Scout Scopes

AgentPickle · June 10, 2023, 01:19 PM

Here is my review of the two Burris Scout Scopes. Any other Scout rifle fans here? https://youtu.be/_N9RujiTWWE

AL45 · June 11, 2023, 09:07 AM

Enjoyed your video. I have had a Ruger scout rifle for a few years and until recently have just shot with the iron sights. My son-in-law took it elk hunting and put a Vortex scout scope on it, but I took it off because I didn't like the mounts he used. I couldn't get it adjusted where I got a good sight picture quickly, but it was probably more me than the scope. My experience with scopes in general is limited. I have since put a red dot on it without magnification. I like the look and feel of it, but it will definitely be a 100 yard or less rifle with this set-up. I have looked into the Burris and Leopold scopes in the past. I'm confused as to what mounts I need. What exactly are you using?

AgentPickle · June 12, 2023, 05:45 AM

For the Fixed I used Leupold low mound QD rings, for the variable I used Monstrum low mount QD. The Monstrum are cheaper but come loose easier. It was throwing off my zero until I really tightened it down.

bamaranger · July 21, 2023, 11:21 PM

I've been a "scout rifle" fan for some time, having followed the concept since first introduced by Cooper in the 1970-80's. When Savage introduced their 10C Scout, the first one without all the gadgetry, I bought one, early 90's I'd guess.

Germans in WWII had a long eye relief scope for their squad marksman. My Dad, always a tinkerer and a bit eccentric, put a pistol scope forward on a M94 30-30 about 1970. So the intermediate eye relief scope is not new, but Cooper bundled it into a concept that persists, despite its detractors. Interesting that despite all the negativity from some, Scout Rifles, or psuedo scouts are still being produced.

I put a Leupold 2.75x IER scout scope on the Savage and hunted it a good bit for a few years. I had trouble picking up the reticle against dark backgrounds and game in poor light, as in looking down on deer from a high treestand in early AM/PM. I could see the animal, but not the crosshairs. I also had issues seeing thru the scope when back lit by low sun or glare. I sent that Leupold off to the factory for a chunky German #1 reticle. The #1 is far more visble than the original duplex and if all my shooting was done inside say, 200 yds, I might have been fully satisfied. But the low powered #1 comes up a bit short on small targets at longer ranges and I searched for alternatives.

In the mean time, I bought a scout mount for the M1 Garand and plunked a Burris 2-7x IER ballistiplex on top. The rig added weight and effected balance. but really improved my ability to shoot the Garand well, especially past 200 yds. My 60+ eyes just didn't run the peep like when I was younger. I liked the Burris 2-7x so well that I bought a second one for the Savage.

I've also put an Ulti-mak rail on an AK clone and ran the Leupold 2.75X on it for a bit. That set up gets about the most accuracy from the AK that can be had, but I did not like the arrangement and the Leupold returned to the Savage 10C. Thus the 10C has two IER scopes, the 2.75X with the chunky low light #1, and the more versatile 2-7x with ballisti-plex. Both scopes ride in Leupold QRL mounts and can mount and dismount with only a wee bit of deviation from zero, about 1MOA at worst. On deer sized targets to the distances I normally shoot at them, that deviation really doesn't matter much. The Garand uses a set of fixed rings, I think they are Warne's.

I zero the German #1 for a POI 2MOA high, which allows holding "on" to around 200 yds without worry of drop. The ballisti-plex reticles get zeroed on at 100 and the hold off points come in very nicely close to 200-300 yds. I've run the Garand out to 600 yds using all the hold offs and a spotter.

The Savage 10C sees use as a truck gun, wearing the German #1 most of the time. I use the 2-7x if I know I am going to daylight hunt on longer opportunities such as ROW's. I've hunted the Garand a bit, but it's dang long and heavy and for more of a hoot than anything.

stagpanther · July 22, 2023, 07:24 AM

I've mounted scout and pistol scopes as well on various rifles--for me their biggest advantage is peripheral awareness--their biggest disadvantage for me is when time came down to target and get the shot off they require a precise alignment with the eye to get a good sight picture.

bamaranger · July 22, 2023, 10:46 PM

They say that the scoutscopes great advantage is snap shooting and speed on target. Similarly the described proper techique to employ the IER is w/ both eyes open. I seem to shoot both ways depending on the moment! I shoot a number of standard eye relief low powered variables, and dialed down I would have to say that they are every bit as fast as a scout scope, perhaps even faster. I'd also think that a properly fitted rifle and mount set up goes a long way to achieving a quick sight picture with any system. I've found on recent purchases that the length of pull on a lot of new rifles these days is too long for me, especially with layers of hunting clothes on. I've got a couple of rifles where I've removed the cushy butt pad, and fitted a simple, shorter, butt plate, to allow a cleaner mount of the rifle. These long LOP's effect eye relief and speed acquiring sight picture and thus length of time to the shot.

I have noticed that the field of view on the Burris 2.75x is quite small and the Leupold 2.75x is an improvement. This makes sense, as the Leupold has a larger objective lense. Both brands of 2-7x have larger objectives and at low power are an improvement over what the original Burris offers. On the plus side, the low power Burris is smaller and I suspect lighter than it's Leupold counterpart, and certainly smaller and lighter than the variables.

stagpanther · July 23, 2023, 07:41 AM

Except for very high magnification precision shooting I try to always shoot both eyes open--and that is where the scout scopes excel IMO. But because they tend to have small diameter and long eye relief I have a harder time getting a precise sight picture as it doesn't take much movement to degrade that. There just aren't many really good scout scopes available--I've bought some terrible ones.

tangolima · July 23, 2023, 11:05 PM

I keep both eyes open all the time. It tooks a while to train myself used to it. I actually feel easier now. Keep closing one eye is tiring.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

stagpanther · July 25, 2023, 07:55 AM

I've actually achieved a higher level of consciousness--and can shoot more accurately with both eyes closed.

tangolima · July 25, 2023, 10:50 AM

I'm sure my both eyes are closed the moment the gun goes off. I have been trying hard to overcome that. Doing ok for 22lr, and I could see the bullet trace when the lighting is right. Center-fire not so much. I could keep the eye not closed very occasionally.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

**JohnKSa** · July 27, 2023, 02:32 PM

It's worth keeping in mind that the Cooper concept of the Scout Scope was primarily motivated by the fact that he wanted the Scout Rifle to be loadable with stripper clips which precluded the use of a conventionally mounted scope.

I'm sure that he, being who he was, waxed eloquent on the many benefits of forward-mounted scopes once he decided on that approach, but I'm not so sure that he would have been nearly as positive about them if they hadn't solved a particular problem he was faced with. A problem that really had nothing to do with the relative merits of forward-mounted vs. conventionally mounted optics.

tangolima · July 27, 2023, 03:10 PM

I'm not fond of scout scope per se. But if I have to choose between a scout scope and a conventional scope on tall mount, I take the former.

I thought the scout rifle got over the strip clip to-be-or-not-to-be by specifying a detachable box magazine. Anyway not sure how relevant that concept still is. Hardly have seen people sticking to that configuration for real. They like talking about it though.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

**JohnKSa** · July 27, 2023, 05:20 PM

Quote:

I thought the scout rifle got over the strip clip to-be-or-not-to-be by specifying a detachable box magazine.

It did, but when Cooper was touting the whole Scout Rifle idea in the '80s, that wasn't the case.

Now that there are Scout Rifles with box mags out there, as you say, the stripper clip option no longer makes nearly as much sense.

People forget that the reason Cooper went with a forward mounted scope was because of the stripper clip loading he wanted. So they assume there must be something special about forward mounted scopes because Cooper knew rifles.

What I'm saying is that as far as I can tell, if bolt rifles with detachable box mags had been readily available when Cooper was putting together his Scout Rifle concept, he would probably not have specified stripper clip loading (and the forward-mounted scope that requirement mandated), but would have, instead, gone with a detachable box magazine and a low powered standard rifle scope in a conventional mount.

Which means, when discussing "Scout Scopes", it's worthwhile to keep in mind it's likely that the only reason forward-mounted scopes came to be known as "Scout Scopes" is a function of one of the original (but now outdated) requirements Cooper placed on a Scout Rifle. As opposed to it being the result of the merits of forward mounted optics vs. conventionally mounted optics.

bamaranger · July 28, 2023, 03:38 PM

I had a glorious post worked up concerning Cooper and stripper clip guides and lost it.......probably for the better.

Short version, it is my interpretion that Cooper though stripper loading was desireable, but not a necessity. His early favorite prototype was on a Rem 600 , and I doubt very much he had guides cut in that action. He did have heavy scouts based on Springfield and Mauser actions ('06 and 350 Rem Mag) but I think the guides were present on the actions in his search for heavier calibers for Africa, aka Lion Scout and Dragoon Scout.

Rate of fire and magazine capacity were not important to Cooper, first round hits were. Portability and versatility were the other stated attributes of the IER scope, with much print appearing on what Cooper termed "snap shooting" . Additionally Cooper praised the IER for ease of carry at the balance point, increasing situational awareness and peripheral vision and avoiding scope cuts from awkward shooting positions.

The Steyer does not have stripper guides, it has a box, and I think a detachable box mag is a liablity. The detachable box on my blue collar Savage 10C scout, the early one, is taped in place! It cannot be lost, left in the 4wd, left in another jacket or set of clothes, or dropped from the boat. How many rifles have you seen for sale w/o magazine? How many have had any of the above calamities befall them (with no ready spare)?

The superiority of the IER is still with the jury as far as I'm concerned in terms of its superiority in shooting use. I will say it is superior to iron sights and with the new LPV versions, far ahead of the early 2x, 2.75x models first employed. In terms of convenience in carry and single loading, the IER is ahead of conventional mounting as well.

Allowing for stripper clips is a secondary issue.

**JohnKSa** · July 28, 2023, 06:29 PM

Cooper had published a list of criteria for Scout rifles as early as 1988--maybe earlier. The list, which included stripper-clip compatibility was considered definitive. Rifles that only fit some of the criteria could be 'pseudo-scouts' but not true scouts.

The Steyr Scout came out a decade later and Cooper liked it, even though it didn't have all of the original features and had a detachable magazine which wasn't in the original list of features.

It's clear that some of the rifles he had that he referred to as fitting the general Scout concept didn't fulfill all his requirements--some weren't bolt actions, some (including the original 700) didn't have optics, some didn't work with stripper clips. Sort of contradictory given his talk of pseudo-scouts for rifles others made up that didn't check off all the boxes, but then Cooper was always a law unto himself.

Which came first, the stripper clip loading or forward scopes? I can't say definitively, and I don't have any of those articles to drag out and quote from.

bamaranger · July 28, 2023, 07:00 PM

I do have a collection of old articles and will drag them out sometime in the future. One article (written by Cooper) I perused in responding to this thread has a simple sentence, standing alone, stating "It permits stripper clip loading if desired." That may be from his original article, dating about 1985? The first scout conference was held in '83.

My persistance here is only that it is my belief that stripper guides were not considered essential, and NOT the primary nor sole reason for the IER scope. Modern/recent interpretation of the scout rifle has distorted the overall intent of the IER into a feature required on a scout to facilitate strippers and tends to ignore convenience and whatever virtue it may have in "snap shooting".

I will advise on the actual wording of the conference notes as I find them.

**JohnKSa** · July 28, 2023, 07:31 PM

Neat!

Although I read some of those articles a long time ago, all I have now is Cooper's book which was published in 2002 and whatever I can scrounge online. If you have some of the older stuff that would be fun.

bamaranger · July 29, 2023, 12:59 AM

Okay, I've done some reading of old clippings from my archives. I also found two reprints on line, written by Cooper, both from 1985.

HIs original article appeared in Gun Digest in 1985 a (some sources say 1984) He does not mention stripper loading, only that the forward mounted scope allows "unhindered loading from the top" or words to that effect....I did not take notes. A second article in 1985 for the American Rifleman uses the phrase "It permits stripper clip loading if desired." , which I quoted in another post. A 1987 article written for Guns & Ammo makes absolutely no mention of loading by strippers at all. However....

EVERY ONE of the above articles, written by Cooper, praise the IER for its speed of use, handiness for easy carry at the balance point with the receiver uncluttered by conventional mount, and lightweight, due to the fixed low power s pistol scopes employed. There is also reference to how much easier the bolt is to manipulate w/o having to deal with a scope in the way.

Ten years later, beginng in 1991, then 1996 and 1999 Finn Aagard wrote at least 3 articles on Cooper's scout rifle ideas and in all three of those, mentions loading scout rifles with strippers, including a photo of same on a rifle lent to him by a 'smith named Brent Clifton. Clifton's rifle was built on a Mauser action, and when Clifton built one for Aagard at a later date, Finn's rifle had stripper guides also......note they were built on Mauser's,and the guides were already present. Aagard's first article on the scout rifle (actually the Clifton stock) in '91 mentions strippers and scout rifles for use "in combat situations". NOTE.....

bamaranger · July 29, 2023, 01:17 AM

NOTE.....these are Aagard articles...NOT Cooper. Aagard was not sold on the IER scoutscope, but liked the handiness of the rifle overall.

Steyers scout rifle hit the market, we burst into the year 2000, and now all things are black and tactical. Magazine capacity and rate of fire matter in this day and age. Scout rifles sprout extended box magazines and flash hiders, versions are built on the M1A platform and weigh a ton (actually 9 lbs ten ounces with scope in one article) and are a far cry from handy, portable rifles envisioned that were "hardly more cumbersome than a walking stick"-Cooper.

All this to close with the statement that portability and versatility leading to first round hits was what mattered to Cooper. Cooper did not want the IER scope so he could use strippers, though the IER facilitated stripper loading if the receiver was so configured. The primary reason for the IER was it's claimed superiority in snap shooting and the massive eye relief maintained situational awarenss so to speak. One could not get lost in the scope. Easy carry at the balance point, access to the intergral magazine for single loading and the lightweight fixed power scopes of the day added to ease of carry. The IER facilitated stripper loading, but stripper loading was NOT the reason for the use of the scoutscope concept.

**JohnKSa** · July 29, 2023, 03:48 AM

Quote:

The IER facilitated stripper loading, but stripper loading was NOT the reason for the use of the scoutscope concept.

I think that this is true as stated but would be better with the emphasis moved from 'not' to 'the'. That is, it was not THE reason, but it was certainly A reason.

Found this article which, according to the last page is from Gun Digest, 38th Edition (1984)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5Y_kQZN7iT...0/scan0020.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fkjt7DTkFp...0/scan0021.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--gMxnnwOhx...0/scan0027.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iFmXlMP276...0/scan0025.jpg

He lists the virtues of the forward mounted scope as being three in number. Paraphrased, they are:

1. Less obscuration of the shooters vision and easy to use with both eyes open.
2. Allows "eyes-off" loading from the top.
3. Allows the weapon to be grasped at the balance point more conveniently than rear mounted scopes.

So, I made the statement earlier that "it's worthwhile to keep in mind it's likely that the only reason forward-mounted scopes came to be known as "Scout Scopes" is a function of one of the original (but now outdated) requirements Cooper placed on a Scout Rifle. As opposed to it being the result of the merits of forward mounted optics vs. conventionally mounted optics."

That's incorrect. As your sources and the 1984 article show, top loading was certainly not the 'only reason' for forward mounting a scope, but it is seems clear that it was one reason from a short list.

He also claims that it is a very fast sighting system and does a paragraph about that before listing the 3 main virtues.

It's sort of interesting to note that of the rationale he provides, only one from the list has anything to do with the actual use of the sight, the others relate to factors unrelated to how well it functions as a sight.

bamaranger · July 29, 2023, 01:16 PM

Well, we certainly beat this one to death. Rereading my posts, I may have gotten a bit testy, not really intended, sometimes it just comes out that way.
No need for caps, .....sorry.

I'm with Aagard on the scout scope, not completely sold. My hunting with an IER revealed issues for me in seeing the reticle against dark backrounds, and glare if backlit with low sun. Aagard and others had the same issues. For the hunting I do, the low magnification was not a problem, most shots under 100 yds. The system was superior to irons......but not the great jump ahead of conventional mounted LPV scopes Cooper claimed. He worked with the components he had, I wonder what he would have thought of the modern red dot.

What was truth was the convenience in handling a short tidy .308 bolt. Ruger and Savage need to remember that and nix all the bells and whistles they've hung on their current offerings.

**JohnKSa** · July 29, 2023, 02:08 PM

Fun discussion.

Aagard was a big proponent of scopes, but I think he was of the opinion that forward mounting wasn't necessary, problematic even. The glare issue you mention is certainly a potential problem.

I remember reading somewhere that Aagard frequently had visitors to his house participate in a quick shooting test to see if they were faster with iron sights or a conventional scope and that the results showed that the scope was faster. That was, I believe, in response to the frequent assertion of the time that fast iron sights were faster than optics.

It would be interesting to know if he ever did similar testing to compare forward and conventionally mounted scopes.

Quote:

I wonder what he would have thought of the modern red dot.

I've been thinking the same thing.

Imagine having the opportunity to get Cooper and Aagard together to test their preference of scope vs. each other vs. the new holographic/red dot sight technology.

bamaranger · July 29, 2023, 02:56 PM

That's Cooper's original article on his scout rifle.......some date it 1984, others '85.

bamaranger · July 29, 2023, 03:03 PM

1984 for sure

bamaranger · July 29, 2023, 03:40 PM

Here's an early article (1966) where Cooper extolls the virtue of the Rem 600. Buhler Code 6 mount, and the Leupold 2x pistol scope. Critiques in classic Cooper fashion, 5 other carbines.

The Carbine Compromise - Jeff Cooper, 1966, Guns and Ammo, sorry I can't post a link, but a search will yield a website posting same.

Sure to ruffle some feathers, but I enjoyed every word.

July 21, 2023, 11:21 PM	#4
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	two rifles, 3 scopes I've been a "scout rifle" fan for some time, having followed the concept since first introduced by Cooper in the 1970-80's. When Savage introduced their 10C Scout, the first one without all the gadgetry, I bought one, early 90's I'd guess. Germans in WWII had a long eye relief scope for their squad marksman. My Dad, always a tinkerer and a bit eccentric, put a pistol scope forward on a M94 30-30 about 1970. So the intermediate eye relief scope is not new, but Cooper bundled it into a concept that persists, despite its detractors. Interesting that despite all the negativity from some, Scout Rifles, or psuedo scouts are still being produced. I put a Leupold 2.75x IER scout scope on the Savage and hunted it a good bit for a few years. I had trouble picking up the reticle against dark backgrounds and game in poor light, as in looking down on deer from a high treestand in early AM/PM. I could see the animal, but not the crosshairs. I also had issues seeing thru the scope when back lit by low sun or glare. I sent that Leupold off to the factory for a chunky German #1 reticle. The #1 is far more visble than the original duplex and if all my shooting was done inside say, 200 yds, I might have been fully satisfied. But the low powered #1 comes up a bit short on small targets at longer ranges and I searched for alternatives. In the mean time, I bought a scout mount for the M1 Garand and plunked a Burris 2-7x IER ballistiplex on top. The rig added weight and effected balance. but really improved my ability to shoot the Garand well, especially past 200 yds. My 60+ eyes just didn't run the peep like when I was younger. I liked the Burris 2-7x so well that I bought a second one for the Savage. I've also put an Ulti-mak rail on an AK clone and ran the Leupold 2.75X on it for a bit. That set up gets about the most accuracy from the AK that can be had, but I did not like the arrangement and the Leupold returned to the Savage 10C. Thus the 10C has two IER scopes, the 2.75X with the chunky low light #1, and the more versatile 2-7x with ballisti-plex. Both scopes ride in Leupold QRL mounts and can mount and dismount with only a wee bit of deviation from zero, about 1MOA at worst. On deer sized targets to the distances I normally shoot at them, that deviation really doesn't matter much. The Garand uses a set of fixed rings, I think they are Warne's. I zero the German #1 for a POI 2MOA high, which allows holding "on" to around 200 yds without worry of drop. The ballisti-plex reticles get zeroed on at 100 and the hold off points come in very nicely close to 200-300 yds. I've run the Garand out to 600 yds using all the hold offs and a spotter. The Savage 10C sees use as a truck gun, wearing the German #1 most of the time. I use the 2-7x if I know I am going to daylight hunt on longer opportunities such as ROW's. I've hunted the Garand a bit, but it's dang long and heavy and for more of a hoot than anything.

July 22, 2023, 07:24 AM	#5
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,797	I've mounted scout and pistol scopes as well on various rifles--for me their biggest advantage is peripheral awareness--their biggest disadvantage for me is when time came down to target and get the shot off they require a precise alignment with the eye to get a good sight picture. __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

July 22, 2023, 10:46 PM	#6
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	sight picture They say that the scoutscopes great advantage is snap shooting and speed on target. Similarly the described proper techique to employ the IER is w/ both eyes open. I seem to shoot both ways depending on the moment! I shoot a number of standard eye relief low powered variables, and dialed down I would have to say that they are every bit as fast as a scout scope, perhaps even faster. I'd also think that a properly fitted rifle and mount set up goes a long way to achieving a quick sight picture with any system. I've found on recent purchases that the length of pull on a lot of new rifles these days is too long for me, especially with layers of hunting clothes on. I've got a couple of rifles where I've removed the cushy butt pad, and fitted a simple, shorter, butt plate, to allow a cleaner mount of the rifle. These long LOP's effect eye relief and speed acquiring sight picture and thus length of time to the shot. I have noticed that the field of view on the Burris 2.75x is quite small and the Leupold 2.75x is an improvement. This makes sense, as the Leupold has a larger objective lense. Both brands of 2-7x have larger objectives and at low power are an improvement over what the original Burris offers. On the plus side, the low power Burris is smaller and I suspect lighter than it's Leupold counterpart, and certainly smaller and lighter than the variables.

July 23, 2023, 07:41 AM	#7
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,797	Except for very high magnification precision shooting I try to always shoot both eyes open--and that is where the scout scopes excel IMO. But because they tend to have small diameter and long eye relief I have a harder time getting a precise sight picture as it doesn't take much movement to degrade that. There just aren't many really good scout scopes available--I've bought some terrible ones. __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

July 25, 2023, 07:55 AM	#9
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,797	I've actually achieved a higher level of consciousness--and can shoot more accurately with both eyes closed. __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

June 10, 2023, 01:19 PM	#1
AgentPickle Member Join Date: March 27, 2023 Posts: 21	Scout Scopes Here is my review of the two Burris Scout Scopes. Any other Scout rifle fans here? https://youtu.be/_N9RujiTWWE

June 11, 2023, 09:07 AM	#2
AL45 Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2012 Posts: 761	Enjoyed your video. I have had a Ruger scout rifle for a few years and until recently have just shot with the iron sights. My son-in-law took it elk hunting and put a Vortex scout scope on it, but I took it off because I didn't like the mounts he used. I couldn't get it adjusted where I got a good sight picture quickly, but it was probably more me than the scope. My experience with scopes in general is limited. I have since put a red dot on it without magnification. I like the look and feel of it, but it will definitely be a 100 yard or less rifle with this set-up. I have looked into the Burris and Leopold scopes in the past. I'm confused as to what mounts I need. What exactly are you using?

June 12, 2023, 05:45 AM	#3
AgentPickle Member Join Date: March 27, 2023 Posts: 21	For the Fixed I used Leupold low mound QD rings, for the variable I used Monstrum low mount QD. The Monstrum are cheaper but come loose easier. It was throwing off my zero until I really tightened it down.

July 23, 2023, 11:05 PM	#8
tangolima Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2013 Posts: 3,829	I keep both eyes open all the time. It tooks a while to train myself used to it. I actually feel easier now. Keep closing one eye is tiring. -TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

July 25, 2023, 10:50 AM	#10
tangolima Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2013 Posts: 3,829	I'm sure my both eyes are closed the moment the gun goes off. I have been trying hard to overcome that. Doing ok for 22lr, and I could see the bullet trace when the lighting is right. Center-fire not so much. I could keep the eye not closed very occasionally. -TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

July 27, 2023, 02:32 PM	#11
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,994	It's worth keeping in mind that the Cooper concept of the Scout Scope was primarily motivated by the fact that he wanted the Scout Rifle to be loadable with stripper clips which precluded the use of a conventionally mounted scope. I'm sure that he, being who he was, waxed eloquent on the many benefits of forward-mounted scopes once he decided on that approach, but I'm not so sure that he would have been nearly as positive about them if they hadn't solved a particular problem he was faced with. A problem that really had nothing to do with the relative merits of forward-mounted vs. conventionally mounted optics. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

July 27, 2023, 03:10 PM	#12
tangolima Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2013 Posts: 3,829	I'm not fond of scout scope per se. But if I have to choose between a scout scope and a conventional scope on tall mount, I take the former. I thought the scout rifle got over the strip clip to-be-or-not-to-be by specifying a detachable box magazine. Anyway not sure how relevant that concept still is. Hardly have seen people sticking to that configuration for real. They like talking about it though. -TL Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

July 28, 2023, 03:38 PM	#14
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	to strip or not to strip? I had a glorious post worked up concerning Cooper and stripper clip guides and lost it.......probably for the better. Short version, it is my interpretion that Cooper though stripper loading was desireable, but not a necessity. His early favorite prototype was on a Rem 600 , and I doubt very much he had guides cut in that action. He did have heavy scouts based on Springfield and Mauser actions ('06 and 350 Rem Mag) but I think the guides were present on the actions in his search for heavier calibers for Africa, aka Lion Scout and Dragoon Scout. Rate of fire and magazine capacity were not important to Cooper, first round hits were. Portability and versatility were the other stated attributes of the IER scope, with much print appearing on what Cooper termed "snap shooting" . Additionally Cooper praised the IER for ease of carry at the balance point, increasing situational awareness and peripheral vision and avoiding scope cuts from awkward shooting positions. The Steyer does not have stripper guides, it has a box, and I think a detachable box mag is a liablity. The detachable box on my blue collar Savage 10C scout, the early one, is taped in place! It cannot be lost, left in the 4wd, left in another jacket or set of clothes, or dropped from the boat. How many rifles have you seen for sale w/o magazine? How many have had any of the above calamities befall them (with no ready spare)? The superiority of the IER is still with the jury as far as I'm concerned in terms of its superiority in shooting use. I will say it is superior to iron sights and with the new LPV versions, far ahead of the early 2x, 2.75x models first employed. In terms of convenience in carry and single loading, the IER is ahead of conventional mounting as well. Allowing for stripper clips is a secondary issue.

July 28, 2023, 06:29 PM	#15
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,994	Cooper had published a list of criteria for Scout rifles as early as 1988--maybe earlier. The list, which included stripper-clip compatibility was considered definitive. Rifles that only fit some of the criteria could be 'pseudo-scouts' but not true scouts. The Steyr Scout came out a decade later and Cooper liked it, even though it didn't have all of the original features and had a detachable magazine which wasn't in the original list of features. It's clear that some of the rifles he had that he referred to as fitting the general Scout concept didn't fulfill all his requirements--some weren't bolt actions, some (including the original 700) didn't have optics, some didn't work with stripper clips. Sort of contradictory given his talk of pseudo-scouts for rifles others made up that didn't check off all the boxes, but then Cooper was always a law unto himself. Which came first, the stripper clip loading or forward scopes? I can't say definitively, and I don't have any of those articles to drag out and quote from. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

July 28, 2023, 07:00 PM	#16
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	dead horse I do have a collection of old articles and will drag them out sometime in the future. One article (written by Cooper) I perused in responding to this thread has a simple sentence, standing alone, stating "It permits stripper clip loading if desired." That may be from his original article, dating about 1985? The first scout conference was held in '83. My persistance here is only that it is my belief that stripper guides were not considered essential, and NOT the primary nor sole reason for the IER scope. Modern/recent interpretation of the scout rifle has distorted the overall intent of the IER into a feature required on a scout to facilitate strippers and tends to ignore convenience and whatever virtue it may have in "snap shooting". I will advise on the actual wording of the conference notes as I find them.

July 28, 2023, 07:31 PM	#17
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,994	Neat! Although I read some of those articles a long time ago, all I have now is Cooper's book which was published in 2002 and whatever I can scrounge online. If you have some of the older stuff that would be fun. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

July 29, 2023, 12:59 AM	#18
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	last call Okay, I've done some reading of old clippings from my archives. I also found two reprints on line, written by Cooper, both from 1985. HIs original article appeared in Gun Digest in 1985 a (some sources say 1984) He does not mention stripper loading, only that the forward mounted scope allows "unhindered loading from the top" or words to that effect....I did not take notes. A second article in 1985 for the American Rifleman uses the phrase "It permits stripper clip loading if desired." , which I quoted in another post. A 1987 article written for Guns & Ammo makes absolutely no mention of loading by strippers at all. However.... EVERY ONE of the above articles, written by Cooper, praise the IER for its speed of use, handiness for easy carry at the balance point with the receiver uncluttered by conventional mount, and lightweight, due to the fixed low power s pistol scopes employed. There is also reference to how much easier the bolt is to manipulate w/o having to deal with a scope in the way. Ten years later, beginng in 1991, then 1996 and 1999 Finn Aagard wrote at least 3 articles on Cooper's scout rifle ideas and in all three of those, mentions loading scout rifles with strippers, including a photo of same on a rifle lent to him by a 'smith named Brent Clifton. Clifton's rifle was built on a Mauser action, and when Clifton built one for Aagard at a later date, Finn's rifle had stripper guides also......note they were built on Mauser's,and the guides were already present. Aagard's first article on the scout rifle (actually the Clifton stock) in '91 mentions strippers and scout rifles for use "in combat situations". NOTE.....

July 29, 2023, 01:17 AM	#19
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	OOPS NOTE.....these are Aagard articles...NOT Cooper. Aagard was not sold on the IER scoutscope, but liked the handiness of the rifle overall. Steyers scout rifle hit the market, we burst into the year 2000, and now all things are black and tactical. Magazine capacity and rate of fire matter in this day and age. Scout rifles sprout extended box magazines and flash hiders, versions are built on the M1A platform and weigh a ton (actually 9 lbs ten ounces with scope in one article) and are a far cry from handy, portable rifles envisioned that were "hardly more cumbersome than a walking stick"-Cooper. All this to close with the statement that portability and versatility leading to first round hits was what mattered to Cooper. Cooper did not want the IER scope so he could use strippers, though the IER facilitated stripper loading if the receiver was so configured. The primary reason for the IER was it's claimed superiority in snap shooting and the massive eye relief maintained situational awarenss so to speak. One could not get lost in the scope. Easy carry at the balance point, access to the intergral magazine for single loading and the lightweight fixed power scopes of the day added to ease of carry. The IER facilitated stripper loading, but stripper loading was NOT the reason for the use of the scoutscope concept.

July 29, 2023, 01:16 PM	#21
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	lots of dead horses Well, we certainly beat this one to death. Rereading my posts, I may have gotten a bit testy, not really intended, sometimes it just comes out that way. No need for caps, .....sorry. I'm with Aagard on the scout scope, not completely sold. My hunting with an IER revealed issues for me in seeing the reticle against dark backrounds, and glare if backlit with low sun. Aagard and others had the same issues. For the hunting I do, the low magnification was not a problem, most shots under 100 yds. The system was superior to irons......but not the great jump ahead of conventional mounted LPV scopes Cooper claimed. He worked with the components he had, I wonder what he would have thought of the modern red dot. What was truth was the convenience in handling a short tidy .308 bolt. Ruger and Savage need to remember that and nix all the bells and whistles they've hung on their current offerings.

July 29, 2023, 02:56 PM	#23
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	article That's Cooper's original article on his scout rifle.......some date it 1984, others '85.

July 29, 2023, 03:03 PM	#24
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	for sure 1984 for sure

July 29, 2023, 03:40 PM	#25
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,314	yes....more Here's an early article (1966) where Cooper extolls the virtue of the Rem 600. Buhler Code 6 mount, and the Leupold 2x pistol scope. Critiques in classic Cooper fashion, 5 other carbines. The Carbine Compromise - Jeff Cooper, 1966, Guns and Ammo, sorry I can't post a link, but a search will yield a website posting same. Sure to ruffle some feathers, but I enjoyed every word.