Cobalt Kinetics Edge Scout Entry Level Rifle

Cobalt Kinetics has been busy – the Utah based rifle maker recently announced the expansion of their CARS reloading/chambering system a few weeks ago. And now they are announcing the new Edge Scout, a base model rifle designed with the style and features of the rest of their line, but targeting a lower budget bracket.

The company uses off the shelf furniture and controls to keep costs down while retaining the features that are unique to their line of advanced guns. The Dual Drop system includes an additional forward assist on the left side of the rifle. Both forward assist mechanisms can be used to release the bolt forward, Additional details and specifications can be found below.


Cobalt Kinetics

Cobalt Kinetics Scout Entry Level Model:

ST GEORGE, Utah, April 14 – Cobalt Kinetics, a manufacturer of premium performance and precision engineered rifles, today announces their new Edge Scout. Based on Cobalt’s proven premier Edge rifle and crafted to the same quality from matched and mated 7075 billet aluminum chassis components, while reducing costs through budget furniture, the Scout fills a gap in the Cobalt Kinetics rifle line.

Vice President Skylar Stewart said, “We have listened to feedback from dealers and the public about the desire for Cobalt’s performance and precision in an entry level package. Our new Scout fills that gap allowing us to offer our renowned functionality in a lower price tier.“

Chambered in 5.56 NATO, the Scout features the patented Dual-Drop system with a 16 inch Chrome Moly barrel tipped with a standard A2 Flash Hider.

The Bolt Carrier Group is black nitride finished, complementing the receivers, stock, and handguard which are Cerakoted in sniper gray. The rifle also has a standard mil-spec trigger.

The Scout makes Cobalt ownership easier for the budget conscience shooter, by utilizing off the shelf furniture and controls that can be end user replaced without compromising the core functionality that sets Cobalt products apart. It is ideal for the armed professional as well as the do-it-yourself shooter looking to customize a Cobalt rifle to suit individual taste or needs.

If you are interested in purchasing a Edge Scout, you can find a licensed dealer near you:


Cobalt Kinetics Scout

Cobalt Kinetics on Facebook


LE – Science – OSINT.
On a mission to make all of my guns as quiet as possible.
Twitter: @gunboxready
Instagram: @tfb_pete


  • Juggernaut

    That is a hideous looking rifle

  • m-dasher

    i dunno……$2K seems a little steep to be calling it a gun for the “budget conscious”

    • Jared Vynn

      Relatively it’s less than half some of their other offerings, but when you​ say budget​ (in regards to AR15) most people think PSA or other sub $500 rifles.

    • El Duderino

      I spent about that on an AR last year. But I got a lot more for my money than this Cobalt. Unless you count number of forward assists, in which case I’m stuffed since I used a slickside upper.

  • Jared Vynn

    $1,900 is the cost for this “entry” level “lower budget” rifle.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      Not low budget, low*er*.

  • Keiichi

    “Hey, you know that feature on the side of your rifle that you’ll never use, and adds weight? We added a second to the other side!”

    Also, the muzzle-end of the hand guard is ridiculous.

    • JT303

      Maybe the muzzle end achieves the same function as that ridiculous spike I heard about the other day. You know, the angled spike that you bolt on to your rifle, which you’re then supposed to swing like a cricket bat into the nearest tree and get an operator-approved stable shooting platform.

    • TVOrZ6dw

      Just what I was thinking…

    • valorius

      You mean the ‘useless device’ that PFC Patrick Miller of the 507th Maintenance company used in battle to fire his M16 rifle single shot, single handedly holding off superior enemy forces until his position came under mortar fire, and he was forced to surrender? (He earned a Silver Star in the proces)

      That ‘useless device?’

      The forward assist on the M16 is anything but useless and is in fact a critical component of the M16 rifle. -A former US Army infantryman.

      Silver star citation:

      “The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star Medal to Patrick Miller, Private First Class, U.S. Army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving as a Mechanic with the 507th Maintenance Company, 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, during combat operations in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, near An Nasiriya, Iraq, on 23 March 2003. On that date a huge American convoy headed from Kuwait to Baghdad. A dozen heavy trucks and other maintenance vehicles fell behind the rest and got lost. At sunrise, Iraqi troops ambushed the lost soldiers, firing from both sides of the highway. The Americans sped up to escape the attack, but one Humvee smashed into the back of a jack-knifed American tractor-trailer. Less than a mile behind that accident, Private Miller was driving the last truck in the convoy. During the attack, he floored the accelerator, trying to steer and duck bullets at the same time. During the ensuing battle he single-handedly stopped a mortar attack (with a malfunctioning rifle) aimed at trapped soldiers.”

      • Keiichi

        With all due respect, yes, that useless device. I’ll happily concede that it may be necessary for a military issue rifle used in a military context.

        However, on a civilian rifle it serves no practical purpose, other than perhaps to look more like a military rifle. Maybe for a competition rifle it could have a use, though even in that context it’s more likely the shooter will have lost enough time due to whatever malfunction to make the presence of the forward assist effectively useless – they’ll have lost the stage regardless.

        Certainly, no civilian use could possibly require two forward assists.

        Thank you for your service.

        • valorius

          Well it’s on there because first and foremost the AR-15 is a military rifle used in a military context. I would personally not own one without a forward assist.

          I agree about not needing two forward assists. Thank you.

        • Nicks87

          For that price it better have two forward assists. It should also do immediate action drills for you.

      • kyphe

        As far as I am aware he used it as a bolt release which is pretty much what everyone uses it for. In general it is redundant and should be removed from all future iterations.

        • valorius

          He used it to force the weapon into battery after every shot he fired. The forward assist is absolutely not useless, it was put on there after men died because they didn’t have any way to force their weapon into battery after a malfunction. This is not a feature for a guy on a square range or running around in a 3 game match. This is a combat proven feature that saves lives in real world battlefield conditions.

          • Zack mars

            It was not put there after men died, it was put there because the army wanted a way to close a bolt that was OOB without having to pull the charging handle back

          • valorius

            Yes it was. And no, that is not the purpose of the FA.

          • Zack mars

            No, it wasnt. Us army demanded a forward assist in 1963, and once they got it, they adopted it in 1964.

            Please do your research.

          • valorius


            Slap magazine
            Pull charging handle
            Observe chamber
            Release charging handle
            Tap forward assist

          • Zack mars

            And? This has what to do with our conversation?

          • valorius

            Maybe you should re-read the nonsense you already posted. Specifically where you stated:

            “it was put there because the army wanted a way to close a bolt that was OOB without having to pull the charging handle back”

            SPORTS, which is the acronym for the malfunction remedy of the M16A1 and later rifles is: Slap, PULL THE CHARGING HANDLE, observe, RELEASE THE CHARGING HANDLE, TAP THE FORWARD ASSIST, shoot.

            You are talking pure gibberish. Please stop.

          • Zack mars

            Just because an acronym that makes use of the forward assist, doesn’t mean that was why it was included

            What do you think came first, SPORTS, or the forward assist.

            Stop circling your wagons, you are dead wrong, and a 10 second google search would have shown you this.

          • valorius

            You have been wrong about everything you’ve posted, which i have contradicted with direct quotes from multiple sites.

            If the Army “wanted the fwd assist so they didnt have to pull the charging handle back” SPORTS would not be SPORTS, it would be something entirely different.

            The Fwd assist is there to force the weapon into battery AFTER cycling the charging handle has failed to do so.

          • Jason Culligan

            I read a good statement once about forward assists and their utility. It went something like this:

            ‘If you need to use a device to manhandle a round into the chamber, perhaps it’s a better idea to find out why the round won’t go in and address what is obviously a more pressing issue’

            I’ve never been a fan of them. They add weight, complexity and inevitably are used to force issues out rather than solving them.

          • valorius

            Because in the heat of combat, i am going to carefully analyze my rifle to figure out what specifically is wrong with it. Nope, i’m performing SPORTS and carrying on the mission.

          • Zack mars

            Multiple sites? You mean wikipedia and some place called “historical firearms”

            Your quotes have already proven my argument.

            The US army never used an M16 without a forward assist. The XM16E1 and M16A1 both have forward assists, and the XM16E1 was partially adopted before they really deployed to Vietnam.

            If you actually read what you post, you’d know that

          • valorius

            Yes bud, multiple well sourced sites. You are dead wrong.

            “The XM16E1 was first adopted in 1962 for special purpose use by Army
            special forces, airborne, and airmobile troops with the M14 remaining
            the standard issue rifle of the infantry. But by 1965 the M16 was being
            issued to all Army and Marine Units stationed in Vietnam”


            You see a forward assist on that rifle? See the Vietnamese troops in the background? So no M16s without forward assist were used in Vietnam huh?

          • Zack mars

            That is an AR-15, one of the original guns used by advisors

            Learn your terminology before you get all hot and bothered again

            Oh, and to blow your tiny mind once more, “M16” can refer to the specific model M16, or the entire M16 FOW (A1, A2, A4, etc)

          • valorius

            Nope, that’s an M16.

            M16 is a specific model, it doesn’t refer to all M16s. you can’t just make crap up to support your idiotic case man.

          • Zack mars

            I am not making crap up. It (M16) is ambiguous, you see it everywhere

          • valorius

            M16 is a specific model of the rifle.

          • Zack mars

            Lots of people also use it to refer to the M16 fow.

            Right or wrong, it’s what some people do

          • valorius

            The cites i posted discussed specific models of the M16 and the dates they were deployed, not generalities.

          • valorius
          • Zack mars

            Can you prove he is us army?

          • valorius

            Can you prove he’s not?

          • Zack mars

            Im not the one posting the pictures.

            You bring something into an argument, it’s on you to ensure your supposed “proof” is correct

          • valorius

            The picture speaks for itself.

          • Zack mars

            I realize the issue you’re having is that you don’t know what an XM16E1 looks like. Here is one (albeit a clone)

          • valorius

            From Historical Firearms:

            “M16 & M16A1

            The XM16E1 was first adopted in 1962 for special purpose use by Army special forces, airborne, and airmobile troops with the M14 remaining the standard issue rifle of the infantry. But by 1965 the M16 was being issued to all Army and Marine Units stationed in Vietnam with the M14 being relegated to troops on home service or stationed in Europe and South Korea.The
            problems the new rifle suffered during its early deployment in vietnam are well known and various changes including a forward assist (see images #1, #3 & #4) and better maintenance training were made by early 1967. The M16A1 was adopted as Standard A in January 1967 and by 1970 it had been decided to issue the M16A1 to US troops stationed in Europe.”

            Do i actually need to post photos of US forces using M16s with no forward assist in Vietnam, or is this enough?

          • Zack mars

            Us forces isn’t just the army, the only ones who wanted the forward assist.

            The army refused to touch the M16 unless it had a forward assist, when they got the XM-16E1 (with a forward assist) they then proceeded to use it

          • valorius

            Wrong again. The US Army formally adopted the M16 in 1965 and troops deployed to Vietnam with it.


            “In March 1965, the Army began to issue the XM16E1 to infantry units.
            However, the rifle was initially delivered without adequate cleaning
            or instructions because Colt had claimed the M16 was self-cleaning. As a
            result, reports of stoppages in combat began to surface.[35]
            The most severe problem, was known as “failure to extract”—the spent
            cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after the rifle was fired.[35][53] Documented accounts of dead U.S. troops found next to disassembled rifles eventually led to a Congressional investigation.[35][54]”

          • Zack mars

            What kind of universe do you live in where men died because of a rifle the army hadn’t even adopted yet? In a war they weren’t fully involved in yet?

            US army adopted the m16 with a forward assist in 1964, and first started mass troop deployments to vietnam in 1965.

          • valorius

            The M16A1 with forward assist was adopted in 1967 bud.

            Every single thing you just posted is wrong, including the part about the forward assist being added so the charging handle didnt have to be pulled to the rear. My god man, don’t you know what “SPORTS” means?


            “In March 1965, the Army began to issue the XM16E1 to infantry units. However, the rifle was initially delivered without adequate cleaning kits[35] or instructions because Colt had claimed the M16 was self-cleaning. As a result, reports of stoppages in combat began to surface.[35] The most severe problem, was known as “failure to extract”—the spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after the rifle was fired.[35][53] Documented accounts of dead U.S. troops found next to disassembled rifles eventually led to a Congressional investigation.[35][54]”

            In February 1967, the improved XM16E1 was standardized as the M16A1.[51] The new rifle had a chrome-plated chamber and bore to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges and other, minor, modifications.[35] New cleaning kits, powder solvents and lubricants were also issued. Intensive training programs in weapons cleaning were instituted including a comic book-style operations manual.[56][57] As a result, reliability problems diminished and the M16A1 rifle achieved widespread acceptance by U.S. troops in Vietnam.[35][43]

            In 1969, the M16A1 officially replaced the M14 rifle to become the U.S. military’s standard service rifle.[13][14] In 1970, the new WC 844 powder was introduced to reduce fouling.[58]

            Whatever it is you think you know, you don’t.

          • Zack mars

            It was OFFICIALLY adopted in 1967.

            That does not mean it was not adopted in limited numbers years prior. Can you not read?

            “The XM16E1 was first adopted in 1962 for special purpose use by Army special forces”

            Can you not read? Let me make this clear for you.

            The United States Army first used the XM-16E1, which was equipped with a forward assist, in 1962. 5 years later, the US Army fully afopted it as the M16A1.

            F**k man

          • valorius

            Yes, and the US Army as a whole in Vietnam was using the M16 from 1965 until the introduction of the M16A1 in 1967.

            “But by 1965 the M16 was being issued to all Army and Marine Units stationed in Vietnam”

            F**k man.

          • Zack mars

            Us army never used the m16, that was the airforces rifle.

            It’s not that freaking difficult man, drop your ego and accept the fact you aren’t Eugene Stoner reborn

            The US army used the XM16E1, that is NOT THE M16

          • valorius

            I post a pic of a US Army infantryman firing an M16 rifle with no forward assist in Vietnam, and your response is the US Army never used them.

            OK, you win. I can’t argue with someone that’s smarter than actual photographs.

          • Zack mars

            He’s no infantryman

            You posted a special ops guy with an AR15.

            That picture is quite famous, and the subjects are well known, and well discussed.

            Try not to act like a know it all, because you don’t.

          • valorius

            I posted 2 pix bud, and one is an infantryman.

          • Zack mars

            This one wasn’t, and apparently you have no information about this guy…

            Just stop

          • valorius

            And neither do you. You stop.

            BTW, the special forces guy is an Army soldier, you said “The US Army never deployed M16s to vietnam with no forward assist”, did you not?

          • jerry young

            I was in the Army in Viet Nam 71-72 I carried the M16A1 and then worked in the armory at Ft Carson Colorado through 1973, where did you get the Army never used the M16?

          • Zack mars

            Books like “The black rifle”, various SME’s…

            You name it.

            So did you ever use/see people use actal M16’s, and not M16A1’s?

          • jerry young

            You can’t learn everything from books and the internet, unless you were there you cannot reliably know

          • Zack mars

            Thats not true

          • jerry young

            I know you’ve seen pictures read books and know all and yes I did see M16’s in Nam, were you there? I was along with others trying to get you to know the truth so I also give up and bow to the almighty no it all

          • Zack mars

            I never claimed i knew it all.

            I’ve talked to vets who swore up and down that magazines came preloaded in bandoileers, were issued double stack .45 1911’s, and a variety of other things that never happened.

            Did you check the roll marks to see if they were actually m16’s?

            Memory is never as infallible as we think it is.

          • jerry young

            Well you better go back and do some more talking I was attached to the military police as a prisoner transport and carried a 45 for the 11 years I was in the Army and worked in the Armory at FT Carson and never seen a double stack 45 1911 during that time and yes I do Know the differences from a M16 and a M16A1, as I said I’m done you seem to know it all from second hand bull even though you deny it.

          • Zack mars

            Memories are not infallible. End of discussion.

            I can take your word for it, and be subject to 40-50 years worth of wear and tear, or i can get my info from some pieces of paper that never change

            If you want to learn about the titanic sinking, would you rather talk to Millvina Dean (for the sake of the argument, pretend she is alive) or read a book about it?

          • kyphe

            The forward assist was a pre preemptive unnecessary measure that was not the result of combat experience. in Vietnam it was primarily used to carry with an empty chamber and charge the weapon quietly without the noise of a bolt slamming home. As far as fixing problems! well it tends to cause as many if not more that it ever fixes. if your bolt fails to close rack it again and toss the round, if the second round does not go home it is probably going to jam if you force it. This is from military experience. Btw about your example. From my information his gun was not feeding from the mag and he had to single load from the ejection port. There was no need to use the forward assist in the manner you describe. Also he did not categorically save lives, he simply says he thinks the people he was firing at were trying to use a mortar and he attempted to prevent them doing what he thought they were going to do. No one can tell if his reading of the situation was accurate, but what we do know is that they were all captured so the usefulness of a forward assist, even in this exceptional circumstance is questionable and can in no way be used to defend the concept, which is generally considered redundant by those who know what they are talking about.

    • they add the muzzle end for the benefit of criminal trial juries. look what a reasonable and normal person our defendant is!

      • iksnilol

        Maybe that fore end increases sight radius (by mounting irons further out) and​ helps C clamping by allowing handstop further out.

  • RSG

    At least spell the name of the company right, in the title. Smh.

  • Gunn

    Well, it’s got a handguard that will gouge the tar out of anything and everything it’s put on or against, a garbage milspec trigger, a non-adjustable stock, and a stratospheric price tag for the actual level of function the buyer is receiving. But at least it looks cool and has TWO forward assists that will ALSO drop the bolt!

    I don’t get it.

    • Ryfyle

      It also doesn’t produce grilled cheese for my tactical hunger.

  • Bierstadt54

    Confession: I love the look of these Cobalt rifles. However, I really have to wonder if there is any point in making them at a high mid-end price point. They are race guns; this just seems to be a lesser-quality one. Of course, I have not shot one nor seen a review, so I could be wrong.

    Dual drop and that styling is a cool thing that sets Cobalt guns apart; they do not count as “must-have” features. At all.

    • Doc Rader

      Not all of their guns are “race” guns. They are amazingly flat shooting and accurate, and the “dual drop” is actually pretty cool. I don’t think anyone expects it to be used as a forward assist–the utility is as a bolt drop, which allows for faster and smoother return to battery during magazine changes.

      As far as the components, the upper and lower are both full quality Cobalt. They just didn’t add all of the other parts that drive up cost like the billet grip, etc.

      Overall a very solid rifle. While it seems pricey, the functionality and performance are top notch–I’ve been following them for years now. You really have to shoot one to “get” it, and that is hard to impart via pictures and written descriptions… 🙂

    • Independent George

      Also, their website crashes my browser every time; that’s not a good way to attract business in an overcrowded market.

      I do give them credit, though – they’re offering something besides a standard AR. Even if it’s just the aesthetics, at least it’s something. It may be worth it, it may not, they’re still doing something to distinguish themselves from a herd of competitors.

  • Tim

    For this price you could get 4 x Ruger AR-556s, brand new, and still have some change left over to hit the tip jar at The Firearm Blog.