PDA

View Full Version : Continuation from FAL-Scout Thread


kotengu
December 26, 2008, 21:13
We got a little off track in the FAL-Scout thread, so I thought I'd copy the bolt-relevant messages here and we could continue on the bolt side of things. I'm half-retarded when it comes to internet code, so mods feel free to clean this up if you want -

BUFF gets it. If it can't make one meter and 3 kilos, it ain't a Scout. It's a FAL with a forward-mounted scope.

For those who don't get the "why" of a forward scope, it's about being able to see around it. The idea is to be able to track the target with both eyes as the rifle is mounted to alignment, without getting "lost in the scope". As the rifle mounts, the ocular lens just appears in front of the eye with the target image in it, while the left eye can still track alongside.

I have an old-school (pre-Steyr) Scout built on a Winchester 70 short action carbine in .308, and most visitors are puzzled until we go outside for a demo of the sight system. The first time they try mounting the rifle with binocular vision, the look on their face tells me that the light has come on for them.


Those who haven't tried it, should. I think you'll like it. For those who have tried it and found it not to their taste, I guess you can't please everyone.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by brownknees

Do we actually need a "scout rifle"?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe its a solution in search of a problem, to paraphrase Jeff Cooper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heresy, Laddie-o! Heresy, I say! Where's Torquemada when you need him?

Seriously, though, I believe that for anything other than a house-clearing or massed fire, I'd much rather have the Scout than the FAL. I know...

It's all about hitting with the first shot. And there's no question that the Scout has it all over MY Fal, in terms of both alignment precision and intrinsic accuracy.

I cut it for stripper clips, so I can recharge it in about 3 seconds. It also wears a butt-cuff, in case I want to top up just a round or two. It weighs about 5 pounds less than a Fal fully loaded, and has better ergonomics from low prone and sitting. Even more importantly, it wears a speed sling that is meant for shooting, as opposed to being just a carry strap, and using that sling does not deflect shot groups out of center as it does with a Fal.

You may now all flame away with impunity, as I will be occupied until late tonight.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by roster228
I'll pass on the issue of why one should or shouldnt want a scout. However from what I have read only a bolt gun really follows Col. Jeff's recipe.

He was very clear about specs and alot less clear with regard to intended use. Comments like "not used as a coventional infantry arm" and "engage only when necessary" or the like went with his various writings on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cooper used to say that an auto might be ideal, but no design yet invented could make weight.

The Scout was intended as an idealized general purpose rifle. It was supposed to do most any task that a rifle might properly be put to, and do it somewhere between adequately and excellently. This, of course begs the question of what is a proper purpose of a rifle.

kotengu
December 26, 2008, 21:18
I remember him saying that (about the semi-auto and lever scout concept as well) in his column in G&A. Seems as if there was no current SA that could make wieght and the lever scout sort of violated other requirements. It had to have a magazine cut-off and the magazine must be able to be topped off, among other things. I cant remember if a round counter was part of it but I know he discussed that at some point as well as a bipod. It had to have back up iron sights, ghost rings I think were specified. .308 or 7mm-08 in areas that prohibited military-originated calibers. Maybe a buttstock ammo compartment, not sure.

About the intended use, I guess it all comes down to what is a "scout". I do remember him discussing that it was a rifle to be used by those on the move who generally avoided contact.

To me it sounds like a useful concept, though my exposure to them is limited. As for the original question, I dont see how a FAL or M1a could ever be a true scout by Coopers definition. But thats just for Cooper purists I guess, the M1A scout idea seems plausible to me...even cool.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bykerhd
Service life, how unpleasant the rifle may be to shoot really shouldn't be a factor in a rifle that is carried to be used only in case of emergency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bykerhd
The FAL can be utilized as a "scout" rifle, if it is what you have.

Whether his concept would be of value in the modern world or a "post" modern world may be another issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The fact that a crescent wrench can be used as a hammer doesn't make it a hammer.

The concept will remain of value as long as there is a need to unexpectedly make speedy first-round hits on suitable targets at rifle distances up to about 300 meters. Possibly farther, if the human component has the skill.

Room-clearing and keeping the posse's heads down would be better served with a different kind of weapon, I'll readily admit.



shlomo, my post about how unpleasant the rifle may be to shoot, is really made with the shortened, lightened military carbines like the Enfield#5 Jungle Carbines in mind. Traditional measuring sticks as hard kickers.
Service life and durability become issues when weight reduction is the primary focus and the projected use doesn't dictate or require longevity.

And, I agree
The fact that a crescent wrench can be used as a hammer doesn't make it a hammer.

kotengu
December 26, 2008, 21:21
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 21inchPeter
When I think of a scout I think of someone lightly armed and prepared to flee. I bought an FAL cause It's big, heavy, and reliable much like Roman cohort of Legionaries, it's got potency and staying power which seem to contradict the idea of a scout. Forward optics are cool, but if you had to chop a tree down with your rifle they'd be the first thing to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) If you were chasing a competent shot with a Scout, that might be your last thought.

2) I don't know where the idea comes from that a bolt rifle wears out after five or ten shots. My ersatz Scout is over twenty years old, with a couple thousand rounds thru it, and still outshoots the average FAL on any kind of day, wet or dry. (For accuracy, not volume of fast noise, for those who came in late.)

3) Next time I need to chop a tree down with a rifle will no doubt be the same week that I shoot a deer with my chainsaw. Again,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bykerhd
shlomo, my post about how unpleasant the rifle may be to shoot, is really made with the shortened, lightened military carbines like the Enfield#5 Jungle Carbines in mind. Traditional measuring sticks as hard kickers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree about the #5 being a notoriously hard kicker. If you've read Hatcher on the subject of recoil, you might suspect as I do that a large part of the problem with that rifle comes from two factors: The smaller area of the rubber buttplate, which concentrates the applied force to a smaller area of the shoulder, and the cone-shaped "flash hider" (allegedly) which acts as a rocket nozzle for all the high-pressure gas ejected from the muzzle of that shortened barrel.

I never found the recoil level of a 6 3/4 pound .308 to be punishing. It certainly has a different feel from an auto, in that it is more sudden and then over. The FAL is spread out more because of the counter-recoiling mechanism, and has a sort of "there and back" feel to the recoil stroke. Much like the way the recoil signature of an 870 differs from an 1100.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bykerhd
Service life and durability become issues when weight reduction is the primary focus and the projected use doesn't dictate or require longevity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think weight reduction was ever the primary focus. As I recall, the idea was to create a rifle that was dependably accuate, sufficiently powerful, and most of all, handy to use. All the other components, such as the sight system, light weight, sling system, the balance, and the generally slim shape, are factors that work toward that goal of handiness.

Again, I don't know where the idea comes from that a Scout is fragile or short lived. It's a bolt gun, for God's sake, with a barrel and stock of modern materials. It'll last as long as any other bolt gun, provided it's not used for an entrenching tool or for logging operations.

Cooper got a lot of his ideas about this concept from Herbert McBride's WWI memoir, A Rifleman Went To War. McBride's ideas and observations may be considered dated by some, and they are certainly welcome to their own opinons. I will say this: I started reading Cooper in the sixties as a lad, and while many of his ideas and opinions may be open to controversy, I have never known him to be flat-out wrong about anything. Virtually everything of his that I have followed in the last forty years or so has turned out well, and to my advantage. The Scout certainly qualifies in this regard, and if I ever had to sell off my modest collection, the Scout would be one of the last two to go.



I may be wrong, but I thought the point was that any optics are somewhat fragile (the comment about chopping down trees).

Thats why the specs called for back up iron sights. He had a host of opinions about just about everything including how optics might be better constructed and different adjustment systems.

I still think I would rather have a regular FAL if "ranging about" the countyside. I dunno, maybe the optics would be nice.

kotengu
December 26, 2008, 21:24
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by roster228
I may be wrong, but I thought the point was that any optics are somewhat fragile (the comment about chopping down trees).

Thats why the specs called for back up iron sights. He had a host of opinions about just about everything including how optics might be better constructed and different adjustment systems.

I still think I would rather have a regular FAL if "ranging about" the countyside. I dunno, maybe the optics would be nice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Optical sights ARE fragile compared to most iron sights. But not ridiculously so. The type of blow or fall that will kill a good scope might just as well bend a set of irons. It's a question of whether the advantages of single-plane focus are worth the dismal loss of the ability to split firewood and drive tent pegs with your rifle.

The development of the idea of backup irons on the Scout came relatively late in the game--in fact, after I built mine in '84. My best recollection is that Cooper began to see reticles come adrift at the school, and realized that some emergency provision might be called for. IIRC, Scout I and II had no irons, nor did the Super Scout (Lion Scout) in .350 mag. In any case I have never felt the need for them, and frankly, don't like the look of them. They appear to be "in the way" or something. Just my opinion.

I don't blame you for preferring the FAL for knocking about hither and yon. I wouldn't feel the least bit handicapped by it myself. But I had a lot of mileage in the '84 to '93 years hunting white tail with that Scout, and killed a boxcar full of deer with it. It was a light, handy companion in the woods, and I had absolute confidence in it. The glass sight was crisp and clear, and the trigger was clean at 2 1/2 pounds. If your goal is to hit something, from arm's length to 300 yards, those two factors overshadow everything else.

Now, for me, the biggest drawback to a scope of any kind is wet weather. But the same is also true if you wear glasses, as I did in those days. I always considered rain or fog a bigger problem than timbercutting, when I had the Scout along. The wet ground did make for easier going when digging foxholes and trenches, however. I just had to be careful to keep the lens caps on.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bykerhd

There are the M-16 based weapons, the new SCARs, XCRs, SIG 556s, etc. that MIGHT, with some tweaking meet the Colonels dimensional and weight parameters. That does open a whole new area though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, but show me one in .308, and THERE's a concept. Except for the handiness.

A Scout don' need no steenkin' carry handle.

Schlomo-
Re the Colonels ideas about reticles/scope construction, I was talking about his idea that the reticle should be etched on the glass itself (seems like a good idea to me) and that adjustments should be external rather than internal. The idea being, as I understand it, to make the optics less fragile and the adjustment separate from the reticle- again to make it less delicate. As I recall some/all of this has been used before to some extent (?)

I agree that glass helps, can make all the difference. You must have had lasik I take it. Anyways I started seeing the signs of age in my vision just a few years ago. It has in fact affected my choice of sighting systems in the field. I have in fact discovered that a small low power scope doesnt hinder me on long jaunts like I always felt it would, and it sure helps now-days with the sight picture.

I suppose the FAL can indeed be made to meet the specs, from what Im reading in this thread. But hell, men braved dangerous country with muzzle loaders. I guess any rifle is better than none and its probably more about the man carrying it than the configuration of the weapon.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by roster228
Schlomo-
I guess any rifle is better than none and its probably more about the man carrying it than the configuration of the weapon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the most savvy statement made by anybody so far in this thread.

You are correct about the Lasik. Got it done to correct astigmatism, and just in time for the onset of presbyopia (where mid and long distance vision is fine, but stuff up close requires reading glasses), Just shows you can't fool mother nature. Just in case you don't know, Lasik does not help presbyopia.

kotengu
December 26, 2008, 21:26
I believe the forward mounted optic was designed to get the scope clear of the magazine. Allowing stripper clips to be used for faster reloads.

I believe the rifle was designed to be so light and handy that it would become second nature to carry it. Kinda like puttin' yer pants on.

I agree that Cooper has rarely (if ever) given bad advice. I find his writtings
to be well considered and logical. Wisdom is often not recognized until sufficient
experience is gained. (How many of our fathers got smarter as we got older?)

Another point of the forward mounted scope has to do with being able to "look around" it but still use it. I know there is a better way to articulate this but Im tired from a wonderful Christmas and thats all Im coming up with.

It works too. The few times I have shot friends scouts, I have to admit it works.

Hey schlomo -

What kind of barrel do you have on your old Scout? After shooting match grade heavy barrels I'm having problems dealing with the wandering accuracy I'm getting from a stock skinny barrel. I'm wondering if a 20" heavy barrel might find the right mix of accuracy and weight for me? Maybe a better quality skinny barrel might do as well, but I'm a little hesitant to try it...


Believe it or not, it's the factory tube.

I relieved the barrel channel to float it from the chamber swell forward. It was a tad tighter grouping before that, when there was some up pressure at the fore end tip, but the zero would wander with temp and humidity. After floating, it was a 1 3/4 minute gun, but the zero stayed put. This is 1 3/4 minute on demand, by the way, not the "best I ever shot with it" group size.

Because I never shot it more than about ten or fifteen rounds without a cooldown, I don't know if it shifts when REALLY hot. Although after about the sixth or seventh shot, you wouldn't want to leave your hand on that skinny tube.

My operational theory was that I was unlikely to ever fire more than three consecutive shots with it at a time in the field, so I didn't concern myself about whether groups shifted from excess barrel heat.

In fact, the most important factor for me was the first shot. That was the one I wanted a rock solid POA/POI relationship for. Very seldom did I have to fire a second shot in the field.

Under what conditions are your groups wandering?

kotengu
December 26, 2008, 21:28
Schlomo - I think you're right on with your 3 shot and most important 1st shot theory. I completely agree in this type of rifle. Maybe I'm trying for too much...

As to when mine are wandering - it's probably too soon to tell for sure. I have exactly 34 rounds through this "new to me" 1980-something Rem 700 in .308. 33 of those were for load development and zeroing the weekend before deer season opened, and the 34th was to take a nice 6-pointer. I've been hestitant to futz with anything until deer season closes as I still need to put one more in the freezer, but I noticed a few trends during load development. After deer season's over I'll play with it some more and see if it follows those trends.

I tried to shoot relatively slowly and allow cooling time between shots and groups, but didn't follow a stopwatch or anything. The zero wandered around within an inch or so (average center of 3-shot group), but didn't follow the expected pattern of higher impact in relation to higher powder charge. I slapped the trigger a couple times in there and called it, so it's hard to take too much from the group shooting. My best 3-shot group was 0.60", and that same load I "confirmed" at the end of the day with a 5-shot group which measured 2.09". I'd expect some growth in size from more shots, but that much change has to be due to either barrel heat or my eyes getting tired.

Mine has a synthetic stock with the two pads on the front for upward pressure as you mentioned. I think my first step with this rifle is to get a Bell & Carlson or HS Precision stock for it (so I can use a sling without pulling the POI around) and see what the true free-floating does. I'd happily trade a little growth in group size for a more repeatable zero. It's good to know you had those results.

I haven't played too much with the cold bore shot yet though. As part of my final zeroing I did the one shot, adjust, clean, wait ten minutes, one shot, adjust, etc. - until I was happy with the results. The only "confirmation" I have on my final zero is the bullet going exactly where I wanted it on that buck (although I didn't break out the calipers!). I'm be curious to see if the cold bore shot is consistant...


December 26, 2008 02:11 Post #35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With any barrel weight I've seen that a rifle will shoot to zero for some number of shots and then , with continued shooting , the groups grow. On some guns its 2 shots, some 3, some5,etc. Sometimes I've seen the same model and caliber rifles shoot very different (one was a 2 shot gun the other would go 4 before the group grew). You have to get to know YOUR gun and what it will do.

It seems though that the light sporter barrels are more commonly 2 shot guns and the heavier profiles get you the better 4 and 5 shot groups.

I'd say that you should practice how you intend to use the rifle....if you're going hunting and your money shot is going to be taken with a clean, cold barrel then each shot in practice or load development should be done using the same conditions. Yeah its slow, but it makes for a lot of bs'ing opprotunities.

At the very least check and see where each shot is going....this will let you see how many shots you get before your groups expand and how big your groups will get.

hth,
MR1 Zig (I got promoted)


All barrels have a "personality", so to speak.

Because of the fact that very few bores are truly straight, and the fact that cutting or button rifling causes stress risers in the steel, as does cutting the outside contour, barrels behave differently when influenced by heat, bedding pressure, and load harmonics.

Heavier, stiffer barrels are more resistant to these influences, not only because of mass, but also because they heat more slowly. Slim profiles tend to begin to wander earlier, and wander more. And, of course, some more than others.

In addition, the smoothness of the bore and the concentricity, diameter and lead angle of the throat affect the rate of copper fouling, and this does have an effect as the round count builds up between cleanings. The Lothar Walther barrel I had on my service rifle absolutely shot better 600 strings on the first 20 from a clean tube than it did after 66 shots across the course. Which is, of course, unfortunate for me.

The only FAL I currently have definitely loses groupability as it coppers up. The last test I ran for Gary's thread on FAL accuracy, it surprised me by putting the first nine in a bit under 1 1/2", and then started pokin' shots two and three inches out, and in several directions, which is more what I'm used to with this rifle. You may recall that one year at the RBGC FAL match, I was in the running after the Boot Camp and Assault course, but the last stage was shooting clay birds at 100. By that time, I had about 120 rounds thru the rifle, and I didn't hit a single one of the ten clays, which stunned Stimpy, but not me. I'd shot the rifle enough to know what to expect.

A few barrels will throw the first shot from a clean, lightly-oiled bore several inches high. My Winny Scout does this. Before hunting season, I always fired a couple of rounds to foul the bore, and didn't clean it the rest of the season, unless it got wet.

Matt, you could have worse problems than having group shifts of 1 MOA or less on a hunting rifle. Same is true of a light-barreled rifle that groups 2" at the outside, unless you are after something like antelope, which you may have to try to plug at 400-plus.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when you float your barrel. Sometimes it makes 'em more accurate than they were when pressure bedded.

My apologies to Wonderdog, et al, for the hijack. I know I'm kinda bad about this, but I just wander wherever things go.

Matt, if you want to go on more about this stuff, lets get one going over on the bolt rifle forum, and leave these good folks alone.

kotengu
December 26, 2008, 21:38
I remember that GA FALers match - and I had the exact same problem! :wink:

What kind of scope and mount do you have on that old Winchester? Is it a pre-64 (is that right - with the old-style claw extractor?) or post?

I wish we were a little bit closer. I'd love to try that thing out and see how she feels. I also wish I knew someone that has tried a match-grade skinny barrel. It seems a shame to pay about the same price for a skinny barrel as a heavy barrel and then not be happy with the results. Of course, it also seems a shame to pay for a 30" heavy barrel blank and then cut it down to 20" (the 'smith I've been talking to is STILL trying to talk me out of that!). It'd be even worse if I put that heavy barrel on and made a nose-heavy boat anchor out of a light, lively rifle. It's hard living in the middle of nowhere sometimes - there aren't many "shooters" to trade sticks with.

It just seems silly to have a 2 MOA bolt rifle for some reason. That stupid Hollinger AR-15 has ruined me. It shoots bug-holes without even trying, and now I expect everything to do the same...

Of course all of this is a moot point for now. I just spent all my money on reloading components so I could get back into the Highpower and IDPA game a little this year. I gots no more money for Scout rifle work! :(

shlomo
December 28, 2008, 09:43
Originally posted by kotengu
What kind of scope and mount do you have on that old Winchester? Is it a pre-64 (is that right - with the old-style claw extractor?) or post?
The mount is a shop-made Weaver rail, machined to fit the barrel contour. The action is a push-feed. It is, of course, not controlled-round, but that has never been a problem. On the other, hand, it is VERY smooth and very fast.

The scope is an original-style Burris 2 3/4x Scout Scope, with the un-belled front end. And the sling is a Milt Sparks CW sling, on the front two of a 3-stud system. As I said, strictly old school, but cutting edge when it was built back in the early '80s.

Originally posted by kotengu
It just seems silly to have a 2 MOA bolt rifle for some reason. That stupid Hollinger AR-15 has ruined me. It shoots bug-holes without even trying, and now I expect everything to do the same...

I know what you mean about the floated match tubes on the AR. Ever have the fun of shooting it next to a couple guys with a scoped AR, who are shooting 8" groups off the bench? You roll out the mat, lay down with the sling, and shoot an inch-and-a-half ten shot knot in the ten and x-ring with irons, and then wait for their reaction: :eek::eek:

On the other hand, a 2" hunting rifle is fine with me. As Cooper pointed out, what this means is that the rifle will put every shot within one inch of the exact point of aim, down the length of a football field. Most closer than that, since 2" is the outside edge of the group. A one-minute rifle will put them one-half inch closer. Does that make a difference, realistically? I don't think so.

Since the ideal "kill zone" of a big-game animal is a six to eight inch circle, the 2" rifle is capable of keeping all its shots inside that zone out to 300 or 400 yards. The real problem is that most men can't hold to that, especially from field positions. In the field, a six-minute shooter can't really hit any better with a one-inch rifle than he can with a two-minute gun. To use Cooper's words again, in the field you can't even see increments of a half-minute, much less hold to them. Quoting him loosely from memory, "A gun industry manufacturer used to have an ad slogan, 'Out here where the ranges are long, you need (X) performance.' Balderdash. Out here where the ranges are long, you need to know how to shoot." :rofl:

Regarding barrel weight, I don't think that a skinny tube is necessarily a bar to precision, although it doesn't increase the odds. Cooper used to claim that Scout II was the most accurate rifle he had ever shot, and he would not put a figure on it, lest he be called a liar. And that rifle had a very thin barrel taper.

I think that it has to start with a tube that is really straight, and then it has to be turned by somebody with the equipment and skill to keep it that way as it is reduced. It probably would help to stress-relieve it with a cryo treatment. But anybody who has cut off a few barrels knows that concentricity at the muzzle and breech doesn't necessarily mean that it's that way two inches farther down the bore. There are a few barrel makers that will guarantee straightness within certain parameters, but their products are naturally not cheap.

One of the projects I haven't had the time and wherewithal to get around to is building a Scout on an M-96 (small ring) Mauser action, and in 6.5 Swede. My original idea was to start with a quality barrel (straight as possible), and turn the mount bosses for the scope right in the barrel steel as an integral mount system. The bottom of the front mount ring could be used as an additional recoil lug, and the barrel floated from there out. Since the action is slightly slimmer than a G-98, the stock could be pared down proportionally, to make a truly slim, light, and handy package in an excellent cartridge.

Perhaps one of these days, other stuff more pressing won't keep this in the parts drawers.

MistWolf
December 29, 2008, 22:02
I've done some reading over at benchrest.com. One thing you want to check for on a new barrel is tight spots. According to one guy, he gets better accuracy from barrels where the tight spot is at or near the muzzle rather than further back. He claims that it's foolish to cut a barrel blank before slugging it for tight spots. So in this respect, it makes sense to cut that 30 inch tube down to 20 inches. Slug it, then cut it to put the tight spot in the best place. I'm assuming that it'd be better without any tight spots.

I remember reading Cooper's writings about the Scout Rifle concept way back when. The idea was to have a rifle that one could scout enemy positions and have a fast, reliable hard hitting rifle that could accurately and rapidly engage man sized targets out to (if I recall) 300 meters. The bolt action was preferred to encourage the scout to rely on woodcraft rather than firepower. However, the Scout Rifle was to be enough that it would discourage the enemy from engaging the scout.

It was to be a rifle for long term field use for the rifleman. It was to be a rifle that one could use to live off the land if needed. It was to be powerful enough that it could take large game cleanly yet still have controllable recoil for rapid follow-up shots. It was also to be of a caliber readily available.

It was to be light and short enough to be handy without being fragile. I believe it was to be rugged enough to deliver a buttstroke in an emergency.

Cooper called for a extended eye relief scope of low power. This was to allow easy access to the magazine for topping off and provide a quick on target sight picture. As for myself, standard eye relief scopes are much faster for target acquisition.

Basically, I understood the Scout Rifle to be a rugged, reliable, accurate rifle of moderate power that is handy to use, one that is to be a constant companion for the rifleman.

As for myself, a standard, well tuned M1A with large aperture sights would fill this need very well. The same could be said for the FAL or HK91 or PTR 91. I don't really care for rifles with barrels shorter than 22 inches due to the increased muzzle blast. I had plenty of experience with an original Remington 600 chambered for 6mm.

I grew up shooting aperture sights and optics (mostly scopes). I can pick up a target with both sighting systems quickly and it's my personal opinion that there is no use for other sighting systems on a rifle.

A good Scout rifle for myself would be a rugged, accurate bolt action or semi-auto with a 22 inch barrel that would take reliable detachable magazines with a good, standard eye relief scope and/or quality aperture sights and a good sling. If it all came in under 9 lbs with a proper balance, that would be my ideal Scout Rifle. Until time behind the trigger in the field leads me to think otherwise.

kotengu
December 31, 2008, 08:06
After all this I've got to ask for pictures - you have any laying around?

Have you been happy with the scope? Will it shoot a box and adjust/track well, or once you get it set do you leave it alone for fear it won't track right?

Closeups of the mount and stripper clip cut would be cool too if possible.
Is there much to cutting for stripper clips, or is it a pretty easy job in a mill?

shlomo
December 31, 2008, 09:00
Originally posted by kotengu
After all this I've got to ask for pictures - you have any laying around?

Have you been happy with the scope? Will it shoot a box and adjust/track well, or once you get it set do you leave it alone for fear it won't track right?

Closeups of the mount and stripper clip cut would be cool too if possible.
Is there much to cutting for stripper clips, or is it a pretty easy job in a mill?

If it's me you're axin', the only pics I have are on paper, from back in the hunting/pre-digital days. (I ougta scan one with me sportin' a big ol' bubba beard that Vince would be jellis of.) :rofl:

However, I certainly can take some pics today sometime, and stick 'em on here.

The scope has worked very well. It has been some time since I've played with this rifle, what with Highpower shooting since '97, and all that entails. My recollection is that the scope tracked pretty reliably. Caveat--it is my opinion that such optics are meant to be zeroed and left the hell alone until it is time to change it for some good reason, and then be left the hell alone again. The clue is the covers over the adjustment turrets. ;) Scopes that are meant to be constantly dicked around with have big, knurled knobs and exterior gradients on the turrets. A scout is not a long-range sniper rifle, nor is it for shooting golf balls at 500 in varying wind conditions.

The stripper slot was fairly easy to do on the short-action 70. It made it dimensionally, but just. After making sure that the loaded stripper would fit in length and width, I cut the slot by hand, more or less. Just laid it out on the bridge, punched a row of holes with a tabletop drill press to clear most of the stock, and then cleaned up the ragged leavings with files. The notches for the stop swells on the stripper sides were done with needle files, and adjusted to just allow the bottom of the stripper to touch the top of the guide rails of the mag box. This was for Swede Mauser strippers, by the way, which are the Cadillac of milsurp strippers.

In thinking about it, I haven't fired a round out of the Scout since about 2001. At that time, I went out to the 200 yard line and adjusted it to hit the x-ring (well, most of the time) with the Sierra 168. Might be interesting to go out and fire a fouling shot into the berm, and see where the next three go, just to see how things have stayed put over the last six or seven years. Yep. Might just do that at the next opportunity, since that's the only one in the rack that hasn't been checked for POA/POI agreement in the last year.

kotengu
December 31, 2008, 10:19
Now you HAVE to post the bushy beard picture! New pics would be good too though.

I agree about leaving the scope set on a rifle like this. Good tracking usually indicates a high quality scope though. Get that thing out of the safe and shoot it some - it's probably feeling very lonely and neglected by now!

I think part of my problem is I want to do too many things with this rifle. I like the Scout concept, and that would work well for hunting too. Somewhere in the back of my head I'd like to shoot a few Long Range prone matches with it too (I guess that'd be F-class). Not necessarily to be competitive, but more to get some better practice in with this rifle and shoot at different distances I otherwise wouldn't get a chance to. That would mean heavy barrel and target knobs - both of which kind of go against the Scout concept.

I suppose if I really wanted to be hardcore I could shoot F-class with a Scout scope and just hold off for windage and elevation. That's almost as crazy as shooting Highpower with a FAL for years though... :tongue:

shlomo
December 31, 2008, 11:50
I'll see what I can do to dig out a couple old hunting pix. Should find some time today. Those who know me might be amused at a shot of me fifteen years and thirty pounds ago. Hell, I recently ran across my old Florida driver's license from when I was about 19, and had the Bjorn Borg thing going on.:rofl: :rofl:

The scout ain't gonna make it for long range competition. Kinda like having the family Sport Utilty out on the drag strip. Good for a lotta tasks, but that ain't one of 'em.

Now, if you wanna do something interesting with it, set up a six inch plate at 100, or a twelve at 200, and with a shot timer, see how fast you can put a hit on it starting from standing with the safety on and the butt against the hip. Position optional. Guarantee you'll teach yourself a few things about practical riflecraft. You can vary the routine by using a tree (post) rest with the thumb, and palm against the tree, or a fist rest, grasping the front sling and swivel and resting the bottom of the fist on low cover. You may or may not be surprised at what works best.

kev
December 31, 2008, 11:52
Even tho I don't have anything to add to this discussion, I do want to mention that I find it very interesting. I've been in love with the Scout concept since first reading about it in the 1985 GD. I've even squirrelled away bits and pieces for years for different Scout builds, but have never started any of those projects. I have several small ring Mausers of both '98 and pre-'98 styles in 7mm, 8mm, and .308. Personally, I prefer the pre-'98 cock on closing. The only detail of the Scout that I've never been able to figure out was Cooper's fascination with the magazine cut-off. I still don't see any use for it and all he ever said in print was that the 1903 Springfield had one for a reason,.....................never explaining what that reason was. I also don't see where the detachable mag makes much sense either. Serves a very questionable purpose at the definitely risk of loss. I thought Cooper was above falling for gadgets, but maybe I was wrong or I'm just not understanding the need.

I still have 3 or 4 scopes set aside along with some mounts to experiment with. Maybe I should dig all the stuff out and think about the project some more.

shlomo
December 31, 2008, 12:18
Kev,

The original purpose of the cut-off was to be able single load for deliberate fire at distance while holding the contents of the magazine in reserve, in case it might be needed for rapid fire to repel a close range rush by the enemy.

The counterpoint to the argument is that you can do the same thing without a cutoff, by snapping in a round on top, and closing the bolt. You will have to lose one round in the box to do this, in order to make room for the single-loaded round. The cut-off cams the rounds in the box down out of the way of the bolt, so you don't double feed when loading single rounds, and allows you to keep all five.

I agree that this is a dubious "advantage," much like backup sights. I have never felt handicapped without them, but like auto airbags, I suppose you don't appreciate such things until you need them in an emergency.

I also like the cock on close bolt. Makes for easier bolt lift on primary extraction, and is not a problem on close, if you are not operating the bolt like a girl.

kev
December 31, 2008, 16:22
I understand the original purpose and suppose it might have merit in the older rifles(Mauser 71/84, Krag, Lee-Enfield, etc)where it's almost impossible to top off a mag, but in a '98 style magazine I just don't see it. My understanding of it's use is that you held the magazine ammo in reserve while single-loading as you say, but I suspect that was only done during volley fire at 1000yd plus. I think if you really dug into it you'd find that the only reason the cut-off appears on the Springfield '03 is because it was on the Krag and Springfield Armory was trying to make it look like the '03 wasn't a direct copy of the '98 Mauser.

As to the counterpoint, you can simply open the bolt and drop a round into the chamber,.............pressing down on the top round in the mag with your thumb as you close the bolt. Still not sure why that would be an advantage for other than a 'special' load of some sort, but you can do it. Most controlled round feed actions don't like loading from other than the magazine, tho(although there's always a way to get it done).

The backup irons I do understand and don't have a problem with. Sure, it's something else to clutter up the rifle and another design problem to work around, but I think worth the effort. Another option would be a second zero'd backup scope in detachable mounts, but that's a little bulkier and still dependant on not having a 'base' problem.

Nobody's mentioned it and it probably belongs in the other thread, but one 'scout' I always wanted to try was a Tanker Garand. Very handy rifle(if overweight)and the scout scope makes maximum sense on a Garand, but so far I haven't been able to relegate the excellent iron sights to backup status. Just seems wrong to downgrade the best irons in rifledom.

shlomo
December 31, 2008, 16:53
Originally posted by kev
As to the counterpoint, you can simply open the bolt and drop a round into the chamber,.............pressing down on the top round in the mag with your thumb as you close the bolt.

Try that with one hand. Especially while lying down. It ain't easy with a bolt rifle, unless you've got a hand like an orangutan.

Other than that, theres not much disagreement from this quarter.

kotengu
December 31, 2008, 17:22
Funny you mention the Tanker Garand. That's been running around my head lately too. Probably a little heavy, but would make a pretty cool Scout...

shlomo
December 31, 2008, 17:49
I've said this before, but try to use an IHC garand.

Then you'll have an International Harvester Scout.

kotengu
December 31, 2008, 18:00
Then you'll have an International Harvester Scout.

:rofl: :bow: - Almost as good as this one:

if you are not operating the bolt like a girl.

I actually had the other problem when I first got this 700. I racked the bolt too hard and bounced the dummy round I was playing with back into the action. Thinking of the old fixed ejectors, I racked it harder and faster made the problem worse. These stupid little spring-loaded ejectors like to be racked slowly and softly to give the round time to get out of the way...

shlomo
January 01, 2009, 08:13
As promised, a couple shots of the rifle:
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7233/026gx3.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=026gx3.jpg)

The mount and scope:
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/913/033ca8.th.jpg (http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=033ca8.jpg)

Stripper slot:
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3817/029lo2.th.jpg (http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=029lo2.jpg)

With clip in place:
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5141/030dn3.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=030dn3.jpg)

I have not had time to dig out the redneck pics w/beard, but will do so at the next opportunity, perhaps this evening. Got a minor-league Garand match this morning to get off to.

kotengu
January 05, 2009, 17:12
Very cool - thanks for taking the time to post pics!