BarryinIN

Pretty close I think. The only reason I have doubts they are 100% is because Jeff Cooper never really acknowledged them as such in his Cooper's Commentaries. There was some beef with them but I don't recall what was. He did say they had more failures with them in classes, though I'm not sure if that was actually the rifle or the Burris scope most had on them (I've read in a couple of places that the Burris Scout scope was less rugged than the Leupold but I've never even seen one myself). I do wonder if the Savage met the specs though. That weight limit is a killer. An absolute killer. The Steyr was practically built from the ground up to make it and it didn't clear it by much. The Savage has some offsetting pluses and negatives I think. For example, it's a hair long, but has a 20.5" barrel which beats the others easily. The magazines are only four rounds if that matters to you. I kinda like the mags because they are compact. If you want some great info on Scout rifles, see Father Frog's pages. For that matter, see his other pages for great info on anything related to guns (and more). His Scout pages are www.steyrscout.org

Truth is, I would probably prefer the Savage over the Ruger. Pablo is a synthetiphobe though:)

I'm sorry for butting in. It always bugs me, even when I'm not involved at all, when I read a post somewhere asking advice or info on Gun A then I see twenty replies telling how good their Gun B or Gun C is. He didn't ask about those. Then I did pretty much the same thing. Sorry. The Scout rifle is one of those things I get wrapped up in and can't leave alone. Not an excuse for not minding my own business, but a "testimonial" from a convert: I wouldn't even look at them at first. I thought it was a silly idea and the scope was Rube Goldberg looking besides. Then my best friend asked if I had ever tried a rifle with a fwd scope. When I said I had not, he simply smiled and said I should. I found one in a shop months later, remembered his words, asked to see it, and when I handled it I thought it was wonderful. Always did love those Scouts. Then I went back through the Jeff Cooper articles and book chapters I had skipped over so I could see where the bits and pieces of the Scout originated. Not-so-coincidentally, this was about the time my opinion of Jeff Cooper went from "arrogant hard-head who can't possibly know as much as he thinks" to "Holy cow, this man has done, seen, and been involved in 20 lifetimes' worth of things". I went from thinking he was a blowhard to wondering how he stayed so humble. I started reading everything of his I could. One thing I learned was how much hunting experience he had. I think he might have preferred to be remembered for that rather than Gunsite, but that's speculation. The Scout rifle started when he was hunting/exploring South and Central America. He had taken along a Remington 600 .308 that he ended up using for everything. After some thought, he realized it also would have been OK for 95% of the hunting he had ever done. And due to it's handiness, it would have been better than what he did use. He set about to improve the Remington 600, then later work with other short bolt action rifles. He had rifles worked up and would hunt with them and loan them out to others to use. The evolution went on for decades. He even held two or three annual conferences where he invited a roundtable of riflemen and hunters to bat ideas around. These were some serious riflemen who lived with a rifle, not necessarily "known" names like gunwriters. He wanted their input to design this ideal General Purpose rifle. There is no do-everything rifle, but he wanted to get as close as possible. The first criteria set were caliber, size, and weight. They were also firm specs, and Cooper was adamant they were followed. For caliber, a cartridge was not named specifically but instead it's desired capabilities were listed. It had to be capable of taking game weighing up to 400kg /880lbs at "reasonable ranges" which translated to around 300 yards max in his view. That weight description covers most animals in North America. It also needed to be a commonly found caliber so ammunition could be found almost anywhere ammo was sold. It would be best if it were a caliber the military used. There was almost universal agreement that the good old 30-06 matched the cartridge specification perfectly. However, Cooper was quick to point out that the .308 with 150 grain bullet in current ammunition matched performance of the early .30-06 150 grain hunting ammo. The .30-06 might be available in hotter loadings now, like the Light Magnums, but the load that established it's reputation is matched by the current .308 ammo. Using the .308 allowed about a half once reduction in action length and an ounce or two of weight. For size and weight, he wanted the rifle to be so convenient and easy to carry that you would have no reason to leave it behind. He had seen, countless times, hunters taking a Winchester 94 (or in Europe and Africa, it's size equivalent Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5mm) when they probably should have taken something more. They took those because they were too handy to pass up. The Remington 600 and 660 was the inspiration here, and the first Scouts were made from them, and probably were the source of weight and length limit figures. The Scout length limit was set at 1 meter (39"). The Rem 600 is a hair under 37". Barrel length was not established, but should be as long as can get within the max overall limits. The action length just about sets that, and the prototypes ran 19-20". The weight limit was set at 3kg ideal (6.6lbs) and 3.5kg max (7.7lbs) with the rifle in ready-to-use form (scope mounted, sling attached, etc) but unloaded. These specs were followed religiously. They gave a rifle of Winchester carbine size but with the cartridge, made it more capable of taking any game a North American hunter desired short of the big bears. Take away any one of them, and the concept was gone. There would be little practical reason to take a .30-30 (or ..25-35, or .357 Mag, or...) carbine from the rack if there was a .308 of the same size and weight and equal or better handling qualities right next to it. This is why he guarded these specs fervently. A newly introduced "Scout" in a caliber like .243 or .223 made his blood boil. Adding a forward mounted scope to just any rifle was about the same. None fit the definition, so none were any more justified in being called a Scout than adding numbers to a car's door made it a racecar in his mind. I'm glad he watched it closely. Even as it was, there were so many rifles being called Scouts (that weren't) that the term was almost meaningless. Ask the average shooter about Scouts and they might think of the Springfield M1A Scout Squad. Nice rifle, but it wasn't very close to what Cooper had in mind and had nothing in common with the prototype built on a Remington 600. The specs weren't made up out of thin air to be applied to anything with a fwd scope mount, which is what it became in spite of his efforts. Further specs were more desirable traits than mandatory, with the exception of sighting, reloading ease, and sling. A sling was a requirement since Col Cooper was a fan of using the sling as a shooting aid in addition to a carrying device. After using them in Highpower, I'm with him and shoot with a sling whenever possible. He experimented with various slings to come up with one that would serve as a carry strap but could be used as a shooting sling without stopping to fool around adjusting the military type sling's hooks and loops. For sighting, he wanted either a peep rear sight with a large aperture opening or a scope. If using a scope, it had to be backed up with emergency use iron sights. He had particular ideas about scopes too. High magnification was unnecessary and added bulk. When he started with the Rem 600, there was slight popularity in mounting long eye relief scopes on the barrels of Winchester 94s to get it clear of the top ejection. He tried one, a Bushnell Phantom, on the 600 and liked it. I'm not sure why he chose it, but he liked it because it cleared the receiver area for carrying at the balance point, made loading and unloading easier, got it farther out of his field of view, eliminated "scope eyebrow" from recoil...and it was fast. Until I used one, I didn't appreciate how fast it could be. When used with both eyes open, it practically pops up and plants the testicle on target by itself. I describe it as a glass front sight. He wanted to be able to reload it quickly. He knew that was of questionable use for hunting, but if pressed into use as a fighting arm it could be very useful. Contrary to what some think, the Scout was not conceived as a battle rifle but as a GenPurp rifle it needed to be able to serve in that role if it had to. The ability to reload quickly would be an advantage there. He liked either detachable box magazines or receiver cuts to guide stripper clips. High capacity was not deemed necessary, but a "reserve" of ammo was. He liked the magazine cutoff like the early Lee-Enfields or M1903 Springfield, and the "shoot one, load one" principle that held the magazine in reserve for emergencies. Either that, or a two-position mag catch that let the mag hang just low enough that cartridges wouldn't feed but it could be snapped up if needed. I'm not too sure about holding a magazine in reserve, but hey, it was his rifle. I do like either stripper clip guides or detachable magazines. Most of the remaining "rules" are desirable features but not necessarily requirements. An "on-board" ammo supply was deemed nice, and some prototypes had traps in the stock holding five rounds. Some were rather clever. Bipods were also thought of as a nice bonus, but only if they added no detectable bulk or weight. Other things like adjustable stocks or light mounts fell under "desirable but not required" also. Extras like that would all fall under the weight and length restrictions like everything else. There was no negotiation there. I've thought that if someone created a device that positively guaranteed a hit with every shot fired, but put the Scout an ounce of weight or a quarter inch of length over, he would have vetoed it. Action type was not specified (other than it had to be a repeater) but the weight, and to a lesser degree, length, effectively calls for bolt actions. It would be awful hard to meet the weight limit with a semiauto. An AR-10 type action might pull it off in weight, but it would be close if it did. That is a long action, so meeting length with a minimum 16" barrel might be a tougher challenge than weight. Then there had to be a name. Jeff Cooper remembered this from his high school ROTC manual: "...a man trained in ground and cover, movement from cover to cover, rifle marksmanship, map reading, observation..." That describes a hunter almost to perfection. It was the manual's description of a Scout. After the Rem 600, they worked with Sako actions, Ruger 77s, and the 600's descendent, the Model 7. The Ruger 77 UL (Ultralight) was probably the easiest solution by adding the quarter rib scope base from a Ruger #1 single shot onto the barrel. The Sako was apparently moat satisfactory, but after expensive custom work (barrel blanks were bought large then metal was machined away leaving pedestal style integral scope bases). Any if a number of gun makers could have made one a lot easier, and Cooper tried to get them to, but none were interested. Then in the mid to late 90s, one of Steyr-Mannlicher's company officers was at Gunsite visiting Cooper for a few days. Cooper let him shoot his custom Sako-based Scout. He fell in love with it and try to buy it. Cooper counter-offered, telling him he could use it to copy in order make his own factory production version. It took a while because Steyr was designing a new action and chose to use it as a basis. Cooper and Steyr's engineers spent some time together and he about went nuts for a few years waiting after all that time, but Steyr finally introduced the Steyr Scout in 1999. Cooper had two complaints about the Steyr that I read. The first was that it was RH only and they refused to make a LH version, claiming European hunting is mostly done from stands and left handed hunters manipulate the bolt quickly enough for that. Cooper was right-handed but saw no sense in Steyr turning their back on approx 30% of the market. His other complaint was not actually about the rifle itself. He thought it was about time for an improvement in scopes, with more strength and less size. I vaguely recall a third beef- that the ejection port could be larger for single-loading, but I may have imagined that. I know I'd like to see that, because while it's not tiny, it is a bit tight. The concept works. No rifle can do everything, but this one will do everything I need and more. The only place it comes up short is for real close range defense, but it does surprisingly well there, at least in drills and in matches I've used it in (my guess is that Col Cooper would tell me that the pistol's job anyway). And it is handy enough that I do pick it up first if going for a walk in the woods. It is even handier than the pistol caliber lever actions I have. My M-1 Carbine and my Ruger 77/44 are each a little smaller and lighter, but ever other centerfire I own seems like an awkward club compared to the Scout. I would probably take it in an apocalyptic head-for-the-hills scenario. I have it's storage compartments filled up with fire starting gear, compass, etc. Pardon me for a bit of rifle bragging: Strangely, while not the most accurate rifle I've owned (but close) it does something rare- It shoots everything to the same place. I was testing handloads soon after I got it, and noticed they hit the same general spot regardless of bullet weight or style. I started loading one or two extra of the best load with each bullet and putting them aside. I was going to save up at least 20 different loads but got to 11 and couldn't stand it anymore, so I shot those 11 into one group at 100 yards. That group measured 2-1/4", but I yanked one and knew it as soon as I shot, so I shot another round just like that one. Discarding my yank, the group was just a sliver under 1-7/8". For bullets ranging from a 110 HP at 2850 fps to a 180 SP at 2150 fps, I thought that was remarkable. Even though their trajectories might take them in different directions beyond 100 yards, I wouldn't expect anything close to that from any other rifle I own or ever have owned. It might not shoot quarter inch groups, but I would rather have that, especially in a General Purpose rifle. Anyway, there is how the Scout concept came about. Jeff Cooper and others worked on it for nearly 40 years and their final specs were created with a lot of thought and reason as a result of that work. I can see why he protected the idea so much and hated to see it altered because some seemingly slight changes could make a big difference. Jeff Cooper is gone, so sometimes I take it upon myself to watch it for him.

Never mind. The pile-on has begun and it's been bid up another $400 since I last looked. Now it's more than most I see on there go for.

I just checked that Steyr on Gunbroker. "Like new mint condition and not fired since factory" The seller only has one rating, but it's A+. It also comes with a Leupold 2.5x Scout scope ($299.99 at Midway and Optics planet), and an Andy Langlois sling ($45). $1251 minus the cost of the scope and sling ($345) brings the rifle cost to $906. A new Ruger at $750-800 or a like new Steyr for $906? I already have one and it's tempting.

If they are being spotted for $750 now, then that sounds better. I was hearing more in the range of 850-900, even after they were getting out in circulation (Ruger seemed to do really well at getting this model in the supply chain quickly). I was hearing of people buying Rugers for that price "because it was half the price of the Steyr" when there were brand new Steyrs on Gunbroker for $1350. That is a difference of 450-500, which does not make it half the cost. They then went on to spend at least that much on extras and accessories, so I had to wonder how many would have bought a Steyr if they had known what they could really be had for. And I see nothing wrong with buying used per se. I've had bad used guns and bad new guns, and the sellers made good on all of them. If I had a choice between a new Ruger for 750-800 and a used Steyr for even a couple hundred more, I wouldn't hesitate to get the Steyr unless it was obviously screwed up in some way. No, I don't know that there is anything wrong with the Ruger. As a rifle. As a Scout, I think it comes up short I don't see that it's directly comparable to the Steyr either. And that's what I kept seeing: People comparing them as if there was no difference in the two. There are differences, and they add up. I did not read the American Rifleman article. I saw the cover that said "Ruger Gets it Right" and saw enough. Ruger made what I do think is a nice rifle, but they did not get it right. Not if by "right", one means they followed Jeff Cooper's Scout definitions. As I said above, Cooper guarded his specs closely and cut no slack to anyone making a rifle that only came close. Miss on one count, and you missed completely was his view. Should not being completely right have mattered? It mattered to him, and he came up with the term so he watched over it. That might have appeared as silly to some, but I think it turned out to be a good thing he did act as watchdog. As it was, there were always rifles claiming to be Scouts that didn't meet half the specs. I've heard of examples of every type, all shapes and sizes, in most calibers, actions that made no sense, and even a couple of muzzleloaders. Some came close but most did not. Most were regular rifles with a scope stuck on the barrel, which does not make it a Scout. The specs were made for a reason. Either a rifle meets them or it does not. The main thing I saw keeping the near misses out was weight, and that bites the Ruger too. The weight limit is 3 kilos (6lbs 5oz) ideal maximum, and 3.5 kilos (7lbs 11oz) as absolute maximum. The Ruger claims 7lbs even. That may look like it makes it but the Scout weight figures are for the rifle with scope mounted, sling in place (a sling was a requirement) and otherwise ready for use except for being unloaded. Add the scope and sling, and the Ruger won't make it. It will almost certainly be over 8lbs. It will be close to a pound over. That's not really even close. Just for comparison, the base Ruger 77 Compact is 1.75lbs lighter. The 77 Frontier, which the Scout must have replaced was around 6.75lbs, which is about .25lbs less than the Scout. Like i said above, the Frontier came closer to being a Scout than their Scout. No, the weight difference won't kill you. But when you start getting in the 7 pound range of Scouts, you can start feeling those little changes in weight. But what really bugs me is that Ruger could have made it meet the weight limit and didn't. Put a synthetic stock on the Scout (or Frontier) and it should make it. Why Ruger didn't use a synthetic stock on the Scout, I'll never know. They certainly have no aversion to them. They put them on Red Labels but not on the Scout in order to meet the weight limit? That tells me they either didn't know the specs or more likely, didn't care. Whatever the reason, it didn't make it. Yes, it is still lighter than many rifles so I may sound like I'm nitpicking, but if a rifle is going to be called the Gunsite Scout Rifle, it should meet Jeff Cooper's specs. I already hold rifles claiming to be Scouts to the Scout standards, and I'm holding the one called the Gunsite Scout Rifle to the letter. It misses in a couple other ways too. Based on his past evaluations, Cooper wouldn't have liked it because of the weight, and he would have busted their chops for it lacking a third sling swivel attach point. He also wouldn't have liked trading handiness for a bulky magazine, and would have preferred another inch of barrel over the flash hider (or better yet, a longer but lighter barrel). He liked the Ruger 77, and I know he had at least two Scout prototypes made on Ruger 77s, but they did not resemble the Ruger Scout at all. In fact, they were almost dead ringers for the Frontier. So why is it supposedly blessed by Gunsite? Well it is and it isn't. It was blessed by Ed Head who is the former Ops Manager of Gunsite. Note the word "former". He was with Gunsite at the time, but it appears it was he who collaborated with Ruger, not Gunsite. Gunsite's "gunsmithy" (head gunsmith) who is also an instructor and high up the Gunsite totem pole is on record saying nobody there knew anything about the Ruger Scout until they appeared at Gunsite for a gunwriter's conference late last year. So... Contrary to what Ruger, American Rifleman, and others might think. I don't think it meets the criteria as a Scout rifle. Not Col Cooper's criteria anyway, and since he thought if it and named it, that's the list that matters to me. The main thing is weight, but that isn't the only thing. And being a Scout is an all or nothing thing. A rifle is a Scout or it isn't. We get bent out of shape at the media calling AR15s "assault rifles" when they lack a defining feature of full auto capability. The Ruger misses Scout definition by at least as much. But again, it is probably a heck of a rifle. Popular instructor Randy Cain teaches a class on the "Practical Rifle" and the Ruger meets his description of a Practical Rifle to a "T". I like that concept too, and have a Mauser I reworked into a Practical Rifle. Aside from the box magazine, it's a dead ringer for the Ruger. Even to the flash hider. But I can't call it a Scout because it's too heavy and falls short in some other areas. The Ruger is the same way. I also don't think it's as well thought-out as the Steyr. That's why, if a Steyr is within reach at all, I suggest anyone looking at the Ruger try to look at a Steyr. The price difference might be less than thought, and you might also find it worth paying.

I don't know, but there is a Steyr Scout on Gunbroker at $1251 right now, with about 20 hours left in the auction. Steyrs show up on there in that price range, but not that often, so I humbly suggest anyone looking for a Ruger to consider making the leap to a Steyr if one can be found in that price range. It just seems like a lot of people think the Steyr costs $2500, so they dismiss them out of hand. They don't, and they shouldn't. Let me try to sell you on a Steyr... if you have some time, because I really like mine and sure don't mind talking about it! I have a Steyr and I've had a few Ruger 77s of different types. The Rugers are usually good rifles, but the Steyr Is my favorite bolt action rifle of any I've had. It might not be my favorite rifle overall, but then again it might be. If sentimental feelings are taken out of it, I think it would be my favorite rifle. I've also had a couple of "near-Scouts" that met most of the criteria Jeff Cooper established. I thought they were pretty good rifles, but when I got a Steyr that met all the criteria I saw what a difference it made. It is all in the details. I confess I am probably a snob about Scouts. Jeff Cooper had a very specific set of goals and specs in mind when he created the class. He guarded the term closely and rifles that were "close" didn't make it in his eyes and he had little good to say about them. He drew up the specs for a reason and didn't accept "almost". Since he is no longer with us, he can't comment on the new Ruger or any other new rifle, but unless he changed his ways, I can't see him "blessing" the new Ruger. One if the firm specs for him was weight. I don't know how the Ruger can possibly meet his weight limit. The Steyr barely makes it and was practically designed specifically to be a Scout. Weight saving measures are everywhere. The receiver is aluminum (the bolt locks directly into the barrel), the barrel is really skinny and then is fluted on top of it. There is no wasted or extra material. The Ruger starts with a fairly beefy action. I don't know what the stock weighs but it looks heavy. It has to be heavier than the Steyr Scout stock. The only weight saving move is to use a short, light barrel. The barrel doesn't look any lighter in contour than the Steyr and is not fluted. It is 3" shorter however. It gains a little length back with the flash hider, but off if that little bit matters, it comes off. Having shot my 19" barreled Steyr enough to know how noisy it is, I can say that I would rather have seen something else done to save weight than to go to an even shorter barrel. I don't know, but I have doubts the Ruger meets the weight they claim. And even that weight is above Cooper's limit (his weight limit is meant to be with the rifle scoped, BTW). Cooper's purpose for the Scout was to create a General Purpose rifle. A rifle that would handle 99% of the hunting in North America. To get there, it had to be versatile. A GP rifle could use any number of sight options. The Ruger has what looks like good iron sights, which I am happy to see on a factory rifle for a change. It will also handle a forward mounted scope. I don't think a conventional scope would be an easy proposition on the Ruger because of the rear sight. One nice thing about the Steyr is that I can swap between a scout scope and conventional scope quickly and easily. I use a conventionally mounted 3.5-10x scope for ammo testing then put the 2.5x scout scope back on for general use. Throw lever rings lets me do that easily, and I do it's lot more than I would have guessed. It could be handy if on a hunt and the scope got smashed, forcing me to "borrow" one from another rifle (which is exactly what I'm doing with that 3.5-10x scope. Or, I can take advantage of the accuracy and mount a nice big conventional scope for more precision work. General Purpose. With the Ruger, the rear sight that I like so much is in the way of mounting a conventional scope. It apparently can come off, but it's not such a quick and easy thing as with mounting a conventional scope on the Steyr. BTW- The forward mounted scope was not a must-have on his list of Scout rifle attributes. He specified either ghost ring rear peep iron sights or the fwd scope. Some early writings mention low powered conventional scopes. If they had a scope, back up iron sights were a must. His first Scout prototype had no scope at all. Some Scout attempts by others were not much more than a standard rifle with a fwd scope. Those really set him off. A bipod was never a requirement either. If it could be had with sacrificing weight or ease of use it was a welcome bonus, but not if it cost "handiness". Handiness. That is a word that showed up a lot in Cooper's writings that led to the Scout. The Scout had to exhibit "handiness". As a GP rifle, it had to be so handy that it would be the rifle you wanted to grab first. The rifle you would have with you if you could have a rifle at all There was no negotiation about handiness. That was one reason for the fwd scope- to move it in front of the balance point so you could wrap your hand around the rifle at the receiver to carry it. The Ruger's magazine offsets that advantage. It's right about where you would carry it. The Scout was supposed to be the most handy rifle in the rack or safe, but the Ruger doesn't look very handy to me. Am I being hard on it? Maybe, but they chose to call it a Scout rifle and I will then hold it up to the Scout criteria and standards set forth by the man who created the genre, in which case I don't think it stands up very well. I think the Ruger Frontier was a lot closer to being a Scout than their Scout. The Ruger Scout might be a nice rifle, but I don't see that it is a Scout according to the Colonel. But had they chosen to call it something a little less specific than "Scout" like "General Purpose Rifle" or "Work Gun" I would be friendlier to it. As a general purpose rifle, I like it. I really like it. Just the fact it comes with useable iron sights scores major points with me. It might be heavier than Scout specs, but it might be more durable too. I think one could be bought, zeroed, and tossed in the trunk or behind a truck seat wrapped on an old blanket and be good to use if pulled out ten years later. It might be a better "fightin' rifle" than the Steyr. Which brings up another point. I don't know if many people "get" the Scout concept. It was intended primarily as a general purpose hunting rifle. It could be used for fighting if pressed into it, but that was a side benefit and not the primary. I get the impression most people think the Scout was Cooper's scheme to get the world's armies to revert back to bolt actions. Most people see my Scout and comment accordingly. If they are the "sportsman type" they disregard it by saying they like hunting rifles (completely missing that it is a hunting rifle). If they are the "military type" they scoff at the idea of a bolt action on today's battlefield. I don't ask. These are the reactions it generates on it's own. I don't know why they see it as a military type rifle, but they do. I think Riger either realized that or felt that way themselves, because it looks to me like they tried to capitalize on that. They took it more towards a military look than trying to trim weight and increase "handiness". Hey, it works. It's selling. But a Scout it isnt. Overall I'm glad because it's getting people to try something at least close to a Scout and try the forward scope. I think both are ideas too good to die. I'm not suggesting nobody buy one. I might buy one myself. I think it is a near-perfect trunk gun. What I am suggesting is anyone interested in a Scout to look again at the Steyr. I get the impression most people write the Steyr off as too expensive. Gunbroker has plenty of listings for 1700+, but I also I see them for 1100-1200 now and then. I found mine for quite a bit less just three years ago. Personally, I'd rather have the Steyr at 1100-1200 than the Ruger at 800. Thats where Steyrs can be found and yes, while nowhere near the price difference some act like, I admit it's still a big difference. I do think it's worth it. The Steyr is pretty much a purpose-built Scout that compares to custom ones costing way more than the Steyr and Ruger combined. The details are amazing. Everyone who picks mine up is amazed at how it feels. It fits almost everyone as it is, besides the adjustable stock length. The bolt is fast to operate. The magazines are handy, work well, load easy, go in and out easy, and have built in shoulders to keep cartridges from moving under recoil and battering bullet tips One mag stores in the stock. The stock has two storage compartments. The safety is in the perfect place and is probably the most positive safe locked system I know of. There is not a sharp edge on the rifle. These little details and others are what you're paying for, and getting, with the Steyr. If they really were twice as much as a Ruger like some claim, I would not talk it up so much. But they are closer in price than most think, and I think the difference is worth it. Mine is as handy as my Marlin .41 Mag carbine or .357 Mag 92 Winchester and shoots a more versatile cartridge with better accuracy. It matches or beats my Armalite AR-10(T) in accuracy, while weighing half as much and costing less. It handles as well as any of my classic lever actions and is more versatile than any. It may cost more than most of these, but it could replace every one of them with that one Scout. It goes to the range every time, and is the first rifle I reach for to take on a walk. I even used it in an IPSC 3-gun match last year. I didn't win against the speedy ARs but wouldn't have won regardless of rifle used. I was far from last also. I will use it there again. When we go on vacation later this year, I will take the Steyr. I might need a rifle for anything from being invited on a deer/pig hunt, running across any of several types of matches, or heaven forbid, a 9-11 type disaster that brings any of a variety of "challenges" getting home, i want the most versatile rifle I own. That would be the Steyr Scout.

I thought about pictures later, after I posted above. I haven't had one apart since digital cameras became common. I could have used one 25 years ago when I got first MKII. Just being able to look at a picture taken from the correct angle would make the difference between taking an hour to reassemble and taking five or ten minutes. Like has been said, they aren't overly complicated, but the arrangement isn't clearly obvious either. I remembered that my best friend has a Volquartsen custom MKII that he bought in the mid 80s. It was the first Volquartsen anything we had heard of, and he found it used in a small town gun shop. It did/does have a really nice trigger. He and I sort of accumulated High Standard target pistols for a while, and he said none of his HS triggers were any better. How that may or may not transfer over to that kit I don't know.

They aren't a Swiss watch, but they are assembled so that patience is certainly a virtue. I once belonged to a club with a fair Bullseye pistol league. The Ruger was popular, but everyone wanted the somewhat sloppy aluminum trigger replaced with the steel Clark (the only replacement I knew of at the time). People were split on how much they wanted that trigger and how badly they didn't want to do the job. One of the members had a standard arrangement that he would replace it for you under two conditions: 1- You brought him a case of beer with the trigger and gun. 2- You didn't stand over him watching.

I have to ask two things: Are you unhappy with the trigger pull it has now? Have you ever taken it apart that far before? Balancing those two things would determine how likely I'd buy it.

I wonder what lube/cleaner they use at the factory that would have been left in there then.

USFA has listed a single action .22 that holds 12 for around a year, BTW. Of course, it retails for around $1100 too.

Yeah, me too. I don't mind the slow reloading process so much with the big bullets, but with a .22, it feels like I'm always reloading. Ten rounds might feel a little better. I always wanted a S&W 17, then later a 617, but never had one. I did own a 17 for a day or two. I bought it at a pawn shop (Dundee, IL) and when I took it to the range, every round fired split it's case. I suspected right away that some genius had reamed the chambers to .22 Mag and that proved to be the case. The shop owner took it back, and I applied that toward an old Ruger 44 semiauto carbine. And that's my sad M17 tale.

Being green in color, my first thought is that it's from copper fouling being sent down the gas tube to the bolt tail, where it reacts with any ammonia from solvent remaining there. Perhaps something in your oil eats on copper also. I have seen bolt tails kind of copper-washed, so it does get there.

It's basically a ten-round version of the Single Six. http://ruger.com/products/newModelSingleSixSingleTen/models.html

Man, I've been trying to think f some garçon/waiter joke for two hours but you beat me to it. Best wishes on the endeavor G-man. I guess it's a good time to introduce a vampire book because I see a lot of them (or does that mean it's a bad time).

Love them Marlin 45-70s! I had one (the regular 22" barrel model), and traded it off because I wanted something else. I had no real use for it honestly. But after a couple of years, I replaced it with another just like it. I couldn't stand not having one, even if I had no real good use for it. The first one shot so well that I kept thinking about it. The second one does at least as well and come to think of it, I don't recall hearing any accuracy complaints on a Marlin 45-70, ever. A guy who is a regular on some lever action sites used to run a lever action postal match every year. It was a five shot group at either 50 yards is using open sights, or 100 with a scope. I entered it with a 50 yard group a little over .3" from the Marlin 45-70, which I thought was pretty good. It placed something like 12th. I think all but one or two of the rifles ahead of mine was a Marlin in either 45-70 or .444. The things shoot.

I got some conflicting reports, but it looks like military weapons author/writer Charlie Cutshaw has passed away after a fall in his Florence, AL home.

I want one. I've wanted one since before a buddy bought an AMT Autoscale and made me jealous. Boy, that's been a while. They look like they would be a real time saver for some things.

As much as I would like to take credit for this idea, I can't. I can't remember who showed me this either, so I can't pass on the credit. If you shoot a brand of .22 ammo that comes in the long 100-rd box,like CCI or some Winchester, keep those empty boxes. They make dandy containers for spare parts. They fit in whatever you use to carry your range gear in, even if it's your back pocket. You may never need anything in it, but you might, and it beats having to quit early. This one happens to be setup for the 1911, but they work for about anything. One for everything you shoot much would be best. There are things in there I can't imagine ever needing, but I had the room, so they went in. This is a ratty old barrel with a bore rough as a cob, so I'm not too worried about storing steel parts in it. That's a recoil spring guide, a firing pin, and firing pin spring. The guide is a good example of something I've never needed but it takes up no more room so it might as well go. The breech end of the barrel has an Ed Brown small parts set rolled up in it's bag and stuffed inside. This is every pin in the gun and every spring except the recoil and sear springs. An Ed Brown extractor is rolled up in it's bag and stored in a recoil spring plug. I saw a guy launch his plug over the berm into the weeds once, so a spare might be handy. The trigger and hammer get dropped in alongside at one end (hammer inside the trigger bow), the plug at the other, and the sear spring sort of fits in among them. I need to add a firing pin stop plate. I've seen them crack a couple of times. It is so small I could put a couple in. If I could figure out how to fit a recoil spring in there, I would.

I know some think they are silly games that breed bad habits (I think they are what you make them) but hardly a match goes by where I don't learn something or see something that makes a good lesson for daily carry. Sometimes it's something new, and other times it's the same things over and over. I thought I'd start a thread on that. I'll post little lessons I see pop up. Feel free to add any observations you might have made. Last week, the common thread seemed to be gun malfunctions. Before anyone starts thinking that won't be a problem for them because their gun never fails, I have news for you: They all fail. If I had a box of ammo for every time a gun choked and the shooter said that had never happened before, I' wouldnt need to reload for a while. I don't know what it is, but guns must know when to fail. I think they get a kick out of making their owners squirm. Every match has a gun or guns having problems they never had before. Training classes are worse. Not only do classes bring out things happen that never happen before, they seem to bring out odd malfunctions that shouldn't happen. I have some theories why, but that's not important. What's important is that guns fail and you don't get to pick the time. As demonstrated last weekend, when guns fail, many people don't know what to do. The standard reaction is to freeze and stare at the gun. I always get nervous when that happens because some people panic and start flailing at this point. Trigger finger and muzzle discipline start to disappear. Some just do nothing. One last weekend actually said "I dont know what to do" and looked around for help. Help won't be there in a gunfight. The time to learn what to do is now, not when it fails. I can almost guarantee that if a gun is going to choke, it will do it when you don't have help around. There is more to operating a gun that putting ammunition in it and locating the trigger. Learn the malfunction clearances for your gun. I started to post some standard clearances, but thought better of it because universal steps might not work for you. Find out what does work. If you practice them once you are ahead of the average shooter, but keep doing it anyway. Dummy rounds help for this (and for marksmanship) if a few are slipped into your practice ammo. Also- I'm bad about this one myself sometimes and did it last weekend. Usually, although there is cover is available, people stand in the open when a malfunction happens, even those who know how to clear them. Get to cover. Even if it's only concealment that won't stop a bullet, it might help. People are funny about not shooting what they can't see, even if they know it's there. But that's another observation for another time. Guns fail. All of them. That's all there is to it. Learn to correct it. Personally, my belief is that a second gun is the best malfunction clearance, but that's another thing too. Carbine match this weekend. It should provide something.

I have no desire for a 500 S&W. A Ruger Bisley 45 Colt or 44 Mag might be nice, and there are some nice Casulls out there, but that is the limit and beyond for me. I've never kept a .44 Mag revolver long, and haven't had any for a while. I wouldn't mind a S&W Scandium 329 though. It would serve as a 44 Spl for me. Strangely, while I generally don't care much for pistol caliber carbines, I've had a couple of 44 Mag rifles and liked them a lot. I have a Ruger 77/44 now that I shoot a lot. Go figure. Now a 500 S&W in a rifle- That I've thought about. I've looked at an empty 500 S&W case at the gun shop with a gleam in my eye. A lever action or a smaller bolt action might be neat. I have an old Small Ring Mauser action that I look at from time to time and picture in 500 (or 35 Remington).

Welcome back! It sounds like the scaredy-cat prairie dogs appeared at such long intervals they could have been hunted with a muzzleloader. How many prairie dogs does it take to make a pie? Landowners met you at the lodge. That's funny.

Nice. I always likes the looks of those. They look better than the Python to me.

Here is something that I've been taught, although the idea takes some getting used to after being told otherwise by almost every person or source for as long as I can recall. It helps with regular slow paced or rapid fire even when you aren't shooting rapid fire. When you fire a shot, immediately reset the trigger and prep for a second shot. Also take a second aight picture. Act as if you will fire a second shot every time. This might sound like it goes against everything we ate taught about trigger control. I thought it did at first. It sounded like the entire follow- through process was altered. What you are actually doing is the same thing you always did, but in a shorter time span. It actually helps with shooting single rounds because it gets your dinger doing the same thing every time regardless of the pace you are shooting, and it keeps the shooter from holding rearward tension on the trigger and grip which pulls shots low. It also helps you practice rapid fire without actually doing it. The motions are the same, except whether or not you complete the trigger press on the shot(s) after the first one. Instructors will ask: "How many trigger preps for each shot?". And "how many sight pictures for each shot?". The answer to both is two. Every time.