget at the county fair), the scout type setup was used by the German army in WWII, both as a scout rifle and a makeshift sniper rifle. It did not last, and that was the last time any major military power used an extended eye relief scope on bolt action rifle.

So if you have a rifle that requires an optic be somewhere else than right over the action for rapid loading or ejection (stripper clips for milsurp bolt rifles, Win94, Garand) then a scout scope setup is going to be better than irons for you. If you don't have to rapidly reload (cause you aren't fighting off enemy Soldiers) then a traditional scope is going to be better for you (more accurate, better target acquisition and distinction).

As far as "looking wrong" goes, you have to remember it is only the optimal solution to a certain subset of rifles and carbines and COL Cooper wasn't looking to make the optimal rifle for all situations, but a rifle that was good enough for most situations where you didn't need to achieve fire superiority but needed a relatively light, hard hitting cartridge for man or beast. And within that subset of firearms for that purpose it is a useful setup, and I find that looks are less important than performance.

Jimro
 
* * * COL Cooper wasn't looking to make the optimal rifle for all situations, but a rifle that was good enough for most situations where you didn't need to achieve fire superiority but needed a relatively light, hard hitting cartridge for man or beast.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's true.

Cooper never envisioned that his Scout rifle would replace a battle rifle or other mainstay weapon for engaging in sustained firefights; it was intended to be carried a great deal and shot only infrequently, at ranges under 400yds and more likely well inside 300yds.

Hence, for that purpose a properly set-up Scout, whether in bolt or autoloader form, can make a great short-range hunter.
 
Last edited:
After trying the Scout mounting arrangement at the distances it's intended, a ghost ring seemed to do the same thing, with less complication and bulk.
Just saying.
 
5thShock said: Yeah, but agtman's rifle has a certain bad to the boneness about it, it just looks like something made to hurt.
Click to expand...

Ninja medieval ... :eek:

Hunt? hurt? ... who cares? :D:D:D

"Got clips?"
 
Last edited:
I own two rifles equipped with scout scopes (Leupold).
Both are lever action Marlins, one in .357 and a .444. I have owned both of them for a decade.

In my opinion, and my opinion only: what I envision the scout scope to do, what my take on Cooper's basis for the scout rifle is.....could now be replaced with a red dot optic. I have not put one on my rifles, but I think that would be the way to go.
 
The issue with red dot optics is the lack of magnification. When trying to hit targets past 200y, that extra 2-3x magnification is awfully nice. The scout scope is sort of a cross between a red dot and an ACOG - trying to get the speed of a forward mounted scope with the range advantage of a low power scope. It more or less succeeds.
 
http://www.primaryarms.com/red-dot-magnifiers/c/130300/
Not sure those imbue any benefits over a scope.

Now that one can buy a red-dot that will function so long without running down the batteries, it is hard to argue they aren't technically a better option. I think I read the IDF Tavor can run something like three years left on with one a set of batteries. I'd be more worried about the batteries corroding/leaking than running low.

I still might build one at some point in the future for hunting. Heck, some of you old codgers still carry revolvers! :)
 
I think it may be a bit "outdated" with the level of current technology/products, and I think it can be improved upon. Sort of what 444 suggested above- but let's use a higher power optic as well.

I get the redundancy of the iron sights, this can be accomplished with a red-dot or holosight on a 45-degree rail off the main mount. Yes, it's electronic- but odds of both the main optic, and the red dot failing are off-the-chart small if quality optics are used. This way, you can use traditional higher power scope on the receiver- and have the fast acquisition of a red dot simultaneously if needed.

I'm working on a custom Mosin-Nagant along these lines currently.

With Cooper's design, you'd need to remove the scope, to use the irons.
 
A scope and a red dot? Sounds heavy.
Click to expand...

Probably is - especially if you run them together on a .308 Scout rig, which no one does, :rolleyes: ... and of course, technically, there's added weight when you factor-in the mounts.

Typically, you'd run one or the other on a Scout.

Overall answer: for you dude-skis who think an optic-mounted Scout rifle is "heavy," - please, you need to man-up and hit the gym. :rolleyes:
 
I have this type of dual setup (high power optic+ red dot) on an AR-10...
The Burris FF II weighs in at a very hefty one ounce.

You gotta be kidding me...
 
http://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/fullfield-ii-riflescopes-series/fullfield-ii-riflescope-2-7x35mm
That one? They list it as 12 oz in their spec. Add a few ounces for rings.
The tactical shows 17-25 oz.
1 oz is really light. If you have a scope that weighs one ounce I would really like to know the model. I think most lenses probably weigh more.

If you think adding one pound to a rifle is irrelevant... Well, I can only assume you spend most of your time shooting off a bench.

Of course one of my other hobbies has people paying hundreds of dollars for titanium equipment to shave an ounce here or there, so maybe I just have an odd perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top