Rem700 "tactical" with forward mount scope

[thaddeus]

I am intrigued by the concept of a scout rifle, because realisitcally I will never shoot past 300 yards anyway, and the scout rules the 100-300 yard domain.

So, I was thinking of getting the Rem700 Tactical with the 20" fluted barrel (weighs 7.5 pounds), DM, etc, and putting a forward mounted scope on it.

Does this sound like a good idea?
If I put the forward mount on it, and later change, can I put a regular scope on it?

thanks,
thaddeus

 

[swifter...]

If you remove the forward mount, I don't see why it'd be a problem to mount a scope on the receiver, assuming that Remmie drills and taps it like they do other 700s. If its in .308, with a 20" barrel, plan to handload for it. I have an 18" barreled Mohawk 600, and while it does "ok" with factory, it loves a quicker powder. Makes the muzzle flash smaller than a refrigerator, too...

------------------
Shoot carefully... swifter...

 

[AC]

I think you are missing the point. If the rifle weighs 7.5 lbs sans scope, your scout rifle will weigh 8.5 lbs instead of 7lbs ready to use. Why don't you put a scout scope on a M7 Rem or buy one of the new Savage rifles? I don't know what the Savage weighs but hopefully they stuck to the concept.

 

[thaddeus]

The Savage Scout weighs about 6.5 pounds without the scope and rings or bipod.
I didn't think that a pound or so would make the difference. I am not trying to join a club but just build a versatile rifle. If the extra pound means I don't get to join the Cooper club, then I guess I will just have a lightweight, medium range, fast rifle. I'll call it a Snout instead of a Scout.
What I see is a rifle that fits all the other parameters but is a nail driver. People that own the Styer Scout say it doesn't shoot _that_ precise of groups, but owners of the Rem700 Light Tac claim it can stack bullets.
I appreciate the comments, but maybe we got hungup on the technical outline of a conceptual rifle. If I place the Scout-style scope on the rifle, I have lost none of it's accuracy in medium rifle range, but have dramatically increased it's speed.
Please, more comments are welcome, maybe I am on the wrong track.

[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited April 18, 1999).]

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Thad-
On first blush, I agree with AC. The system would be *way* over Scout weight. On further consideration, I recognize that you are just under Hulk size. (I doubt AC is aware of this). I'd guesstimate your Scout weight at around 9-10 lbs.
Rich

 

[Dave Finfrock]

The idea behind a weight limit was to make the rifle easy to carry and discourage potential makers from cluttering the concept up with unecessary gadgets. Pseudo-scouts run the gamut, though, and I personally like the Springfield Scouts, though they run heavy.

I haven't seen any SS owner complain about accuracy. Mine will practically cut clover leaves with it's preferred ammo. It certainly shoots as well or better than my Steyr PII.

In the end, the Scout concept was for an ideal general purpose rifle. Certain concepts of the Scout can certainly be employed to improve the flexibility of other rifles. In addition, the SS in particular can be adapted to other rolls as well. The long mounting rail of the SS just begs for a night vision sight. At least my friends tell me it does...

 

[AC]

Thaddeus,
You are right about the accuracy. I had to work my butt off with both rifle modifications [bedding and recrowning, plus firelapping] and load testing to get sub 2" five shot hundred yard averages with a M7 but I finally got there. I guess each of us individually must decide where to draw the lines. For my own part I have noticed that a seven pound rifle mounts more quickly than an over eight pounder. If I were going to a heavier more accurate rifle, more of a sniping weapon, I would also be inclined to put a higher power standard scope on it. BTW the three point sling system really does improve my shooting from the seated position.

If you have not considered it, you might want to make up a scout rifle from a Winchester M94 or Marlin 336. I have done this and absolutely love the result. The downside is not having a shooting sling and slower lock time. The upside is that it is easier to carry with the slim reciever, faster into action and faster on repeat shots. The trick is to get the scope mounted low enough for the lever action's comb. If you don't have the proper height, it is not fast at all any more. Levers are more finicky than bolt actions usually are, so only do this if you are prepared to handload or you run the real risk of being disappointed with the accuracy.

You mentioned that the scout rules the 100-300yd domain. I don't agree with that. It seems to me that they rule in the first hundred yards and serve fine out to 300. If you gave me a 150 yd shot at a deer with time to set up [only a few seconds, I'm not talking about sandbags here] I would prefer a standard length, standard weight .308 with a higher power scope [even just a 4x]. But if a buck explodes from cover at 30 yds and I've got to take him before he gets into more cover 20 yds ahead, I'll take the scout every time.

I think this is why scouts haven't caught on with many people. They don't see any advantages. If I hunted antelope and mule deer in Wyoming, I think I would prefer a standard bolt action. People also generally think more scope power is better for any situation and don't have enough rifle experience to ever be able to handle really quick rifle work. Many hunt exclusively from stands. That is all just my opinion, of course. I do have considerable range and hunting time with scouts, though, and am a still hunter at heart.

 

[thaddeus]

Thanks all...some interesting points.

I guess where I am coming from is that I played with the SS and I loved the glass setup more than anything else.
I don't see myself having any need to make a shot past, say, 300 yards max, and probably never past 200, so I don't want anything more than a 3 or 4 power scope. What I do want though, is a scope that grabs in light and aquires quickly.
Setting aside the "scout" concept so we don't get hung up on it, is there any reason NOT to get a forward mount and put a good clear, low power scope on the Rem700 Light Tactical for faster aquisition and wider field of view?
As it is, I am probably going to stick to lower power, high quality glass. So, if I am going to stick to low power glass, why not put a forward mounted scout scope on it and get the rest of the benefits from that style of scope?


That said, the Rem 700 Light-Tac, other than being a pound or so overweight fits a lot of the specs for a 'scout' rifle: Detachable mag, carbine length, dual sling mounts for bipod and...(are there any other qualifications?).
It will come out a bit heavy if I put a Harris bipod on it (which I don't plan to), but only ounces heavier than many other rifles that claim to be "scout rifles".
Let's just say I am trying to build a relatively light, very accurate, short to medium range, fast aquisition hunting/counter-sniper rifle.


So, back to the question. Are there any reasons NOT to forward mount the scope, scout-style? I can only think of the many reasons that this would be beneficial. But, there is no free lunch, so someone please tell me why I would be sorry if I went this route, and what are the drawbacks of a forward mounted scout scope?

I apologize that I am having trouble getting my question across. I think we got hung up on semantics and technicalities because I did not ask a direct enough question. My question boils down to just the bonuses and drawbacks of using a forward mounted scope for medium range.

thanks,
thaddeus



[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited April 19, 1999).]

 

[thaddeus]

PS- I agree, AC, that the scout is more for closer in work than what I stated. I guess I really don't want a scout rifle, but something a little longer range, and still light and quick.

 

[AC]

Thaddeus, If you would put a 3x on a standard mount or a 2.75x in a forward mount, then no, there are no disadvantages to the scout scope. Advantages would be no hand interference when bolt cycling and easy magazine access. Bolt cycling is probably faster and definitely more sure as you are never banging your fingers on the scope.

The only disadvantage would be if you wanted more power for those more distant shots or for trying to hit really small objects or small varmints.

You may find it isn't faster into alignment than a low power mounted over the receiver. I do not know this for a fact but low power scopes over the receiver are very fast, too.

I had thought of mounting scout scopes on my standard size bolt actions; I did add the intermediate swivel to them. After some more experience in the field I was glad I didn't do this. Higher scope power is an advantage on longer shots, I have decided.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Thad-
I love my Steyr Scout and the forward mount scope. However, as Mad Dog and Harry Humphries have pointed out (and I've demonstrated in the field), forward mounts do have very real limitations: They are specifically poor in low light, fog or rain. The first two conditions are common in early morning hunts.

As an alternative, look in this Forum for the thread referenced by http://www.thefiringline.com/NonCGI/Forum3/HTML/000296.html . Mad Dog describes a Scout concept rifle that will sport a QD conventional scope that can be quickly exchanged with a QD Aimpoint CompM. Built on the Winchester Model 70 Featherweight, it too comes in a bit heavier than Cooper's Scout requirements. But it's gonna be a *real* versatile shooter. (It's also gonna be *mine* )
Rich

 

[thaddeus]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. I am seeing the benefits of sticking with the standard scope mount.
What I could do is something similar to Rich's idea with the Aimpoint, or I could put some Ashley express iron sights on there with a QD scope, and use whatever fits the moment. I am pretty darn good with iron sights.
I am going to start another thread on scopes, because I have become convinced (possibly wrongly) that a fixed power scope is better than the popular variable. Also, I have becomen convinced (possibly wrongly) through use and hearsay that most people end up using the low power setting on their variable scopes anyway.

thanks,
thaddeus