Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Jeff Cooper - Styer Scout - just don't get it?

Just real Jeff Cooper�s back page in G&A (always read his piece first) and it made me think of the Styer Scout rifle. I simply cannot figure why he has hitched his wagon to this rifle. The action is nothing unique and in my opinion, not as good as you basic rem or win. The stock is pure Tupperware with the integral bipods. This is another issue and I have read him make fun of �digital hunters� those who show up in Texas with bipods on their rifles. If he thinks bipods are a useless joke, why are they on �his� creation? Then the price, you could build a first class scout rifle (if you really needed such a thing) for the price of his at roughly $2,000. My choice would be the durable model 70 with big, simple parts (including trigger) with a stock by mcmillan or brown with a barrel of choice. He quoted this month that we have had all the cartridges we need for the last 100 years but still need better actions. I say we have the best actions today, and they all are based on the �98 Mauser. After 100 years+, we still have not made any real advances over this design, simply different ways to skin the same old cat. I just don�t get his platforms sometimes but he has earned the pulpit after 45+ years in the bus. What happened to the 376 Styer?

257Bob,

I'm with you, I don't get it either. Must be a Zen thing. Forward mounted scope for two eyed shooting? Can do the same with a Leupold 1.5x4 set on 1.5x.

Multiple detachable magazines?? For speed loading on charging whitetails? Really????

I guess a fold-a-away bi-pod is useful, but I never used a bi-pod for big game.

Plastic trigger guard, on a $1500.00 rifle? Maybe for some, not for me.

Regards,

Bob

257Bob
I have been thinking lately about this topic also. First, let me say, Mr Cooper has done more and saw more than I probably ever will. Experience often will form strong opinions. The folks at Styer have made many more rifles and a lot more money doing it than I have.
I just cant see this scout thing on the current Styer rifle. I dont like the action, hate the stock, and where can you get 376 ammo ?
What brought this to mind was I am building what in my mind is a better mouse trap. Of course my thoughts are a little slanted because I'm doing the work. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
What I'm making is on a stainless Ruger MKII action, McMillian hunter stock, Timney trigger, double hexagon barrel(I had to "doll" it up a little <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), 21 inches long, in a 308 Winchester. It has a NECG peep sight that fits in the rear scope base slot and ramp front sight with hood. (hoods dont do much but they look cool <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />)I plan to put a 1.75 x 6 Leupold Vari-XIII scope on. My thoughts were to use either scope or iron sights with the ability to change in the field. I chose this first because the Ruger action is in some ways the best of both worlds....controlled feed and a mechanical ejector, and it can be single loaded and let the extractor pop over the rim. Yes, the Winchester and Mauser will do this, and I have replaced more extractors on Winchester's than all others combined including Remington. To play the devils advocate here, if you cant properly load a Winchester or Mauser or Remington for that matter, you have no business with one in your hand. To play more advocate, a pf Remignton or Winchester would work fine.
I sort of lost my train of thought here , but I guess it all boils down to I just dont like the looks or feel of that Styer... To me it feels like a boat paddle and looks like one. If other folks like them, I am happy for them but I want no part.
In my mind a scout rifle should be short and slender and rugged and adaptable. Iron sight should be available if needed...it should balance between the hands...it ought to feel as good as Catherine Zeta Jones in your hands <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />....I doubt I'm good enough to pull that off but it gets the point across.
376 Steyr ......how many places stock 376 ammo ? I notice several of my wholesale suppliers dont even carry it, and it has an oddball case head diameter.
308 WInchester...is their a place that sells ammo that doesnt have 308 ? Last time I looked there were 16 different factory loads with 180 grain bullets. Thats just big name stuff like Rem, Win, Federal, Hornady. Everbody that makes custom ammo makes 308. Ever see a 308 that didnt feed well in a good action ? Ever see a 308 with a good match grade barrel that didnt shoot ? I gave up making a list of bullets, powders, brass, the list will fill up a page with all the different options.
Well, maybe I'll change my mind. I'm looking at a new Charles Daly 98 action with a factory 243 barrel on it. In the barrel bin (not the Rick Bin <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) is a # 3 Lilja 1 x 10 twist stainless, and a Brown Precision stock in the stock rack. NECG folding leaf rear and a ramp front sights hanging on the wall......now I'm thinking of a Win 70 cf with a # 3 Lilja and a Mac featherweight stock in 308 I built for a buddy of mine last year....it has a 1.75 x 6 Leu with the German reticle....talk about a scout rifle...then I think of the 308 on the Sucks Titanium action on a High Tech stock....complete with a 3 x 9 Swarvoski was 6 3/4 pounds.....I guess there are several ways to skin the cat but I still dont like the Steyr...
Charlie

charlie,

You made some great points. I too made a few sideways looks at the Steyr-Cooper and drew a blank (some will contend that that is normal for me !!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).

Anyway, I guess everyone has their schtick. You have your fav. style of building a rifle, as does Celt, Bansner etc...I guess that is Coopers.

The big difference is your's et al. is more mainsteam and IMO "usable", where Cooper appears to be appealing to a very narrow niche market. More of the "Rambo" types. Kinda like what was previously posted about being able to defend yourself from a charging whitetail !!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Although I do know a guy who was rather seriously injured by a whitetail buck which wasn't quite dead !!! Nailed him with a smoke pole, went to gut the buck and the buck almost returned the favor !! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Don't think there is such a thing as a "scout muzzleloader" is there ?

Tony.

Got to have something to write about. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The "Scout" concept is basically a do-anything tool but to me it has some problems (1) the forward mounted scope is very difficult (for me) to use if the sun is anywhere close to behind the rear ocular...big-time glare, (2) Cooper doesn't particullary like the 376 Steyr cartridge but as he tells it, Steyr wanted a distinctive cartridge all their own, and (3) Cooper is a big fan of the 308 Winchester andif that isn't big enough then the 350 RemMag which he would have preferred over the 376 Steyr. According to Cooper the only thing wrong with a Rem 600 in either 308 or 350 RemMag for a med and big Scout Rifle was their inability to be reloaded quickly hence the magazines for the Steyr Scout......and remember he can't say too much negative about the Steyr Scout but he doesn't think it's ideal either.

Personally it reminds me of a kid's gun...not that I'm a fancy wood freak but I do like some-what classy lines in a rifle.

max weight of 3 kilos loaded and overall length of less than one meter in a chambering able to cleanly kill game up to 800 pounds out to 300 meters were the original parameters if i remember correctly. a lesser parameter was scope bases milled integral with the barrel. this is a very expensive proposition. steyr, apparently, was the only maker willing to tackle this, but had to do it the steyr way. cooper, being the old military guy that he is, could not quite get away from that; ergo, the built-in bipod for long, prone shots. for your average sneak hunter, i think the marlin based scout rifles built by brockman and others make much more sense, sans bipods, of course. i built my own scout-type rifle on a swede model 96. didn't make weight what with a wood stock and heavy military contour stepped barrel, but man did that baby shoot. very, very easy to carry because i could grip it around the balance point with the leupold 2x scope up front out of the way. (i cannot stand slings; of course, in alabama, we don't do a whole lot of mountain cruising). i think the forward-mounted scope thing has merit from a portability standpoint. (nothing new; the germans did this with a lot of their sniper rifles in ww2.) but a normally aspirated scope (how do you like that phrase, race fans?) with good eye relief also can be used with both eyes open, as it should be.
personally, i cannot stand the looks of the steyr scout. that slim little ruger action should make into a dandy if you can find somebody to mill the scope mount pedestals in a barrel blank.
good ol' jeff cooper: always stirring things up.
agree with him or not, he CAN write beautifully.

now that's what I am talkin' about!!! but really, a scout rifle is a military concepr if you ask me. most of what hunters would consider a similar application would be your basic ultralite. I think of a sportsmans scout as being a bush pilot rifle. short, powerful, durable and simple. do the removable scope thing but not forward mounted. I still like the model 70 for this "remote application" rifle due to the large parts in the action and especially the trigger. all easy to clean in the event the thing gets dropped in the muck. really, with a little practive, a sportsman could take the entire firing mechanism apart, including trigger, in the field to clean. charlie, how about a 1/2 oct - 1/2 round barrel on that ruger?

257BOB
I think a half-round-half-octagon is more impressive than silicone implants ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />....but thats just my opinion....
Charlie

WOW <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

257Bob
I was thinking maybe I should not have made the post like I did....or maybe I should have....might have been better for a different thread....when I reread my post I think I was thinking more about the advantages of the 308 versus the 376.....the other post mentioned a 6.5x55 on a Swedish Mauser.....that made into a scout configeration would make a dandy....plenty of power and those feed and carry as well as anything ever made...I have one of my own that shoots factory Hornady Light mag ammo into .6 to .8 until its boring......I'm thinking now a Carl Gustav 96 in 6.5x55 witha # 3 Lilja at 21 inches witha Accu-bond laminate might just be the ticket....folding express sights...Tallet QD....1.75 x 6 Luepold.....might be forced to do a half-round-half-octagon.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Charlie

I agree. I think it's something designed for a certain military application that just happens to work well for sportsmen. Also, the Steyr Scout pics that I've seen have shown that the scope could be mounted in a 'normal' position if desired.

I cannot understand why the Scout concept is worth anything at all, unless you need to store it in cramped space in a vehicle.

For hunting its lack of forward mass merely makes shooting offhand difficult. I suppose there might be brush where a 1 meter length is mandatory but I have not hunted there. The forward scope has no value in rapid target acquisition. For military stuff, it gets beat by semis.

The particular embodiment of this concept by Steyer appears to me to be a cheap little plastic gun vastly overpriced. Reminds me of a Remington 710. But then again I've never been a fan of Cooper's. Maybe I'm missing something.

--Cooper & Co.'s "Scout Rifle Concept"--
I always was a little skeptical of this. I thought it a solution in search of a problem. Then I bought a milsurp rifle I did not want to alter permanently & installed a LER scope & scope base in lieu of the rear sight base. I must say I was mighty impressed with the setup. I could shoulder it & fire in as much time as a quality aperture sight/ghost ring and MUCH faster that my traditionally mounted scopes. About as fast as the Aimpoint or Trijicon CQB dot sights. Then my wife (a lefty) got ahold of it and whaddaya know? She found it to her liking with the exception of the mass, length, & the bent bolt. She could reach over the action to manipulate the bolt without bumping the scope and eye relief was a non-issue. After closely questioning what she liked/disliked/wanted, guess what? I ended up with specs that comply with the "Scout Rifle Concept."
* Swede 96 Mauser action with a straight bolt
* 18.5" bbl, probably the one that comes with the action, but cut down
* 6.5x55 Swede, of course
* Classic American style laminated stock (cut down for her)
* nice rear aperture/front sight blade setup
* leupold scout scope
* scope mount in lieu of original rear sight base
* 3-point sling
* Deccelerator recoil pad
The action will accomodate charging via stripper clips, in case any whitetail herds charge us with murder on their minds.

Oh, well. So much for my prejudices against Cooper & his "solution in search of a problem." Anybody have some nice, fresh, humble pie I could eat?

Styer Scout
Gotta agree on this particular rifle, however. Too much money. $2000!!! Holy overpriced thunderstix, Batman!

Anyway, there's my experiences & $0.02.

I've tested a few "Scout" rifles for articles and consider the whole concept to be a brain fart.



Why would any reasonably experienced field shooter sacrifice field of view and magnification by mounting the scope on the barrel? It is a dumb idea that should have been dead at birth.



My question is just the opposite: Why in the world did Steyr hitch their wagon to Cooper?



Friends, there is absolutely nothing the matter with rifles of a normal configuration.



Steve

..."it ought to feel as good as Catherine Zeta Jones in your hands" - Charlie, you build a rifle that feels like CZJ in my hands and I will buy it!!!

257BOB
No you wont buy it !!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> If I can figure that one out I'll keep it for my self <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />.....might just make a whole safe full of them.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />
Charlie

OK, my 2 cents.

I've played with, and owned, alot of rifles. I built a Scout Rifle once. I took a Model 7 Remington, .308, and replaced the stock with a B&C. I had a gunsmith machine a Burris Scout Scope mount to the barrel. Then I mounted a 2.7X Burris Scout Scope.

The forward scope is as fast as a peep sight. The reticle just floats out there superimposed on the target. It's only disadvantage is low magnification and lack of significant twilight performance. But it runs rings around any ghost ring/peep sight set up I've ever used.

The scope is out of the way. For fast bolt use, for easy carry and it adds needed weight forward of the reciever ring.

The whole set up is very easy to live with. In fact, it will grow on you. Short, light and quick. And it has plenty of weight in the right place to shoot well.

The CW sling system is another point that must be tried to be appreciated. I've used every kind of shooting sling I can get my hands on. The only one I would like to try is the Cling Sling - another Scout development.

The CW sling also puts weight out front. It allows the use of rock solid, lightweight slings that stay put. It is much easier to use and much faster than the standard military sling.

I didn't like the stock on my Scout. After 12-15 rds., the zero would shift 2-4 inches. The core of the B&C stock is soft and wouldn't hold up. No more cheap synthetics for me.

I wanted the performance of at least a standard 4X scope, So I sold my Scout and am now shooting a 7.5 lb. M70 FWT in .308. So far, so good. It, and my two custom rifles, all are set for CW Slings. I think I'd like it better with a Basner 24-26 oz. stock and a 2-2.25 lb., 20-21 inch Pac-Nor. More forward weight and 1/4-1/2 lb. less. A little shorter too. .308, of course.

Or, maybe a 700 Ti. Add Pac-Nor barrel, and easily stay at 6.5-7 lbs., complete with a 6X42. E

Steve....the main reason he put the scope so far forward was the ability to reload quickly....I think he originally wanted to use stripper clips.

I have no personal experience with forward-mounted scopes (so I should shaddup) - but I read a review that stated the set-up was fast because the shooter didn't have to worry about getting dinged by the scope.