Talk:Scout rifle

Request for a Photo

Can we get a photo? I'd think a photo from someone that owns one wouldn't violate any copyright laws. 210.79.184.101 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been taken care of, although more pictures would be good, especially of craft made P-Scouts (assuming no one has ever "made weight" that way), and the other offerings of Scout or very near Scout rifles, e.g. by Savage. Hga 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This Article is all opinion, and should be deleted or re-written

While it is true that the Scout Rifle is popular among the shooting press, it is far from the proven concept that this article suggests. There are several problems with this particular Wiki. 1. It fails to cite sources, and merely re-states popular opinion. (Most of the sources listed in the bibliography are not quoted at all, and state alternative conclusions. It appears to me that the author merely 'copy and pasted' from some other bibiligraphy.) 2. It looks more like and advertisement for Jeff Cooper than anything else 3. It fails to point out the problems of the Scout Rifle concepts such as low rate of fire, fragility of front mounted optics under harsh conditions..... and so forth. 4. The portion about shorter barrels being just as efficient due to faster burning modern powders is simply incorrect.

I could continue.... but I think I've made my point. From an encyclopedic viewpoint, this article is far below even Wiki standards.

A ALTERNATIVE viewpoint of the Scout rifle is this one, written by a fellow name Nguyenh, who make good points. It is as follows:

To whom it may concerns,

Few weeks ago I posted a comment regarding the Scout rifle and Mr. Cooper’s philosophy of the Scout rifle as the tool of the trade for recon personnel (published in various gun magazines during the last seven years). Since then I have received several email ranging from yahoo to flaming. To clear the air, I would like to explain in details of my previous post.

The discussion here is strictly limited to the Scout rifle, its concept and proposed application for recon personnel.

My previous posting was based on personal experiences in Vietnam as an infantry rifleman , 1972-1975. While not formally trained as a scout, the necessity of the situation put me in numerous missions into enemy territory to gather data and monitor troop movements, concentrations, logistic lines and sometimes harrassment of enemy rear echelons as a part of psy-war. The battlefields were very fluid and more often than not the lines were neither clearly defined nor dugged in unless it was a firebase. To that extent, engagements, be it scout or not, were brief and furiuos with little time for calculations or carefully aimed fire. It was the deadly game of cat and mouse as the adversary also put out scout hunter team to counter our missions.

On scout missions, the team was made up of two to five men. The duration was mostly two to ten days. Resupply was rare. Medivac was almost out of the question. The scout team had to live off the land if necessary and be familiar with the local terrain, customs, habits, and resources. The normal combat load was 200 rounds ammo, 3 frag grenades, 1 smoke, 1 concussion grenade, 1 phosphorous, 1 claymore. In addition two water canteen, dried foods (no canned food) for the planned duration, batteries for radio, first aid kids, water purification tablets, knife, map, compass, insect repellents, pills for diarrhea, trip wires and last but not least one set of civilian clothing. The load per man usually amounted up to 35 lbs including personal weapon. The weapons of choice were XM177, M16, M1 and M2 carbines (yes, WWII vintage), and more often than not AK47s. .45 cal submachine guns were not chosen due to the ammo heavy weight. 9mm Swedish K subs were used occasionally.

In long range extended duration (20 days) scout missions, the entire team were armed with AK47s for two reasons: a) Be able to replenish with captured ammo b) The Kalashnikovs gunfire sound is very distinct to the M16s. The use of AK47 in enemy territory aids in escape and confuse the adversaries.

While the mission of the scouts was to avoid confrontation, half of the time that was not possible. Engagements were usually brief firefights with the opponents possessing superior firepower. On scout and harassment missions, a sniper was added to the team. His specialty tool was usually M1D Garands, scoped 8mm German Mausers, scoped M14s, captured Moisin Nagant sniper rifles. Only once did I see a state-of-the-art Winchester M70 with heavy barrel. The sniper carried his demovable scope (where applicable) in a separate case for protection. He sometimes carried sidearms. But his security was mostly dependent on his spotter. On sniping missions, the team was usually made up of three men. The sniper, his spotter, and the radio man.

I have never heard of or seen anyone attempted to use a bolt action rifle on recon mission other than the sniper. Sniper engaged targets at minimum range of 300 yards and most of the time the battlefield was his choice, not his adversaries’ . The preferred range was 500 yards to give the sniper more time to engage and to keep the team out of enemy’s effective rifle fire range. If range is under 300 yards, the team most likely chose to lay low or pulled back. Most sniping engagements lasted less than half hour. The sniping team had to retreat quickly before the opponents got a bearing on them.

With the background described above, here are the reasons why I would not choose a Scout rifle

1) Limited firepower. Fire round magazine, even loaded by stripper clips, is too smallish unless used strictly for sniping. Reloading a bolt gun, even if stripper clip is employed, is not as easy a task as popping a fresh magazine home.

2) Bolt manipulation is clumsy in prone position, which was employed frequently in real life combat.

3) In the heat of combat with adrenaline pumping, it is not easy for a gunner to remember to rechamber his round. Even if he is trained to work the bolt and rechamber by reflex, there was always the chance of an interruption immediately after he pulled the trigger which ended up with his failure to rechamber a fresh round......and guess what happened when the next target loomed up to shoot at him.

4) The bolt action posed a serious problem with shooting on the left side barricade. Hands have to shift positions in order to work the bolt. This maneuver required excessive limbs movements which gave away the shooter’s position.

5) It was not uncommon where a recon person did not have both hands dedicated to the task of manipulating his weapon......say dragging a wounded comrade along.

6)While full auto fring was not encouraged and infrequently used by recon to conserve limited ammo resources, sometimes the full auto at close range provided tremendous psychological effect to confuse and to delay the adversaries’ pursuit.

7) The most frequent range of kills was 50 yards. At that range, a scoped rifle was a liability. Be it conventionally mounted on the receiver or on the barrel forward of the receiver, the rough combat condition most likely damaged the scope and rendered the weapon useless. In tropical environment where monsoon rain was frequent, swamps, wetlands, rivers, muddy fields were abundant, scope was too prone to malfunction if left on a rifle all the time.

8) The accuracy advantage of a bolt gun over a semis at the kill range of less than 100 yards against man size target was of no additional advantage. In combat, unlike sport hunting, there was not a need to place the bullet precisely for an instant knock down and kill. On the contrary, a wounded adversary would slow down his squad and required at least another combatant’s first aid attention.

9) The accuracy of a bolt gun can only be utilized to the advantage of the recon team if used strictly for sniping at range greater than 300 yards. In this case the slow rate of fire, the excessive body movement to work the bolt, the slow target acquisition with a receiver mounted scope were insignificant.

So that was why I stated I’d rather have an humble 30M1 Carbine for recon over the Scout. At this time I have not yet seen or heard of any military branches, foreign or domestic, opting the Scout rifle as a tool for their recon team. If you know otherwise, I would like to be informed.

The Scout rifle set up is neither an ideal sniper weapon due to the low power scope and limited field of view associated with an extended eye relief optics plus the light and short barrel nor is it an ideal weapon for close in, flash fire fight against a numerically superior opponent. At best it is an expensive eye-catching big game hunting rifle in rough terrain due to its light weight. Is it my choice to pack for hunting trip??? I don't see why a Remington Model 7 (6 1/4 lbs) with synthetic stock and a conventional 3-9x40 scope cannot outperform a Scout rifle for one third of the price. That is unless I want something out of the ordinary for conversation around campfires.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Please email to me.

Best regards

12.96.65.14 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me, especially given your final huge (although very interesting) addition, that your argument is with the Scout concept itself (and some compromises it forces, most especially in "making weight"), not so much with this article. Also, you do well to read a bit more of Cooper's writings on turn of the century rifle use: he points out some real life examples where employment of a rifle in a Scout style worked well, and something like it (an accurate bolt action (M98) suitable for shoot and scoot, the most likely way an individual rifleman will survive a conflict, if that's in the cards) e.g. finished off a German cruiser in WWI.

I'm often encouraged to "be bold"; without going into original research, why not tune up the article. E.g. don't just point out that optics are fragile, point out that with a setting sun behind you, a front mounted scope can be all but useless. Every article could use a responsible and fair minded "Devil's Advocate" (although for that it would seem that you would need to accept that the concept in total has ""some"" merit, that for some people and some situations it is exactly what they need, and a e.g. heavier higher rate of fire (and therefore heavier period) weapon would not be a better solution).

However, I think the Scout has enough validation in the real world (e.g. manufacture and sales by big name companies) that it by definition deserves a Wikipedia article, and that such an article will properly point out all the advantages it brings to the table. Hga 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, my point is not to put down the concept, but rather to point out that the article is flawed in that it only presents the positive aspects. To be a truly useful resource material, which I assume is the goal of Wikipedia, this article needs to present all of the relevent information. The truth of the matter is that the Scout Rifle is popular with gun writers, but has never been adopted in any significant numbers by those folks who actually use firearms regularly. To be accurate, this article needs to reflect that..... and if is not going to be accurate, it should not be here.

12.96.65.14 14:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"The truth of the matter is that the Scout Rifle is popular with gun writers, but has never been adopted in any significant numbers by those folks who actually use firearms regularly."

The above claim is unsubstantiated, and impossible to determine if this it is following a path where the few early adopters pay a premium, and the concept moves down market as the former prove the viability. I'm not saying this is happening, just that I don't think we can casually declare it a failure this early in the game.

But this is all besides the point: this is Wikipedia: you've made it quite clear you don't think the article is balanced, so it is therefore incumbent upon you to improve it, not call for it's deletion since it doesn't meet your standards for quality, balance, etc.

You clearly have an idea of what you're talking about (although you don't "get" the concept to begin with, which presents a problem), you can make a start on it. E.g., start with the optics, which are an admitted weak point/compromise in the system. Or weight vs. firepower ("making weight" is the hardest to achieve, and pretty requires a bolt action). Discuss that compromise and how it is intended to be used (not at the target range for a long time unless you're recoil resistant, scoot and shoot from cover in combat, otherwise a rifle you're more likely to have with you because it's light and handy, which beats not having anything (or nothing with substantial stopping power)).

Bottom line: "be bold" and start improving the article; we who like Scouts will adjust what you say, and the end result will be better (e.g. it really does need something about the back lighting problem, but again that's a tradeoff for keeping both eyes open, something I know from the field is useful from using an old K-4 scope). Hga 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandon Flowers 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be rewritten. Concerning the initial four points, number one is valid. As to point two, Jeff Cooper is the acknowledged originator of the Scout Rifle concept, so I fail to see your point, other than personal animus. Points three and four are opinions, or you should cite your sources.

As to the nine points in the "Nguyenh" letter, number one is completely invalid as a five (5) round capacity has never been a characteristic of the Scout Rifle concept. Point number two is invalid based on hours of range practice and field shooting from the prone position. Properly done, bolt manipulation in the prone position is almost as smooth and fluid as seated, or standing. The remaining points three thru nine are all partially invalid due to the fact that the Scout Rifle concept is *not* an exclusively military concept, and should not be evaluated from a strictly combat point of view. The Scout Rifle concept also applies to the big game hunter, rancher, fence rider, varmint shooter, small game hunter, survivalist, etc.

I would suggest a casual web search for, and reading of, the myriad of pages by enthusiastic Scout Rifle owners. Not "gun writers", but rather gun owners, and gun shooters, who find the concept, and the actual firearms, quite useful.

Hello, Price of weapon at Savage Arms has changed to USD 646.00. So it has gone down. 76.170.117.46 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Having been a Scout Rifle user for the better part of 10 years (closer to 15 maybe) one must remember that it is best used has a hunting rifle. Having carried many types of weapons during my years in the Army (M16, M21, M60, M203) they each have their place. Use the Scout for combat? Not me...unless there was nothing else. Use it for hunting? You bet. I live here in NW Alaska and my .308 Scout has knocked down more caribou than I can remember. In the last 2 years I have switched to a Scout .338/06 simply because of Mr. Bear and the extra knock down. Has for long range shooting, which I enjoy, I have other weapons for that. In the end it's what you need to use it for that makes a weapon "good" or "bad" for the need.

Pierre Lonewolf Kotzebue, Alaska lonewolf@otz.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.245.211 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original four points

1. Poor citations

This seems to have been rectified as this article currently has 28 footnotes and 62 references with page numbers in a good 10+ languages. On first blush it would appear to be one of the more thoroughly researched wiki articles I have seen. If you take issue with the characterization or use of any of those myriad sources, please state which one and why.

2. The article is "more like an advertisement for Jeff Cooper than anything else."

I must agree with Sandon Flowers above. Cooper is the acknowledged originator of, if not the idea, its codification and popularization. I fail to see your point also.

3. low rate of fire and fragility of forward mounted optics

These are valid concerns. SOmebody should write a counterpoint into the article

4. "The portion about shorter barrels being just as efficient due to faster burning modern powders is simply incorrect."

Respectfully, you are wrong here. While it is true that modern powders have not significantly changed the dynamics of commercial .308, it is equally true that the 24"-26" barrels that used to be de-riguer are being substituted for 20" barrels and achieving 1-2MOA accuracy out to 900+ yds in .308 (look to results by the guys at Rifles Only in Colorado, amongst many others) Further, there have been many new cartridges such as the 6mmKAC from the new KAC PDW that make use of modern powders to achieve full power in very short (sub 10") barrels (given that particular one is only a 300 meter cartridge, but the scout rifle concept is a 450 meter concept so you get the idea. Some discussion of these changing trends is appropriate in my view.

I think the article is by no means in need of being rewritten. Any specific concerns should be brought up here. Otherwise, it would be nice for someone to add a "counterpoint" or "criticisms of the Scout Rifle Concept" section.SB Pete (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and inappropriate tone templates

Over the last two months, this article has been expanded and improved quite a bit. Because of this, I'm going to remove the "cleanup" and "inappropriate tone" templates now. If other editors think that one or both templates should be put back, please explain why in this talk page section. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

1000 lb Rifle

I suspect there has been some vandalism here- I'm sure the quote wasnt 1000lb. can someone correct this. I haven't the time to go back trough the history. Epeeist smudge (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary mass (weight) design goal for its ability to kill in hunting "any living target", not the weight of the rifle itself. I.e. it's suitable for "large game" as that's usually defined but not elephants. Hga (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I stand corrected. Thanks Epeeist smudge (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Military Caliber

Col Cooper stated more than once that it needs to be in a military caliber, and 308 was commonly selected. However, saying a 223 scout would be underpowered for a true scout or not a true scout is, well, not true. Alabamagene (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Remington 600

Shouldn't there be some mention in this article of Cooper's use of the Remington 600 series as the basis for his Scout I and Super Scout (.350 Rem Mag.) rifles? They were not production scout rifles, but the carbines were deemed suitable for use as scout rifles with addition of accesories (scope, sling, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.20.254 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Spanish FR-7/FR-8 Mauser Carbine

I think there should be some mention of the FR-7/FR-8 Spanish carbines. They are 16" barreled .308 Win. carbines with flash hiders that actually look almost exactly like the Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle. That is an example of an actual issue Scout rifle, thought they pre-date Cooper's promotion of the concept.166.137.101.177 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Scout Scopes

I removed the reference to the Elcan SpecterDR optic in the "Scoutscope" section of this page.

While I will not argue that the SpecterDR is a very capable and high quality optic, it is most definitely does not fit the criteria of a scout scope, as its eye relief is far too short to permit typical forward mounting.

The quintessential Scoutscope is arguably the Leupold FX-II Scout 2.5x28mm, which has a 9.3" specification for eye relief per the manufacturer.

In comparison, the Elcan SpecterDR 1/4x and 1.5/6x have an eye relief specification of only 70mm (per SWFA). That is only 2.76", and therefore requires "conventional" mounting very close to the shooter's eye.

Hence, one typically sees the SpecterDR mounted on self-loading rifles (ARs, SCAR17s, MSAR E4s, M14s, etc.) to the extreme rear of the receiver rail. I have yet to see one mounted on a "scout" rifle, at least not one mounted on the forward rail.

If anything have I said is incorrect, please correct me.

Neil McCauley (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Picture

Someone has put the steyr elite as the thumbnail picture. This is incorrect as it weighs more than specified by Jeff Coopers scout rifle concept. I have replaced it with the steyr scout. Cheers Ian Callaghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.112.249.26 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Scout... or Cooper?

Instead of the Saint Cooper fanatics blabbering on about "a" rifle, creating religion disguised as advertising copy, why not write a standard-issue five paragraph compare/contrast essay on scout rifles, from the Chinese invention of gunpowder, include some "'merica! F YEAH!" BS mentioning what was used in the American Revolutionary War so we sound properly special needs, and wrap it up in the 21st century of what al-Quesa bin-Sand-Box is bleeding western butts with? Three weapons, 3,000 year span, 50 minutes total writing time at 10 mins a paragraph, which is 2 mins/sentence from rough to final published draft. 71.189.91.189 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC) signature is @anonomouse1981; my twitter handle. I won't get a w-pedia account until they make it peer-reviewed.