User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:04:09 PM EDT
I have been thinking hard about getting a Springfield M1A Scout or SOCOM. What advantages do they have over a AR15? I already have a Decked out Bushy AR with all the nasty goodies. Is a M1A going to give me much more accuracy for distance shots vs my AR (16in barrel)? What about durability? ect...
Can you guys shoot me straight on these rifles. And yes I did a search and checked out the M1A forum. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:06:15 PM EDT
[#1]
The M1A, if I am correct, will not be as accurate as an AR.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:07:18 PM EDT
[#2]
M1A/M14:
Bigger bullet More ammo choices(Match) Decent accuracy Big Aftermarket support. AR10 Same as M14 Same Ammo Choices More accuracy Lots of aftermarket. Just depending what your after, comparing M1a/M14 to an AR15 is kind of apples oranges. Comparing M14's to FAL, G3 and other battle rifles may be a better start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:10:25 PM EDT
[#3]
And did I mention weight???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:13:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Thanks for the comments.
I kinda figured it would be apples to oranges. I was thinking more in the line of an overall battle rifle one vs another. Advantages vs drawbacks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:16:48 PM EDT
[#5]
If you already have an AR15 I'd go ahead and get a m1a also. But thats just me.
I'd like to have one just to have one. Plus if you hunt you could use it for anything. Bear or whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:19:42 PM EDT
[#6]
I would get one. They are pretty sweet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:24:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Apples and oranges. Buy both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:33:41 PM EDT
[#8]
My gripe about the M1A SOCOM is we can't use any GI or after market flash supprerssor on it, the supplied brake is a one piece POS intergrated with the front sight. As a rule I hate brakes, but more than that, NONE of muzzle device and front sight work with it. I was on the phone with Ron Smith, he had lamented the same sentiment (actually it was his gripe, I knew nothing about the shortcomings of the M1A SOCOM)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:36:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Apples to oranges +1
You must consider your uses, then figure out what round suits your needs best. Then you can compare rifles that accept the round. The current competition for the M1A is the US made FAL, or an AR-10 (and some could argue an apples to oranges comparison there, but a comparison btw an M1A & an AR-10 is a far better matchup than an M1A & an AR-15) Neither rifle is mil-spec, but you can get a closer version with the AR platform than the M1 Platform. If you can afford both eventually I suggest you do that. The AR is easier to customize and add more shit to, including change of calibur and then there is the cost of ammunition to figure. If you are a modern battle rifle enthusiast you should have a platform for .223/5.56 (AR-15 no competition), .308/762x51 (FAL, AR-10, M1A) and 7.62x39 (AK variant). So think of the needs of your first rifle based on the ammo (and don't overlook shooting cost if you're into recreation/practice) and go from there. EDIT: add to Duffy's post that SA is very slow to accomidate the AWB expitation and in addition to not offering a flash suppressor, they don't offer a bayonet lug either. Marginal point but it irks me nevertheless, and when I part with $900+ on hardware I don't like to be irked at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:36:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Which is more accurate, Fal or M1A?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:39:40 PM EDT
[#11]
IMHO it will depend on who built the rifle. Out of the box I'd say M1A, but there's a billion FALs out there. Some are garbage and some are unbelievable shooters. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 5:42:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Consider a DSA, Springfield M1A and accuracy? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:01:40 PM EDT
[#13]
The M1A is deffinatly going to have much more stoping power at greater ranges, 168gr commercial compared to 80gr handload that has to be shot one at a time cause it's too big to fit in the mag. National matches are being won with AR's but anything greater than 600yds i would like a bigger bullet My 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:04:44 PM EDT
[#14]
FAL all the way!
More options, more parts availability(cheaper too), easier to clean/repair, and 5 DOLLAR MAGS! Here's my two, (well really the top one is my wife's). 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:15:21 PM EDT
[#15]
MIA is a very reliable rifle. we just got the scout/squad. not to havy. seems like it could take a beating,
my vote for the SA M1A |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:16:36 PM EDT
[#16]
I have heard the Springfield M1As aren't as good as they used to be. Someone mentioned using cast receivers? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:22:20 PM EDT
[#17]
The M1A's from SA always used caste receivers. This is the Semi auto version of the M14 they made for the military. They are both just so different. I wouldnt use one of them for CQB, just like I would not use the other to hunt deer. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:31:02 PM EDT
[#18]
i havent herd that. i thought they were still really great. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:43:20 PM EDT
[#19]
A review that I read on the short SOCOM rifle indicated only moderate accuracy, 3-4 inches at 100 yards. With the 16 inch barrel the 150 grain bullet is producing 2300 FPS or so. How much more effective would this be than a 125 grain bullet doing 2200 FPS out of a 16 inch kalishnikov pattern rifle? Both would shoot about the same 3-4 inches at 100, wouldn't they? I fail to see the usefulness of the SOCOM, yes it is short, but the muzzle blast would be extreme, down range energy is very much reduced and accuracy is in my mind poor. Finally it has a rust prone non chrome lined barrel. Would you want to shoot mild steel surplus bullets through it or would you have to stick with commercial production "hunting" ammunition at $12.00 or so a box of 20. I have handled this gun on many occasions and liked the way it shouldered and the quickness of pointing, but a short excersise in factual analysis kept me from buying it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:49:23 PM EDT
[#20]
nope. the quality has gone down as the surplus parts have run out from everything i've read.
my buddy's made in the 80s or 90s is no great shooter either. now that you can make em evil, i can't imagine not getting a dsa .308 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 6:51:38 PM EDT
[#21]
big +1 jimmy!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 8:00:44 PM EDT
[#22]
The SA rifles are over priced.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2004 8:01:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Even though M1As have always been cast receivers late 80s early 90s alot were assembled with GI parts and receivers modified to take M14 bolts.These are great becuase they are already made to accept the better GI parts.I have an early model that has been done with GI parts so seentialy its just a springfield receiver.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 2:51:25 AM EDT
[#24]
the Sprinfield of today is not the one who made the M14.
USGI bolts always had to be fitted on the M1A. if I was to buy another m1a I would change the Bolt to USGI and the Extractor. rest of the parts you can soot till it breaks. If you dont have enought to swap bolts. def change the extractor over to usgi. Scom is nice but still requires the 3 hand mag reload. There is more than Springfield out there that can build an M14 semi version. Mags for the M14 can be gotten for 19 or under. those ammoman mags work great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 3:32:07 AM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 4:46:02 AM EDT
[#26]
SA M1A or SOCOM...wouldn't go there with my money, IMHO. I'm having Ron Smith build be an M14SE "Crazy Horse" SASS based on an LRB receiver. It's just like what the Army is now getting from Ron. Since you mention the SA SOCOM, you might want the 18.0" bbl SEI MK 14. Think of it as the NSWC-Crane Mk 14 Mod O -- but done correctly: vastly superior barrel design, loads of proprietary manufacturing approaches the Navy didn't come close to getting right, superior QA/QC and mods to the Sage Int'l stock that are just common sense. BTW, the USAF has just down-selected the SEI 18.0" weapon. Good luck getting one though, Uncle comes first. Just send in your weapon and be patient. When they have time to update their web site you see more on these unique weapons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 5:00:15 AM EDT
[#27]
SA M1As are of a lower quality then they used to be; they have always had cast receivers; but they used to use USGI parts. Now, those parts have dried up; particularly the bolt and oprods. Those two parts need to be USGI, not Brazilian knock-offs (which is, essentially, what a SA M1A is).
Cutting the M1A down to 18" was a great idea. Cutting it down to 16" is a bad idea. 18" is the proper length for a short 7.62x51 rifle; years and years of testing by FN proved that. It pisses me off to no end that Armalite doesn't use a 18" barrel on their AR10's, but thats a seperate rant. If I wanted a short bush rifle with some serious power it would either be a DSA Para FAL (first choice) or an M1A Scout with USGI bolt, op rod, Fulton Armory Sage Tactical Stock or M14E2 stock and Vortex flash hider on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 6:38:36 AM EDT
[#28]
I don't even know what this thread is about, I just hope the original writers screenname is in reference to the movie "Heat". High-five if it is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 8:32:33 AM EDT
[#29]
Roger that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 9:12:50 AM EDT
[#30]
Firing full power .308 loads in a 16" barrel is counterproductive to the purpose of the cartridge.
Be sure to notice the muzzle contraption on the "SOCOM" and be certain to take note of the fact that Springfield strongly recommends the use of Hornady's 110gr. TAP ammo with this carbine! Try full power loads and you'll soon know why. I've tried one of these abortions both on the target range and on a CQB course. 4 MOA on targets just doesn't make it! Add the fact that, even with its stubby barrel, the "SOCOM" handles like a tree stump in CQB when compared to a properly set up AR carbine. The final nail in the coffin is that there's no way in hell that this thing will gain acceptance in the knuckle-dragger and door-kicker community considering what the blast from one shot would do to the senses during an entry. You'd might as well drop a flash-bang in the middle of the entry squad. Just a sales gimmick for the wanna-be's from the folks at Springfield. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 9:59:53 AM EDT
[#31]
I'm not sure what guns Jimmyp has handled but Socom's shipped from Springfield do come with Chrome lined barrels. Mine has one and a quick phone call will settle that myth. Also 3-4inch groups?? From what? On the M14 web sites almost no one who owns has groups that large. The average is 1.5-2 inches which is not bad with iron sights using surplus ammo. Scoped the rifles do group much better. I don't see what the gripe about muzzle blast comes from. Everyone at my club who shoots them has never once complained of such a thing. Then again we go to shoot guns not stand around and find every fault possbile.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 10:10:14 AM EDT
[#32]
Try shooting one in a room. I'm pretty sure CQB was what the barrel was cut off for. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 10:34:44 AM EDT
[#33]
Waynegro,
Don't believe everything you read here. I own the SOCOM, and other that pitching the nasty fiberstock and replacing it with a nice wood stock, the gun is a joy to own, shoot, and carry around. I love mine and like shooting it better than my DSL FAL, my full size M1A, and WAY better that my Cetme. The ballistics are not the same, but the short barrel and brake combo make for a fun, easy to handle, low recoil blaster. I also love the contraption for mounting the aimpoint, ugly but perfectly positioned. Now I'm no LEO nor do I intend to shoot the rifle inside a room without hearing protection, which is what it was probably intended for, all I can say is that it is great fun to shoot, it looks just as well made as my old M1A, more accurate than me, and a very good looking unit. mad out! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 11:53:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Springfeild reciver are cast in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 11:58:00 AM EDT
[#35]
Thanks for the information. It's nice to hear from someone who actually owns the SOCOM.  From your description it sounds like I need to add it to my collection. I think it will be the next rifle I purchase. Now I just have to decide between the scout or SOCOM model. I don't get it. I see countless pics of soldiers carrying and using M14's in actual combat. So I don't see how the SOCOM could handle and worse than the full size M14. If it's good enough for our troops it will be more than enough for me. I would love to get a wicked optic setup on it and have some fun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 12:13:01 PM EDT
[#36]
Well the flash and noise is bigger than with the standard M1A rifle, however I perceive the noise from my 14.5" M4 upper as being sharper. Maybe I'm wrong, but those M14's used in Iraq are older workhorses with forged receivers, probably more dependable than a new, rather inflexible gun as the SOCOM.
If I was to do it again, I would probably pick the Scout, better stock (wood option), better muzzle brake. In any case, I think you will really enjoy the rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 12:47:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Those SOCOMs do look fun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 12:51:28 PM EDT
[#38]
forget the socom completely--if you get a m1a, get the scout
h/w SA has been having quality issues--early parts breakage (but they do have a good warrnety), non-chrome linned bbls, no more USGI spec parts overall, SA is a ripoff--if they had quality, durable consistancy in thier parts, it would be worth it if i pay that kind of cash($1100+) for a rifle, i would expect VERY good stuff, i dont care what warrenty they got, its not worth the (probabable) hassel for that much of money |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 1:31:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Oddly enough, during my Gunsite 223 course, I had an AR-15, and was standing next to a guy with the M1A SOCOM (It had the forward scout scope and 16" barrel with the compensator). After spending a week of shooting with professional instruction, these are my observations (how you use it may be different from how we used it at Gunsite so YMMV): -The 2.5x scope was slower for the speed drills but more accurate for the distance drills (200 yards) where you had more time. If he had an aimpoint, it would have been less of a problem. -It didn't jam (neither did my AR), but when we did the jam clearance drills, it appeared to be much more of a pain in the ass than an AR15. -The lack of drop free magazines really slowed the user down for alot of the drills where a mag change was necessary. -The lack of higher capacity magazines (30 rounders) meant that the user was changing magazines much more often. The user always had the "ammo left in the mag" problem over his head, and was always swapping out a magazine when the instructor was talking. -Being next to it was not to bad noise wise (but I had nice muffs) and I only got branded by hot brass when we did prone shooting. Of course we were unconcerned with how big the hole was, only where the hole was, so the relative importance of stopping power and other features is up to you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 6:15:22 PM EDT
[#40]
M1A1. A study was done with the FAL and with the proper scope mount (DSA's extreme mount), it is accurate. However, the POI changed with every round out of the magazine. It all came down to position of the round in the magazine. If you loaded the magazine with a single round and fired, over and over, then you could get consistant accuracy. But POI changed with round in differing positions in the magazine. The change in POI may be within your personal tolerance, YMMV. It was an interesting experiment. The barrel was cryo treated and also went through the Blackstar polishing treatment. They had a lever action rifle with the same things done to the barrel, and then the barrel was freefloated (yeah, sounds strange/impossible but it really was freefloated) and it obtained precision accuracy as well. ETA: I'm not saying FAL's won't shoot 1 MOA or better, they can, I've seen it before. I'm only referring to trying to get 1/2 MOA or less consistantly. Of course, there are always exceptions, and if you have one of them, I'm in envy. My own M1A1 groups under 1 MOA, but it's custom built. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 6:32:09 PM EDT
[#41]
Well, I can tell you this. One of my co-workers has a SOCOM, and it has shot sub-MOA groups at 100 with Federal Match. The muzzle brake does make it ungodly loud.
I went this way: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 8:19:36 PM EDT
[#42]
That looks just like my ParaFAL! Well, minus the cordwrap on the stock, and mine's running a PRI mount instead of the ARMS. Sweet rifle  -cap'n |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 8:48:40 PM EDT
[#43]
Well firstly, always ask, what is the purpose of the rifle. I'm guessing we are talking CQB, because why else would anyone consider an abomination like a carbine M1A with a muzzle brake that isnt CQB friendly. If we are talking a CQB weapon, hyper accuracy isnt really an issue because odds are any shooting you do will be like 25 yards. Still, minute of hole in your chest at 300 yards is a reasonable goal with both rifles Personally, though, I'd stick with the M4 clone for CQB and get a proper M1A for laying down hurt with real reach out and touch 7.62 NATO stopping power at 500 plus yards with some sweet glass |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 10:45:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Well put. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 11:22:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Well If I would not be living in California I would buy both!!!
Since I lived in this crapy state I don't have to many options... so I have been doing my homework to find more reliable info about the Socom 16. If you want to read a good article about the Socom 16 and the AR-10 (which obviously is the most fair comparaison) then you might want to buy "Soldier of Fortune Magazine, January 2005" ACCURACY CHART/.308 CARTRIDGE Socom 16 with Leupold 2X scout Scope Muzzle Vel. - Small Group - Large Group - Average Black Hills 168gr. match 2474 fps 2.02" 2.63" 2.38" Federal 168 gr. match 2486 fps 1.97" 2.56" 2.29" Hornady 110 gr. TAP 2893 fps 2.18" 2.67" 2.51" GI 150 gr.ball 2611 fps 4.07" 4.22" 4.14" AR-10 Carbine with Leupold 3-9x MR/T Sniper Scope Muzzle Vel. - Small Group - Large Group - Average Black Hills 168gr. match 2488 fps 1.64" 1.91" 1.86" Federal 168 gr.match 2502 fps 1.48" 2.03" 1.74" Hornady 110 gr. TAP 2911 fps 1.73" 2.18" 1.98" GI 150 gr. ball 2619 fps 2.74 2.98" 2.86" (Five 3-Shot Bench Rest Group Using Pro-Chrono Le. Elev: 7000', Temp: 84*, Humid:32%) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2004 11:34:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Yes the SOCOM will pack a bigger punch (whatever that is) if the right ammo is used. Unfortunately, the reports I have seen havent shown the SOCOM to be the most accurate M1A anyone has put together, nor is that expectation I would think. As much as the M14/M1A is my favorite battle rifle, it is as fast handling nor nearly as ergonomic as an AR carbine would be. Magazine changes are painfully slow, and I HAVE practiced them using several different techniques. The M14 safety is slower for me to manipulate too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2004 3:07:04 AM EDT
[#47]
how long is your ar's barrel... wtf? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2004 3:10:03 AM EDT
[#48]
why not the fal? shesh mah-gesh... 
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
