Scout Type Tactical Scopes

[dgludwig]

Am I the only one who thinks a scope mounted well ahead of the receiver "Scout-style" just plain looks "wrong"? Worse, that it doesn't handle "right"? I don't deny that a scope mounted in this configuration offers greater eye relief and, in some cases, allows for a faster target acquisition; all advantages for sure in an objective sense. But, subjectively (thus, less important in a comparative sense), my old school eyes and time-worn handling expectations makes a Cooper tactically inspired "Scout-scoped" rifle look and feel wrong.

I may be alone with this opinion but I will add that most Scout-scoped rifles don't fit most of my rifle cases...:p

[Llama Bob]

It looks weird, but it is faster and provides two-eyes-open magnification.

I think within 200y or so it's a superior system. Once you're shooting prone and farther out, a conventional scope is probably superior. I own and like a scout, but I wouldn't want it to be my only rifle.

[agtman]

I think within 200y or so it's a superior system. Once you're shooting prone and farther out, a conventional scope is probably superior. I own and like a scout, but I wouldn't want it to be my only rifle.

Agree.

While a "Scout rifle" shouldn't be the only rifle in your long-gun battery, if you take the time to become proficient with it, a Scout stick can pretty much do what Cooper said it would do, out to about, say, 300yds.

My 7.62 Mini-G Scout is set up as my deer/hog slayer inside 200yds, as well as for occasional shots on coyotes inside 300yds. For those uses, it works perfectly, and its practical field accuracy is better than "minute-of-fur." :D

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/agtman/MG1-1.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/agtman/media/MG1-1.jpg.html)

[jmr40]

If you're using a scope correctly a low powered scope mounted conventionally is just as easy to use with both eyes open, just as fast, much better in low light and far more accurate at any range. And it doesn't mess up the balance. The Army is no longer even using iron sights, they tested all options and concluded the same before going to conventional mounting of low powered glass.

The only real advantage is if conventional mounting is impossible or if you want optics and the ability to load with stripper clips.

[us920669]

For the kind of hunting I do, where 75 yards is a long shot, it's the only way to go. I've got two rifles set up that way and may get another.

[Llama Bob]

If you're using a scope correctly a low powered scope mounted conventionally is just as easy to use with both eyes open, just as fast

I think Cooper proved fairly convincingly that's not true with the shoot'n'scoot competitions.

[Jimro]

I think Cooper proved fairly convincingly that's not true with the shoot'n'scoot competitions.

Which is why lower powered conventionally placed compact optics and red dots are winning the 3 gun matches... /sarc

But snarkiness aside (my point is that a scout rifle being faster than a traditional hunting rifle is like being the tallest midget at the county fair), the scout type setup was used by the German army in WWII, both as a scout rifle and a makeshift sniper rifle. It did not last, and that was the last time any major military power used an extended eye relief scope on bolt action rifle.

So if you have a rifle that requires an optic be somewhere else than right over the action for rapid loading or ejection (stripper clips for milsurp bolt rifles, Win94, Garand) then a scout scope setup is going to be better than irons for you. If you don't have to rapidly reload (cause you aren't fighting off enemy Soldiers) then a traditional scope is going to be better for you (more accurate, better target acquisition and distinction).

As far as "looking wrong" goes, you have to remember it is only the optimal solution to a certain subset of rifles and carbines and COL Cooper wasn't looking to make the optimal rifle for all situations, but a rifle that was good enough for most situations where you didn't need to achieve fire superiority but needed a relatively light, hard hitting cartridge for man or beast. And within that subset of firearms for that purpose it is a useful setup, and I find that looks are less important than performance.

Jimro

[agtman]

* * * The only real advantage is if conventional mounting is impossible or if you want optics and the ability to load with stripper clips.

Or for loading M1 en bloc clips. :D :cool:

[agtman]

* * * COL Cooper wasn't looking to make the optimal rifle for all situations, but a rifle that was good enough for most situations where you didn't need to achieve fire superiority but needed a relatively light, hard hitting cartridge for man or beast.

Actually, that's true.

Cooper never envisioned that his Scout rifle would replace a battle rifle or other mainstay weapon for engaging in sustained firefights; it was intended to be carried a great deal and shot only infrequently, at ranges under 400yds and more likely well inside 300yds.

Hence, for that purpose a properly set-up Scout, whether in bolt or autoloader form, can make a great short-range hunter.

[g.willikers]

After trying the Scout mounting arrangement at the distances it's intended, a ghost ring seemed to do the same thing, with less complication and bulk.
Just saying.

[5thShock]

Yeah, but agtman's rifle has a certain bad to the boneness about it, it just looks like something made to hurt.

[agtman]

5thShock said: Yeah, but agtman's rifle has a certain bad to the boneness about it, it just looks like something made to hurt.

Ninja medieval ... :eek:

Hunt? hurt? ... who cares? :D:D:D

"Got clips?"
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/agtman/photo-2.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/agtman/media/photo-2.jpg.html)

[444]

I own two rifles equipped with scout scopes (Leupold).
Both are lever action Marlins, one in .357 and a .444. I have owned both of them for a decade.

In my opinion, and my opinion only: what I envision the scout scope to do, what my take on Cooper's basis for the scout rifle is.....could now be replaced with a red dot optic. I have not put one on my rifles, but I think that would be the way to go.

[Llama Bob]

The issue with red dot optics is the lack of magnification. When trying to hit targets past 200y, that extra 2-3x magnification is awfully nice. The scout scope is sort of a cross between a red dot and an ACOG - trying to get the speed of a forward mounted scope with the range advantage of a low power scope. It more or less succeeds.

[johnwilliamson062]

http://www.primaryarms.com/red-dot-magnifiers/c/130300/
Not sure those imbue any benefits over a scope.

Now that one can buy a red-dot that will function so long without running down the batteries, it is hard to argue they aren't technically a better option. I think I read the IDF Tavor can run something like three years left on with one a set of batteries. I'd be more worried about the batteries corroding/leaking than running low.

I still might build one at some point in the future for hunting. Heck, some of you old codgers still carry revolvers! :)

[tobnpr]

I think it may be a bit "outdated" with the level of current technology/products, and I think it can be improved upon. Sort of what 444 suggested above- but let's use a higher power optic as well.

I get the redundancy of the iron sights, this can be accomplished with a red-dot or holosight on a 45-degree rail off the main mount. Yes, it's electronic- but odds of both the main optic, and the red dot failing are off-the-chart small if quality optics are used. This way, you can use traditional higher power scope on the receiver- and have the fast acquisition of a red dot simultaneously if needed.

I'm working on a custom Mosin-Nagant along these lines currently.

With Cooper's design, you'd need to remove the scope, to use the irons.

[johnwilliamson062]

A scope and a red dot? Sounds heavy.

[agtman]

A scope and a red dot? Sounds heavy.

Probably is - especially if you run them together on a .308 Scout rig, which no one does, :rolleyes: ... and of course, technically, there's added weight when you factor-in the mounts.

Typically, you'd run one or the other on a Scout.

Overall answer: for you dude-skis who think an optic-mounted Scout rifle is "heavy," - please, you need to man-up and hit the gym. :rolleyes:

[tobnpr]

I have this type of dual setup (high power optic+ red dot) on an AR-10...
The Burris FF II weighs in at a very hefty one ounce.

You gotta be kidding me...

[johnwilliamson062]

http://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/fullfield-ii-riflescopes-series/fullfield-ii-riflescope-2-7x35mm
That one? They list it as 12 oz in their spec. Add a few ounces for rings.
The tactical shows 17-25 oz.
1 oz is really light. If you have a scope that weighs one ounce I would really like to know the model. I think most lenses probably weigh more.

If you think adding one pound to a rifle is irrelevant... Well, I can only assume you spend most of your time shooting off a bench.

Of course one of my other hobbies has people paying hundreds of dollars for titanium equipment to shave an ounce here or there, so maybe I just have an odd perspective.

[tobnpr]

Fast Fire II:
One ounce, it's not a scope- it's a red dot.

http://www.burrisoptics.com/sights/fastfire-series/fastfire-2

[wpsdlrg]

A forward mounted scope is "an acquired taste", to put it one way. Is it "superior" to a conventionally mounted scope ? No. Is it "inferior" ? Not necessarily. It is simply another variation, that's all. It has strengths and weaknesses, like anything else. A forward mounted scope does work better with relatively low magnification, so in that regard, it is somewhat distance limited. But, much hinges on the "indian"....not just the "arrow".

I have an old M48 Yugo Mauser, which I've had for nearly 20 years. That rifle has been a project for me, off and on, almost the entire time I've had it. When I finally decided that I couldn't any longer use iron sights effectively, I scoped it. Because of the issues with installing a scope over the receiver, a forward mounted scope was the natural choice. So, I built my own scope mount, using the existing rear sight base.....and mounted a scope. I've used a couple of different scopes on this rifle, a fixed 2X and a fixed 4X. Right now, it wears a 2X Nikon pistol scope.

With that old rifle, I can ring a 6" diameter steel plate, shooting off a bipod, at 200 yards, 10 out of 10 times (I've done 35 shots in a row, with no misses). At 250 yards, I can put every shot into the "kill zone" on a (slightly smaller than life size) steel ram target. No muss, no fuss.

The point is : if you like (or just choose it for practical reasons) the forward mounted scope, you can make it work....and work well. If you don't, then use a conventionally mounted scope. Whatever tool works for the job at hand. It isn't a philosophical argument.

As for myself, I couldn't care less what it "looks like". It's just a tool to get the job done.

[bamaranger]

I think of Cooper was in this conversation, he'd have some comment to the effect that a 'scope is only a "Scout scope" when it is mounted on a "Scout rifle". Cooper had some specific specs as to what comprised a true scout rifle. Otherwise, we are simply discussing a "forward mounted optic or 'scope." That said, it is customary these days to refer to any forward mounted 'scope as a scout scope, and we can go with that for simplicities sake.

In discussions regards scout scopes, the German use of the forward mounted (Zf41?) scope on their M98's often surfaces. I've never seen or handled one of those numbers in person. Seems like I've read in a biography from a WWII german sniper that the arrangement was universally despised. Sorry but I do not have the text in my library, I acquired the one I read from inter library loan and had to return same. Seems like I've read it was a "designated marksman" arrangement, but got pressed into sniper use. I have read a modern article that claims the tiny ZF scope was a nightmare to zero, and the field of view had to be miniscule, judging by the small diameter of the scope tube. The mount system was suspect too. Couple that with 1940's optic quality, and it's not hard for me to understand why the ZF41 was rated so poorly, then and and now. I wonder too how many Wermacht "designated marksman" chunked their tiny ZF scopes prior capture to avoid being labled and dealt with as "snipers". There was certainly a sniper scourge in France and Germany, and I wonder if the ZF was more widely used than history gives it credit?

But I don't believe that the ZF41 is a valid comparison to modern IER scopes. As others have posted, mount a modern IER/LER scope on a vintage bolt rifle, and you have a fairly useful and reliable system out to 300 yds or so on realistic targets, either medium game or human.

The other thing that crops up is stripper clips. Nobody uses strippers much these days, but the forward mounted scope allows easy access to the action none the less. It's a more simple matter of filling the magazine, or topping off, when you don't have to thread the cartridges under your scope and into the action.

I began following Coopers Scout concept early on when it first began to appear in articles in the late 70's, early 80's. My Dad had mounted a LER Redfield on a M94/.44mag about the same time, and did pretty good with it on Eastern whitetails in the woods, provided the critters were in range of the mortar like trajectory of the .44. So I had seen that the concept could work, first hand. Dad certainly shot the scoped lever rifle better than the traditional iron sights.

Eventually I sprang for a early Savage Scout, which is a tad long and a tad heavy by Coopers standards, but certainly more affordable. On it I plunked a Leupold IER 2.75x. It has quick release rings, but it matters little, as I don't shoot peeps all that well anymore. I've hunted it some and taken some deer, shot it a bit more, and it rides in the truck on occassion. It is not as handy as a M94, but is more capable with bigger cartridge and more range than a pistol caliber carbine or 30-30. Looking over my deer diary, I do not see a kill that I made with with another rifle, that I could not have made with the Savage Scout and its tiny scope. One shortfall encountered was that although I could see my target(s) in dim light, I could not always see
the duplex reticle. That got solved by having Leupold install a chunky German #1 reticle. No missing those big posts. Zeroed 2-3" high at 100, I'm good for as far as I'm going to shoot at game.

Finally, Cooper's Scout was not born from want of a "tactical" rifle so much as a "practical" one. A general purpose rifle, not a combat rifle. Yes, he envisioned it used by "scouts" as he knew them, but the scout rifle was jack of all trades tool, not a speciality item.

[Jimro]

The term "scout" can mean anything from deep recon to a local guide. I've always thought that Cooper meant something closer to "local guide" than deep recon.

Jimro

[Model12Win]

If you throw a scout scope on any old rifle out there, it DOESN'T make it a "scout rifle".

[444]

The topic is scout SCOPES.

And there are scopes marketed as scout scopes

I agree that putting one on a rifle doesnt equal a scout rifle per Cooper But the idea is similar.

[agtman]

If you throw a scout scope on any old rifle out there, it DOESN'T make it a "scout rifle".

Agree.

And Savage's "scout rifle" was never a very competent entry into this genre anyway. :rolleyes:

Ruger's entry, in its newer, lighter synthetic stock, is a bit closer, but there's still room for improvement.

[johnwilliamson062]

Ah, I went straight to fullfield when I saw FF2 as you were talking about both. 1 oz is light. I doubt there are many folding back-up irons that are lighter. What kind of battery life are you actually getting with it?
While a "Scout rifle" shouldn't be the only rifle in your long-gun battery, if you take the time to become proficient with it, a Scout stick can pretty much do what Cooper said it would do, out to about, say, 300yds.
I find that interesting. My current experience with a forward scope set-up is an SKS-M with a red dot on one of the front handguard rail mounts(an all around bad system to begin with and not a true scout). I've tried it on a 10/22 for a few range trips and handled a couple more, but as far as any thing close to field use, the SKS-M. My take away was, if you were going with the set-up, you probably needed to take a "man with one gun probably knows how to use it" approach. And a high dollar scope is probably more important than in a traditional set-up. Just seemed like I was going to need to put more time into it to get much out of it. I guess the more expensive scope part was the most relevant for this thread. Most pistol scopes are designed with much closer than 300 yards in mind. The scope I used wasn't sharp enough at half that range.

Although the set-up seems to make longer shots more difficult, I always thought Cooper was in favor of a 'more than three hundred yards close or avoid' approach. Assuming the "scout" was both capable and situationally aware enough to do so.

[bamaranger]

Yeah, scopes.......OK. But the OP did mention that they looked odd to him when mounted forward on a RIFLE, but I may have strayed a bit on my earlier post.

My Savage certainly looks odd, even to me. The long cantilever looking rail is unsupported on the muzzle end, it just sort of hangs out there in the middle of nowhere. The Ruger rail arrangement is much nicer in appearance.

I've never tried a pistol scope forward.....but I'm on the prowl for one at the right price. I bought a rail for a Garand (travesty, I know) 'cause I don't see the peep like I used too. I might clamp one on a rail on an AK too, same difficulty. There are some interesting pics and articles about AK's and M1's with forward optics. The Nikon pistol scope seems well regarded for this application it seems.

I've only used the Leupold IER, but have handled several Burris's. The Burris is smaller and lighter, and has a focus ring for the reticle. The Leupold's drawback is that their is no focus for the reticle, which can be a problem for some. Weaver makes a fixed 4x scout scope, at an affordable price point, but I have not looked at one. HiLux makes one too, but reviews on line seem mixed. I may pull the Leupold off the Savage, and get a Burrris, as the object of the Savage for mewas to be closer to Coopers specs and portability. The larger Leupold could go on the Garand then. I dunno.

[Jim Watson]

There was a little Remington Model 7 with Scout Scope floating from store to store here until somebody figured out what it was good for and kept it. No use to me, but then I am not a hunter... or a scout.

It did not have any of the rest of the Gun Guru's features, but it did make length and weight which a lot of fancier rigs do not. The scope mount was low enough for a cheekweld, too.

[dgludwig]

QUOTE: "...scopes
Yeah, scopes.......OK. But the OP did mention that they looked odd to him when mounted forward on a RIFLE, but I may have strayed a bit on my earlier post..."

OP back. This debate has been interesting and informative but I think it's time that I remind folks that I never intended to disparage the utility of the "Scout Rifle" concept and readily conceded that the idea has its advantages. I only intended to argue that some of us older folks have a hard time (our "problem" for sure) not seeing a scope mounted way in front of the receiver as looking a bit odd (from what we're "used to") and the rifle feeling a bit different (ungainly for sure) from what we're used to with a "conventionally" mounted scope in terms of its handling properties.
But do carry on. I'm finding the discussion intriguing as it evolves.

[RaySendero]

dgludwig wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks a scope mounted well ahead of the receiver "Scout-style" just plain looks "wrong"? Worse, that it doesn't handle "right"? I don't deny that a scope mounted in this configuration offers greater eye relief and, in some cases, allows for a faster target acquisition; all advantages for sure in an objective sense. But, subjectively (thus, less important in a comparative sense), my old school eyes and time-worn handling expectations makes a Cooper tactically inspired "Scout-scoped" rifle look and feel wrong.

I may be alone with this opinion but I will add that most Scout-scoped rifles don't fit most of my rifle cases...


dgludwig, Did you form this opinion from looking at them or shooting them?

[dgludwig]

If you've read my posts you'd know that I have no quarrel with how well "Scout Rifles" shoot and, in fact, conceded in the very post you referenced that they offer many advantages. My only narrow and subjective point is that some of us older fellows find the look and feel of the scout rifle configuration to "look and feel wrong." Nothing more than an opinion based on a long-time familiarity with more "conventional" rifle/scope combinations and so, to answer your question, said opinion is based on looking at and handling them; not shooting them.

[bamaranger]

Your're certainly not alone in your view regards looks and balance. And as I mentioned, my Savage is downright clunky looking in the manner the rail is mounted forward. I've got a pal that laughs every time he sees my
Savage.

The Scout Rifle hangs on, and the original commentary by Cooper likely started in the '80's as near as I can tell. I clipped an article from a 1987 copy of Guns & Ammo, featuring photos of a very young looking Cooper and one his custom scout rifles. If you wanted a scout rifle, you had to build it, or have it built. We went over 10 yrs, till the Steyr and the Savage hit the scene about 1999. I think Rugers Frontier model followed, not sure of the year. And then there was the Ruger Gunsite Scout, a real surprise.

All the above to say the modern Scout Rifle, with their forward mounted scopes have been about for some time, 30 yrs plus or minus. Before that, there were also rigs to mount pistol scopes and special IER scopes on the M94, and the Mauser ZF41 rig of WWII goes back even further.

I think what keeps the concept alive these days is the picatinny rail, and the variety of compact optics, both scout scopes and dots, that combined allow forward mounting. That, and Rugers clever (but to me, unnecessary) tacticalization of the Scout, which makes the rifle to folks who love all things tactical. So we actually see more scout rifles, in stores, at the range, maybe afield, than we did when the concept was first commercially launched, 15 yrs or so ago.

[agtman]

I think what keeps the concept alive these days is the picatinny rail, and the variety of compact optics, both scout scopes and dots, that combined allow forward mounting. That, and Rugers clever (but to me, unnecessary) tacticalization of the Scout, which makes the rifle to folks who love all things tactical. So we actually see more scout rifles, in stores, at the range, maybe afield, than we did when the concept was first commercially launched, 15 yrs or so ago.

Somewhat agree.

Savage's Scout entry always looked fragile to me, like it wouldn't hold up under hard field-use.

The problem with Ruger's Scout entry from the git-go was always weight. Comments on Ruger's newer model with the synthetic stock suggest it's noticeably lighter. I've been looking to find one to handle, but none of the LGSs here has one. Sure, if you start hanging all manner of tacticool do-dads off it, the weight will increase fast, same as what guys discover when they do that to their handy and initially light-weight 5.56 AR SBRs. After adding all that cool-guy stuff, they end up with an 11-pound 10.5" SBR.

While optics are getting lighter and proliferating in higher quality, there's still a lot of low-end junk out there that won't stand up to hard use. My Burris scout has worked well-enough, but if it ever goes t.u., I'll replace it w/ Leupy's 3x scout optic.

[RaySendero]

dgludwig answered:
.....
so, to answer your question, said opinion is based on looking at and handling them; not shooting them.



I did read all your posts and that's what I suspected you hadn't shot one.

You need to shoot one to fully appreciate the forward mounted rifle scope!

I Have one on my Swiss K-31 because its all original - all 6 SN match and have a tag.
The mount fits good and tight on the rear sight base.
But it all can be put back to original.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/K31_Rightside_053109.jpg


Its too long and heavy to be compared to a true "scout rifle". However, it is deadly on moving targets -
The sight is quick, the weight forward makes for a smoother swing and the straight pull bolt is fast to operate!
Many at the range ask to try shooting it - Now, their level of experience varies;

But all that have quickly become comfortable with that set-up and shoot it very well!!!

Even off the bench that low power scope will perform! See that target under the rifle that lower group was 200 yards.

[mellow_c]

If you're using a scope correctly a low powered scope mounted conventionally is just as easy to use with both eyes open, just as fast, much better in low light and far more accurate at any range. And it doesn't mess up the balance. The Army is no longer even using iron sights, they tested all options and concluded the same before going to conventional mounting of low powered glass.

The only real advantage is if conventional mounting is impossible or if you want optics and the ability to load with stripper clips.


I have to agree with jmr40. Thats the way I've always seen it. There may be a couple exception to this rule though. . . One is personal preference. For whatever reason someone might shoot better with a forward mounted scope, and for those that do, they have that option. I think your average person would have an easier time using any number of the low magnification traditionally mounted scopes.

I think the bottom line is that when the scope is closer to your eye, you have more forgiveness in relation to proper mounting of the rifle and eye alignment to the center of the scope, when it's farther away, the window is smaller and proper alignment is more important, and I believe, more difficult. . .

This is just my opinion though, and may actually mean very little, as I've had very limited experience with forward mounted scopes.They may actually be the shooting worlds greatest kept secret for all I know :-)


The more I think about it, the more I realize how much it compares to scoped pistols. I've looked through a few of them, and with low power such as 3x, they are ok, but you have so much less stability when standing and holding a handgun then you do with a rifle.

Consider this. If you make a circle with your pointer finger and thumb and then hold it away from you at arms length... You'll notice that it only takes up a very small percentage of your entire spacial visual input, even with one eye closed. Now if you move that same circle much closer to your eye where you would usually mount a scope, you'll see that that potentially same magnified image that would be further away from you, is now taking up more of your vision, which I think gives you an appropriate balance of focus on target and situational awareness.


Another argument could be... well what if I'm in an environment where I need more situational awareness then I do focus on the target, so I like the idea of being able to see more around me when I've got the rifle mounted and I'm looking at the forward mounted scope. And yes, that's where you can draw that fine line... because for just the right situation a forward mounted low magnification scope might be the best thing for you... But thats a really interesting territory, with iron sights, red dots, and 1-4x and 1-6x traditionally mounted scopes crowding the room.

[dgludwig]

Quote: "...You need to shoot one to fully appreciate the forward mounted rifle scope!..."

You're still not getting it, RaySendro. I'm the op in this thread. Read post no. 1 again and you will understand that I'm not questioning how well Scout rifles shoot and, from the get-go, I've conceded that everything I've read or heard about them indicate that most not only shoot well but they offer some advantages over conventional set-ups.
I don't need to shoot a forward-mounted rifle scope to "fully appreciate" one, but the crux of my position remains, I don't care how well they shoot, for my previously explained "narrow subjective" reasons, I will never like the way they LOOK. I don't like the way plastic pistols LOOK either but I'd be the first to acknowledge their value and worth.
All said though, I have found the discussion "intriguing as it evolves"; interesting and informative.

[RaySendero]

Quote: "...You need to shoot one to fully appreciate the forward mounted rifle scope!..."


I'm not the one that doesn't "get it!" :D

[JJ45]

Looks weird for sure but as was mentioned this a subjective opinion.

As was said, Cooper's opinion of a true scout included several criteria, the glass and mounting system only a part of the whole.

He never trusted glass and opined that " it's rare to find an honest telescope intended for serious use on a rifle"

Off the subject but one of his criteria for rifle fit was that you should be able to hold it vertically with arm extended out parallel to the ground for 1 full minute....if it causes any strain at all, the rifle is too heavy for you....ever try it?:)

[chicharrones]

You know, I've seen "tactical" scopes and I've seen "scout" scopes, but I haven't seen a tactical scout scope. I guess that would be a scout scope with target type turrets?

[seanc]

Ray, do you have a cheek weld or chin weld on that setup? My K31 is set up similarly, but I have about a 1/2" cheek pad on mine, but I'm thinking of going up to 3/4" to get a more relaxed cheek weld. My scope is the Nikon 2x20 XR. Yours looks like it's a fixed power as well. I'm curious how the Nikon XR 2.5-8x20 scopes stretch out the range beyond 300 yards.

OP: My older eyes are having problems with seeing the rear sights (pistols and rifles), so I'm going to optics. I don't care how the guns look, I care how I use them :). My scout K31 handles well and that's all that matters to me. If I was worried about looks, I'd be in trouble. Half my firearms are generally in the "ugly" category right out of the box: Glocks & AKs.

[RaySendero]

seanc asked:

Ray, do you have a cheek weld or chin weld on that setup? My K31 is set up similarly, but I have about a 1/2" cheek pad on mine, but I'm thinking of going up to 3/4" to get a more relaxed cheek weld. My scope is the Nikon 2x20 XR. Yours looks like it's a fixed power as well.



seanc,

That scope is a Leupold 2.5x IER.
Had to put that pad on the rifle to get proper eye alignment - The cross is just decorative.
It has a 5/8" cheek weld build up on the reverse side from that pictured.


PS: That K31 is a heavy rifle - You ain't going to hold it at arms length w/o a considerable effort.

[dgludwig]

Quote: "...Half my firearms are generally in the "ugly" category right out of the box: Glocks & AKs."

And so are some of mine. My question has nothing to do with how a gun works, only how they look (to me). It means nothing more than that.