misses are commonplace in combat,and for RIFLE type fighting, so are multiple enemies. Furthermore, proper use of cover demands that a fighting rifle be usable from either shoulder, which leaves out the bolt action. Jeff himself insists upon rapid hits on multiple targets with the pistol. Why would this need disappear just because you happen to be using a rifle instead? For a rifle to be TRULY versatile, it needs a .22 conversion unit, a blast reducer,a nd it needs to be concealable in an attache case or gym bag, because most of the "high-value" targets are in urban environments. To say that the possessor of a good rifle is a citizen rather than a subject is to imply that such a gun's owner is able to resist tyranny to an EFFECTIVE degree. What else CAN this mean but firing upon Big Brother's minions? If you try THAT with a Scout, you will shortly become a martyr.
Cooper is nuts to say Scout Rifle is a fighting pc
- Thread starter Hardin
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
A thought provoking thread. And I'm sure there's a point here. We'll have to ponder on this.
Rich
Rich
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
So a .308 caliber rifle isnt Truely Versitle unless you can get a .22 conversion kit for it? Dang - there goes all our Lever Action rifles...
Hardin - I think your missing Cooper's point and idea of what he means by versitle - just because it doesnt mesh with YOUR idea of versitility does not mean that its not TRUELY versitile or that Cooper is NUTS.
Your idea of versitile would leave me rather lacking should I be facing a charging largish dangerous african beast of any variety - Lion, Elephant, Buff...
An AR-15, as you have hinted at, is far from Versitile - It wont even bag North American game with effective and humane kills. White Tail - Maybe. Mule, Elk, Bear, Feral Hog... heck even pissed off Badger... all out of a .223 league.
Hardin - I think your missing Cooper's point and idea of what he means by versitle - just because it doesnt mesh with YOUR idea of versitility does not mean that its not TRUELY versitile or that Cooper is NUTS.
Your idea of versitile would leave me rather lacking should I be facing a charging largish dangerous african beast of any variety - Lion, Elephant, Buff...
An AR-15, as you have hinted at, is far from Versitile - It wont even bag North American game with effective and humane kills. White Tail - Maybe. Mule, Elk, Bear, Feral Hog... heck even pissed off Badger... all out of a .223 league.
So what wonder weapon fits into a gymbag will allow you, by your lonesome, to take on at least a light infantry squad and escape martyrdom? A Barret M82 chopped into 12 peices? Then again, maybe you won't get that squad into the center of a field 2000 yards across. Look, as much as you want to believe your AR (or FAL or HK or whatever you've got) is better than a boltgun, remember the whole scout rifle premise (whether you buy it or not) is a rifle good for anything up to small elk size (which just happens to include humans) within 300 yds or so, along with all the rest of Cooper's criteria for the rifle. Tell me you're not shooting at elk with a 223. Go ahead and keep thinking you're going to successfuly engage and defeat a group of infantry with your AR.
Destructo6
New member
Cooper is crackers for suggesting that a Scout, along with any other bolt gun and 90% of auto loaders, is good as a combat weapon other than in a quick shoot and scoot manuever or for getting a better weapon.
On the other hand, every weapon has it's place and a Scout could probably be used as well as most in a shoot and scoot.
On the other hand, every weapon has it's place and a Scout could probably be used as well as most in a shoot and scoot.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Come on - You guys are talking BATTLE RIFLES when Cooper is talking just a plain old General Purpose jack of all trades rifle.
If you want a weapon that will do everything - your looking at an HK 21EK backed up with an underbarrel MLRS system...
If you want a weapon that will do everything - your looking at an HK 21EK backed up with an underbarrel MLRS system...
Jody Hudson
New member
Personally, after selling my H&Ks, my Scout Rifles, and several others... I have what is for me the most versatile all-purpose rifle I've ever owned. The Daewoo K5 pistol grip with pull out wire frame. It is an AR-15 that works, reliable, accurate, light, and WILL fit in a gym bag. Also with surplus .223 it is almost as cheap as shooting a .22 conversion unit system.
I did like my .308 Scout; preferred the ghost ring. I loved my OLD Marlin Lever 30-30 but the new ones (4 of them last year) just don't have any where near the accuracy. And, as an avid H&K lover for years -- the HK is just too heavy for me, but awesome they are.
When I pared down my rifles, pistols and shotguns to just a few... I ended up with the finest (although smallest) collection of firearms I've had since I was about 12 years old. TPH, Makarov, Mossberg, Daewoo! Planning to add a Glock 30 now though because of the .45 SMC by Triton!!!
I did like my .308 Scout; preferred the ghost ring. I loved my OLD Marlin Lever 30-30 but the new ones (4 of them last year) just don't have any where near the accuracy. And, as an avid H&K lover for years -- the HK is just too heavy for me, but awesome they are.
When I pared down my rifles, pistols and shotguns to just a few... I ended up with the finest (although smallest) collection of firearms I've had since I was about 12 years old. TPH, Makarov, Mossberg, Daewoo! Planning to add a Glock 30 now though because of the .45 SMC by Triton!!!
That also leaves out the bullpup, but the French, British, and Austrian armies seem to disagree.
If you're going to be a lone resistance fighter, you'd better adopt the "shoot and scoot" strategy as others have noted -- and the Scout is perfectly suited for that role. If you try to stand your ground and shoot it out with whatever Big Brother can throw at you, you won't last long, regardless of what rifle you're using.
That's a good question. I think that Jeff believes that a well-trained rifleman can work a bolt action fast enough to make rapid hits on multiple targets. Also, a light, handy rifle like the Scout is more likely to be actually at the ready when the need arises than a heavier rifle that might be slung.
BTW, how are you going to make those rapid hits if your "TRULY versatile" rifle is stowed in a gym bag?
Also, it's worth noting that Jeff's list of requirements for the Scout do not mandate that it be a bolt action. Quote: "If a semi-automatic action were made which was sufficiently compact and otherwise acceptable, it should certainly be considered, but at this time there is no such action available". (To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth, page 140)
Derek Zeanah
New member
Hardin,
I don't agree with your assessment.
First, a Cooper quote:
Read what the guy has to say. He thinks that rifles like the general-purpose rifle have no place (or at least a limited role) in modern armies, especially when the powers-that-be aren't willing to invest in enough training to turn inexperienced city boys into marksmen (if such a thing is even possible). This is appropriate in an age where 90% of battlefield casualties are the result of a radio call – "Adjust fire, over."
The problem is that in any engagement any of us are likely to see (assuming our infantry days are behind us) we'll be standing alone, or with the few friends we trust enough to train with. If it's you and your four closest friends against a numerically superior force, it's suicidal to try and establish fire superiority, even if you could get select-fire weapons (ambushes may be the exception here, but claymores or improvised munitions may be much more effective in this situation anyway).
It's a misuse of the term, but "sniping" would be a better approach in a "man alone" scenario, or one where it's a small force against a much larger one. If your combatants can hit what they're aiming at, are firing an effective round, have the discipline to limit their fire to one or two rounds per location, and have the field skills to move undetected to another firing position, then you have a team that's got an incredibly high lethality, even against a numerically superior force. Or at least, that's the theory.
If the theory is correct, then a scout rifle is an excellent arm for the task. If you disagree, then you'll choose to arm yourself differently. You have to admit that the idea has some merit though.
I'm sorry; I don't know what you're trying to say here. Is that your definition of "TRULY versatile," intended to combat Cooper's definition of a Scout? If so, "what's it for?"
Personal observation: I did my time as an 11C almost a decade ago, and my inability to hang in a high-speed unit (shoulders dislocate way too easily) meant I got assigned to an armored unit in Deutschland. We were the only infantry platoon in the battalion (4.2" Mortars), so we got tapped every time the line companies had to do their yearly testing (ARTEP?) We used to tear them up – in the worst example a .45 Government Model killed five M1 Abrams tanks. A .308 bolt action would have performed nicely, thank you.
It's a question of tactics – you're right in that trying to apply current military doctrine to an army armed with bolt-action rifles would be insanely stupid. You're wrong to assume there's only one way to fight.
Your problem here isn't with the arm in question, as much less can be used effectively (see earlier example). Your problem here is that you haven't thought about your scenarios creatively -- if TSHTF and you fight the way your enemy fights, you've lost before the first round is fired.
Oh – one more Cooper quote:
Having said all that, if I had to walk into the "man alone" scanario, I might still choose an M1 over a Scout rifle. Maybe.
I don't agree with your assessment.
First, a Cooper quote:
Read what the guy has to say. He thinks that rifles like the general-purpose rifle have no place (or at least a limited role) in modern armies, especially when the powers-that-be aren't willing to invest in enough training to turn inexperienced city boys into marksmen (if such a thing is even possible). This is appropriate in an age where 90% of battlefield casualties are the result of a radio call – "Adjust fire, over."
The problem is that in any engagement any of us are likely to see (assuming our infantry days are behind us) we'll be standing alone, or with the few friends we trust enough to train with. If it's you and your four closest friends against a numerically superior force, it's suicidal to try and establish fire superiority, even if you could get select-fire weapons (ambushes may be the exception here, but claymores or improvised munitions may be much more effective in this situation anyway).
It's a misuse of the term, but "sniping" would be a better approach in a "man alone" scenario, or one where it's a small force against a much larger one. If your combatants can hit what they're aiming at, are firing an effective round, have the discipline to limit their fire to one or two rounds per location, and have the field skills to move undetected to another firing position, then you have a team that's got an incredibly high lethality, even against a numerically superior force. Or at least, that's the theory.
If the theory is correct, then a scout rifle is an excellent arm for the task. If you disagree, then you'll choose to arm yourself differently. You have to admit that the idea has some merit though.
I'm sorry; I don't know what you're trying to say here. Is that your definition of "TRULY versatile," intended to combat Cooper's definition of a Scout? If so, "what's it for?"
Personal observation: I did my time as an 11C almost a decade ago, and my inability to hang in a high-speed unit (shoulders dislocate way too easily) meant I got assigned to an armored unit in Deutschland. We were the only infantry platoon in the battalion (4.2" Mortars), so we got tapped every time the line companies had to do their yearly testing (ARTEP?) We used to tear them up – in the worst example a .45 Government Model killed five M1 Abrams tanks. A .308 bolt action would have performed nicely, thank you.
It's a question of tactics – you're right in that trying to apply current military doctrine to an army armed with bolt-action rifles would be insanely stupid. You're wrong to assume there's only one way to fight.
Your problem here isn't with the arm in question, as much less can be used effectively (see earlier example). Your problem here is that you haven't thought about your scenarios creatively -- if TSHTF and you fight the way your enemy fights, you've lost before the first round is fired.
Oh – one more Cooper quote:
Having said all that, if I had to walk into the "man alone" scanario, I might still choose an M1 over a Scout rifle. Maybe.
who says it would take a squad?
All it would take is 2 guys popping up at sub 100m with 22 auto rifles, ak's etc, and the bolt user is a loser, most likely. Why limit yourself like that? The 11" CAR fits nicely into an attache case when disassembled, and the sniper who is inside a van, or a room can count upon the 10 secs of privacy necessary to assemble the upper to the lower. Safe to leave a rd chambered and a mag in the well. A 308 bolt would not comfort many who have faced animal charges, because the head shot is still what is required. How do you consider a 308 to an elk's chest a more humane kill than a 223 sp that explodes his skull? It's just a question of range and ability then,true? If it was NECESSARY to take elk, it would be so only 1-2 times a year, because that is a LOT of meat, and it is easier to trap, snare, net fish, turtles, birds, small critters, and get FRESH meat, instead of eatiing all that elk jerky!If you are LIVIING out there with elk, you will get several good brainshots per year. For that matter, you can foot snare them to a drag log,and then brain them with a .22 after they are exhausted.It is not NECESSARY to sport hunt,ya see, so that aspect of versatility is not really an issue. Put a blast reducer on the CAR, and that infantry squad may well be CLUELESS as to where to fire charge, and the military wont likely be wasting squads like that anyway. The CAr COMES threaded, thanks. Go have a local machinist thread your Scout, and SEE who comes to see you!
All it would take is 2 guys popping up at sub 100m with 22 auto rifles, ak's etc, and the bolt user is a loser, most likely. Why limit yourself like that? The 11" CAR fits nicely into an attache case when disassembled, and the sniper who is inside a van, or a room can count upon the 10 secs of privacy necessary to assemble the upper to the lower. Safe to leave a rd chambered and a mag in the well. A 308 bolt would not comfort many who have faced animal charges, because the head shot is still what is required. How do you consider a 308 to an elk's chest a more humane kill than a 223 sp that explodes his skull? It's just a question of range and ability then,true? If it was NECESSARY to take elk, it would be so only 1-2 times a year, because that is a LOT of meat, and it is easier to trap, snare, net fish, turtles, birds, small critters, and get FRESH meat, instead of eatiing all that elk jerky!If you are LIVIING out there with elk, you will get several good brainshots per year. For that matter, you can foot snare them to a drag log,and then brain them with a .22 after they are exhausted.It is not NECESSARY to sport hunt,ya see, so that aspect of versatility is not really an issue. Put a blast reducer on the CAR, and that infantry squad may well be CLUELESS as to where to fire charge, and the military wont likely be wasting squads like that anyway. The CAr COMES threaded, thanks. Go have a local machinist thread your Scout, and SEE who comes to see you!
I enjoy Jeff Cooper a lot...
JC is a renaissance man. He would agree with that, in fact, he would be flattered by that. Unfortunately, the renaissance happened five hundred years ago.
I love the Colt 45 Auto as much as he does, but I do not pretend that it is the absolute best pistol for every use. Remember, cowboys still wear gunbelts in AZ. How many of you can wear a cowboy rig around your town? Jeff can.
I also take issue with his disparagement of the Colt AR15, but I can live with it, as long as he's big enough to take my disparagement of his glorified jungle carbine.
[Edited by BigG on 12-31-2000 at 04:20 PM]
JC is a renaissance man. He would agree with that, in fact, he would be flattered by that. Unfortunately, the renaissance happened five hundred years ago.
I love the Colt 45 Auto as much as he does, but I do not pretend that it is the absolute best pistol for every use. Remember, cowboys still wear gunbelts in AZ. How many of you can wear a cowboy rig around your town? Jeff can.
I also take issue with his disparagement of the Colt AR15, but I can live with it, as long as he's big enough to take my disparagement of his glorified jungle carbine.
[Edited by BigG on 12-31-2000 at 04:20 PM]
Well this seems to be more a question of tactics and doctrine than role of a rifle.
I suggest reading Che Guevara's Guerilla Warfare which the US military thinks enough of to have translated.
You might be surprised to note what weapons mix Che recomends.
Mindset, knowledge, & skills are far more important than tools. If you study & practice war, combat, auto mechanics, or medicine [or whatever] seriously you will soon realize that while a skilled operator will certainly pick a good tool for the job at hand if he/she has the time and resources to do so...they can still a very good job with less than perfect tools.
You asked why Cooper talks about rapid hits on multiple targets with the pistol but doesn't seem concerned about it with a rifle. For Cooper the rifle and handgun fill different roles. The pistol is for surprise defense at close range. Close range makes hitting easier even for unskilled shooters hence the need for speed up close. The Rifle is for long range precision & power. At long range skill is much more of a factor in hitting & Cooper does believe in speed. The thing is with a rifle his thinking seems to be that a single hit per target is all that is needed. And that a Scout rifle or Modern Sporter makes single hits per target much easier under field condition at true rifle range.
As to the two goblins popping up at less than 100 yards with SMG's or assualt rifles. If you studied infantry tactics you would know how to move the odds in your favor to start with. Movement outside in combat situations is basically the same as clearing a building. Except the engagement ranges can be a lot longer. You would move from one postion of cover to another. After searching for target indicators. And you wouldn't simply move from one spot to another because you got bored. You would move to a spot that allows you to scan a new section. And you would also plan your route to avoid kill zones.
Not to mention you wouldn't just be strolling along like you were walking in the mall. You would be using cover and concealment as you moved.
I would also note that if your fighting multiple opponents solo, or even with a buddy, your mobilityy is probably more important than your rifle.
I suggest reading Che Guevara's Guerilla Warfare which the US military thinks enough of to have translated.
You might be surprised to note what weapons mix Che recomends.
Mindset, knowledge, & skills are far more important than tools. If you study & practice war, combat, auto mechanics, or medicine [or whatever] seriously you will soon realize that while a skilled operator will certainly pick a good tool for the job at hand if he/she has the time and resources to do so...they can still a very good job with less than perfect tools.
You asked why Cooper talks about rapid hits on multiple targets with the pistol but doesn't seem concerned about it with a rifle. For Cooper the rifle and handgun fill different roles. The pistol is for surprise defense at close range. Close range makes hitting easier even for unskilled shooters hence the need for speed up close. The Rifle is for long range precision & power. At long range skill is much more of a factor in hitting & Cooper does believe in speed. The thing is with a rifle his thinking seems to be that a single hit per target is all that is needed. And that a Scout rifle or Modern Sporter makes single hits per target much easier under field condition at true rifle range.
As to the two goblins popping up at less than 100 yards with SMG's or assualt rifles. If you studied infantry tactics you would know how to move the odds in your favor to start with. Movement outside in combat situations is basically the same as clearing a building. Except the engagement ranges can be a lot longer. You would move from one postion of cover to another. After searching for target indicators. And you wouldn't simply move from one spot to another because you got bored. You would move to a spot that allows you to scan a new section. And you would also plan your route to avoid kill zones.
Not to mention you wouldn't just be strolling along like you were walking in the mall. You would be using cover and concealment as you moved.
I would also note that if your fighting multiple opponents solo, or even with a buddy, your mobilityy is probably more important than your rifle.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Hardin,
Do a search and look up WHITE FEATHER...
He did just fine against adversaries armed with all kinds of autorifles... and he did it with a Bolt action rifle.
Pilots have often said it and proven it true - its not the plane - its the pilot.
If you cant do it with a bolt action rifle - then you cant do it.
Do a search and look up WHITE FEATHER...
He did just fine against adversaries armed with all kinds of autorifles... and he did it with a Bolt action rifle.
Pilots have often said it and proven it true - its not the plane - its the pilot.
If you cant do it with a bolt action rifle - then you cant do it.
da bolt gun
George is right again. We're not talking about firepower supremacy just hitting our target and moving on. This is not like perforating a BG with multiple pistol rounds to take him out of action. I prefer the accuracy concept over the currently popular "spray and pray" mode.
George is right again. We're not talking about firepower supremacy just hitting our target and moving on. This is not like perforating a BG with multiple pistol rounds to take him out of action. I prefer the accuracy concept over the currently popular "spray and pray" mode.
Destructo6
New member
I don't buy that equipment has nothing to do with success and failure.
Greg "Pappy" Boyington (WW2 quadruple+ ace and CMH recipient) in his F4U Corsair is going to have a really bad day fighting against a wet behind the ears 1st Lt in a new F15.
Gear isn't all things and it isn't nothing. Certainly attitude and experience can compensate, to some degree, for inferior equipment, but the equipment is still a big factor.
(why are my apostrophe's turning into question marks?)
[Edited by Destructo6 on 12-31-2000 at 11:23 PM]
Greg "Pappy" Boyington (WW2 quadruple+ ace and CMH recipient) in his F4U Corsair is going to have a really bad day fighting against a wet behind the ears 1st Lt in a new F15.
Gear isn't all things and it isn't nothing. Certainly attitude and experience can compensate, to some degree, for inferior equipment, but the equipment is still a big factor.
(why are my apostrophe's turning into question marks?)
[Edited by Destructo6 on 12-31-2000 at 11:23 PM]
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Those who have been denying the validity of Cooper's thoughts do not seem to have really thought through what he has actually said about the Scout Rifle concept. I suggest re-reading his comments.
For one thing, he certainly has never described it as "the" weapon for an urban environment. Since the *primary* purpose is hunting and only secondarily for defense, his concept is quite viable in the General Purpose sense. And in the expected number of years ahead before urban combat is probable, I'd say that I'd rather hunt with a Scout than with an FAL, etc. (And for survival meat, I'd suggest a .22 rimfire, targeting sheep, goats, dogs or calves.)
Even in a city, if quick response to achieve a hit at, say, 50 or more yards is necessary, it would work better than a handgun or sub-gun. From what Cooper has written in numerous articles over many years, if you're considering hostiles within 20 yards you'll first "think pistol".
And there are those of us who do NOT live in an urban environment. What might be called "pre-emptive" self defense could well be at ranges of 400 or 500 yards. "Briefcase" guns would be like unto piddling in the whiskey, which is not conducive to happiness.
"General purpose" means just that. No general purpose item, be it gun, car or horse, is intended to be the best for some specific, limited situation or usage.
Regards, Art
P.S. The British teams fired as rapidly as the US teams at rifle matches in the 1930s, and scores were quite competitive. The Brits used Enfields; the US teams used Garands.
A
For one thing, he certainly has never described it as "the" weapon for an urban environment. Since the *primary* purpose is hunting and only secondarily for defense, his concept is quite viable in the General Purpose sense. And in the expected number of years ahead before urban combat is probable, I'd say that I'd rather hunt with a Scout than with an FAL, etc. (And for survival meat, I'd suggest a .22 rimfire, targeting sheep, goats, dogs or calves.)
Even in a city, if quick response to achieve a hit at, say, 50 or more yards is necessary, it would work better than a handgun or sub-gun. From what Cooper has written in numerous articles over many years, if you're considering hostiles within 20 yards you'll first "think pistol".
And there are those of us who do NOT live in an urban environment. What might be called "pre-emptive" self defense could well be at ranges of 400 or 500 yards. "Briefcase" guns would be like unto piddling in the whiskey, which is not conducive to happiness.
"General purpose" means just that. No general purpose item, be it gun, car or horse, is intended to be the best for some specific, limited situation or usage.
Regards, Art
P.S. The British teams fired as rapidly as the US teams at rifle matches in the 1930s, and scores were quite competitive. The Brits used Enfields; the US teams used Garands.
A
Which brings up a question...
got any good dog recipes, Uncle Art??
I think Destructo6 kinda summed up what I was trying to say before: under controlled conditions a bolt gun would be a great weapon for general purposes. However, it is certainly inferior to the poodle shooter in the hands of a man who knows how to use one. Cooper does not give any creedence to anyone who disagrees with him. Similarly the Colt 45 Auto, great target gun. Not so great for deep concealment, no matter how much you cut off the slide.
got any good dog recipes, Uncle Art??
I think Destructo6 kinda summed up what I was trying to say before: under controlled conditions a bolt gun would be a great weapon for general purposes. However, it is certainly inferior to the poodle shooter in the hands of a man who knows how to use one. Cooper does not give any creedence to anyone who disagrees with him. Similarly the Colt 45 Auto, great target gun. Not so great for deep concealment, no matter how much you cut off the slide.
Derek Zeanah
New member
Not quite sure what you're saying here -- as a matter of fact I think Cooper is saying just the opposite: a rifle is a "patrician" arm (his term), and a "poodle shooter" is more the tool of the masses. He said something along the lines of "no man can do with an assault carbine what he can do with a Rifle, but if what he can do with a rifle is not much, then the carbine may serve his needs adequately." Something like "if you can't shoot well, shoot often."
I think the M16 is a great tool for certain situations -- suppressive fire particularly, as well as house clearing -- but it really is limited by its cartridge. Some in this thread are talking about urban combat: from the numbers I've seen, a car counts as "cover" if your opponents are shooting .223, but it's only concealment if they're shooting .308 or 30-06. Think back to stories from WWII about BARs (30-06) shooting through brick walls. Or 30-06 AP rounds shooting through 30+ inches of Oak. It's worth considering.
As is the stopping power of the round. What I've read (Blackhawk Down, Ultimate Sniper, etc) seems to indicate that an adversary shot in the torso with 5.56 has a much greater chance of continuing to fight than one shot with 7.62. I've never been shot with either, but the point has been made by others in a number of circumstances. If you're playing "shoot and scoot," you'd better make sure you maximize the effect of every round.
We've all got opinions here, I know. Just thought it was a point worth making.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Well, BigG, there ain't as much breast meat as there is on a Whooping Crane, but the hams are about the same size. I usually cook my meat "medium".
I don't argue at all about your poodleshooter/bolt gun point, but I don't think that's the part of the issue that Cooper was talking about. What seems to gripe Cooper is when people disagree with what he DIDN'T say. I sure can't blame him for that!
Again, between Now and any Bad Times in some possibly-distant future, the bolt gun is more useful than the poodleshooter for varmint and deer-type hunting--in large part due to its being a .308 instead of a .223.
And really, all that Cooper ever said is that the forward scope-mount idea makes for faster target acquisition, and even the low power is adequate for longer shots from a rest. (My personal problem is 50 years of conventional scope-mounting usage.) I can readily see that keeping both eyes open and bringing up a low-power scope into one's line of sight can be very, very fast. It's similar to combat shooting with a pistol; "Front sight, press." In this case, "Cross-hairs, press."
He tossed in the seven-pound limit, which is what my Sako weighs; also the one-meter length--again, just like my Sako. (My Sako happens to be a .243 with a Leupold 2X7.) He also said that a bipod is nice but not mandatory.
The main reason I'm not in the market for a Scout is that I find it to be, aesthetically, a horror show. It's plumb yougly! But Cooper didn't design the stock...
Later, Art
I don't argue at all about your poodleshooter/bolt gun point, but I don't think that's the part of the issue that Cooper was talking about. What seems to gripe Cooper is when people disagree with what he DIDN'T say. I sure can't blame him for that!
Again, between Now and any Bad Times in some possibly-distant future, the bolt gun is more useful than the poodleshooter for varmint and deer-type hunting--in large part due to its being a .308 instead of a .223.
And really, all that Cooper ever said is that the forward scope-mount idea makes for faster target acquisition, and even the low power is adequate for longer shots from a rest. (My personal problem is 50 years of conventional scope-mounting usage.) I can readily see that keeping both eyes open and bringing up a low-power scope into one's line of sight can be very, very fast. It's similar to combat shooting with a pistol; "Front sight, press." In this case, "Cross-hairs, press."
He tossed in the seven-pound limit, which is what my Sako weighs; also the one-meter length--again, just like my Sako. (My Sako happens to be a .243 with a Leupold 2X7.) He also said that a bipod is nice but not mandatory.
The main reason I'm not in the market for a Scout is that I find it to be, aesthetically, a horror show. It's plumb yougly! But Cooper didn't design the stock...
Later, Art