The New Ruger Gunsite Scout .308 Bolt Rifle – Full Review

Buy Now on GunsAmerica

Ruger first announced its Gunsite Scout rifle at SHOT Show in 2011. We here at Guns America did a review of it back when it first came out. You can find that here. Since then Ruger has come out with a couple of different versions. This is the newest one, and we got to put it through its paces before it hit the streets, just in time for today’s launch. As you will see below, I am impressed.

This Gunsite, one promoted in some of the press materials we recieved, has a stainless barrel. Ours was a deep black.

This Gunsite, one promoted in some of the early press materials we received, has a matte stainless barrel. Ours was a deep black alloy steel.

The Scout Rifle

So what is a “scout rifle”? The founder of the Gunsite Training Center, Jeff Cooper, came up with what he felt was one rifle that could be used in any situation. A jack of all trades rifle if you will. There isn’t room here to go into all of the details that Cooper advocated but I want to hit the high points.

  • Unloaded weight of between 6.5 and 7.5 lbs, with accessories (which makes it easy to haul around)
  • Overall length of 39 inches or less (which makes it nimble and unobtrusive)
  • Ghost Ring Sights and ability to mount a forward mounted low power optic, like scout scope (so you hit what you’re shooting at)
  • Chambered in .308 Winchester (which means you will be more likely to kill what you’re shooting at, and can find ammo easily)
  • It should have a sling attachment (and maybe a sling, too)
  • It needs to shoot at least 2 MOA at 200 yards (which is roughly a 4″ circle). You should shoot that well, too.

The Ruger

Here are the specs on the review Gunsite Scout from Ruger:

  • 308 Win
  • Black Composite Stock with aluminum bedding block and pillar
  • 16.1″ free floated Barrel (cold hammer forged)
  • Weight 6.25lbs
  • Twist 1:10 right hand
  • 10 round capacity with detachable box magazine
  • Ghost ring rear and post front sights
  • Forward mounted picatinny rail
  • Adjustable length of pull from 12.75-14.25
  • Threaded barrel with muzzle break and 5 /8- 24 threads

The stainless accents on the black gun are a nice aesthetic touch. And the bolt is easy to operate from the shoulder.


The pebbled texture on the forend is also found on the grip.

How is this new one different?

I was at the range with the GunsAmerica editor while I was working on this review. He was telling me about his first experience with one of the early Ruger Gunsite Scouts (Ed’s note: not the one reviewed in the link above). When Ruger first released them, they hadn’t free floated the barrels. He said his review gun looked good, but the long range accuracy was more like minute-of-barn. Ruger quickly fixed this and all of the Gunsites have had a free floated barrel since and the accuracy has vastly improved. This one was no exception, as you will see.

The original version from Ruger uses a laminated stock that puts the empty weight of the rifle at 7 pounds. That is without a scope or other accessories, which will push the overall weight close to (or over) the upper limit that Cooper called for. This version of the Scout has a lightweight composite stock that brings the weight down to 6.25 lbs empty. 3/4 of a pound might not seem like much, but if you are carrying a rifle all day, it quickly starts to feel like more. The laminated stock version always felt a little too heavy to me, especially with a scope. This one feels just right for that carry-all-day type of rifle that a scout rifle should be.


With the Leupold FX-II Scout Scope, the Gunsite realizes more of its true purpose.

Fit, finish and looks

This is a good looking rifle. It is not fancy–far from it. That is the point here. It is not supposed to be fancy, shiny or pretty. This is a working gun, a gun that is at home behind the seat of your pickup, or slung over your shoulder on a hike in the woods. The stock is well designed and fits well in your hands.The texture on the polymer stock is heavy where needed, with a pebbly texture.

The action and barrel are matte black with the coating applied uniformly and without any blemishes I could find. The bolt is stainless. The magazine rocks into place, like an AK, with a reassuring snap. There is a bit of wiggle in the seated mag and I am totally fine with that. For a utilitarian rifle that will see rough and dirty field use, I want some play in the mag well. Drop a mag in the dirt and muck during a reload? With a bit of play where the mag seats, you have a better chance of everything still working.


The mag is rock-solid and built of pressed steel.

Rings and Mags

Ruger ships this rifle with their proprietary scope rings. These fit into milled slots on the receiver. You would have to remove the rear sight to use the rear one on the Gunsite Scout. I didn’t use the Ruger rings. On a scout style rifle, I want the iron sights as a backup to the optic. Ideally, I want see through rings so I can use the irons quickly if need be. So that is what I went with. I don’t even recall the brand these are, but they are sturdy and allow the use of the irons without raising the scope to an unusable level.

Ruger didn’t use a propriety magazine for this rifle. I know fans of the Mini-14 will be jealous. Ruger went with an Accurate-Mag 10 round box magazine.  They also ship these with 3 or 5 round mags to areas that don’t allow the 10 rounders. These are well built, sturdy steel magazines. Ruger ships the Gunsite with one magazine. They also offer a polymer mag. I have not seen one, much less used one so cannot speak for how well they function.


The Mauser style action has proven to be one of the most reliable around.


The Gunsite Scouts are based on the Ruger M77 bolt actions which are, in turn, based on the old Mauser M98. It has a controlled feed that I would want on any bolt action that could ever be used in a life or death situation. The blade style extractor is strong and functioned flawlessly. It worked so well that policing brass at the range was a bit of a pain. We were sending rounds a good 5-6 feet away from the bench when working the bolt at the bench. If we pulled the bolt back gently the spent case would only kick up, and we could put them back in the box where they belong.

We had zero problems with this gun. That is one of the great things about a well made bolt action. There is so much less to go wrong that with an auto-loader. This is one of the reasons they are still around and remain relevant.


After David told me about the troubles he had with the first version of this rifle, I was a bit skeptical on how the Gunsite Scout would perform on paper. It has a 16” barrel! That is not a length that we typically associate with long range accuracy. But this short guy will flat out shoot. All of the accuracy groupings we did were with Hornady TAP 155 grain. We shot several grain weights, and brands, but the 155s worked well, so we stuck with those. The trigger on this rifle is solid, too, breaking below 5 pounds.


Accuracy at 50 yards with the iron sights. Not too shabby. That’s five shots in three holes.


Same distance with a different shooter. Five shots. Shooting slightly right, but that’s adjustable.

On the first trip to the range, I forgot to grab my Scout Scope from the safe. Whoops. But have no fear! This made us shoot with the supplied iron sights that I would have probably glossed over a bit in this review. We sighted the iron in at 50 yards before moving on to 100. Now these are ghost ring sights. The rear “hole” is wide and the front blade is thick. This is in line with the quick handling and fast target acquisition that is one of the main attributes of a scout style rifle. But they are not too wide or thick. The gun is still capable of some precision work. Once we got it dialed in, it was shooting about 2 inches right at 50 yards, we were able to shoot some very nice groups. 5 rounds touching at 50 yards and less than an inch at 100. I was genuinely surprised. This is well within the 2 MOA requirement that Cooper set forth. It also helped my confidence in irons that I have neglected of late.


100 yards, five shots, from the shoulder. This was done with the irons.


This is a 100 yard target with the Leupold Scout Scope on. It is a 2.5x power only.

The next trip I remembered my Scout Scope. It is a Leupold FX-II 2.5×28 Scout scope. Once again, the low powered optic is part of the scout rifle concept. It gives you a wide view for acquiring your target fast. This is not meant to be a long range set up. But it did surprisingly well out to 300 yards.

Once we had it sighted in, we took it out to 100. The MOA didn’t change from what we were getting with the ghost rings. At 100 yards the groups were under an inch, but opened up a bit more at 300. I should mention that it was really ugly the day we went to shoot. You’ll see it in the photos below. We had to turn this gun around fast for this review, so we didn’t have the luxury of waiting for a nice day. The grey cloud cover had blown in fast, and it felt like it would snow. On the wide open range in the Arkansas River flood plain, the wind was whipping in gusts that were approaching 20-25 MPH. Neither of us had brought gloves and our fingers were getting stiff. We were rocking the Gunsite Scout and not allowing the barrel to cool. Yet we were still dropping rounds on target at 300. The target below (right) is with that 2.5x scope! What could this gun do without the wind and with a 20x scope?


Three shots from 100 yards. The Gunsite Scout keeps hammering them home.


300 yards? The top group is one shooter. The bottom, another. This is with the Leupold Scout Scope and bucking wind. While this target doesn’t demonstrate a MOA rifle at 300 yards, I have no doubt that the rifle is capable.

The drop was also a bit more that I am used to from a .308 at 300. Instead of the usual 13-14 inches or so with the grain weight we were using, the drop was closer to 18-19 inches. That is all from the short barrel, I am sure. We also did some chronograph work to see how much it was losing. See the pictures and captions below for the details. All of the ammo came in around the 2,500 FPS mark, give or take. With a bit of tinkering with some hand loads, I feel that the potential is there to make this a sub MOA rifle. But it doesn’t need to be to do the jobs it is intended for.

I didn’t just shoot this from the bench either. Granted the group size got a bit bigger when shooting standing. Still, the Ruger preformed great. This rifle feels good. It shoulders quickly and the sights and scope do let you get on target fast. Recoil is relatively mild for a .308 as well. After firing 100 plus rounds in an hour, I could have easily kept on shooting another 100 without being fatigued.


The look is cohesive and all business. With the stainless barrel, it will look even better.

One Rifle

The one rifle for everything is, to me at least, the biggest selling point for any rifle that uses Cooper’s idea. This rifle is more than capable of taking game out to 300 yards. It is also incredibly handy. The short barrel and overall length make it ideal for hunting in brushy areas. The bolt action design is strong and should continue to function in conditions that most semi autos would have problems.

I also think that the composite stock makes this rifle better than the wooden model. That is a big statement for me. I am a wood guy. A polished walnut type of wood guy. But I don’t want a fancy stock on a gun like this. Granted the laminated stock doesn’t look like walnut, and is probably a bit stronger than the composite one. But in my opinion the composite is worth the weight savings for a rifle that needs to be light.

This would make a great shit-hits-the-fan rifle. It is short enough for close quarters work. Although, the big .308 is way too much to use for home defense (when worried about rounds passing through walls), this is a gun that would be perfect behind the seat of your truck. It would make a great bug-out rifle, and when you get to your hidey-hole it would be great for security and patrol. It will put meat on the table, too. As we were driving home from the range and talking about the Ruger Gunsite Scout, I think I came up with one statement that is telling of how impressed I am with this gun as the “one rifle” solution. “Man, this rifle is good enough to be buried in a sealed pvc tube at my cabin,” I said, feeling a bit philosophical. “You know, just in case all hell breaks loose and me and the family need to hole up for a bit.” It is the type of gun that almost makes you wish you had the chance to really test it out.

And it is out today. The MSRP on the Gunsite with the stainless barrel, at least at the time of this entry, is $1,099. The alloy steel barreled version that we had in is $1,039. You can pay a hell of a lot more for a rifle that won’t do half what this gun does, or shoot half as accurately.


The safety is a three position switch that is clearly labeled.


The butt pad has spacers that will allow for increased length of pull.


We had to use the see-through rings with the irons to get the scope on paper, as we hadn’t returned it to its mechanical zero. Worked great. Just line up the irons then move the cross-hairs.


The front sight is robust. The flash-hider covers a threaded barrel.


Without the scope on top, it looks kind of naked.


How is it that a rifle this short will shoot one MOA at 300 yards?


There’s enough rail up front to adjust for eye relief.


The scope is on the 100 yard target. The brown board against the berm is 300. No you can see a bit more clearly how absurd this exercise was. Shooting that tiny black dot with a 2x scope, holding over at an imaginary point on the berm, and dropping rounds in the black. Accurately.


The same two targets seen with the naked eye of the camera.


The short length of the Gunsite Scout makes it an ideal brush gun, and if we can hold onto it long enough, we’ll get it in the woods. This would make an ideal hog rifle.


Detail of the forward rail.


Branding is subtle, which is always a plus in my book.


To load the mags, push one round down and slide the next in. It takes two hands and isn’t graceful, but it works.


The benefit is that the loaded rounds aren’t popping free until the bolt pushes them out.


The base plate has the Ruger emblem.


The mags are clearly marked with the Ruger emblem and the caliber.


Steel cased .308? No problem.


The TAP performed the best, so we stuck with it for testing accuracy.


The 168 grain Hornady did well, too, but the heavier rounds slowed down a bit.


Spacers for increased LOP.


This muzzle device holds down rise and spits out one hell of a cloud of smoke.


the Ruger rings that replace the rear sight–meant for use with more traditional scopes.


{ 148 comments… add one }
  • Wayne January 21, 2018, 1:54 pm

    Have had the laminated stock version now for about 5 years. Have taken many deer with this fine rifle at ranges of 100 out to 265. Lost count of the hogs. Have carried this rifle all day beating heavy brush and crossing wetlands. Rock solid fast on the target, fast smooth bolt. Cooper knew what he was wanting in a scout rifle and Rugger has a winner here. I have many fine rifles and I love them all, but when I’m heading into coyote and hog country this is my go to. In fact it my wife’s go to for just about everything from mule deer on down to racoon. Its a dream to handle in ground blinds (short and fast). Not overpriced in my opinion. Take it or leave it.

  • Jeanne December 4, 2017, 7:23 pm

    What can I say? Dr. Todd\’s work is life changing. He is the real deal. manifest spell cast @ gmail. com

  • Vernon Davis February 7, 2017, 5:52 pm

    Question?, Are you able to put Quick-Sites for your scope on the Scout?

  • Keith December 1, 2016, 12:43 pm

    If you are a fan of Ruger Rifles, you will probably like this one. If you are not a fan, it probably won’t convert you into one. It’s ironic how this rifle is supposed to be a “one rifle fits all” platform yet it’s appeal is based on such a narrow situational base. As a hunting rifle, this rifle has some issues. Additionally, $1100.00 (I’ve seen it listed for as much as $1400.00 in the shops and online, is a lot of cash for a rifle with a plastic stock on it…There is nothing that this rifle does that a Savage Axis, or one of it’s lower priced counterparts, can’t do. You can literally buy 3 Axis rifles or 2 Model 11’s for the price of one of these. But that has always been Ruger’s problem. They simply have never been able to figure out how to keep their rifle’s accurate and affordable, which is interesting considering so many of their parts are manufactured overseas…

    • Eric Rumpel December 22, 2016, 10:15 am

      savs & rems are junk compared to Ruger m77 in any configuration

      • Mark October 22, 2017, 11:38 pm

        That is a matter of opinion. If something does not appeal to me I just dont say they are ‘junk”. Savage or Remington are not junk period. I own all three including a left handed Gun Site Scout and all of them are nice rifles, and Savages accuracy is hard to beat. dont just take my word for it just read some gun mags especially when they have the test shoot offs and you will see Savage has been at the top for accuracy for the last decade at least.

  • Dan October 7, 2016, 4:34 pm

    I have always liked Coopers idea of the Scout Rifle. Fwd myc scope on a rail, great. 16″ barrel with suppressor/brake, great. Laminated or carbon fiber stock is a great idea, but I would buy it even with a wood stock, floated barrel, adjustable or adjusted trigger, and 10-20 round mag.
    I would prefer a larger than .308 cal, like the .358 Win or one of the 9.3 variations. Even a .338-08 with premium modern bullets. I do like the adjustable stock and the spare loaded mag in the stock, and the Ching sling or a reliable speed sling.
    I purchased a Ruger Mod 77 MKII, Stainless in a wood stock w/16″ barrel, barrel sights, that was a limited run in 7-08. It really is a handy rifle, accurate with it’s Leupold 2-7x compact VXII. Topped it lff with Brownell’s Latigo speed sling.
    This little short rifle would be greater in a switch barrel in both .358 Win and 7-08, or any other small accurate .308 based ctg.
    I have not weighed my little ruger loaded w/scope and sling, but it “feels light” to me.
    My other go to rifles are a Remington Mod 8, 35 remington, Savage 99 .358 Win, both with Marble/Lyman tang sights of the ghost ring variety, and my .338-06 AI 40 Husqvarna Ultra light Small ring. My next purchase will probably be in the 45-70 class 1895 Marlin SS guise Gun, just cause I can…..

  • mickey c ross November 26, 2015, 9:55 pm

    I’ve sure learn a lot of do’s and don’t from reading what other people had to say but I too brought a ruger scout rifle and knocking on wood I like mind, and yeah there was some times I thought the rifle was missing up and it just so happen it was me, so I like mine and if I had it to do over again it would be the same rifle ……mickey

  • david sandefur June 9, 2015, 10:04 pm

    i recently purshed a ruger gunsite mdl in 308 stainless and composite stock on the first trip hunting i found the magazine very difficult to load and the floor plate kept comeing loose after a few shots / i called the service rep at ruger and asked about a new floor plate / much to my surprize i recived a new plastic mag / the new mag is easy to load and feeds great / i dont remember the reps name but i would like to thank her and ruger for the quick service on fixing the problem/ as far as the steel mags go i wont buy anymore / i lightened the spring and clamped the last one inch of the floor plate to tighten it , it works ok with dummy rounds but we will see if it works under recoil, as far as accuracy goes with a 16in bbl it gives under 1/2 in at 100 yards with the right load/ it is a great hunting rifle

  • Woody May 4, 2015, 6:35 pm

    I’ve had my GSR for close to 3 years and enjoy it thoroughly. I use it for target shooting and mounted the scope further back. Now there is a full length rail available which I strongly recommend. I added a compensator which had a limited effect in terms of recoil. The one thing I wasn’t crazy about is the trigger. Very stiff ! I just replaced it with aTimney 1100 and am hoping to get to the range soon. I wouldn’t mind a longer barrel but it is very consistent out to 300 Yds. Overall very pleased.

  • Jim January 24, 2015, 10:52 pm

    In the review the author said laminate is probably stronger than composite. I know that wood can sell in certain weather conditions and possibly affect accuracy,is this true with laminate ? and also have heard composite,when hot can get “soft” and affect accuracy so is any of this true. I am purchasing the ruger scout and really need to know which would be the better choice in stocks. Can someone please answer this for me? Thank you

    • mcjoe January 4, 2016, 5:29 pm

      Laminate stocks (essentially epoxy pressed plywood) is supposed to be weatherproof. Never heard of swelling, def not from a Ruger.

      I plan to use mine with a suppressor, so I opted for the lighter, shorter polymer stock. You shouldn’t have problems with either.

  • Doug L January 3, 2015, 2:09 pm

    16″ barrel too short for the .308? I’ve got several bolt action pistols that group less than 1 MOA with 15″ barrels. A shorter barrel with the same contour as a longer barrel tends to be stiffer than the longer barrel. Which means less barrel whip and more consistant accuracy. Now the shorter barrel also means less sight radius, but using even a low powered scope takes that off of the table. The lower velocity just means that you’ll need to work up different sight settings. A 16″ .308 is still much more powerfull than a .300 BLK or 7.62×39.

    Now that Ruger is making LH versions of the Gunsite Scout rifle, it’s on my soon to buy list. Thanks for a great review.

  • Joe December 24, 2014, 1:20 pm

    I have read all the comments regarding the .308/7.62 cartridge and have a single comment. My tool of trade is a Browning BLR with a 20′ barrel. I have been carrying it since the late 70’s. The guy spoke of using a .45-70. lever action as well as several different bolt actions and autoes. I don’t go to war but I do hunt and my criteria is one shot one kill!!! I currently find my best chance of making the shot is inside of 200 yards. At this distance a round from my Browning can be placed in the animals ear, instant kill!!! I have shot an elk at 300 yards but I like the head shots best because you don’t waste meat. As far as all of the war mongers out there I sure my criteria can be adapted to killing humans. Merry Christmas!!!

  • JCLINE December 22, 2014, 8:40 pm

    Hey Sam you weren’t shooting at the OFGC were you? Looks familiar but I did not see you mention the name of the range?

  • JLA December 22, 2014, 3:51 am

    I like the Ruger Gunsite Scout rifles, but there are two things that I really, Really, REALLY wish were available for them. The first, and most important I think, is a folding rear sight. I wouldn’t want to remove the sight from the rifle when using a forward mounted ‘scout’ scope, but having it up in the way of the scope just bugs me, a lot! A folding rear sight would be a very nice upgrade.

    Item #2 isn’t really part of the rifle. It’s the scope. I have one of Leupold’s excellent 1.5-5x33mm VX-R scout scopes on my custom scout rifle, and, as much as I like it, it just needs more magnification at the top end. A 2-7×33, with an illuminated reticle (which is absolutely mandatory as far as I’m concerned), would be ideal. Leupold’s 2.5-8x handgun scope would make a nice platform to base the new scout scope on as well. Either way it just needs more power at the top end while keeping the bottom end with as little magnification as possible.

  • Ringo Lapua December 18, 2014, 2:17 am

    Well how about that big pile of BS. Before I bought my original Ruger Gunsite, I read all of the wonderful reviews and watch a horde of You Tube videos telling me how wonderful and revolutionary this new rifle is. Then I bought it and was amazed at the recoil and lack of accuracy, though I like the convenience of the smaller size. Now I find out that the rifle is now a piece of crap with a NON FLOATED BARREL, a better, lighter stock and no sights….How convenient? My first thought is that Ruger should offer to fix free of charge and upgrade all of the inferior 1st generation gunsite rifles, since they are obviously not what they originally claim and as this article implies…..garbage. The second thought is now how can I believe that the new gunsite is as great as he says it is? After all, they all said the first gunsite was great too. MY CONFIDENCE IN RUGER IS TOTALLY SHAKEN AND I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED.

    • daryl December 18, 2014, 12:37 pm

      Totally understand your position and comments. I was enchanted with this gun when it came out, and was looking to buy one. Then my better sense caught up to my desires. Wait for a while and see what the reviews say. I remember many years ago buying a mini-30. It was a fun piece to shoot, but had its flaws. With each new generations, improvements were made.

      I’ve been in the manufacturing industry for 25+ years – if the management allows, the engineers will design the perfect weapon. The problem is, it will take 10 years the company will go broke. The unfortunate “real world” is any product gets to a certain point, then its released to the public, often with know possible issues. It’s a matter of economics.

      Companies are in business to make money, with that comes risks.

  • Victor Mazzone December 18, 2014, 12:48 am


  • Russ December 17, 2014, 11:02 pm


    I love Ruger products, they’re great.
    I hate bolt action, it’s old and lame as hell.

    • Russ December 17, 2014, 11:03 pm


    • daryl December 18, 2014, 12:10 pm

      Hmm – bolt action is old and lame as hell??? That comment makes me think about my AR-15 (M4), AR-10A (Armalite), M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Mini-30, and Mini-14. Okays so the M1’s are old as hell – whats the common point?? They all fail to cycle 100% of the time.

      Now I look at my “old as hell” bolt action, including some crumby old Mosin’s – what’s the common point? They never fail to cycle.

      I will keep my semi-auto’s, but the bolt action always seem to work

      • Russ December 22, 2014, 4:21 pm

        Sorry Daryl, not trying to offend, it’s just my opinion I wanted to get across to Ruger.
        Old is cool, and nostalgic shooting is also fun.
        I still prefer pump or lever for reliability.
        I just think designing new firearms with bolt action just seems real backwards to me.
        All those old firearms you just named are very cool, and real nice to play with.
        And I can see why you would enjoy them.

        • Charlie February 29, 2016, 9:35 pm

          Lever action or Bolt action,,,,, the only way to go.

        • Mark Dukes March 11, 2017, 6:17 pm

          The best shooting rifle I ever owned was a German K-98 8mm, wood stock, iron sights and of course the Mauser bolt action.

  • dave spears December 17, 2014, 6:45 pm

    I think the author got lost in the weeds before he got this Ruger to review. Forgets scope, next time forgets gloves but remembers scope. Forgets basic MOA computation formula. How professional is that? Rifle is worthy of being used in a SHTF situation? Get real, this thing would be his first choice in a rifle for that? Who is he kidding? Worthy of being buried in PVC pipe “just in case”??? He should have did that instead of wasting his gas going to the range twice. Wobbly magazine mounting a good thing? Since when? Really the entire tone of this review is just so mediocre that it does a good job of smoking over the rifles biggest design faults-the biggest one being its scope mount, the other its Cheap Charlie iron sights. Chairman Jeff is long gone, he isn’t here for todays modern optics on qd mounts that can also co witness with iron sights. For its MSRP you would think that they could do better. If this is Rugers best attempt at a “do it all” hunting -quasi tacticool rifle they should start over with a different product manager and a clean sheet of paper.

    • Fred Flowers December 17, 2014, 10:37 pm

      Dave, I don’t believe you would be happy if we buttered your bread on both sides.

  • AJ Kurpjuweit December 17, 2014, 6:26 pm

    Threaded barrel with muzzle break and 5 /8- 24 threads.
    Muzzle break? Seriously? Might as well explain how many bullets the clip holds.

  • daryl December 17, 2014, 5:33 pm

    I often read these reviews but rarely comment. I just couldn’t help myself with all of the desk jockey’s hammering of the reviewer. If you think you can do a better job with the technical aspects and the writing, start your own blog or get hired to write the reviews and we will sit back and take pot shots at you.

    As for the weapon itself, first look at what it was designed for, before making off the wall comments. Comparing this to an AR-15 or blackout?? Check the ballistics of the 308 Win then please let me know how they compare. Now take your AR platform roll it in the mud, run several hundred rounds through it without cleaning it and lets see how it does. Bolt action equals simplicity.

    I own many long guns including AR platforms (including 308 win), semi-auto, and bolt action. Most of what I own are battle type (not hunting), and I can tell you without a doubt the bolt actions always work. Sure you can find a “sweet spot” ammo that your piece eats up, but there are 10x more that make it choke and spit FTF’s.

    Now lets get back to the Ruger Gunsite – its is NOT a do everything weapon, because that does not exist. It was designed as a compact reliable, multi-use, scout rifle. It wasn’t designed to be semi-auto, accurate beyond 200 yards, take down grizzlys, or a host of other parameters that other rifles are capable of. The debate of the best SHTF weapon will never be answered, but this rifle should not be discounted. It’s light, capable, simple (few moving parts), great knock down power, and an easy caliber to get ammo for.

    There has been some whining about price and magazine costs. Is it too high? Must not be, as Ruger is selling them, and people are buying them. I’ve seen tons for $650 to $750 range (used to new). Proprietary magazine is a problem?? Why? Too expensive?? My guess is those that complain about mag prices, probably spent plenty of $$ in areas that I think is ridicules. If you can’t afford the gun and extra magazines – its pretty simple – don’t buy it.

    I currently own a mini-30 (have owned mini-14 and other mini-30’s) – yes the magazines aren’t $5 like M4 or AK’s, but so what. I have about 20 different ones, ranging from 5 round to 30, and all were at least $20 – do I care?? No – as long as they function and last for a while. Face it, if you are going to actually shoot the piece, the ammo costs will far out weigh the mags.

    Complaints against Ruger – really? Give me any cell phone provider, airlines, or internet provider and you can find people on both sides of the fences – hot & cold, night & day. Sometime ago my father (retired USAF) sent in his MK II that flat wore out after countless rounds (thousands) – they completely refurbished the gun and sent it back at no charge.

    Personally I think it’s a cool rifle and its on my list to get. Not on the top, but on the list. I look at every gun (long or pistol) and try to asses them for what they are designed for, and not what they are not designed for.

    • Todd December 17, 2014, 6:14 pm

      I own a Ruger Gunsite and I love it. I own numerous types of weapons and that gunsite is a blast to shoot! And accurate wow I couldn’t believe it right out of the box. It’s light, versatile and reliable. Some people just don’t have enough experience shooting and with numerous different types of firearms to make comments. Your comment made great sense and made some good points. Some people don’t know ballistics and have watched and played to many games to comment about anything seriously.

      • daryl December 18, 2014, 12:19 pm

        One thing I found, that no matter what you are reviewing, the comments are soup to nuts. I recall reviewing mountain bikes tires, the reviews were consistent except one nut – he stated the tires wore out in 11 miles 🙁

        Now factor in human error during manufacturing; there are legitimate problems with individual pieces. That’s why there are warranty’s.

        One of the best arguments that will never be answered – whats the better caliber/platform – AR-15 vs AK??? To me there is two answers:
        1) Have both in your arsenal
        2) Get an AR-10 platform and blow both of them away

  • Sparks Morgan December 17, 2014, 5:07 pm

    You mentioned in the article “It needs to shoot at least 2 MOA at 200 yards (which is roughly a 2″ circle).” I believe that 1 MOA at 200 yards would be roughly a 2″ circle. 2 MOA at 200 yards would be more like a 4″ circle.

    Probably just a typo.

    Great article by the way. Love that rifle.

  • Mike Hughes December 17, 2014, 3:25 pm

    TO Rod:
    Rod December 17, 2014, 2:57 am
    Here is One More gun I won’t BUY because of “To Short of Barrel ! For a 308, the Min. barrel should be NO Shorter then 18 inch.

    Tell that fairy tale to the two gentlemen who won the 10th annual sniper competition shooting LaRue OBRs – one with a 16″ barrel and one with an 18″.

    The winning money shots were at 1,000 yards and both shooters made the shot.
    No bad for a “too short 16″ .308”.

  • Trowel Slinger December 17, 2014, 2:54 pm

    Whenever the Cooper Scout concept comes up, there are always those who will say that it is an outdated concept due to the availability of today’s modern technology and “tacti-cool” gadgets. They’ll state the uselessness of a 2x scope versus a 4-12x and of a bolt action versus a semi auto. And the reasons go on and on.

    In defense of the Cooper Scout concept I will say this; there are old, old timers (most of whom are dying off now) who would tell you about a time when a 6x scope on a hunting rifle was considered unnecessarily high magnification. They would call anything above 10x an astronomers instrument.

    Go back to the days of WWII and the typical magnification on an ’03 was 2.5x to 4x, and it worked for them. But they were certainly a much more hard boiled breed back then, being less dependent upon technology and fancy gadgets and gizmos.

    When I was a teen in the early 80s, I’d see these old guys plunking man sized steel targets, at 500 to 700 yards, all day, using old surplus Mausers, ’03s, Garands, and P17s with iron sights. Granted they weren’t “placing” consistent head shots. But what they were doing was the equivalent of blowing off a foot or a chunk of hip or shoulder. Now that’s PRACTICAL combat accuracy.

    I don’t know about you, but out in the field, I don’t think I’d be doing too well missing a big toe courtesy of a 30-06 from even a mile out. I’d be willing to bet that if some of these old guys were still alive and still had the shoulders for it, using modern technology, they would hands down and with little effort, out shoot and humble today’s best.

    More over, I’d bet that the old timer (provided that his eyes were still good) would have no problem, even with a mere 2x magnification, making clean kills on medium (practical for survival) sized game within 200 yards. And certainly, he’d have no problem putting down a two legged target (humanely or not) well beyond that range. Let’s face it, if one does not have a precision tuned hunting rifle, the simple adaptation for that is to improve upon ones tracking and stalking skills. The key concept being ADAPTATION.

    If one does enough reading on the Cooper concept, they will find that this concept was more or less the “Last rifle you might ever have” under the worst circumstances concept. That is to say, no support, no logistics, no spare parts, ammo in short supply, etc, etc. It’s all about adaptability. Adaptability, in the long run, will always win out over specialization.

    Let’s face it, for the military scout, the number one objective is exactly that; scouting, gathering intelligence; not engaging If you’ve been compromised, you’ve failed, period. And at that point, especially when I know that help isn’t coming any time soon, I would rather be running and evading with a 36″, 6.5 pound rifle than with a 42″, 12.5 pound lightning rod.

    Depending upon the purpose and under the circumstances, whether it be apocalyptic survival, hunkered down in concealment for long periods while evading larger numbers, or being full speed on the run for your life, and any number of other circumstances; in the hands of a skilled and ADAPTIVE user, the “Cooper Scout” (not necessarily Ruger’s) is a concept rifle that can be ADAPTED to most PRACTICAL and PLAUSIBLE situations if it was the one and only rifle that the shooter had so long as the shooter could adapt to it. Pair that with a reliable pistol and knife for close encounters, and you could certainly be a whole lot worse off.

    • Steve Clifford December 17, 2014, 3:50 pm

      Well said, but misses a critical piece of the puzzle. You have to see the target before you can shoot it. Young eyes may be better than mine at seeing “targets” (deer, vermin, enemy combatants, zombies etc.) in cover, but even young eyes can benefit by moving the scope back and increasing magnification just a bit. That was the point of my blog post here:

      Overall though, I agree with you. The GP rifle is not a specialized instrument. It may not handle any one task better than anything else. It will handle most tasks better than any single other gun. I just think a low power variable completes the package better than the Scout Scope.

      • Army127 December 28, 2014, 3:18 am

        They make scout scopes in 2-7 power so not sure why you think they are only 2.5 or 2 power? Check out Burris they have a nice one. So I guess it makes your blog about moving the scope back so you can add a variable power scope kind of a mute point no? Make sure you know all your information before you say the only scout scopes are 2&2.5 power, as there are other scout options and you can use a pistol scope as well which have variable power too. So again my lesson for everyone today is do your reading and research before you write comments on something. Not to say most of you didn’t mean well, but it’s just better to read a well informed debate instead of one full of holes and where a lot of people don’t even know what a scout rifle is to begin with. It would be a lot more help to people reading this and deciding wether or not to buy one, or check one out, if we all tried to do our homework before posting, no? Instead we find a bunch of computer commandos whose experience behind a gun is limited to magazines, forums, and blogs, who sound like boneheads that really don’t know what they are talking about. No I am not speaking about the person above just speaking in general on these replies.

        SSG G out.

  • Steve Clifford December 17, 2014, 1:46 pm

    Terrific review. I am a huge fan of the Scout Rifle concept but after several years, I found the forward mounted scope to be a HUGE problem. It is such a problem that I can’t imagine calling a rifle equipped with one to be a true general purpose rifle.

    I just wrote a long blog post about my solution if anybody is interested:

  • BUGEATER December 17, 2014, 1:39 pm

    glad to see some different mods on the RGS. the earlier version needed a little more to move it towards where it is now. You should try the Ruger plastic Mags. They can be loaded, while in the rifle, by just pressing the round down into place, a nice advantage when single firing at the range. Also I found the action to have a bit of roughness when cycling the bolt(in the early version). With a little bit of light grease and a touch of diamond dust it smoothed up so nice the bolt could be cycled with just the palm of your hand, no fingers used. good story, glad to see it is still being sold

  • Terry Kremin December 17, 2014, 1:22 pm

    One: would LOVE this in an 18″ barrel. NO reason for cutting that 2″s (Same with SOCOMs). You are going to be doing much room clearing with this.

    Two – it is still a proprietary mag – please get your terminology correct – it is a single source magazine – that makes it proprietary to Accurate Mags. If it is not something that will use multiple manufacturer commonly available mags, it is using a proprietary mag – just not proprietary to Ruger. And at $70 a mag? come on, that is a ding.

  • Trowel Slinger December 17, 2014, 12:53 pm

    Good improvements. Some complaints I’ve heard were with the barrel length, 16.5 (and 19″, I believe, with the brake). I read somewhere that Cooper at one point had settled on a 19.5 (with no brake). I’m not going to debate with anyone about 18″ vs. 16.5″, but I will say that I’m fine with 16.5″ (and I’ve done my own research and reading) and the overall length, as it is sufficient enough to fulfill the role for which it was meant.

    While another three inches (instead of the brake) certainly wouldn’t hurt, I like the idea of having the threaded end for a suppressor option in the future, as well as having some protection for the crown on a rifle that would certainly see some hard duty.

    The only three things that I would have liked to have seen were one;three point sling attachments, or a mid way attachment for the use of a tactical sling. But I suppose this could be added later, some way, by the owner.

    The second thing; and this one really bites me, is I would like it to have a double stack mag instead of the single, in order to cut down on that protruding magazine and yet still maintain a good 8 round capacity.

    And third; I feel that a slot for stripper clips should have been added along with the double stack mag. However I know that this would have put the cost up another couple bills. Even so, with these three features, i feel that it would have been closer to the Cooper concept, and still reasonably affordable.

  • The dude December 17, 2014, 12:21 pm

    Have they fixed the binding issue with the bolt? The original gun site had a terrible binding problem. That’s its biggest flaw. Since they’re using the 77 action you think it would be perfectly smooth

  • Mark December 17, 2014, 12:11 pm

    PLEASE get this straight:

    BRAKE | brāk | (noun)
    • a thing that slows or hinders a process, e.g., a muzzle BRAKE

    BREAK | brāk | (verb) (past broke |brōk| ; past participle broken |ˈbrōkən| )
    • separate or cause to separate into pieces as a result of a blow, shock, or strain…. most definitely NOT a muzzle “break”

    Next week: “sight” versus “site”

  • HLRembe December 17, 2014, 12:03 pm

    I really like this rifle but do prefer the laminated stock to the composite and do wish that Ruger had used a staggered round magazine rather than the straight stack. I also am in the camp that would like to see other caliber offerings such as .223 Rem (5.56 NATO)or 6.5 Grendal.

  • Bruce Beckwith December 17, 2014, 11:55 am

    It is interesting to see how many commenters have no idea about the Scout Rifle Concept. For the uneducated, this is a reproduction of Col. Jeff Cooper’s article about the concept.
    If your idea of rifle shooting is confined to the range, or you believe all the old wives’ tales regarding barrel length or get your hunting experience from outdoor magazines or you’re a wannabe sniper longing for 24-26″ barrels, odd ball calibers topped off with a silencer ans 3-30X scope, then a scout rifle isn’t for you.

    • Trowel Slinger December 17, 2014, 3:26 pm

      Yes sir! You are one of the few who actually “GET IT”. Thank you.

  • Barry December 17, 2014, 11:11 am

    I hope ruger is reading this and taking notes, it might be good to make a way for customers or potential customers to comment on what they want or would want on the gun for insight. I like the gun, idea wise and aesthetically, I have a buddy with one of the black barrel models and plan to shoot it before deciding for myself. I thing barrel length and caliber choice would make this a much more marketable piece. I am a big fan of weather ability, and like stainless but hate flash, and the more muted the better for a work/brush gun, lightness is always an issue, weight saved on a stock could be used on a bigger/better scope ect. I have a stainless m_77 in 270 in lefty and have little to complain about except weight. I like ruger products and hope they try to improve their products and give the customer more choices which would give more pull with customers, and maybe improve their market share.

  • Frank Ventry December 17, 2014, 11:02 am

    I bought one of these this summer and its a dream to shoot. Someone said it looks like a cross between a mini and m77. I agree but it does have kinda an all business look to it. This is not a long range gun and my understanding is it wasn’t meant to be. I will note that Ruger does offer this gun with a 19″ barrel. $1100 is a little high but that’s suggested retail. I paid $722 with free shipping for mine. Also, I wasn’t thrilled with the factory magazine. I purchased some of the Ruger poly mags (a five and a ten). This is a must have upgrade. Ruger also offers a bipod for something like $35. Its like a knock off of a Harris but still quality construction. I also added the Gunsite full length rail in order to use a regular scope. The rail replaces the front piece and rear sight with one long rail. The ghost ring is built onto the new rail so it retains open sights. I use Leupold quick release rings with a Vortex Diamonback 2-7×35 which makes scope removal a few seconds if needed.

  • Blasier December 17, 2014, 11:01 am

    I wish all of you would learn how to spell “muzzle brake.”

  • Glenn December 17, 2014, 11:01 am

    I find it difficult to believe the attack on Dave’s report on this rifle. Perhaps he needs to have people like Dave Powell write the article for him. That way it would be perfect. I for one care more about getting a chance to shoot this rifle and if I like what I shoot I will purchase it. I have a Marlin Lever Action .308 and love it. I look forward to purchasing this rifle if it turns out to be as good as many of the reviews I read on here. These reviews mean more to me that what was actually in the article by Dave. If the guy from Alaska needs a bear or moose rifle then I have a Marlin Lever Action .45-70 I will trade him for this .308.

  • Armentrout December 17, 2014, 10:57 am

    I agree with George. First I’m irritated by comments that can’t seem to accept that people make excusable mistakes as if they are perfect in everything they do. Second, most totally missed the points that Cooper was trying to make. Ruger is attempting to address the need for a multi-purpose (if I only had one) rifle. Some comments bitched about caliber (when SHTF try finding a supply of 300 blackout), a longer barrel deceases portability, and true, it’s not an Alaska gun no one said it was. It’s not a lot of things and it’s not for everyone. Third, stop dogging the authors. I enjoy reading these types of reviews as they are but just ONE element of my research that I rely on before I make a purchase. It appears to me that many of you expect perfection in someone else’s work while sitting on your ass in front of your computer stuffing your face with your morning doughnut. The morning entertainment costs you nothing. I cringe thinking you are the purse-carrying bitches I may be sharing a foxhole with when shit does hit the fan. Grow up.

    Now for my comment on the Ruger, I don’t care for yet another proprietary magazine to add to my collection when there seems to be proven designs for .308 already available. However, I’m sure there is a good reason Ruger chose to go that way. I wouldn’t hesitate to add this to my cache if it could use my current collection of magazines. It’s for this reason I own several 1911-style sidearms.

    Thanks for the review guys.

    • kyle December 17, 2014, 11:34 am

      Im guessing you were referencing my comment when it comes to you point about finding 300blk after shtf. In my defense my recommendation came from the reviewers perspective of expectations of philosophy of use(range, portability, capability). I know availability of 300blk isnt great(atleast at the current moment) but thats only if you expect to have to use this sometime this year. 7.62×39 would be a better recommendation, it is cheaper than almost any other rifle cartridge, can be found under almost any rock, and would still offer substantial terminal ballistics with in the expected range(300m ish). But the reason I recommened 300blk was because there is, to my knowledge atleast one bolt gun that takes the magazine(ar15). Of which is much more available and for a significantly lower cost. But then again Ruger could’ve went ahead and made this take an ak47 magazine chambered it in 7.62×39 or 5.45. Both would provide acceptable ballistics within 400m, are as available if not more than .308, all at a much lower cost. For god sakes this rifle is coming to market above a $1000, why even bother? Why would you not just have an ak47/74, or ar15/10? All proven systems, all capable at lower cost, all much more available, ect. The one marketing advantage is that there are not many factory mag fed .308 bolt guns in the market. That is the only thing this gun offers is a marginally lower price for a mag fed .308, bolt action, that comes with irons and a rail. AT BEST this is a niche, and it is by no means cornering the market.

      • Army127 December 28, 2014, 2:55 am

        Look if you would stop spouting off for a minute and read what “Armentrout” actually wrote you wouldn’t have even written this response! The rifle is for that all around utility use it for whatever you want to shoot within a reasonable distance which for me has been out to 400yds so far. It’s also in a ridiculously common caliber so you can find ammo when the SHTF and it’s the only rifle you happen to have. Please tell me how many people don’t own a .308 of some type or another? Then tell me how many people own a weapon in 300blk, almost none! It hasn’t been a big seller and many people wonder why it is even around. It’s really one of those calibers that has been invented by finding a problem that isn’t really a problem or issue, so my guess is it may stick around but not as an everyone owns one caliber but as you say a niche caliber, so your point is mute. If you take the Ruger Gunsite Scout for what it is and understand the concept of why these are built then it’s either for you or it isn’t. As for all you people saying a 16″ barrel is too short check out the ballastics, you lose around 170fps or so from a 20″ barrel which is really not that much at all, and with the proper load you have a great bolt gun. If you think it’s too short just look at the plethora of AR-10’s with 16″ barrels. I guess every manufacturer of AR-10 rifles is wrong and their rifles are all terrible then! Not! So people by the review and the many reviews of 16″ barreled rifles out there week now that the ballistics is still very good out this length of barrel, so quit complaining about it and learn more before you open your mouths, and if you don’t like it don’t buy it. No one will care I promise.

        SSG G out

  • RZR SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO December 17, 2014, 10:28 am

    Dear Sirs.
    In early February, 1996, I purchased a RUGER 10.5 ” barrel length revolver, Model 86-81623 44 Mg. The screw holding the grip had a minor blemish, and I requested a replacement. To my surprise, RUGER sent what I wanted, but, to my surprise, you enclosed many free additional parts, as follows: KXR-19L (1ea); KXR-18 (2ea); KXR-17 (1ea); KXR-27, 28 and 47 (1 ea); KMR-33, 44 (1ea); KXB-19 (1ea). Finally, you also sent me the crown jewel of said shipment, a complete rear sight assembly part number MR-35.
    I am a pistol nut. However, taking into account my earlier experience, in mid 2014 I purchased another RUGER. This time a Model 05718, 357 cal, SP 101, a moderate recoil gun and a delight to shoot.
    You guys have a fine company that manufactures fine weapons. KEEP UP YOUR QUALITY AND YOUR EXCELLENT WARRANTY SERVICE. RZR

  • George W December 17, 2014, 10:15 am

    Sounds like a great rifle. I am wondering if it will handle nato 7.62 rounds. My Ruger 308 Tactical likes all of it. My Remington 700 would not feed 7.62. Any thoughts?

    • Ken December 17, 2014, 11:29 am

      I reload .308 and 7.62 Nato brass using a .308 die set. There is no such thing as a 7.62 die set. The caliber designation the same. Fail to feed is often a mag issue.

      • marty December 17, 2014, 10:59 pm

        i have a browning x bolt it too wont accept 7.62 ammo but chamber 308 win just find

    • DrThunder88 December 22, 2014, 1:19 pm

      The tolerances on the specs on a .308 Winchester chamber are tighter than those of a 7.62 NATO chamber. It may be that the 7.62 NATO ammo you had was made with greater tolerances for the initial size of the shell casing. I’ve not heard of such an instance, but it strikes me a not implausible. This assumes the 7.62 NATO stuff you had was straight from the factory. If it was reloaded, there could have been a problem in the resizing.

  • kyle December 17, 2014, 10:14 am

    300m is by no means long range even out of a 16″ barrel, .308 can easily make it to 800m with a decent shooter. At the same time though there are better suited calibers for this job. As much as I hate to say it, 300 black out is probably what you should have been using for this project. And probably out of a Mossberg MVP that take a standard AR15 magazine. Shooting a .308 out of a 16″ barrel is a waste, will produce a loud and bright muzzle flash, and is overly heavy and bulky when it comes to terms of capacity (if your goal is say 300m and in). 300blk on the other hand would allow you to carry more ammo in a smaller package(like a scout would want), offer very simlar ballistics within the same size and weight constraints, would produce a significantly duller report and muzzle flash(even unsuppressed), and gives you the option to use any milspec ar15 magazine. Which unlike the accurate magazine is much more available, cheaper, and offers wider variety of capacity to the shooter.

    • Ron Peregrim May 11, 2016, 6:46 pm

      I use an AR in 300 Blackout and prefer it to the 308 anyday. Anyone that tells you that the 300 is not a good round needs to shoot one first before running their mouths and looking like a fool. I hunted Missouri this year and killed a nice buck at a measured 325 yards. All 240 lbs. Of him. How much more power do you need ?

  • Keith Rockefeller December 17, 2014, 9:56 am

    Except for weight, how is the scout rifle any more effective than the old British SMLE #4, Mk 1? I’ve seen sporterized SMLE’s for much less and don’t see how the Scout rifle does that much more than a good SMLE would?

    • GI Joe December 17, 2014, 12:36 pm

      Huh? Sometimes a comment is *so* “left of center”, I can’t bite my tongue hard enough to keep my mouth shut. You have decided to compare a 21st Century 6 pound “specialist” rifle to a near 19th century, 11 pound battle implement? What do they have in common, besides that both are bolt action rifles firing 30 caliber rounds. Is this what you meant by your comment? If so, then ANY bolt action rifle would be “the same thing” as this new rifle, wouldn’t it? If you wanted to demonstrate your firearms “knowledge”, you could have at LEAST used an Enfield #5 “Jungle Carbine” as your point of comparison, it would have made a modicum of sense unlike your #4 SMLE example! Your comment for today has earned you an “F”. For your punishment, spend the day reading firearms publications and reflect on your error.

  • robert December 17, 2014, 9:47 am

    this is not a do all Gun : Maby good for back woods of Alabama but not for a big game or long rang or for joe the plumer to get for his son ‘s first hunt not for west texas mule deer at +250 yard I dont think I need to keep going on and on do I . Like one sead a $550.00 gun. And if the SHIT dose ever hit this is not what I wont to have to save my life

    • Phildo October 15, 2017, 11:14 am

      This is indeed a do-all gun, depending on how you set it up. I run mine with a Leopold two and a half power scout scope, but this rifle is full capable of accepting another variable optic. I don’t think anyone who’s ever hunted would disagree that 308 is a more-than-capable caliber for every animal in North America short of a big Grizzly or polar bear. Mine went on a Maine moose hunt with me and took an 1100 pound bull through both shoulders. The detachable magazine was incredibly convenient for loading and unloading getting in and out of the truck all day, every day, for a week.
      If the barrel length is a concern, anyone with a working knowledge of ballistics knows that you don’t lose that many feet per second per inch of barrel with conventional loads, and handloads featuring a faster burning powder can make the most of a shorter Barrel.
      Long story short, anybody who can’t get the job done with a .308 and put a bullet in the Boiler Room of a medium or big game animal at 300 yards? Probably shouldn’t be in the woods, or should hit the range and practice up before they get out there.

  • Mike December 17, 2014, 9:31 am

    I own the Ruger Scout with laminated stock and it’s awesome. I find mine to be very accurate out to 200 yards. Love the short barrel and find it very easy to handle in the woods.

  • shane December 17, 2014, 9:22 am

    2 moa at 200 yards is 4″

  • George December 17, 2014, 9:16 am

    Everyone’s an expert. As we say in the military “Opinions are like AH, Everyone has one”. And on that note, Dont knock it till you try it. I bought mine for $835, laminated stock and in SS, and it IS the one rifle Id take if I could ONLY choose one!
    Thanks Ruger!

    • John December 17, 2014, 11:45 pm

      I have the same rifle as George and totally agree with his statement. The SS 18 inch rifle with polymer mags is an awesome gun for what it was intended for (scout). And unless you have actually fired/shot one, your opinion is baseless and is of limited use (you can’t honestly give any meaningful feedback) . Thanks Ruger for a great rifle. BTW they make several models of this rifle, some in 5.56 mm caliber .

  • Brent Bennett December 17, 2014, 9:08 am

    First of all , $ 1,099 is TO much for this Rifle ! Even on a Wholesale level, it would probably be around $ 750 ! Second , a forward mounted Scope , is EXPENSIVE ! Although , a Standard Model could be Mounted ! < Which , would block the Ghost Ring rear sight, making it ineffective ! Third , the barrel is TO short ! 20" would be Right !

  • Jack Carnahan December 17, 2014, 9:03 am

    I have some experience in long range competition and am a retired range manager at BRL/APG, Md. I recall the original Scout Rifle concept and wish SOMEONE, ANYONE would rid themselves of the detachable magazines and install clip guides for the use of stripped clips which was the original concept as a quasi-military rifle/self defense rifle.

    But the magazine looks cool…. Oh well

    That said, I’ve always considered Rugers to be a somewhat 2nd level product and this example does nothing to make me change my mind. That said, they are usually a reasonable value but this one would need a reduced price IMO to be reasonable.

  • Alpine December 17, 2014, 8:43 am

    Ruger needs to jump out from behind.
    The scout idea is archaic in today’s
    world of video game mentality of close quarter combat or long range precision.
    If this was a 300 blk out or 7.62x 39
    with a normal rail, they may of had something. What is going on with Ruger’s R and D?

    • Ruger fan December 17, 2014, 10:53 am

      I absolutely agree with your assessement. The scout is neither fish nor foul. It is not for range greater than 100 yards with a 2X scope. It is not a close quarter personal defense rifle given the semi-auto AR15 with red dot or 1-4X scope in traditional mount location can do a much better job. For hunting, it is critical to make pinpoint shot (head/neck) to reduce meat damage and not having to track or lose wounded game. This 2X scope does not help much. The 10-round mag is geared for combat rather than hunting. I cannot recall more than three times did I ever need a second shot during the last 30 years hunting whitetails and feral hogs. If I hunt feral hog herd grazing a huge field where I have an opportunity for more than one shot I’d pick up an AR without a second thought.

      • Trowel Slinger December 17, 2014, 2:43 pm

        There are old, old timers (most of whom are dying off now) who would tell you about a time when a 6x scope on a hunting rifle was considered unnecessarily high magnification. They would call anything above 10x an astronomers instrument.

        Go back to the days of WWII and the typical magnification on an ’03 was 2.5x to 4x, and it worked for them. But they were certainly much more hard boiled breed back then, being less dependent upon technology and fancy gadgets and gizmos.

        When I was a teen in the early 80s, I’d see these old guys plunking man sized steel targets all day, at 500 to 700 yards, all day using old surplus Mausers, ’03s, Garands, and P17s with iron sights. Granted they weren’t “placing” consistent head shots. But what they were doing was the equivalent of blowing off a foot or a chunk of hip or shoulder. Now that’s PRACTICAL combat accuracy.

        I don’t know about you, but out in the field, I don’t think I’d be doing to well missing a big toe courtesy of a 30-06 from even a mile out. I’d be willing to bet that if some of these old guys were still alive and still had the shoulders for it, that using modern technology, they would hands down and with little effort, out shoot and humble today’s best.

        More over, I’d bet that the old timer (provided that his eyes were still good) would have no problem, even with a mere 2x magnification, making clean kills on medium (practical for survival) sized game within 200 yards. And certainly, he’d have no problem putting down a two legged target (humanely or not) well beyond that range. Let’s face it, if one does not have a precision tuned hunting rifle, the simple adaptation for that is to improve upon ones tracking and stalking skills. The key concept being ADAPTATION.

        If one does enough reading on the Cooper concept, they will find that this concept was more or less “Last rifle you will ever have” under the worst circumstances concept. That is to say, no support, no logistics, no spare parts, ammo in short supply, etc, etc. It’s all about adaptability. Adaptability, in the long run, will always win out over specialization.

        Let’s face it, military scout, the number one objective is exactly that; scouting, gathering intelligence; not engaging If you’ve been compromised, you’ve failed, period. And at that point, especially when I know that help isn’t coming any time soon, I would rather be running and evading with a 36″, 6.5 pound rifle than with a 42″, 12.5 pound lightning rod.

        Depending upon the purpose and under the circumstances, whether it be apocalyptic survival, hunkered down in concealment for long periods while evading larger numbers, or being full speed on the run for your life, and any number of other circumstances; in the hands of a skilled and ADAPTIVE user, the “Cooper Scout” (not necessarily Ruger’s) is a concept rifle that can be ADAPTED to most PRACTICAL and PLAUSIBLE situations if it was the one and only rifle that the shooter had so long as the shooter could adapt to it. Pair that with a reliable pistol and knife for close encounters, and you could certainly be a whole lot worse off.

  • Jay December 17, 2014, 8:36 am

    I have to say that recent experience with Ruger has left a bad taste in my mouth! I don’t want anyone to get me wrong, I own and appreciate many Ruger products but in my recent experiences with the company for warranty repair and or problems they have fallen far behind what the company use to be even 10 years a go! I feel that in thier quest to make money, which is what a company has to do, they have forgotten customer service after the sale which is what keeps you afloat in the long run! Myself, I never did get any resolution to several warranty or repair services and Ruger will not be on my to buy from list unless it is something really spectacular which this rifle is not. As someone already said, for the money and the fact i’s like a cross between the Mini 14 and a M77, no thanks!

    • Flip December 18, 2014, 9:02 pm

      I agree with you. I own many Ruger rifles; more than a dozen, and last year my wife bought me a Ruger pistol; a .480 I think. It was missing two screws for the hand gun rings and I called Ruger trying to get them to send them. They refused; saying that model did not come with rings. There was a place in the plastic box for the rings that it comes with. I’ll never buy another Ruger. I sold 2 Ruger rifles recently and bought 3 Tikkas instead. They need to get lessons in customer service. Without that, they will be losing more customers, no matter how many new items they bring to market. I’m really not a fan of investment cast stuff anyway.

  • M.M.D.C. December 17, 2014, 8:20 am

    Thanks for this. I had wondered if Ruger has addressed the rather poor accuracy early reviewers had reported. Now I know.

    The gun looks good in black. I still want the laminate stock, though.

  • Frank December 17, 2014, 8:19 am

    A little rifle with a very large price tag won’t cut it. This package should be priced around 500.00 to 600.00 dollars.
    For a 1000.00 bucks I would rather purchase a Remington 700 5R 20″ barrel shooting sub MOA. Much more bang for the bucks.

    • Ken December 17, 2014, 10:07 am

      Never go by MSRP. Picked mine up for$700.00. Might be high for some but I’m partial to the Ruger so if that’s what it takes….
      FYI polymer mags work great. Have several of the 10’s and 5’s, no issues.

  • Ron December 17, 2014, 8:07 am

    It’s only available in 308?? I would prefer a 24 or 26 inch barrel. Nice concept though. I am sure they will make improvements as they go along.

    • Rex December 23, 2014, 7:14 am

      You can get on in .223 as well.

    • Phildo October 15, 2017, 12:43 pm

      I question why you would prefer a 26-inch Barrel. That’s 10 more inches of barrel? The only benefit of a longer Barrel is marginally increased muzzle velocity with all the downsides of a heavy rifle and less handy carrying characteristics.

  • joel December 17, 2014, 8:03 am

    AI are “proprietary” magazines and they are expensive. Ruger didn’t learn it’s lesson, and redesign this great rifle to take M14 mags, or at least DPMS style AR10s.

    Thankfully, Mossberg “gets it” and it’s MVP 762 will remain my utility rifle.

  • R. Brock Watkins December 17, 2014, 7:37 am

    Nice review but needs one correction. A 2 MOA rifle will shoot approximately a 4 inch circle at 200 yards. If it shoots a 2 inch circle at 200 yards it’s actually a 1 MOA shooter. (actually 1 MOA/100yards = 1.046″ and therefore 2 MOA/200 yards would = 2.084″)

    • R. Brock Watkins December 17, 2014, 8:52 am

      A typo in my post: 2 MOA at 200 yards is actually a 4.188″ circle. “We’ll get it right yet”


      • Dave Higginbotham December 17, 2014, 9:45 am

        SEEEEEEE! It is easy to screw up! And I’m a writer, not a mathemagician. But I will calculate better and proofread more carefully.

        • R Brock Watkins December 17, 2014, 11:02 am

          Dave, a little advise from an old guy that writes and makes a few mistakes. Stop reading this thread, have a beer and take a nap.

  • Chris Grisham December 17, 2014, 7:33 am

    love the revue…
    Amazingly I just purchased a lefty version. I love it, of course I fell in love the first time I saw one!!!
    Mine will be primarily a paper killer. I might take it predator or hog hunting.
    But I am looking forward to push some major lead down the barrel!
    Nice review, very accurate!

  • matt fosdick December 17, 2014, 7:31 am

    I own a Ruger Gunsite Guide rifle and its a good rifle,the only problem I have with it is the magazine is a really bad design as the bottom plate has repeatedly fallen off dumping all of the rounds in the dirt. It also does not load or unload easily.

    • cawpin December 17, 2014, 8:24 am

      Did you ever call Ruger? They would have replaced those magazines immediately.

  • David Pittelli December 17, 2014, 7:27 am

    Looks good. But ” 2 MOA at 200 yards (which is roughly a 2″ circle) ” isn’t right. 2 MOA at 100 yards is a 2″ circle. 2 MOA at 200 yards is a 4″ circle. Fortunately it looks like you could get 1 MOA anyway.

  • Wyo250in77 December 17, 2014, 7:17 am

    How does a person distinguish this newly-released model from earlier models of Ruger Gunsite Scout rifles? That would be useful information in a review, otherwise a fine review.

  • Steve K December 17, 2014, 7:10 am

    I am a stainless steel NUT. I admit it. But PLEASE, if you don’t like the beauty of stainless steel, for whatever reason, DO NOT use a MATTE finish and completely destroy it’s beauty. Use a SATIN finish. It is infinitely nicer. And don’t tell me, “it’s a working gun, so we must make it look cheap and trashy.” I LOVE Rugers. I hope this “matte SS” trend doesn’t creep into their revolvers. I can’t imagine a .454 Alaskan in matte SS. Ugh, makes me shutter! It would be like smearing mud on the Mona Lisa.

    I would prefer a satin stainless barrel on the Scout, but I’ll opt for the black.

  • Bill December 17, 2014, 6:35 am

    Correct the 2moa is 2″ at 200 yards.

    I’m disappointed in the quality of the writing here. Normally you guys do a lot better.

    • Dave Higginbotham December 17, 2014, 9:43 am

      The quality of the writing? The MOA mistake aside–what else is off? I’m not saying it is perfect; we always want to make things better, and will take all legitimate criticism.

  • Dave Powell December 17, 2014, 6:31 am

    I had previously read the original review, “The Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle – Gun Review” (November 2011) and was skeptical. In fact, I take all magazine-type reviews with a grain of salt since they consistently seem overly positive and soft on the criticism (unless the item in question is plainly an indefensible piece of junk). My guess is a lack of objectivity that is due, depending upon the source, either to fear of loss of revenue (through sales or advertising), or not wanting to lose preference in receiving free sample products for testing.
    Looking back to that original review, it was suspiciously thin on discussing accuracy, which abstracted read: “…the accuracy was well within the tolerance of modern production rifles… In casual rested shooting none of the ammo went over 2 MOA. The Ruger Model 77 is known as a gun that likes certain bullet and velocity combinations, and I’m sure with careful hand loading and testing it wouldn’t be difficult to find the sweet spot load for this rifle that will hold into under 1MOA.”
    Today in this article we read that the original reviewer, who was initially credited as “By Administrator” and is now revealed to be Guns America editor “Dave” (Higginbotham?), said his first “review gun looked good, but the long range accuracy was more like minute-of-barn.”
    It doesn’t take a literary critic to see a clear contradiction here, nor does it take much research to see the potential ramifications of this inaccuracy (or downright dishonesty) in reviewing objectivity… If we look back to just the second comment reply to that review, written by a reader (“Bear”) who self-described as disabled veteran living on limited funds, he writes, “I also trust your all’s testing and judgment and from that I would purchase one if I ever get the chance.” He then goes on to say that due to the review, he was considering buying one of the rifles for his nine-year-old grandson.
    It is my firm belief that reviewers are obligated, both ethically and morally, to openly reveal any conflict of interests in their assessment objectivity. Does the reviewer sell the item being reviewed, does the manufacturer pay for advertising or such, and how was the review item obtained (was it purchased, loaned, or a gift from the maker)?
    Although I am clearly disappointed by Guns America’s fast and loose treatment of the truth in this instance, I am not surprised and see this simply as a case where a lack of scruples was unintentionally revealed. However, many readers are simply not as savvy as myself, and it disturbs me deeply to see my fellow 2nd Amendment brothers (including, but not limited to disabled veterans who have served our nation proudly) misdirected by what essentially amounts to greed.
    If Guns America wants to make up for this wrong they should put their money where their mouth is and purchase one of these new, improved Ruger Scout rifles and make a Christmas gift of it for reader-commenter Bear’s now twelve-year-old grandson… As well as officially changing their editorial policy, henceforth clearly disclosing their relationship with the weapon being reviewed and the manufacturer thereof. -Dave Powell, Crawfordville, FL

    • Dave Higginbotham December 17, 2014, 9:31 am

      Wow. I forgot to cover my ass with this one. The Gunsite I reviewed was NOT the one reviewed in the GunsAmerica article linked above. I’ve been writing for GunsAmerica for less than a year, now. I was writing for an entirely different publication then.

      “It is my firm belief that reviewers are obligated, both ethically and morally, to openly reveal any conflict of interests in their assessment objectivity. Does the reviewer sell the item being reviewed, does the manufacturer pay for advertising or such, and how was the review item obtained (was it purchased, loaned, or a gift from the maker)?”

      We get guns and gear from all sorts of sources. None are gifts. Even from our advertisers, we send guns back. If not, we arrange payment at the end of the review cycle and purchase the occasional gun just like anything else. If gear or ammo is provided that can’t be returned, we make that known in the reviews. No one gets a pass with us, not even our advertisers.

      “Although I am clearly disappointed by Guns America’s fast and loose treatment of the truth in this instance, I am not surprised and see this simply as a case where a lack of scruples was unintentionally revealed. However, many readers are simply not as savvy as myself, and it disturbs me deeply to see my fellow 2nd Amendment brothers (including, but not limited to disabled veterans who have served our nation proudly) misdirected by what essentially amounts to greed.”

      Really? A simple mistake on my part gets this kind of response? Were you just having a bad day? My guess is that you’re upset about something that may need more attention, and I’m glad you’ve brought it up. I’ll do my part to make things clear.

      • Bruce Beckwith December 17, 2014, 11:21 am

        Yes, Dave, really. With the Remington R 51 debacle, great reviews crappy guns, fresh in the gun buying public’s mind, magazine writers are held in about the same esteem as used car salesman?.

    • GI Joe December 17, 2014, 12:19 pm

      >> However, many readers are simply not as savvy as myself,<< Can you say pompous? (look it up Dave, you may not be as "savvy" as me…)

    • Richard Knight December 17, 2014, 2:26 pm

      Dave Powell, I read your response to the editors remarks on this rifles over all action. And I appreciate you giving us your opinion and insight as to why he said what he said and that its not a creditable review to use when buying a overall hunting rifle. I do not hunt, but I would like to buy my son-in-law a rifle that he can use for everything from hog, to come Deer season Deer. Right now he only has a shot gun that he deer hunts with. Using buckshot to hunt his deer with. I think he is hunting in the 50 yards max, so I think he would have much better luck if he could reach out there a little father and touch one without having it run off hurt and either not being able to find it or just injuring it. He has hogs and deer coming right thru his front yard but I think he needs a real deer rifle to hunt with, any suggestion’s? I wasn’t looking to break the bank, this will be a gift, and also I would like to get him something he could afford the buy the ammo for. I know what happened to my ammo for my AR-15(223/556) awhile back. Looking for a good all around gun for him, wouldn’t even mind something used with a good 3X9 scope on it, something he could kill a deer and also afford to sight it in before hand. Thank you for any and all help, really appreciated your help, past and future. Have a great holidays to you and your family.

    • Tortoise December 17, 2014, 2:44 pm

      My favorite Donald Sutherland part…. hell, my favorite movie character.

      Kelly’s Heroes (1970)
      Oddball: Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

      And a little note to management… those Bumpfire Systems folks are awesome. My order got messed up and they stayed in total and prompt email contact and even gave me a little present for the inconvenience… for $99 who would have thought they would spend an extra minute with ya. Awesome…

  • eagle eye December 17, 2014, 6:29 am

    2 MOA is not a 2″ group at 200 yards. It is 4″ approximately.

    • Marion December 17, 2014, 8:32 am

      At least one other shooter understands basic math. Cudos.

    • Dave Higginbotham December 17, 2014, 9:33 am

      Yes! Thanks. Apologies. I screwed up the number in the edit, as I wasn’t thinking about the appropriate distance. Simple editorial mistake.

    • Ray December 17, 2014, 10:14 am

      The initial statement is correct… (or has it perhaps been edited since your feedback?)
      “It needs to shoot at least 2 MOA at 200 yards (which is roughly a 4″ circle). You should shoot that well, too.”

  • Gary December 17, 2014, 6:07 am

    IDK… this rifle looks like a weird hybrid between a M77 and a Mini 14. Size and weight are overall pluses, and in the stainless finish I agree should make a great all-purpose weapon. However the suggested pricetag of nearly $1100 is killing my interest quick.

    • Brian December 17, 2014, 10:15 am

      I picked one up used (unfired) for $650. New they run about 800-850. VERY NICE RIFLE

  • Edward M. Edson December 17, 2014, 4:07 am

    Would Ruger ever consider building this rifle in something other than .308 ?
    Up I’m Alaska, this would be considered
    nice but NOT powerful enough for moose, grizzly bear, etc. Maybe the new Ruger .375 ? Now THAT would be the “perfect” rifle for that region !

    • Steve December 17, 2014, 9:28 am

      I have a customer who recently purchased a 375 Ruger in a different model but similar. Came with removable muzzle break, stainless with open sites. Very impressive.

    • Phil December 17, 2014, 1:01 pm

      Check out the Ruger Guide Gun. Probably a little less handy than the Gunsite, but it comes in the popular big bore magnum calibers.

    • barry December 17, 2014, 11:14 pm

      Junk guns ya right thats why reloading manuals have a section for Thompson center and Ruger only.You should do a little research and reloading before you spout off.I think your politics clouded your common sense.Ruger will handle loads that would blow up just about any other handgun except a contender.If i am going to shoot full house magnums it wont be out of anything but a Ruger Thompson or a Dan wesson .look before you leap because you dont like their politics does not detract from the quality and workmanship {american} that they put in their products

    • darren billingsley December 18, 2014, 2:34 am

      the 308 is quite capable of killing any moose or bear out there. just got to know what you are doing.

    • Doc January 21, 2015, 6:30 pm

      Edward M. Edson – I was looking for something someone wrote on some kind of ‘scout’ rifle to help a friend who wanted a ‘scout’ rifle and he didn’t like the lever action and wood of a Marlin – he wanted a “black gun”, and ran across this post. If this makes you feel any better about the .308 doing OK in Alaska — good (and no I’d never thought anything less that a hand made ‘hot’ load 45-70 (or 90) would be worth carrying for the same reason you did. Think about hearing a .22 was going to replace the 30-06 as the main battle rifle – that was kind of how I thought (heck a .223 is only 3/1000th larger than a .22LR for cryin’ out loud! – I mean had the ***ENTIRE*** DOD done some very good and VERY strong LSD?!!!).

      I was watching a documentary on one of the Arctic tribes – if I could even come close to the title or maker, I’d refer you to it. (It was along the lines of a National Geographic type of film). Here’s the gist: Folks living in a fishing village North of the Arctic Circle were getting ready for the ice to break up – it was a getting ready to go ‘bear hunting’ (as in Polar). A woman who looked WELL into her 70s (so let’s call her 50-60 from the sun and wind and cold exposure wrinkles) was getting ready to hunt along side the men. She was talking about how she’d brought back a bear ‘. . .[E]very Season Since I was 20, that was a bad year when everyone had to hunt. . .even kids normally too young . . .” – And she watched as the guide pulled out a couple of .300 Win. Mags, and a BMG bolt. She looked at them and said – why so many guns and so big for only one man?” (actually they were for the crew, and we just saw three of them the crew was 6 men) /cut film to close up of the nearly toothless old lady as she was unhooking her dog team with help from family for friends. Que sound: Old lady talking: ‘They said I couldn’t kill one with one of these either, but it’s the only gun I’ve ever owned, I got it from my young husband when his Kayak turned over on him and they were out fishing big fish (from context it was some kind of small whale that generally draw killer whales to co-hunt with the the tribe and help guide the target kill the ‘big fish’ and the Indians always gave (what later on in the film looked like about 1/4) some back to the killer whales. So they’d formed a symbiotic relationship – only the guy was usually in the boat and not in the water, so MY guess is seeing the hunter in the water, lost him the advantage of a “normal silhouette”, and he became dinner – just my guess. I don’t know why else a Killer Whale would let a guy stay safe in a boat and kill him in the water (and come on guys – a ‘Kayak’ is BARELY a ‘boat’ more like a raft with stiff sides.).

      What kind of rifle was she holding? – the one ‘they said I couldn’t kill one with . . .”? — you won’t believe it (and I don’t blame you for an instant – mean a .22 as a BATTLE rifle!??? LOL!!!!!) – I had to rewind several times to make CERTAIN that I was seeing and hearing correctly. – there in her mittened hand was a rifle everyone on this list could ID after dark with ANY kind of silhouette from back-ground moon or ambient snow-glow — It was a scopeless M-14. With Mag. Yep, “Got me 23 or 24 with this, and some were very big, took two days to get the meat cut up to take home (normal time was about half to 3/4 of a day to gut, skin, and cut into pieces large enough to sled back to camp). Now TWO days is a BIG bear. (or a small party – they didn’t imply a small party but the point is the same).

      An M-14 with a standard issue looking mag firing store bought (probably low end price, though I didn’t see the box) .308’s – and lets call it, just to correct for any exaggeration, 20 full sized Polar Bears through standard open iron sights. It was just only about a 2, maybe 3 minute clip of the movie, night have been less.

      But it doesn’t take a lot of time to show WHY a .22 caliber would replace the .30-06 as THE standard issue Battle Rifle — ONE moving photo into a watermelon or Gel would make it PERFECTLY clear – more than a thousand or more words could EVER make someone believe a .22 cal was not a bad standard issue battle rifle with more pros than cons – That one split second shot of some Tribal woman holding a short standard issue lookingM-14 .308 Cal and knowing that particular rifle had taken down as many polar bears as I have probably seen in my entire life (with her eyes and iron sights) was more than enough to say it was FAR more than ‘beginners luck’.

      Now, personally I’d probably not want to wait for a 200-300 yard shot – but I can’t see how it could be done outside that range (to bring down a getting pissed off bear). She had less than maybe 40 seconds of ‘talk time’ but she sure didn’t say – and I listened many times to see if she let the bear get ‘close’ – though that can be the only explanation I can come up with – Yet for over 20 years (and more if her husband died ‘young’) that M-14 brought home food for the table every single year. Correct me if I’m wrong but storing Ammo in a box for that long is not the best way to make sure that EVERY round would fire – and fly straight. So if we use an ‘unexaggerated’ figure of 20 bears — that still leaves 20 bears per box of ammo. And now THAT begins to sound exaggerated. (And yeah, maybe it was a box a per bear, but that sure didn’t fit with the context of the film — TWO rounds would have been pushing the context of the film). So it might not be your FIRST CHOICE – but I have it on film that a little old lady with a stock issue M-14 with iron sights brought down at least one bear a season for over 20 years — with that rifle held in the hands of someone who looked over 70, — and at 50 –, those iron sights get hard to see without help from the glare of sunlight over time..

      If I knew WHERE to look I’d have an idea so I could post it here for the unbelieving – though the best example I can some up with is hearing that a .22 cal was going to become our standard issue battle rifle – I wouldn’t believe it either, but since so much of what I watch are documentaries, often two an evening – for me it’s a movie or two (mostly (90+%) documentaries) then an hour of reading – then lights out and I go to sleep. So I doubt I’d EVER find it again since there wasn’t much else in the film worth mentioning as either amazing or beautiful —

      So there you go – open sight M-14 .308 kept all as-issued stock is all you need to bring down what is probably the largest and one of the meanest animals in North America – After that a moose would be more like a yearling deer.

      Absolutely the LAST firearm of ANY firearm I’d EVER recommend for the VERY real dangers of the Arctic. I’d have to think long and hard to find THEN recommend one that fit many categories so you didn’t need more than two (shotgun and long arm) – ‘saftey’ being one of them – And without SEEING her do it, I’d hesitate at how close it might have to be — things are less scary at 70 than in your 40’s – but even taking THAT into account – a .308 vs. Polar Bear? (remember only one long gun) Grandma used a .308 Government, me? I’d be nervous with a 45-70 Government.

      So there you go if you are thinking a .308 ‘too small’ – Grandma says it’s not – and has been proving it for over 20 years. Whoda ever thunk!!!???

  • Rod December 17, 2014, 2:57 am

    Here is One More gun I won’t BUY because of “To Short of Barrel ! For a 308, the Min. barrel should be NO Shorter then 18 inch.

    • Brian December 17, 2014, 9:54 am

      you obviously have no clue what a gunsite rifle is…. do some research.

      • Larry342516 December 19, 2014, 6:43 pm

        You tell us Brian?

      • 04810103 December 28, 2015, 10:32 am

        (Bran): Classic response from someone who really doesn’t know what HE is talking about!

    • Brian December 17, 2014, 10:14 am

      you obviously have no clue what a gunsite rifle is…. do some research.

    • Gerald December 17, 2014, 12:02 pm

      Nice rifle, but. I do not like flash-hiders or muzzle brakes. Too noisy and unnecessary for most situations. I would rather have that 2″ of barrel. Also, I would not buy it because it will not accept a standard AR, FAL or M14 magazine (Mossberg did it!). I guess nothing’s perfect.

      • Scout sniper VN December 17, 2014, 3:59 pm

        Dear Sir
        I was reading your comment about the different man that won’t interchange. I was Lance Cpl. scout sniper in Hue city Vietnam 1968. I carried and M 14 with a flash suppressor on I was making shots 800 yards. Then when I was in the Department of Corrections and the statement Nevada I carried an H and K 91 and you could not exchange the magazines from the M 14 to the 91 much less take a smaller caliber such as the 5.56 x 45 Ar magazine. I don’t know which magazines are reading your information from but intelligibly in an real combat and had also wanted it doesn’t seem like you Do Not know Jack about weapons. There are so many people who write articles who call themselves experts who were in the Afghan pity party. You’re the same people who say that Vietnam was not much of a war at all and I’m getting sick and tired of hearing it from these young people that they had it worse than we did the most you’ve ever had to worry about in Afghanistan is a maximum of 1500 insurgents what we faced 82,000

        • allan roper December 17, 2014, 6:47 pm

          the city of hue happened to visit hue in 1969 went all the way into the center of the citidel sort of like the white house its amazing what a 55 grain bullet can do to a person actually its discusting a .308 bullet is even more discusting shooting paper is alot less personel than shooting a enemy soldier after 2 years in vietnam i came up with one conclusion nobody wins in war soldiers were killed or dismembered for life and emotionally injured for life one year with the first infantry one year on the dmz you cant change yesterday only tomorrow shooting paper is alot safer targets dont shoot back dosent matter what war the pain and suffering is still there sorry for getting off track one closing statement a weapon is only as good as the person pulling the trigger i still enjoy target shooting. allan roper .god bless america.

          • Doc December 18, 2014, 10:33 pm

            ‘Nam Scout, and Allan: I’ll get to an interesting ‘scout rifle’ that few have thought about here because they are not ‘black guns’ – though before I start I need to warn you that I’ve been accused here as being arrogant, snobbish, pompous, being over-bearing, and perhaps VERY ignorant as well. I do not mean to come off that way. Many people here don’t understand the concept of combat arms and what they can, might, and don’t do when used correctly in real life. Though some (not all) have an imagination of what they CAN do — and they are are not wrong in those thoughts. I am also suspect, as many are, of those who use the term ‘Veteran’. Technically it can be stretched to anyone in uniform – coulda been in the Deep-Rock Five Star Hotel in Omaha as a clerk-typist OR as a rifleman in some kinda insane special stink hole raised from Hell especially for the Marines like Hue or Khe Sanh. Though there are those who DO understand what you are talking about and the difference. And, in today’s wars of Iraqistan, I would NOT want to be a truck-driver or mechanic bringing in (or taking out) supplies over the mountainous roads and passes from Pakistan to Taliban and back. I believe that their job is FAR more dangerous than many ground-pounders were the truth to be told.

            We only had ‘booby traps’ – now they have IED’s – which are rarely ‘improvised’, often use calculated shaped special munition charges, and certainly rise above mere ‘devices’ and approach very well engineered purpose-driven weapon systems . I have yet to read equivalents of ‘punji’, the storms of arrows, or the scary-silent ‘porcupine’, let alone the leg and ankle breakers or the simple tiny charges that only took a tiny PART of a foot or hand. Just enough to take someone out of action, and a couple of folks to care for him for awhile while ‘Charlie’ got away. Or the special ‘rope traps’ — weapons of tinny terror that littered even the remotest forest or field and were always far off and well away any path at all. But I digress.

            One of the giveaways is often the misperception of how wounds work, and that ‘center of mass’ (or even a head shot) will ALWAYS drop a person where they stand. We know that they do not equal instant death or incapacitation though it is likely if it’s in the head, and sooner or later will probably be if it’s center of mass (says a FMF HM (‘Nam x3) often split between 2 and 3/5 with too much experience). Many here may not recall the word ‘Tet’ off the top of their head. And that’s OK; anyone who’s been in real combat is a brother, like someone once said to me – (as an HM) you are the buttons on my coat).

            All else aside here is a long-arm (Well with a 16 inch barrel it’s BARELY a ‘long-arm’) worthy of consideration as a ‘scout’ designation – and a fun one at that: say a hand cast 475 gr HP moving slow enough to open up, even at close range, that would make someone thunk twice (note past tense) – you can outfit the rifle with rails if you want and put on lights, lasers, scopes, horns, and even (I suspect) a coffee pot if you want one – though many would be more likely than not restrict the rail to a light,scope, and/or laser at MOST.

            Depending on the charge you hand-load, it can be a close quarters low power stop-them-now firearm (pick them up and set them down in the same room – or two rooms away if you have a good thermal imaging system), to a drop a buffalo at 1 mile firearm.

            (laugh all you want, but you should do the laughing before the trigger is pulled).

            It’s the venerable Marlin 1895 (120 YEAR OLD) .45-70 Government Scout (about 18 inch barrel, or Trapper with about a 16 inch barrel) – and the cost without glass? From the middle $500’s to the middle high $700’s. You won’t find ammo littering the street that’s for certain sure. But the price is right, the load is variable, and with one of those rifles (even a 5 shot rifle) they load fast enough to keep a cartridge ready to go next, and are accurate enough to get you what ever other fire-arm you might want.

            Just for giggles check out a YouTube video of the Hornady 325gr LEVERevolution FTX (I just happened to find one by Hornaday though I suspect other manufacturers would show about the same level of shock) when shot into ballistic gel ( ). And, while you are there check out how accurate the 16 or so inch barrel is – Pretty amazing — for ANY kind of long-gun – what it may lack in fire-power it makes up for in raw-power. Remember that a BMG doesn’t rattle off a thousand rounds a minute from your shoulder. And a .223 does have terminal ballistic problems as discussed here several times when the argument is .308 vs .223. And the Marlin won’t break the bank, even when ‘loaded’ with the APPROPRIATE toys on the rail – a $4, 000 piece of glass would be wasted, just like a $400 piece of glass might be wasted.

            But remember, if you hand-load, you can custom your charge and bullet for the job at hand: hurt the bad guy in front of you and not your wife and kids two or three rooms away, or your neighbor on the far side of their house — OR make that big mean bear turn into BBQ and stew from 300 yards away.

            It’s ‘outside the box’ in thinking and as a ‘modern’ weapon system – but it will do the job you want done. No one is going to survive trying to defend their house from a modern fire-team assault from any of our armed forces — including the police these days. And the most common firearm relied upon for survival by our western settlers was the shotgun followed by a medium game rifle (~.30-30). And if the idea here is a ‘scout rifle’, might as well get one that will do the job from multiple distances and for multiple purposes. — And the history of that round goes back well over 100 years so it’s characteristics are very well known, and modern firearms can fire modern powder giving it even more versatility.

            From Wikipedia: “While the effective range of the .45-70 on individual targets was limited to about 1,000 yards (915 m) with either load [405 grain or 500 grain], the heavier bullet would produce lethal injuries at 3,500 yards (3,200 m). At those ranges, the bullets struck point-first at a roughly 30 degree angle, penetrating three 1-inch (2.5 cm) thick oak boards, and then traveling to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) into the sand of the Sandy Hook beach.” Just slow that 500 grain bullet down a bit, make it a hollow point, put it into a 16 inch barrel, and you have one lethal slow-moving, pick them up and set them down, round. Target wearing a top-of-the-line Kevlar vest? MY money would be on the target NOT standing up, or even feeling like they wanted to after being hit – even if the vest stayed intact. And, after all, isn’t that the purpose of ‘self-defense’? To disable the threat? My bet would be that after being hit by 500 grains of lead traveling at only a few hundred feet a second (or less) the threat would no longer be a threat – and reload time is about as fast as you can aim. We all know how Chuck Connors (“Lucas McCain”) did it in ‘The Rifleman’ — nothing fancy, nothing to break.

            It will do what ever you want it to – knock the wind out of someone, or kill a buffalo at 1000 yards. Now THAT is a versatile ‘scout’ rifle. And you won’t go crazy shooting either, its a good thing to slow down and take aim before you pull the trigger. I find my pleasure in accurate placement of shots on paper targets — Zen Shooting – VERY much like Zen Archery, just a bit louder. And often more accurate than a spray where you will often scare something a LOT, but more often than not – NOT always hit it.

        • Larry342516 December 19, 2014, 6:45 pm


          • Matt Van Camp December 22, 2014, 7:18 am

            Thanks Doc, for that refreshing tirade… I agree wholeheartedly, a Scout rifle is a highly specialized rifle, created for a very specific job, and a specific user. This gun fills a lot of categories for me even without moving towards the “black gun” uses it nicely fits. What an excellent “camp gun” to have handy for that hungry bear that we seem to have a plethora of, hereabouts in western Washington. Or, to have as a truck gun, behind the seat or in a sleeve on the bench seat front of my trusty “crummy”! (To those of you non-native Washingtonians a “crummy” is your GP off-road vehicle used for hunting, among other things.) This baby will remain handy and ready for years ! (Especially the SS version !) I can’t wait till I buy this gun, and give it a whirl… Thanks Ruger !

        • Kevin December 23, 2014, 2:10 am

          Right on Brother!

        • Daniel Guerrero February 12, 2015, 11:43 am

          Im a Afghanistan combat veteran and I agree with you! preach on

        • Mike P. August 19, 2015, 3:16 am

          Effing A bubba!!!! I believe there are pros and cons to Every weapon. It is upto the shooter to make use of it.

          Desert Shield/Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the GWOT (Afghanistan/Iraq). We all had it very easy compared to your generation of warriors. Thank you.

          Mike P.
          SFC/USA (Ret.)

      • Reecieboy June 15, 2015, 1:31 am

        Yeah, Mossberg did it, and now have a rifle with feed problems.

    • Don December 17, 2014, 12:07 pm

      The HK91 (G3) has a 17 inch barrel and performs well. In decades past short barrels had a disadvantage of inefficient powders. Today we see excellent performance from short tubes.

    • tom December 17, 2014, 3:18 pm

      Why a bolt gun

      Why not choose a autoloading rifle?

      • Harold December 17, 2014, 7:26 pm

        In Pennsylvania we’re not aloud to hunt with semi-autos. I got a Ruger Gunsite scout rifle two years ago…and two whitetails with it so far. Mine shoots about 3/4 moa with M118 LR.

      • Army127 December 28, 2014, 2:08 am

        That’s pretty simple. A bolt gun because it’s got less parts to break and it makes you slow down a little and actually aim your shots before you take them. And to “Doc”+1 on the 1895 45-70, or even the 30-30 lever actions.

        I for one think the .308 is a very versatile cartridge as well, it can be used for anything from CQB, to 800-1,000yds away, and loaded to the spectrum of 125-190gr bullets with many different tips and ballastics that you can pretty much kill anything game, or people wise in the USA. I for one enjoy my Ruger Gunsite Scout rifle and have had no issues taking it out to 400yds and keeping it within 1.5 MOA. I have not tried it any farther out yet because I have no where to shoot any farther right now, but it’s a very well built excellent rifle.

        As for you “Scout Sniper VN”, I find what you said about the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq very insulting, and very ignorant as well. Don’t lump me in with someone who bad mouthed you once it’s stupid and very judgmental. I spent 15 years in the US Army from 1994-2012 (break in service after active duty then was in Reserves) and was deployed to The Middle East region 9 times during my career, with 2 deployments to Iraq before I was wounded badly in 2009 during my 2nd deployment. I would never minimize what you guys went through in Veitnam it was horrible I am sure, but don’t try to minimize a war or wars you don’t know anything about either. What me and my guys went through during those two deployments was horrible as well! No one should have to go through combat for months on end and weare all brothers no matter what war or conflict we fought in. I respect every man and women who has been in combat and stood out on that line, patrolled those, jungles, and fought street to street, building to building to take back places like Fallugah, and the Anbar province. By the way I know what the Tet offensive was when the Veitnamese launched coordinated attacks during their New Years celebrations which was usually a time of cease fire or little combat. I am not a young punk but neither are 99% of the soldiers, Marines, Navy, and Airmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember what it was like for you and maybe you will let yourself respect all of your brothers and sisters who fought and wanted the same things I am sure you did. Sorry for the side track but I can’t take people talking bad about the guys I served with and the young men who I was in charge of, it’s just not right at all.

        SSG GO out.

        • Mike February 16, 2015, 10:01 am

          AMEN Brother…….I stayed in the Corps for 21 yrs……37 months on the ground in VN…….and several months in other shit holes around the world……and yes I made TET……and spent a lot of time plinking along the Perfume River…….I’ve been blessed in life…….after the Corps I spent a lot of time as a contractor supporting several Gov. Agencies…..I ended up retiring a second time from industry where I helped translate operational requirements into weapon solutions…..when I retired it was because I developed colon cancer which was discovered at stage 3b when I was 64……not a bad run since it was the first time I was sick with anything serious….now I have progressed to stage 4 and spend my time going back and forth to Walter Reed/Bethesda for treatments…..I don’t have to go to Walter Reed for treatments…’s a 3 hr round trip at least once a week……I go because the men and women I meet up their are inspirational to me…..they are amazing examples of the warrior code the binds all of us into an inexplicable brotherhood……combat is combat……it marks us…..the only residual good is the company we share with each other……I have nothing but absolute respect for folks on the field today……we should think long and hard before ever suggesting those of our time had it worse than those of another…..we are the same….and all we really have is each other…..

          So I also take exception to the suggestion that our guys from recent wars and conflicts are less than those from our time……remember that no one understands us like each other and thank God we have each other when things get dark

      • dustoff October 11, 2015, 11:22 am

        Bolt action is fine for hunting, if you can’t hit right with one shot, you should keep your finger straight.

    • Coyote_Hunter December 17, 2014, 7:26 pm

      “Here is One More gun I won’t BUY because of “To Short of Barrel ! For a 308, the Min. barrel should be NO Shorter then 18 inch.”

      Well, that’s one person’s opinion. A few weeks ago I purchased a Ruger Gusite Scout. I had a choice between the stainless 18.7″ and the black 16.1″ versions. After some consideration I opted for the shorter 16.1″ barrel. My choice was also black laminate and blue rather than synthetic or stainless, another conscious and well-considered decision.

      The reasoning was simple – I have a multitude of rifles in 20″ to 26″ barrel lengths. Although I had concerns about noise and velocity loss due to the short barrel, one trip to the range eliminated those concerns. Noise was not as bad as some of my longer rifles and even handguns. Winchester 150 grain Power Point (X3085) averaged 2647fps over the chrono and Remington 150 grain Core-Lokt PSP (R308W1) averaged 2651fps. While this is a loss of 170fps from published velocities, it is plenty for my needs. Recoil was also milder than expected. One of the first things I did was buy a 3- and 5-round polymer magazine. These fit tighter than the factory 10-round steel mag and will see the most use. They also make the Scout legal for hunting big game (antelope, deer and elk) in the states that concern me. What I wanted was a handy, rugged-as-hell, reliable and versatile rifle and the 16.1″ barreled Scout fills the bill very well.

    • Gary December 17, 2014, 9:38 pm

      Would not buy or have a Ruger after they sided with Bill Clinton years back on gun control issues. I have sold all my Rugers and dam glad of it! I classify them as junk guns for those that do not know any better.

      • Coyote_Hunter December 20, 2014, 12:07 am

        While I don’t agree with what Bill Ruger did back then, I consider Ruger rifles and revolvers to be among the best values available today. Without exception my M77, MKII and Hawkeye rifles are accurate, rugged as hell and reliable. Same for my Ruger revolvers. Junk? Not hardly.

      • Rex December 22, 2014, 7:25 am

        Wow! Aren’t you smart. Bill Ruger has been dead for 12 years. Since then, Ruger (the company) has moved into 1911s, polymer framed revolvers, ARs and the Gunsite scout.

        Saying that Rugers are junk guns for “junk guns for those that do not know any better” says much about your willful ignorance.

    • Steve December 22, 2014, 10:46 am

      The barrel length is a not as import as everyone thinks, and longer barrels have a tendency to whip. I am no expert, but a constantly learning shooter. This is a great article on barrel length.

      With that being said, I own an older free floated Ruger Scout and I am looking to use it to shoot longer ranges. It is that accurate. I have a 1.5-4 Leupold Scout scope on it. I have no doubt that in normal daylight i can hit reliable at 300 yards. The problem comes when I am hunting at daybreak and dusk, the small objective is a hinderance and I find I have to carry binoculars to help me determine which deer to shoot.
      I’m thinking if I put a regular scope on it, i can easily shoot 600-800 without an issue, but that defeats the purpose of a scout rifle doesn’t it.

      With that being said, I love this rifle, it will be my go to hunting rifle for years to come.

    • Larry December 22, 2014, 10:51 am

      Wrong! The 308 round will work just fine out of a 16″ tube, or even shorter (Thompson Contender Encore) especially if you hand load using slightly faster burning powders and the lighter projectiles typically used for thin skin animals like whitetails. I think it would make an excellent pig gun too depending on the barrel twist and if it’ll stabilize 150 – 165gr pills . I’m sure Ruger realized this when they designed the barrel knowing most people will use something along the lines of 150gr projectiles or lighter. We’re not talking about a 1000 yard 308 target rifle here folks, we’re talking about a rifle for hunting. Or self defense for you folks that lives in one of the states (Republiks?) that don’t allow those terrible murderous fully automatic ‘AR-15′ black guns. Shame on you Bushmaster! lol

      What I like about it most of all is the fact my Cyclone suppressor will fit right on it and you still have a realitively compact hunting package. It would still be loud but most of the noise would be from the projectiles’ supersonic crack. Old hard-headed farts like myself would probably not even have to wear hearing protection while hunting, which I hate doing anyway.

    • Terry Kremin December 22, 2014, 5:00 pm

      This still uses proprietary magazines! You don’t seem to understand the term. They are still proprietary, just from a sub vendor instead of Ruger itself.

      If you can’t buy the magazines from multiple manufacturers, it is proprietary. It is really simple.

      Now if they would do like Mossberg did and make it use standard DPMS/Stoner magazines, they would have something.
      Why reinvent the magazines and have to pay horrendous prices for magazines you can use in one rifle (proprietary…) instead of magazines that are interchangeable with your other .308/7.62 rifles?

      Ruger just still can’t get the idea of what us gun owners want in regards to magazines.

      FAR more likely to get the Mossberg and just add a forward picatinny if I feel the need.

    • mike day January 9, 2015, 1:51 pm

      I own a scout. The gun out of the box does not work ! The #2 round I fired struck in the chamber . The first 30 rounds I fired would not eject right , bolt does not work correctly . bolt will not cycle . Sent gun back to ruger AND IT CAME BACK AS BAD AS THE FIRST TIME ! NOW IT HAS GONE BACK 3 TIMES .Called Gunsite academy and talked to a gunsmith there” quote” they are aware of all failures of this gun ! please call them to confirm my statement. this gun is not safe it is not any good the design is false . my name is mike day and I would be happy to tell anyone about this junk gun and “ RUGERS” poor customer service !!!! my email is

    • mike day February 23, 2015, 6:17 pm

      To whom this may concern I bought a scout on 1/5/2014 .On day one failure to eject ,shell case stuck in breech ,hard to and could not pull back bolt problems . Tried all kinds of shells still had problems sent gun back. Gun was not repaired same as before sent it in again talked to their CS rep and was told they fired 60 rounds through gun with no problems . When I TOOK THE GUN OUT THE FIRST ROUND FIRED AND THE BOLT WOULD NOT CYCLE . I have used their contact the CEO ON THEIR SITE NO REPLY! After this I called GUNSITE ACADEMY AND SPOKE TO MIKE IN THEIR SMITH SHOP AND WAS TOLD THEY KNOW ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS and more ! My name is MIKE DAY I am writing this review to tell people not to buy RUGER PRODUCTS UNTIL THEY CONTACT ME FOR REFUND OF MY EXPENSE OF SHELLS . I am not the only one who is having problems my in box is proof other men have mailed me about this junk gun. Just FYI my dealer was able to refund me for my junk scout but not my mags and I bought a SOCOM a fine gun. Any one want to buy seven mags for a scout or I will trade 7 for five M1 MAGS 10 ROUNDERS. My EMAIL IS .

    • ANTHONY March 27, 2015, 2:47 am

      To all the naysayers, I like the gun. Isn’t that what it should be about? It shoots just fine (with my own loads). Mounted a scout scope, but even these tires old eyes can shoot at 100 with acceptable accuracy using the irons. Love that claw ejector! Not a 700 that asks for a rod to be shoved down her throat (relax, have six of ’em). I think I may even like it better than my mini 30, and again, after all the specs and coefficients have been dissected by people who usually don’t even own the gun- Isn’t that really what it’s about? I like it. Get one and you’ll like it too.

      • Mark October 22, 2017, 11:53 pm

        I love mine but unfortunately I have not fired it much as my other rifles to because I had to move right in the middle of town and I hate the local range and is a good place to get shot by some idiot at , no supervision what so ever. Its not safe to go there by yourself, two AWOL Marines shot and killed a Preacher there one morning just for his gun and his Jeep but they were caught and are facing execution.
        Anyhow I sure like my Gun site Scout in .308, its in L.H. as I am and its why I got it for a song and a one of those Ruger poly framed revolvers in .38 spec. and it was back when you couldn’t hardly get them unless you were on a waiting list, but the shop just couldnt sell the L.H. model they had…untill I walked in lol. But it seems like a real tuff do -it-all rifle for sure, and I recently bought a 20 rd. poly mag on line for it just for the heck of it. and to have a 20 rd. bolt action I guess. But all in all its a nice gun that I wouldnt trade for a farm in Georgia, and it has the laminate stock. Iv’e had it for at least 5 yrs.
        I would like to get a diff muzzle break that I read about the other day on line but forgot what it was.
        And anytime the “one gun ” conversation comes up you will never have more that two ppl in agreement, even if its a crowd of three lol!

    • Phildo October 15, 2017, 2:54 pm

      Why wouldn’t you consider a barrel shorter than 18″?
      Not accuracy: The shorter barrel will deliver more consistant performance.
      Not handling: A longer barrel is significantly more cumbersome, not to mention weight-adding.
      So, why?

      • Mark October 22, 2017, 11:57 pm

        Might be because of muzzle velocity. I have heard that up to a point every inch will / can add 100 F.P.S. in most cases but like I said “up to a point”

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend