TexasCHLforum.com

Sangiovese wrote:Not sure what I'm going to do for optics yet. I'm leaning toward an eotech XPS-2 (love it on my AR15) but am also wondering if a long eye relief 1-4x or similar might be a better choice. My eyes aren't all that young and reaching out beyond 100 yards without magnification isn't feasible.

I have an EOTech that I wouldn't mind using if it weren't for the fact that I'm not able to zero it beyond about 25 yards, simply because I can't see clearly beyond about that.

DocRhino, one thing that may change your POI at whatever range is the height of the scope bore over the rifle bore. On the SR556 it is most likely the same as on any other AR, which is going to be roughly 2"—a function of the 0º angle of the stock relative to the action. Because the GSR's stock angle drops a bit relative to the receiver, the height of the scope over the bore on the GSR is lower than that 2".....unless you decide to mount a scope with a 50mm objective lens in the traditional position, which will require higher rings. It's not likely to make much of a difference close up, but it can make a significant difference further out. That said, the reticle in the Leupold VX-III mounted on the Remington shown in the OP is regulated for both .223 and .308 bullets and will yield the same bullet drops for either calibers out to 500 yards. I've never tested that to confirm it.

Do you by any chance have a link to that particular Shooting Illustrated article? I tried to find it but couldn't.

DocRhino wrote:Have I mentioned YOU'RE KILLIN' ME HERE!

One question: The pictures on your post, were those targets set at 50 yards or 100?

The pics in that last post were set at 50 yards. My first range trip was shot at 100 yards, but I did not take any pictures. I chose 50 yards this time quite deliberately for the two reasons mentioned previously: 1) I can't see the target well enough at 100 yards on 5X to be able to tell where my shots are hitting relative to one another; and 2) I wanted to see if the height of POI above POA at 50 yards matched what my ballistics table said it would be. (At some point, I' going to find a place I can shoot where I can measure the POI at 250-300 yards, to see if that matches what the ballistics table predicts.)

When I shot it at 100 yards, I averaged around 2" for a four shot string shooting the 165 grain Federal Fusion....and predictably, the 4th shot is the one that always opened the group up.

But even at 50 yards, 5X is not enough magnification for me to shoot at my best, which when combined with the less-than-match accuracy of this rifle makes it very unlikely that I could match that which I take for granted in my Remington or my AR10. The Remington has 4.5-14x scope, and I usually crank it all the way up at 100 yards. The AR10 has a 5-20x scope, and I try to shoot it at 15x.........so magnification is definitely one of the accuracy limiting factors for me with this rifle. I've just spent $599 on the scope, not to mention the cost of the rings, so I'm not likely to change it out.....and for my intended purpose, which is for a practical hunting/truck gun rifle, this scope is sufficient. I am pretty confident that I could take an average sized adult hog at 200 yards with it......if I can see the hog. Eyesight is really the issue, and it really boils down to philosophy of use.

On my AR carbine, I have a Burris 536 reflex sight which has a pretty cool reticle with a BDC calibrated to take a 62 grain penetrator all the way out to 600 yards. Well, I can't see anything at 600 yards, so that is not really within my practical range of usage. However, with a "Santos Improved Battlesight Zero" at 50 yards (http://aesirtraining.com/home/rifle-zero/), POI is never more than 2" above or below POA all the way out to 250 yards. This means that, all other things being equal, and there being no crosswinds or other inputs to bend the trajectory, all I have to do is put my center dot on the POA, without using holdover, and that bullet will never be more than 2" high or 2" low all the way out to 250 yards. That means that you don't have to treat each shot like you're a trained sniper. Instead, you aim, and you shoot, and you have a high probability of scoring good hits.

That is exactly the philosophy of use I am pursuing with this Ruger. I already have two extraordinarily accurate precision rifles. I wanted this one to be set up for use more like my AR carbine in that I can be certain of scoring a good hit within a reasonable distance simply by placing that red dot on the target and squeezing the trigger, and not having to do any calculations. So with a 175 grain Matchking and a 200 yard zero, POI will never be more than 2.3" high (@ 125 yards) or 3.7" low all the way out to 250 yards. That's a 6" vertical spread over the same distance as opposed to the 4" vertical spread of the flatter shooting 5.56 round, but it is still a fairly small amount of drop, making this a point and shoot hunter with that bullet, at that distance. This rifle seems to perform best with heavier bullets. I have a box full of 180 grain SSTs I'd like to work up a load with and see how that performs in this rifle, simply because that is a better choice for a hunting bullet and that is the primary purpose for this rifle. I've already worked up a precision load for my other bolt rifle, and so now I'm going to work up a good "working hunting rifle" load for this rifle.

A methodical hunter will, it possible, pre-range the distances to various objects and/or terrain features around the property he's hunting in, so that he can have a quick reference to how far away an animal is from his position by comparing that animal's position relative to the pre-ranged objects. And then, based on that, he or she will have a sense of what their bullet is going to do over those distances. Whatever I can do to simplify that process will increase my probability of hunting success.

Certainly it is fun to think of the RGS as a TEOTWAWKI rifle, but that is not my primary intent here. I just wanted a light and handy, carbine length .30 caliber bolt action rifle with reasonable accuracy, quick to get on target, and enough grunt to take whatever I'm likely to shoot with it............including a zombie hippie if necessary.

I went back to the range today because I wanted to try a couple of things. First, I used my ballistics software to calculate a table for the Black Hills 175 grain Match, based on a muzzle velocity of 2,550 fps. This is in line with results obtained by Gunblast with two other sniping loads using the same Sierra 175 grain Matchking, both being very similar to the Black Hills ammo (I badly need to buy a chronograph).

Based on that chart, I wanted to see if the height of the bullet impact above point of aim at 50 yards would match the chart. The ballistics chart predicted a height about POA of .7 MOA, or .35", based on a 150 yard zero. However, as you can see from the results in the first two pictures, fall of shot was about 1" above POA, which is more consistent with a 200 yard zero....which I actually prefer. This would yield a 2.3" apogee at 125 yards, and a 9.35" drop at 300 yards, and that makes anything inside of 300 yards fall within an 11" elevation deviation. Perfect.

Anyway, I also wanted to see if 5X magnification (the maximum zoom in my scout scope) would allow me to shoot smaller groups more easily. I'm not trying to make a match rifle out of this gun, but I want to know with confidence that if I place the red dot on a target at 200 yards, the bullet will impact within a small enough deviation from POA as to be reliable for hunting accuracy.

This test also allowed me (since I could see better what I was doing) to get a much more detailed picture of how the barrel performs as it heats up. Here's what I came up with......

First off, the rifle was very reliable with a cold-bore shot. POI for a cold-bore shot was never more than an inch, usually less, from POA. That was comforting.

Next, the rifle repeatedly demonstrated that it will shoot a three shot string with relative accuracy, and then the group will begin to open up considerably. I took some snapshots with my cellphone camera which I've attached below and which will illustrate this better than I can write it:

In this 4 round group, the first three came in just at or a little over .5", and the 4th was a flyer. This trend would be repeated over and over again.


Ditto with this 6 round group. The first three were respectable, and then the wheels came off the bus.


On this target, I fired three rounds, then there was a cease-fire. After the range was hot again, I fired 8 more rounds which measured roughly 1.25"


In this last image, I just burned through 20 rounds, all of which landed within about 2". The target paster is a 3" circle.


So all of this is to say that while this is definitely not a match rifle, it is certainly a competent brush gun with "practical accuracy," and that's exactly what I bought it for. It will probably shoot better for someone with sharper eyesight than mine, but I'm happy with my own results.

DocRhino wrote:TAM, you're killing me! I got a deal on a RGS from an FFL I work with that had a buy fall through. The wife agreed.... for Christmas. I promised not to even open the box (the DUMBEST promise EVER!) so I haven't even seen the rifle.

Great review and superlative information. Thanks.

I can't wait...

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Good luck with that one! Congratulations through. You're going to love it when you finally open it.

gmckinl wrote:Locking the bolt closed is IMO near manditory on a hunting rifle. I have personally experienced the sinking feeling of looking down to see the action open and the rifle unloaded after going through heavy brush (a vine must have snagged the handle). My chief complaint about my XL7 is the lack of a three position safety (but what do you expect at that price point).

The Model 70 Winchester is where the three position side swinging safety came from, not Mauser. Take a look at a Mauser 95 or 98, or the 03 Springfield (a very close copy), neither have that style of safety.

Thanks for the clarification of origins. My hunting experience is fairly limited, and I've never had to negotiate heavy brush with my rifle. It just wasn't part of the terrain where I was hunting.

Liberty wrote:Thanks, You are a lot clearer than the manual. I kept interpeting the manual that one couldn't move the bolt while the safety was in any position other than 2. That didn't make any sense. Your description makes more sense thanks. Glad you are happy with your new purchase. I can't wait until I get one.

Actually, if you're familiar with the Remington 700 safety (or any other brand's safety where "hot" is forward and "safe" is rearward), the Ruger safety will be intuitive for you. The only thing it has that the others don't is that third position, all the way back, which locks the bolt in a closed position with the sear disconnected. I don't really know why the Mauser design adds that third position. I suppose that it is for the transporting of the rifle in the safest manner possible, but I'm not really sure how it would be any safer than the 2nd position.......which is demonstrated by the complete lack of this feature on the safeties of other manufacturers.

Maybe someone with some Mauser knowledge could shed some light on this?

Liberty wrote:TAM,
I've been fascinated by the GSM and the one man one rifle concept. I have been confused about one thing though. The 3 position safety.
The manual makes it sound likeyou have to put the safety in the 2nd position to load the chamber, and then put it in fire position to fire the gun. If so this sounds pretty awkward. Am i misunderstanding this?

The safety has three positions which have the following functions:

1) All the way forward: Gun is hot if loaded and chambered. Bolt can be cycled.

2) Halfway back: Sear is disconnected from trigger so gun is safe. Bolt can be cycled.

3) All the way back: Sear is disconnected from trigger so gun is safe. Bolt is locked in the closed position and cannot be cycled.

Position 2 allows you to chamber a round, or eject a chambered round or spent case, or use the cycling bolt to empty the magazine......if you wanted to do that for some silly reason, but you don't have to safe the gun to cycle the bolt. (All Model 77 variants have this three position safety, but some of them are blind magazines, and some have a hinged floorplate magazine like a R700 BDL. This one obviously has a removable box magazine, so it would not be necessary to cycle the bolt to empty the magazine.)

So I guess the answer is, "no, you don't have to safe the gun to chamber a round, but obviously use common sense about whether or not you think you need to safe the gun in any given situation."

bagman45 wrote:TAM, thanks again for putting so much thought into your reply, and to the others for pitching in! Deep sigh, shaking head; not making any shopping progress (which is REALLY bad, as my better half has given me the green light to buy some stuff....). Still leaning hard toward the Sig 716, and will likely end up with one. That said, all of this M1A talk has me re-considering my decision not to go with a SOCOM 16 or buy another HK91 pattern gun. Are any of the HK clones worth the money? Don't mean to hijack the thread, as I will end up with the Ruger down the road. Cheers!!

http://www.onesourcetactical.com/ptr91g ... KvC1uOe_h8

longhorn_92 wrote:Best bet... is to sell your AR10 and buy an M1A Scout!

I wanted to buy yours, but you took it off the market!

bagman45 wrote:Great review TAM!! Interesting that it shot the heavier loads best. Will be interested to see what you can wring out of it with other factory loads and tinkering with handloads. SO, after your first range run, if you had to choose ONE 308 to fulfill the Scout concept of being handy enough to protect/defend while being accurate enough to carry in the field for hunting; would this be the one????

It might. I need to acquire a M1A Scout to give a complete answer.

Between the two bolt guns, in terms of pure riflemanship, and if I can drive to where I'm going and then get comfortably set up, I'd have to say that my R700 is the better gun. The bolt operates more smoothly and it is far more accurate. But if I'm reduced to carrying a rifle, the Ruger wins hands down. It is accurate enough. It is far lighter, and the box magazine gives faster reloads of greater quantities. The R700 is a "hilltop rifle" compared to the Ruger's "brush gun," if that makes sense. For hunting in Texas where the ranges are not so extended, I'd probably take the Ruger. For antelope hunting in Colorado/New Mexico, I'd take the Remington. In the personal defense role inside of 200 yards, I'd take the Ruger, no question. In that gray area between 200-300 yards, it's a tossup. Outside of 300 yards, the Remington wins. That said, inside of 50 yards where rate of fire becomes more important than caliber and accuracy, give me an AR15 carbine.

I don't really know if the "One Rifle" concept can ever be truly answered, simply because I don't have to think that way. I have now THREE different .308s in three different configurations—an AR10 SASS rifle, a long-range bolt rifle, and a scout bolt rifle. I'm probably going to sell the AR10. It's an extraordinarily accurate gun—as accurate as my R700—but it's really heavy, and the rifle just doesn't speak to me the way I thought it would when I bought it. When/if I sell it, I'm going to buy another .308 battle rifle, and the M1A scout is right at the top of the list, which also includes possibly a FAL or a PTR91. Of course the problem with either of those latter two is that they are heavier even than a standard M1A....so it will probably be an M1A Scout.

THEN I'll be able to intelligently answer your question. In the meantime, this Ruger is a keeper.

Brief range report.......

I spent a couple of hours shooting at Elm Fork on the 100 yard line this afternoon with the new rifle. Results were within my expectations with a couple of minor surprises.

Details:
I shot three different commercially produced loads, all of which were picked because I had shot them in my Remington 700 before and so I had a baseline to compare to: 165 grain Federal Fusion, 168 grain Federal Match, and 175 grain Black Hills Moly Match.

The Federal Fusion cartridge is an excellent hunting load which shoots fairly accurately out of my Remington 700. In that rifle, group sizes have averaged around 1", with the smallest I ever got with that cartridge being .5 inch, and the largest around 1.25 inches. In the Ruger, this cartridge did not shoot as well. However, after expending a number of rounds just trying to get on paper and then on target, I was eventually able to put 10 rounds into a 3" diameter circle. I never actually measured an individual 4 shot group with a ruler of the 30 rounds fired of this cartridge, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they ran about 2" in size for 4 rounds. I would feel reasonably confident using this cartridge for whitetail or hog hunting within 200 yards.

The Federal 168 grain Match was a disappointment.....surprise #1. Other gun writers have gotten good accuracy results out of this cartridge in a Ruger Gunsite Scout rifle. Not me. The groups opened up and were inconsistent enough as to be basically unmeasurable. It is possible I suppose that I simply got a bad batch of ammo, but you would think that box of Federal Match would have better QC than that. I fired only ten rounds of this cartridge before moving on to the next. Maybe I'll try shooting some more of this load the next time I go to the range.

Black Hills 175 grain Moly Match.....BINGO! This load put 4 rounds into 2 holes which were practically touching. I didn't measure it, but it was well under 1". This was also the second surprise because I would have expected the rounds to hit a little bit lower than the 165 or 168 grain bullets, but they were actually impacting about 1" high of point of aim. Typically, a 200 yard zero for a .308 will put POI 1.8" above POA at 100 yards; so I'm guessing that 1" high at 100 yards wil be about a 150 yard zero or thereabouts. (I just ran the numbers through my ballistics calculator, and that's about right.) I've found in the past that Black Hills match ammo is loaded pretty hot, so I guess it shouldn't be that surprising that these impacted a bit high, but I just didn't expect that much out of a short barrel with a heavier bullet.......and yet this was the best performing of the three. At this point, I would have to choose this load for this rifle, and I would not change my zero. My ballistics calculator calls this a 150 yard zero with apogee of 1" high at 100 yards, and 14" low at 300 yards. That's a good working range.

Impressions:
THE SCOPE: I like the scope. I like it a lot, and it is perfect for this application. The glass is very clear. The crosshairs are fine enough to not obscure the target. The Firedot is useful, even in daylight. I had two complaints, one major, one minor. My biggest complaint has nothing really to do with the quality or function of this scope, it had to do with the magnification. 5X is barely enough to be useable for me at 100 yards, due to my having the older Mark 60 eyeballs. It would be difficult to find a scout scope with higher magnification that will gather as much light as this one, and will have an illuminated reticle. However, the one thing I did miss is the lack of any kind of ranging stadia on the reticle, which would have made zeroing much faster and easier, not to mention being useful for figuring holdovers and windage.

THE RIFLE: I love it. It isn't perfect, and there is at least one modification that needs to be done—lightening and cleanup of the trigger—but overall, it is exactly what I thought it would be, and exactly what I was looking for. It is not the lightest .308 I've ever handled. In fact, the guy in the lane to my right had some model of a Tikka in .308 that was physically larger but lighter by a fair amount than my Ruger. His rifle weighed in at 6.75 lb with the scope mounted and a bipod. The Ruger weighs 7 lb sans scope. That said, it does give the impression of being very light and handy. It balances well, just in front of the magazine. They say that it is loud because of that 16" barrel, but from my vantage point behind the scope, I couldn't tell. It does recoil sharply, but it's not at all unpleasant as the prodigious recoil pad very much does it's job. I had no discomfort after shooting 44 rounds of .308. (Not that 44 rounds is that much, but still...)

AMMUNITION: I would be comfortable with the Federal Fusion 165 grain load for hunting inside of 200 yards, but I would like to try the 170 and 180 grain versions of the same for use out to 300 yards, given the performance of the Black Hills 175 grain Match load. Also, I've got some 180 grain SSTs in the cupboard which I'd like to work up a dandy load with....if it will shoot.

Anyway, that's my overall impressions of the rifle after a brief range trip........not exactly a ringing out, but maybe informative in a small way to somebody.

So far, the only "toy" I've added is the Leupold 1.5-5x33 scout scope. BTW, that particular model is a SWFA exclusive if you're interested in it. The eye relief is slightly shorter than on the other Leupold scout scope, but it is a bigger objective lens and a bigger tube, providing higher magnification and better light gathering. With my aging eyes, that was important to me. But, the overall length of the scope is longer too, as you can see from the pictures, and the ocular lens actually hangs over the ejection port. It doesn't obstruct the port, but it definitely hangs over it.

Otherwise, the only other modification I have in mind is to replace that flash hider. I have in mind either the Smith Enterprises Vortex or the Yankee Hill Machine units that accept a quick detach suppressor. Other than a good sling, that would be about it.

By the way.... One other thing about the Ruger polymer mags: They can be fed straight down from the top, just like an AR magazine. The steel Gunsite Scout magazine won't do that. This means that you can top the magazine off while it's still inserted into the action. This was a requirement of Jeff Cooper's when he came up with the specs....although I think he might have specified the ability to charge the magazine with stripper clips. This one won't do that, but it can still be topped off one round at a time.

Karder, does that help you to hurry up and make up your mind?

Longshot38 wrote:TAM it looks like you have a fun new toy. But I do have a question. What made you pick that over converting your 700 over to a DBM system? I'm not knocking you choice just curious what your motivating factors were. Obviously those two rifles serve very different purposes and truth be told the the Ruger cost less then a converted 700 does.

Well, I'm probably still going to convert the Remington to a DBM like Badger Ordnance's or HS Precision's system eventually. It's been on my mind for a long time. The DBM is a desirable feature on the Scout rifle, but it isn't the only reason I bought the rifle. I also like the handiness of it, and the idea of the forward mounted scope—which mounts readily to the eye with a minimum of fuss. I really appreciate that it is not at all hard to find the proper cheek weld because the optic is so easy to use.

Interestingly, the three polymer mags I ordered directly from ShopRuger.com came in, and although they are all 10 round mags, just like the original steel mag, they are significantly more compact than the steel magazine. Ruger offers 3, 5, and 10 versions of the polymer magazine, but they are all priced the same at $39.95. The steel mags are offered in 5 and 10 round capacities, at $65.95 and $71.95 respectively. The polymer magazine has a removable base plate. I've posted some pictures below. Please excuse the quality....they were hastily shot with my cellphone:

As you can see the OEM steel magazine—manufactured by AI, although it has the Ruger logo on the baseplate—is quite a bit taller than the Ruger-made polymer magazine. The polymer magazine is marginally wider than the steel mag, but not so much as to be intrusive. In the second picture, each magazine has 2 rounds of Black Hills 175 grain Match loaded in it.




When you put cartridges into both magazines, it becomes apparent that the polymer magazine stabilizes the cartridge case along more of it's length. I don't think that the OEM magazines have a reputation for failures to feed, but my guess is that the polymer mags are more reliable in that regard. Ruger describes the polymer magazine as being made of "glass-filled nylon." I don't know anything at all about plastics, but if I had to compare the polymer to something else I know of from my own experience, I woud say that the polymer magazine appears to be made of something more like the frame material used in a Kel-Tech P3AT rather than the material used in a PMAG.....if that means anything to anybody. The polymer magazine also comes with a snap-on dust cover, kind like the PMAG comes with.



Even though both magazines are "single-stack," there is some staggering of cartridges in both magazines.



I know this post is image intensive, but it might be useful to anyone else considering one of these rifles. I don't know that either magazine is qualitatively better than the other. If weight and compactness are important to you, the polymer mag is the better choice. If you like a steel mag and hold AI in high regard, then the steel magazine is the better choice. Price-wise, the polymer mag is half the price of the steel mag

I drove down to SWFA and bought the Leupold 1.5-5x33 VX-R Scout Scope today. I used set of low rise Leupold QRW rings to mount the scope to the rail. I had SWFA mount and bore-sight the scope, but I'm going to have to loosen the ring caps and rotate the scope body a tad as it is tilted just slightly off center. Not that big a deal as I haven't zeroed the rifle yet and it shouldn't make that much of a difference from what it was bore-sighted at.

Anyway, the scope glass is really clear and bright. The Firedot works as advertised. The scope axis is nice and low relative to the bore axis. The reticle is a simple plex with finer crosshairs near the center. There are no stadia lines. But this is a "inside 300 yards" rifle, and I thing that holding my tongue just so and Kentucky windage will work just fine for a .308 at that distance.

Pictures of the scope and rifle:









Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to get to the range until Saturday.