Ruger is building a "Scout" rifle!

[gunderwood]

http://www.ruger.com/products/gunsiteSc ... odels.html

Very interesting. I was thinking a "scout" ACOG would be sweet on it.

[LFS]

It does sound like an interesting rifle. But would an ACOG really fit the purported use of this weapon for longer distances?

[gunderwood]

It does sound like an interesting rifle. But would an ACOG really fit the purported use of this weapon for longer distances?

Absolutely!

I use to have a 16" AR10 (RRA LAR-8) with a 3.5x ACOG on it. I was hitting a 12"x18" steel plate at 700 yards with NATO surplus 7.62x51 ammo (147gr) on the side of a mountain (shift wind if you know what I mean). A guy was watching me and couldn't figure out what I was shooting at, so he asked. When I told him, he didn't believe it, so I let him try. He missed the first one, I called a quick correction (which he also saw due to the wide FOV) and he hit 3 of the next 4. 3 of 5 with a gun he never fired at 700 yards with a "only" a 3.5x scope...yup.

The ACOGs are the best medium range scope around IMHO. I prefer a simple red dot on a AR15 carbine as that is sufficient for reasonably accurate fire out to 200-300 yards. Beyond 500ish yards, DMR like scopes are better, but the ACOGs can cover CQB to 700 or 800 yards for deer/man sized targets. Shooting a 3.5x ACOG at 700 yards is like shooting a 1x Aimpoint at 200 yards. No, you won't shoot tiny groups, but it is fast and you can hit center of mass easily.

I prefer the chevrons and ballistic compensated reticles. Anything less than 300 yards is practically a point and shoot operation. Beyond that you have to hold over a bit, but they also make that easy too. The width of the hold over hash-mark is the width of a human torso at that distance. Simple. The 16" barrel wasn't matched well beyond 500 yards because of the reduced velocities, but you just learned to aim a bit high. At close ranges you shoot both eyes open and the red "dot" just floats on the target like a real red dot does.

It isn't a DMR or sniper scope, but the point of that Ruger scout rifle is "if you only could have one..." A long eye relief ACOG, with the red chevron reticle and compensated for the 16" barrel and standard NATO 147gr ammo, with a Larue QD mount would be pure sex on that rifle...if it lives up to the price tag.

[gunderwood]

This is what I had mounted on the AR10 and it was sweet.

http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/prod ... tegoryID=3

It can't fulfill the DMR role, but for MBR/scout it would be perfect.

[Jakeiscrazy]

I have never been to keen on the scout rifle concept. I guess I might be if I lived on a lot of land, but I don't see the advantage over a scoped AR. Do they make ACOGs with a long enough relief for a scout?

[gunderwood]

I have never been to keen on the scout rifle concept. I guess I might be if I lived on a lot of land, but I don't see the advantage over a scoped AR. Do they make ACOGs with a long enough relief for a scout?

No, they don't make such an ACOG. There are trade offs with doing so. FOV is usually cut down quite a bit.

The two primary benefits to a "scout" rifle over an AR are: .308 in a package the size and weight of a .223 and bolt action reliability.

If you are defending the homestead, an AR is probably better. If you are bugging out and need only one gun, .308 and a bolt are a great combo.

[LFS]

gunderwood, I have to defer to your opinion as your experience far exceeds mine... and you're obviously a solidly bright guy. I'm just curious. Why do you think an ACOG would be good for this rifle if there are no ACOGs available with the proper eye relief. Isn't the point of the "scout" style rail to put the scope further down the rifle for better eye relief constraints? Obviously I don't fully understand this concept.

[gunderwood]

Why do you think an ACOG would be good for this rifle if there are no ACOGs available with the proper eye relief. Isn't the point of the "scout" style rail to put the scope further down the rifle for better eye relief constraints?

No problem. Let's take a look at how Cooper defined it and why he did so.

Cooper said the Scout-type low-power, long-eye-relief, low-mounted scope was “the fastest ever to appear at Gunsite, and it loses nothing in precision when used for careful shots at long range.” I have heard some armchair shooters complain that the Scout scope has a narrow field of view. They just don’t get it. Used properly, as any scope is supposed to be used -– with both eyes open and focused on the target –- the Scout scope provides virtually the same unobstructed field-of-view as open or aperture sights. This is the whole idea behind the low-power forward-mounted scope and its greatest advantage in the hunting field.

http://jeffcoopersscoutrifles.blogspot.com/

The scope system is designed for speed and to provide a balance between "longer" range precision and short range. All the requirements flow from that.

The scope is mounted so far forward so it doesn't obstruct your view and allows for quick acquisition. The mounting of red dot and reflex scopes further out on rifles is for exactly the same reason. I mounted my Aimpoint T1 on my Marlin 1895 .45/70 guide gun halfway down the rail. Due to the sights small size, both in objective diameter and length, that was the ideal place for it. If you look at scout setups, the last piece of glass is basically in the same location.



I'll post a picture of my Marlin later tonight. The scope is further back, but not by much.


Now lets look at what makes an ACOG. The scope bodies are weird, but the only big functional thing that makes them really different is the BAC. Otherwise, functionally they are just like most other fixed powered scopes. IMHO, BAC is what makes the ACOGs one of the best all around scopes for a "you can only have one rifle."

The ACOG®s are internally-adjustable, compact telescopic sights with tritium illuminated reticle patterns for use in low light or at night. Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC)* models feature bright daytime reticles using fiber optics which collect ambient light. The ACOG®s combine traditional, precise distance marksmanship with close-in aiming speed. Although the ACOG®s have many features which are very advantageous for military use, they were developed by Trijicon without government funding.
Designed for use with the M16 family, every feature of its mechanical and optical design was chosen for a single purpose: to provide increased hit potential in all lighting conditions -- without failure-prone batteries.

"Precise distance marksmanship with close-in aiming speed" is exactly what the scout rifle achieves with a more traditional scope (but with extended eye relief of course) by mounting it so far forward. There may be an issue with how your brain processes the BAC reticle if you mount it very far forward, but right around the chamber shouldn't be an issue.

With the BAC for close range, you shoot both eyes open and focusing on the target just like a red dot. Slightly less accurate, but way fast. Your brain processes out most of the scope and the blurry sight picture, but the bright reticle stays. It takes a bit to get use to, but it is point and shoot like a red dot. At longer distances it shoots just like a regular scope. It is a good compromise between the two extremes.

An ACOG doesn't need to be mounted so far forward to achieve the same goals as a scout scope, but rifles which fulfill Coopers other requirements, like the Ruger, tend to have forward mounted optic rails. Thus, to put an ACOG on them you need a custom rail or a long eye relief ACOG.

There are only three problems with ACOGs:

1. At close range they are point and shoot, but usually are not very precise. Obviously it depends on your reticle choice, but you won't hold groups like you can with a precision scope. IMHO, this isn't an issue because it isn't the purpose of the scope.

2. Their mounting system isn't the best and it can work loose with heavier recoiling rifles. The AR10 would work loose the Al/nylon "lock" nuts. This is easily fixed by using a Larue mount for them.

3. They aren't cheap.

[LFS]

That's an excellent explanation. So wouldn't something like a Trijicon AccuPoint scope in the 1-4X range be the ticket for this scope then? They are a bit cheaper than the ACOG, have the same BAC feature and illuminated reticle, and would require no special mounting rail.

[gunderwood]

That's an excellent explanation. So wouldn't something like a Trijicon AccuPoint scope in the 1-4X range be the ticket for this scope then? They are a bit cheaper than the ACOG, have the same BAC feature and illuminated reticle, and would require no special mounting rail.

Yes, there are lots of possible options, but I'll explain why a "scout" ACOG would be my first choice over alternatives. Any scope for that rifle would require extended eye relief and there aren't that many (I don't ever recall an AccuPoint which had that, but I could be wrong). The Leupold is the best IMHO. http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shoo ... ier-scout/

The scout concept is based on speed, simplicity/reliability and accuracy. The forward mounting of the scope, the requirement for reliability, rifle balance and of course speed all argue for a simple scope. IMHO:

A forward mounted scope makes it hard for your trigger hand to reach any adjustment knobs, so a scope which doesn't require adjustments to use it is practically a necessity (using your supporting hand to adjust knobs is very slow and backwards unless you are left handed).

Adjustable scopes, such as sniper scopes, cost big money to combine repeatable adjustments and durability into that platform. Generally, you can build a higher quality fixed scope for the same price as a lower quality variable scope. The fixed power scope will always be more reliable than an adjustable one, regardless of the price point (assuming the two are equal in price point). High quality and fewer moving parts is always more reliable than high quality and lots of moving parts. Even $3k+ snipers scopes go kaput at times. Nothing is perfect, but fixed is generally less likely to have a problem. Not to mention, but adjustability adds weight.

Lots of rifles are already muzzle heavy and mounting the scope so far out there doesn't help with perceived weight. Absolute weight aside, the better the balance is the more "handy" the rifle feels. You need a decently low weight scope.

The AccuPoints fail by being adjustable magnification, no drop compensated reticle, and no tritium. Adjustable magnification makes an EER scope very hard to manufacture and likely hard to use. Second, the forward mounting makes it hard to adjust and slow. The ACOGs design isn't perfect either. Here is what I would do:

Take the TA11E, alter its drop compensated reticle to be matched for the 16" barrel. Keep the tritium and the ACOGs "hidden" fiber design which is vastly superior to the APs IMHO. Redesign the "tube" to be easier to mount low and reduce weight. I would keep the magnification at around 3.5x. That is traditionally much higher than scout scopes, but the BAC allows it to work and you get better long range precision to boot. Of course the BAC is a must.

That is what I'd want. A low mount, EER TA11E with 16" drop compensated reticle.

[gunderwood]

Here is my hunting rifle.


The T1 is mounted further back than a traditional scout scope, but that is a function of its size. For a scout setup the last peice of glass is usually even with the front of the reciever, my T1 is about 2" behind it. The rest of the scout scope sticking in front of it is to provide magnification; a 1x T1 doesn't need all of that length. Second, the objective diameter is small on the T1 so that seemed to be the best place to mount it (I played with it a bit). It basically matches my AR setup for how far forward it is (my AR is on the very front edge of the upper).

[grumpyMSG]

So you go out and spend around $750 on the "Scout" rifle, and say around $1000 for the mythical, wished for, long eye relief ACOG with the fibre optic light tube and Tritium illumination. What are you going to do in 5 to 7 years when the tritium starts to get weak? Send it to the factory for repair? Changing the batteries in an EOTech or Aimpoint looks a lot more attractive at that point. Surprising accuracy is available with either, just lower the dot or donut brightness to barely visible. The brighter they are, the "larger"the dot or "thicker" the reticle appears. EOTech even makes one that would be perfect for this rifle, the 552XR308:
http://www.eotech-inc.com/product.php?id=5&cat=1

I think Mr Cooper, if he were alive now, would probably have recommended one of these sighting systems to for it.

[gunderwood]

So you go out and spend around $750 on the "Scout" rifle, and say around $1000 for the mythical, wished for, long eye relief ACOG with the fibre optic light tube and Tritium illumination.

Spending as much on your scope as you do your rifle is a time honored tradition.

The Ruger will be a fairly low cost scout rifle, the "scout" ACOG would be one of the and most expensive of its kind. There certainly are scout rifles which cost double what that ACOG does. The scope discussion isn't limited to just the Ruger.

What are you going to do in 5 to 7 years when the tritium starts to get weak? Send it to the factory for repair?

Yes, the tritium would need to be replaced. However, I should note that most of the electronics in the Aimpoint/EoTech probably won't last 10-15 years either. Don't get me wrong, I like my Aimpoint T1, but I'm under no disillusionment that it will still be working in 10-15 years. Mine may still work, but most won't as far as I can tell. I haven't seen any of them put a lot of effort into long term electronics. IMHO, EoTech is worse in this respect than Aimpoint.

Besides, the tritium only does the night lighting. The fiber, which will last practically forever, does the day setting. Electronic sights without batteries = no scope.

Changing the batteries in an EOTech or Aimpoint looks a lot more attractive at that point.

Agreed. I should note that the EOTechs eat batteries like no ones business...you'll be changing them a lot. The Aimpoints are much better, but even at their higher settings will eat through a battery in 1-2 months. There is a huge non-linear power usage.

Surprising accuracy is available with either, just lower the dot or donut brightness to barely visible. The brighter they are, the "larger"the dot or "thicker" the reticle appears.

Yes, but their magnified options are poor IMHO. Try shooting accurately at 500 yards and let me know how it goes with a 1x...particularly if the SHTF which besides hunting is a huge appeal of the scout rifle concept IMHO.

EOTech even makes one that would be perfect for this rifle, the 552XR308: http://www.eotech-inc.com/product.php?id=5&cat=1/quote]

I think Mr Cooper, if he were alive now, would probably have recommended one of these sighting systems to for it.

This is the whole point of my response. I disagree. Cooper stressed the ability for longer range precision shots in addition to short range and in the field, not a bench. He had a great iron sight setup on his original Remington 600 (the original 1x). He traded it for the scope to gain precision at range, but only once a suitable scope was made.

1x optics are nothing new (electronic ones are), he could have used one if he wanted, but he didn't. He choose low power (2-4x) scopes despite the obvious superiority of 1x at short range. I hunt with my 1x because for any practical shooting at less than 100-200 yards a 1x red dot is superior, even to a scout setup IMHO. What a 1x is poor at is the 200-500 yards which a scout .308 is useful for.

IMHO, the scout rifle needs a magnified optic to provide precision at distance. At distances between 200 and 500 yards (give or take), most people will shoot much better with a low power scope than a 1x in the field where targets are not nice white/red/orange pieces of paper. The BAC would significantly reduce the penalty of using a magnified optic for close range. IMHO, it reduces the penalty so much that I would push the magnification towards the upper limit (3-4x) to gain even more precision at distance.

I would use that mythical ACOG because it would provide better precision at distance due to increased magnification, but at less of a penalty for close range shooting than even a traditional scout scope setup would be. To each his own I guess.

[SgtBill]

I know and have used many a 7.62X51 weapons and rounds and I love the looks of this Ruger. If they ever bring it out in a .270 I will have one.
Bill

[Jakeiscrazy]

Real good info being posted here guys. The more I read, the more I'm warming up to the idea. Thanks, you don't see the scout concept pop up much.

[Mindflayer]

I was looking at a .308 bolt action one day, and this one looks interesting.

[Drewsifer]

When I first saw it I immediately thought "Oh man a semi-auto .308 scout rifle thing!" and then I saw the bolt. Really lowered my interest in it. I've heard less than stellar things about Ruger barrels, so I would be interested to see how this stacks up accuracy wise.

[grumpyMSG]

I know and have used many a 7.62X51 weapons and rounds and I love the looks of this Ruger. If they ever bring it out in a .270 I will have one.
Bill

Sorry to rain on the idea bill, but the .308 is a short action round and the .270 being based on the .30-06 is a long action round. It would just be a different barrel if you did it in .243, not quite the same, but close to what you want.

When I first saw it I immediately thought "Oh man a semi-auto .308 scout rifle thing!" and then I saw the bolt. Really lowered my interest in it. I've heard less than stellar things about Ruger barrels, so I would be interested to see how this stacks up accuracy wise.

One of the things that causes causes the accuracy issue with the Ruger rifles isn't present on this rifle, the band or clamp that is present on a lot of their rifles, two or three inches from the front of the stock and clamps around the barrel. The 10-22 rifles that are made without the band tend to shoot much better than those with it. Most of the people who have Model 77s of various types that I know tend to like them and find their accuracy to be acceptable.

[SgtBill]

Trust me grumpyMSG I know the dif. between a short action cart. and a long action cart. But I am speaking about a weapon like I gave to Vahunter a Remington 660 in 308 nice and short and handelable in the woods. Design a long action reciever for the Ruger Scout in .270 and I will get one.
Bill

[dontcallmeradio]

Saw a guy with one of these at Westside Rifle Range just outside of Harrisonburg, Gotta say I was impressed...But then i saw him put a EOtech 512 on it...looked a little too MW2 for me. And the mags are STUPID expensive.

ETA http://shopruger.com/Scout-308-Mag-M77- ... nfo/90352/