Why a scout rifle(carbine)?

[The Big D]

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.

The first issue here is the drop in practical marksmanship training. When you have an army of people most of whom can't really shoot from field positions and only have to shoot from prone and foxhole to qualify, you have to plan on them shooting A LOT and hoping they hit something.

In the roles in which he envisioned it, namely a would-be civilian with considerable marksmanship skill using his rifle as a defense against foreign invasion or tyranny, the scout is as perfectly functional today as it was the day he proposed it.

 

[The Big D]

For those wondering just how BAD military marksmanship is (and how ineffective the .223 is), I'll drop this little GAO report...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html

The small arms fire from our troops is so horrible that we might as well issue water guns, frankly. If the scout rifle has no useful role in that sort of military use, that's a mark in the scout's favor.

 

[Gunplummer]

The only thing I remember reading by Cooper was a magazine article claiming that semi- auto pistols were worthless compared to revolvers. That was probably 40+ years ago, but it sticks in my mind. What an idiot. That is probably why I quit reading magazine articles a long time ago.
Look up Arisaka Type II paratroop rifles. Very close to what I built, except the Type II is 7.7 caliber.
The main reason for so much ammo being burned up by the military is because someone is shooting back. It really has quite an affect on most people's shooting skills.

 

[The Big D]

You're thinking of someone else. Jeff Cooper invented (or at least was the first person to describe in print) the modern method of pistol shooting, one of the key principles of which was a large caliber auto pistol.

 

[1stmar]

That doesn't sound like copper. He was firmly a 1911 guy.

 

[agtman]

In the roles in which he envisioned it, namely a would-be civilian with considerable marksmanship skill using his rifle as a defense against foreign invasion or tyranny, the scout is as perfectly functional today as it was the day he proposed it.

I agree that, per some of Cooper's statements, your summary seems to match how he envisioned the role of a SR in the hands of the well-trained (or well-practiced) civilian, caught up in a "survival" situation or other desperate circumstance that requires more than a handgun to get out of (pick your scenario).

My question, though, is: would a SR on an autoloading platform be more effective today in a survival situation (again, pick your scenario), than the bolt-action platform that Cooper pursued?

 

[emcon5]

The only thing I remember reading by Cooper was a magazine article claiming that semi- auto pistols were worthless compared to revolvers.

No way that was Cooper, as mentioned he was a big proponent of the 1911. Elmer Keith maybe?

 

[The Big D]

My question, though, is: would a SR on an autoloading platform be more effective today in a survival situation (again, pick your scenario), than the bolt-action platform that Cooper pursued?

Probably not. Even if you could shave enough weight off an autoloader to fill the same role (which most auto "scouts" like the M1A Scout get no where close to), it's still much harder to hit with an auto. There's inherent loss of accuracy due to the gas port, and effective loss of accuracy due to the worse triggers and more difficult follow-through.

That's not to say that we couldn't eventually get to the point where an autoloader is the answer. There's been some interesting work with both accurate AR10 pattern guns and light AR10s, but as far as I know no such thing as an accurate light AR10 (or any other .308 auto).

 

[44 AMP]

it's still much harder to hit with an auto. There's inherent loss of accuracy due to the gas port, and effective loss of accuracy due to the worse triggers and more difficult follow-through.

I FIRMLY disagree with the principles of this statement.

While there are rifles that are less accurate, and have poor triggers, (follow through?? what the heck is that, but a SHOOTER function??), it is NOT because they are semi auto, it is because they are the designs that they are.

There are semis without gas ports. There are semis with excellent triggers, etc. If there is something lacking with a particular semi, its because of the way it was designed and built, OTHER than being a semi auto.

I don't know if a barrel with a (properly done) gas port is inherently less accurate, perhaps someone has some testing data they can share? I will say I have never heard of the gas port ALONE being the cause of an inaccurate rifle.

The reason (IMO) Cooper didn't consider the semi auto was, at the time (and possibly still today) there was no semi auto that would make both his power requirement, AND his weight requirement. Cooper wanted the Scout to be as close to 1 meter long and 3kgs weight as possible. No semi could come close enough to that and still be in the .308Win power class.

Also, consider, what practical advantage over a manual repeater does a semi auto have in a field situation, outside of infantry combat???

Remember, we are NOT talking about laying down a base of fire, or anything even remotely like that. Single aimed shots, when absolutely needed was the ideal, with repeat capability being very nice to have, but rapid firepower was not the design priority.

Cooper was quite content to sacrifice the speed and capacity of a semi to save the weight and bulk that using a (existing design) semi would require.

And then there is the whole "reliability" issue with semis, something a bolt gun does not have.

As something to be carried a lot and shot a little, the Scout is a great concept. It is a very good rifle for some things, and an adequate rifle for a larger number of things, it is not optimal for many other things, including being what you choose to take to a firefight.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't think there is currently a semi-auto production rifle system that comes close to meeting the scout weight with a full power round. I have been looking around and I have not found one. The lightest AR-10s seem to run around 8 pounds unloaded and unmounted.

I tried work one out and the only options seemed to be some of the oddball AR cartridges that are, at best, intermediate.

There may be an action that could be produced in titanium along with many of the small parts to meet the requirements. Has anyone ever made a titanium/scandium rifle?

I don't think the reasons listed above are the reasons semi-autos are inherently less accurate dollar for dollar. Semi-auto weapons have many more moving parts and less force with which to cycle the action reliably. The more parts working together the more precise the manufacturing process needs to be OR the more clearance(extra space between parts) must be worked into the design. The AK design includes an immense amount of clearance compared to many other designs. That allows the firearm to function even if tight tolerances are not followed during manufacturing or if foreign debris enters the system in the field. Every part added increases cost and it isn't linear.
You can design a semi-auto firearm with little clearance and hold tight tolerances. If any mistakes are made in manufacturing it won't work. That increases cost significantly. Foreign debris enters the action it will not cycle automatically. The extra strength of manual operation, which may easily be 5-10 times that of the rifles normal action or more, may solve the problem or it may not.
A bolt action, with less moving parts and the full strength of the shooter available to cycle the action with every shot without being flagged as a malfunction, can produce accurate fire at a much lower cost.

Understanding how this works in a rifle is not as easy for me as understanding how it works in a system of planetary gears.

 

[The Big D]

I FIRMLY disagree with the principles of this statement.

Are you actually trying to argue that autos are as accurate as bolt guns? Because there are $400 bolt guns that are more accurate than literally every auto ever made, and the accuracy gap only widens when shot from field positions.

 

[AK103K]

Are you actually trying to argue that autos are as accurate as bolt guns? Because there are $400 bolt guns that are more accurate than literally every auto ever made, and the accuracy gap only widens when shot from field positions.

I have to disagree with this.

I have had a number of autos that will/would shoot every bit as good as my most accurate bolt guns.

One of these was shot with a bolt, one with an auto, and both, from prone, off a bipod at 100 yards. Both are 5 round groups, and the dots are the same size.....

 

[1stmar]

I just picked up a stag 6h, no load development and a crappy trigger, 5 different bullets all shot .4-.7". Including federal ar223 ammo which was .52". 5 shot groups. It will shoot with my best bolt guns with a little load development.

 

[44 AMP]

Are you actually trying to argue that autos are as accurate as bolt guns?

No, I'm saying that if a semi auto is not as accurate, its because of what ever peculiarities in the design cause it, not because it is a semi auto.

are more accurate than literally every auto ever made

This covers a wide range of guns from minute of mud hut AKs to sub MOA ARs and everything else.

Your broad blanket statements are so full of holes even the moths have left because there isn't enough left for them to eat...

Many bolt guns are more accurate than many semi autos. Some semis are more accurate than some bolt guns. I can come up with numerous examples, both ways.

 

[The Big D]

Suffice to say every exception claim about gas gun accuracy I've ever seen could not be backed up on the range. The BEST gas guns are about 0.8MOA guns reliably. Those tend to be >$3K guns. Most high end commercial gas guns are about 2MOA guns. The Army acceptance spec for the M4 is 5MOA although they'd like to do a little better obviously.

My little scout rifle that costs less than any of those is more accurate. And from field positions (and no, bipod prone is not a field position) it's FAR more accurate.

 

[AK103K]

The BEST gas guns are about 0.8MOA guns reliably. Those tend to be <$3K guns. Most high end commercial gas guns are about 2MOA guns.

Exactly what rifles are you referring to, specifically?

With me shooting, my Armalite M15A4(T) shoots 0.5" 5 round groups regularly, and sometimes on a better day, less. Thats using my reloads with ammo it likes, and again, off a bipod, or ruck.

I used to get pretty much the same results with my 700V in .308.

My Savage Scout wasnt to far off from that either.

The Army acceptance spec for the M4 is 5MOA although they'd like to do a little better obviously.

Do you have a source for this?

Most issues with accuracy, especially with guns of known accuracy, fall to ammo. USGI issue ammo is usually in the 2-3moa range. Even if the rifle could shoot less, its likely not going to.

Ive shot bug hole groups with my Armalite using my reloads, and the very next mag, using USGI LC 5.56, could not get better than 1 1/2"-2". Next mag reloads, back to .5" groups. Ive had the same experiences with my bolt guns.

My little scout rifle that costs less than any of those is more accurate. And from field positions (and no, bipod prone is not a field position) it's FAR more accurate.

And youre NOT shooting .5MOA groups from those positions with it either, are you?

I shoot field positions all the time, as a matter of fact, thats pretty much all I shoot, so I have a real good idea as to what to expect. And yes, improvised rests do fall under "field position", or at least in the real world.

Suffice to say every exception claim about gas gun accuracy I've ever seen could not be backed up on the range.

As with anything, the BS does stop at the range. What you do "on demand" is what you can do, not what you did "once", on your best day. I shoot all the time, but near as much these days, as I did 30 years ago. I still know what I can realistically do, and what sounds to be, to be nice, "boastful".

There is only one way to tell.

 

[agtman]

And from field positions (and no, bipod prone is not a field position) * * *

Will have more to say on the SR subject later, but having just returned from a 3-day Precision Rifle course last week, I can tell you (as would all the instructors, most of whom are current or ex- mil & L.E. types) that shooting on the ground proned-out with a bipod is NOT a "field position."

So on that point, Big D is correct.

Shooting proned-out unsupported - i.e., using only your arms & elbows in place of a bipod - is considered a legit field position.

Other common unsupported field positions include sitting, squatting (the so-called "rice paddy prone"), various forms of kneeling (single, double, strong/weak side knee), and of course, standing.

Unorthodox field positions now include Spetsnaz prone (see Y.T. link below), and various forms of "rollover" prone (some of which are called "North Hollywood" or "urban" prone).

Spetsnaz Prone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFq2fRzkg6k

Versions of rollover prone:

Type 1:



Type 2:

Type 3:

 

[The Big D]

Shooting proned-out unsupported - i.e., using only your arms & elbows in place of a bipod - is considered a legit field position.

Agreed.

 

[The Big D]

Exactly what rifles are you referring to, specifically?

With me shooting, my Armalite M15A4(T) shoots 0.5" 5 round groups regularly, and sometimes on a better day, less. Thats using my reloads with ammo it likes, and again, off a bipod, or ruck.

I'm referring to all gas guns.

There have been long running gas gun shootoffs on both Snipers Hide and AR15.com. In the many years they've been running, with many top shooters participating, one or two shooters managed to produce a string of <0.5MOA groups. No one has managed to do it with a full power cartridge. The people who did it couldn't repeat it. This is in an open "class" with any gas auto allowed.

In contrast people surpass that feat daily with bolt guns.

Now I know nothing about your shooting ability, or your gun. I have no means to evaluate any claims you may be making. But I know what is generally possible and what is not. And having shot both premium bolt guns and premium gas guns, I can tell you for a fact the bolt guns are more accurate, and MUCH easier to be accurate with.

 

[AK103K]

Shooting proned-out unsupported - i.e., using only your arms & elbows in place of a bipod - is considered a legit field position.

On the "target" ranges, shooting Queensbury rules, sure it is. Look at any precision rifle being used in the field, and many, if not most, wear a bipod, or at the very least, are using an improvised rest.