From what I’ve read to get similar accuracy to the Steyr Scout out of a R700 you needed to get a custom barrel fitted to a free-floating stock which is over $2000 for that.

From what you’ve read?

Thank you for playing… :rolleyes:

Not too mention….R700? The only place I’ve seen it called that is Call of Duty 4.

I actually own a Remington 700. With the right ammo, it will easily shoot .9-1moa groups, at least out to 300 yards. With the wrong ammo (cheap Remington Express Core-Lokt or similar), it will usually do 1.5-2moa. This is actually fairly standard for hunting rifles these days. Upgrade to a varmint or target rifle, which usually come with a heavier bull barrel rather than the lighter medium contour barrel my 700 came with, and you can usually get that down to between .5-.8 moa, usually for under $8-900.

These rifles will usually be fairly capable of doing this out to between 300-600 yards. You only have to start putting down serious cash if you want similar performance out to 800 or 1000+ yards.

From what I’ve read to get similar accuracy to the Steyr Scout out of a R700 you needed to get a custom barrel fitted to a free-floating stock which is over $2000 for that.

From what you’ve read?

Thank you for playing… :rolleyes:

KdT – the Scout is just better than the M96 in every aspect but price. I mean a decent AR15 is $1500, why not own the best scout rifle?

I’m marking this day.

Rabbit.

The Steyr scout is the most accurate rifle under $2000, and the most accurate production rifle, unless you count AIs. You cannot get a sub-MOA rifle for under that price, especially in semi-auto.

Eh?

In semi-auto, maybe, but Remington, Savage, Tikka, and several other gun companies have been putting out sub-MOA bolt action rifles for under $1000 for years now. Hell, some of their sub-MOA rifles come in at under $600.

(Of course, if I were walking out of my suburban house with only one rifle, it would be with the trusty M1 Carbine, but that’s another topic altogether.)

And, I concur with Kim – .308 is at the bottom of the “reasonable” power spectrum, at least for something capable of eating you, but for most North American use, save something like grizzlies or long shots at hardy mountain game, it’ll do the job. Plus, Billy Bob’s Kountry Store will probably have a few boxes of .308 something on the shelf.

Nowadays, however, the “lone scout” concept has been replaced by small Special Forces units, and the “one gun does everything” has been replaced by each individual carrying a special-purpose weapon for specific jobs (M82 sniper rifle, M240 LMG, and sundry assault rifles).

The Scout Rifle is an excellent concept, however, if one is hunting in heavy brush, but even then, if there’s a chance of dangerous game around, the .308 Win is inadequate. (I’ve shot a lion with a .308, but it’s not something I’d care to repeat — this particualr kitty was lying asleep under a tree; had it been hunting me, I’d have preferred something a little larger.)

So the Scout isn’t a “do everything” rifle. It’s a “do most things acceptably, as long as it’s not too dangerous.”

It’s the only serious disagreement I’ve ever had with Coop’s preferences. And let’s face it: without Coop’s recommendation and support, the Scout Rifles would have sold at even lower numbers than they have.

It’s not a bad answer to the question “If you could only own ONE rifle, whch would you choose?”, but there are better choices even in that scenario.

I think Cooper’s reasoning was that, push come to shove, there’s nothing on this continent you couldn’t kill with a .308 if you absolutely had to.

It seems awful marginal for big bear and moose, but then folks were killing them with Krags and Springfields back in the day.

My father has killed moose in Alaska with a gun chambered in .308. You just need to use a heavy (around 180 grain), deeply penetrating bullet.

Though, I’m not sure I’d like to tango with a grizzly with a .308, unless it was a semi-auto like an M1A.

Mr Bane said on his podcast that someone (CMMG?) was making an AR in 308 that takes cheap HK G3 magazines.

That would depend entirely on your definitions of “OK” and “great.”

What a Scout does in the words of Cooper is to help the shooter to make “… first-round hits, at unknown distances, from improvised positions, with a cartridge appropriate to the purpose, under time pressure.” A Scout is short enough to be agile and handy and light enough to be carried all day without undue fatigue. For me, that’s “great” enough.

Try one out sometime.

My M6 Scout rifle is an over-under bare bones gun in .22 Hornet and .410 shotgun. 100% survival rifle that folds up and fits into a backpack.

I thought that’s what we were discussing.

My bad.

I only have a floor scale, but weighing me alone and carrying the rifle (unloaded) shows the rifle to be 8.4 lbs so it’s slightly over the accepted maximum weight but still less than the M1A SOCOM 16.

Stock to flashhider tip is 38″, 16″ actual barrel.

I think a lot of my attraction to the platform is that I grew up shooting bolt guns. The only time I ever really shot a lot of ARs was when I was in the Coast Guard, and then once I was done there, I’ve really not picked them up since then, save for the odd three-gun match here and there.

But bolt guns, I still shoot those. I’ve shot a jillion rounds through my Marlin 25M in .22 Magnum. Actually, that’s the gun that got me thinking about this. I was fooling around with it the other day, and starting thinking to myself how light, comfortable, and easy to handle this rifle was, and how sick it would be if someone made it in .223 so I could have a little more puissance.

But, in a pinch, make mine in a .308 bolt head with an M14 magazine, 18″ barrel. I don’t care if it has a forward scope or over the action.

Oh, and it cost under $100, back when they were cheap.

Having a light carbine that can at least make a reasonable attempt at most anything I’d do with it is a fine idea. Coopers various Steyrs, with prices upwards of a couple of kilobucks wasn’t necessary.

I would like to have one for the farm one day (bye-bye Mr. Coyote).

What’s it weigh?

I believe that was the whole idea — one rifle than a person could carry comfortably all day, that could do just about anything acceptably well.

http://totheegress.com/gibbs.jpg

Right on the first page of the merit badge book, it says Scouts can’t use any rifle larger than .22.
More than that, and you’ll have to join a Venture crew.

It also has better s.d. and b.c. than most .308s. Pretty much the same drop at range as a good .270, too, and nobody calls that caliber a mortar round.

Regards,
Rabbit.

I’ve never really loved the concept either though. Its a jack of all trades rifle that is a master of none.

Unc has a better point about a scout in .223 being superfluous. We live in an age of light, tough, scoped AR-15s that will do <1.5 MOA all day.

Col Cooper knew his shit, and from what I hear he was a wizzard with a bolt-gun.

It seems awful marginal for big bear and moose, but then folks were killing them with Krags and Springfields back in the day.

Seems you would be better served with, say, an AK.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

A lightweight, handy, accurate jack-of-all-trades rifle with enough power to bring down all but the largest game should be replaced with a heavy, awkward club that’s marginal on whitetail and couldn’t hit a barn from the inside with the door closed?

About the only thing that the AK would be better for would be arming infantry, which perhaps not coincidentally, is its designed purpose. (That, and defending one’s self against multiple attackers.)

If all you do is shoot at a range, then a lightweight scout-type rifle wouldn’t seem very much use; it’s designed to be carried around all day in one’s hands.