AR15.Com Archives
 m1a scout vs SOCOM
Macumazahn  [Team Member]
2/29/2008 9:01:30 PM
i love my M1A standard but would like to try out one with a shorter barrel... might be a bit more handy.

My only beef with the M1A is that it is heavy compared to an M4 style rifle, but it compensates by having the larger round.

Has anyone handled both the Scout and the SOCOM?

I know the scout has the forward mount for a long eye relief scope, but can you also mount a regular scope mount, like the ARMS or Smith, to put a regular eye relief, like the ACOG? It would be nice be able to mount either type of scope.

I went to the local dealer today and he had a SOCOM II sitting out with a bipod and an Aimpoint, and when I picked it up, I was suprised by how heavy and forward-weighted it was. Not all balanced like an M4 or even the larger M1A standard. I'm didn't think that rails system weighed that much, so it might have been the Bipod. However, Springfields site lists the SOCOM as being about 1 lb heavier than even the Standard (which has the 22 inch barrel)

Comments please on which rifle you have and why you like it =) thanks...
Paid Advertisement
--
cphilip  [Member]
2/29/2008 9:16:36 PM
I wouldn't buy the SOCOM II either. Too much extra money for them rails.

The SOCOM 16 or the Squad is good. Like you say... better balance. Then its all in what you want.

Unless you got some sort of screaming deal on that SOCOM II because you can take the forward rails off and leave just that one rail up top like the Scout Squad and the SOCOM 16 both have and restore that balance. Many seem to do that.

But then its just whether you want the 16 1/4 inch barrel with its special brake or the 18 barrel and its normal type brake.

These both have that forward optics rail and no more.

They both take and accept normal M1A and M14 stocks.

Sounds to me like you want to look at the Scout Squad or the SOCOM 16

I have the SOCOM 16 and like it. I am sure I would also like the Scout Squad as well.
Macumazahn  [Team Member]
2/29/2008 9:53:54 PM

Originally Posted By cphilip:
I wouldn't buy the SOCOM II either. Too much extra money for them rails.

The SOCOM 16 or the Squad is good. Like you say... better balance. Then its all in what you want.

Unless you got some sort of screaming deal on that SOCOM II because you can take the forward rails off and leave just that one rail up top like the Scout Squad and the SOCOM 16 both have and restore that balance. Many seem to do that.

But then its just whether you want the 16 1/4 inch barrel with its special brake or the 18 barrel and its normal type brake.

These both have that forward optics rail and no more.

They both take and accept normal M1A and M14 stocks.

Sounds to me like you want to look at the Scout Squad or the SOCOM 16

I have the SOCOM 16 and like it. I am sure I would also like the Scout Squad as well.


Great answer. Thanks alot.

Do you know if the Scout would take a ARMS or such mount so that you could mount a regular scope on it?
H2O_MAN  [Member]
2/29/2008 10:09:55 PM

Originally Posted By Macumazahn:


Do you know if the Scout would take a ARMS or such mount so that you could mount a regular scope on it?


ARMS, SMITH ENTERPRISE, INC and SADLAK are good mounts to look at.
mrt53  [Member]
3/1/2008 12:45:43 AM
Go here for scope mount (red dot).

http://www.amegaranges.com/store/miniM14.php
cphilip  [Member]
3/1/2008 3:44:30 PM
Both the SOCOM the Scout would be able to take both mounts. Nothing different back in that area than a normal M14 type.
Talyn  [Member]
3/1/2008 4:34:34 PM
This is a far better "scout" mount than either the Amega Ranges or factory SAI mount. It's easy to mount and you can use either a scout scope or handgun scope for magnified optics or a red dot.

http://www.ultimak.com/M8.htm

I have it on two M1As I really like it.
33shooter  [Team Member]
3/1/2008 10:29:33 PM
I have a scout, and I have shot a SOCOM 16. I love my scout more than my M4gery. I would personally take a scout over a socom any day but that is just me. It shoots great with cheap ammo. I took the "scout" optic mount off and put a standard handguard on for personal preference. I do not like anything touching the barrel unless it has to.

Main reason I went with the scout over the SOCOM is I can suppress the scout and it has a standard length gas system. Also, the sights on the scout are much more to my liking, it has a regular NM front sight not the big bladed night site like th socom. I just got a NM rear sight for it for my b-day today, I'll have to see if that makes it even better.

shameless pic



0848usmc  [Member]
3/2/2008 5:34:01 PM
Here is where mine is at now. I had the big railed Vltor forend installed and it made it too heavy and awkward. Even as it is the thing is heavier than I would like but there is only so much that can be done about weight on a M14 type. I have an ARMS mount that I installed so that I can use a Trijicon Tripower in a Larue QD mount if needed, this photo is from before the mount was installed. With the optic installed on the rifle it feels heavy, although not as unwieldy as it was with the optic mounted forward of the receiver. I am through trying to change anything with this rifle other than I might check out a low power scope at some point in the future.

As for the SOCOM I have handled them but not fired one yet, I am of the belief that 18 inches is about the minimum barrel length required to get the velocity you need with 7.62x51 to make it worthwhile. I understand that the SOCOM is rather loud, might make sense if one was available in a folding stock that was worth a damn if you really need a compact 7.62 Nato carbine. My choice would probably be the McMillan although they are pricey. Enough rambling from me-YMMV-Just my .02c
H2O_MAN  [Member]
3/2/2008 5:54:54 PM
That is a sweet stick 0848usmc !!
ziarifleman  [Team Member]
3/2/2008 6:11:55 PM
That really is a nice, simple setup.

Does anyone know what the difference in length between a SOCOM w/ the muzzle device and a Scout with a Vortex direct connect is?
H2O_MAN  [Member]
3/2/2008 6:27:08 PM
I think it's about 3/4 of an inch, but someone will chime in with the exact measurement.
33shooter  [Team Member]
3/2/2008 9:58:33 PM
The overall length difference of the 2 is not that much. The socom is pretty cool, and loud. But to be honest, the break I have on my scout makes it nearly as loud as the socom. Personally, I love the scout, its just a little more flexible.

On a side note, I have some 147grn cheap barnaul silver bear that works great in my scout, but my friends socom will short stroke with it.
cphilip  [Member]
3/2/2008 10:32:34 PM

Originally Posted By H2O_MAN:
I think it's about 3/4 of an inch, but someone will chime in with the exact measurement.


I would but I am not certain what exactly the question is. The barrels, we know, are 1 3/4 inches difference between the two. One is 18 inches and the other is 16 1/4. The SOCOM's break is fairly short (I could measure that for you) and "looks" about half as long as the lower one shown on that Scout Squad posted just above and much shorter than the one above that. But thats the problem, they are different brakes show on those two Scout Squads....but I am not certain where he wants the difference measured from either.

Maybe this picture might help you get an idea. This is a SOCOM brake and barrel length. Keep in mind the stocks are exactly the same.



As to velocity differences, these are the numbers I have been able to compile.

Regular M14/M1A (20 inches?)

Scout Squad (18 inches) loses 125 to 150 FPS vs Normal Barrel

SOCOM (16 1/4) loses another 25 to 50 FPS from the Scout Squad or somewhere between 150 and 200 FPS from Normal barrel M14/M1A

So worst case is Scout Squad 150 and SOCOM 200 fps off the normal M14 rifle. This doesn't really show itself until around 300 yards and then it becomes dramatically worse. Neither of these is a good choice for long range if you want to do consistent 300 yard and over. However they are pretty darn level and straight until they start to approach that range. One could play around with this and chose specific ammo designed for the particular barrel and get some of this back of course and make certain ammo perform even better than or close to same if you did some reloading specifically for this. But thats using typical ammo in each that they tested it with.
H2O_MAN  [Member]
3/3/2008 8:03:09 AM
I thought the MV drop was 20 per inch ...
cphilip  [Member]
3/3/2008 8:51:20 AM
Well if you know that to be the case I don't. I searched around and found one article that was comparing each over a cronograph. It was from a review of when the SOCOM first came out. And then another one from when the Scout was compared. From what they reported it does not appear to be exactly linear. By that meaning it can depend on the charge and powder and even the barrel twist. At some point, you even can lose velocity with a long enough barrel. But lets not forget that this particular caliber is a fairly fast bullet anyway. It has some to give up depending upon what range you want to get too. I think at worst case you can figure on more like 50 fps per inch. But there is a point where that does not seem to be the case and it reduces less. For instance the first two lose more than the next 1 and 3/4 but not exactly linearly. At least with that particular ammo they used.
H2O_MAN  [Member]
3/3/2008 9:14:27 AM

Originally Posted By cphilip:
Well if you know that to be the case I don't. I searched around and found one article that was comparing each over a chronograph.


OK, I did some checking...

The 18" delivers an average of 160 fps less than the 22" and the 16" delivers an average of 100 fps less than the 18".
JJREA  [Member]
3/3/2008 9:57:11 AM

Originally Posted By H2O_MAN:
I thought the MV drop was 20 per inch ...


This is a rule of thumb but not entirely true every inch. At least from my studies. It varies at different lengths.
Ironmaker  [Team Member]
3/3/2008 10:27:48 AM

Originally Posted By 0848usmc:
Here is where mine is at now. I had the big railed Vltor forend installed and it made it too heavy and awkward. Even as it is the thing is heavier than I would like but there is only so much that can be done about weight on a M14 type. I have an ARMS mount that I installed so that I can use a Trijicon Tripower in a Larue QD mount if needed, this photo is from before the mount was installed. With the optic installed on the rifle it feels heavy, although not as unwieldy as it was with the optic mounted forward of the receiver. I am through trying to change anything with this rifle other than I might check out a low power scope at some point in the future.
i66.photobucket.com/albums/h253/jetsound/DSC_3040.jpg
As for the SOCOM I have handled them but not fired one yet, I am of the belief that 18 inches is about the minimum barrel length required to get the velocity you need with 7.62x51 to make it worthwhile. I understand that the SOCOM is rather loud, might make sense if one was available in a folding stock that was worth a damn if you really need a compact 7.62 Nato carbine. My choice would probably be the McMillan although they are pricey. Enough rambling from me-YMMV-Just my .02c


Would you post a picture of your current set-up? I am contemplating a Tri-Power on my Socom and am looking for the best way to set it up.
Ironmaker  [Team Member]
3/3/2008 11:13:31 AM
I compiled an excel file from some magazine articles and some online ballistic data. When I got my Socom a friend of mine was kidding me saying I had an over priced 30/30.

My data shows that with a verity of ammo the difference between a 24" barrel and a Socom was 240 ft/sec and the Socom was 135 ft/sec more than a 30/30.

If you would like the excel file, IM me and I will email it to you.

cphilip  [Member]
3/3/2008 11:26:53 AM
Sounds like we are all in the same ballpark to me Ironmaker. Good stuff.

The info I was able to find showed a 50 to 80 fps difference between the two Short versions but I can believe as much as 100.

Yes... I think all the numbers throwing around certain are reasonable "worst case" figures. The reason I settled on the 150 and 200 is from several articles where they actually cronographed them. But I am sure the numbers of 200-300 could occur.

If you look around at some bullets you will see numbers listed like 150 grain going about 3000 FPS (in some particular load) so if you use my averaged numbers you could assume the Scout at like 2850 and the SOCOM at 2800 or using some other numbers posted here then perhaps 2850 and 2750...

It does appear that with both of these shorter variations it would be wise to chose a bullet around that size. Because the muzzle velocity of a 180 grain bullet (just for comparisons sake) is going to be down in the 2600 or 2700 fps out of the long barrel versions already.

But ya know... 2700 FPS out of a short barrel is pretty darn good when you compare it to some other rounds. But not terrific real extra long range good. But darn good enough for most things up to 300 yards.

I saw somewhere where someone did some testing that tried to determine when the muzzle velocity would finally DROP in a barrel due to length. And they came out with something like 30 FEET!

Also saw this posted on FireingLine one time

The Hornady Labs list an approximate variation in bullet velocity based on their experimentation. For bullets traveling in the range of 2000-4000 fps, the velocity will vary from 10-40 fps per inch of barrel, respectively (Hornady Handbook, 3rd Edition, page 401).

The Springfield Armory tests showed the 30'06 ball to range from 2709 fps in a 24" bbl to 2848 in a 32" bbl. Another Springfield Armory test indicated an *average* (5-shots) drop of 83 fps when shortening the bbl from 26" to 24" (Hatcher's Notebook, 3rd Edition, pages 399-400).

You may be hard pressed to get relevant data, short of measuring the differences between two or more rifles of the same make & model, but of varying barrel length. Bullet weights and powder burn rates may also be significant factors in this determination, especially if reloads.

If you use good commercial or MILSPEC ammo, I don't believe you will find the differences between the 20" and 16" bbl significant enough to cause you worry about trajectory drop or kinetic energy retention within practical employment ranges.


However I do think you will find a concern over 300 yards though...
JJREA  [Member]
3/3/2008 12:35:10 PM

Originally Posted By Ironmaker:
I compiled an excel file from some magazine articles and some online ballistic data. When I got my Socom a friend of mine was kidding me saying I had an over priced 30/30.

My data shows that with a verity of ammo the difference between a 24" barrel and a Socom was 240 ft/sec and the Socom was 135 ft/sec more than a 30/30.

If you would like the excel file, IM me and I will email it to you.



Show me a .30-30 that is Semi Auto, has a detachable magazine and has the plethora of cartridges to go along with it. A spitzer bullet will shed velocity slower at distance. Yes I know Hornady is making them Leverevolution bullets. But that is not what I'd call a good selection of pointy bullets. There's no comparison. The only thing I see a lever .30-30 doing better is it is lighter. Much lighter. But that's where it's pro's end when comparing it to a Socom. There is no comparison. Nothing wrong with a .30-30, I have one and have taken a deer with it. But it is not even in the same ball park as the socom.
Ironmaker  [Team Member]
3/3/2008 12:36:49 PM

However I do think you will find a concern over 300 yards though...


That's what the Remington 700 is for.
H2O_MAN  [Member]
3/3/2008 12:40:42 PM
Also, the effective range from a SOCOM is about 450 yards - the SCOUT has an effective range of 700+ yards.
m1ajunkie  [Member]
3/3/2008 1:10:53 PM
The scout has more after market options available for the muzzle end of the rifle, along with
the ability to shoot a little further.
cphilip  [Member]
3/3/2008 2:50:12 PM

Originally Posted By Ironmaker:

However I do think you will find a concern over 300 yards though...


That's what the Remington 700 is for.


Indeed!

Or... better yet... one could use it for justification to ALSO buy a full length M1A or a FAL!
ArmedSuspect  [Member]
3/3/2008 5:44:34 PM
After hunting with my Scout for a while I felt that the slightly shorter SOCOM would be a better fit in the woods. Try getting in and out of a lifted Jeep all week with a Scout sporting a 6x scope. On the third day I ditched the scope. Soon after I picked up a SOCOM and a Tri-Power.

The SOCOM seems to punch a bit more and bark louder but it's not that bad. The only thing that bothered me at first was the redesigned gas system (parts crossover) but I'm over it.

If you are concerned about how well it will do at distance then you are not applying the right tool for the job. The SOCOM and Scout are not going to win any distance contest but will do fine out to 400yds.

Paid Advertisement
--