Leaning towards a Scout Rifle

Savages are usually quite nice rifles. If that particular collection of bits and bobs appeals to you, go for it!

Having a detachable box magazine negates the fundamental purpose behind forward-mounting of the optic (there really aren't significant benefits to positioning the optic up there, it's a cart-driving-the-horse development) but at least its already threaded for a suppressor. I think most folks would want a thread cap instead of a brake on that rifle, though. But there's a lot of "looks cool" that goes into designs like this, so a cantilevered scope rail and a brake probably sells guns.

One fair reason to have a scout mount on a gun these days is to retain the long sight radius of having a receiver mounted sight. For people that like to shoot with sights and/or a low powered scope with the same gun, a scout type setup still makes some sense.

I like to think of it like an AR with backup sights and a red dot sitting in between those backup sights. It is another option on how to lay out a rifle even if it strays from the original intent of a milsurp converted "scout" rifle.

Regarding that Savage Scout, if you are drawn to it and like the price, get it and have fun. I haven't heard anything bad about it, not counting what the scout rifle faithful might say.

Looks like a hot mess to me.

The scout scope setup works very well within the range it was originally intended for (out to 400y in a pinch). The forward mounted scope is very fast to acquire, and has plenty of advantages regardless of how the rifle is loaded.

The savage scout is not my favorite scout config, nor is is a "true" scout in the sense Jeff Cooper originally envisioned, because it is too heavy. I recommend the synthetic stock Ruger scout (#6830 I think) as an alternative.

When all the pieces of the scout rifle are put together (caliber, size, weight, sling, scope, loading mechanism etc.) it makes for a uniquely capable rifle. It's too bad most people have never actually used one in the field.

I have a Ruger GSR and love it. I take it out to the desert a lot and it serves its' purpose well. It is very fun to shoot, accurate beyond 300 yards, and is very quick to sight and shoot. I was skeptical before getting the Ruger and testing it out, but know I have really grown on the concept. I am also a fan of low powered scopes mounted traditionally, but as stated above, I like to shoot with irons and the Ruger setup works well for me.

I would say get the scout and enjoy! It's fun to try new things and unconventional ideas.

Keep us updated,

Matt

EDIT: The savage trigger will be better, but the quality of the Ruger is much better in terms of sights and forward mount. My trigger is plenty good, but you can always add a Timney or a Spec Tech if you feel the need.

Hanzo581 said:

6.2lbs for the Ruger vs. 7.8lbs for the Savage. That's pretty substantial in this application I suppose.

But I am looking at $597 for the Savage vs. $788 for the Ruger.

Any idea if the trigger on the Ruger is comparable to the AccuTrigger on the Savage?

Click to expand...

The AccuTrigger may be a bit better. I've never compared them side by side. The Ruger M77 trigger is serviceable but nothing wonderful.

From what I hear, the Ruger GSR trigger is either too heavy or okay. On my GSR it is pretty good. Between 4 and 5 pounds of pull on my example with a nice break.

I've had the Savage and seriously considered the Ruger. I like the concept of a light weight, compact rifle. But ultimately I decided I was paying for features that I'd never use and were just dead weight.

The only advantage of the forward mounted scope is if you want to load with stripper clips and still have optics. A low lowered 1-4X or 2-7X scope mounted conventionally does everything better. They are just as fast to use up close, they work far, far, better in low light and provide more precision at longer ranges. They also cost less and don't mess up the balance.

I mounted the scope conventionally on my Savage in QD mounts and added a traditional rear sight where the rail attaches to the barrel. If back up irons were needed it was just as fast to remove the conventional mounted scope and use the irons.

But after 40+ years of shooting I've come to the conclusion that I'm better off to use a decent scope and forget about irons. I've never had a scope let me down. Can't say that about iron sights.

I ended up with this. It is a better "Scout" rifle than anything Cooper envisioned. It is 7 lbs even as pictured with the 2-7X Redfield, shoots well under 1 MOA and the mid-weight 18" barrel is mighty handy in brush. I don't have hi-cap mags, but it is 4+1 and likely all I'll need. I have 3 spares just in case. The rifle was under $400.

I've been shooting the Ruger but with a receiver mounted scope for some time now and taken numerous pigs and deer with it. It shoots great groups, has a nice trigger and I'm really happy with it.

Having a detachable box magazine negates the fundamental purpose behind forward-mounting of the optic (there really aren't significant benefits to positioning the optic up there, it's a cart-driving-the-horse development)...

Click to expand...

It does allow you to keep a peep sight mounted, in conjunction with an optic. JMR40 may have never had a scope fail but I've had several. The whole point of the Scout rifle is not just a lightweight hunting rifle but a rifle that can do everything from combat to survival, covering all possible contingencies. I think a good set of iron sights is an important part of that.

CraigC said:

It does allow you to keep a peep sight mounted, in conjunction with an optic. JMR40 may have never had a scope fail but I've had several. The whole point of the Scout rifle is not just a lightweight hunting rifle but a rifle that can do everything from combat to survival, covering all possible contingencies. I think a good set of iron sights is an important part of that.

Click to expand...

That's certainly one advantage (and a good one). In addition the forward mounted scope is faster, facilitates both-eyes-open shooting, and has a larger eye box facilitating "jackass" positions where you may not be able to get an ideal cheek weld.

Jeff Cooper knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he specified that configuration. If you've never shot real targets (unknown location, distance, and time of appearance) in the field with one, try one before you make claims about them. It's way too easy to mistake the bench or the known distance range for the field.

Llama Bob said:

...the forward mounted scope is faster, facilitates both-eyes-open shooting, and has a larger eye box facilitating "jackass" positions where you may not be able to get an ideal cheek weld...

Click to expand...

I find EER scopes to be slower due to its smaller field of view and that a consistent cheek weld is even more critical to finding the reticle and target quickly. The eye box might be bigger, but the angle the eye must be to see through the scope is smaller. There is a reason why EER optics are always in the lower magnification range.

A standard eye relief scope is faster, brighter has a larger field of view and a more forgiving eye box. It's just as easy to shoot with both eyes open. After playing with an EER scope, I saw no advantage over a standard eye relief scope

The tests that were performed at Gunsite disagree with you. I believe them, and having tested it myself I find Gunsite was exactly correct.

While I have great respect for Col. Cooper, the Gunsite test results of EER scopes do not match my own. In the field, I am much faster with a standard eye relief scope than I am with an EER when shooting at small, fast moving targets, such as cotton tails and jackrabbits, at a variety of unknown ranges. In fact, I find EER scopes very frustrating and virtually unusable under such conditions

Their nice rifles, but even after building my Fat-Scout, I still prefer a traditionally mounted optic and irons in a backpack. That said, the forward mounted optic is arguably fast for the first shot if the rifle is configured properly. Personally, the Savage looks cheaper made than the Ruger. In fact, the Ruger is the only factory scout I'd buy in the current market.

My Fat-Scout:



Things I would re-do:
Make it a .308 with a 16.5-18" 1903a3 barrel
Regular flash hider (Seekins) and a regular front sight (Marbles, Williams, etc.)
1903a3 C stock, modified

MistWolf said:

when shooting at small, fast moving targets, such as cotton tails and jackrabbits

Click to expand...

Ah, there's your problem. The Scout rifle is designed for shooting at medium/big game and people, not small game. The narrow field of view is all wrong for small game, and the .308 cartridge would be an absurd choice for them anyways.

Even with larger game, I find a standard eye relief scope faster. I can find reticle and target faster with a 4x standard scope than I can an EER 2.5x or even a 1.5x. A standard 2.5x or less is even faster

Hanzo581 said:

I don't know what it is, I know it isn't the most popular format, but for some reason I am absolutely drawn to the Savage Model 11 Scout.

I have one void in my collection and I want to fill it with a .308 rifle. In all reality the longest range I have the ability to shoot at is 300yrds, so no shots I ever take will be past that.

So basically if you were looking for a light weight, accurate .308 capable out to 300yrds, with a decent round capacity why wouldn't this be a good choice over conventional rifles?

Thanks for any advice.

Click to expand...

A friend of mine has this very rifle. We shot it week before last. He has a higher dollar long eye relief scope on it that is clear "as glass". It grouped very well at 100 yards. And with the scope setup like he has it, it works just like Col. Jeff Cooper wanted it to.

Both eyes open is NOT a problem.

Good luck in your quest.
Victor

P.B.Walsh said:

My Fat-Scout:

Click to expand...

Now that is something I've never seen before. That's a very interesting rifle you have there.

jmr40 said:

I mounted the scope conventionally on my Savage in QD mounts and added a traditional rear sight where the rail attaches to the barrel. If back up irons were needed it was just as fast to remove the conventional mounted scope and use the irons.

Click to expand...

I tried that with my GSR. The biggest problem for an iron sight shooter is losing half of the sight radius and giving up an aperture sight near the eye.

MistWolf said:

I find EER scopes to be slower due to its smaller field of view and that a consistent cheek weld is even more critical to finding the reticle and target quickly. The eye box might be bigger, but the angle the eye must be to see through the scope is smaller. There is a reason why EER optics are always in the lower magnification range.

A standard eye relief scope is faster, brighter has a larger field of view and a more forgiving eye box. It's just as easy to shoot with both eyes open. After playing with an EER scope, I saw no advantage over a standard eye relief scope

Click to expand...

In my experience, both scope systems require a proper stock comb height to scope height relationship. If the two don't work together for either set up, eye alignment is a problem when bringing the rifle to the shoulder quickly. Regardless of eye relief.

I've got the Steyr Scout but it's priced a bit higher than the others. I did own a Ruger Scout in 308 which was not a particularly accurate specimen for me. On the other hand, a Ruger Scout in .223 proved to be a tack driver.

I'll say this, if I didn't already own the Stery Scout, I'd give the Savage Scout a try.