Ruger Gunsight Scout…Anybody have one?

[OkieJoe]

Just looking for input if anyone has experience with the Ruger Gunsight Scout. I was watching a review by Hickock45 this morning, and he has high praises for it. Why is the picatinny rail forward on the barrel? Is it for extreme eye relief? Could the rail on the barrel instead of the receiver affect accuracy?

 

[conditionzero]

I think there are probably better scout rifles on the market. I am not a huge fan of the M77 action either.

 

[Roy]

Doesn’t Steyr make a pretty slick one now? I think you’ll find a review of it on thefirearmblog.com

I like the idea of the Ruger, always wanted one in a “if it fell in my lap” kind of way, and really appreciate them sticking with the controlled feed/eject action. I wanted to rebarrel to a .358, for no good reason at all.

 

[Roy]

. Why is the picatinny rail forward on the barrel? Is it for extreme eye relief?

yes for quick shots. As that article I mentioned will go over (at least, his Instagram post over it did) it’s no longer necessary with modern scope options. More informed folks should pitch in on this, though.

 

[OkieJoe]

Doesn’t Steyr make a pretty slick one now?

Yes they do, and I like it.

 

[RC03]

I got one on a trade at wañenmachers gun show in Tulsa years ago. Nice rifle (not really accurate). Traded it off not long after.

 

[RC03]

I think there are probably better scout rifles on the market. I am not a huge fan of the M77 action either.

Same here and it's a shame as they make nice looking rifles.

 

[OkieJoe]

I think there are probably better scout rifles on the market. I am not a huge fan of the M77 action either.

What would be your choice for a scout rifle?

 

[conditionzero]

What would be your choice for a scout rifle?

I think I would probably grab a Savage 110 Scout if I was in the market. That is, if I wanted one off the shelf. Nothing stopping anyone from making their own based on a favorable base platform either!

 

[AER244]

I’ve always had a soft spot for the 77. I have some I won’t part with, but I have had one that was an absolute turd. Maybe not the finest action for bench rest, but I think theyre pretty robust and functional actions. As for the 77 scout gun, I haven’t owned or shot one. they feel kinda chunky and heavy to me, I think it’s the laminate stock. I’d think the controlled round feed of the 77 would be a positive in a scout rifle though.

 

[Kingfish]

I read a lot about this concept when Cooper first introduced it and his logic behind it. The rail mounted out on the barrel was for the use of a low power pistol scope, usually a 1.5 or 2x. He believed this was far better for shots out to 200 yds. than iron sights. It also allowed you to keep your full field of vision awareness. He believed you could teach an inexperienced shooter to become proficient faster. As far as the scope being mounted out on the barrel affecting its accuracy, I'm not sure what effects it would have. It would change the barrel harmonics for sure, but as long as it was consistent it might not be an issue. His focus was to be able to place a quick shot within an 8" circle out to 200 yds. With the development of red dot sights and LPVO scopes I do believe his concept has become a bit antiquated. I can easily keep shots in an 8" circle with a good red dot. I'd still like to try shooting one if I knew someone who had one, but not enough to buy one.

 

[CS Boomis]

I had read once upon a time that tension on the bottom of the magazine liner could be responsible for some of the M77s inaccuracy. Not sure about the detachable box feed. I’ve never owned one to play with though a past coworker put a shit ton of venison away with his scout rifle. The walnut stock always looked like the way to go in the pre-chassis days. Laminates are always heavier to a degree. The bolt length controlled feed extractor always lent an air of sophistication to the Mauser action to my eye. Probably an affectation of a certain age demographic.

I did speak with the Colonel several times on the phone. I had some ideas for mounting optics that I thought might be a little more robust than conventional external adjustments. He was a fan of fixed scopes with external adjustments, at least in theory. KurtM could probably speak more to that point. That project was nixed internally due to “appearances” to my chagrin. Many of the Col’s concerns of thirty years ago have been obviated by technology.

 

[Roy]

Many of the Col’s concerns of thirty years ago have been obviated by technology.

I do believe his concept has become a bit antiquated.

Yep, great idea that has been solved with advancements in both gun and optic tech.

 

[Roy]

I had read once upon a time that tension on the bottom of the magazine liner could be responsible for some of the M77s inaccuracy.

Did you ever read or hear about their chamber specs being left a little larger than they should be? Someone told me he would make some very slightly adjustments on his 77s to tighten the tolerances, and accuracy would improve drastically.

 

[CS Boomis]

Did you ever read or hear about their chamber specs being left a little larger than they should be? Someone told me he would make some very slightly adjustments on his 77s to tighten the tolerances, and accuracy would improve drastically.

I have not heard that, but until Bill died and the RPR was hatched precision was never Ruger’s forte. They always seemed to be accurate enough… except Mini-14s. I suppose depending on how oversized the chamber is, you could always face off the breech and rechamber it with a tighter reamer.

 

[Roy]