Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Long Eye Relief Scopes--Are They a Disadvantage?

When Colonel Jeff Cooper came up with his Scout rifle concept, he put a long eye relief scope in front of the action. This was to allow reloading the rifle with five-shot stripper clips, which requires vertical clearance. The original (Steyer) Scout allowed clip loading.

Now I notice that three other manufacturers are selling so-called Scouts. Although these use a magazine, inserted from the bottom, and at least two of them cannot in fact be loaded with stripper clips, they maintain the same scope location.

I have never fired a rifle with the scope in front of the action. My question is, isn't this a disadvantage? The field of view through the scope would seem to be very small. And if there is come advantage in general, then why don't hunting rifles without clip slots--99.9% of all hunting rifles--use scopes with long eye relief?

I'm interested in any advice or opinions from those who have experience with such scopes.

Not only do you have a smaller field of view, but low light causes a problem too. I have an old Renegade muzzleloader with a long eye relief scope. I didn't want to have the barrel drilled for regular scope and didn't want the hammer bent to clear the scope. Problem with the setup was that I lost the last few minutes of shooting light because of the distance between the ocular lens and my eye.

With a scoped optic, that is lower powered, you will have maximum field of view, being with both eyes open, what you see through the optic will blend into what you see with your off eye. The lower the power, the more seemless your brain puts the image together.

Along those lines, the combat micro red dot mounted far forward on my carbine, is so small that it blocks little of my field of view. Most of what I see is from around the micro, not through it. The military version now comes with a solid black objective cover that can stay in place during close quarter battle, going in and out of structures having varying lighting, dark to bright. You do not need to see your aiming point through the micro, you only need to see the dot. The solid cover makes the dot appear consistently clear at the same setting, from low light to bright outdoor conditions, even if the objective gets covered in blood, dirt, debris, etc. Your brain puts the image together, and the dot floats over your aiming point seamlessly with both eyes open.

Draw back with the magnified scope are two fold. One, if magnification is too high, you lose the seem less image with your open off eye. Two, the scope becomes more effected by glare and poor image quality in off lighting conditions. With the military micro dot, you do not need to see through the micro, just need to see the dot. With the scout scope, you must see through the optic.

I have a few rifles with forward-mounted scout scopes. Everything said above is accurate. The concept is very good for short-range hunting rifles where quick shots may be required.

Low-power, 2x or 2.5x is good for two reasons: at short range you don't want more power anyway, and the ability to aim and fire with both eyes open without deliberate thought allows faster, accurate shooting.

While the scout-scope concept is not intended for long range varmint shooting, for larger game like deer the 2x scope will still work well enough on deliberate shots on stationary targets out to the ranges that 90% of larger animals are taken.

In use, the concept feels unfamiliar at first, but very quickly becomes natural. I have a scout scopes on two of my Marlins, a 336 and an 1894, and like them a lot. Three advantages quickly became apparent with use, that haven't been mentioned yet:

1) The scout scopes are very light-weight and low-mounted, having less weight and balance effects than most scopes mounted on rifles.

2) The forward-mounted scope leaves the receiver area free from obstruction, allowing very comfortable one-handed carry at the balance point, which has always been an advantage of most iron-sighted carbines and rifles.

3) Old eyes that have trouble seeing iron-sights will shoot better with a scout-scope than without.

I shoot a low powered scope mounted conventionally faster and more accurately. Especially something like a 1-4X. I find 1X to be much faster than irons, dots or forward mounted scopes. Plus I have the advantages of 4X mounted conventionally for longer shots.

FWIW,the military tested the concept and came to the same conclusion. They could have mounted optics in M-4's anywhere, but chose the conventional position.

A 1-4X scope runs about 8 oz and mounted conventionally keeps the rifles balance where it should be.

Indy,

A well-known custom riflesmith once commented, only half-humorously, that Jeff Cooper decided on the Scout-scope concept because he was so used to handgun sights about that far from his eyes....

I have a 2x7 burris on my XP-100 7br , hoped I could use it for night time hogs --nope .
I've read -more than once that the scout scopes don't work all that well in bright and dim conditions .

I am sure no expert and I also have had several scout scopes and like them.I have a 2x7 Burris on a takedown BLR.It holds poi after takedown and I can bore sight it.On low power it is quick to sight because you can keep both eyes open but takes practice.I also like being able to wrap my hand around the reciever while carrying it.It must be a success(for me anyways) because it is my first choice for elk around here.

I spent a little time with a scout rifle. It was so different, from conventional optics (plus factor in that I am a happy luddite), that I was happy to give it up.
For close in hunting, I have an accurate Savage 99 with a (very fast) peep setup.

This actually makes a huge amount of sense, given the amount of handgun shooting he did.

Guy

This is my preference also. I usually use 2-7X36 with the Kahles being my favorite up until now. I just mounted a Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8X32 this year and it is fast becoming my favorite by far. The eye box is much better than my Kahles and less critical about eye relief also. This makes proper scope position a breeze,which is a critical part of using a scope in this manner for quick mounts on jumped or fast moving deer.

I've got some experience with long eye relief scopes, as well as those with short eye relief.
First of all, for any kind of big game hunting, or for any shooting where I might have to shoot in a hurry, you can't run fast enough to give me a scope with an eye relief of less than 3.5 inches. If it runs four inches or more and has a half inch or so of eye box, that's much better.
At 4-4.5 inches, I can see around the scope to some degree which helps on running game. That's with both eyes open, of course.
I currently have a Leupold 1.5-4X Scout Scope mounted on an M1A Squad Scout. Works alot better than did the 2.7X Burris Scout Scope I had on a custom M7 Remington. Not just beause the "optics" are better, but also because the eye relief runs 6-6.9 inches, vs. the 9-14 inches of the Burris. I hunt with it set on 2.5X. At 4X, the eye box is smaller, something I don't like. But the image is sharper than is the image in the 1.5-4X VX-R Leupold I have used in a conventional position on my M70.
So, it's a matter of selecting what you really need in the way of trade offs. The Leupold does work fine under low light conditions as long as one stays at 3X or less. At even 2X, it works for me on 12 inch targets out to 300 yds. E

Try shooting a 250 grain bullet at 2600 fps with a 5 1/2 lb rifle and a scope without a 'long' eye relief. The second shot will be with a scope that has a relief a bit longer.

Well it doesn't take a Scout scope. But it gave me more desire for a little better scope for the purpose. That was about 30 years ago.

I've considered Scout set ups but I don't know what or why other than I wouldn't have to drill holes in an action.

The Scout Rifle was never designed as a hunting rifle. It was designed as a "general purpose" rifle to be used by military scouts forward of friendly forces. It was short(a meter in length) in order to make it easy to to carry. The forward scope would allow topping off the magazine during a lull in a conflict.

I have limited experience with the forward scope concept, and it appears to take some getting used to. But I would think that a low-powered forward scope would still be more than adequate for hitting a human-sized target, or for dropping a deer at any range that most of us can see or accurately place the shot.

I really like a 1x4(true 1 power) with a luminated reticle. On 1x, it can function as a red dot, and for distant targets, I can crank it up to 4x.

This.

And that's why I can't be a fan of a fixed 6x scope for hunting. I've killed a lot of elk under 60 yds in the timber. Keeping both eyes open and being able to see an opening in front of the critter is a big advantage.

Anything higher than 3x it becomes noticeably more difficult to do that.

I read Jeff Cooper's articles in the 80's, even back then I had learned varibles set at low power accomplished the same thing as he was advocating.


Casey

I've been hunting and target shooting a 1903 springfield with a 19" 30.06 custom Lilja barrel turned and wrenched on by Dennis Olson that is set up as a so-called psuedo scout, for over 20 years. I've shot 2 elk(63yrds,and 230yrds), over a dozen deer(10yrds to 160) and killed paper and steel, ranging from 8 yrds to over 300 yrds(looped up prone with groups you could cover with your hand, plenty adequate for big game).

The forward mounted scope of 2.5 power has not been a hindrance, in low or bright light, at least for me. Is the view as good as a conventionally mounted higher power scope? No, but it has been plenty adequate for a broad range of conditions, which is what it is intended for. I have other more traditional rifles but none have the handiness or shoot-ability of the 06 scout.

I think most who complain about the low power "scout" scope either haven't taken the time to really use it or are too closed minded to give it a chance. It's not a panacea but it ain't no hag either.

Because of the lower power I have made better hits at longer ranges because the target looks small in the glass, forcing me to make damn sure I shoot with good technique, in order to make a hit.

As mentioned the reticle doesn't always have that perfect crisp, painted on-the-target look that many expect, but it doesn't matter, it's still there, just put it on the target, press the trigger and move on.

Last week I was out with my son waiting for a whitetail to cut across an opening for him to shoot and as the light faded towards the end of legal light I swapped his 243 win.(fixed 4x leup) with my scout back and forth to compare views. The 4x gave me about 2 min. more light and maybe 50 yrds longer view over the 2.5x scout scope. In more open country with lighter back ground there may be more contrast between the two, but in practical terms there isn't much advantage, especially when you throw in the handiness factor and quick shooting....and dumping a stripper clip with 5 rnds into an 03 Springfield faster than you can swap mags is pretty cool too.

This misunderstanding contributes to a lot of the "problems" with scout setups, IMO. Cooper did not use a "long eye relief" scope, he used a scout scope, which is "intermediate eye relief".

Long eye relief scopes are pistol scopes, intended for use at arms length.

Intermediate eye relief scopes are for scout applications, which is closer than arms length; people try to use pistol scopes for this and they work very poorly. There is a big difference.

Couldn't prove it by me. My own Steyr Scout does allow a detented magazine cutoff and a careful single top off loading but does not allow clip loading. The Dragoon (.376 Steyr) might allow single loading but if so it takes more dexterity than I've cared to worry about. Given the extra magazine stowed in the stock and the possibility of more cartridges in plastic on the off side I don't miss clip loading.

My own understanding is that scout was intended to mean many things and not to mean military scout. Folks these days do seem to emphasize extended magazines and an obsolete military rifle look.

Taking scout to include timber cruiser and all the other woods wanderers I figure the intended use is walking around in the woods (not so much stalking known game at a known location) and so giving up the last bit of low light performance with a scout scope is an acceptable trade-off. That is for that last 5 - 10 minutes I'll not be watching for game when I'm wandering around - I'll be trying not to trip. When I'm on stand and not wandering around I may well use a brighter higher power range scope.

It's no secret the scout scope has inferior low light performance, inferior close to the sun performance and inferior long for some value of long range performance including dial in bullet drop and windage.

A scout sope would be flat silly on a sniping varmint rifle in .204 (3x15 on mine anything more on the top end would be for paper only) or .220 Swift (16X fixed on mine but it's an old rig, retro by today's standards) but fun on a walking around or called game coyote rifle. If we ever see black tail jackrabbits numbers like the early 1980's explosion then I'd love to have a Poodle Scout. Horses for courses as the saying goes.

Many years ago, I exchanged letters about the Scout rifle with Jeff Cooper and Finn Aagaard. I also had one built and used it exclusively for several years. IER scopes are easy to mount very low and they make a rifle easy to carry. I shot some very good groups with mine at surprising ranges, but I found that poor low-light performance and low magnification crippled it.

That’s critical in the Pacific Northwest where I live and hunt. Hunting seasons here are wet and cloudy. Dawn comes later, dusk comes earlier, and the gloom at the end of each day lasts for hours. What might be a few minutes of advantage in other places can last much longer here. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough game wardens to catch all of the poachers, native hunters, unemployed locals, and other folks who don’t think the law applies to them, so any legal animal you see around here is a trophy, and you shoot it as fast as you can. During one typically wet dawn, I saw several deer just over 200 yards away across a clearcut. I saw in my binos that one had horns. Jackpot! But they were moving and when I picked up my Scout rifle, I could no longer tell which one was the buck. Before I could re-acquire him, all of the deer vanished into the mist and the brush. We hunted hard for several more days but saw nothing, and then the season was over.

I switched to a standard scope when I got home from that hunt and I’m not going back. The Scout scope was probably a good idea in the 80’s, but we have better options now.

Hunting here is hard enough, and I won’t suffer gear that makes it harder.


Okie John

E,

Do you have it mounted on the Springfield scout rail? Also, what rings are you using? I have a scout squad and was thinking about the two scopes you mention in some sort of QD rings. Was the Burris just too long of an eye relief?