Posted In Outdoors since I'm not sure there's a better "non-GD" forum...

Regarding the idea of having a rifle for "SHTF."  I'm trying to figure out how to consolidate my preferred ammo with my preferred rifle.  Currently I have a sbr'd DD Mk18 rifle with a can.  My 'go to' ammo has been the 77gr TMK round, which, under 200 yards, tracks well with M193 spec ammo (lately Wolf Gold, but I have IMI as well).  This way I can train with cheaper ammo and not worry about the different zero.  I always figured this would be a good in-home set up, and allow me to reach out in the neighborhood as needed.

Now I'm also getting some Mk318 ammo (hopefully Mod 1, but we'll see when I open the box).  Part of me is wondering if I should swap over to this load, since the TMK is expensive and I only have about 4 mags worth.  Or if I should use a second rifle dedicate for outside use - think truck gun/Bug Out style.  Yeah, I realize it's probably not going to happen, but still... if it does, would be nice for the wife to carry something as well.

Do I stick with the DD and just re-zero?  This makes the most fiscal sense - tuck the TMK somewhere and just re-zero.  Not sure how that's going to affect training yet, since the zero will likely be pretty off with the 55gr stuff.

If I do the second rifle option, should I stick with a traditional M4 pattern? I have both 16" and 11.5" options.  If I do this, I'd likely keep something with a fixed front sight and toss on either an M4 or T1 optic, or maybe a TA-44 optic.  Again though, this brings up the "what do I train with" idea.  While I have plenty of M855 stashed away, I like to shoot steel, which obviously gets banged up quicker.  But in theory it should approximate the ballistics better, and if it really does, then I have a good "back up" option (as if I'd ever need to reload THAT much if the world went that screwy).

Thoughts?

My opinion  KISS

If SHTF, simplicity will be important. Pick ONE ammo and live or die with it. (All of your choices will do the job, some better than others.)

If SHTF, despite what others may argue, it’s a short range game.

If every ammo choice prints close st 50yds you win. If any ammo prints differently than the ammo you have most of, record windage and elevation changes snd live with it.

And, fwiw, IMO , shorter is better to 11.5” or 10.5”, especially with suppressor. But with suppressor, or without, aim for 16”.

JPK

Have you tested out the CBC 77smk load. It’s 57 cents per round shipped from SGAmmo and that pretty much all I shoot these days. It’s good from 5m out to past 500m. I’d suggest selling some crap you don’t need and just stock the shit out of it. Problem solved

I’d be 100% ok with a MK18 as my only rifle. And if that’s what you like, plan on that.

At realistic rifle shot distances in shtf, I think your poi is the difference between between the eyes and between the nostrils.

Honestly think your overthinking this one.

Well said.

KISS is a goal for the more complex any system is, the more likely something goes wrong.

Rugged Simplicity is key - more electronic dooh dahs or magic mickey mouse stuff = more potential for something to go wrong when you can least afford it to

I think SHTF will be mostly a close up & nasty fight, so while a long bolt or heavy barrel semi rifle sighted for 1,000 meters is "great", it may not get much use unless you can clearly see & range a targets at that distance.

Night Vision is a game changer, but every eletronic item needs a power source so that is always hanging out there.

Yeah, I think I am too.

Hell, that's about 80% of this website.

And no, to the poster above, haven't tried the CBC 77gr stuff.  I've been less than impressed with the SMK round out of two rifles.

There are soooo many more variables outside of ammo that matter. And soooo many more outside of firearms.

Worry more about shelter, water, food, and medication. Heat depending on part of country.

If SHTF, despite what others may argue, it's a short TIME FRAME game.

Most won't survive 30 days. Units in combat tend to suffer enough casualties that in a 30 day time period, they will be numerically ineffective - down to less than 25% strength.

After that, the unit is reconstituted. In SHTF, there is nobody to replace the dead. There are just more who die.

In SHTF, with massive rioting and chaos, loss of fresh water supplies, then food, a lot of the serious combat might occur later in the cycle when people realize things aren't going to get better, they are getting Life and Death worse.

Then the real shooting begins. Gangs become armies, and neighborhoods become fiefdoms. And whoever controls the water, food, and ammo rules.

The most common type of ammo will be the more desireable, but over the short time frame, it really won't make much difference. If you don't shoot every round, you likely will be somebody else's resupply. And if you do -

Well, some of them could just eat you. Desperate times create desperate measures.

Considering the present trend of events over the last two years, I'd worry more about the incompetence of your neighbors on the road. That's a lethal issue. The SHTF issue is rapidly diminishing. Like being a native American and discovering the Europeans were the origins of the Wild in the wild wild west, todays liberals are presently experiencing SHTF and they have reached the point where they can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

Sucks if you are a SHTF fan - but the future is really becoming rainbows and unicorns. Hey, Trump actually walked into North Korea and was invited to do it.

Things are changing. Fundamentally.

It's an Age of Enlightenment.

Attached File

my shooting focus for the last 35 years has been in the competition area... but my last AR assembly was KISS rifle... I purchased a Colt M4 lower from Brownells, and mated it to a fixed sight tower (pinned gas block) chrome lined 16" upper from DSArms with one of their bolts, carrier, and charging handle... I replaced the oval polymer hand guards with a set of round ones from an old Colt.... added a RRA NM trigger... and topped it with an old TA01 ACOG... I have an SBR'd LMT Mk18 with a TA44 on it, and it would be accompanied by the KISS if I had to evacuate for a weather event.... both shoot acceptable at 100yd with NATO headstamp M193, and very good groups with Australian Outback 69 Sierras Match Kings

It shoots ~1 moa in most rifles I’ve tried it in. It’s worth a shot and “cheap” enough to stack deep.

Well said.

It'll be a 5.56 (of whatever weight or flavor) world of survival. Best to have a light, simple, reliable, suppressed AR-platform. Optic optional.

That's how it's looking at present. Mo' better if he gets another 4-years.

I'm with you on the latter stuff.

Moving in a month makes the food/water stuff untenable for the immediate future but normally it's accounted for.

Meds aren't an issue.  No health problems for us.  We have some OTCs, and just dumped a bunch of old antibioticss and narcotics.

Cold will be the bigger issue in our new state.  Heat is a nuisance but not currently a game changer.

This^

We’re not talking about .5 MOA expected accuracy here, it’s a lot more minute of man. Out to 200, even three hundred meters (100m zero) you’re talking about the difference between 10.3” and 13.5” according to my calculator (55grn worst case, 77 grn best case).  If 3” makes a difference at 300m in a gunfight you’re a hell of a man.

I’m not sure how KISS you’d really want to go in a situation you feel the need to carry a long gun around... but at a minimum if you might be even partially mobile I think you’d want, in order of importance:

BUIS
2-point Sling
Optic
Light
Buttstock & grip(s) that hold spare batteries.
Spare mags
Lube

Between my 14.5” pinned DDM4V7 or 10.3” MK18 I’d probably grab the 14.5” for SHTF. I don’t know... it really depends on on how KISS I’d want to go. When it’s completed, the MK18 will be equipped with IR goodies for NV.

I keep a couple dozen mags FBI XM556SBCT3 loaded up in cans and even more 55gr M193 type ammo. If I’m going to carry something heavier than M193, it’s going to be TBBC, Fusion MSR, or 62gr Softpoint.

I would stick with your Mk18.  SBR would complicate things for me, but I moved to having a get home AR pistol for various reasons and mostly because it's compact enough to should in a bag discreetly, but still reach out with more punch than my CCW.

Since ballistics is pretty similar, I would just keep the 77gr TMK for SHTF and continue to train and practice with M193 for the cost benefit.

If you have a case or so of the Mk318, I would see how it shoots in my Mk18 or consider it for another rifle (that it shoots well in) and leave that at the house for SHTF.

The better performing ammo is great, but for most of us, it's simply too expensive to train with.  If it matches M193 (or XM855) to within a couple inches out to 100-200 meters, go with that.  While I like having some better stuff stored, I'm going to spend a lot more time and money using training ammo.  I still plan to pick up a case of TMK for that rainy-SHTF-day, but will continue to invest more in less-expensive M193 for training.

ROCK6

I shot 5 of the North Carolina Tactical 3 gun matches in the mid to late 90's at Ft Bragg and Oxford that Kyle Lamb put on... the ranges were limited to around 200m or so and any m193 did the job... but when the AMU at Ft Benning started the 3 gun matches, the sniper range opened distances up to 418m on 10" MGM flash targets, so I changed to an ACOG, and as my good ammo supply was dwindling got a case of S&B m193 with the NATO cross/circle head stamp (by sheer luck)... out of my RRA 16"mid it would consistently shoot 5" or better 5 shot groups at 400m...so if you get lucky you can find m193 that shoots well... I've always had good luck with 69 SMKs with H322 and loaded rounds from Australian Outback... YMMV

Man, I wish my Mossberg MVP Scout rifle had worked out. I really wanted to like it, but it just wouldn't shoot worth a shit. It took Magpul 7.62 mags or M1A mags, and there was never a feed problem. Set it up with the Burris 2.75x scout scope in low rings. Got frustrated with it, so I had two gunsmiths look at it. Both said 'the barrel sucks, you need to re-barrel it.'  Maybe I should've gotten a Ruger Scout instead.

So I ditched the Scout bolt-gun project in favor of building an autoloading 'Scout' in the form of a Garand-based 'carbine': a 16.1" Mini-G in 30-06, and that actually worked out.

An Ultimak forward rail runs the same Burris Scout optic in low QD rings. An Olongapo stock pack hold two spare 8-rd clips (or two 5-rd 'hunting' clips). T-37 FH.  Bedded the action into a tight new stock, and Shuff's gave me a sweet trigger job. With my hunting handloads, I get 1.5"-2" groups @ 100-yds all day.

Same here, unless there's no way to avoid engaging. 'Last stands' happen.

The '06 Mini-G Scout is primarily a hunter, but could serve a similar dual-purpose role  - except it weighs more than your Ruger. But trade-offs are what they are.

I lucked out with my Mossberg MVP Scout, simply love it and more than accurate enough for hunting out to 300 meters.  It's not the most accurate, but accurate; more important, it's been consistent.  I have an older (2nd Gen) Savage Scout that is more accurate, but I really like the MVP more with handling and magazine compatibility.

I would be very interested in seeing a picture of your Mini-G.  That actually sounds like the perfect platform (although, I would prefer .308). As a hunting rifle, it would excel, and if pushed into use as a battle rifle, it's more than proven.  I would prefer the semi-auto over bolt even considering the en-bloc design.  Of course, price-wise, it's probably easier to just go with an M1A SOCOM (or Scout...which I have as an older M1A Bush model).

ROCK6

I agree with some that most people overthink this.  You won't be spending most of your time and energy fighting.  You'll be figuring out how to farm, getting fresh water, figuring out shelter options, banding with other folks to form a common defense, etc.  When defense is needed, Wolf Gold will kill people just as well as Black Hills 77gr OTM.  Learn to use your rifles and pistols, be proficient, but don't let guns consume you.  You'll need seeds for planting, animals for breeding/meat, etc more

This is what you should be doing before shtf. If your serious about.
That said.

In my area 5-200m at best.
I dont need to hit a nats ass. I need hits, pentration through trees,homes,dense foilage and be reliable .

Attached File

Car trunk carry setup, used, heavy, worn, stained, canvas construction bag, containing a dismounted flat topped AR (M4 style), foldable iron sights, with a HS403R Holosun sight, 4 thirty round mags,

Yep, you don't need a 600yd 'Match rifle.'

50-200 meters ... and a lot of dense bush. That's perfect operational territory for a Mini-G Scout, whether it's in .30-06, .308/7.62, or the bear-stopping .35 Whelen, which seems to be a popular chambering in the Alaskan bush.

Rock - shoot me a PM. I'll be happy send you some pics of my Mini-G set-up. ARF doesn't seem to want to let me upload them here. Actually, if you've got a 'donor' M1 to send to Shuff's for the Mini-G conversion, it'll likely be cheaper cost-wise than a new Springer SOCOM and, except for the Criterion barrel, your Mini will have all USGI parts.

I've studied the Scout Rifle (SR) concept for years (maybe decades, LOL), having read all of Cooper's musings and Richard Mann's recent big tome on the subject, 'The SR Study.'  In it Mann pulls together the theory and history behind development of the SR, along with testing several real-world samples that include current commercial SR offerings as well as expensive custom builds. It's a very interesting read, even if you later decide a SR just isn't your thing. Shooting factory 308 ammo, Mann found the accuracy of Mossberg's SR to be 'okay,' although he was able to improve groups with tailored hand-loads.

Cooper wasn't against a semi-auto SR per se, as many believe; his concern was that you could never build an autoloading Scout that would 'make weight' as compared to a bolt-action in the same chambering. At best it would be merely a 'pseudo-Scout.' That's likely true, but it's a trade-off, and you have to decide whether the extra couple of pounds over true SR weight are worth the 'upgrade' to a semi-auto action.

Mine, with the Ulitmak forward rail, Burris SS and rings, and Olongapo stock pak, is right at 9lbs, unloaded. But it swings handily and points quickly, and the Garand action soaks up recoil. The T-37 FH also aids in dampening the bark and flash. So taken all together, I'm fine with the trade-off resulting in extra weight.  I retained the .30-06 chambering for hunting reasons: to be able to handload the heavy 200gn and 220gn RN slugs for hogs, black bear, elk, and deer (yeah, probably overkill for deer).

And as I mentioned earlier, it's been waaay more accurate than the Mossberg I had - whether shooting it irons-only or using the Scout optic.  Plus, it's quick to feed with en bloc clips, certainly as fast as with stripper-clips in a mil bolt-action.

My hunting rifles for non open areas here are the trusty thurdy thurdy.. and Fr8.

Shtf..im running stuff in 556/x39 ..

Every place is a bit different. Here in Kansas things are a bit......open. From my porch to one of my out buildings is about 125 yards...
that's close..then things open up. I can see 1,500 yards in some directions....different places have different needs.

Agree.

I'm planning to stockpile Winchester 62 gr OT myself (once I've function tested the 1800 I bought recently). If it's 1.5 MOA as people are finding I'm gonna bank 9k of it in sealed vac packs.

Maybe it's age.  Maybe it's experience.  But, If the world is falling apart I do not want to rely on a varmit round.  My preference is a SA Scout Squad.  The SOCOM's loose too much from the short barrel while increasing muzzle blast and flash.  The full length barrel always seemed a bit to long for me to comfortably move in and out of vehicles and helos.  I figure the Scout Squad is a good split of the difference.

The 7.62 round is better at longer range than the 5.56.  It will penetrate better at any range, and since I'm going to be trying to conserve my ammo supply I want the rounds I do expend to be as effective as possible.  And if it comes right down to it, the SA is a heck of a lot better club.

FWIW, I carefully bedded the Ruger Scout barreled action onto a Ruger syn stock.  As it turns out, took a bit more attention to the bedding in the area of the mag well and sides of the rear support (where the rear action screw penetrates the stock) than I first reckoned-on.

It's tightly-bedded now, and shoots as well as one can ask.

To sum: Both the laminate stock, and the Ruger syn stock can benefit from some intelligent bedding.  I use Brownell's Steel-Bed compound, FWIW.  Every stock/rifled action is different, and you should definitely investigate rifle/firearm specific forums on how to bed your particular stock.  It's not hard to do, but read up on doing such before attempting it.

My older eyes requiring optics to shoot accurately, I find the Scout concept very attractive, especially on rifles that need to be top-loaded, such as the M1/M1A.  Done right, there is nothing better for that application.  By "done right", I mean that the proper Scout-style optic MUST be set down as low to the bore as humanly possible.  This means, ideally, that the optic MUST be no further away from contact with the rifle than 1/16".  Doing so allows the user to take a quick, natural sight through the optic using the OEM stock.  No wiggling around, just drop your cheek onto the stock, like you were using the iron sights, and take a shot.

With a good Burris LER Pistol scope, I can sight-in my Ruger GSR to 200 yds, and using reticular hold-overs, and at proper magnification setting (6X) hit out to 500 yds.  Dial-down the mag is target is nearby.  Or take off the optic if hunting dangerous game nearby, which is what the Scout rifle was intended to do.  Take off the sling, too--it snags.

Most "Scout" rifles fail when the distance from the centerline of the optic to the bore is too great.  In short, one needs a cheek-riser or similar to get a proper cheek-weld with an optic mounted too-high.

Done "Right", the Scout rifle has few peers.  Allow me to mention that if the optic fails, then once detached (QD mounts, naturally) then the iron sights can be used instantly, since there is no cheek riser which needs to be removed.

If one needs to pump out rds, then the Wallbridge-method for shooting bolt-action rifles is the way to go, assuming of course, that one has a decently-sized magazine, and it is quickly reloaded.

The basic procedure is that the operator grasps the bolt-handle between thumb and forefinger, and actuates the trigger with another finger.  This procedure DOES take some practice, be advised; it varies from rifle-to-rife depending on the relationship of bolt-handle to trigger.  Some rifles are MUCH better at this than others.  See Brit WW 1 bolt-action rifles optimal bolt/trigger layout.

Once one practices with this procedure. and becomes adept, it is surprising how many rds can be sent onto a 20" target at 200 yds.  This takes PRACTICE, as mentioned heretofore.  IIRC, this was the standard to which the Regular Brit Army was trained prior to WW 1.  This was the Army that met the Germans at Mons, and the Germans believed they were attacking machine guns.

Not so, they were attacking well-trained riflemen.

I like both.  The smaller 5.56 is simply my best choice if I'm traveling on foot, long distances, where speed a top priority.  That said, my AO isn't very open; a lot of shorter line-of-sight distances broken up with terrain and woods.  I still like .308, and think it's the mot versatile cartridge, but the downside is weight.  If sitting at home, driving in a vehicle, or even patrolling the area surrounding your home, it's fine, but carrying a 10+pound battle rifle for long distance is something I want to avoid.



My only compromise, which is still in evaluation is the POF Revolution.  Base weight is 7.5 pounds for an AR-sized .308.  Much like Raf, I prefer magnified optics if an option, but the lightest I could find was a Leupold 1.25-4x Patrol scope.  The good news is that POF's system really makes the .308 feel like shooting a 5.56 with respect to recoil.

For me, I will have both options.  If I have to bugout anywhere on foot, my choice would be an AR "pistol", simply for the lighter weight while still being effective in my AO.

ROCK6

Spot on.  Here's an example of a very poorly mounted scout scope on my 2nd Gen Savage Scout (now with the lowest QD rings I could find):



While more of an IER, my Mossberg MVP is about perfect, and I use to have a decent variable LER scope on my M1A Bush that worked very well also.





ROCK6

Rifles are carried infinitely more than shot.

Lightweight and 'small' rules the day, not 1 vs 3 MOA differences.

It's probably age.

Can you not build a copy of the DD sbr to use as a trainer? I mostly shoot M193 & Mk262 for practice, but prefer a barrier blind option for social work. Having a dedicated training rifle with its own zero and a second full of MSR Fusion that stays by the nightstand simplifies things.

As far as my big picture view on "SHTF" rifles, my primary concern is winning a 50yd gunfight and ease of handling. That's the focus. Any shooting during a home invasion, natural disaster, civil unrest, or other SHTF event most of us are likely to face will occur at close range and the events themselves will be short in duration. I'm not concerned with the effects of 5.56 on game animals. I'm interested in putting multiple rounds in the thoracic triangle of however wants to do us harm. That being said, ease of handling is also important because the odds are no rounds will be fired in anger during any of this. It will end up being carried a lot and shot very little. I'm ok with that.

In short, I like a 10.5" 5.56 carbine with the following:
Sling
White light
Aimpoint PRO
IR laser

This in 6.8 spc II:

Attached File


Or this:

Attached File


I also subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory

Yea, you're probably right.  But I had to have learned at least one or two things living this long.  And I admit the 7.62 is a compromise.  I really prefer the 30-06.

So do I for the versatility of hunting use.  That's why I retained the '06 chambering for my Mini-G 'Scout'-Hunter carbine.  It allows me the option of handloading the heavy 220gn slugs for bigger and/or 'tougher' game: elk, moose, bears, hogs. But that's for here in the lower 48. If I lived in Alaska, I'd have Shuff build me one in .35 Whelen, or maybe convert this one over to the larger round.

The 7.62 chambering is fine on Shuff's 'standard' Mini-Gs, S.A. SOCOM M1As and Scouts, and Fulton Armory 'Tanker' M1s (18.25"). Surplus 7.62 and commercially equivalent .308 FMJ ammo are plentiful and still reasonably priced.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XlYJacucucQ

If I were doing a second rifle it would be a clone of the first, right down to the can.  That way you're working with one ammo, one (hypothetical) zero and the same sight picture overall.

Now I'm sure I should've gotten the Ruger Scout, and not wasted my gun-dollars and time on the Mossberg.

That said, getting rid of the Mossy allowed me to spend more time perfecting the set-up of my '06 Mini-G Hunter-Scout, including bedding the action into a tight-fitting Dupage stock, as well as developing handloads.

For the role of a 'Scout' carbine (those having 16"-18.25" barrels generally), I prefer the semi-auto action even if the build results in a heavier weapon, thereby placing it in Cooper's category of a 'Pseudo Scout.' The trade-offs are the benefits of not having to work a bolt back-n-forth for a quick second or third shot, and of course the extra weight tames the recoil of the '06 cartridge, especially in its more potent 'hunting' trim.

Shuff's standard or 'plain-jane' 7.62/.308 Mini-G weighs right at 7.5lbs.  My '06 Mini-G hunter, running an Ultimak forward rail, Burris 2.75x Scout Scope (mounted in very low Q.D. rings), and an Olongapo stock pack holding two 8-rd clips, weighs right at 9.8lbs.

It actually balances well when carried because I run a padded 2-pt Magpul MS1 sling with the paraclips.  Mount points are a Magul sling eye on the forward end of the Ultimak rail and rear buttstock AR A1-style ring attachment (a BFG product, if I recall correctly).

Totally agree. What you've described is exactly how the Burris SS is mounted on my Mini-G.

Also, not all forward  rail mounts are created equal; some start out with the picatinny surface being too high above-bore before you even get to mounting the QD rings. The Ultimak is the lowest one out there. The Amerigo forward mount, which I believe Fulton Armory uses, is too high to be very practical, IMO.

May I ask for a little more as regards your first sentence?

FWIW, the syn Ruger GSR rifle stock is seriously reinforced by means of interlocking webs within the otherwise thin fore-end.  Looks like someone paid some attention to it.  Look closely at the pic of the Ruger GSR syn stock on their site, and you will see the reinforcements.  Speaking of reinforcements, the fore-most point for the sling attachment has a solid, internal "plug" for the sling swivel screw.  Less visible is the rear fore-end sling mount, which comes un-drilled from the factory.

If one is considering rifles of this type, and wants to use the sling as a shooting aid May I suggest investigating slings from thewilderness.com?  Their "Langlois Rhodesian Sling" is an excellent alternative to the 3-point "Ching" sling which Scout purists prefer, and is what cooper specified.  Had the "Langlois" sling been available during his time, he might have approved it.  Slings from thewilderness are very reasonably priced, and first-class.  I have a number of them.

One other thing:  thewilderness offers some of the best sling swivels/hardware available, namely GrovTech items.  None better, IMHO.

In the event one decides to emplace cup-type receptacles into the stock (yes, the Ruger syn stock is designed for such), then I strongly suggest buying cup receptacles which restrict the movement of the plug-in sling swivel.  A quickly removable sling was important to Cooper, who hunted dangerous game, and definitely did not want the sling to snag at the worst possible moment.  l  Trust me on this,  You want to restrict the rotation of the plug-in sling swivels, lest they rotate too much, and become a un-twisting hassle.  Buy cups from a reputable mfr that offer restricted rotation cups.  Do a preliminary fit, and then USE your sling to see how the restricted-rotation cups are best oriented.  IOW, try things out in all positions, using the sling, and see where the cups--and the restrictions within them--best lie.  ONLY then perform final emplacement.  Once properly fitted (Epoxy and screws, with a little gouging of the bottom of the pocket for extra grip of the epoxy), your cups cannot be removed without serious damage to the stock.

The rear cup, in the Ruger syn buttstock, WILL need some reinforcement, such as Epoxy putty carefully crammed around it, and pressed-in to move into the groove around the bottom of the exterior of the cup.

So, probably more than you wanted to know, but submitted for your consideration.  FWIW, Scoutrifle.org is the place to go if considering a Scout rifle of any type.
Might be they have lots to say as to mods for many makes.

Disclaimer: no financial interest in any vendor/mfr/website mentioned herein.

IMO Optics that take 2032 batteries are a good choice.

Literally every computer uses one as a CMOS battery. Computers are basically everywhere now.

I mean if it came down to scavenging batteries.

Good point.  Such batts have a 10-year shelf life, and a much longer one if kept in the freezer.  There are Batt experts who will confirm this.

I make it a point to replace the CMOS batts on any new computer I buy with a brand-new one.  In my experience, such batts, in computers, have a VERY long life; well beyond their expected lifespan.As mentioned above, such batts might be available after a SHTF scenario.

I would suggest, if SHTF scenario is foremost in importance, to consider optics which do not require batteries for their fundamental functioning.  By that, I mean that the optic does not require a battery during the daytime, and the Batt is switchable, to save energy.  Sure, some modern optics have features which allow very great batt length.  In a total SHTF environment, with zero new batt supply, many users might take the batt out of their device, and only re-install it when needed.

Some savvy guy once said that "2 weeks after SHTF, Iron sights will be king".  Well, given modern tech advancements, that is a little short, but the fundamental premise remains valid.  I would add that optics that do not rely on batts are more-or-less in the same class.

Allow me to say this:  Nuclear-based optics have a certain useful time, until the nuclear capsules have decayed, and renewed.  This means sending the optic back to the factory, and paying $.  Battery-based optics are fine, as long as batteries are available.
If considering a true SHTF scenario, one needs to keep in mind that such re-supply of batts, and such renewal of nuclear capsules will become problematic.

Worst case scenario is having your Nuclear sight sent off to the mfr, and having a (permanent) interruption of service.  Hope you have a very good backup.

The point to all this blather is that you should be able to effectively use your optical sights (and your iron sights!) no matter what.  The best battery--or nuclear-powered sight is no good if their power fails and the sight is unuseable--unless the sight is originally designed to allow for batt/nuke failure.  Even so, it is not what it was intended to be, with lack of the Batt/nuke capability.

To be effective, one must hit, accurately, and hard.  How you plan to do so is up to you.

Sure. The Mossberg Scout was the most inherently inaccurate rifle I've ever owned.

Maybe mine was just a really bad example (with a bad barrel), but the experience turned me off from buying Mossberg rifles of any type in the future. I'll put my 'rifle $$$' elsewhere. 'Only accurate rifles are interesting.'

That's why I said I should've bought one of the Ruger Scouts instead.

OK, that clarifies things.  thanks.

Mossberg did put out several bad MVPs, so it wasn't a single bad example.  I was really leery, but pleasantly surprised mine was consistently accurate.  I would hope Mossberg cleaned them up, but if it's still a crap shoot, I would very much steer others to the GSR.  My MVP definitely is not a tack-driver as is; more like combat-accurate and adequate for hunting inside 200 yards (at least for me).  I grabbed a few 10rd SR25 magazines and they feed buttery smooth.  Only the M1A magazines are a little rough, but they work just fine.

ROCkK6

FWIW, the 10-rd, plastic, dual-column Ruger mags for the GSR can be loaded with a 10-rd stripper clip and a FAL slip-over stripper clip/loading adaptor.  I don't recommend this as a constant practice, as I have no knowledge if doing so will eventually be injurious to the mag, especially the feed lips.  That said, I have one 10-rd mag that has been reloaded in this manner a few times, and after being carefully examined before and after, no visible damage is apparent.  YMMV.

Of course, the plastic magazines can be top-loaded with single rounds, as the Col. required.  This gets much easier and funble-free with a little practice.  Recall the dangerous game hunting origins of this rifle, and "topping-off" was a desirable feature.  With a 10-rd mag in-place, topping-off may not be terribly important, but with a 3-shot rifle, perhaps moreso.

I have not shot the Mossberg Scout, but note that the pix I have seen include a lengthy rail that obscures the action, thus preventing, or at east greatly impeding, "topping-off".  Not to mention a bit more weight, whichever type (conventional or Scout) that one mounts.

XS Sights makes a full-length rail for the GSR, with an included, adjustable, rear sight (of the OEM type), that sight being a "ghost-ring" type.  Nice unit, very low, well-made, and not cheap.

What XS also makes, but does not advertise, is a kit that replaces the OEM Ruger rear sight with an internally threaded "Ghost-ring" aperture capable of accepting modern screw-in peep apertures of varing internal and external diameters.  Same kit fits on the XS Sights full-length rail.   You will have to contact them directly for a quote; again, not cheap.

The advantages to the shooter of being able to tailor their rear aperture have been long-known.  But the most important thing of all is being quickly able to "pick-up" one's Front Sight.  Hence the following.

What I would, definitely suggest is that rifle shooters paint the portion of their rear sight that is visible when in the shooting position(s) with some very vivid, un-natural, luminescent paint, as is available from Brownells; I use what I call "Neon Green".  Not quite as good in bright sunlight as the fiber-optics sights, but close.  Far, far better in dim light, especially when "re-activated" by a carefully held hand light.  Miles ahead in any sort of light than a black front sight, and comes to the eye faster than even a stainless steel FS, IMHO.  My FSs have curved, protecting wings, like the M1/M1A.  Even though the protecting wings are curved, it is helpful to have the vivid green center blade.  Just makes things that much faster, and more intuitive.  Just look for the GREEN.

This sight-painting process requires de-greasing the FS, and some practice.  It's not hard, but realize that a first-class job may require more than one try.  if you have some similar sights lying around, practice on them first.

A lot of these abovementioned observations were gleaned by reading "Testing the War Weapons", https://www.amazon.com/Testing-War-Weapons-Rifles-Machine/dp/0873649435.  a very informative book.

This little-known book is ranked very high in my estimation.  The author, an experienced shooter, tested a great many firearms using the same testing criteria.  Some surprising winners and losers, but given the breadth of experience of the author, there is nothing I would want to argue about with him.

That's enough for today, hope it's not overboard.