This subject was raised multiple times on internet (very popular is What is the difference between a scientist and a researcher?). From my point of view there is a misconception, generally, people do not differentiate between this two categories. One says that it is a synonym, other say that a scientist is a researcher in natural sciences and all other are researchers, sometimes you can find that researcher is a person who makes a research on something, let's say biography, etc.
What is important for me is to try to differentiate between these two categories for modern science (natural and humanities). Maybe it is just me, who loves to put objects into categories, and finds fun looking for the differences between scientist and researcher, or maybe it is important on its own and could lead to something big, e.g, to a new system of productivity measurement for scientists and researchers in contrast to modern indices, where everyone is mixed together.
During my career in science, I developed these definitions for myself. A scientist is a researcher capable of generating novel ideas and search for ways to prove/realize them (not always by his/her hands). A researcher on contrary is a person who is capable of conducting experiments and 'DO' research, but usually is limited by already developed techniques and methods.
From my experience, researchers (they could be students, PhD candidates, PostDocs, permanent researchers) are a tool in hands of a scientist. They could be bad, good or extremely cool, but they cannot be called as scientists. On the other side, a scientist could be an awful researcher, in terms of their capabilities to conduct experiments and work, what is called, in the field. Here I'm not saying that they cannot design an experiment, on contrary, they can, but the realization of it should be given to other people.
P.S.
Both researcher and scientist are usually very gifted and smart people.
I think we should not mix these two very close and important but different human activities!