The Scout Rifle is Officially Dead

Sooo... yeah...

This is the "new product" Ruger has been teasing for the past few weeks:

Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle Now Available In 5.56 NATO

"Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce that the Ruger® Gunsite Scout Rifle is now chambered in 5.56 NATO. This newest version of the Gunsite Scout Rifle features a hybrid chamber that shoots both 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem. accurately and safely. The rifle weighs approximately 7.1 lbs., features a 16.1", 1/2-28 threaded barrel with a 1:8 twist rate, offers controlled round feed and is shipped with a 10-round detachable box magazine. 

"This is a natural extension of the Gunsite Scout Rifle line," said Gunsite Instructor Ed Head, one of the contributors to the original Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle design. "Being chambered in a lower cost, universally available caliber, and with the Ruger reputation for reliability and accuracy, this is another serious rifle for those serious about rifles," he added."

Ok so lessee here...

1. Not actually a new product
2. It utterly bastardizes and defeats the purpose of the entire concept of the scout rifle
3. It is that particular concept which is supposed to make the weapon desirable and useful
4. Which even then, is flawed at best.

Straight up, it's not a scout rifle.

Why?

Because it's in 5.56.

By definition, a scout rifle cannot be in 5.56

Why not?

...and why do I say the entire concept is flawed at best?

What Is A Scout Rifle?

Col Coopers (actually Eric Chings, but Cooper was it's biggest proponent for decades) concept of the scout rifle, is a light, handy rifle in a useful chambering, and designed, optimized, built, and accessorized, to be useful for all purposes in the woods or bush, described thusly:

Quote:

"Let us attempt it by declaring that a general-purpose rifle is a conveniently portable, individually operated firearm, capable of striking a single decisive blow, on a live target of up to 200 kilos in weight, at any distance at which the operator can shoot with the precision necessary to place a shot in a vital area of the target."

and further specified as follows:

1. In a chambering sufficient to take thin and medium skinned game of up to 200 kilos at up to 300 yards, and which is commonly available to civilians (.308/7.62 nato is the exemplar)
   
2. Weight: 3 kilos including "all accessories" but no ammo.
   
3. Length: Max 1 meter (39")
   
4. Telescopic sight: an intermediate eye relief of low power, generally 1.5-3x. This scope is mounted forward of the magazine.
   
5. Generally the stocks will be synthetic
   
6. Scout barrels will be short and light (approx. 19".)
   
7. Actions:
• Bolt
• two-lug, ninety-degree rotation
• Mauser style claw extractor and positive ejector
• Bolt knob should be round and smooth
• Safety should disconnect trigger mechanism and should work from front to rear.
• Magazine: should protect the points of soft-pointed spitzer bullets
• The action should offer some built in aperture sight.
• Magazine cutoff.
• Trigger: smooth, clean break at 3 lb.
  
8. Accessories: Flush sling sockets, rounded heel of the butt, butt magazine, either cuff style or built in, some form of retractable bipod.

So, why is it Not a Scout rifle?

The very first part of the definition of a scout rifle is that it be in a chambering that is useful on thin and medium skinned game of up to 200 kilos, at any range which the rifleman may usefully make a shot, which is roughed out to about 300 yards.

5.56 nato is NOT useful on ANY game of up to 200 kilos... except of course human beings... at ANY range; thus, by definition, a scout rifle cannot be chambered in 5.56 nato.

Ruger can call this a scout rifle all they want... It doesn't make it so.

So... What's that you said about a "Flawed Concept"?

This is the part where I put on my flame retardant suit, for the defenders of the scout rifle concept are few, but rabid.

Now, before I said that the concept was flawed at best, what did I mean by that?

There is exactly one thing which differentiates the scout rifle concept, from any other handy rifle of useful chambering.

That one thing, is the forward mounted long eye relief scope of low magnification.

... and it's not that great an idea.

The point of the forward mounted LER scope is to facilitate fast mounting and snapshooting in a flushing or self defense against dangerous game situation; and secondarily to leave the magwell unobstructed (or at least mostly unobstructed), for topping off magazines and clearing jams quickly.

That's fine... it's a decent set of requirements for a bush rifle, and for a self defense rifle.

But the forward mount LER scope, is simply not the optimal solution for the given requirements.

There is nothing a low magnification forward mount LER scope can do, that cannot be done better in every way by a modern holographic or red dot sight.

Modern red dots are compact enough that they need not be fully forward mounted... in fact some are so small that they can be mounted on the rear receiver ring, where the rear scope base would otherwise be mounted.

Red dots have very large sighting aperture, and are effectively eye relief and parallax free, allowing for faster mounting and target acquisition than any scope type optic. This allows for faster and more accurate snap shots, without compromising accuracy out to 200 or 300 meters. They are also available with magnifiers which may be quickly folded out of the way or removed, for up to 3x magnification.

Importantly, as they have no parallax, and no specific eye relief requirement, they can be mounted wherever the user feels most comfortable.

Most importantly, they are far more durable, damage resistant, and useful after being subjected to abuse and to mud, rain, dusty conditions etc... than any conventional scope type optic.

Of course, in the time that the scout rifle was conceived and refined, zero parallax holographic, reflex, and other "red dot" type sites, were either junk, or expensive toys for shotgun and.22 pistol spacegunners. They were not the reliable, tough, well developed sighting systems we have today.

With apologies to the late, great, Colonel Cooper; the scout rifle, is officially dead.

Oh my god, it's a $2000 Ruger

Actually, when it finally gets down to street prices, and production capacity and panic buying have settled out, I'd expect it to retail somewhere around $1700.

UPDATE: Distributor pricing was released, at $1350; so I'll revise my estimate down to "between $1600 and $1675", instead of $1700.

The gun in question is the newly announced Ruger SR-556, Rugers first entry into the AR market; and their first entry into the "assault weapon" world, since transferable AC-556s stopped being made in '86 (which is only half evil... after all, the A-Team used them, and they were the good guys... who couldn't hit anything).

The first thing most folks are going to notice, and most likely dislike, is the price. $2000 list is by far Rugers most expensive non-presentation grade gun (some of their shotguns get up there though).

I'm not one of those people. As I said, I expect that the eventual street price will hit around $1600; and for a piston AR, especially one configured as it is, that's a decent value.

Given that it's got the Troy sights, and Troy rail system on it, and that's $300 and $350 respectively if bought separately (plus the rail covers and Hogue grip, another $80 or so); it's actually a pretty damn good deal. Most other piston ARs start at $1800-$2400, without those things.

Oh and coming with 3 PMags is a great idea as well, and a usable soft case is gravy. There's another $120 you don't have to worry about spending.

... of course for some people, the whole reason they buy an AR is for the accessories... it's like tactical Barbie for them; but let's face it, they'd never buy a Ruger anyway.

From a purely political perspective, having Ruger in the AR camp is an unambiguously good thing. Do you really think the largest civilian firearms manufacturer in the world is 1.) going to get into manufacturing an AR if they think it's going to be banned shortly thereafter and 2.) going to allow their millions of dollars in tooling and marketing expenses to go down the drain without a fight?

Oh and another political plus; now every major firearms manufacturer makes an AR: Ruger, S&W, FN, Colt, and Cerberus (with Remington, Bushmaster, Cobb, and DPMS).

So, how do I think it will be received?

Well, with a certain percentage of the community, scorn. Ruger is forever poison to them after the actions and comments of the late founder surrounding "assault weapon" bans, and standard capacity magazines.

Also, this is not going to appeal to the tacticool at all; which is the usual market for higher end AR platform rifles. I mean, it IS a Ruger, even if it is a superneatohighspeedlowdrag Ruger; and you can't claim it's the "same gun as SEAL Team Six uses" or some other such nonsense.

Plus I'd assume it's cast (that is Rugers core business after all), and as "everyone knows" cast receivers and uppers are "just no good".... yeah, you can tell my opinion on that one.

UPDATE: Nope, it uses a forged (and outsourced from a major name) upper and lower.

So that's a fair portion of the potential market left right out.

For the rest of the shooting world... It's probably going to be seen as too expensive. Ruger is the biggest, because they sell decent guns cheaper than any other gun of comparable quality.

While this gun represents a much lower cost option than other piston ARs, and is a good value in the configuration it's sold in, the rifle is most certainly not inexpensive. The traditional Ruger customer is probably not going to appreciate the differentiation of a piston operating system, troy rails, Hogue grips etc... when they compare the $1700+ Ruger to a $900 Olympic.

Rugers traditional markets and customers are very cost sensitive, and they're going to have to work to convince folks either to stretch into that price range; or to convince premium firearms customers to consider a Ruger.

Personally, I think it will be a big hit at first; but will sell modestly well, once the initial buying surge passes, and the AR market stabilizes (well... ok, IF the AR market stabilizes).

I did get a chance to talk with Michael Bane about the gun; and he's put a few hundred rounds through one. He was favorably impressed with it, likes the gas system, and that the quality just "felt sturdier" than POF or LW. We talked about the relative value of the gun, with the premium parts and accessories; and he also thought that Ruger was going to have a little trouble finding acceptance at that price point.

The Quinns over at gunblast were also quite pleased with the sample they reviewed; though they didn't talk about the price (I've rarely seen Jeff and Boge talk about price in a review though).

Am I interested? Not really. Give me an 18" model with a real stock and I MIGHT be. I'mna try and take a closer look tomorrow (we didn't make it to the exhibit hall today).

UPDATE: Got a great interview with the chief engineer on the project, and the production manager for the Newport plant where it's assembled, as well as handling, and field stripping the rifle. More in a followup post.

New Household Appliance

There has been a serious deficiency in our household for the past couple months.

For the past few years, I've had a lovely little Marlin 880sq; a heavy barreled target .22 boltie, with a low powered fixed scope, and a reasonably comfy synthetic stock.

Sweet shooter, if a little muzzle heavy; as you would expect with a heavy barrel and synthetic stock. Of course that just made it more stable; and it was very nice off a rest or a bipod.

I say was, though that is inaccurate; it still IS a sweet shooter, but it's no longer MY sweet shooter.

Really, it was only temporarily mine in the first place. A few years ago, Kim was selling off some of his guns, and I bought it (and a 625) from him; with the proviso that whenever he felt like it he could buy it back.

Well, in March or April, he dropped me a line to say "hey, whenever you can arrange it, I'd love my marlin back"; and in May, I sent it on its way to him.

This unfortunately left us without any kind of .22 rifle; a critical household deficiency indeed.

This weekend, we corrected that deficiency, with one of these (Big 5 had them on sale for $60 off list):



Yes yes I know, everyone and their grandmother has a 10/22... which is kind of why we got one actually; because they are so popular, there's so much stuff for them. Everyone has parts, everyone makes accessories, everyone knows how to use them, work on them etc....

Fact is, there isn't a semi-auto .22 out there I'm particularly fond of and the boltie I want is a bit steep at the moment (a CZ452 lux, at around $400, plus optics, a new barrel, and trigger work). Since there is no particular model that meets exactly what I want, out of the box, and the 10/22 is the AR of the rimfire world, might as well have a go. Want a better barrel, done. Trigger, a snap. Stocks? Whooo boy do they have stocks.

In fact, I've already started customizing... Right now, there's already optics on the gun. Bass pro had a nice price (same as SWFA actually) on the Nikon Prostaff scopes, so I grabbed a set of QD rings, and this:


It's the Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40; in matte black, which I think looks better in contrast to the stainless, than a silver would matching it.

Honestly, it's more glass than I need, even if I put a match barrel and trigger on the rifle. The problem is, trying to find a decent, reasonably priced, fixed power scope of medium power and medium size these days, seems damn near impossible.

I wanted more than a 4x... I was hoping for a 6x42 actually; but other than expensive tactical scopes, and pistol and muzzleloader specific scopes (who needs a fixed 6x pistol scope?), I couldn't find one.

So, I made what I hope was the next best choice, and went for the 3-9x40. It's nice and clear and bright up through 7 power; with just a LITTLE bit of light falloff at 8-9 power; but it maintains good sharpness throughout.

Now, one of the reasons I also went with the 10/22, is because I've already got an E.R. Shaw threaded 10/22 barrel on the way (through Tactical Innovations); and I didn't have to pay an outrageous amount for it, or wait three months (have you tried getting a gun smith to do any small work lately? Best of luck friend). My barrel should be here before the weekend; and I hope to be able to take it out next weekend to test with my .22 suppressor.

Believe me, there's not much more fun to be had shooting, than with a semi-auto .22, heavy subsonic rounds, and a suppressor.

I've also ordered the standard extended mag catch, bolt buffer, and automatic bolt release; now I just need to pick out a stock, and decide what I want to do with the trigger.

I'm not sure exactly what I want yet, and basically everybody makes 10/22 stocks; but I'm kinda thinking something like this one from Clark Custom (the top one):


I may even splash out on one of Clarks barrels; though they DO have an eight week minimum lead time if I want one threaded (I called and asked), and they charge $75 on top of the $225 for the barrel... which is quite frankly a bargain considering you're getting a really great barrel, worked PROPERLY. Besides, Lilja, Volquartsen and Shilen want even more for their barrels (unthreaded); and I'm not convinced you're getting more.

Now the trigger... I'm really not sure. Volquartsen, Clark... lots of other for that matter; all do trigger, sear, hammer etc... and a couple do drop in triggers (Kid, JARD, others). At this point, I'm really not sure who to go with.

The factory trigger isn't totally awful, it's pretty crisp, without any creep or stack; but it has a distinct step or hitch in the pull just before release that I really dislike (it's typical of Rugers machining though). Also, I'd estimate the weight at 6lbs; though I haven't had a chance to get my trigger scale on it. For a .22 rifle, I'd consider anything above two pounds excessive.

Anyway, I'll have pictures and a review up as soon as I pick out and fit the rest of my parts; because after all, who needs just another 10/22 review? At least my review should be of the stuff that makes mine slightly different.

Market Forces, Feedback, and the Gun Culture

"Man, that was stupid, why don't they make...?"

"Man, That was stupid, why did they stop making...?"

Insert your "why don't they" here...

Firearms manufacturers seem to do a lot of dumb things, a lot of the time. They discontinue extremely popular models, they introduce dogs that no-one wants to buy, they put in or leave out features apparently in direct contravention to what people seem to want etc...

Sure, all manufacturers in all markets do this a lot, but firearms manufacturers seem to do it more than most.

The worst offender on this score is probably Colt, who seems to think that consumers will simply bow down and worship at the altar of the Prancing Pony no matter what crap they throw at us. Colt has spent the last 25 years disrespecting their consumer, and they've danced around bankruptcy time and again (and are currently in the midst of acquisition, again)because of it.

Only slightly less egregious though, is Ruger; who sometimes seem completely unable to judge the desires and preferences of the gun loving world.

Why is that?

Because Ruger doesn't SELL to gun lovers. That's not their market. Oh, that doesn't mean gun lovers don't buy their guns; obviously they do; it means that that isn't who Ruger is targeting, or whose preferences they are responding and catering to.

Personally, I like Ruger revolvers quite a lot. I bought one for my wife as a personal protection gun for her Birthday two years ago (the first gun she ever owned actually). I'd LOVE it if they made a strong, lightweight, slightly smaller SP101. They'd sell like mad to the enthusiast community. I'd love to see Ruger produce a 5 shot .44 magnum or .44spl on the GP100 frame; I bet they'd sell to every revolver enthusiast on the planet. If they made a titanium framed (Ruger is the number one Titanium manufacturing foundry in the world) model in .44spl... us gun nuts would be beating people at the doors to the shop just to get in first to buy it.

If Ruger made the Deerfield Carbine with a 10rd mag, I would have two of them, one for my truck and one for my house.

If they sold decent factory large cap mags for the Mini-14 I bet Mini sales would double to the enthusiast community.

Then of course theres the fact that many in the enthusiast community feel betrayed by Ruger (or at least by Bill Ruger personally), because of his support for a ban on all magazines holding more than 15rds (a business decision really. he felt that a magazine ban would stave off a complete ban on the guns themselves, which he thought was inevitable otherwise). Many enthusiasts, gun lovers, members of the gun culture refuse to buy Ruger products to this day (of course Colt and S&W at various times also supported a ban, and are also being boycotted by some).

Given all of these problems that enthusiasts an gun lovers in the gun culture had with Ruger, you'd think they would never sell any guns...

But... that's not who Ruger are selling to.

Ruger is the largest manufacturer of civilian small arms in the United States by production volume; and worldwide are only exceeded by FN, and the Chinese Military.

Ruger are the ONLY manufacturer in the united states who make all four major category of sporting arm (rifles, shotguns, auto-pistols and revolvers); and they sell well in all of those markets.

Ruger sells more revolvers than S&W; the 10/22 alone sells more copies than all Marlins (their primary competition) put together (and at times has sold more than all other .22 rifles put together); they are the fourth most popular auto pistol for police (behind Glock, Beretta, and SIG), THIRD most popular among the general non-police public (behind Glock, and all 1911 type pistols); and the Mini 14 outsells every single brand of AR (though of course not all of them combined).

Why is that? The gun mags don't write much about Ruger. The enthusiast community pretty much ignores them, or actively dislikes them. All the market indicators you'd think would have them at the bottom of the pile...

Why?

Because Ruger doesn't market to the gun-mag crowd, or to the "serious" gunner; except when they market themselves as the more economical choice.

Ruger sells on price, and on durability. It's that simple.

For example, Ruger sells extremely well in the Over Under shotgun market, because they make a very high quality gun (the Red Label) for a much lower price than their competition.

Ruger sells very well in the large game rifle market, because they offer rifles chambered in African hunting cartridges, in a very strong action, for less than half the cost of their competitors.

Ruger doesn't compete on features, they compete on making strong (hell, nearly indestructible) guns at a better price than their competitors because of their manufacturing processes and efficiency. That's how they were founded and how they are run today.

Rugers primary market is the general consumer, and has been for a long time. In general, firearms consumers are not educated about the issues, either technical or legal, surrounding the guns that they buy. As an instructor and former gun shop employee, let me tell you, better than 90% of the people who buy guns are clueless, and don’t want to be otherwise.

Consumers in the gun market are primarily price driven; as in most other markets. Given the “gun culture” one would assume this is not so; but most gun owners aren’t really IN the gun culture.

I’ve had this discussion with distributors, and believe me, they know what sells, or they'd be out of business right quick. The best selling new centerfire hand guns in almost any “average” gun shop (unless they cater specifically to cops, or higher end gun sales) will be, in order:

1. Glock auto pistols
2. 1911 type pistols of any type (Kimber and Springer lead, Colt's a strong third)
3. Ruger revolvers and auto pistols
4. Kel-Tec auto-pistols (a recent development, primarily driven by the P3AT)
5. S&W Revolvers
6. Beretta auto pistols (they've been falling for years, and may be behind SIG now)
7. SIG auto pistols
8. Everything else

The reason for Rugers strong positions, is because they are typically speaking about 20% cheaper than their comparable competition in any model (as are Kel-Tecs by the way). Handguns, shotguns, rifles; at each competitive position Ruger is generally the least expensive gun with acceptable quality, and are often the most durable to boot.

If consumers were driven primarily by quality over price, semi-custom 1911s, SIGs, and S&W revolvers would top the list. Clearly, they are not.

The fact of the matter is, Ruger doesn’t make large capacity magazines for sale to the general public for Mini 14s, the deerfield carbine, 10/22s etc… because the public as a whole doesn’t make them do so. They have no interest. Their products sell at or near the top of every market they compete in without the legal and PR hassles associated with large magazines, so why WOULD they produce them?

Corporations are in business to make money. If a company is making a lot of money doing one thing, why would they change that to do what you want, even if you are right? Their feedback mechanism is sales, and Rugers sales are excellent.

The only way Ruger is going to change, is if people stop buying their products. The only way that's going to happen is to bring more Ruger buyers into the gun culture, so they know what they are buying, and why their choices are sub-optimal.

Only then will Ruger change to respond to the desires of the gun culture; and only then SHOULD they.