Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/12/2004 2:31:09 AM EST
I never post here because I have been away from the M1A / M14 type rifles for many years now...not that I don't like them, just have tended toward other rifle and handgun interests. Still, I have some old GI parts from a long ago NM build or two (lots of fun back in those days trying to actually talk to Gene Barnett on the phone!) and some new GI mags that I have held on to for sentimental reasons, I guess. Anyhooo...I handled a new SA "SOCOM 16" and I think I like it. Handled very nicely for me and, of course, I like the fact that I can use one of my beloved Aimpoints on it as well.

My question centers mostly around any issues with these new rifles being built with all non-GI parts these days...quality control, problem areas, if any, and the like. Spare me the "16in. is too short for the 7.62 round" stuff, please...I have friends overseas who are using FAL carbines chopped down to 11-12in. and they are getting excellent results on felons and their vehicles using ball ammo at 100m and under. I do not want nor do I need a long range target rifle...but I just might want to go to 200m or so in a pinch.

What say you about this packager?

Thanks in advance.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 2:36:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 2:56:41 AM EST by Warrior-Poet]
I've handled and shot one belonging to a local shooter. He and I usually form the 'heavy metal' detachment at our shoots.

Seems reliable, points well, is a bit noisy from the pepperpot. I still prefer the FAL, even though I grew up shooting the m1 and m14. Quality is indeterminate: not enough rounds through it to see. I'd imagine it's as good as any recently offered .308 system, and maybe better. I've tried the BAR and the AR-10 stuff, they seem a bit over-steroided, but handle nicely. The BAR takes FAL mags: VERY cool.

Do like your frineds: get a reliable FAL. Harmony will occur.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 2:53:37 AM EST
This is what I think....

No SOCOM team actually uses the M1A SOCOM
A 16" .308 rifle is inpractical, expect to pay the price in ballistics for looking cool
It really, truthfully has absolutely no practical use. I actually had a LEO on this board tell me it would be "a perfect weapon for clearing buildings" Uh yeah.....and this is why I support gun rights, so I don't have to have people like that protecting me.

I'm sure it works, I have heard the flash signature in the dark is like a comet.

I could find way more high priced toys that serve no other purpose than acting as a marketing tool for Springfield Armory. I come from the old school where things like the SOCOM and adding rail mounts to AR's for flashlights is looked at as ridiculous.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 2:58:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By patriot73:
This is what I think....

No SOCOM team actually uses the M1A SOCOM



Ouch!

Ya, most are using f/l M21 or adaptations, but I have seen a few Scouts in-country!
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 3:28:51 AM EST
Well, for me, this would just be a fun gun mostly for play...I have three FALs already...including a 16in. lightweight carbine that I like. In years past...well before the ban...I have owned and shot pretty much everything available in 7.62 back then except the AR10. The balance of the M1A is, I think, just a bit better...for me at least...and I prefer the irons and safety on the M1A to those of the FAL. I have fired the Scout, and while I kinda like it as well, the one I shot did not seem...been a while and I only fired one mag thru it...to balance or feel as "good" as the SOCOM...which, of course, I have not fired.

I would imagine that the flash and blast would be pretty serious...like a LOUD, comet! Hah!... but that does not bother me a whole lot for what I would do with it. I happen to think that ALL of SA's M1A offerings are overpriced, but that is what it is...I don't have to buy it. I have somewhere around 5K or so of various surplus 7.62 as well as a decent supply of WW match BT, so ammo is in place already. For any "CQB" that I might actually need do these days...damned little, I imagine unless the barbarians really DO get through the gates... I would grab one of my M4 Colts or a shotgun or maybe even a handgun to shoot them out of my dogs' jaws.

I tend to prefer a full but shorter stock to a collapsible or a folder, so the AR10 with collapsible is not as much of a distraction as it might be for some. My main concern is the stories I have heard from guys here about the reliability and QC of the new parts and guns from SA.

Thanks again!

Mike
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 5:20:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 12:43:17 PM EST
Now I want one.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 2:17:51 PM EST
Wow, lol, lower your dosage Patriot73! I have a SOCOM 16 for no better reason than I collect all military type arms. I took it out last weekend and fired about 240 rounds from it. Zero malfunctions. It is plenty accurate at 100 yards and less (did not try it at longer ranges since that is not the rifles purpose.). The muzzle signature is no greater (during the day) than that of the scout. Loudness at the muzzle is about the same as the scout (although it's hard to tell with hearing protection). The thing I was most impressed with is that the thing almost seems to have a negative recoil. You can get on target and stay on target through rapid fire strings just as fast as with an AR.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 3:22:27 PM EST
I believe the NRA review of the SOCOM had a muzzle velocity of 2400 FPS with a 165 grain bullet if I recall correctly (a 30-30 is about 2000 fps). They only shot the rifle at 50 yards which was an eye opener for me as they test most all guns at 100 yards. If I need a 50-100 yard gun a 223 will suffice just fine. A 308 in a 16 inch barrel would appear to me to be overly loud, and give up too much velocity. I guess it helps SA sell guns. It really does look good, cool and all that, so if looking cool is good then go for it, I would prefer to have a butt ugly non-cool gun that would allow me to hit better, harder and did not destroy my hearing quite so fast if used in an emergency without hearing protection. Just my opinion. Jimmyp
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 3:40:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jimmyp:
I believe the NRA review of the SOCOM had a muzzle velocity of 2400 FPS with a 165 grain bullet if I recall correctly (a 30-30 is about 2000 fps). They only shot the rifle at 50 yards which was an eye opener for me as they test most all guns at 100 yards. If I need a 50-100 yard gun a 223 will suffice just fine. A 308 in a 16 inch barrel would appear to me to be overly loud, and give up too much velocity. I guess it helps SA sell guns. It really does look good, cool and all that, so if looking cool is good then go for it, I would prefer to have a butt ugly non-cool gun that would allow me to hit better, harder and did not destroy my hearing quite so fast if used in an emergency without hearing protection. Just my opinion. Jimmyp



JimmyP, you are the most sensible one here. Buying rifles like this only encourages gun makers to continue directing their efforts on nonsense. There is absolutely not one logical need on God's green earth to have a CQB, 50yd .308 rifle. Buy it if you like eclectic, cool stuff. But don't buy it expecting it to serve any real purpose. Comparing the flash of the SOCOM to the flash of the Scout is like comparing and orange to an orange. I won't be buying one anytime soon, but that doesn't make them bad. If you like them, great, I'm sure they are fun to shoot. But reality is, they are useless.
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 5:15:16 PM EST
Well, everyone to their own tastes, I say.

I have seen...with my own two eyes...the results (I was there within 5 minutes after the incident ended) of several rounds from one of the aforementioned 11-12in. barreled FALs...exactly what the length is, I don't know, since these guys use centimeters rather than inches...and can tell you that at about 100 meters, 145gr. military ball had zero trouble punching completely through a large Mercedes sedan...door metal as well as glass... after they stopped the vehicle by disabling the motor with it...and two of the armed robbers inside who had been armed with an AK and a 9mm pistol...they were both dead as last weeks news from multiple holes. The freeway cops who shot it out with them were unscratched and the other two who survived and fled the scene were picked up within an hour or less. (second week of June 2004) Yes, they are getting approximately AK47+ performance from the FALs, and they know this, but they cannot afford the "image" of the AK...and the FAL works a bit better anyhow...at least that is what they tell me. I do know that they also have 5.56 rifles and carbines in service (55gr fmj only) and they say these do not work well at all on vehicles, although on unprotected humans they do fine.

I know from experience that trying to quickly un-ass a vehicle while grabbing a long gun is a damned site easier with a shorter weapon, and actually returning fire from inside the vehicle makes a shorter weapon even more desirable. Besides...what, exactly, would a "practical" rifle BE? A 19 pound NM stocked weapon set up for 500yd+ shooting? For some guys that might be the case, but for me, no.

But then I don't need every rifle I own to be "practical"...or even useful for real combat...Hell, sometimes it's just nice to go have some FUN with a firearm.

Thanks for all the replies, guys. To me, the SOCOM looks like a lot of fun as well as a rifle that just might be "practical" in some cases... for me at least. I think I will buy one after this damned hurricane gets by us...if I still have anywhere left to keep it!!!
Link Posted: 9/12/2004 9:20:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2004 9:22:11 PM EST by Melvin_Johnson]


Here's my home built SOCOM. It's mostly Chinese parts with an Armscorp receiver, GI stock and GI bolt. I cut the barrel to 16.5" and threaded it to take a Cav Arms brake. I'm pleased with the results.

Link Posted: 9/13/2004 4:28:06 AM EST
So far, I've been very pleased with my SA SOCOM 16. The SOCOM 16 balances well in my hands and is proving reliable. I wouldn't let the fact that it's comprised of a lot of commercial (versus USGI) parts bother you too much. The trigger assembly in my rifle is USGI. The bolt and operating rod are not. The bolt, however, seems to be a forging rather than a casting or MIM crafted part. I would expect it to hold up well. The only part I plan to swap out for a USGI part is the extractor. I've not experienced any failures, but a lot of people smarter than I suggest this swap.

As far as a purpose for the rifle... I use mine mostly for plinking in the woods. I don't plan to install any telescopic or dot or etc. sights on the rail. The supplied open sights seem to work fine for me. It's a lot of fun and an interesting example of the "M14" type rifle. It's handy and (so far) reliable. For me, thats sufficient reason to buy it.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 6:11:14 PM EST
I bought the SOCOM because I heard the Navy Seals use it. <JOKE>Actually I bought it because I had wanted an M1A for a .308 range rifle (my range only goes out to 300 yards). The SOCOM also fills a second and more necessary role for me. When you are driving the backroads in the mountains around here sometimes you come across crippled animals that have had a run in with a car and need to be humanely dispatched. The SOCOM fits in my truck the full sized M1A wouldn't so it is always handy in those cases.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 10:49:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Atilla_223:
I bought the SOCOM because I heard the Navy Seals use it. <JOKE>

Actually I bought it because I had wanted an M1A for a .308 range rifle (my range only goes out to 300 yards). The SOCOM also fills a second and more necessary role for me. When you are driving the backroads in the mountains around here sometimes you come across crippled animals that have had a run in with a car and need to be humanely dispatched. The SOCOM fits in my truck the full sized M1A wouldn't so it is always handy in those cases.




A Winchester 94 carbine in 30-30 would be perfect for that role.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:44:32 AM EST
Arizcowboy-Sshhh...He may have told his S.O. that the SOCOM was the perfect rifle. If she see's your post, the jig may be up for Atilla!
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:03:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 9:05:17 PM EST by jor-el]
A Winchester 94. 30/30. The perfect rifle for dealing with wounded deer, bear, or twenty or thirty Chechen Al Quaedas wearing surplus PASGT jackets and mini 14s backshooting your sons and daughters at the public school. Lets get serious here. A carbine .308 provides a compact envelope to deliver barrier penetrating accurate fire that's quickly deployable from a vehicle. As much as I enjoy my Armscorp with H+R parts, its a bitch to pull out from the back seat of my VW. Our Highway guys carry 13" Ithaca 37s for that very reason. Dump on folding stocks all you want. The compactness is reassuring that I'll get out of the car without hanging on the door. That's why M4s are so popular in the sand box.
Now if I can just get LRB Lou to make chrome lined 16" barrels...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:37:24 PM EST
Today I held one for the first time. Sweet. Real small package. I would get one. Replace the parts you can with GI stuff and you will be ok.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:20:50 PM EST
This crap about saying the .308 is no different than the .30-30 is way off base. It may have the same muzzle velocity (which it doesn't because the .30-30 at 2400 fps is from about 24" of barrel and you all know there are very few of those) but the .308 has a pointed bullet which sheds velocity alot slower than the .30-30 and will not drop as fast in all aspects. On top of that, there is no such thing as surplus 30-30 ammo or any other fmj or military type. If you guys don't think there a good idea, fine. But you better come up with some better answers than the lame one's you guys did. I'm betting you could at least shoot that thing 300 yards if you wanted to and stay on a human sized target. 30-30 shhh. Yeah the reloads are just as fast too. Give me a break.

I don't know anything about the "quality" of springfield because I don't have one. So I'm sorry I couldn't add to that part of the topic. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in here because the common sense of some of the responses seemed to be lacking to me. Enjoy it if you get it.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 7:08:03 PM EST
Are you Socom owners thinking about buying a folder now? I emailed Choate and they told me there are plans to bring back their folder.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 2:21:21 PM EST
Wouldn't a folder make it an SBR=paperwork
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 3:26:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By BRONZ:
Wouldn't a folder make it an SBR=paperwork




NO
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:18:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 3:18:36 AM EST by GoodGuy]
The rifle balances and handles well as is. I don't think a folding stock would really enhance it. I suspect most folding stock arrangements would prove disadvantageous. On the other hand... there is the "coolness" factor to be considered. Based on my measurements, adding a folding stock would make the rifle's overall length, with stock folded, about 28" to 29". That could be cool.
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:27:28 AM EST
I just don't see the point unless you have plenty of money to spare. I'd rather have a national match or a loaded full size than a sawed off .308 if I had to choose. However, if I won the lottery the entire family of M1A's would be in the safe.

r/s

Dan
Link Posted: 9/27/2004 2:43:10 PM EST
Well, you're entitled to your "not seeing the pointness" but I'm wondering if you read the posts here. There we're plenty of good reasons posted but to each his own. I guess without some disagreement life would be boring, eh?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 1:50:22 AM EST
i am thinking about buying one. here are my thoughts.

I planned on having the SOCOM as a truck rifle with my Comp M2 on it(already have the Comp M2 on LaRue QD Mount) for up north. The only other truck rifle i have is a Marlin 45-70 and that isnt quite qualled for anything past 50yd IMHO.

Have to say though that i am torn between the Scout and the SOCOM. My M4 is a 16 bbl and i love it - wouldnt want it any longer, shorter maybe. Thus the appeal for the SOCOM - same size, 30 caliber round.

makes enough sense to me!

my .02
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 3:41:50 PM EST
PBIR, not trying to flame ya, but... do you drive to the range? Take a bus? Ride a bike? Carry your NM in the trunk? Back seat? Gun rack? Gun rack in the visor? Gun rack between seats? Is your NM for work or play? If it's for work, how do you get to it? If you were ambushed how do you deploy from your car? What do you drive? Ford Expedition or Mini-Cooper? Now, for people who actually considered working with a rifle/carbine, the carbine length barrel has some appeal. Springfield's version (non-chromed barrel) might not be my choice (LRB's chromed 16" will be) but it may be someone's who is willing to sacrifice some range for close-in punch. I guess we're not talking about paper. And if you're wondering, NYS penal law has specific exception for LEOs regarding transporting rifles/shotguns unloaded in case in trunk. We can keep loaded in passenger compartment.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 2:44:11 PM EST
ikor, I've yet to shoot a Socom but I have had my grubby little hands on one at a dealers shop. It was a later version (stripe front sight, 3/4 ring) and I have to say that I liked it. My thoughts are if you want one, get one. If you don't like it there are plenty of folks out there that will take it off of your hands.

I have shot variants from the Bush up to a full-blown 14lb Match rifle and find myself doing most of my M1-A shooting with a standard weight 22" version.

When it comes to what I keep in the truck it's either a 16" AR-15, GASP!!! 18" Mini-14, or an 18" M1-A Bush for the obvious reasons of handiness stated in the previous posts.

Please keep in mind that these are my personal opinions on the subject based on my experiences.

Keith

P.S. As far as the ballistic arguments I don't believe any living creature would willingly stand in front of a 14, 16, 18, or 22 inch M1-A or care one bit about the length of the barrel being pointed in his direction at any yardage.

Link Posted: 10/2/2004 7:32:18 PM EST
Nice,quick handling. Switch out the extractor for USGI, I recently got an email from Ron Smith of Smith Enterprises, He's bringing back the M14K. In case your'e not familiar with it ,it's basically a SOCOM 16 length with a modified m60 gas system and a few other upgrades. You mention that you have some parts stashed away, maybe building one would be a less expensive option. An LRB or Norinco forged receiver would be the way to go IMO. I'm currently torn between either building an FN/FAL Para with a short gas system and 16 in barrel or holding out for an M14Khinking.gif. All those people saying the short barrel makes these weapons into clubs are nuts. IF, a citizen had to defend home and hearth the distance would be measured in feet,even the military acknowledges that the vast majority of engagements take place under 300 yds and I'm sure it's under 100 in urban settings,WELL within the capabilities of this weapon.
Top Top