Jump to content
Practically Shooting

Ruger Scout Rifle - best price


Pablo

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think American Rifleman lied about the weight. Read the review. Pretty sure the crew said it meets the criteria. I don't see where you actually said there is actually anything wrong with the Ruger Scout.

$750 new vs. $1200 used is a decent difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the Ruger "Scout" is an OK value. I've never read he "official" Scout rules and frankly I'm not overly worried on the subject. So the weight limit includes a sling, fair enough. And a scope? (that was unclear to me).

I wouldn't buy the rifle with a polymer stock. But I could see a real weight savings there.

What is the official limit on barrel length?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pablo, I'm sure you know that a scout rifle is suppose to be short to swing easily. Light for long carry periods. And low in maintenance. Unless you are just in love with the cross breed Ruger, might take a look at the Remington Model 7. It's lighter than the published specs of the Ruger and shorter. Considering the synthetic stock and stainless version, it's about as "scout" of a rifle as there is for a bolt gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wood stock would put it over the weight limit for sure, besides the AccuStock is a very nice platform.

Barry, what kind of failures could the rifle have had? I find that very very puzzling? I don't own a Savage scout, but I do own many other Savage rifles from pre AccuTrigger on up and I have never had a failure of any kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said above, I don't recall what the problem(s) was but I did just read at Father Frog's sight that the early magazines could give headaches and I think I saw something about cracks in the bolthead. EDIT: I just read that website page closer and saw that the problems were with earlier versions (which is what Cooper would have known about) and they have been corrected. The part on the bolt that cracked was a pin. The front sights also tended to fly off. Again, these things appear to be corrected now.

Classes are hard on guns. If there is any weakness, it will be found. I don't know why that is, but it is. I haven't had a ton of classes but I haven't been to one yet that every gun made it through problem-free. In every case, the story is the same "but I've had this gun for x years (or x rounds) and it has never given me a bit of trouble" and I believe them (usually).

Classes eat guns alive. My only guess is something heat-related. That assumption is that being shot almost continuously half the day for several days without more than a few minutes' rest and cool-down fatigues or otherwise screws with parts in some way.

Beats me why, but it happens. The guns may never see that kind of stress again, but its better to use it to find trouble there than some other places.

Speaking of Savage...

I know it wouldn't "make weight" but I would like to see how close a Savage 99 can get to specs. I have a made-in-1927 one that I love, and thought many times a 99 could make a nice pseudo-scout. I bet Cooper tried, because he was a 99 fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the Savage weight is 6.65lbs without sling, scope or rings.

The Scout ideal weight limit is 6.6lbs and the max is 7.7- including sling and mounted scope.

That weight limit is a killer. Jeff Cooper knew that, though, and knew it would give a dandy goal to reach for.

He also knew the Remington 600 came close or met it 40 years ago.

I'd like to have a Rem 600 in .308 by the way. Or any of a few other calibers too. I have one that was in the somewhat uncommon .222 caliber that gets a premium, but it had been beat to death, cut on, and otherwise devoid of collector value so I had it rebarreled to .221 Fireball for a "walking varmint gun".

The Mode 7 is pretty neat, but the 600 is bulldog ugly/cute to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, almost! I gotta keep trying. If only you were anywhere close by so I could let you shoot mine.

I hope to "sell" one in about a week to a friend in AL.

Have you looked around at Father Frog's pages yet? That should help set the hook.

Did I mention that after about the third day of the Gunsite 270 class (General Rifle), they have students breaking straightaway clay pigeons with them?

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Not that I'm trying to steer you toward spending any money or anything.

Not me, no sir.

I should warn you that some think the recoil is a bit stiff. I'm a recoil pansy but don't think it is too bad at all. Maybe it's because I was expecting more. The stock fit is wonderful, which surely helps a lot. Somehow, everyone who has picked mine up liked the stock, even though sizes and builds varied greatly. Strange but true. I think the recoil is better than say, the HK91 I used to have but of course it's more than my AR10 that probably weighs double.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...