PDA

View Full Version : New Ruger "Scout" Rifle


DPris
November 11, 2004, 02:31 PM
Press release this morning.
New M77 Frontier Rifle, 16-inch barrel, synthetic stock, forward scope mount.
.308 & .300 WSM, short action bolt gun. 2005.
Denis

grey_pilgrim
November 11, 2004, 02:39 PM
Can't wait to see the muzzle flash pics from the wsm :D :D

Seriously, it sounds like a good idea for deep woods fast handling action, provided it's light. It will be interesting to see the first advertisements. . . er. . .i mean, writeups, in the gun rags.

DPris
November 11, 2004, 03:00 PM
If the scope base is integral to the barrel, it should be a great little general purpose gun with a good Scout scope on it. My personal opinion is the barrel's a bit short to get the best out of the .300 WSM, but I'm sure it'll appeal to some. Would probably be great for taking flash photos at night.
I've got my request in for a .308 & I'll buy it after the T&E if it does well, which I expect it to. Swap the recoil pad for a KICK-EZE & maybe touch up the trigger. Don't know yet if it'll come with backup irons, if not we'll have to see what can be adapted.
And, always remember- there are seven honest attorneys and five honest gunwriters out there. You just might see a good write-up on the gun if you look around. :D
Denis

DT Guy
November 12, 2004, 11:04 AM
But it's a RUGER...ich.

The AWB supporting company...no thanks. I'd look for a Savage. Probably more accurate, and not investment cast, to boot.

Larry

DPris
November 12, 2004, 12:38 PM
I have one of the Savage Scouts, I thought accuracy was fair & I bought it after the eval, but their upper management wasn't happy with the results I got & requested it be sent back to them for a checkup. Which I did. Their actual range guy checked it out & wrote up a report on it which he included when the rifle was sent back to me. He obviously knew what he was doing. His conclusion was that if they were to take 10 Scouts off the rack, five would probably shoot better, five would probably shoot worse, and there was nothing wrong with mine. Whether the Savage Scouts are more accurate than the Ruger will be is questionable.
I'm looking forward to trying the Ruger out. In looking at the photo, it's unfortunate that there are apparently no backup sights on it, but we'll see if something can be cobbled up.
I have no concerns over the Ruger's investment cast receiver, I've never heard of one blowing up or wearing significantly over a forged receiver. I'd infinitely prefer a cast steel receiver over an aluminum one, but I'm not hearing of any problems with the Steyr Scout that Cooper advocates.
Wasn't aware that Ruger did anything to support the AWB, but if your politics go against the company, there's probably a used Savage in a gunshop somewhere.
One thing I look at is the number of companies currently producing this type of bolt gun that's essentially ready to go. Two that I'm aware of, and this one will be a hell of a lot more affordable than the Steyr.
Denis

Corejob
November 12, 2004, 04:41 PM
They call it the Ruger Frontier rifle.

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/News-11-11-2004E.html

Mannlicher
November 13, 2004, 04:51 PM
yawn.........
looks like just another 'jump on the whats hot bandwagon' to me.

DPris
November 13, 2004, 09:02 PM
Well, geeze Louise!
If we don't keep people jumping on the bandwagon, just exactly what do you think will happen to the bandwagon industry? It's shortsighted altitudes like this that keep losing American jobs to overseas companies.
Mark my words: you keep this up & it'll be no time at all before we're seeing a flood of bandwagons marked MADE IN CHINA.
How could you face yourself in the mirror every morning knowing you'd personally contributed to that? How could you explain to your kids when they ask, "Daddy, why do the wheels keep falling off my new plastic bandwagon? They never fell off my old steel one." How could you look your neighbor in the eye when she comes over to borrow a cup of sugar she can no longer afford to buy because her husband lost his job when the bandwagon factory shut down?
I say we keep our bandwagons made right here in the good ol' USA.
Integrity has to stand for something!
Denis

Kaylee
November 14, 2004, 05:57 PM
Hey.. that's kinda cool. :)

Actually, makes me glad for my poverty last year.. I was thinking of scouterizing a M77 Compact then. Looks like not being able to afford it then paid off. :)

444
November 14, 2004, 06:33 PM
Here is the place to buy the sights: http://www.newenglandcustomgun.com/
I think they are listed under parts/accessories, then click on peep sights.

I think it is terrific that they also provide for the option of mounting a rail instead of the old school concept of making a one of a kind part only available from them and only as long as they produce the rifle.
I would love to own a short, light, quick handling rifle equipped with an Aimpoint. When Jeff Cooper envisioned the scout rifle, optics wern't what they are today. I think that if Jeff was 20 years younger, he would eventually agree that an optic like the Aimpoint is perfect for his concept of the scout rifle.

DPris
November 14, 2004, 09:44 PM
Thanks, 444.
I've made a note of the site, when the rifle gets here I'll have my gunsmith see if it'll be compatible with the Ruger mount & Leupold Scout Scope I've got & go from there.
I appreciate the help.
Denis

JNewell
November 15, 2004, 07:51 PM
If we don't keep people jumping on the bandwagon, just exactly what do you think will happen to the bandwagon industry? It's shortsighted altitudes like this that keep losing American jobs to overseas companies.

Man, Denis, what is it they say about a prophet in his own country? :confused: You speak truth and look what happens?

Lemme see how this works. We gunowners, or at least the ones on boards like this, complain about how we aren't gonna buy things 'cuz they won't make what we want.

So the manufacturers jump on a concept that's popular and try to sell what people are buying.

And for that they get grief...folks swearing they'd never buy such-and-such...

We don't have to worry about the grabbers -- we're going to exterminate the gun companies ourselves. :eek: :( :barf:

DPris
November 15, 2004, 10:34 PM
Well.............
Denis

DT Guy
November 16, 2004, 08:37 AM
Ruger (as in Bill Ruger, founder and head honcho 'til he died) helped WRITE the assualt weapons ban-literally.

How anyone can give money to a company whose founder said, "Honest citizens don't need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds" and whose company STILL refuses to sell rifle magazines that do to 'mere' civilians is, quite honestly, beyond me. I'm not slamming anyone for buying Ruger-it is a free country-but I personally don't get it. Ruger took the SAME POSITION AS THE BRADY CAMPAIGN on the AWB...they're not getting any of MY $...


Larry

DPris
November 16, 2004, 01:21 PM
Everybody has to go with their own feelings.
Denis

Brasso
November 16, 2004, 10:55 PM
I would much prefer that Ruger put some nice peep sights on the thing (along with their other rifles) and ditch the forword scope. It's just a compact with an added scope mount on the barrel. Useless.

DPris
November 17, 2004, 01:37 PM
While I don't agree that the forward scope is useless, I do agree that they should have put iron sights on it. Would give the options, like the Savage Scout, for the buyer to stay with irons, put a scope on it, or do both with the irons as backups.
Denis

Handy
November 17, 2004, 02:00 PM
My neighbor came home from his hunting trip with a scar on his brow that suggests he might have enjoyed using a LONG eye relief scope. :D

I don't understand why people hate them - they definately work. My brother put a $40 Tasco 2.5x shotgun scope on his AR and shot 3/4" groups with it.

LAK
November 18, 2004, 03:59 AM
I think chambering a 16"-barreled rifle for a cartridge like the .300 WSM is just plain silly. Even in a .308 I would want an 18" tube. For the price, a fully synthetic stock would have shaved off a few more ounces and the weight left in the barrel where it is needed.

444When Jeff Cooper envisioned the scout rifle, optics wern't what they are today. I think that if Jeff was 20 years younger, he would eventually agree that an optic like the Aimpoint is perfect for his concept of the scout rifle

Actually, optics have not improved much in twenty years; there have been some improvements in coatings, but nothing significant in the realm of glass and optical assemblies. In fact with the export of manufacture of some once notable American brands to countries like China some would argue that the opposite is true.

Aimpoints and other such sighting systems are not new in the last twenty years. Colonel Cooper is certainly familiar with them, and like many others he is not inclined to rely on sighting systems that require batteries. In fact his current and longstanding desire is for a simple lower-powered glass sight with an etched glass reticule with all mechanical sighting adjustments in the scope mounting system. I happen to agree with him on all counts.

Handy
November 18, 2004, 10:12 AM
Many dot sights are not battery powered. But I think I could make a much longer shot with a fine reticled 2x than with a 1x and a 5MOA dot.

jimsailing
November 18, 2004, 12:46 PM
I saw a lever marlin 30/30 this weekend at the Mobile Gun Show that had a scout type scope mounted. Tried it on for size and really liked it, but not $500 worth of like. Who makes scout type scopes and where can I find one?

Thanks, in advance, Jim

DPris
November 18, 2004, 01:20 PM
Leupold & Burris are two I've had experience with.
You could probably have your local shop order one in, they're not a high market demand item & you may not see one in stock anywhere. There are not a lot of people who use or understand the Scout concept.
The Leupold was slightly brighter, I went with the Burris on my Savage because it's more compact & lighter in weight. Both are very good quality.
I have another Burris here waiting for the Ruger.
Denis

Handy
November 18, 2004, 02:15 PM
Jim,

Shotgun and pistol scopes also work, depending on the eye relief. The original "scout scope" was one of those.

444
November 18, 2004, 02:17 PM
LAK: of course I can't speak for Col. Cooper. I guess what I was trying to say is that the Aimpoint seems to fit right in with the design criteria of the scout rifle.
As most of us know, the idea of a scout rifle in part is to design a practical rifle to be used for pratcial purposes at practical ranges. It was not designed to be fire from a benchrest. It was not designed to be fired at extremly long range for precision accuracy. The optic position and design was arrived at with this criteria in mind. The optic was to provide for as much field of view as possible. It is magnified, but only to the degree needed for shooting at practical ranges. It is fast to allow quick hits and the ability to engage moving targets. This seems to me to be the exact criteria used to develop the red dot optic.
This whole idea of using a sight that runs of a battery (to me, and me only) is an internet myth. The US Army doesn't seem to have a problem with this, and who more than they need to depend on their rifle sights working ? This is the primary sighting system for the M16 and M4 weapons today. Probably one of the reasons they are not worried about batteries is because the Aimpoint has a battery life of between 1000 and 10,000 hours depending on the brightness setting. That translates to 41 days to 416 days IF YOU NEVER TURN IT OFF.
In addition, the Aimpoint allows you to use aimed fire in low light conditions including total darkness.
Another myth ciruclated on the internet is the idea that you can not shoot as accurately with a 4 MOA dot because the dot covers the target or it doesn't allow as precise of an aimpoint. This only applies if you don't know how to use the dot and zero the dot. If you make the point of impact the very tip top of the dot, this gives you as precise of an aiming point as any iron sight using the tip of the front sight.

jimsailing
November 18, 2004, 02:24 PM
aimpoint does not sound like a bad idea. I asked (phoned a friend) about the 30/30 I saw and he said it had a Burris scope on it. Thanks for the feed back.

Handy
November 18, 2004, 02:42 PM
If a dot sight can be as accurate as an iron sight, that's hardly a vote for its precision.

A scout doesn't have to be able to act like a sniper rifle, but a 2x scope would allow a head shot at 400 yards, which is nearly impossible with iron or dot sights. If that level of precision isn't useful, then why carry a .308? An SKS with a dot sight would be just as useful. But I think the scout is chambered in a longer range cartridge with a tight action and fine crosshaired scope so it can cover as many bases as possible within its weight limits.

I really don't see what the objection to a scope would be - especially with a lighted reticle option.

BigG
November 18, 2004, 02:44 PM
Heh, I've been boycotting them so long I've never owned a R*G*R.

444
November 18, 2004, 03:10 PM
Well, again, the scout rifle isn't and was never intended to be a "precision" rifle. And, it was never inetended to make head shots at 400 yards, however it is certainly capable of it, if you are. Making a head shot at 400 yards would be extremly difficult in the real world. Making a shot in a target the size of a human head at 400 yards would be much easier done. I know I am not capable of hitting a target the size of a human head at 400 yards using iron sights, however I will hit a target the size of a human torso at 400 yards more often than not using iron sights (not from a bench, but prone). This is much more along the line of what the scout rifle was intended to do. At 200 yards I will hit a target the size of a human head with iron sights more often than not from a sold position (not a bench).

The Aimpoint in current use with the US military is available in a 2x magnification.

"If a dot sight can be as accurate as an iron sight, that's hardly a vote for its precision."
There a a lot of very serious competition shooters out there that might beg to differ.

The scout rifle was not designed with military combat specifically in mind. One of it's anticipated uses is hunting, therefore, the SKS will never be it's equal due to the cartridge it is chambered in.'

"I really don't see what the objection to a scope would be - especially with a lighted reticle option."
I have no real objection to the scout scope: I have two of them, both mounted on lever action rifles using the AO lever scout mount: both Leupold Scout Scopes. However, I think the Aimpoint has at least two advantages over the scout scope: It is much faster and easier to pick up the dot, and it is far more useful in low light. I also think the Aimpoint is much more rugged, however this probably isn't a real issue. The scout scope is certainly cheaper.

Another reason the glass optic was chosen (as I recall) was the fact that everything appears on the same focal plane: ditto for the dot sight.

Handy
November 18, 2004, 08:01 PM
I like and often use iron sights - which is why I can compare their precision to a scope.

My understanding was that the Scout was a type of military rifle - a weapon for someone operating like a military scout. As such, a general utility rifle with the capability to do many things, including hunting. I'm not sure why an SKS couldn't be used for hunting. 7.62x39 is ballistically similar to 30-30 - the most popular lever action chambering.

Just seems a shame to go to the trouble building up an accurate bolt gun and then putting a subgun type optic on it. It is probably due to my lack of imagination in seeing how one would take advantage of the ability to better track fast moving objects with a bolt rifle.

444
November 18, 2004, 08:38 PM
"I'm not sure why an SKS couldn't be used for hunting."
Oh, it certainly can be used for hunting, but the scout shoots a more potent cartridge making it more suitable for bigger species of North American game such as elk.
"Just seems a shame to go to the trouble building up an accurate bolt gun and then putting a subgun type optic on it. "
Well, I am not sure what a subgun type optic is, but I am talking about the Aimpoint that is in current use by our military (on rifles and carbines). I have to assume you have never tried one. I am pretty confident that if you got the opportunity to spend some serious range time with one, you very sell might change your mind. I think you have the wrong idea about it.

Here is a link describing Jeff Cooper's concept of the scout rifle: http://pw2.netcom.com/~chingesh/scoutrifle.html#What

Something that is interesting is that if you buy into what I am saying (and I may be the only one in the world) you can achieve the same result as the scout scope without having to worry about using a forward mounted scope. The Aimpoint does not need to be forward mounted to give the same advantages.

DPris
November 18, 2004, 10:40 PM
Judging from the number of times this thread has been viewed, I think it's a pity there's no interest in the subject. :rolleyes:
Denis

444
November 18, 2004, 11:04 PM
I have always bought into the concept of the scout rifle and have wanted to own one for years.
I was taking a class at Gunsite last year and someone brought their Styer Scout to have it autographed by Col. Cooper (I even got a picture of him holding it, as well as pictures of Jeff and myself :cool: ). At that point, the bug really bit me, but they are so freaking expensive.
I considered the Savage, but as I understand it, it has been discontinued although it is still available from their custom shop.
But now that I have thought about it, this electronic optic I am thinking that the forward mounted scope mount might not be nessessary. I have a Ruger UltraLight in .30-06 that is currently wearing a Leupold 4x fixed power scope. I am thinking of replacing it with one of these: http://www.riflescopes.com/products/10979/aimpoint_7000sc_2x_short.htm
I think this would give me pretty much the same thing as a scout rifle.

DPris
November 18, 2004, 11:13 PM
You'd replace a 4-power scope with a flashlight?
Denis

444
November 18, 2004, 11:13 PM
Already fixed.

LAK
November 19, 2004, 03:36 AM
444LAK: of course I can't speak for Col. Cooper. I guess what I was trying to say is that the Aimpoint seems to fit right in with the design criteria of the scout rifle.
As most of us know, the idea of a scout rifle in part is to design a practical rifle to be used for pratcial purposes at practical ranges. It was not designed to be fire from a benchrest. It was not designed to be fired at extremly long range for precision accuracy. The optic position and design was arrived at with this criteria in mind. The optic was to provide for as much field of view as possible. It is magnified, but only to the degree needed for shooting at practical ranges. It is fast to allow quick hits and the ability to engage moving targets. This seems to me to be the exact criteria used to develop the red dot optic.

An element of precision is certainly part of the Scout concept, since Col. Cooper has stated that it is capable as such, and this is apparent in current and refined form as made by Steyr with the 2.75x scope. Though it does substantially reduce the field of view through the scope, an extended eye relief scope gives up absolutely nothing in the realm of precision to a standard eye relief scope of similar magnification and quality. The advantages of the forward mounted scope are the retention of much forward and peripheral vision aiding target aquisition (static or moving) within the scoped field of view, an unobstructed action, a low sight to bore axis, and the elimination of getting belted by the occular bell under recoil.

With dot sights, like the Aimpoint, the dots simply subtend too large an area to have any where near the range capability of the standard Scout (or any other standard reticuled) scope. Depending on the ability of the shooter, the 2.75x scope ought to be effective on human targets out to a considerable distance; and history bears this ought when scopes of similar magnification have been employed on rifles by the military on both sides during WW1, WW2 and other conflicts, often mounted on rifles that were somewhat less accurate than the Steyr Scout.

This whole idea of using a sight that runs of a battery (to me, and me only) is an internet myth. The US Army doesn't seem to have a problem with this, and who more than they need to depend on their rifle sights working ? This is the primary sighting system for the M16 and M4 weapons today. Probably one of the reasons they are not worried about batteries is because the Aimpoint has a battery life of between 1000 and 10,000 hours depending on the brightness setting. That translates to 41 days to 416 days IF YOU NEVER TURN IT OFF.
In addition, the Aimpoint allows you to use aimed fire in low light conditions including total darkness.

The primary sighting system for our military arms depends largely on the tactical theatre of operations. The dot sight might be very well suited to many across the street engagements in a town or city. But shooting several hundreds yards down a street, or on the open plains or hills in Afghanistan are another matter altogether.

A good quality scope will greatly assist in poor light; since you can not aim at any target you can not see. In total darkness an illuminated dot will not help you since, in what is literally total darkness you can not see anything at all. In any condition where there is some ambient light even a 2.75x scope will allow you to see things that can not be seen with the naked eye or through a glass with no magnification at all.

Under ideal conditions, the best batteries might well last "1,000 to 10,000 hours". In conditions of extreme heat and cold it is more likely however the lower probability. My own experiences with all things battery operated in all kinds of circumstances bear this out, but to quote Col. Cooper on the subject;

"We suggest that you do not bring to school here any equipment which requires batteries to operate it. (That is apart from your ordinary flashlight.) These dry cells have a marvelous way of being dead when you need them. A friend of Colonel Bob Young had the job of replenishing dry cells in the Gulf War. He spent all of his time in his helicopter racing from one point to another dumping off sacks full of dry cells, some of which worked" - Commentaries Vol. 8, No. 4

Another myth ciruclated on the internet is the idea that you can not shoot as accurately with a 4 MOA dot because the dot covers the target or it doesn't allow as precise of an aimpoint. This only applies if you don't know how to use the dot and zero the dot. If you make the point of impact the very tip top of the dot, this gives you as precise of an aiming point as any iron sight using the tip of the front sight

While using a 4 MOA dot as one would employ a front sight bead - placing the point of aim right on the top of the dot - might work well at closer ranges, beyond a certain distance this is not going to be anywhere close to the effectiveness of a conventional fine "duplex" reticule in a 2.75x scope.

On points, again, from Col. Cooper;

"Through the good offices of General Denis Earp, we were shown an attempt by Musgrave to produce a competition rifle for IPSC. This was in the form of a straight Musgrave Mauser in 308 mounted with a Tasco red dot sight high and forward. When we had all shot this weapon, the consensus was that while that red dot was indeed handy for coarse shooting at short range, it obscured the entire target at distance. If that red dot were superimposed upon a conventional reticle, however, it might have some advantages. Naturally we all had doubts about a fighting machine that needed a battery to make it work. The rule about batteries is that they are usually dead when you need them." - Commentaries Vol. 2, No. 7

444
November 19, 2004, 07:53 AM
LAK
You whole post has the air that I am suggesting something that has never been tried before, that this is all some crazy theory that I just now thought of. It is clearly obvious that you are arguing against something you have never tried for yourself. Obvious because, if you had tried it, you wouldn't be making those arguments; because only a little use would show your arguments to be false. Let me begin by saying that as I mentioned before, I own two rifles equipped with Leupold Scout Scopes (Marlin 1894C and a Marlin 444 both with AO lever scout rails ), and one rifle equipped with an Aimpoint optic (AR15). I am not guessing at how they compare: I KNOW how they compare. I am not trying to advance some unproven or untested theory: I have tried all this stuff you mention first hand and totally disagree with every statement you made in your last post.
Let me just make a couple token arguments, although I realize I am wasting my time. I have been to Gunsite for Basic and Advanced Carbine classes within the last 2-3 years (rangemasters were Bill Murphy and Pat Rogers). Of course Cooper is gone and has been for years, but today's Gunsite highly endorces battery operated optical sights. In fact, this is their one accessory, if you can only afford one accessory type of item. When I took basic carbine, I had run across one of the Gunsite instructors on an internet forum and asked him what I should bring to the class. He basically told me that the Aimpoint ML2 was the most important thing to have short of the rifle itself, so I bought one. By the afternoon of the first day of class I overheard a conversation during our break where one student was complaining that they would never be able to keep up with the other students that had an Aimpoint. One day we shot at pepper poppers out of the tower at 400 yards, my first shot was a hit. I didn't hit it every time, but I hit it more often than not: and a pepper popper is smaller than most adult humans I know. So much for the close range, coarse...blah blah. After finishing the night shoot, EVERYONE in the class that didn't own an Aimpoint siad the first thing they were going to do when they got home was to buy one. This whole thing as been repeated for me at the Frontsight, practical rifle class. We did a lot of shooting at 200 on paper from prone and a small amount of shooting at 400 against steel (among other things, of course). In that class I hit a pepper popper eight out of ten times using an Aimpoint at 400 yards; similar to the results I got at Gunsite. I shot with enough accuracy to qualify for their distinguished graduate certificate using an Aimpoint. Not to brag, but I was also the only one in my class that shot well enough to get the DG.
In my first post, I mentioned advances in optics. One of the most significant advances is that of batteries. In the first Gulf War the troops wern't using Litium batteries. Today we are.
In addition, if you had followed the link I posted, the optic I am thinking of putting on my Ruger Ultralight is a magnified optic.

In summary, I have actually tried this. I have given it a fair test. And, as a result I would be happy to go toe to toe with the conventional scout scope any day of the week. This would make a fun little contest if you happen to live somewhere near this area.

444
November 19, 2004, 10:26 AM
This discussion of optics is not an attempt to hijack the thread topic. In fact, it seems to me that the discussion of optics is essential to any discussion of the scout rifle. Afterall, without the forward mounted scope, a scout rifle is just another conventional bolt action rifle. This Ruger rifle seems to take a giant step forward by allowing the use of a rail to mount optics. With the use of this rail and the right rings, we now have the opportunity to switch out optics at will. You can use an electronic optic and in seconds, switch it out with a conventional glass optic.
Back to my previous post. In these shooting school drills, the object of the game was not to shoot bragging sized groups. The goal was to put "handspan" sized groups into the area of the target representing the target's "vitals". In fact, the mantra was that if you are shooting tight groups on the target, you are not shooting fast enough. The exercises were a balance of speed and accuracy. As your proficency increases, you shoot tighter groups. This is an indication that you need to shoot faster, which opens your groups back up to "handspan" size. Always trying for more accuracy as well as more speed. You are not trying to hit the guy's third button, your goal is to put a round in his center of mass as quickly as possible.
Likewise with the scout rifle. The scout rifle was not intended to be a bench rifle, shot off sandbags. It was designed to put a bullet in the vitals of the target, whether the target be man or beast. Pinpoint accuracy isn't needed, or nessessarily desireable.
So, let's say we zeroed a red dot optic like you guys suggest: the point of impact being in the exact center of the red dot. The link I provided was for an optic with a 2 minute dot. So, let's say we have a deer standing at 100 yards from us, and we place the dot right behind the front shoulder where we want the bullet to go. If you have the shooting skills to put your shot under that dot, the bullet will be within 1 inch either way from you desired point of aim. Do you think it will matter that it didn't go in exactly in the center, or is a .308 bullet one inch away good enough ? What about at 200 ? Now we have a four inch dot. If you place that dot in the center of a man's chest and have the skill to put that shot underneath that four inch circle, do you think it matters at all that the shot might be two inches away ? At 300 we have a six inch dot. Still penty good enough for a terrorist or a deer. Beyond that, we run into another problem:
Accuracy of the rifle itself. The rifle is not a target rifle. I haven't seen this Ruger Scout, but my Ruger UlraLight has a short, pencil thin barrel. It isn't a tack driver: it is shoots good enough for what it was intended for and no more. The best groups I have fired with it are along the line of 1 1/2" at 100 yards. When you start getting past 300 yards, the size of the dot becomes less of an issue and the inherrent accuracy of the rifle starts to become a factor.
In a nutshell, even if you decide to zero with the center of the dot being your point of impact, it won't be an issue unless your goal is to punch paper from the bench with the goal of sub-minute groups.
Now, if you zero the dot like I suggested, with the point of impact being at the tip of the dot, now you have an even more precise aiming point. At close range, just putting the dot on the target is plenty good enough. But, if you need to put a shot precisely, you can hold so that the top of the dot is right where you want to hit.

LAK
November 19, 2004, 06:28 PM
444You whole post has the air that I am suggesting something that has never been tried before, that this is all some crazy theory that I just now thought of. It is clearly obvious that you are arguing against something you have never tried for yourself

If you re-read my first response it was concerning your supposition that had Col. Cooper had been twenty years younger he might have seen the merit of such sighting systems as being suited to his Scout concept.

I pointed out that the dot sight is not new to nor misunderstood by Col. Cooper, why they are not suited to the Scout concept, and posted just some of his own writings on the subject. I am not suggesting you are crazy for thinking they are are a good idea; only the reasons Col. Cooper does not - and not based on any misunderstandings, or his age. Dot sights are not new to me either; I happen to agree with Col. Cooper on all points. There are good uses for dot sights, but not on the Scout rifle.

smince
November 19, 2004, 07:20 PM
Back to the subject, sort of, I have a psuedo-scout built on a 1903 action, but I would sure like to try this new Ruger.

P.S. On the Steyr Scout page(www.steyrscout.org) there are some pics of a Scout with a Holosight mounted. Don't know how effective, but it looks very good.

DPris
November 19, 2004, 07:52 PM
You know, if we combined the number of viewers (even repeaters) between this thread and the Why Does Everybody Hate The .223 thread, we'd outnumber the entire population of Rhode Island.
Denis

smince
November 20, 2004, 04:34 PM
Never mind. There used to be some pics on the Steyr Scout page. It seems to be down now.

Maybe it was on this link that 444 already posted:

http://pw2.netcom.com/~chingesh/scoutrifle.html