The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 23, 2018, 04:55 PM   #51
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 6,571
The gun is, overall, very decent.
The stock's configurable without getting ugly & ungainly, the trigger's very good, the weight's good, the length's good, the .308's good.

I'll reserve judgement on the comp, but the only two things I can't say good things about are the sights & the mag latch spring.
That spring's probably adequate, but could be a little stronger.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 12:45 AM   #52
3Crows
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2017
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 148
I like my Savage Scout M11 just fine. The iron sights are fine. I prefer the adjustable comb. The new 110 is okay looking, but again, I prefer the stock on the M11. I like to carry mine with a flush magazine.

Last edited by 3Crows; March 24, 2018 at 02:07 PM.
3Crows is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 02:30 AM   #53
Model12Win
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,277
The Savage makes a dandy scout, and right in line with Jeff Cooper's parameters.
Model12Win is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 08:08 AM   #54
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
I'll reserve judgement on the comp, but the only two things I can't say good things about are the sights & the mag latch spring. That spring's probably adequate, but could be a little stronger.
That spring can be easily replaced (and fairly cheaply) with a stronger one.

The sights are a different story.
agtman is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 10:54 AM   #55
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
The Savage makes a dandy scout, and right in line with Jeff Cooper's parameters.
How much does it weigh, unloaded but scoped and slung?

The old version didn't make even the pseudo-scout 7.7 lb weight without the scope and sling, I have heard the new one is even heavier.
emcon5 is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 01:46 PM   #56
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 6,571
I've seen it listed at 7.72 pounds, which surprises me.
That's heavier than Ruger's 16-inch wood-stocked Scout.

The Savage's stock gives a solid impression, and the steel insert could add some notable weight.

Was discussing the Savage's latch spring with the gunsmith. It could easily be replaced by a stronger one.
He'd prefer a wider latch engagement, but at the very least the spring should probably be beefed up if I were keeping the gun.

The rear sight is a Williams, and I can get the ghost ring effect by removing the aperture insert, which can speed up acquisition a bit, but the bottom half is still obscured by the rail.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 02:11 PM   #57
wwhitman
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2018
Posts: 13
Again, thank you for all the input. If it ever gets to the gun store I'll post a short review.
wwhitman is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 02:28 PM   #58
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,687
The annoying thing is the Savage 11/111 Lightweight Hunter in .308 is listed at 5.5 lbs, had they just used that as a base, skipped the tactical crap (Huge flash hider and bigger than needed magazine) and stuck it in the same stock, they would have been a lot closer to the goal.
emcon5 is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 02:35 PM   #59
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 6,571
They wanted adjustable plastic, so they went with adjustable plastic.
If they'd built it as a woodie with a flush mag, I coulda lived with it.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 07:23 AM   #60
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 1,757
Just passing this on FYI, ...

Came across an interesting Am. Rifleman write-up on the concept of a "Self-Loading Scout Rifle" (i.e., semi-auto):

https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...th-its-weight/
agtman is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 10:24 AM   #61
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sheetz in the linked article
compounding learning curve during three days of training in 108° F high desert heat began to take its toll and showed in bolts that were sometimes inadvertently short-stroked or not fully closed, which resulted in misfires and missed shots. And since we were shooting for score at paper targets from 25 to 200 yards, from standing, kneeling, sitting and prone, all that movement did nothing to improve our concentration on the targets or our shot placement.
Hmm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proceedings of the first Scout rifle conference, 1983
...such a rifle should be intended for experienced marksman rather than beginners.
Sounds like Mr Sheetz needs more practice.

The list of features shifted a couple times over the years, but one thing that didn't change much was weight and size. Sure, you can slap a forward mounted scope on a M1 and call it a scout, just like I can call my Volkswagen a Lamborghini.

Doesn't make it true.
emcon5 is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 11:27 PM   #62
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 6,230
agreed

The semiauto scout rifle article was interesting. But I'd suggest that SA fire/a higher rate and volume of fire, only matters on multiple targets. Coopers comments on rate of fire for the military scout was something to the effect of "once, may be twice." And he stressed accuracy (timed) and first round hits. And while strings of fire for score are the yardstick we use to measure accuracy and ability, the need for extended strings of fire afield, for most rifle use, for most of us, is limited. Hogs and varmints and some competition the exception.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to SA rifles, hi-cap box mags, and the like......I just don't need them for most all my rifle shooting. And I recognize that the military based actions, whether AR, AK, or Garand derived, are rugged and proven. Who wants a rifle that is delicate, right? But the bolt, well certain bolts, are just as rugged, arguably more so. Certainly simpler.

The other issue is the use of intermediate powered cartridges. Remember the scout rifle is general purpose. The .223 based cartridges and the 7.62x39 begin to pale when considering critters much over whitetail/hog size. If you must shoot a critter bigger, or live in an area where same are frequent, you could use more cartridge.

Certainly having come up in the age of the Garand, and the M1 carbine, Cooper was not opposed to SA actions. But size and weight (of the rifle ) mattered, and it still does. I hunted a scout scoped Garand off and on a good bit this deer season, and you notice the weight quickly if YOU have to hump it very far, you are not service age anymore, and have any other maladies. My Dad's deer rifles all got shorter and lighter of the years, now I know why! Aside, and counterpoint, I've read of some fellow with a lot of Grizzlies to his score, who hunted them with a Garand!!! So eight rounds of semi '06 makes some sense when the critter can eat you. MIght be some comfort in the bayonet too!
bamaranger is offline  
Old March 27, 2018, 07:37 AM   #63
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
I am sometimes asked why we have not given more thought to the concept of a self-loading Scout rifle. The fact is that up `til now no self-loading action has been produced which is light, simple, and compact enough to meet the weight requirements of the piece. A second point is that semi-automatic fire is of little concern to a man acting alone unless he is in danger of being overwhelmed by a hoard of iron-age types armed with edged weapons. I would never be opposed to the concept of a self-loading Scout, however, if I thought I could get it without drawbacks.

—Jeff Cooper, Commentaries, 1993
Interesting that the sub-title of Brian Sheetz' article is "Worth its Weight," since that's the only specific objection to an autoloading Scout that Cooper articulated in 1993. The other caustic (or attempt at humor?) comment about being overrun by an iron-age hoarde of sword- or knife-wielders is, like many things he said in his Commentaries over the decades, a creative throwaway line that's hard to take seriously.

Weight - and in the case of a full-size Garand, length - is still the only serious objection to a semi-auto 'Scout' built using the base action of an M1. And except possibly for the diminutive .30 Carbine, or a suitably customized Mini-30, I can't think of another reliable semi-auto action that would end up making Cooper's weight specs when you were done building it and ready for the final weigh-in ... which, again, was unloaded but with a scope mounted and sling attached.

On the Carbine and the Mini-30, I can almost hear Cooper objecting to the chambering even if every other measurable attribute on them met Scout specs.

That's why I found the author's sub-title very telling. From the git-go, he concedes he's will to accept the trade-off of not making weight for the benefits an autoloading Scout would provide: a scoped .308/7.62 weapon closer in specs to, say, an 18" 'Tanker' Garand, or a 16" Mini-G, or S.A.'s 18" Scout or 16" SOCOM models (for fans of a box mag-fed Scout).

Back in 1993, any commercially-built Tanker M1s were hit-or-miss specimens until Fulton Armory and, much later, the CMP, figured out how to make an 18" Garand run. As far as I can recall, no S.A. scouts or SOCOM M1A models were around yet.

Think about it ... Back then nobody was really experimenting with shortening, re-barreling, and tuning the M1 Garand from a full-size battle rifle to a 16.1" .308 carbine. As far as I know, the Schuster Mfg. adjustable gas plug hadn't been invented yet, nor had similar devices; nor was the Ultimak forward rail-mount available (at least for Garands); ... and Tim Shufflin, the inventor of the Mini-G (Shuff's Parkerizing), was still in high school.

But as they say: that was then, this is now.

Times change, and so does the technology available to re-purpose and adapt older technology to another form. Not to mention the human element: the creativity and insight required to figure it all out and make it work.

Yeah, my .308 Mini-G 'Scout' doesn't make weight - unloaded, scoped and slung - but it does provide every other discernible benefit you'd want in a 'self-loading' Scout that's reliable and durable under real-world field conditions, ... with maybe the exception of being magazine-fed, although Shuff does offer that option too: a mag-fed Mini variant that runs on M1A mags.

Last edited by agtman; March 27, 2018 at 04:34 PM.
agtman is offline  
Old March 27, 2018, 09:34 AM   #64
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,687
I do wonder what the Colonel would think of something like this:

http://68forums.com/forums/showthrea...der-5-5-pounds

That guy spent some serious effort reducing the weight of a .308 AR, and got it down under 5 lbs.

Scoped and slung, that should be capable of making the grail weight of 3 KG.

On edit: To be clear, I am not saying that is a scout rifle, aside from weight, it has no other "Scout" features, but seems like it might have potential. I don't think he mentions the length.

Last edited by emcon5; March 27, 2018 at 11:25 AM.
emcon5 is offline  
Old March 28, 2018, 03:49 PM   #65
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 6,571
News today- Savage is replacing that solid and obstructive rail with a channeled-out rail in production guns.
Should give a full sight picture.

You can leave the small aperture in if you want better precision, or remove it for the ghostring effect Cooper wanted.

A major improvement on the gun.
I've suggested they also beef up the latch spring, we'll see.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old March 29, 2018, 07:49 AM   #66
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
I do wonder what the Colonel would think of something like this:
http://68forums.com/forums/showthrea...der-5-5-pounds
That guy spent some serious effort reducing the weight of a .308 AR, and got it down under 5 lbs.
Scoped and slung, that should be capable of making the grail weight of 3 KG.
On edit: To be clear, I am not saying that is a scout rifle, aside from weight, it has no other "Scout" features, but seems like it might have potential. I don't think he mentions the length.
Yeah he really did go all out to get the weight down. My LMT 7.62 LM8 is pretty stripped down (16" barrel, and RDS) and it's still around 9lbs with an MS1 sling.
agtman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07154 seconds with 9 queries