Fast Fire II:
One ounce, it's not a scope- it's a red dot.
http://www.burrisoptics.com/sights/fastfire-series/fastfire-2
One ounce, it's not a scope- it's a red dot.
http://www.burrisoptics.com/sights/fastfire-series/fastfire-2
If you throw a scout scope on any old rifle out there, it DOESN'T make it a "scout rifle".
I find that interesting. My current experience with a forward scope set-up is an SKS-M with a red dot on one of the front handguard rail mounts(an all around bad system to begin with and not a true scout). I've tried it on a 10/22 for a few range trips and handled a couple more, but as far as any thing close to field use, the SKS-M. My take away was, if you were going with the set-up, you probably needed to take a "man with one gun probably knows how to use it" approach. And a high dollar scope is probably more important than in a traditional set-up. Just seemed like I was going to need to put more time into it to get much out of it. I guess the more expensive scope part was the most relevant for this thread. Most pistol scopes are designed with much closer than 300 yards in mind. The scope I used wasn't sharp enough at half that range.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.
dgludwig wrote:
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...
I think what keeps the concept alive these days is the picatinny rail, and the variety of compact optics, both scout scopes and dots, that combined allow forward mounting. That, and Rugers clever (but to me, unnecessary) tacticalization of the Scout, which makes the rifle to folks who love all things tactical. So we actually see more scout rifles, in stores, at the range, maybe afield, than we did when the concept was first commercially launched, 15 yrs or so ago.
dgludwig answered:
.....
so, to answer your question, said opinion is based on looking at and handling them; not shooting them.
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.