Why a scout rifle(carbine)?

[Gunplummer]

I never read anything by Jeff Cooper, and now I probably will not. I see a lot of people pegged holes through the scout rifle nonsense on this thread. It is not proven faster. Period. I don't know what kind competition shooting was talked about here, but I doubt the target being acquired was moving as a deer would be. If I never did snap shots on moving deer (With a rear mounted scope), I would never get a deer. If you can not pick up something moving with a rear mounted scope, putting the scope halfway down the gun will not help you. Yes, I have trouble with scope mounted lever guns. Other posters already explained that the gun has to be comfortable and the stock must fit. Most lever guns were designed to use iron sights. Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the Germans in WWII mount a short scope on the rear sight base of bolt actions so they would have a cheap, fast way to mount optics? I have seen some over the years. The next step was companies making cheap, crappy no drill-no tap bases for military guns. I don't see anything new here except a good line of BS to sell products.

 

[AK103K]

It is not proven faster. Period.

What part are you talking about?

The scouts Ive had, were faster at quickly acquiring targets and putting rounds on them than any rifle I have, or have had, with a traditionally mounted scope, and that includes the 1-1.5x's.

If you can not pick up something moving with a rear mounted scope, putting the scope halfway down the gun will not help you.

Give it a try, you'd be amazed. Its more like shooting with irons or a red dot than it is a scope.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the Germans in WWII mount a short scope on the rear sight base of bolt actions so they would have a cheap, fast way to mount optics?

They did, but from what Ive read, it wasnt real popular with the troops. Then again, it, like a lot of the stuff you sold today, wasnt very well thought out either.

The scope needs to be of a proper size and power, in the proper place, and not just cobbled onto the gun.

 

[jimbob86]

I never read anything by Jeff Cooper, and now I probably will not. I see a lot of people pegged holes through the scout rifle nonsense on this thread.

So a few keyboard commandos with unsubstantiated opinions would dissuade you from reading one of the most prolific gun writers of the late 20th Century? Really? So folks don't know, and some of them don't even want to know ...... SMH.

It is not proven faster. Period. I don't know what kind competition shooting was talked about here, but I doubt the target being acquired was moving as a deer would be.

You should do a bit of reading .... "moving as a deer would be"? Ha! They shot flying clays with scoped rifles for fun ......

 

[Unlicensed Dremel]

So a few keyboard commandos with unsubstantiated opinions would dissuade you from reading one of the most prolific gun writers of the late 20th Century? Really? So folks don't know, and some of them don't even want to know ...... SMH

Exactly. Agreed.

 

[jimbob86]

Even if you are happily married to your preconcieved notions of what it is you like or don't like about a particular thing ...... refusing to even look at other pespectives shows a lack of intellectual curiosity......

Jeff Cooper wrote about so much more than rifles, or pistols, or politics (his commentary on the politics of the 1990's is still entertaining to me) ...... good stuff, and it is all there, much of it for free ..... and some folks will never know.....

 

[agtman]

* * * If you can not pick up something moving with a rear mounted scope, putting the scope halfway down the gun will not help you. * * *

Initially that's what I thought, .... until I tried it for more than a couple of zero-ing shots on my Mini-G scout.

Once zeroed - for, say, 100yds - the set-up actually does work, is quick to put the reticle on target (or critter), and allows for accurate hits absent shooter-induced error (e.g., jerking the trigger on a rushed shot from a field position).

Once you get past the unusual placement of the LER scope, it functions like any other magnified optic, although I prefer a lower-power 2.75x over a 4x, due to the wider field of view. It's also an optic set-up that's meant to be shot with both eyes open.

Scout Rifles, it should be clear, were never meant to be "bench" rifles beyond the time initially spent getting the irons and the forward-mounted LER scope zeroed for a given distance. Once zeroed, a SR is intended to be shot from quickly-assumed field positions, e.g., kneeling, squatting, sitting, etc., all with the use of a proper CW or 3-pt sling, ... and possibly prone as well, unless the height of the grass or brush of the landscape would obstruct your view of the target/critter.

Cooper once mentioned having to take unsupported standing shots on-the-fly, which is why a SR has to "make weight" so as to be maneuverable and quick-to-shoulder.

Also, being a (supposedly) light-weight, handy weapon, a SR can easily be shot off of what are called "improvised rests" in the field or woods, e.g., sticks or branches to steady your aim on longer shots. Try doing that with a traditional 14lb "sniper rifle." In fact, in certain precision rifle classes I've taken, these "stick" devices often take the form of light-weight, packable monopods, bipods, or my favorite, a tripod with quickly extendable legs. But no one uses these devices for shooting heavy, big-scoped rifles "off a bench."

 

[Gunplummer]

Way too much reading and not enough doing going on these days. I would guess I am at the top of the scale in age on this forum. What goes around, comes back around. Nothing new here. I did try it years ago with a bolt action carbine because I did not want to D&T holes in a receiver. What a cumbersome device it turned out to be. It continually got caught on brush, had little balance (As someone else already mentioned), and was not fast to bring on target at all. I still use carbine length guns to hunt (16"-18" barrels) and mount the shortest scope on them I can find. "...having to take standing shots on the fly". Really? Let me rephrase that. Really? Is that not the purpose of a so called "Scout rifle"? Sticks and limbs for a rest when trying to bump deer out of beds?

 

[natman]

I never read anything by Jeff Cooper, and now I probably will not. I see a lot of people pegged holes through the scout rifle nonsense on this thread. It is not proven faster. Period. I don't know what kind competition shooting was talked about here, but I doubt the target being acquired was moving as a deer would be. If I never did snap shots on moving deer (With a rear mounted scope), I would never get a deer. If you can not pick up something moving with a rear mounted scope, putting the scope halfway down the gun will not help you. .... I don't see anything new here except a good line of BS to sell products.

So let me get this straight. You've never read Cooper, you don't know how Cooper decided a scout scope was fast - in short you know nothing whatsoever about the subject at hand, but you've come to the conclusion that it must be wrong because it's different than what you do now.

 

[agtman]

* * * "...having to take standing shots on the fly". Really? Let me rephrase that. Really? Is that not the purpose of a so called "Scout rifle"?

Actually, it is. Quick to maneuver, quick to shoulder for whatever shot might be necessary, out to the maximum effective range of the operator's marksmanship. But never having read Cooper, you wouldn't get that ...

Sticks and limbs for a rest when trying to bump deer out of beds?

Who said hunting with a SR was limited to deer? You might use those types of improvised field rests - or none at all, depending - while stalking hogs, or for shots on 'yotes.

Dude-ski, you don't know what you don't know, and your age, ignorance, and inexperience is showing.

 

[AK103K]

Way too much reading and not enough doing going on these days.

Cant argue with that, and its across the board. Im constantly told I cant possibly do half the stuff I do, and usually by those, who have all the latest internet scoop, and obviously havent really tried to do the things they say you cant.

People really do need to get out and prove things right or wrong before they start going off about stuff.

I would guess I am at the top of the scale in age on this forum.

Im a few months shy of 61. Am I close?

It continually got caught on brush, had little balance (As someone else already mentioned), and was not fast to bring on target at all.

We must not be talking about the same thing here. What were you using again?

"...having to take standing shots on the fly". Really? Let me rephrase that. Really? Is that not the purpose of a so called "Scout rifle"? Sticks and limbs for a rest when trying to bump deer out of beds?

Last I was hunting, you get the shot you get. Sometimes youre standing still, and taking your time, sometimes all you get, is a snap shot on a fleeting target.

I did get a rabbit out in the yard a couple of years back, running full bore left to right in front of me, with, of all things, an AK with a low and forward mounted red dot on it. I didnt even think about the shot, cleared the car port, let the charging handle go, and just shouldered the rifle and shot. Probably never do it again, but I did it that time.

Actually, I do the 2 second snap shot thing with the AK's and AR's on a regular basis too, so maybe that practice paid off, and it wasnt really a fluke.

You know, out here in central PA, most hunt from comfy, heated, little shacks with a nice rest. So its more like deer shooting, than it is actually deer hunting.

I had my Savage Scout on consignment for over a year, without a peep of interest. To controversial for the average deer hunter I guess. Besides, it wasnt a 7mm mag, or .300 Win Mag, like what seems to needed for the few puny little deer they got running around here. Ended up trading it on something else I just had to have.

 

[Gunplummer]

Let me straighten you out. I had what is described as a* "Scout rifle" on this thread. I had a T/D carbine and I thought it would not repeat zero if the scope was mounted on the receiver. I put it together long before the tag "Scout rifle" came along. At one point in the military, I actually was an Armor Scout. It has no advantage for either hunting or military use. There are examples of forward mounted scopes on military rifles since the invention of the scope. Most, if not all, were done that way because there was no other place to mount it. Many were done that way as an after thought. I have to wonder why the cantilever base came about instead of mounting the scope halfway up the barrel. I use a 12 gauge single shot for a slug gun and the scope is on the tube, but only because there is nowhere else to put it. Ever heard the expression "Re-invent the wheel"?

*6.5 Arisaka 18" barrel carbine I put together. I hunt the eastern coal regions and WV. We heard about you girl scouts over in the middle of the state. It is straight up and down here with laurel 6 feet high and rhodadendron 12 feet high.

 

[Gunplummer]

I may have read some of Jeff Cooper's writing. Was he not some kind of handgun writer?

 

[AK103K]

It has no advantage for either hunting or military use.

Well, as seen here, thats obviously debatable.

I have to wonder why the cantilever base came about instead of mounting the scope halfway up the barrel. I use a 12 gauge single shot for a slug gun and the scope is on the tube, but only because there is nowhere else to put it.

I have to assume youre referring to the Remington type cantilever shotgun mounts. Never saw one for the rifles. Even then, you have to much stuff getting R&R'd to probably be consistent.

Ever heard the expression "Re-invent the wheel"?

A lot of things are rediscovered, and often improved, and this is one of those cases. Technology has advanced, and better mounts and optics, as well as better guns, are now available. Things that didnt work well before, now do.

*6.5 Arisaka 18" barrel carbine I put together.

So it was set up properly then, right? Or you just kind of cobbled it together?

The scope needs to be in the right place, both horizontally and vertically for things to shoulder and shoot "naturally". Those scope mounts that replace the rear sight on the military type rifles, dont really work right for the task.

The low power, scout specific eye relief scopes are the best choice, although the low power pistol scopes can work. Anything over 2.5/2.75x isnt what you want.

Its also better if the stock is more along the lines of a short LOP/lower comb, iron sighted type stock, as opposed to the stocks you see these days. The rifle should shoulder and shoot like an iron sighted gun, if you want it to work. If the stock is to long, and/or the comb to high, its not going to shoulder right.

It is straight up and down here with laurel 6 feet high and rhodadendron 12 feet high.

We get pretty much everything here, thickets to 1000 yard plus shooting, if youre capable.

I used to hunt a lot down in SE PA. Most of that was done with irons though when it was still rifle, and "shotgun only" makes is even a shorter proposition, although the shooting is usually pretty close there regardless anyway.

I used to hunt a good bit in VA, on the W. VA side, and while I didnt have a Scout then, it would have been well suited for where we used to hunt.

Then again, Im familiar with the set up, and Im comfortable with how it works, so I do have a different outlook on things, than you seem to have. It sounds like your mind is well made up, and theres no possible way, it could ever work. Hey, whatever, your loss, not mine.

I may have read some of Jeff Cooper's writing. Was he not some kind of handgun writer?

Check him out. He wrote about all sorts of stuff. Although these days, his writings may well be considered dated. Still, always something to learn and/or rediscover.

 

[Gunplummer]

My mind is made up because of experience. I love that expression "Cobbled together". It is usually used by people that have never done anything remotely involving hand skills or mechanical aptitude. I machined the base for the scope. I made up the barrel. The stock from the receiver back was factory. Have you no idea what an Arisaka stock looks like? It was everything a so called "Scout rifle" claims to be. Get used to it? I have seen left handed people shoot RH guns left handed (Reach over the top to grab the bolt) and they were darn fast once they were "used to it". The whole argument here is that you have an advantage with a scout style rifle, not that you have to get used to it. I can be stubborn, but I was smart enough to remove the scope and put the iron sight back on to sell mine. I would think that being unable to unload the "only one gun" rifle should tell you something. It would be interesting to see if in 50 years collectors will be looking for the then rare "Scout rifle" with no scope base holes D&T in the receiver.
I have no idea what R&R'd means. The whole concept of a cantilever base is to keep the scope on the barrel but try to bring it back over the receiver. Like all T/D guns, if the sighting system is on the barrel, it will retain zero.

 

[AK103K]

My mind is made up because of experience.

As is mine. It appears mine is a little broader and deeper, in respect to the Scouts.

I love that expression "Cobbled together". It is usually used by people that have never done anything remotely involving hand skills or mechanical aptitude.

I have no idea as to your skills, so it still fits, until proven otherwise. Lots of stuff out there that people have bubba'd, and are very proud of, that fit the bill, just look around here at some of the pics posted.

Have you no idea what an Arisaka stock looks like?

Yup, I do. Never saw a take down Arisaka though. How about some pics?

The whole argument here is that you have an advantage with a scout style rifle, not that you have to get used to it.

Anytime you try something new, you need some time with it, "to get used to it". Doesnt matter what it is. At least its always worked that way for me. I adapted to the Scout concept pretty quickly, as it was like using the iron sighted rifles I preferred, and the scope was just an extension of that. Im not locked into Coopers rules on this, and prefer to use the Bruce Lee philosophy towards things, and take and use whats useful to me. While a properly installed forward mounted scope works well for me, I much prefer a red dot in the same spot for most working/reactive type long guns.

I see the advantage to them, you obviously, do not. And thats fine.

I have no idea what R&R'd means.

Being a "Gunplummer" or just someone with average gun experience with todays accessories, I would have thought you would know this. R&R's means "removed and replaced", and in this case, with no loss of zero.

I would think that being unable to unload the "only one gun" rifle should tell you something.

Not really, especially here. Ive tried to sell other things, mostly military, and they sat as well. A lot often depends on location. Gun Broker has changed that too. Its a lot easier to sell to people who are looking for what you have, and have the money as well.

Up until Obama got in, much, if not most of what you saw in the racks around here, were just pretty generic Walmart/K Mart type stuff, and a lot of it in not the greatest shape. Lots of cheap, lower grade handguns as well. Why buy a SIG, when you can buy a Hi Point or Jimenez? Same goes for the rifles and shotguns. That kind of mentality. Some of that has changed since Obama, and the scares in between, but for the most part, its still the same.

As with anything, the people who are really into it, are the ones who have the more exotic stuff, and understand why the good stuff, costs more. They are also the ones you usually run into at the range, who shoot a lot. Most of the others, you only see around for a couple of minutes, in the next month or so, with the same box of ammo they had last year.

The whole concept of a cantilever base is to keep the scope on the barrel but try to bring it back over the receiver. Like all T/D guns, if the sighting system is on the barrel, it will retain zero.

I understand the cantilevered concept, just never saw it on a rifle, other than the cantilevered red dot mounts, that were mounted to the receiver, so you can get some more forward relief.

Like the better R&R mounts, I suppose the quality of the gun also has a lot to do with the repetitive return to zero.

 

[Art Eatman]

Cooper is a major reason for the existence of IPSC and sequentially, IDPA.

To repeat, his writings are cached at http://www.dvc.org.uk/jeff/ He wrote about his observations on many subjects of interest to almost all of us; not just guns. IMO, one of the more interesting writers in my over 70 years of reading.

Again, to repeat, the forward mount of the scope allows faster acquisition of the target, as was repeatedly proved in competition at Gunsite. Why argue with the results of numerous competitions over several years of comparing?

(I tried a Savage Scout, around fifteen years ago. Not my cup of tea, really. But I'd already had some fifty years of using conventionally mounted scopes. While I probably could have learned a new trick, I was content with what I already could do. )

 

[reynolds357]

I have personally never cared for the scout rifle scope configuration for medium game hunting. It is OK on elephant rifles. It gives you peace of mind to know you will not get hit in the eye with the scope. Getting popped by a scope happens to the best of us at times.

 

[Arizona Fusilier]

What if we didn't say "scout rifle" and instead said "truck gun"?

Despite all the rifles you might have....the one gun that you are likely to have that can cover the most bases?

Or will people now argue passionately against truck guns?

 

[The Big D]

Of all the rifles I have ever shot (and that's getting to be a fair number), my new model Ruger scout is:

• The fastest from any carry position to a slung shooting position (due to the sling design)
• The fastest from hitting the shoulder to sights on target (due to the forward telescope). You could argue red dots are similarly fast, but they're no faster.
• The 2nd lightest current production in a general purpose caliber (the lightest Kimber 84Ms are lighter, and it would be fabulous if they made a scout config)
• More than accurate enough for field position use

Simply put, it will get a bullet on target at range faster than any other known rifle design, and that's both my experience and the result of numerous tests and competitions. That is a remarkable resume, and I for one don't see much competition on the horizon.

 

[44 AMP]

Over the years I probably read nearly everything that Cooper put in Guns& Ammo magazine, as well as other places, and several of his stand alone works, as well.

I always found his writing to be entertaining, of a style uncommon these days (the use of the royal or editorial "we" I found quaint and amusing), and was a very educated man with a broad range of personal experience.

He was both "a man ahead of his time" in some aspects, and "a man stuck in his time", in others.

While I never believed everything he espoused was "right" I've found very little where he was far "wrong"

He was not very tolerant of things he disagreed with, and did not conceal that fact. It was very clear to me, in his later years, how he was not happy with what he saw as the general lowering of standards in the "age of the common man", and he often referred to the latter decades of the 20th century as "the age of the Wimp".

As far as I know, he never advocated anything he did not personally believe in, and had used, or observed firsthand.

yes, his stuff is somewhat dated, can't be helped when your writings span half a century or more, and always happens after the writer dies...

When you look at this opinions about weapons, designs, and especially calibers and ammunition, ALWAYS take in to account that he was talking about things as they existed at the time.

As one example, for most of his life, reliable expanding bullets for semi auto calibers simply did not exist. Probably one of the main reasons he was never a fan of the 9mm Luger round.

The Scout rifle overall was not an original concept. Short, light versions of standard rifles have existed for a long time. Coopers specific refinements of the concept, (using the materials available), was the first time someone put those desired features all together in one package.

Where Cooper's Scout ran off the rails was his ideas on its potential value as a military weapon in the modern world. Would have been an awesome rifle for a scout in the era of biplanes. Still would have been a very effective and useful piece during World War II.

Modern militaries have left the concept, and the tactics it is best suited for, behind. So what we are left with today is the Scout as a sporting and utility rifle for civilians. Many of the Scout features are very useful on a sporting rifle, but not all are necessary for successful civilian use.