The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**44 AMP** · February 22, 2014, 12:13 PM

While I cannot point to chapter and verse, Cooper himself was not as big a proponent of the Scout scope concept as we have made him out to be.

He preferred the iron sights (ghost ring), and essentially felt that if you were going to put a scope on it, then the scout scope (type and location) is what it should be.

Just about the whole world fastened on the Scout scope as what "made" the scout rifle, because the scout scope's location is the ONE thing that visually makes the scout rifle different from all the rest.

he did talk about the advantages of a "scout" scope, its location, magnification, etc., but that was to show his reasoning. Having a scope on a scout rifle was never part of his original concept. He was also enough of a realist to know that a people were going to put scopes on them.

So he came up with what he felt was the best way to mount the scope (and the kind of scope to mount there) and still stay as close as possible to his original concepts for the Scout Rifle. He also put some on his rifles, to prove they would work the way he said they would. And guess what? They did.

Anyone remember WHY he wanted the scope mounted so far forward?
It was so his scout rifle could use stripper clips. The fact that the forward mounted scope had other advantages was simply gravy.

Cooper was not quite the fossilized reactionary that others, and even he himself, made him out to be. Really no worse than many of the other gun writers of his era in his holding forth his opinions in a resolute manner.

He actually was fairly open to new ideas (particularly when they were his ideas), but if your idea met his minimum standards for reliability and usefulness, he was open to taking a look at it. That didn't mean he would approve of it, but he would consider it.

One of the ways he got such a reputation for being a curmudgeon (among other things

) was because, if your idea didn't at least measure up to his minimum standards at a glance, he wouldn't waste his time on it. And he would say so in print. I always liked what he wrote, and was entertained by the way he wrote it. Read a lot of his stuff over the years, and while not everything was "right", very little of his ideas have I found to be seriously "wrong".

While many won't publically admit to it, I think there are quite a few of us who he touched, deep inside, and who do remember that we cried, the day his music died...

I think if he were with us still, he would, grudgingly perhaps, approve of your dot/electronic sights, now that they have a proven track record.

February 22, 2014, 12:13 PM	#10
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	While I cannot point to chapter and verse, Cooper himself was not as big a proponent of the Scout scope concept as we have made him out to be. He preferred the iron sights (ghost ring), and essentially felt that if you were going to put a scope on it, then the scout scope (type and location) is what it should be. Just about the whole world fastened on the Scout scope as what "made" the scout rifle, because the scout scope's location is the ONE thing that visually makes the scout rifle different from all the rest. he did talk about the advantages of a "scout" scope, its location, magnification, etc., but that was to show his reasoning. Having a scope on a scout rifle was never part of his original concept. He was also enough of a realist to know that a people were going to put scopes on them. So he came up with what he felt was the best way to mount the scope (and the kind of scope to mount there) and still stay as close as possible to his original concepts for the Scout Rifle. He also put some on his rifles, to prove they would work the way he said they would. And guess what? They did. Anyone remember WHY he wanted the scope mounted so far forward? It was so his scout rifle could use stripper clips. The fact that the forward mounted scope had other advantages was simply gravy. Cooper was not quite the fossilized reactionary that others, and even he himself, made him out to be. Really no worse than many of the other gun writers of his era in his holding forth his opinions in a resolute manner. He actually was fairly open to new ideas (particularly when they were his ideas), but if your idea met his minimum standards for reliability and usefulness, he was open to taking a look at it. That didn't mean he would approve of it, but he would consider it. One of the ways he got such a reputation for being a curmudgeon (among other things) was because, if your idea didn't at least measure up to his minimum standards at a glance, he wouldn't waste his time on it. And he would say so in print. I always liked what he wrote, and was entertained by the way he wrote it. Read a lot of his stuff over the years, and while not everything was "right", very little of his ideas have I found to be seriously "wrong". While many won't publically admit to it, I think there are quite a few of us who he touched, deep inside, and who do remember that we cried, the day his music died... I think if he were with us still, he would, grudgingly perhaps, approve of your dot/electronic sights, now that they have a proven track record. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.