Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Manually Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Manually Operated Lever action, bolt action or other non gas operated centerfire rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-10-2023, 3:12 PM
200Apples's Avatar
200Apples 200Apples is offline
-DVC- Mojave Lever Crew
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,875
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
It need not make sense, be practical, or relevant. It only must be able to sell...

Hah! This sounds just like something Cooper would have said 30 years ago.

Along with his, "Very nice. ...but what is it FOR?"

Outstanding!
__________________
.
"Get a proper holster, and go hot. The End." - SplitHoof

NRA Lifetime | Avatar courtesy Elon Musk's Twitter User SomthingWicked
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-10-2023, 3:50 PM
tomk556 tomk556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post

9. He didn't use a sling. The Scout shines when using a proper shooting sling. He seemed to completely miss this and why there are so many sling mounting points.
.
This. His videos are fun but he clearly hadn?t read Cooper?s book. I noticed the same thing about his lack of interest in the sling points. It would be interesting to hear his assessment had he understood what the rifle was developed for and through a lens of actual recon where you?re not necessarily engaging an enemy and need to be able to move fast.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-10-2023, 4:27 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The biggest problem I have, these days, is the cost for a good version; i.e., a Ruger or Steyr. Even an decent one (Savage) runs around $1,000 without a scope. Even the 'bargain' Mossberg runs around $1,000 with a scope. Of course, if you need a left-hand model, you're stuck with the Ruger in stainless unless you shop the used market.

The Ruger Scout, which I like, has an MSRP of about $1,400 - $1,500; though it can be had for around $1,100 - $1,200. The truly horrific part is the cost of the magazines. $75 for a 5-round steel magazine and $43 for a polymer 3 rd., 5 rd., or 10 rd.



The Steyr Scout and the Scout II run about $1600 - $1,900 (or more) and the polymer magazine comes in at $55.



The Savage 110 Scout has an MSRP of $959 and a magazine (assuming this is the correct one) of $59.



The Mossberg MVP Scout has an MSRP of $711 and has the advantage of accepting Magpul magazines.



That's without discussing the cost of a scope, where a Leupold will set you back $300 - $350, a Burris will run $350 - $540, and a Vortex goes for about $200.

Then there's the cost of .308 ammunition currently. Even reloading ain't cheap or 'easy' anymore given the price of powder and primers and their scarcity at times.

Don't get me wrong. I like the concept and were I to favor it as my only rifle, as opposed to an AR platform or Mini-14, the price wouldn't be that bad. But, as an option, I'm not sure I'd put that much into a bolt-action rifle limited to 3 - 10 rounds. Of course, here in California, it might be an acceptable option in lieu of a semi-automatic given the way things have gone.

So...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-10-2023, 9:19 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,290
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomk556 View Post
This. His videos are fun but he clearly hadn?t read Cooper?s book. I noticed the same thing about his lack of interest in the sling points. It would be interesting to hear his assessment had he understood what the rifle was developed for and through a lens of actual recon where you?re not necessarily engaging an enemy and need to be able to move fast.
I think he knows what it was designed for, he just thinks that purpose doesn't make sense. He was Air Force special operations, so he likely did his share of recon. Of course he wouldn't have a bolt gun.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-10-2023, 9:23 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,290
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The biggest problem I have, these days, is the cost for a good version; i.e., a Ruger or Steyr. Even an decent one (Savage) runs around $1,000 without a scope. Even the 'bargain' Mossberg runs around $1,000 with a scope. Of course, if you need a left-hand model, you're stuck with the Ruger in stainless unless you shop the used market.

The Ruger Scout, which I like, has an MSRP of about $1,400 - $1,500; though it can be had for around $1,100 - $1,200. The truly horrific part is the cost of the magazines. $75 for a 5-round steel magazine and $43 for a polymer 3 rd., 5 rd., or 10 rd.



The Steyr Scout and the Scout II run about $1600 - $1,900 (or more) and the polymer magazine comes in at $55.



The Savage 110 Scout has an MSRP of $959 and a magazine (assuming this is the correct one) of $59.



The Mossberg MVP Scout has an MSRP of $711 and has the advantage of accepting Magpul magazines.



That's without discussing the cost of a scope, where a Leupold will set you back $300 - $350, a Burris will run $350 - $540, and a Vortex goes for about $200.

Then there's the cost of .308 ammunition currently. Even reloading ain't cheap or 'easy' anymore given the price of powder and primers and their scarcity at times.

Don't get me wrong. I like the concept and were I to favor it as my only rifle, as opposed to an AR platform or Mini-14, the price wouldn't be that bad. But, as an option, I'm not sure I'd put that much into a bolt-action rifle limited to 3 - 10 rounds. Of course, here in California, it might be an acceptable option in lieu of a semi-automatic given the way things have gone.

So...
I think if I got something like that I'd strongly consider a SIG Cross. Pretty lightweight and they have a terrific trigger.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-10-2023, 9:31 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thoughts on the cost of a Scout Rifle.

When done correctly, Scout Rifles are NEVER going to be low cost. Lower the cost, the higher the odds many, many criteria were ignored. Lower the cost, less likely you actually have a Scout Rifle regardless of what the manufacture calls their rifle.

Buds lists the Styer Scout $1600. That might feel like a lot, but I am willing to bet that the average rifle owner on Calguns has already spent that or more on their rifle(s?) of interest. A lot of the "sticker shock" is less about the cost, and more about lack of interest and or perceived need/use, thus the cost doesn't seem justifiable.

When the Styer came out, it was I want to say $2600 for the Cooper package or $2000 for just the rifle. Today, you can have it for $1600 plus gov fees. It is "cheaper" today than it was 20 years ago.

There is a lot of rifle packed into that cost. It is one of the few rifles that once you bring it home, there really isn't anything the rifle needs except a scope and a proper shooting sling.

It is all about what you are interested in AND need or want. More you understand the Scout Rifle concept, the effort and challenges that go into building a rifle correctly AND have more than a passing interest in this type of rifle and shooting.... the less of an issue the cost is. Particularly when getting a Styer today will cost you $400 less than when the rifle first came out.

One does not need to be "flush" with spare money to be able to afford a Styer... IF that is really and truly what you want. Patience and a plan are what you need. Took me 20 years before I got mine.

On magazine capacity.

Since at the end of the day, this rifle is a hunting rifle designed to be carried on long trips into the backcountry far more than shot, and the 99.9% of the time the target is either paper for training/practice or a game animal.... how much are you planning on missing? Styer has a 5-round magazine, for what this rifle is for, how much more do you need?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-10-2023, 11:30 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,065
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
Thoughts on the cost of a Scout Rifle.

When done correctly, Scout Rifles are NEVER going to be low cost.

More you understand the Scout Rifle concept, the effort and challenges that go into building a rifle correctly AND have more than a passing interest in this type of rifle and shooting.... the less of an issue the cost is.
I never really worried too much about what it actually cost; it has been more about the pursuit of competence and skill at arms. Yes, I very much prefer that our weapons be set up in certain ways, and due to this persuit, it means that most factory offerings are simply a starting point to which I must improve upon for my special uses. I do like the Steyr in general, but those back-up sights in particular I am not fond of.

That pursuit of excellence is where the co$t is; for me that has meant lots of practice, lots of time at school, and a lot of driving. That co$t has to me been worth every penny, as I have had opportunities to spend a bunch of time with some old-school folks who are at the forefront of using firearms in practical application.

Last edited by splithoof; 12-10-2023 at 11:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-10-2023, 11:54 PM
NapalmCheese's Avatar
NapalmCheese NapalmCheese is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 5,821
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
I think he knows what it was designed for, he just thinks that purpose doesn't make sense. He was Air Force special operations, so he likely did his share of recon. Of course he wouldn't have a bolt gun.
I think this is most of it, along with he knows his audience isn't terribly interested in the rifle other than it was the "360 jump no scope" rifle in Counterstrike.

In his world the idea of being a scout along the lines of Buffalo Bill Cody or Wild Bill Hickock is akin to being a walking dead man. He may produce content that occasionally speaks to "you might have to go it alone some day for an extended period of time" but by and large his message is "don't enter combat alone".

The idea of one person living out in the wild for weeks or months at a time, gathering intel and potentially harassing an enemy with hit and run techniques, is not something he would necessarily promote as wise.
__________________
Calguns.net, where everyone responding to your post is a Navy Force Delta Recon 6 Sniperator.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-11-2023, 1:19 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,290
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmCheese View Post
I think this is most of it, along with he knows his audience isn't terribly interested in the rifle other than it was the "360 jump no scope" rifle in Counterstrike.

In his world the idea of being a scout along the lines of Buffalo Bill Cody or Wild Bill Hickock is akin to being a walking dead man. He may produce content that occasionally speaks to "you might have to go it alone some day for an extended period of time" but by and large his message is "don't enter combat alone".

The idea of one person living out in the wild for weeks or months at a time, gathering intel and potentially harassing an enemy with hit and run techniques, is not something he would necessarily promote as wise.
Right, and he's actually made recce videos for that purpose. For which an AR is a better rifle. I wouldn't be surprised if he thought a .308 SCAR made a better do-everything rifle. They're fairly close in weight too, I think, especially with an ACOG.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-11-2023, 3:17 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
Thoughts on the cost of a Scout Rifle.

When done correctly, Scout Rifles are NEVER going to be low cost. Lower the cost, the higher the odds many, many criteria were ignored. Lower the cost, less likely you actually have a Scout Rifle regardless of what the manufacture calls their rifle.

Buds lists the Styer Scout $1600. That might feel like a lot, but I am willing to bet that the average rifle owner on Calguns has already spent that or more on their rifle(s?) of interest. A lot of the "sticker shock" is less about the cost, and more about lack of interest and or perceived need/use, thus the cost doesn't seem justifiable...

There is a lot of rifle packed into that cost. It is one of the few rifles that once you bring it home, there really isn't anything the rifle needs except a scope and a proper shooting sling.

It is all about what you are interested in AND need or want. More you understand the Scout Rifle concept, the effort and challenges that go into building a rifle correctly AND have more than a passing interest in this type of rifle and shooting.... the less of an issue the cost is. Particularly when getting a Styer today will cost you $400 less than when the rifle first came out.

One does not need to be "flush" with spare money to be able to afford a Styer... IF that is really and truly what you want. Patience and a plan are what you need. Took me 20 years before I got mine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
I never really worried too much about what it actually cost; it has been more about the pursuit of competence and skill at arms. Yes, I very much prefer that our weapons be set up in certain ways, and due to this persuit, it means that most factory offerings are simply a starting point to which I must improve upon for my special uses. I do like the Steyr in general, but those back-up sights in particular I am not fond of.

That pursuit of excellence is where the co$t is; for me that has meant lots of practice, lots of time at school, and a lot of driving. That co$t has to me been worth every penny, as I have had opportunities to spend a bunch of time with some old-school folks who are at the forefront of using firearms in practical application.
This is part of where my observation stems from. NOTHING that comes from a manufacturer in 'completed' form is going to be focused on 'value pricing.' Yet, by your own admissions, there is nothing which comes from manufacturers in a completely satisfactory form. So... Where is the 'balance point' in terms of price vs. adaptable function for the individual?

It's not about how much it costs. It's about how much it costs as a starting point simply because it is a 'scout rifle.' As Cooper said in the article I posted on the first page: "One might construct a quite good scout rifle with a Savage 99, but it will still be a couple of inches longer than a comparable bolt gun."

In short, it's not supposed to be about a rifle with all the latest/greatest technology, allowing it to... kind of... meet the criteria and, most certainly, allowing the manufacturer to come in at a certain price point. It's supposed to be about manufacturers producing a firearm within certain parameters to allow for the type of use Cooper was talking about. In that sense, if you look at his criteria, he isn't talking about having to innovate new rifles. He's talking about taking certain characteristics, already in existence, and putting them together in a single design.

Likewise, if the criterion is "interest," then why dampen that interest by making it 'unaffordable' for many? Yes. In a sense, they are 'cheaper' than they were; but, $1,500 - $2,000 and more is still 'expensive' to/for many. Well, at least as a starting point.

It's why I brought up the left-hand version. I get that there are production limitations on producing such firearms vs. how many will sell. Yet, it provides an example of how what is being produced isn't necessarily intended to generate interest in the 'scout concept' and shooting. What is being produced is intended to generate interest among those who can afford and will purchase it. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it doesn't necessarily further the idea of a "general-purpose rifle," with 'usable accuracy,' which can be carried far more than it is shot for the intended circumstances, but will deliver a "decisive blow" when needed.

Remember, the idea was to have a rifle which served a practical, functional application. Each of us is going to have individual needs and preferences in terms of how we meet that application and a good deal of that will stem from research and actual experience. In that sense, might it not make a certain sense for manufacturers to produce an usable, but more affordable, rifle as a starting point and allow the actual user to adapt it as they gain more experience in terms of what works for them?

I'm not sure any of the firearms I noted in Post #43 allows for that. Worse. I'm not sure the industry wants to allow for that at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-11-2023, 7:21 AM
tomk556 tomk556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
I think he knows what it was designed for, he just thinks that purpose doesn't make sense. He was Air Force special operations, so he likely did his share of recon. Of course he wouldn't have a bolt gun.
Perhaps, I assume he was probably a PJ which isn?t really a reconnaissance force. I mean more like simple Army Cav Scouts doing dismounted area and zone recon missions. I don?t know that scout rifles make sense but I can see Cooper?s argument when your mission isn?t to engage enemy forces outside of specified criteria.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-11-2023, 8:12 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,065
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Trapped, you make some very good points.

It would be nice if some of the larger, major players in the rifle business offered rifles in such a way that the customer could choose all the components in list form individually (from that manufacturer’s catalog) and have the product assembled by their custom shop before delivery. That can be done now to a very small extent, but it is much more expensive than I believe most folks would commit funding for. Ruger, for example, tries to capture some of this idea by offering several distinct variations on the same platform in their scout series. But they will not factory build exactly what you want. I do not know of any of the bigger manufacturers offering this. Remington I think was the last to sort of do that.

As to specific models, I have had great success with the Ruger GSR, although I fully acknowledge that it does not fit the definition of a true Scout Rifle, and neither does my Steyr. While the Ruger is indeed heavy, it otherwise does everything I ask of it, if I do my part. I actually shoot it better than the Steyr for some reason, and am not hesitant to take it out and about in places and conditions that some would not. I do not care for the ten-round mags, and have no clue as to why Ruger ships those. The shorter five-round variety for me are much more friendly. As to the three GSRs we have, they all like the same ammunition, and shoot it very well. That is a solid plus when I take the kids (young adults) to school and we go through a pile. Helps with logistics.

If y’all ever want to cover Mini Scouts, that is something else I like, but that is another thread, because my favorite one does not meet the criteria due to its caliber being 7.62X39.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-11-2023, 9:08 AM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
I think he knows what it was designed for, he just thinks that purpose doesn't make sense. He was Air Force special operations, so he likely did his share of recon. Of course he wouldn't have a bolt gun.
I am not so sure I agree either that he knows what it was designed for or that his military time is relevant to understanding what Cooper was going for.

Cooper muddied the waters in some ways with all his talk about the military aspect of a nonmilitary rifle for the casual observer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Likewise, if the criterion is "interest," then why dampen that interest by making it 'unaffordable' for many? Yes. In a sense, they are 'cheaper' than they were; but, $1,500 - $2,000 and more is still 'expensive' to/for many. Well, at least as a starting point.
My point was that interest factors into our tolerance for cost. If you are VERY interested in something, in this case Scout Rifles, then $1600 doesn't "feel" like much.

Again, I would bet that the average Calguns rifle owner has already spent more than that on the rifles they are interested in, and because of that interest, don't bat an eye. They got what they want.

Extreme example, PRS type shooting. If one is VERY interested in that type shooting, one doesn't think twice about dropping around $6000 on a rifle and scope to get started. Many of the top custom actions are 85-90% of the cost of a Styer and that just gets you the action, you still have to get a barrel, stock, trigger, scope, rings, action screws etc.

I would argue that because you are hung up on cost for a Scout Rifle that while fascinated, you are not that interested in it.

Purely speaking about my self now, When I bought mine, they were about $200 less than they are now new, in the box. It was at the height of the ruger scout and that likely drove the cost down. I have not made one change to it, never felt the need. Unlike with my Remingtons. I likely have spent at least double twice now experimenting and changing them. And about to do it again now that I have some of idea of what I want from them.

If you go into this thinking you will NEED to change stuff on the rifle, I can see your point. But I would argue in the case of the Styer (vs a Remington for example) you do not NEED to. You might WANT to, but you do not NEED to. Which puts the $1600 in a different light in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-11-2023, 9:37 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,065
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 200Apples View Post

Along with his, "Very nice. ...but what is it FOR?"
That is one question in gun culture that is not only entertaining (causing butt-hurt at times), it is also relevant from a practical standpoint. I remember some years ago during a campfire discussion on the subject of scout rifles, two of the participants being Michael Horne, and Michael Waidelich (Bakersfield PD), discussing how Cooper sometimes used that phrase back in the early days of school. That was one of my more memorable philosophical discussions on that topic, one that drives some of my views on rifle craft in general.
Good times indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-11-2023, 3:09 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,290
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomk556 View Post
Perhaps, I assume he was probably a PJ which isn?t really a reconnaissance force. I mean more like simple Army Cav Scouts doing dismounted area and zone recon missions. I don?t know that scout rifles make sense but I can see Cooper?s argument when your mission isn?t to engage enemy forces outside of specified criteria.
He made some intensive recce videos. It certainly looked like, or maybe he said, he'd had training on that. Regardless, recon units in our military certainly are armed, and in certain circumstances, expected to shoot things up. If not, something is going to waste because they sure are good at it.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-11-2023, 3:24 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
Trapped, you make some very good points.

It would be nice if some of the larger, major players in the rifle business offered rifles in such a way that the customer could choose all the components in list form individually (from that manufacturer's catalog) and have the product assembled by their custom shop before delivery. That can be done now to a very small extent, but it is much more expensive than I believe most folks would commit funding for. Ruger, for example, tries to capture some of this idea by offering several distinct variations on the same platform in their scout series. But they will not factory build exactly what you want. I do not know of any of the bigger manufacturers offering this. Remington I think was the last to sort of do that.

As to specific models, I have had great success with the Ruger GSR, although I fully acknowledge that it does not fit the definition of a true Scout Rifle, and neither does my Steyr. While the Ruger is indeed heavy, it otherwise does everything I ask of it, if I do my part. I actually shoot it better than the Steyr for some reason, and am not hesitant to take it out and about in places and conditions that some would not. I do not care for the ten-round mags, and have no clue as to why Ruger ships those. The shorter five-round variety for me are much more friendly. As to the three GSRs we have, they all like the same ammunition, and shoot it very well. That is a solid plus when I take the kids (young adults) to school and we go through a pile. Helps with logistics.

If y?all ever want to cover Mini Scouts, that is something else I like, but that is another thread, because my favorite one does not meet the criteria due to its caliber being 7.62X39.
I wasn't necessarily talking about a 'custom' rifle straight from the factory; although, in some cases, that would be nice.

What I was primarily speaking to was a 'base model,' if you will, that could be modified as you go or, perhaps more accurately, as you could afford it and decided what worked better/best for you.

Just like the Ruger. It is listed at 7.3 lbs. Part of that is likely due to the weight of the laminated wood stock. Although I like wood, at some point, I would probably switch to a McMillan or something comparable, depending on the price. The trigger is another where I'd like to be able to choose among the options. In other words, things that can be done now on factory rifles, but doing so with a rifle which (kinda) meets the specs of a "scout rifle," yet doesn't cost an arm and a leg coming out the gate, making one hesitate to sink even more money into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
...My point was that interest factors into our tolerance for cost. If you are VERY interested in something, in this case Scout Rifles, then $1600 doesn't "feel" like much.

Again, I would bet that the average Calguns rifle owner has already spent more than that on the rifles they are interested in, and because of that interest, don't bat an eye. They got what they want.

Extreme example, PRS type shooting. If one is VERY interested in that type shooting, one doesn't think twice about dropping around $6000 on a rifle and scope to get started. Many of the top custom actions are 85-90% of the cost of a Styer and that just gets you the action, you still have to get a barrel, stock, trigger, scope, rings, action screws etc.

I would argue that because you are hung up on cost for a Scout Rifle that while fascinated, you are not that interested in it.

Purely speaking about my self now, When I bought mine, they were about $200 less than they are now new, in the box. It was at the height of the ruger scout and that likely drove the cost down. I have not made one change to it, never felt the need. Unlike with my Remingtons. I likely have spent at least double twice now experimenting and changing them. And about to do it again now that I have some of idea of what I want from them.

If you go into this thinking you will NEED to change stuff on the rifle, I can see your point. But I would argue in the case of the Styer (vs a Remington for example) you do not NEED to. You might WANT to, but you do not NEED to. Which puts the $1600 in a different light in my opinion.
So... If I'm not willing to commit what used to be "big money" right from the start, I'm not interested enough?

I too, sometimes, think the Calguns membership is made up of those 'swimming in money' from the posts made by a few. But, I realize that's not necessarily the case.

I'm glad the Steyr works for YOU, pretty much, "as is" from the factory. Consider yourself fortunate. Unfortunately, not everyone is made the same and many of us prefer what we prefer.

Let's say that I've spent "big money" on a rifle or two. But, I did it as I went; in some cases, when I could afford it, in others when I found the 'right thing.' However, if your metric includes "dropping around $6000 on a rifle and scope to get started," you're playing well out of my league and, I suspect, out of the league many members play in.

I get that the price of things has gone up. I'm not saying a rifle needs to 'start' at $250. But, if someone could come up with a 'better' (or, at least, slightly different) package at about the same price range ($675 - $725) as, say, the Mossberg which could then be 'customized' as one went, we'd be closer to what I envision.

Think of it as buying a 'barreled action' in a functional rifle. That way, the user has a rifle of the 'type' to play and experiment with; but, something they can build on as experience (not to mention finances) dictates. That $900 - $1,000 difference between the "$675" and your "$1,600" starting point could be a major, deciding factor in terms of allowing for people to develop the interest or cultivate the interest which already exists to a point where they, eventually, commit 'big money,' but end up with something that suits them personally within (give or take) the parameters that Cooper laid out. Kind of along the lines of...

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof
Quote:
Originally Posted by 200Apples View Post

Along with his, "Very nice. ...but what is it FOR?"
That is one question in gun culture that is not only entertaining (causing butt-hurt at times), it is also relevant from a practical standpoint. I remember some years ago during a campfire discussion on the subject of scout rifles, two of the participants being Michael Horne, and Michael Waidelich (Bakersfield PD), discussing how Cooper sometimes used that phrase back in the early days of school. That was one of my more memorable philosophical discussions on that topic, one that drives some of my views on rifle craft in general.
Good times indeed.
It would give people with more 'limited' resources a chance to discover the 'what for,' not to mention the 'how to' in terms of using it, while simultaneously giving them a 'base' to build on.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-11-2023, 7:07 PM
tomk556 tomk556 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 854
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
He made some intensive recce videos. It certainly looked like, or maybe he said, he'd had training on that. Regardless, recon units in our military certainly are armed, and in certain circumstances, expected to shoot things up. If not, something is going to waste because they sure are good at it.
Absolutely. There?s definitely a disconnect between the rifle and reality. What I think Cooper had in mind is a weapon for a traditional cav scout on a mission that doesn?t intend to engage a target. That weapon allows them to be fast and mobile, get a shot or two in if necessary, and then break contact. The precision element I would imagine is for the times where recon elements are given the leeway to engage team size elements or smaller., etc. The modern CAV in an IBCT is very far from this for sure- now it?s more like 3 up-armored hmmwvs with mk19s and 50 cals. Alls I?m saying is I?d have been curious to hear GT?s thoughts on a task like that as opposed to African safaris and sniping.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-11-2023, 8:33 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,065
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post


It would give people with more 'limited' resources a chance to discover the 'what for,' not to mention the 'how to' in terms of using it, while simultaneously giving them a 'base' to build on.
Well said. If they concluded that it was not for them, they could sell it and move on. Imagine if the major manufacturers could figure this out.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-11-2023, 8:58 PM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 11,498
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

IIRC, Cooper chose a bolt action simply because it was legal in many places around the world. If he were to choose a scout rifle solely for use in the US, I imagine he would have chosen a small and lightweight semi-auto like the AR platform.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-11-2023, 9:41 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

TrappedinCalifornia,

Yes, your actual interest level plays into your willingness to spend money on something. Put another way...If there is a will, there is a way. Which was my point with the PRS $6000 rifle example.

It doesn't matter if you have all $6000 or whatever an entry rifle costs up front or buy a part as you can. You will find a way to acquire that rifle, and the cost won't bother you because THAT is what you want and ARE TRUELY INTERESTED in.

IF you REALLY want a Scout Rifle built as close to ideal as possible it WILL cost, and cost FAR, FAR more than a Styer. The reality is... $1600 is the low cost to get into something that is at least 80/85% correct.

It is PURE fantasy to think you can build a one-off Scout Rifle that is on par feature wise with the Styer for less. It is simply NOT possible.

Even though mine was $200 less, I had to save up, I couldn't just plunk down the credit card. I didn't have that kind of money then or now. It took about 15 years from when it was released until I could buy mine. But, where there is a will, there is a way.

I fully comprehend what you are saying, but the argument is flawed.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-11-2023, 10:07 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomk556 View Post
Absolutely. There?s definitely a disconnect between the rifle and reality. What I think Cooper had in mind is a weapon for a traditional cav scout on a mission
Cooper acknowledges the type of military scout that he drew some of his inspiration from no longer exists. Reference the gun digest article in this thread.

As such, it makes no sense to try and argue that he was building a rifle for the "traditional cav scout".

The hunter and the 19th century scout continue to have a lot in common. Scout out where "they are" without being seen, heard, discovered. But for the hunter "they" are the game animal. This is who he was building the rifle for, the hunter.

Since he wanted it to be a general-purpose rifle, he did make arguments for a wide range of uses. Some probably more practical than others. BUT at the end of the day the Scout rifle is simply a very well thought out hunting rifle based in part on HIS hunting experiences AND some 19th and early 20th century scouting for the military. Frederick Russell Burnham being a specific example.

BUT again, at the end of the day we are talking about what he thought would be the ultimate hunting rifle. NOT a military rifle. He thought highly of the M1 Garand. Why would he try and make an argument to go back to bolt action rifles for the military knowing their day was over?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-12-2023, 1:11 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
TrappedinCalifornia...

It doesn't matter if you have all $6000 or whatever an entry rifle costs up front or buy a part as you can. You will find a way to acquire that rifle, and the cost won't bother you because THAT is what you want and ARE TRUELY INTERESTED in.

IF you REALLY want a Scout Rifle built as close to ideal as possible it WILL cost, and cost FAR, FAR more than a Styer. The reality is... $1600 is the low cost to get into something that is at least 80/85% correct.

It is PURE fantasy to think you can build a one-off Scout Rifle that is on par feature wise with the Styer for less. It is simply NOT possible...
It's not flawed. The presumption you hold is where the flaw lies. I never said that, ultimately, you would end up sinking less money into the project. What I am saying is that many people need something to start with that, with experience and as the money becomes available, they can build from.

Such isn't necessarily the case with any old barreled action. Take the Mossberg MVP Scout. At $711 (or less), it's half the cost of your 80% - 85% starting point. Trade off the 'side mounted rails' for an adjustable LOP. Trade off the fiber optic sights and, perhaps, the oversized bolt handle for a left-handed model. Etc.

Even as configured now, it doesn't meet Cooper's definition. Neither does the Steyr. However, it does allow someone the opportunity to explore the Scout Rifle concept at half your 'introductory' price. Then, as experience and money allows, it can be built out to more closely reflect Cooper's intent. Ultimately, you're likely to spend more money than the cost of the Steyr, but a neophyte to the concept will have had the opportunity to experiment, see what it's about, and build to their (not your or some generic) satisfaction or make an informed decision to invest the money in an higher end rifle built toward the concept.

It's not about the money you will ultimately spend. It's about the 'entry fee' to the concept. Interest isn't defined by the amount of money something ultimately takes or how much is spent in the learning process. The ability to explore that 'something,' however, is often determined by the amount of money it takes to experiment with the idea.

It's the same as... I'd like to play with an "1874 Quigley." Am I going to spend $4,142+ to see if I really like it or if it will work for me? I haven't yet and given that I've owned cars, for years, which have cost less and gotten a lot more utility out of them, I'm unlikely to any time in the near future. Neither am I likely to spend $4,900 on an Uberti 1874 Sharps Extra Deluxe Blued Single Shot Rifle to 'experiment' with the concept.

In that context, I'd be more willing to 'experiment' with the concept using a Chiappa 1874 .45-70 Government Sharps US Team Creedmore 34" Lever Action Rifle for $1,165 to see if the concept suited me. I might even be more likely to go with a Pedersoli 1874 Sharps "Q" Down Under Sporting 34" for $789. Either would give me an opportunity to experiment with the concept without having to 'mortgage the house' (so to speak) to see if it worked for me and enhance my interest sufficiently to "go/get better" with it.

It's just like I might have an interest in a Randall Model 1. But, I'm not sufficiently experienced enough to actually utilize it in terms of its 'ability.' Why would I commit to a 6 year waiting list and tie up "$500" to get the experience? I mean, I could cut the wait time down to "10 months," but the price would go up to $625. Perhaps a quality knockoff would be a better place to start gaining experience with the design? Again, it's not about the 'interest level.' It's about the 'entry fee' to learn.

It's the same story with many, many other products, from firearms to tents to cars to backpacking stoves to whatever. Not everyone can or does start at the deep end or even where your feet can no longer touch the bottom of the pool. It doesn't mean they lack interest or even the 'courage of their convictions.' It means they simply don't, currently, possess the wherewithal to participate at a level which justifies the interest vs. the money spent and may never have the ability (which is different than 'interest') to, but would still like to 'play with the concept.'
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-12-2023, 7:31 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,065
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
Cooper acknowledges the type of military scout that he drew some of his inspiration from no longer exists. Reference the gun digest article in this thread.

As such, it makes no sense to try and argue that he was building a rifle for the "traditional cav scout".

The hunter and the 19th century scout continue to have a lot in common. Scout out where "they are" without being seen, heard, discovered. But for the hunter "they" are the game animal. This is who he was building the rifle for, the hunter.

Since he wanted it to be a general-purpose rifle, he did make arguments for a wide range of uses. Some probably more practical than others. BUT at the end of the day the Scout rifle is simply a very well thought out hunting rifle based in part on HIS hunting experiences AND some 19th and early 20th century scouting for the military. Frederick Russell Burnham being a specific example.

BUT again, at the end of the day we are talking about what he thought would be the ultimate hunting rifle. NOT a military rifle. He thought highly of the M1 Garand. Why would he try and make an argument to go back to bolt action rifles for the military knowing their day was over?
Richard Mann should get your permission and use these exact words in his next Scout Rifle book, if it ever is published. Well said.
The entry cost factor is another issue entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-12-2023, 8:01 AM
200Apples's Avatar
200Apples 200Apples is offline
-DVC- Mojave Lever Crew
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,875
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default I know this is a Steyr/GarandThumb thread, but, here we are at this point within it

From an NRA American Rifleman Insider Newsletter email this morning where one of the firearms featured within is this new Colt bolt gun:

Quote:
At 6 lbs., 15 ozs., the TacHunter is no textbook mountain rifle, but it is light and stout enough, in my opinion, for practical pursuit of high-country sheep and goats. Add in pronghorns, caribou, feral hogs and other introduced animals, and the can-do list far exceeds its big-game shortcomings. As should be evident, I think Colt's utility turnbolt will match many hunters' needs.

In its other vocation, the TacHunter evokes the scout rifle conceptualized some decades back by gun guru Col. Jeff Cooper. His assessment of firearms for survival in times and places where civil order and economic systems have crashed prioritized a compact, foolproof, mild-shooting rifle chambered for a widely available cartridge. The scout rifle had to be potent enough (cartridge-wise) to kill large animals for food and, at the same time, capable of returning hostile fire at ranges near and far. It had to be stalwart in home security, yet portable enough to accompany owners traveling on foot. Cooper felt that a scoped bolt-action carbine best met this criteria. A similar profile was also widely employed by law enforcement personnel to serve as a ride-along patrol rifle.

Today, AR-type/modern sporting rifles fill these jobs. The widespread familiarity and trust that made this class America's most popular rifle, including relevant attributes like ammo capacity and rate of fire, have reset the defensive-rifle mindset. In fairness, medium-bore black rifles were rare in Cooper's day, and constant development since has made their operating systems far more reliable.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/con...rce=newsletter
__________________
.
"Get a proper holster, and go hot. The End." - SplitHoof

NRA Lifetime | Avatar courtesy Elon Musk's Twitter User SomthingWicked
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-12-2023, 4:12 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
Richard Mann should get your permission and use these exact words in his next Scout Rifle book, if it ever is published. Well said.
The entry cost factor is another issue entirely.
LOL, thank you. Richard is responsible for "corrupting" me to a better understanding of the Scout Rifle.

Rereading the statement, I would prefer if I hadn't downplayed the general-purpose aspect as much. As that is core to the concept. But basically, it is a hunting rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-12-2023, 5:02 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's not flawed. The presumption you hold is where the flaw lies. I never said that, ultimately, you would end up sinking less money into the project. What I am saying is that many people need something to start with that, with experience and as the money becomes available, they can build from.
AND that is in part where you are flawed in your thinking. I can't tell you how many threads I have read where people have tried exactly what you are advocating. They fail far more than succeed and get left with a false impression of the Scout Rifle. There is more to the rifle than a forward mounted scope. You are trying to argue that because you can't afford a Ferrari 308, that you can get started with a Honda Del Sol. They may have some passing visual similarities, but they are not the same. If you want to experience the Ferrari, you need to buy the Ferrari. And, if you don't like it, the odds of getting most if not all your money back with the Ferrari is great than the Honda. Same idea with some rifles.

Bottom line, you can NOT build a one-off Scout Rifle that gets close to what Cooper and Styer achieved for less than $1600. Frankly, for beginners to the scout rifle the $1600 Styer is both the easy button AND the cheap option. I am not sure how else to get through to you this fact.

Also, if you don't know yet what you don't know, how the hell you going to build something that authentically approximates the concept? It doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the Styer and how they achieved it, but it has to incorporate the concepts and features, or you won't achieve the right result and that is what happens with the majority of people that try and go the rout you are advocating.

For some rifles, and some applications you absolutely can take the path you are advocating. But Scout Rifles is not one. Double rifles is not one. Sharps rifles is not one. You simply have to take the plunge and if that means saving a little longer, then my advice is do that. Get the real deal so you have a fighting shot at an accurate experience to the rifle / concept.

The entry fee is what it is to Scout Rifles, Sharps rifles, PRS rifles, 3 gun etc, etc, etc. Put on your big boy panties, deal with it, come up with a plan. Where is it written this all should be easy and cheap? IF you are truly interested, you will find a way and will be patient while doing it.

I am genuinely interested in a lot of different things. I am not made of money. So, there are lots of things I am NOT doing...so there for my interest for those activity must NOT be as great as I must think. Scuba diving for example. Very much want to try it. But 50+ years of life, not dived once. Must not be as interested as I think I am. And yes, cost is a factor to never having done it. Buy scuba gear or buy rifles???? Must be much more interested in rifles since that is where my hobby money goes.

Thread after thread across the internet I have observed people thinking they can't buy the better rifle, the rifle they really want etc because of the cost. They then turn around and talk about all the other "cheap" guns they buy because they can't wait, they got to get something "now". They end up spending the cost or more than the gun they really wanted.

People try and counter that that is all they could save up for. Except they managed to save up that "small" amount many times. So, if they could save up a small amount for many "cheaper" guns, they could have saved those smaller amounts for the gun they really wanted and not bought all the cheap ones.

But what if they don't like the gun after all? Better chance of getting your money back on the "upper end" guns. The Colts, the Styer, the Shilo, etc, etc. Then the very mass-produced low-cost guns.

Oh, by the way IF you are truly seeing Pedersoli 1874 Sharps "Q" Down Under Sporting 34" for $789. If such a unicorn exits, buy a bunch. At that price it is buy low sell high opportunity.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-12-2023, 7:46 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
AND that is in part where you are flawed in your thinking. I can't tell you how many threads I have read where people have tried exactly what you are advocating. They fail far more than succeed and get left with a false impression of the Scout Rifle. There is more to the rifle than a forward mounted scope. You are trying to argue that because you can't afford a Ferrari 308, that you can get started with a Honda Del Sol. They may have some passing visual similarities, but they are not the same. If you want to experience the Ferrari, you need to buy the Ferrari. And, if you don't like it, the odds of getting most if not all your money back with the Ferrari is great than the Honda. Same idea with some rifles.
Not everyone needs to START with a Ferrari 308. In fact, doing so might not even be a good idea in that you might want to learn how to handle one before taking it out on the road. Otherwise...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
Bottom line, you can NOT build a one-off Scout Rifle that gets close to what Cooper and Styer achieved for less than $1600. Frankly, for beginners to the scout rifle the $1600 Styer is both the easy button AND the cheap option. I am not sure how else to get through to you this fact.
Read Posts #50, #56, and #62 again. I never said you'd end up spending less. However, by your own admission, even the Steyr doesn't quite meet Cooper's definition. Neither does their offering work for 'everyone.' In essence, you're the one not dealing with (or seemingly understanding) what I'm arguing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...It's not about the money you will ultimately spend. It's about the 'entry fee' to the concept. Interest isn't defined by the amount of money something ultimately takes or how much is spent in the learning process. The ability to explore that 'something,' however, is often determined by the amount of money it takes to experiment with the idea...
The same holds true with...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
Also, if you don't know yet what you don't know, how the hell you going to build something that authentically approximates the concept? It doesn't have to be a carbon copy of the Styer and how they achieved it, but it has to incorporate the concepts and features, or you won't achieve the right result and that is what happens with the majority of people that try and go the rout you are advocating.

For some rifles, and some applications you absolutely can take the path you are advocating. But Scout Rifles is not one. Double rifles is not one. Sharps rifles is not one. You simply have to take the plunge and if that means saving a little longer, then my advice is do that. Get the real deal so you have a fighting shot at an accurate experience to the rifle / concept.
Therein lies the flaw with what you are arguing. For you, it's whole hog or nothing and if you're not up to it, save your money. That's never been Cooper's proposition. Go back and read his article (Post #18). Note that he emphasizes that Gunsite Ranch teaches "practical riflery to clients who are not likely ever to use their rifles as fireteam members, and who consequently seek their highest level of individual competence, with the instrument best suited to the task." In other words, you don't necessarily start out being able to properly use a Scout rifle. You learn how to use it.

Not everyone learns in the same way. Neither does one become 'competent' simply because they own a rifle someone deems 'close' to the actual concept. Remember, as I pointed out before, Cooper himself said a Savage 99 could be used to "construct a quite good Scout rifle." It's not so much about the specific technology. As Cooper, you, and I note, there still doesn't exist the exact technology in a factory package that he was calling for.

It's about the user. There is enough 'different' about the concept from what the average individual shoots that there is a learning process involved. That includes the shorter barrel, the forward mounted scope, the fewer rounds, the lighter weight, etc. As Cooper said in another article I provided the link to...

Quote:
...When a rifle is radically shortened and lightened, it becomes a much handier instrument to carry, swing, and pack. These are advantages, but they create attendant drawbacks. The problem is to balance the pluses against the minuses in such a way that a specific degree of efficiency results...
A Scout rifle may be an efficient firearm to use, but efficiency is in the user's ability to employ it properly. Which is why Cooper noted they "teach practical riflery to clients."

It's the same as handing someone a 'sniper rifle' and expecting them to hit a target proficiently at 1,000 yds. and more. If that someone hasn't learned how to use the different aspects of 'the rifle,' it's a big ask. Just the proper use of a scope, be it 'sniper' or 'scout,' takes practice. That's without discussing ballistics or any of the other myriad parts and pieces which go into what Cooper described as... "One of the Eternal Truths is this: the purpose of shooting is hitting."

Alvin York may have been reputed to be able to shoot a rifle before he was weaned. But, even he admitted those who claimed that were exaggerating some. It's not that he didn't 'learn,' it's that he wasn't necessarily 'taught' other than by experience.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
The entry fee is what it is to Scout Rifles, Sharps rifles, PRS rifles, 3 gun etc, etc, etc. Put on your big boy panties, deal with it, come up with a plan. Where is it written this all should be easy and cheap? IF you are truly interested, you will find a way and will be patient while doing it.
Which is precisely what I have been proposing; i.e., a way for more individuals to get into the concept. We don't all start out using "big boy panties." In fact, we didn't all start out with the same design in diapers. Just the materials used in them differs among the generations.

Insofar as 'easy and cheap,' again, I never said it was going to be cheap or ultimately cheaper than the factory offerings. You're arguing a straw man with that as it is not something I have maintained. Instead, what I have said is that a less expensive offering should be proffered which allows individuals to learn for a lower 'entry fee' and that they can build upon as they go in terms of both experience and technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
I am genuinely interested in a lot of different things. I am not made of money. So, there are lots of things I am NOT doing...so there for my interest for those activity must NOT be as great as I must think. Scuba diving for example. Very much want to try it. But 50+ years of life, not dived once. Must not be as interested as I think I am. And yes, cost is a factor to never having done it. Buy scuba gear or buy rifles???? Must be much more interested in rifles since that is where my hobby money goes.
Before you learn to scuba, you learn to swim. Then you learn to control your breathing. Then you learn...

One does not simply go out, buy a scuba tank, declare themselves a scuba diver, and go diving. It's bound to end badly. The same with shooting rifles.

Everything we do is learned. As I said before, how we learn is different for each individual. One learns many things without 'interest' being a factor. Of course, if one wants to learn competence and proficiency, interest plays a key role. But, again, that competence/proficiency is not about what you buy or what you own, it's about getting the best performance out of what you have access to in the moment and that's up to the individual, not necessarily the equipment.

As a for instance... Carlos Hathcock set the long distance sniper kill using something like this...



That record stood for 35 years before it was broken using an actual rifle...



...which met the parameters of a 'sniper rifle.'

Was it the specific technology or the user which allowed Hathcock to put each of his shots where he wanted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
Thread after thread across the internet I have observed people thinking they can't buy the better rifle, the rifle they really want etc because of the cost. They then turn around and talk about all the other "cheap" guns they buy because they can't wait, they got to get something "now". They end up spending the cost or more than the gun they really wanted.

People try and counter that that is all they could save up for. Except they managed to save up that "small" amount many times. So, if they could save up a small amount for many "cheaper" guns, they could have saved those smaller amounts for the gun they really wanted and not bought all the cheap ones.
Again, the rifle doesn't make the shooter. Whether it's a knife, a car, a fishing rod, a rifle, et al., the 'better' piece of equipment allows someone with the skills to use 'better equipment' perform 'better.' But, a 'better' piece of equipment doesn't mean that someone who isn't ready for it is going to perform better. It just means money was spent... to what end?

Remember, we're talking about someone getting to know the concept, not someone necessarily ready to snoop 'n' poop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
But what if they don't like the gun after all? Better chance of getting your money back on the "upper end" guns. The Colts, the Styer, the Shilo, etc, etc. Then the very mass-produced low-cost guns.
Or... Maybe it's better not to have spent all that money to begin with until you know you like the concept, how to use it, and that it works for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
Oh, by the way IF you are truly seeing Pedersoli 1874 Sharps "Q" Down Under Sporting 34" for $789. If such a unicorn exits, buy a bunch. At that price it is buy low sell high opportunity.
Now, that one I'll give you. At 1 am, I misread the linked Model number (S789) as "$789." However, the point is still valid; i.e., it is better to 'experiment' and 'learn' using something that costs a quarter of the price (see the other example, Chiappa 1874 .45-70 Government Sharps US Team Creedmore 34" Lever Action Rifle) of a piece of equipment one is not necessarily ready for.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 12-12-2023 at 7:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-12-2023, 10:55 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Talking about "entry level" Scout Rifle is within this thread because trying to do this can be full of misconceptions, and this thread started with a post about misconceptions.

My interest in Scout Rifles did start with the writings of Col. Cooper regarding the Scout. But today that specific interest has taken a back seat to the idea of general-purpose rifles (GPR) in well general.

All actual Scout Rifles are general purpose rifles, but NOT ALL general-purpose rifles are Scout Rifles. Think about that for a moment. Can't take credit for that epiphany as it comes from the gang over at the Scout Rifle forum. We will come back to this in a moment.

Scout Rifles are but one way to build a general-purpose rifle, specifically Cooper's way. While Cooper NEVER gave an in stone, line by line recipe, he did spell out some specifications, some criteria, and some concepts. An actual Scout Rifle has as many of these built in as is possible, all while being between 6.6 in the ideal to 7.5 pounds MAX. Properly built there is a synergy of the features that come together to reach some goals and make easier the carrying and using of the rifle. Goals based on Cooper's experiences and experiments. Which may not meet your own.

I do not necessarily disagree that starting with something at an "entry" level to get a feel. Does not always make sense as it can cost you more in the long run, but sometimes it does. What is being 100% misunderstood that is that IF you want "entry" level to try out the Scout Rifle concept, that entry level IS the Styer.

Back to all Scouts are GPRs, but not all GPRs are Scouts. If you are interested in GPRs, nothing says you have to buy a Scout Rifle, and nothing says you can't build your own GPR and find your own path based on your own experiences, interests, needs etc. Heck, I am in the process of starting such a project for myself. Won't be called "my scout rifle" or anything for that matter, not really into naming my rifles. It will simply be a rifle that fills as many of my needs/wants/anticipated uses as possible into one rifle. There are some things that I want out of a rifle the Styer can't meet. So, I will take what I have learned and built my own. Technically assemble from off the shelf parts, but you get what I mean.

Anyone can do this. Won't be a Scout, but who cares. It will be a GPR that meets your needs/wants. Might cost you less than a Scout, might cost you more. But it will be YOUR rifle. Name it what you want if you are into that, just be ethical and don't all it a Scout.

Cooper did lay out some very general concepts that apply to GPRs in general. I am personally not aware of anyone who thought more about and put to paper for others more about the topic than he did. So, the high-level ideas will be a good guide. Beyond that, build it the way you want. Semi auto 6.5 creed that weights 10 pounds may not make a Scout Rifle but could make a very good GPR for you.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-12-2023, 11:09 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Maybe it's better not to have spent all that money to begin with until you know you like the concept, how to use it, and that it works for you?
This right here is where we differ. I do not think it is possible to get to know, learn to apply and figure out if the Scout Rifle works for you or not unless you actually have a Scout Rifle. This is the point you are either not getting or avoiding.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-13-2023, 3:43 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
This right here is where we differ. I do not think it is possible to get to know, learn to apply and figure out if the Scout Rifle works for you or not unless you actually have a Scout Rifle. This is the point you are either not getting or avoiding.
I get you think that. I'm not avoiding it. What I'm saying is that I think it's possible that a 'Scout Rifle' doesn't necessarily have to exactly match your conception, Cooper's conception, my conception, or anyone else's conception. In fact, as I showed, even Cooper acknowledged as much. In fact, even you acknowledge that you aren't even adhering, strictly, to Cooper's ideal with the Steyr since even it incorporates most, but not all, of his concept.

As such, I think there's a way to introduce the concept as an affordable rifle, even though it too would not necessarily exactly match Cooper's parameters. Remember, Cooper pushed a concept, not an exacting specific on shooters. That is where we seem to differ. You call it a misconception and not possible. I call it adhering to the concept principles as closely as one can afford, something which even Cooper 'allowed' for. As an example, note "runs to 7 1/2 pounds, and 39 inches" is an approximate ideal, not an exact specification or it doesn't qualify.

Note the NRA published a piece in 2017 entitled... The Scout Rifle: The One Rifle To Have If You Could Only Have One

Quote:
...As the concept grew in popularity, other manufacturers followed suit and began producing rifles that borrowed heavily from Cooper's concept. While many of these guns failed to meet every requirement to be considered a true scout rifle, most boasted enough distinguishing features to be placed into a class setting them apart from conventional bolt guns...
You see, it's not just me. In the piece, the author says...

Quote:
...The characteristics outlined by Cooper included:
  • Bolt-Action: Cooper didn't specify any particular style of bolt-action, as long as the action was reliable and operated smoothly.
  • Weight: Scout rifles were to be 7 lbs. or lighter WITH the optics and sling, as the gun would need to be carried potentially for long distances in remote terrain.
  • Size: The scout rifle was effectively a carbine, with Cooper's design calling for a barrel of 19 inches or less, and an overall length of 39 inches or shorter. Nowadays these shorter barrels on bolt guns are more common, but when Cooper was building the scout rifle concept, carbines were not as common or well received.
  • Ammunition: The scout rifle needed to be able to neutralize threats up to 1,000 lbs. with one shot with a conventional, widely available caliber. Cooper decided on the .308 round, which was to be fed by box magazine or stripper clip.
  • Sights: Because the scout operated alone, Cooper determined the shooter must be able to shoot with both eyes open and not compromise peripheral vision. To facilitate this, scout rifle utilized a forward-mounted low-power scope. Since optics can be damaged or fail especially in austere situations, the scout rifle should include an iron sight system, preferably a ghost ring aperture, with a front sight that wouldn't snag on clothing or brush.
  • Support: The scout rifle should have some quick-loop sling; Cooper favored the Ching Sling, but any sling could be used so long as the sling could be looped up to provide support for shooting, not just carrying. Cooper also advocated for built-in bipods, which few rifles could pull off due to the added weight and heft especially when trying to keep the whole gun in a light, tight package.
  • Accuracy: Cooper prescribed acceptable accuracy for a scout rifle at 2 MOA (minutes of angle), wherein the user could shoot three-shot groups at four inches at 200 yards...
It's just like 'acceptable accuracy' is a concept, not an exact measure. From "The Scout Rifle Idea" by Cooper on page 1 of this thread...

Quote:
...Let us call a "decisive blow" one which can be relied on instantly to incapacitate... Let us further say that "the limit of vision" is...
Again, general parameters, not exacting measurements. Therein lies the problem you and I are having. It's something you even acknowledge...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
...Scout Rifles are but one way to build a general-purpose rifle, specifically Cooper's way. While Cooper NEVER gave an in stone, line by line recipe, he did spell out some specifications, some criteria, and some concepts. An actual Scout Rifle has as many of these built in as is possible, all while being between 6.6 in the ideal to 7.5 pounds MAX. Properly built there is a synergy of the features that come together to reach some goals and make easier the carrying and using of the rifle. Goals based on Cooper's experiences and experiments. Which may not meet your own...
Those last two sentences are, in part, where I am coming from. Not everyone starts at Cooper's level, nor should they be expected to do so. Neither should they be expected to adhere to a specific design or they can't call it a "Scout Rifle" in that even Cooper didn't, strictly speaking, push such limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps
...What is being 100% misunderstood that is that IF you want "entry" level to try out the Scout Rifle concept, that entry level IS the Styer...
Again, technically speaking, given that the Steyr doesn't strictly adhere to all the parameters, it too shouldn't be classified as a "Scout Rifle" if we were to accept your definitional limitations. What you are pushing and what I have been reacting to is actually the misconception in that Cooper stated: "...certain essentials which a true Scout rifle should embody." Note that 'should' and 'must' are two different concepts and it's something we see, even in Steyr's offering.

In short, you keep pointing to specifics and/or a specific and I keep pointing to the more 'generalized' parameters Cooper cited. For you, the Steyr represents the 'closest' you can come in a factory offering and such may be true from a certain point of view. But 'close' offers room to play in and so did Cooper. That's what I am saying. Leave some room for individuals to play by offering the base concept, then allowing the individual to adapt it, within certain parameters, to their own perception(s)/experience over time.

Some will be ready to start with something like the Steyr. Others will be more in line with the Mossberg insofar as their experience and abilities. Both have their limitations insofar as the "Scout Rifle" concept and individual shooters. Neither should be accepted as the definitive example of Cooper's ideal and you don't even do that with the Steyr.

Remember the phrase: "Beware of the man with one gun for he probably knows how to use it."

Why not allow, as Cooper did, for individuals to grow into his concept based on their own experiences and abilities? That's what I've been pushing, the idea that we need manufacturers to allow for such an option rather than pushing an 'expensive' version only. Why? Because any manufactured version will meet some designer's interpretation and that interpretation will, itself, be based on attempting to apply the concept, but within manufacturing limitations so as to allow the company producing the rifle to make a profit.

It's not about 'rejecting' Cooper's conceptualization. My argument is, in fact, about fully accepting that Cooper was pursuing a specific type of 'general purpose rifle,' not an exact model. A 'type,' by definition, shares certain, common, defining characteristics. The characteristics Cooper provided were specific, but only to a degree.

Again, that is where our difference lies. You want adherence to a specific, I observe that Cooper himself left notable 'wiggle room.' That's all I'm asking for; i.e., that a manufacturer allow sufficient 'wiggle room' for someone unfamiliar with the concept to grow into something which more closely approximates Cooper's general ideal.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-13-2023, 8:53 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,290
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

It seems like those requirements, in the USA, are easiest met by >gasp< an AR-15. No need to take down a water buffalo or rhino. In your fantasy LARP through the woods, if you're hunting for meat, you're much more likely to get a shot at a rabbit or deer than an elk. People spend thousands of dollars trying to kill an elk without success. A 5.56 is plenty to take down a deer, especially with good bonded soft points.

An AR can easily make the weight, say with an ACOG. Same with accuracy, with a free float handguard. The WWSD AR cooked up by InRange likely gives you an off-the-shelf solution.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-15-wwsd-2020/

Quote:
My WWSD as configured with a Trijicon TA11 optic and an empty magazine came in at just a touch under 7lbs, at 6lbs and 10oz.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-13-2023, 9:16 AM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 11,498
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

My vision of the scout rifle would be a Seekins Havak Element in 6.8 Western or 6.5 PRC with the barrel cut down to 16" with iron sights added. The optic would be a 1-6X or 1-8X LPVO with a pistol micro dot and a QD mount. That configuration would weigh just under 7 pounds. I would probably mount a QD Magpul bipod when needed.

Perhaps a better option would be the new Howa Superlite in .308 or 7mm-08. It too would need the barrel cut to 16" or 18" with iron sights added. The Howa could come in at just under 6 pounds with optics mounted.

Then again, for the US, the Ruger SFAR might be a better choice.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater

Last edited by k1dude; 12-13-2023 at 9:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-13-2023, 9:57 AM
200Apples's Avatar
200Apples 200Apples is offline
-DVC- Mojave Lever Crew
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,875
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I feel like this post was lost in the exchange between two lovers (of the scout rifle concept) immediately following it, so here it is, again:


Quote:
Originally Posted by 200Apples View Post

From an NRA American Rifleman Insider Newsletter email this morning where one of the firearms featured within is this new Colt bolt gun:


Quote:
At 6 lbs., 15 ozs., the TacHunter is no textbook mountain rifle, but it is light and stout enough, in my opinion, for practical pursuit of high-country sheep and goats. Add in pronghorns, caribou, feral hogs and other introduced animals, and the can-do list far exceeds its big-game shortcomings. As should be evident, I think Colt's utility turnbolt will match many hunters' needs.

In its other vocation, the TacHunter evokes the scout rifle conceptualized some decades back by gun guru Col. Jeff Cooper. His assessment of firearms for survival in times and places where civil order and economic systems have crashed prioritized a compact, foolproof, mild-shooting rifle chambered for a widely available cartridge. The scout rifle had to be potent enough (cartridge-wise) to kill large animals for food and, at the same time, capable of returning hostile fire at ranges near and far. It had to be stalwart in home security, yet portable enough to accompany owners traveling on foot. Cooper felt that a scoped bolt-action carbine best met this criteria. A similar profile was also widely employed by law enforcement personnel to serve as a ride-along patrol rifle.

Today, AR-type/modern sporting rifles fill these jobs. The widespread familiarity and trust that made this class America's most popular rifle, including relevant attributes like ammo capacity and rate of fire, have reset the defensive-rifle mindset. In fairness, medium-bore black rifles were rare in Cooper's day, and constant development since has made their operating systems far more reliable.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/con...rce=newsletter
__________________
.
"Get a proper holster, and go hot. The End." - SplitHoof

NRA Lifetime | Avatar courtesy Elon Musk's Twitter User SomthingWicked
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-13-2023, 10:04 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,290
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k1dude View Post
My vision of the scout rifle would be a Seekins Havak Element in 6.8 Western or 6.5 PRC with the barrel cut down to 16" with iron sights added. The optic would be a 1-6X or 1-8X LPVO with a pistol micro dot and a QD mount. That configuration would weigh just under 7 pounds. I would probably mount a QD Magpul bipod when needed.
Don't forget the flash hider because you're going to get quite the fireball with that combo. Those chamberings also violate the "easy to find ammo" requirement.

Quote:
Perhaps a better option would be the new Howa Superlite in .308 or 7mm-08. It too would need the barrel cut to 16" or 18" with iron sights added. The Howa could come in at just under 6 pounds with optics mounted.

Then again, for the US, the Ruger SFAR might be a better choice.
I got a Tikka Superlite a few years ago for a similar purpose. Since then I've become a silencer absolutist. My guns have to be able to mount a silencer (Tikka barrel is too skinny). Which is probably also a requirement for any Scout LARPer where legal.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-13-2023, 2:11 PM
NapalmCheese's Avatar
NapalmCheese NapalmCheese is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 5,821
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
It seems like those requirements, in the USA, are easiest met by >gasp< an AR-15. No need to take down a water buffalo or rhino. In your fantasy LARP through the woods, if you're hunting for meat, you're much more likely to get a shot at a rabbit or deer than an elk. People spend thousands of dollars trying to kill an elk without success. A 5.56 is plenty to take down a deer, especially with good bonded soft points.

An AR can easily make the weight, say with an ACOG. Same with accuracy, with a free float handguard. The WWSD AR cooked up by InRange likely gives you an off-the-shelf solution.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-15-wwsd-2020/
In North America there are still grizzly, bison, and moose to deal with.

Having stared down a moose while deer hunting with nothing but my 7mm-08 with 140 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips I can tell you that bigger is certainly more reassuring than smaller.

That said, with the consideration that the scout rifle is first and foremost a hunting rifle; I've never used a forward mounted scope and would be interested to give one a shot someday. I shoot red dots and pistols both eyes open, for quick shots with scopes I tend to shoot both eyes open. For precision stuff it's one eye open for me.
__________________
Calguns.net, where everyone responding to your post is a Navy Force Delta Recon 6 Sniperator.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-13-2023, 3:26 PM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 11,498
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
Don't forget the flash hider because you're going to get quite the fireball with that combo. Those chamberings also violate the "easy to find ammo" requirement.



I got a Tikka Superlite a few years ago for a similar purpose. Since then I've become a silencer absolutist. My guns have to be able to mount a silencer (Tikka barrel is too skinny). Which is probably also a requirement for any Scout LARPer where legal.
Yes, a flash hider would be desirable. Yes, the chamberings would be an issue for the concept. But both are developing quite a fan base.

The Howa is specifically designed for use with suppressors. The stock barrel is threaded just for that purpose. So no problem there. After cutting the barrel down, threading it would be essential.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-13-2023, 4:46 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,290
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmCheese View Post
In North America there are still grizzly, bison, and moose to deal with.
Not where I live.

Quote:
Having stared down a moose while deer hunting with nothing but my 7mm-08 with 140 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips I can tell you that bigger is certainly more reassuring than smaller.

That said, with the consideration that the scout rifle is first and foremost a hunting rifle; I've never used a forward mounted scope and would be interested to give one a shot someday. I shoot red dots and pistols both eyes open, for quick shots with scopes I tend to shoot both eyes open. For precision stuff it's one eye open for me.
If for some unfathomable reason, I thought I might be in critter country, I'd probably pack a .450 Bushmaster upper.

I hadn't heard that a scout rifle was supposed to be a hunting rifle. I don't hunt any more. I don't want to be stuck with a dead critter. I'd rather go through the drive-up window.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-13-2023, 5:58 PM
NapalmCheese's Avatar
NapalmCheese NapalmCheese is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 5,821
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
Not where I live.



If for some unfathomable reason, I thought I might be in critter country, I'd probably pack a .450 Bushmaster upper.

I hadn't heard that a scout rifle was supposed to be a hunting rifle. I don't hunt any more. I don't want to be stuck with a dead critter. I'd rather go through the drive-up window.
Someone up thread made the point that the scout rifle is, specifically, a hunting rifle.

I hadn't thought that's what it was for, but idea that Colonel Cooper wasn't an idiot and realized that the role of the 19th century scout was no longer necessary and so designed the scout rifle as a hunting rifle first and foremost makes some sense to me.

If it wasn't for dead critters (and in this case a 25 WSSM) I wouldn't be having dinner tonight!
__________________
Calguns.net, where everyone responding to your post is a Navy Force Delta Recon 6 Sniperator.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-13-2023, 9:36 PM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What I'm saying is that I think it's possible that a 'Scout Rifle' doesn't necessarily have to exactly match your conception, Cooper's conception, my conception, or anyone else's conception. In fact, as I showed, even Cooper acknowledged as much. In fact, even you acknowledge that you aren't even adhering, strictly, to Cooper's ideal with the Steyr since even it incorporates most, but not all, of his concept.
I know that is what you are saying. It is not a new argument. Seen it many, many times. But I would argue it represents thinking that isn't quite there yet in terms of understanding and getting the concept.

What make a rifle a scout rifle isn't beholden to my ideas, or yours's or anyone else, but it is to Cooper's ideas and concepts. He acknowledged that he can't control what other people do or stop them from building something and calling it a Scout Rifle, despite clearly not being one. He didn't say he was ok with that or agreed with just any claim of "this is my Scout Rifle" was accurate or valid.
I know of a participant over on the Scout Rifle forum that would regularly take his attempts at building a scout and most of the time as I understand the stories, Cooper would politely point out, nice rifle, but not a Scout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
... even you acknowledge that you aren't even adhering, strictly, to Cooper's ideal with the Steyr since even it incorporates most, but not all, of his concept
I am not going to go back and dig out exactly what I said, but I am pretty sure you are not understanding what I said or what I was getting at.

Per Cooper, even the Styer falls short of ideal. This is true. I believe he said something along the lines of it gets there about 80/85%. Do you even know what missing feature makes up a big chunk of "missing the mark"? The obvious one is weight, but not the one I have in mind. Cooper said the Styer is a scout, and since it is his creation, despite the short comings he dub the Styer a Scout Rifle

Back to the Honda / Ferrari, how serious would you take someone trying to claim the Honda Del Sol as their "version of" the Ferrari just because the body styles had passing resemblance? No one would take you seriously, you would be laughed off the forum. Why? Because of honoring and respecting the creation made by Ferrari is generally a no brainer. Does Cooper deserve any less?

Cooper doesn't need me to defend him, likely we wouldn't be friends. Not even sure I would like the guy if we had ever met. BUT I do find his Scout Rifle concept interesting, and I make an effort to respect the creative effort that went into it. Respect the creation is my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I think there's a way to introduce the concept as an affordable rifle...
Possibly. Changes in technology, metallurgy, manufacturing methods... sure it is possible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
even though it too would not necessarily exactly match Cooper's parameters
But this, no. The less you match his criteria, the less you have a Scout Rifle to the point you don't. Regardless of what you call it. The more criteria you drop, the more you break the desired end result, the less likely someone will then get to experience what Cooper was going for, and then not truly be able to say if it is for them or not.

This is where you and I will likely never agree. I do not believe it is possible to experience A by messing around with B. If you want to experience the Scout Rifle concept, you need a Scout Rifle. Hence, the Styer IS the entry rifle. At this time, that is our most affordable path to experiencing the scout rifle concept.

Going to address some of your other points in "mass" vs quoting out each one. Again, I have seen these arguments before.

Richard Mann called it an enigma. He is correct. Take this quote you shared of Cooper's

"...certain essentials which a true Scout rifle should embody."

You take the "should" as giving you lots of room play. Another way to look at that is "should embody" but if does not then not a scout.

His writings are littered with this kind of thing. Here is my current thinking which I base on studying the sources I have that are Cooper's own words, the book by Richard, and things shared by people on the Scout Rifle Forum that were actually in regular contact and on first name basis with Cooper.

1. The concept is more the philosophy, reasoning, purpose behind Cooper's thoughts and choices. The who, what, and why of it all.

2. The criteria is what a rifle MUST have in order to be a Scout Rifle. This is the "ridged, in stone" part.

3. How to achieve all those criteria... now that gets a bit "fuzzy". This is where we do have some room to play.

He said for example rifle MUST be 39 inches max, except he allowed for a couple more inches for cartridges like .243. But for those that didn't need that, 39 inches. Didn't say I couldn't be less and if so "no scout for you".

He said must have back up ghost ring sights. Didn't say how you did that.

While he harped on 308, I think the reality is if your cartridge choice is in line with what led to the 308, you are good to go. .223 is clearly out, 6.5 creed likely is ok for example.

He said the magazine must protect the tip of the cartridge. Gave some opinions for how to do that, but if you come up with something better that meets this criterion, good to go.

Wants some kind of way to hold ammunition in reserve, and the action needs to allow load one, shoot one by hand, and a way to quickly bring that reserve into play.

A way to carry spare ammunition on the rifle (when comes to weight, does not include actually putting the ammunition into the solution for this at least that I have ever seen). Didn't say how to do that. Seem to like solutions that put that ammunition up in the butt of the rifle but nothing requires it.

bipod... one of the harder nuts in the criteria to crack.

he talked about the style of sling, and mounting hardware he preferred, but nothing specifically required other than the sling be of a type suitable for being used as a shooting sling.

So on and so forth. The above is not a full listing of all the criteria. The criteria must be there, or not a scout rifle. The criteria matter more than how it is executed to have it all come together.

In the ideal you can pack all that into a rifle that weights 6.6 pound and comes together in a way that makes carrying easy and shooting easy, particularly the snapshot. But it is generally agreed weight can slip a bit to 7.5-pound MAX. Why? Because that is the heaviest Cooper appears to have ever accepted.

If you come in heavy, you either have a pseudo scout or a super scout depending on your goals. super scout was his magnum rifles built to the scout concept and also had a weight ceiling, but don't recall what it was. 8 pounds I think.

Someone mentioned using a Seekins Havak Element in 6.8 Western or 6.5 PRC as a starting point. If the end results meet the criteria of a scout, then it is a Scout Rifle. But if the rifle does not, then it is not.

Respect the creation. We do not get to "reinvent" what constitutes a Scout Rifle. Dropping something or adding something that wasn't there to it. Cooper laid out what makes a scout rifle a scout rifle. But he did so in a way there is room to use different methods/options/material for achieving the criteria. But to be a Scout Rifle, it MUST meet his criteria. Not mine, not your's, HIS.

Every Scout Rifle is a GPR, but not all GPRs are scouts. If you want to use the Scout concept as inspiration, add something, take aways something you are of course free to. Heck, I would encourage it, this is how we advance things. Just don't call the end result a Scout because it would not be.

Respect the creation. Don't build something that is not a Scout and then claim it so.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-13-2023, 10:18 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4,065
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post

I know of a participant over on the Scout Rifle forum that would regularly take his attempts at building a scout and most of the time as I understand the stories, Cooper would politely point out, nice rifle, but not a Scout.
If we are thinking of the same person, that is quite true. The last time I had occasion to speak with Janelle, that came up, and she remembered him and verified pretty much the same. Glad to say that at least one of my kids had the opportunity to meet her. The Sconce is not quite the same without her. Still very worthwhile to see. Lots of neat historical stuff there.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:32 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy