Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Question for GregR and others about Ruger scout rifle

I was wondering what kind of experiences folks are having with the new Ruger Gunsite scout rifle? Particularly Mr. Rodriguez, as I seem to remember him mentioning that he is a fan of the scout rifle concept and owns several such rifles. I really want to like it, but I'm on the fence. It is a total departure from the typical classic bolt guns that I am usually drawn to.

Sorry I'm not GregR but I do own 4 Scout rifles.

I very much like the idea of a short handy lightweight 308 rifle. Even in short barrels 308's can be very accurate and of course deadly. The one thing that's really bad about Scout rifles per se, is Scout Scopes.

The main advantages to a Scout Scope are that you can use a stripper clip to load with and you won't get doinked in the noggin. The tradeoffs are that you have to go with a scope that is FAR inferior optically and mechanically.

I recommend that you go ahead and buy someone's Scout rifle but instead of a Scout Scope mount a low-powered variable on it. Set on low power you can still shoot both eyes open just as well or better than you can with a Scout Scope - std scopes have FAR superior feild of veiw vs Scout Scopes. Also nobody's Scout Scope is their best glass, you pretty much get run of the mill glass where'as some of the low-powered varaibles have superb glass.

So buy a Scout Rifle, just use a better scope on it.....................DJ

Here is a review of the Scout concept I did for Sniper Country.

http://www.snipercountry.com/InReviews/ScoutConcept.asp

Since then I use the Steyr Scout with a low power variable scope mounted over the action.

jim

I handled one of the new Ruger M77 Scout rifles the other day at the local Cabelas. It was unique to say the least. FIRST of all you don't need any stripper clip loading as it has a 10 round detachable box magazine.Next while it comes with a barrel mounted picatinny rail for using a long eye relief scout scope that isn't necessary either as it also has the built in Ruger dovetails on the frt and rr rec rings. Next it comes with a ghost ring peep on the rear ring and the frt sight looks like one on a Garand or M14.Stock was Ruger style pepper laminate. Actually a neat looking handy Andy type outfit that would take care of business as needed near or far.... ~$829? Magnum Man

I've looked at Scout riles and don't get it. It takes me longer to line up my eye in the scope and it just does not look right. Give me a conventional rifle/scope mounting. But then, I don't understand Facebook or Twitter either.

DJS,

It's a matter of cheek weld. Try this test. On your back deck (with the gun unloaded) pick out an object a fair distance away. Mount the rifle to your shoulder, but before the butt hits your shoulder, close your eyes. After the butt of the rifle has hit your shoulder, without moving your head, slowly open your eyes. If the fit is correct, your eye should be aligned with the center of the scope on the reticle should be on target.

If it isn't, usually the comb of the stock is too low and your eye is looking under the scope. The solution is to raise the height of the comb. The "quick and dirty" solution is to get some water pipe insulation and cut about a 4" strip and tape it to the comb. You may have to add more than 1 layer depending upon the original comb height.

The conventional scope is more forgiving in this regard, because it usually has more eye relief than the scout scope. That being said, with the proper cheek weld both work satisfactorily.

...............I was drawn into the scout concept as well several years ago and decided to give it a try. Scout scopes take a little getting use to and are easily mastered with a little practice. And contrary to another earlier opinion, there are some very good quality scout scopes out there such as the 2.5x Leupy, 2.75x Burris and lower powered EER variables which double as pistol scopes.

As far as the new Ruger Gunsite is concerned, imo it is not what I would call a good looking rifle. Functional maybe, but not good looking.

If you are interested in a fast `n handy scout rifle, and "still want" the conventional scope capability on the same rifle, then do what I did and get yourself a Ruger Frontier. Even though they were discontinued by Ruger, many NIB are still available on sites like Gunbroker. Like the new Gunsite, the Frontiers were made in the 308.

The Frontier offers a few optical options. You can use a conventionally mounted scope, an EER scout scope, any unlimited eye relief red dot and/or an EER tactical to suite any hunting situation. In the optical dept, it is maybe the most versatile rifle available. For a conventionally mounted scope, just make sure to choose a scope with not too large an objective bell that will clear the scout base mounted on the barrel forward of the action. A 33mm to a 36mm max would fit fine using low rings.

I use a conventional scope, a scout scope and a recently acquired red dot on my Frontier. Takes a minute or two to swap out any one for the other with no re-zeroing.

Did swap out the trigger assembly for a better 3# pull and no other work was needed. With my more accurate reloads, my pip squeek Frontier can shoot veeeedy well and they are absolutely wonderful to carry and to hunt with.

I prefer aperture sights over the scout scope. If a scope is needed for long range precision, I put it where a scope belongs - between the receiver rings.

Will Ruger offer the rear aperature sight for sale to others? To me, it looked like a great little item to have around.

I'm waiting for the Australian market version, rumored to be on the drawing board.
20" SS barrel, no suppressor, standard Mkll internal mag.

Those changes make it a lot more attractive to me.

Pete

Scout scopes work great for me, but they may not for you. Not everybody's brain is wired for them. Those genetically effed up folks with mixed eye dominance (the same ones that will never shoot a pistol worth a flip) won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn with them. So, it is usually the better shooters that like them, and the also ran types who curse them.

My Steyr Scout would be the last rifle I'd ever part with.

I do think a 1-4X MIGHT be as capable (speed wise) as the scout scope, I haven't really tested it, but Gunsite did, and they say it is. At spitting/pistol distances, a 1-4X set on 1X IS faster, and this is why ZERO 3-gun shooters run a scout scope, because a lot of their shooting is pretty close.

Remember, Cooper had seen many, many scopes fail by the time his scout concept came to fruition, and a huge chunk of them were variables. I've read that Leupold has a new 1-4X EER scope.

The scopes you mention certainly aren't bad scopes per se, but I'll have to reiterate that in some cases they don't even have the best glass and coatings available in their own brands and because of optical physics they suffer in FOV and other areas compared with other scopes.

Take the 2.5x Leupy FX-II Scout Scope. It has Leupy's older Multi-Coat 4 Lens System, instead of Leupy's newer and superior indexed matched lens system or xtended twilight lens system. It's 3 generations back.

Also note that it has a Feild of Veiw at 100yds of 22ft. Leupolds VX-3 2.5-8 at the same magnification has an FOV of 37.8ft at 100yds, well more than 1/2 again as wide.

Go to a scope like Leupy's 1.5-5 and it has a FOV at 1.5x of 68ft and even at 5x it still has a wider FOV at 23.8ft than the Scout Scope has at 2.5x 22ft.

Plus you have to consider that both the 2.5-8 and 1.5-5 have better glass and coatings.

Keeping them in the same company is as Apples to Apples as I can think of.


You are correct in that the Scout Scopes aren't bad optics, it's just that there are MUCH better ones available, even within the same brands.......................................DJ

GregR is on a buffalo hunt

I disagree. The Scout scopes appear to have less than stellar optics because the eye is so far from the ocular. The difference in performance between Leupold's Multicoat4, and their later coatings is almost too small to measure. Let alone be of any significant difference.
I argue that their lack of field of view is a non issue because they are so far forward the eyes can easily see around them.
That doesn't mean I prefer them to a conventionally mounted scope. As far as the performance of the scopes are concerned, any decent conventional mounted scope is way ahead of them simply because they usually have alot more magnification.
However, they do good things for the rifle and are superior to iron sights by most standards. E

I agree with Eremicus. A Scout scope used properly has the same field of view as a ghost-ring rear peep sight. Ideally, both eyes are kept open. Field of view is limited by the human eye, not by the scope. For sighting-in or shooting at a small stationary target the off eye can be closed and slow, deliberate aim can be taken, as with a normal scope, bit in that case field of view doesn't matter, either, or target scopes would be lower powered.

I think Scout scopes have their place and I like mine, in their place.

Myself I was curious and when I had a chance I bought a .308 Steyr Scout used with a nice setup - extension with 10 cartridge magazine and lever detach mounts - because it was cheap enough that I could have turned it without too much loss for a sort of try it rental fee. I liked it well enough that I almost immediately added a Dragoon (.376) in the Jeff Cooper package - CDNN was still selling the packages at heavy discounts.

It's absolutely and emphatically true that there are much much better choices for any specific but limited purpose - trophy hunting or bean field or prairie dog or combat. I'd most emphatically say don't buy a scout or pseudo scout for trophy hunting - although maybe a 7mm-08 with a conventinal scope would be nice for goats and sheep - still Steyr among others (NULA say) makes fine mountain rifles that aren't scouts - and certainly the Dragoon is nice for kicking the brush on north facing slopes in the noon day sun - I don't mean to imply the scout concept can't be used for trophies.

Still for an fat old man with bad eyes who's trying to achieve a lifetime ambition to be a woods loafer the Scout is a better choice than a Winchester 94 with a Williams 5D - which would be my own closest comparison (guns I've owned and carried).

If winning a Weatherby award and with a Weatherby MkV in .300 or .340 was somebody's idea of the perfect rifle companion then the Scout isn't it. My own feeling is that the Scout is more an always gun like a 640 S&W is for some people in a different scene.

You'll never know unless you try one.

Sorry, mate.

http://www.bankstowngunshop.com.au/Ruger_Gunsite_Scout

The good news: 18" barrel (spec is in error), no flash hider, stainless steel.

The bad news: still has the heavy laminated stock and silly magazine.

If they put this action in a lightweight synthetic stock with a conventional magazine, they'd have a pretty nice Scout.

I got on the "scout rifle" kick a while back and really enjoy the little rifle for long treks in the thick woods of Northern Maine. The rifle is great for up close, quick shooting. I shot several deer with scout rifles (all under 50 yards) and one moose at 200. That said, this is what I found I don't like about the concept.

I first purchased Savage's scout rifle. Not bad, but the tang safety froze solid on one winter hunt. Switched to a Ruger Frontier and like it except for the laminated stock. I'd rather have a lighter synthetic stock, or float the barrel in some nice wood. The Ruger is very accurate, and I'm good out to 200 for sure.

The Leupold Scout Scope doesn't allow me to shoot at ranges longer that 200. I'm just not seeing clearly with this scope. My eyes need something stronger. I do like the quick pointing capabilities, and have proved its merit on several ocassions. I can shoot with both eyes open and hit moving objects MUCH easier than when using a conventionally-mounted scope. But with ranges longer than 200 yards...

I think I've solved this problem. I tried a conventionally-mounted 3X9 Trijicon scope a while back and did some quick, short range shooting. The illuminated dot allowed me to point and shoot with both eyes open on moving targets at short distances. Then we took the rifle to a three-hundred yard range and I found hitting things there quite easy. The little illuminated dot was easy to acquire at the longer ranges, and I am sure I could hit at longer ranges with it (better shooters could hit at even further ranges I'm sure).

SO...I'm going back to a conventional rifle, with a conventionally-mounted scope. It will be a Trijicon, probably some kind of 3X9 with a small center dot and mil-dots. I'll be able to hit at long distance (as far as with any other scope available), AND if a quick, short-range, moving shot presents itself I'll be able to take it with ease.

Agreed.

One of the things I'll likely never know is how good the Stayr Scout chassis would be in the woods with a Short Dot from S&B or something like the new Leupold (cover of the American Rifleman) at even more money. There is certainly nothing special about the Steyr chassis and a - what's the best description? - black rifle in a hunting cartridge with a Short Dot would be a fine companion on walks.

I am also equally reminded that Jack O'Connor at least once said (despite days in Arizona) that he learned to shoot on the blacktail jack when they were abundant in Idaho. The one thing the Scout would be the absolute best possible choice for is a blacktail jack explosion like the last one I saw in the early 1980's - sadly never to come again I fear. Again for me the Scout Scope concept is a substitute for 20/10 vision and iron sights not something I'd ever use in an anysight match at any distance.

Whether the things the Scout does really well matter to anybody is I suppose very much a personal choice. There's a reason the standard pattern with a 3X9 or more powerful scope with a big objective is the popular choice.

But I join John Dean Cooper in saying I got mine.

ClarkEMyers,
I think you missed my point. Sorry for my incomplete explanation. I like the scout rifles. They're light, shoot straight, and carry easy. I pointed out a few of their faults, but basically like the scout rifle. It's the scope that I'm not so happy about.
Don't get me wrong though, from zero to two-hundred yards it worked perfectly for me. It was MUCH easier using tha a conventional scope when acquiring moving game, or targets that suddenly appeared at close ranges. The scout scope rules within these parameters.
Where the scout scope starts to fail for me is at long distance (over two hundred yards for me). Most high-quality 3X9's would do so much better BUT...they'd fail up close or on moving game (for me).
My solution is the Trijicon scope. The little illuminated dot works just like the scout scope system. You can keep both eyes open, aim, and follow game while they're moving -- up close or far away. The illuminated dot performs like some kind of hallogen image. You can see it on the animal in real tight situations all the while seeing the whole animal and the surrounding woods, AND, at it works perfectly for precise aiming at long distances. The best of both worlds for me. YMMV.