my Savage "Scout"

[ThomasT]

Here is one of two Ruger Frontier Scouts on GB right now. Its probably worth close to the asking price and its in .308, the round everyone wants a scout chambered in.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/739046957

This to me was the best of all the "Scout" type rifles made. The only thing it lacked were slots for a stripper clip and open sights. Open sights can be had from New England Custom Gun. They make a banded front sight like Ruger used to install and a rear peep that fits Rugers bases. I have those sights and have them fitted for my Ruger MKII 30-06. The rear peep can be removed and replaced and will hold zero.

Stripper clips can actually be added if you are that insistant on having them. Go to the 9 minute mark and you can see where stripper clip guides were added on the German 88 rifle during WWI so stripper clips could be used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=680y...6VS6w3KxuKsMvT

[agtman]

My "Scout" rifle is my older Remington model 7 with 18.5" barrel and walnut stock. With a leupold 2x7 it is fast to sight at 2 power. The rifle is in 7-08, close enough to the 308 for me. It weighs 7.25 pounds and has the factory open sights. Its mounted on a weaver base. You can remove and reinstall the scope and it will return to zero.

Sounds great! 7.25lbs, with optic, really is pretty close to ideal Scout weight.

[ThomasT]

People seem to forget that a scouts job is to get in, gather information and get out unseen and undiscovered. Not to get into a gun battle. IIRC Cooper said even a properly set up 30-30 lever action would make a serviceable scout rifle.

[bamaranger]

Cooper's view on military "scouts, and scouting" was from the WWII era at best, before GPS navigation, drone and satellite images,and the modern image of the scout/sniper. Not flawed, just a different perspective. Also, Cooper saw "scouting" in the same light as adventuring and exploring, not just in the military context. In that context, light and handy was a prominent concern. All that has gotten cross upped these days, with scout rifles needing big box mags, flash hiders and the ability to shoot farther and farther. And folks dig that, as the current rash of production scout rifles have these features, and seem to be selling well. All that hardware

Cooper maintained one could fight with a scout rifle, but as a WWII marine, knowing he was going to a fight, I'm certain he would have rather had an M1 rifle, or better, a BAR, and of course his beloved 1911 as a second gun, along with on call naval gunfire.

I've about quit using the term scout rifle, and started using the phrase GP rifle. Not ideal for all tasks, but adequate for most. Light and handy a prominent concern, as the idea is, you have it in hand, with you most always.
Cooper once wrote, "no more cumbersome than a walking stick", in describing the prominent feature of an ideal scout rifle and I like that a lot.

I've had an original model Savage Scout for some time, shortly after the first models came out. The big issue with scout rifles is the IER scope. I've now shot two versions of IER scope: Leupold 2.75x with a chunky german #1 reticle, and a Burris 2-7x ballistiplex . The variable is a tad heavier, and to off set that I set the scope back a bit farther than the normal IER placement. That cluttered the tail carry grip and made top loading slightly trickier. I liked the higher magnification, useful off the bench, or on smaller targets, but not sure if it is necessary for GP use or even most hunting of medium game. The hold off ballisti-plex reticle is too fine for me, and the hold offs are unnecessary for most shooting I do. I ended putting the Burris 2-7x on the railed Garand, where it's weight is not much of a concern, and the big '06 cartridge can reach way out there on steel at a pal's range, and the hold off lines work well with the right load. The Leupold is big, bold easy to see, and may well be faster the more I work with it. I can see the big set of posts regardless of the light, heck, I can see my 3D bow target at night in my yard,more importantly, I can see the reticle. II cannot do same with the burris 2-7x. But that 2.75x German #1 leaves a bit to be desired for precision, small targets, counting antler points, etc. And the German #1 is not made for holding over. Set your zero so high at 100 and live with it.

Finn Aagaard, who did WAY more shooting and hunting than I ever will claimed that his old school standard Leupold 3x was far brighter, and more useful than an IER scope, and I'm inclined to agree. But Finn liked the handiness of the IER arrangement, ease of carry, ease of loading, unhindered access to bolt throw and on board backup peep, and if I recall wrote he could accept the IER/Scout arrangement for those reasons. You'll have to decide for yourself.

[ThomasT]

Excellent post Bama. And glad to see you are a Finn Aagaard follower. I have several of his books and wish I had every article he ever wrote. He and John Wooters were two of my favorite rifle and hunting authors.

And GP. General Purpose. I like that name far better than “Scout Rifle”. It’s a much broader description and better suited to the pupose of the rifle. And who doesn’t like a light, handy rifle? I remember reading long ago that back in the old days like around the turn of the century and beyond that a rifle with the longest barrel always sold the fastest. Not so today. I’ll take handy any day of the week.

[3Crows]

And General Purpose is what I said I bought my rifle for. I know it is the "Scout" model but I bought it for the fact it had excellent iron sights and an 18 inch barrel. Coopers concept of a military function had no bering on my decision nor did Savage calling my rifle a "scout rifle.

I care nothing about "Scout" or stripper clips or built in bipods. I may purchase a scope to forward mount for the experience of having done so. Frankly, I think if I mount a forward scope it will more likely happen on my 45-70 Marlin SBL. The Nikon African 1X4 has a full four inches of eye relief but with BB 430 grain Bear Loads four inches of eye relief is not a lot of room for error . The African is on Warne QR rings and it too holds zero when removed for access to the ghost ring iron sights.

I got the Savage sighted now at 200 yards with the Nikon 3X9X40 scope and at 100 yards on the excellent iron sights. I have removed and installed the scope several times now and it holds zero.

The new flush magazine makes the Savage "Scout" now general purpose rifle feel entirely different and it carries different without the box magazine. But the box magazine will come in handy for chasing pigs down in my Jeep when we get into a mess of them.

[ThomasT]

3crows it sounds like you have the rifle you were looking for. Congratulations, a lot never do find that one perfect rifle. There are just many choices and some envision so many different scenarios that they can never settle one just one gun.

[PlatinumCore16]

I like your thinking, bama. That is precisely why I bought my Savage scout and I think I'll steal your name for it too. It's a handy, accurate, large caliber rifle and I intend to use it next hunting season.

3Crows, you don't happen to recall the part number of the shorter mag do you? I keep seeing the smaller ones and I'm thinking for sling carrying over long distances, a flush mag would be nice. But I can't be certain which one will fit and my search keeps coming up nill on Savage's site.

[agtman]

Yes, that was a good summation, bamaranger.

I'll add that Cooper spoke about the "Scout's task" (the man, not the weapon) in two categories or contexts, which might be described as the "tactical" context and the forager/hunter context, so his rifle had to be suitable in both.

In the first context, Cooper's views, as bamaranger noted, were definitely pre-WW2, but they have an identifiable source I'm sure most folks here would recognize: Cooper repeatedly stated that his views on "rifle-craft" were heavily influenced by Hebert McBride's book, "A Rifleman went to War."

The "sneak-n-peek" type of reconnaissance and field spy-craft that McBride describes in various parts of that book later made their way into Cooper's commentary on the scout's role in the field. For 95% of his time, the scout was there to gather intelligence by way of stealth, not engage the enemy in sustained firefights. Sure, there might be times or circumstances in which he would be forced to fire in self-defense, or perhaps be called to assist in very limited and short-range "sniping" duties, provided he had other support, so the weapon had to be up to the task ballistically, as well as reloadable quickly.

That's why Cooper preferred the 7.62/.308 chambering, with a stripper-clip (re-)chargeable action - a "tactical" capability, by the way, that's actually pre-WW1. Obviously, that reloading technique becomes impossible with a receiver-mounted optic; hence, the design's insistence on a forward-mounting point for a LER scope. (The 7mm-08 cartridge Cooper frequently mentions in his commentaries was a secondary chambering, mainly a "civilian" concession, for use in countries where rifles in military chamberings are/were forbidden).

The alternate aspect of the Scout himself as a "woodsman" or huntsman, foraging for game while also afield doing the spy-craft thing apart from the main body of troops, always seemed to me to be sort of whimsical or fanciful, rather than realistic, ... I mean, maybe during breaks in the fighting on the Western Front in WW1, our doughboy "scouts" had time to snipe at stags running along the tops of trenches or through the wide fields at Flanders, but if so, McBride never mentions it (that I recall).

Regardless, there's little doubt you can cleanly kill game out to 300-yds using a LER scope on a well set-up Scout rifle chambered in .308.

So in that respect, Cooper's Scout rifle has a valid "sporting" use beyond its (theoretical) military role. And in point of fact he did hunt with several of his Scouts, including the big bore Scout he took to Africa.

Just some thoughts, FWIW ...

[3Crows]

Originally Posted by ratshooter

3crows it sounds like you have the rifle you were looking for. Congratulations, a lot never do find that one perfect rifle. There are just many choices and some envision so many different scenarios that they can never settle one just one gun.

For "Platinum Core," The part number for the 4 round magazine is Savage part number 53210. It has a metal bottom, in fact it is all metal. Just a warning, I picked up one at Cabala's and it would not cycle the third round reliably and would fall out if I smacked the rifle. Took it back and exchanged it for another and it cycles perfect. Bought another as a spare and it too cycles just fine. Neither fall out. Beats me as I could see no difference.

Yes, the 4 round mag allows the rifle to ride nicely in a sling without digging into my back. This and being able to field carry with your hand under the center as I move the rifle is what I mean when I say it changes the feel and handling of the rifle vs the 10 round mag. The ability to use a flush 4 round magazine was one of the selling points over the Ruger to me (and I generally love Ruger guns). And I will enjoy the 10 round magazine as well.

3C

[bamaranger]

Yes. That one handed carry at one's side, with the hand cupping the rifle at the balance point, I believe is called "trail carry". It's what I carry it anyhow. An iron sighted rifle can be carried in such a manner, with the thumb wrapped over the top, stabilizing the carry even more. When the scope is mounted over the receiver/action, then the hand must form a hook, and the thumb usually cannot get any sort of purchase, and I find that I must switch hands regularly. The IER scope was thought to aid in stable trail carry. Yes again that a big box mag gets in the way of that carry, and is often a pain when slung.

Consider that the early M16 family had a carry handle, since there was a DBM and a pistol grip right about where one wanted to grasp the rifle for trail carry.
Now we have tac slings for the family that solves the problem. Also, the shorter carbine versions nearly balance just ahead of the magazine, if too much hardware is not hung up front. I also found the m14/m1A very awkward to carry as well, as that big .30 cal box was right where I wanted to put my hand.

[agtman]

Now we have tac slings for the family that solves the problem. Also, the shorter carbine versions nearly balance just ahead of the magazine, if too much hardware is not hung up front. I also found the m14/m1A very awkward to carry as well, as that big .30 cal box was right where I wanted to put my hand.

That's why, in considering 30-cal auto platforms for a faux-Scout, I chose the Garand's action (though limited to an 8-rd clip-fed capacity) over the M1A and DBM design. Much handier to carry as you describe.

[3Crows]

Yes, yes, "trail carry" is certainly better with a flush magazine. I do not generally carry that way as I prefer to keep that muzzle up or down. But as I transition from my shoulder my hand naturally goes there as I position the rifle. Just easier without the box mag.

3C

[Guv]

3Crows,
I really like your rifle! I have several scoped Contenders and honestly am not a fan of froward mounted scopes (I realize a Scout scope is not a pistol scope).
I am seriously thinking about a new Savage Scout and would probably use it with the supplied open sights.
If I got to the point where my eyes let me down I believe I would remove the rear sight and mount a conventional low powered scope using a regular 10/110 scope base.
I like the larger magazine option too.
Nice rifle.

[3Crows]

Originally Posted by Guv

3Crows,
I really like your rifle! I have several scoped Contenders and honestly am not a fan of froward mounted scopes (I realize a Scout scope is not a pistol scope).
I am seriously thinking about a new Savage Scout and would probably use it with the supplied open sights.
If I got to the point where my eyes let me down I believe I would remove the rear sight and mount a conventional low powered scope using a regular 10/110 scope base.
I like the larger magazine option too.
Nice rifle.

Nothing has changed my opinion on the Savage Scout M11. I like the blend of features and particularly the very nice irons. Irons and ten round mag for chasing pigs in my Jeep, scope and four rounder mag for deer in a tree stand or walking hunting. Ten rounder and magnified red dot forward mounted for apocalyptic zombie sniper make believe.

I would have considered the Hog model had it offered the flexibility of the different magazines sand the aluminum bedded Accustock. There is a new Scout 110, though I still prefer my model as I like the adjustable comb better on mine than the new 110 with additional pieces (to loose).

A one gun solution for even guys who have more than one gun.

3C

[emcon5]

Why do people think the scout is intended to be a military rifle? It is and always was a general purpose rifle.

Originally Posted by Proceedings of the first Scout Rifle Conference, Dec 1983

The objective of the conference was declared to be the critical evaluation of the all-purpose utility rifle, as it exists in standard as well as component form at this time, and as it may be improved in the future

People seem to get hung up on the name and assume it was intended for military scouts, but his writings on the subject never mentioned it as a combat weapon, that I saw anyway.

I believe Cooper named it that because it was something a scout could have carried back when there was such a thing, but he didn't seem to have any illusions about that.

Originally Posted by Jeff Cooper in 1984

"Times have changed, and the true scout is no longer found in today's armies. The enemy is located from the air, pinned by artillery , and then smashed by mechanized infantry and tanks. The scout's rifle has been replaced by the Sturmgewehr, and the character and qualities of the rifle for use by a lone rifleman have been all but forgotten."

[bamaranger]

Quite right. But tactical sells these days, and the makers know it. Put a big box under it, a muzzle device, bunch of rails onto which you hang lights, lasers, more grips, and they will fly off the rack.

Oh yeah, paint it black......or camo.

[agtman]

I would have considered the Hog model had it offered the flexibility of the different magazines sand the aluminum bedded Accustock.

Another problem with the Hog Hunter is that it's heavy, mainly due to the thick heavy barrel. Got to handle one when a dude at our range had his there to get it zero-ed for 100-yds.

Handy for what it's intended for, but too weighty for a 'general purpose'/utility Scout.

[agtman]

People seem to get hung up on the name and assume it was intended for military scouts, but his writings on the subject never mentioned it as a combat weapon, that I saw anyway.

Actually, Cooper does talk about having to use (fire) the scout rifle in a defensive context when the 'Scout' - the man, not the weapon - is out and about in the field getting eyes-on the enemy's troop movements (i.e., spying, doing reconnaissance, etc.). The Scout, in doing his job, might occasionally be forced to fire his weapon defensively in order to "escape and evade" his way back to Friendly Lines. So that's the "military" aspect or element Cooper talks about.

The real problem with Cooper's statements on the role of the Scout (along with all the field-craft theory) is that it was always drawn from his rather romanticized notions of what snooping (reconnaissance) and sniping with bolt-action rifles was like on the battlefields of WW1, which, in turn, he had absorbed in his youth from reading McBride's tome mentioned above, A Rifleman Went to War.

That's obviously obsolete today (or mostly so) when the military can send up flying drones to give our troops real-time info on where the enemy is and what he's up to.

Still, notwithstanding the 'military' element of Cooper's Scout Rifle concept, there's still the 'hunting'/foraging/woods-walking element to it, where a good argument can be made for the field utility of a simple, light-weight .308 bolt gun running a forward-mounted, low-power (max of 4x) scope.

[agtman]

I believe Cooper named it that because it was something a scout could have carried back when there was such a thing, but he didn't seem to have any illusions about that.

Originally Posted by Jeff Cooper in 1984
"Times have changed, and the true scout is no longer found in today's armies. The enemy is located from the air, pinned by artillery , and then smashed by mechanized infantry and tanks. The scout's rifle has been replaced by the Sturmgewehr, and the character and qualities of the rifle for use by a lone rifleman have been all but forgotten."

No, he named it a "Scout" rifle because that's exactly the sort of activity that military "Scouts" ("true scouts," i.e., recon teams) did back in the WW1-era, and actually long before that.

[emcon5]

Originally Posted by agtman

No, he named it a "Scout" rifle because that's exactly the sort of activity that military "Scouts" ("true scouts," i.e., recon teams) did back in the WW1-era, and actually long before that.

So you are agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by Me

Cooper named it that because it was something a scout could have carried back when there was such a thing,

[3Crows]

I imagine, pretty sure, the Savage Scout M11 is as heavy or heavier than the Hog model due to the inclusion of a (threaded and removable) brake and the aluminum bedded AccuStock. The Savage is pretty stoutly built in either version.

3C

[agtman]

the Savage Scout M11 is as heavy or heavier than the Hog model due to the inclusion of a (threaded and removable) brake and the aluminum bedded AccuStock.

What's that Scout M11 weigh in at - without the scope?

[3Crows]

Without the brake, flush magazine installed and no scope about 7.5 pounds.

3C

[Guv]

The Savage web site lists both rifles very close in weight. Not enough of a difference to make weight the reason to choose one over the other.