...because they shoot back.
That looks like a nice little budget "scout" setup that JR brought to the range. Makes me want a scout-type rifle again, a concept I find myself falling in and out of lust with on a fairly regular basis.
As it is, I have a few nice, light, handy carbines, but they all are still in military stocks and have some flaw or another that annoys me. The Chilean Mauser carbine is the lightest, at seven and a half pounds, and is barely an inch over three feet long, but it could use better sights; the military-style tangent is okay, but it's not done any favors in the sight radius department by that short carbine barrel. The Venezuelan FN 24/30 carbine is the same length, but a pound heavier due to the large-ring action, and suffers from the same sight issues.
I also have an FR-8, which is probably the pick of the litter for sights, with a nice aperture setup, and is short and just under eight pounds in weight, but it could use a bent bolt handle. Oh well...
Now I want to shoot rifles this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
The Scout still makes a lot of sense. Wish Savage would re-issue in SS, in LH and RH versions, in .308 and .223. AND with a Youth Stock option to fit smaller stature women/peoples.
Oh, yeah: takes either M-14 mags or AR-15 mags, too.
Not EEM-possuble, neither, given Savages highly developed parts interchangeability mfg and assembly process.
...and one could always doo-hit-yerownse'f, too,with Brownells and a bench.
Sidebar: the same rig in 7-08 and especially .260 Rem, with a lighter stock would be a sweet totin' shooter.
So much for Ayem coffee-dreams.
and Da WOID? latedest
Ooops: J t R
The Scout Rifle is at the top of the list of guns I want, but have never shot. Hell, I've never had a 10FCM in my hands - no shops around here carry them. I still want one though.
I want to like the Savage Scout, however I have yet to see one survive a general purpose rifle class. The Savages usually choke the first or second day. Granted this is my own experience, but if anyone has had a Savage survive I'd like to know about it (wierder things have happened, heck someone I know had a Mini-14 survive carbine class).
My last GPR class at TR one choked during the first exercise. Of course Steyr's are known for being fussy Krauts (ammo sensitive).
If there was a price point between the Steyr and the Savage, it would be a fair compromise. I've looked hard at the Ruger Frontier but have yet to pull the trigger.
"Now I want to shoot rifles this weekend."
Somehow I believe that will happen. :-) (I've yet to shoot that M-14 from Warbirds I got back in December).
Shootin' Buddy
You'd love my PseudoScout built from a M94 Swede. It digs deep holes.
Yes, it was Bubba'ed before I found it. I would never cripple a M94.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Woman! Where did you get a Chilean Mauser that size? I had an 1895 Chilean Mauser carbine, but it wasn't anywhere as short as that.
You're talking 1891 Argentine Mauser carbines, which are really special rifles.
Got a photo?
Ok, Ok, I see the photo over at Boomsticks. Doesn't look at all like the longer slender Chilean 95 carbine I had though. Yours looks like a chopped down full size rifle.
Weird.
Cute Venezualean though.
It's definitely a carbine. Looks just like the picture of the one in Mauser Military Rifles Of The World, right down to the sling swivels on the side of the stock.
Speaking of nice, light handy carbines, three of mine:
A stock 1909 Argentine carbine, bent bolt, of course, ladder-style sight graduated out to way beyond optimistic range. 7.65 Mauser, a hair over 46 inches overall, and just under 8 1/2 pounds with a full length stock and bayonet lug, sling swivels on the side. Bore is beautiful, and the matching bayonet gets folk's attention.
A Browning - made in Japan - Lever Action, light weight model 81. Leupold VX-III 1.5-5X scope. Whole rig just under 7 3/4 lbs and 40 inches overall. In .450 Marlin! It's now my bear rifle, and pulling that trigger with a round in the chamber gets your attention. It did once stop a on-coming Kodiak for me at damn near piddle myself distance. I clearly remember seeing what I thought was the pupil in the bear's eye.
One I picked up recently is so ugly it's almost cute. A Remington 600 rifle - that weird XP-100 action's bolt is interesting to look at. "How many times did they bend that?" A hair over 37 inches overall, and who the hell puts a vent rib - in plastic, no less - on a rifle, then a shark's dorsal fin front sight to boot! A very competent gunsmith years ago put on a Williams FP aperture receiver sight. To make it more odd-ball, it's in .35 Remington. ZOMG, with that sight, great trigger and pristine bore, this rife is just a delight to carry and shoot.
Yeah, the Model 600 in .308 was Jeff Cooper's (PBUH) scout #1. He had the scope mounted out on the vent rib. I can't bring myself to put a scope on mine.
Like Col. Cooper, I insist on the best trigger break possible. All three carbines have such.
Ah Tam, I too could learn to love my FR-8, IFFEN I could just figger them sights out! I musta fergot to pick up the majik pixie dust to make em work.
The 'scout rifle' is a great concept, with the exception of the scope idiocy.
How is the low-powered forward mounted optic idiocy?
It gives you both eyes, reduces optical disruption, prevents "hunter's ribbon" above the eye that the untrained present as some form of dueling scar, and above all it allows free access to the weapon's chamber and magazine well.
Please explain.
If it is any consolation, Les Bowman's version did not have the optic mounted forward.
Shootin' Buddy
The FR-8 is an awesome little rifle!
.308, bolt-action and reliable as heck. I took mine when I had one, on a hunting trip in Idaho. I still miss it.
D.
I would not call an IER scope "idiocy" but it is an acquired taste. I used one on a Mini-14 and it worked very well. The only problem being that I missed the versatility of a variable power receiver-mounted scope. So I swapped it for a Nikon Monarch 2x7, which gives the ability to drill down with the magnification if I need to.
Anonymous: you can't use both eyes with a scope mounted in front of your eye? I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that you were supposed to use both eyes with ALL types of sights...
Scope bite is a problem of mounting the scope too close to your cheek weld, usually because you got one with not enough eye-relief.
Speaking of eye-relief, you can certainly get a decent picture looking through a forward-mounted scope (though it'll be smaller than if it were closer to you), but I have two problems with it: flexibility and sight picture. On flexibility, it seems higher power and widely adjustable scopes don't work very well in that position--though from what I understand a low-power/fixed scope is the intent of the scout concept. Which is fine, but still leaves us with the problem of positioning. You simply have less wiggle room when it comes to the sight picture, and a hasty or inconsistent cheeck weld will leave you seeing less of the picture with a forward mount scope than with a rear mount. Parallax is a problem not just between the scope and the target, but between the eye and the scope. 1 minute of angle off isn't so bad when it's right in front of you, but when it's a foot away the minute of angle translates into that much farther off center.
Personally, my biggest gripe with the forward-mount scope is glare. I live in southern CA where the sun is always shining. Under the roof at the range it's not a problem, but when you're prone in the sand and it's high noon--I'll be damned if I could see godzilla through a scout scope. I know it can be a problem with rear-mount scopes, too, but it's nowhere near as bad and easily remedied with the brim of your hat.
In my opinion, if you want a low-power optical sight that is fast and non-cumbersome, stick with a red-dot sight or an ACOG. And don't get any silly ideas of mounting those halfway down the barrel. I can just see it now: a giant 2" diameter 1.5x red-dot sight affixed in place of the front sight. ;)
There are plenty of people who use forward-mount scopes with great success, but imho the pros are outweighed by their cons. As always, though, ymmv.
Re-reading my comment I see that I did not express myself well in regards to the sight picture and your alignment to the scope:
Parallax is not the problem; occlusion of the sight picture is the problem I was trying to communicate.
I kept both eyes open that day and put the gong through its paces.
Thanks for the linkie, Tam. :)
I saw an article once in which the author had made budget scout rifles from a Swedish and, I think, Spanish Mauser. He used telescope sights mounted on the tangent sight bases. One of the aftermarket companies made the mounts, can't recall which.
I even think I may have a mount for a Swedish one here someplace.
Shootin' buddy,
thanks for the durability comments on the Savage Scout. If you know of any web reports on what breaks,I'll be happy to read them.
thanks,
John the Red
I'd love to take out my FR8, but I'm down to critical levels of 7.62. And getting more that's not specialty hunting ammo just isn't happening.
Post a Comment