Allow me to express some of my opinions and impressions, none of which are pre-conceived but rather based on about 45 years of experiences, not all of which were good and none of which make good stories.
My first comment is that it appears to me that most of Cooper's specifications for a Scout Rifle are arbitrary. He did give reasons for all of them, as I recall, but they still end up being somewhat arbitrary and arguable. Even the key features of length and weight can be argued but I suppose once you start arguing against those limits, you're pretty much discounted the whole concept. It's a little like discussing what constitutes an assault rifle, something the army itself doesn't even use.
But weight is worth some discussion. I've handled an M4 and the one we had here at work (we were doing something for the Pentagon) must have weighed close to what an M14 weighted and it didn't even have a scope. I understand the British 5.56 rifle is surprisingly heavy, too. But one old timer writing in Gun Digest before most of the readers here were born, believed a heavier (that is, heavier-barreled) rifle was simply better for shooting and hitting the target, including snap shooting. I don't know one way or the other. Anyway, the weight of that M4 sort of destroyed the whole advantage of the thing.
I thought the idea of a magazine cut-off was a real throwback but Cooper wanted one. The Styer Scout had a detachable magazine (hey, what a good idea!) but with a lower notch so the bolt wouldn't pick up a round from the magazine and so you could load one round at a time. Save the rounds in the magazine for "emergencies." That's what the British believed before they went to war in South Africa. They changed their mind after that.
Cooper complimented rifles he thought were close to his concept, including the Model 94 Winchester (and presumably similar Marlins) and the Lee-Enfield so-called Jungle Carbine. I once owned a Jungle Carbine that I acquired when they could be bought through mail order. I also had about a dozen other Lee-Enfields. I like them better than any and all other bolt-actions. The No. 5 really was a handy little rifle or carbine but it kicked harder and had more blast on account of its slightly shorter barrel and slightly lighter weight. So for a "rifle caliber" rifle, I wonder if lighter and shorter is a Good Thing or not. At least the Lee-Enfields had ten round magazines.
One Lee-Enfield that I had was a sniper, crate included (spyglass not included), non-matching accessories. I wasn't able to shoot any better with the scope than I was with it but I wasn't able to shoot it at any distance where a scope would have helped. If you're pushing through brush in the field, you're probably not going to be taking shots at 200 yards anyway.
The army, however, issues scopes widely these days. I'm sure that increases hit probability a lot, although it doesn't make a sniper out of an average shooter. Then on top of that, they issue even more equipment for their designated marksman program and, in theory, the better shots get that stuff and go for the extra training. Remember, not everyone is going to be above average. And also, today's soldier is little different from most of those in the past and he (or she) is also a volunteer. Most of the greatest generation got to be great by being drafted. My father was 29 when he got drafted.
Someone else mentioned the forward-mounted scope was a German idea. I don't know if they get credit or not but they did use it for what we would call the designated marksman, not to be confused with a sniper. Remember also, a rifle squad is a mix of weapons, not just rifles. Anyway, apparently a lot of those low-magnification scopes were made and they appeared on the surplus market in the 1950s. That was about the time someone thought of mounting a scope on a revolver and that was what people bought them for.
My first comment is that it appears to me that most of Cooper's specifications for a Scout Rifle are arbitrary. He did give reasons for all of them, as I recall, but they still end up being somewhat arbitrary and arguable. Even the key features of length and weight can be argued but I suppose once you start arguing against those limits, you're pretty much discounted the whole concept. It's a little like discussing what constitutes an assault rifle, something the army itself doesn't even use.
But weight is worth some discussion. I've handled an M4 and the one we had here at work (we were doing something for the Pentagon) must have weighed close to what an M14 weighted and it didn't even have a scope. I understand the British 5.56 rifle is surprisingly heavy, too. But one old timer writing in Gun Digest before most of the readers here were born, believed a heavier (that is, heavier-barreled) rifle was simply better for shooting and hitting the target, including snap shooting. I don't know one way or the other. Anyway, the weight of that M4 sort of destroyed the whole advantage of the thing.
I thought the idea of a magazine cut-off was a real throwback but Cooper wanted one. The Styer Scout had a detachable magazine (hey, what a good idea!) but with a lower notch so the bolt wouldn't pick up a round from the magazine and so you could load one round at a time. Save the rounds in the magazine for "emergencies." That's what the British believed before they went to war in South Africa. They changed their mind after that.
Cooper complimented rifles he thought were close to his concept, including the Model 94 Winchester (and presumably similar Marlins) and the Lee-Enfield so-called Jungle Carbine. I once owned a Jungle Carbine that I acquired when they could be bought through mail order. I also had about a dozen other Lee-Enfields. I like them better than any and all other bolt-actions. The No. 5 really was a handy little rifle or carbine but it kicked harder and had more blast on account of its slightly shorter barrel and slightly lighter weight. So for a "rifle caliber" rifle, I wonder if lighter and shorter is a Good Thing or not. At least the Lee-Enfields had ten round magazines.
One Lee-Enfield that I had was a sniper, crate included (spyglass not included), non-matching accessories. I wasn't able to shoot any better with the scope than I was with it but I wasn't able to shoot it at any distance where a scope would have helped. If you're pushing through brush in the field, you're probably not going to be taking shots at 200 yards anyway.
The army, however, issues scopes widely these days. I'm sure that increases hit probability a lot, although it doesn't make a sniper out of an average shooter. Then on top of that, they issue even more equipment for their designated marksman program and, in theory, the better shots get that stuff and go for the extra training. Remember, not everyone is going to be above average. And also, today's soldier is little different from most of those in the past and he (or she) is also a volunteer. Most of the greatest generation got to be great by being drafted. My father was 29 when he got drafted.
Someone else mentioned the forward-mounted scope was a German idea. I don't know if they get credit or not but they did use it for what we would call the designated marksman, not to be confused with a sniper. Remember also, a rifle squad is a mix of weapons, not just rifles. Anyway, apparently a lot of those low-magnification scopes were made and they appeared on the surplus market in the 1950s. That was about the time someone thought of mounting a scope on a revolver and that was what people bought them for.
Thirty years of military experience, fifty years hunting experience, and a lifetime of rambling with a rifle have brought me to embrace Cooper's ideals in a GP rifle. I like my scouts.
) field position. That, I have a hard time swallowing.
