Something to ponder with SOCOM's 16" barrel

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Something to ponder with SOCOM's 16" barrel (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 12/1/2005 6:35:17 PM EDT

I can understand the enthusiasm with the compactness of the SOCOM 16". But you've gotta wonder---what does it do with regard to ballistics? The 16" barrelled SOCOM (as with just about any 16" .308) will give you @ 2500+fps with standard M80 ball, even less with heavier loads. That is okay at CQB distances I suppose.

However, I believe that the 18" barrel of the Scout/Bush rifles gives the best balance between CQB (for compactness) and the ability to shoot distance.

In a nutshell: 16" is probably good only for CQB, while an 18" is good for both CQB and moderate distance shooting (say 200-400 yds.).
The trade-off in size/weight is negligible for the ballistic gains.

What say you?

Posted: 12/1/2005 7:24:25 PM EDT

[#1]

I say it is still packing a lot of punch even out 3 or 4 hundred yards. If you can hit it I am sure it will feel it.

Posted: 12/1/2005 7:38:34 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
If you can hit it I am sure it will feel it.

It still punches a .30 cal hole at any distance if you're using ball.

Posted: 12/1/2005 7:42:18 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If you can hit it I am sure it will feel it.

It still punches a .30 cal hole at any distance if you're using ball.

What about 3 billion yards?!?!

Posted: 12/1/2005 7:44:40 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you can hit it I am sure it will feel it.

It still punches a .30 cal hole at any distance if you're using ball.

What about 3 billion yards?!?!

Walk over there and we'll test the theory

Posted: 12/1/2005 7:47:55 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you can hit it I am sure it will feel it.

It still punches a .30 cal hole at any distance if you're using ball.

What about 3 billion yards?!?!

Walk over there and we'll test the theory

Deal!

Posted: 12/2/2005 4:09:41 AM EDT

[#6]

I was referring to trajectory as well as terminal ballistics. You'd have something similar to an AK's "rainbow"-like trajectory with a SOCOM (or any 16" .308). Perhaps a little better, but not much.

I'm not bashing the SOCOM, just saying that an 18" barrel would seem to give one the best of both worlds.

Posted: 12/2/2005 4:27:27 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I was referring to trajectory as well as terminal ballistics. You'd have something similar to an AK's "rainbow"-like trajectory with a SOCOM (or any 16" .308). Perhaps a little better, but not much.

I'm not bashing the SOCOM, just saying that an 18" barrel would seem to give one the best of both worlds.

The 18 inch would be the best compromise if you could not have both. If you had one specific use then you could pic the best one for the role.

Posted: 12/2/2005 2:59:45 PM EDT

[#8]

One downside to a 16inch barrel is depending on the powder used you will likely end up with
some nice muzzleflash if nothing less. Not something I would want, but it all depends on what
your planning on using it for. Bambi won't care about a little flash before the darkness

Blackops_1.

Posted: 12/2/2005 10:15:51 PM EDT

[#9]

A SOCOM16 is a solution looking for a problem. For the amount of money that they go for, you could have an outstanding 16" F A L, 10 mags, and a couple of cases of milsurp ammo.

I would rather have the extra 2 inches of barrel and the velocity that goes with it.

Posted: 12/3/2005 4:42:02 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I'm not bashing the SOCOM, just saying that an 18" barrel would seem to give one the best of both worlds.

Quoted:
The 18 inch would be the best compromise if you could not have both.
If you had one specific use then you could pic the best one for the role.

IMHO, the 18" is the best all-around barrel for every possible role except extra long range shooting.

I have yet to see a 16 used by our military, plenty of 18's are in use though...

Posted: 12/3/2005 4:45:31 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

I would rather have the extra 2 inches of barrel and the velocity that goes with it.

That is basically what I was driving at. The tradeoff of the extra 2 inches for the versatility it provides is negligible.

The SOCOM and what it does to a .308 round ballistically is analogous to the M4 (14.5 gubment barrel) and the 5.56 round.

Posted: 12/3/2005 4:48:27 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not bashing the SOCOM, just saying that an 18" barrel would seem to give one the best of both worlds.

Quoted:
The 18 inch would be the best compromise if you could not have both.
If you had one specific use then you could pic the best one for the role.

IMHO, the 18" is the best all-around barrel for every possible role except extra long range shooting.

I have yet to see a 16 used by our military, plenty of 18's are in use though...

Just out of curiosity, what do you define as "extra long range shooting"? Do you think the 18" barrel is sufficient for the SDM's role of 300-600 meters?

Posted: 12/3/2005 5:00:30 AM EDT

[#13]

I pondered the SOCOM as a CQB choice. I decided to pay $225 for a paratrooper SKS instead.

Posted: 12/3/2005 5:43:04 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Just out of curiosity, what do you define as "extra long range shooting"? Do you think the 18" barrel is sufficient for the SDM's role of 300-600 meters?

A properly set-up M14 type rifle with an 18" barrel can easily and accuratley go 800 meters with the correct ammo.
Extra long range shooting would be 800 - 1000+ meters and the 22" barrel is required for these ranges.

Posted: 12/3/2005 5:47:17 AM EDT

[#15]

So out of everybody who posted in this thread, who has actually shot (more than a magazine) or owns an M1A SOCOM?

Ok, I'll be the first to put my hand up.

Next?

Posted: 12/3/2005 6:01:00 AM EDT

[#16]

As Lumpy said, it will punch a hole on paper. Now with that said, so will a musket. The advantage of the M14 platform is accuracy and knock down power. You have substantially dropped muzzle velocity with the 16" barrel, and although some claim barrel harmonics dictate a shorter barrel is actually more accurate, I have never personally seen this to be true. The SOCOM is a toy, a pure marketing tool. No SOCOM unit actually uses this rifle nor will they ever. SA, Inc's products do not even meet U.S. Military heat treat minimums.

People enjoy different things, one of them being the M1A SOCOM, which by all accounts is not a useless weapon but a very unnecessary weapon. An AR with the right ammo will do everything a SOCOM can do and with a hell of a lot less felt recoil.

Springfield Armory Inc is a marketing company, they should be a gun builder.

I wouldn't bet my dog's life on their products.

Posted: 12/3/2005 6:03:14 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
So out of everybody who posted in this thread, who has actually shot (more than a magazine) or owns an M1A SOCOM?

Ok, I'll be the first to put my hand up.

Next?

I have shot about 40 rounds through a SOCOM. I would never waste my money.

Posted: 12/3/2005 6:20:12 AM EDT

[#18]

I have shot about 600 rounds through mine. It is a fine rifle. You sound like an AR snob who has a grudge against Springfield Armory.

Posted: 12/3/2005 8:05:03 AM EDT

[#19]

It occurs to me that simply not being used by the military is a poor reason to pooh-pooh the weapon. It's handy, light, well-balanced, and reasonably effective considering its caliber. These are all positive attributes. Just as with any firearm, it is not without its weaknesses, but for the most part, I can think of little that would immediately discredit the rifle in its entirety.

The SOCOM's attributes become all the more impressive when state-level 'assault weapons' bans are taken into consideration. For people in the captive audience states such as California, I can think of few better alternatives for a defensive rifle--though the Squad Scout is certainly no slouch either. I personally cannot envision myself realistically shooting at anything more than one or possibly two hundred yards away, so the extra muzzle velocity and range of the heavier Squad Scout would be of little immediate benefit to me, personally.

The SOCOM has its niché, though it is certainly not for everyone. The bizarre irony here is that as much as I enjoy the short M1A, I am a bigger fan of the rifle-length platform as it pertains to the AR15 design. I guess I'm just backwards that way.

I suppose your mileage may vary, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

Posted: 12/3/2005 8:27:50 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
It occurs to me that simply not being used by the military is a poor reason to pooh-pooh the weapon.

I have not poo-poo'd the weapon, I just pointed out a fact.

Posted: 12/3/2005 9:24:50 AM EDT

[#21]

As you deviate from the OEM-length barrel, your iron sights become progressivly less accurately calibrated. Sure, you can dial in a BSZ, but you cannot easily dial in ranges that are inscribed on the elevation knob.

Also, optical devices with reticular hold-overs and/or bullet-drop-compensators are calibrated for a certain bullet mass leaving the muzzle at a certain velocity. Shorter barrels will deviate from this velocity depending on their length. Thus, the optical device, assuming that it was originally calibrated for GI ball ammo at OEM barrel length velocities, will be "off" just like the iron sights.

The muzzle flash issue was raised above. Bambi may not care, but a potential opponent's buddies might, to your disadvantage.

Unless you have a compelling need that can only be met by shortening the barrel, stick with OEM length. Spend the money you saved on ammo and quality range time.

Posted: 12/3/2005 9:26:24 AM EDT

[#22]

H2O:

Fair enough.

That was merely the insinuation that I picked up on. My bad, I suppose. I'm wary of 'unless it's military, it's crap' sounding statements, as I don't find martial status to be the most important factor in judging an arm's true measure. Apologies, no offense was intended.

raf:

Valid points. However, I found the balance and perceived handling qualities of the full-length rifle and slightly shorter Squad Scout models to be notably less appealing than those of the lighter weapon. "Compelling" is entirely subjective to the end user, is it not? Much like the "pointability" of a handgun, the felt balance and handling characteristics of a longarm ought to be important factors in the purchase of a given weapon, in my opinion. For me, the SOCOM was perceivably more user-friendly than its bigger sisters. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Posted: 12/3/2005 9:45:55 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
It occurs to me that simply not being used by the military is a poor reason to pooh-pooh the weapon. It's handy, light, well-balanced, and reasonably effective considering its caliber. These are all positive attributes. Just as with any firearm, it is not without its weaknesses, but for the most part, I can think of little that would immediately discredit the rifle in its entirety.

The SOCOM's attributes become all the more impressive when state-level 'assault weapons' bans are taken into consideration. For people in the captive audience states such as California, I can think of few better alternatives for a defensive rifle--though the Squad Scout is certainly no slouch either. I personally cannot envision myself realistically shooting at anything more than one or possibly two hundred yards away, so the extra muzzle velocity and range of the heavier Squad Scout would be of little immediate benefit to me, personally.

The SOCOM has its niché, though it is certainly not for everyone. The bizarre irony here is that as much as I enjoy the short M1A, I am a bigger fan of the rifle-length platform as it pertains to the AR15 design. I guess I'm just backwards that way.

I suppose your mileage may vary, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

The fact that it is marketed as a combat weapon and will never ever see real combat by real soldiers or SOCOM members is 100% reason to poo-poo it as a combat weapon. It is a toy, as I said before.

I have no grudge against Springfield Armory, they simply have a poor reputation in terms of quality.

And.......numerous, numerous, numerous tests have shown the M16 rifle coupled with 5.56 to be superior to the M14 and 7.62mm NATO. The M14 saw the shortest active service of any US service rifle, that ain't all politics. I love M14 rifles, but they have been made greater in death then they ever were in real life.

Posted: 12/3/2005 10:04:20 AM EDT

[#24]

I've read several theses that purport the same thing about the M1903 Springfield rifle that you do about the M14--facinating stuff, I must say.

That said, I have had nothing but outstanding support from Springfield Armory in my limited ventures with them, and the general consensus (sp?) from people I've interacted with has been positive. But once again, different strokes for different folks--we can each only go by what we know, and I'll not begrudge you your perspective.

For what it's worth, though, although the armed forces don't use the SOCOM, I thoroughly fell for the little .308.

Edited to add the following:

For what it's worth, I also dislike the commando-esque figure clutching the M1A in the mud ad campaign. It does smack of deceptive marketing. Sell the rifle on its own merits, I say.

Posted: 12/3/2005 10:07:23 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

And.......numerous, numerous, numerous tests have shown the M16 rifle coupled with 5.56 to be superior to the M14 and 7.62mm NATO.

I love M14 rifles, but they have been made greater in death then they ever were in real life.

Say what?!

Please post a link to just one of the numerous tests you speak of.
And.......the M14 is alive and well on todays modern battlefield in ever growing numbers.
The M14 has never been totally out of service.

I do agree that the SOCOM is a brilliant, well executed vehicle to market more product to consumers that would not otherwise consider the M14 type rifle.
Most of these consumers don't even know what the M14 is.

Posted: 12/3/2005 10:45:52 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:

And.......numerous, numerous, numerous tests have shown the M16 rifle coupled with 5.56 to be superior to the M14 and 7.62mm NATO.

I love M14 rifles, but they have been made greater in death then they ever were in real life.

Say what?!

Please post a link to just one of the numerous tests you speak of.
And.......the M14 is alive and well on todays modern battlefield in ever growing numbers.
The M14 has never been totally out of service.

I do agree that the SOCOM is a brilliant, well executed vehicle to market more product to consumers that would not otherwise consider the M14 type rifle.
Most of these consumers don't even know what the M14 is.

I don't have a link to prove this and of course my statement will flip out all .30 fans (myself being an avid .30 fan) but the little mousey 5.56 was ballistically superior to the AK47 in Vietnam (You can check Scott Duff's books for that source if you must). 7.62mm will perform the same over it's entire spectrum, as where 5.56 loses a little at long ranges but at short distances( 0-500m) 62 grain 5.56 spinning out of a 1 in 7 twist is extremely lethal.

The M14 is currently serving in small numbers (very small) in Iraq and Afghanistan, not in increasing numbers though, production of the M14 ceased in 1964 I believe. This is for engaging targets beyond the scope of the 5.56 mm round. The ONLY reason the M14 is being used, is because we still have some of them and thats the only reason. If we adopted the FAL rifle, they'd be using that.

PS......The 1903 Springfield was carried through two World Wars. The M14 has seen limited action in every conflict it has served in, from Vietnam to Desert Storm to Somalia to now. It's an excellent rifle, but like I said, larger in death than it ever was in real life.

PS.....I love my M1A. All TRW w/ SAK 1-69 barrel on a SA Inc receiver

Posted: 12/3/2005 10:58:30 AM EDT

[#27]

On the M1903 note, from what I've read, the '03 was only in limited service in the two wars that it has received the most notoriety for serving through. In the Great War, it was outnumbered by M1917 Enfield rifles, and was rapidly being phased out in favor of the venerable M1 Garand for World War II. The general consensus (sp?) in the articles I've read was that the weapon was dearly beloved by those that used it, but wasn't actually as fine an arm as the mystique that surrounded it.

Posted: 12/3/2005 12:09:26 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It occurs to me that simply not being used by the military is a poor reason to pooh-pooh the weapon. It's handy, light, well-balanced, and reasonably effective considering its caliber. These are all positive attributes. Just as with any firearm, it is not without its weaknesses, but for the most part, I can think of little that would immediately discredit the rifle in its entirety.

The SOCOM's attributes become all the more impressive when state-level 'assault weapons' bans are taken into consideration. For people in the captive audience states such as California, I can think of few better alternatives for a defensive rifle--though the Squad Scout is certainly no slouch either. I personally cannot envision myself realistically shooting at anything more than one or possibly two hundred yards away, so the extra muzzle velocity and range of the heavier Squad Scout would be of little immediate benefit to me, personally.

The SOCOM has its niché, though it is certainly not for everyone. The bizarre irony here is that as much as I enjoy the short M1A, I am a bigger fan of the rifle-length platform as it pertains to the AR15 design. I guess I'm just backwards that way.

I suppose your mileage may vary, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

The fact that it is marketed as a combat weapon and will never ever see real combat by real soldiers or SOCOM members is 100% reason to poo-poo it as a combat weapon. It is a toy, as I said before.

I have no grudge against Springfield Armory, they simply have a poor reputation in terms of quality.

And.......numerous, numerous, numerous tests have shown the M16 rifle coupled with 5.56 to be superior to the M14 and 7.62mm NATO. The M14 saw the shortest active service of any US service rifle, that ain't all politics. I love M14 rifles, but they have been made greater in death then they ever were in real life.

Actually, the M-14 is flourishing in it's "afterlife" as we speak! So much so that .gov has in fact contracted for some NEW parts to be manufactured. The M-14 will be with us for longer than we all thought.

I didn't start this to be a shit-flinging contest. I was just trying to point out and have a joint discussion about the area where I feel the SOCOM comes up "short" (no pun intended): ballistics. If you like the SOCOM, go for it.

Does anyone know what the weight difference between a SOCOM and a Bush model is? It can't be that much for 2 more inches of barrel.

ETA---patriot73, you mentioned the M-14 being used in "very" limited numbers today. If ONE PER SQUAD in most of the U.S. Army's combat units is "very' limited, your opinion of that is different than mine! And by combat units I mean even artillery and similar units being used as grunts. I have seen this personally by helping run M-14 classes for 3 groups of guys from the 101st here at Ft. Campbell. Two of the groups were field artillery, one was cav scouts. BTW, talk about some pristine weapons!!!

Posted: 12/3/2005 12:59:20 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Does anyone know what the weight difference between a SOCOM and a Bush model is?
It can't be that much for 2 more inches of barrel.

There is less than half a pound difference between a Scout and a Socom in synthetic stocks.
A Bush (no forward optic mount) should weigh the same as the 9 pound Socom.

And yes - the "afterlife" of the never dead M14 is nothing short of amazing.

Posted: 12/3/2005 3:28:40 PM EDT

[#30]

) but the little mousey 5.56 was ballistically superior to the AK47 in Vietnam (You can check Scott Duff's books for that source if you must). 7.62mm will perform the same over it's entire spectrum, as where 5.56 loses a little at long ranges but at short distances( 0-500m) 62 grain 5.56 spinning out of a 1 in 7 twist is extremely lethal.

Vietnam M16s used cannelured 55grain ammo in a 1:12 twist. It was devastating within a certain range.
Current M16A2s and M4s use 62grain penetrator ammo in a 1:7 twist.

Posted: 12/3/2005 11:10:29 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

The M14 saw the shortest active service of any US service rifle, that ain't all politics.

Say what? The M14 has been in active service longer than the M16 rifle. There are US Army Infantry units that never switched to the M16. 3rd US Inf reg. for one.

Posted: 12/4/2005 4:01:52 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I pondered the SOCOM as a CQB choice. I decided to pay $225 for a paratrooper SKS instead.

Strictly out of curiosity, are you expecting to see any CQB any time soon ?
I ask this as I see comments similar to yours often on gun boards and I wonder how many members are actually engaging in (or expecting to engage in) CQB.

Posted: 12/4/2005 4:30:35 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I pondered the SOCOM as a CQB choice. I decided to pay $225 for a paratrooper SKS instead.

Strictly out of curiosity, are you expecting to see any CQB any time soon ?
I ask this as I see comments similar to yours often on gun boards and I wonder how many members are actually engaging in (or expecting to engage in) CQB.

Some folks like to shoot combat action shoots. Some of us want a handy trunk gun.

Posted: 12/4/2005 4:47:51 AM EDT

[#34]

I Just purchased a SOCOM II, I do not plan to do 800 meter shooting with it nor am I expecting the CQB scenario on a daily basis. I just like the look and feel of the rifle. I own a full size NM M1A also. The SOCOM II is a heavy little rifle, I also am not small myself. I am 6'4" 290, so this rifle poses no weight threat to myself. I like the rail system and have been able to transition alot of the toys from my AR's to it. I find my Ar's to be a little on the small and petite side. Yes I am aware of the AR10's but I like a big heavy main battle rifle. 7.62 primary for making a stand and 5.56 or 12ga. for up close CQB work should it ever come to it. I just saw and liked it and used Christmas as an excuse to put another "toy" in the house. Now to see if I can get a thread adapter for my 30cal suppressor for it.

Just my .02

Posted: 12/4/2005 4:50:16 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I pondered the SOCOM as a CQB choice. I decided to pay $225 for a paratrooper SKS instead.

Strictly out of curiosity, are you expecting to see any CQB any time soon ?
I ask this as I see comments similar to yours often on gun boards and I wonder how many members are actually engaging in (or expecting to engage in) CQB.

Some folks like to shoot combat action shoots. Some of us want a handy trunk gun.

OK, thanks !

Posted: 12/4/2005 8:43:08 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
) but the little mousey 5.56 was ballistically superior to the AK47 in Vietnam (You can check Scott Duff's books for that source if you must). 7.62mm will perform the same over it's entire spectrum, as where 5.56 loses a little at long ranges but at short distances( 0-500m) 62 grain 5.56 spinning out of a 1 in 7 twist is extremely lethal.

Vietnam M16s used cannelured 55grain ammo in a 1:12 twist. It was devastating within a certain range.
Current M16A2s and M4s use 62grain penetrator ammo in a 1:7 twist.

62 grain in a 1 in 7 twist barrel is extremely deadly, even though it is found to fragment into maily two pieces. Guys, I love M14's but they have always, as they do now see limited use in the field. They were rapidly dumped as the standard issue weapon for several factors, reliablity under certain conditions being one, completely uncontrolable in FA, too heavy and too long.

They are being used because they are still in arsenal warehouses, like I said if it were AR10's or FALs that were adopted as a main service rifle in the 50's, they would be using those.

But back to the SOCOM.......a toy. The real M14 will most likely continue to battle on, as it is an excellent designated marksman rifle and quite accurate when it will actually allow a scope to hold zero. The SOCOM will never be anything more than a civilian noise maker/blow torch.

The SOCOM is a lot of fun to shoot, and if used as a shooter or a plinker it is a great rifle. But to name it SOCOM is laughable and to market it as a combat weapon is wildly laughable.

I wouldn't buy one, but I'd shoot my buddies if we were at the range.

Posted: 12/4/2005 9:01:54 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
) but the little mousey 5.56 was ballistically superior to the AK47 in Vietnam (You can check Scott Duff's books for that source if you must). 7.62mm will perform the same over it's entire spectrum, as where 5.56 loses a little at long ranges but at short distances( 0-500m) 62 grain 5.56 spinning out of a 1 in 7 twist is extremely lethal.

Vietnam M16s used cannelured 55grain ammo in a 1:12 twist. It was devastating within a certain range.
Current M16A2s and M4s use 62grain penetrator ammo in a 1:7 twist.

62 grain in a 1 in 7 twist barrel is extremely deadly, even though it is found to fragment into maily two pieces. Guys, I love M14's but they have always, as they do now see limited use in the field. They were rapidly dumped as the standard issue weapon for several factors, reliablity under certain conditions being one, completely uncontrolable in FA, too heavy and too long.

They are being used because they are still in arsenal warehouses, like I said if it were AR10's or FALs that were adopted as a main service rifle in the 50's, they would be using those.

But back to the SOCOM.......a toy. The real M14 will most likely continue to battle on, as it is an excellent designated marksman rifle and quite accurate when it will actually allow a scope to hold zero. The SOCOM will never be anything more than a civilian noise maker/blow torch.

The SOCOM is a lot of fun to shoot, and if used as a shooter or a plinker it is a great rifle. But to name it SOCOM is laughable and to market it as a combat weapon is wildly laughable.

I wouldn't buy one, but I'd shoot my buddies if we were at the range.

You make some good points. I love my M1A and I think the M14 still has a role to play but it is limited. Perhaps we (the US military) will step up and adopt the 6.8mm and cover our asses in both directions but that's for another discussion.

Posted: 12/4/2005 9:12:20 AM EDT

[#38]

I shot a muley buck with my Socom and a Aimpoint the other day at just a touch over 200 yds on my laser rangefinder. Went down with one shot, never even thought about getting back up. Nice buck, 5x6.

Posted: 12/4/2005 11:28:26 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I shot a muley buck with my Socom and a Aimpoint the other day at just a touch over 200 yds on my laser rangefinder. Went down with one shot, never even thought about getting back up. Nice buck, 5x6.

But that's impossible - don't you know it's just a toy?

Posted: 12/4/2005 12:01:06 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I shot a muley buck with my Socom and a Aimpoint the other day at just a touch over 200 yds on my laser rangefinder. Went down with one shot, never even thought about getting back up. Nice buck, 5x6.

So...... your toy noise maker/blow torch actually allowed your optic to hold zero and not only hit but knock down your target.

There is nothing laughable about that - nice shooting

Posted: 12/4/2005 1:15:48 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I shot a muley buck with my Socom and a Aimpoint the other day at just a touch over 200 yds on my laser rangefinder. Went down with one shot, never even thought about getting back up. Nice buck, 5x6.

Blasphemy!

Posted: 12/4/2005 1:22:17 PM EDT

[#42]

No offense, guys, but people do that with muzzle-loading smokepoles. I'll admit the range is a bit long for the average muzzlw-loader, but not impossibly so.

You all are missing the point.

Posted: 12/4/2005 1:35:38 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I shot a muley buck with my Socom and a Aimpoint the other day at just a touch over 200 yds on my laser rangefinder. Went down with one shot, never even thought about getting back up. Nice buck, 5x6.

But that's impossible - don't you know it's just a toy?

Well played, Thekatar.

I'm not sure why some folks want to knock the SOCOM so badly. IMHO for the majority of civilian shooters the difference in velocity and long-range accuracy between the 16" SOCOM and 18" Scout is not a major factor, but the increased handiness and weight savings of the SOCOM overall may well be.

As for .mil use, my understanding is that SOCOM actually wanted the 16" barrel for their EBRs (gasp!), but ultimately opted for the safer bet of the 18" Scout rather than the SOCOM 16"s new gas system. And it would not surprise me in the least if some of our HSLD brothers actually did have some SOCOMs in inventory.

YMMV.

Will

Posted: 12/4/2005 5:24:31 PM EDT

[#44]

I just got a SOCOM a few days ago and shot it for the first time yesterday. I'm not trying to hit something at 3-400 yards with it so the long range consideration never came into play.

I'm only an average shot so being able to dust clay pigeons at 100 yrds, first shot, almost every time is good enough for me! Hell, there is not even a range of more than 100 yards within an hours drive of my home, and looong range isn't my thing anyway.

Was it a little pricy for what it can do compared to other rifles? Probably, but the "cool" factor and the fact that it is built like a tank make up for that.

Fun as hell! I'm glad I bought it and will never look back.

Posted: 12/4/2005 5:39:43 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I shot a muley buck with my Socom and a Aimpoint the other day at just a touch over 200 yds on my laser rangefinder. Went down with one shot, never even thought about getting back up. Nice buck, 5x6.

But that's impossible - don't you know it's just a toy?

Yeah, and it can only be good for CQB, what gives?

Look, I don't have a socom. I don't plan on buying one. But you don't have to look very long to find what's good about it. And give me a break. The bush is so much better because of 2 LOUSY INCHES? That is, well, that's just not smart.

BTW, I held one that was mounted in a GI wood stock, and it was alot lighter than a standard M1A.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. But every time one of these threads come up about how stupid they are, nobody ever makes a decent point. Ever. Yeah, it's not deadly because it's got a puny barrel. Yeah, kind of like an M4, hah?

Posted: 12/4/2005 5:46:12 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
No offense, guys, but people do that with muzzle-loading smokepoles. I'll admit the range is a bit long for the average muzzlw-loader, but not impossibly so.

You all are missing the point.

No, you are. Do you only hunt with a muzzle loader? Your point is irrelivant. People shoot deer with all different kinds of rifles. He wasn't bragging, he was just poking holes in all these supposedly highly expert opinions of why the socom is a "toy".

Posted: 12/4/2005 6:30:44 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I shot a muley buck with my Socom and a Aimpoint the other day at just a touch over 200 yds on my laser rangefinder. Went down with one shot, never even thought about getting back up. Nice buck, 5x6.

But that's impossible - don't you know it's just a toy?

Yeah, it was probably just luck. I don't know anything about the differences between the 22, 18, and 16" barrels (yes, I have all three) and frankly for what I do I really don't care. Since I have gotten my Socom, it has been my favorite "medium" caliber do-everything rifle. The buck in question went down just as easily with my Socom as it has with a full size M1a. So is there a velocity difference? down range knockdown power? Probably, but I don't really care. It gets the job done as well as anything else and is a hell of a lot handier than the 22" or even the 18" M1a's I have.

I like it and that is what matters and most importantly it gets the job done efficiently.

Posted: 12/4/2005 7:14:49 PM EDT

[#48]

See my sigline

Posted: 12/4/2005 7:17:01 PM EDT

[#49]

I have 2 16" barrel .308 MBR's and one 18" barrel MBR in .308 and I can't tell one bit of difference between the two barrel lengths except in weight and handiness. But then again, I don't shoot over 400 yards, so maybe thats why I can't tell that I've lost ~100 fps.

I do have a theory about people that talk trash about 16" barrel .308s, there are three possible reasons:

1) They trash talk 16" barrel .308's because deep down they are really mad that they didn't buy one and are in denial (about 95% of you need to admit that a short barrel .308 at least looks really cool, go on....admit it)

2) They don't like non-traditional MBR's and they fear that these new "carbine" versions are going to become the AR's of MBR's and make the rest of them look bad

3) They actually shoot their MBR's 600-1000 yard distances and really can notice a loss of 150 fps at that distance.

Me...I like both. I hope to one day have a 22" barrel M1A as well as a 16" or 18" barrel M1A. I also hope to get an SBRed HK51. An 8" barrel .308 (HK51) is not practical at all, but it sure would be fun, but all you will hear from MBR traditonalists is how it will be worthless for shooting over 100 yards, not true.

It sort of like when someone put a built up engine in their car or truck or big tires. People will quickly look for the small negatives (like 3 less mpg) because it makes them feel inferior or makes the jealous.

There's room for everyone from 8" barrel .308s to 24" barrel .308s.

Posted: 12/4/2005 7:33:20 PM EDT

[#50]

I'd really like to get my hands on a SOCOM so I could chrono the bullet velocity and put some of this crap to rest.

When I chrono'd a 22" M1A and a 16" AR10, the velocity loss was about 150 fps, IIRC. That's about the same loss at 75yds down range from the M1A. Not a huge deal.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Something to ponder with SOCOM's 16" barrel (Page 1 of 2)

Armory » M1 / M14 / M1 Carbine

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us