ExSoldier

MY idea of the (near) perfect Scout Rifle. It goes over the weight limits just a tad. But you can't beat it for CQB and fast followup shots.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/pr...es-socom.shtml

__________________
Former Infantry Captain; 20 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

Euclidean

Ex I've always thought that one of those rifles would be the ideal thing for me, but I hear they've got a lot of QC issues. I've heard all sorts of horror stories and I met one man who claimed he had one and never could get it to work for him.

But I also realize that people say the same thing about any gun. Do you have one of those? I have to admit that is an interesting product.

__________________
I am The Armed Educator.

Bud White

Yeah Baby now thats what im talking about ..

Even though the scope is still mounted werid and odd to use they shoot great and are really loud .

Buddie at work bought one and i couldnt believe the cost of rifle plus scope and all the other crap he bought For it but it is heavy its only real draw back besides $$$$

Euclidean

It also illustrates what I'm talking about. Any rifle that fits the Scout criteria is either very high end or a highly modified very low end with nothing in between. This baffles me.

__________________
I am The Armed Educator.

ExSoldier

A very good buddy of mine has one. I'm saving to buy one. I have a full size M1A Super Match, sniper tuned w/Harris bi-pod and a 3x10 Range Finding Sheppherd scope. The only issues of which I'm aware on the shorty is that it is L-O-U-D! AND it seems to have problems with heating up the forearm assembly during sustained fire, but I think this is being addressed. I like it because the mags are interchangeable with my other M1A. I love the forward mounted optic; either ACOG or Holosight would work for me.

I don't think the issues are QC. Almost always it's ammo that causes stuff to go wrong. I had an M1A standard version that had trouble with FTEs and discovered it was the ammo I had gotten from Georgia Arms (factory reloads).

__________________
Former Infantry Captain; 20 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

Euclidean

That makes sense to me. Your better firearms tend to be fitted a little tighter and a little more precisely sometimes which makes them sensitive to the tiny little differences in ammunition.

I'm spoiled rotten as nothing I own is a picky eater.

__________________
I am The Armed Educator.

Bud White

Ive heard of ammo issues in the Socom 16's but havent seen it and dont own one so cant say and like Euc im spoiled as i dont have a pickey eater out of all the guns i have

rfurtkamp

Despite Cooper's influence over the industry for good and for ill, it's a concept that differs from what most folks are used to and want. A scope sits in X position on a rifle, and that's what folks are used to. Long eye relief choices are also extremely limited in the scope department, and it's even more difficult to share a rifle with such a setup with someone in my experience because length of pull really screws with the required distance to make the optics work.

Add to that the fact that the average bolt guy doesn't see the need for a detachable magazine, many don't see the need for a bipod, etc., and it doesn't do much in the eyes of the average shooter that Granddad's bolt gun won't already do.

It's the latter that really kills it in the marketplace. Fast reloads on a bolt gun are almost humorous in this day and age, and that's what the magazine is about - why not just go semiauto at that point?

__________________
Driver carries less than $45 worth of remorse.

Euclidean

To me, I always thought the point was that if you can really work a bolt gun competently, your "rate of fire" is the exact same with the bolt action or the self loading action.

I like semiautomatic rifles just fine, but I think a general purpose do it all rifle like this should have a manual action. The thing is, the Scout concept is supposed to be the rifle that never fails you. The sight system is redundant. The loading capability is redundant in the sense you shouldn't need a magazine to be able to use the rifle. The sling and bipod give you maximum stability. The size and light weight let you get closer. What is more reliable than a bolt action rifle? What is simpler than a bolt action rifle? Not much.

Honestly if the balloon goes up and I had to choose, I'd take a rifle with a simple, rugged manual action over a semiautomatic if I had to make the choice. See my semiautomatic rifles are 100% reliable but that's my rifle, not someone else's.

Not to mention, say you are using a traditional scope. Too bad you didn't see that guy with a sock full of quarters sneak up on you.

Not to mention if the SHTF, spraying ammunition all over this place will be ill advised. Conservation of resources is paramount.

I will agree that no rifle is 100% adaptable to all circumstances. That's why so many different ones exist.

See I'd even settle for some sort of pseudo scout design with a traditional optic with some kind of backup sights that met all the other criteria, hell it could even be semiautomatic too, but I don't see anything like that on the market either, at least not in the middle market. I can think of some high end rifles that would meet this description.

__________________
I am The Armed Educator.

OD

Well said sir.

__________________
OD
"Slow down, you'll get a more harmonious outcome...."
--------------------------------------------
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper