I suggest you get a standard-length M1A with a good, chrome-lined GI barrel or other good, GI-profile barrel.

Put it into a nice, GI synthetic stock, and maybe bed it.  Get a trigger job.  Buy a scout mount and scope like the ones Hokie has, and install them.  You probably don't need anything more than that.  If you do, maybe another platform would be a better starting point.

Learn to shoot the iron sights first, as you will always have them, and they are your final back-up.  When you understand how they work, and can use them, then install the scope and do the same.

The main point is, learn how to shoot up to the rifle's and ammo's potential, and avoid spending a fortune on gear while neglecting your skills.

I would rather have a plain-jane M1A and be skilled in its use than the most tricked-out rifle in the world with little skill to go with it.

Quoted: LRB M25 SUPER SCOUT You will need to register & login for the details ... www.imagecoast.com/images/SoundFX/dsc020802.jpg

What's pictured is NO WAY a Scout-type rifle.

How they can call it that and be so bass-ackwards is beyond me.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A very nice Scout M14. [Princess_Bride]"I do not think this means what you think it means"[/Princess_Bride] Thanks for line from a great movie but as far as the term Scout and what it means I know just fine. The term is just a term and using it in whatever context does not only dictate to what Jeff Cooper saw it as. I took out the rant from my previous post but I should have realized it was a waste of time. Scout is a just common M14 term used today for an 18 to 18.5 inch barrel M14 ever since Springfield starting calling their shorter barreled M1A that from the Bush and that's exactly what's above. A Scout M14. The only ones confused about it to me are guys that seem stuck to it being only an outdated boltaction in their minds due to how one man looked at it. No disrespect to Jeff Cooper. He was a great man, but times change after all.

The late Colonel was, in addition to being a Rifleman and a Pistolero, a Teacher, an Historian of no small merit, and a Writer on many subjects.  As such,  he insisted on language being used properly in his own writings, and bemoaned a lack of knowledge of the language and diligence in its use on the part of others.

Words DO mean things, and using language properly and precisely goes a long way towards eliminating confusion and forestalling needless arguments like this one.

The Col. developed the modern Scout rifle after years of hard work (his and others), and quite rightly has the intellectual property rights in the use of the Scout term.  He also developed a term for rifles which did not meet his specific criteria for a Scout rifle, and that term is pseudo-Scout.  There need not be any disparagement in using the term; the Col. owned and used some pseudo-Scouts himself.

To use the Scout term improperly not only betrays ignorance on the part of the misuser, but possibly sloth as well.  Such misuse is also an insult to his efforts over the years to promote the Scout concept.

To maintain that the bolt action Scout is obsolete displays a certain arrogance mixed with ignorance; a combination that is most likely to ill-serve the person suffering from the condition.  No offense intended, of course.

If, as you say, you know the correct term, then why not use it?  You gain a good deal by being correct and precise, and lose only a little time in explaining to the ignorant the error of their ways.

Quoted: Cooper came up with a great concept, but as with any concept, it's a set of guidelines for enthusiast to follow or not.

There is some validity to this statement, but much is unsaid.

Col. Cooper spent decades in the development of the Scout concept, with a number of different test models being produced and tested both by himself and others on a number of different continents and on different types of game.  There were numerous symposia of users conducted, with intense debate among the highly respected participants.  At first glance, the specifications of a true Scout rifle seem simple enough.  However, the specs were hammered out with great thought and care.  In my experience, nearly any significant deviation from true Scout form results in less utility, not more.

In some instances, depending on a variety of factors, some modifications to the original specifications may seem to be appropriate.  Those contemplating such changes should first have a good deal of trigger time with a true Scout rifle, examples of which are rare.  Again in my experience, after such experience with the real McCoy, the contemplated changes may not prove out to be actual improvements after all.

In other words, have some experience with the real thing and know and understand the specifications and the reasons for them before tinkering with the Scout.
 
My guess is that the vast majority of Scout rifle "builders" know nothing about all this; as a point in evidence for my statement, observe how many "builders" fail to mount the scope as low as possible, an utterly vital requirement.  The failures to use QD scope rings, to have quickly useable iron back-up sights, and failure to employ a QD Ching sling are also common, and do much to make the rifle much less useful.

Now, technology does, for the most part progress, and in the case of the Scout rifle we are blessed with better, more versatile optics than was the Col., as well as more energetic ammunition with better-designed bullets.  I have no doubt that if he was still alive, the Col. would be experimenting with such devices on his Scouts.  Perhaps some day we will have an autoloading action as a basis for the Scout.  The only reason for rejecting that type of action was that none could be found whose  additional weight would still allow the completed rifle to "make weight", a criterium considered essential.

I realize all this sound very dogmatic.  Perhaps it actually is so.  In the Age of the Common Man, perhaps some dogma is needed.

Quoted: Even the real deal Steyr Scout did not stick to Coopers original concept ... www.homevideos.com/movies-covers/dogma.jpg

Other than their offering it in non-.308 calibers, in what way(s) did the Steyr differ?

Quoted: Sorry RAF, but it's still just a term regardless of how you feel about it and seem to think it only should be used in the context of how Jeff Cooper saw it. That's ridiculous and the term Scout was here long before Jeff ever was with people using it who worked just as hard in their lives, but I know there's not much reason to argue it with you because your obviously passionate about the way you see it and feel about Mr.Cooper and his outlook as many others argue on about. The bolt action is still a useful rifle, though not as much these days as it's still a much slower loading rifle than others and regardless of the way one man saw it and others follow in awe that doesn't change that there are excellent semi precision rifle setups today that can fill roles it basically had the hold on extremely well now. Weight amount to be set in stone is ignorant to other users differences because one man isn't the same as the next and 10 lbs to one can be the same as 5 lbs to another. Both of my M1A's are more than light enough for me to not be hampered in any task I choose. Ignorance is to think that what's good for me though is also good for another, so I know people need things lighter too. I don't though and have no need for an outdated, slower loading, lower capacity, bolt action to fit my needs for a Scout rifle or any other rifle I need.   For accuracy that Scout M14 above in the usgi fiberglass if tuned properly besides can be capable of more than enough accuracy for precision shots in needed distance and if the distance gets to be out past it's range it's a shot someone probably shouldn't be taking anyway unless they are actually filling that sniper role. What a soldier needs for his job and what a civilian needs for his are two very different things most of the time. The term Scout rifle doesn't need to stay limited to one concept though regardless of what anybody wants to get uptight about. It's just a term and nobody has domain on what it's used for in the future just like any other term.

You are discussing the merits of the Scout rifle, yet the rifle you erroneously call a Scout has no Scout features.  How do you come by all this Scout rifle wisdom and experience?  Have you even shot a true Scout rifle?

Meaning no offense, you sound like a decent person who is in the unenviable position of not knowing how much they don't know.

Tell you what, go out and find a true Scout rifle, or a rifle very close to one.  Use it for a while, and we'll continue the discussion.

If you like, try this experiment:  In a safe area, have a friend toss into the air some clay trap/skeet targets, and practice hitting them with the Scout rifle.  Before long, you should be able to hit them regularly.
Now, try it with your conventionally-scoped "Scout".  Maybe impossible to do.
This sounds like a stunt, but actually it is an excellent demonstration of the Scout rifle's ability to take a very quick and accurate snap shot.  This is seldom practiced, and less often even mentioned, but any hunter or soldier will tell you its' worth.

Quoted: I'm happy you feel your worthy to judge and to tell people what they don't seem to know, so their wrong and what a true "Scout" rifle is, but the point also is that what a "Scout" rifle is, is flexible regardless of anyone's closed minded outlook on it. No offense, but this is very much another waste of time argument now between people that are obviously not going to agree. Have a nice day.

I can tell you're a little-- maybe more than a little-- put off by my comments.

If I were in your shoes, I'd probably feel the same.  If I gave offense, I apologize for doing so.

I am no expert.  I'm no authority.  I'm nobody special.

But I DO have a little knowledge and experience under my belt.  I've built a number of pseudo-Scouts, and my first real Scout I built over ten years ago on a Steyr-made Chilean Modelo 1912 Mauser rebarreled in 7.62 NATO by a Chilean Arsenal.  Even made my own 3-point Ching sling because there were none to be bought.

Just for laughs, IM TimJ and ask him how my tweaked pseudo-Scout Mini-14 did at a match we both shot in a while back.

Point is, I do break the rules on occasion.  But when I do so, I make sure that I make progress, and don't go backwards.  That means knowing WHY the Scout rifle is set up the way it is; something very few Scout builders know.

If you're going to break the rules, then make damn sure you know what you're doing.

Now, I suppose I could have worded things differently and offended you a little less.

If I was talking to you in person, first thing I would do is to stop talking and let you shoot a REAL Scout and let you make up your own mind.  I don't have that ability, so we both have to rely on the bare printed word.

I regret that you're offended, but I do not apologize for showing you some facts that conflict with what you think you know.