Springfield SOCOM vs. Scout Squad, again


June 18, 2007, 08:21 PM
I have read quite a bit about these two rifles and I plan to pick up one or the other soon. Another round of opinions beyond what is already posted would be appreciated.

1) People tend to say that Scout Squad is more accurate than the SOCOM. Does anyone have both and can you state by how much?

2) How much more accurate is the Loaded vs. the Scout Squad?

3) I have handled several SOCOM variants at my local gun store but no Scouts (no one has a Scout Squad in stock...). The SOCOM handles great! Does the extra length of the Scout barrel make a big difference or is it just about the same in terms of handling.

4) This article on Chuck Hawk's website makes me nervous regarding the accuracy of the Scout Squad. Is this common?

"We fired the remaining 95 rounds of Black Hills ammo through the Scout, never managing to get a group smaller than 5.25 inches. We also shot at bowling pins out at 200-yards but only managed to hit a few of them."


5) The polymer Scout Squad on Springfield's website shows a different buttplate (rubber?) than the wood stock verison. However, I have seen pictures on this board of a polymer Scout Squad with the standard buttplate with the swing up latch.


Wood/Mossy Oak:

Can one get a polymer Scout Squad with the standard buttplate with the tools carrier in the stock or is that an upgrade?

Thanks again!

If you enjoyed reading about "Springfield SOCOM vs. Scout Squad, again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
June 18, 2007, 08:26 PM
There's no mechanical reason for a short M1A to be any less accurate than a long one. Barrel length does not directly affect accuracy.

Personally, I lean towards the shortest rifle possible. My FAL is a 16". However, if I were only going to have one rifle ever, I might consider the 18" M1A.

Well, on the other other hand, my FAL is my only rifle, so I guess I lied. *grin*

It'd tend to lean towards the Scout with an M1A because the SOCOM looks funny. However, I'd probably then want to take a SOCOM and drop it into a Sage EBR stock.

What do you plan to do with the rifle? You just want a carbine with more punch than a .223? SOCOM all the way.

June 18, 2007, 08:57 PM
I've owned M1A's of all three lengths. They all are accurate enough, the issue with the SOCOM is the sights. They are made for fast, close up shooting and make deliberate, target type shooting at 100 yards and out difficult if not impossible. The front sight is BIG and the rear sight has been drilled out to a ghost ring. With a scope on the rifle, it does very well.

You can replace the SOCOM's sights with the standard type sights,
if their stock sights bother you. The results would probably be similar to the Scout.

I've shot high power matches with my old Bush rifle and had no troubles qualifying with it. Both the Bush and SOCOM do require more clicks on the rear sight than the standard model does at the same range. The standard and Bush were pretty close, with the SOCOM being about double the number of the standard at 100 yards, using 22 clicks.

June 18, 2007, 10:27 PM
As I said in another thread - the SOCOM is what it is. It's not a target rifle by any stretch, but will impress with irons from 0-100 yards. At 200 yards, the wide front blade will cover a 10-inch target - you must adjust your aim to group consistently. However, if one uses the rifle as intended, (to hit people sized targets), accurate center mass fire with irons is anything but impossible at ranges as far as you can realistically see your target. I am by no means a crack shot in any sense, but I can hit center mass on a life size silhouette at 200-400 yards consistently. Adding my Tripower on the front deck makes things much easier - tip of the chevron for precision shooting, cover for battlesight zero. I have yet to scope my SOCOM with true optics, but I have seen 500-yard results on a scoped SOCOM and they were impressive. It's no sniper rifle, but will get the job done.

I'm not sure why the shooter in the article you posted did not have more impressive results - perhaps it was a poorly set up rifle, or someone unfamiliar with the mechanics of a Scout. The results I have both seen and shot with two Scout variants were extremely impressive. One was a Springfield Armory M1A Scout - the other was a Fulton Armory Super Scout. Both rifles performed flawlessly. The M1A was fitted with a Sadlak titanium mount and a Leupold Vari-X. 500-yard groups were stunning...

If I had to choose one, (I want all three) - it would be a Scout - though I would not give up my SOCOM for love nor money. A word of caution with the consideration of a Loaded Standard - you will be treading into ammo sensitivity land. Many will not work well with Mil-Surp. If you want a 22" length, I'd stick to a Standard. If you plan on match shooting, the Loaded Standard is the way to go....YMMV

June 19, 2007, 12:49 AM
Barrel length does not directly affect accuracy

What? It's entirely possible that I am wrong, but I was under the impression that barrel length DID have a direct, albeit very minor, effect on accuracy. By minor, I mean small enough to be unnoticable by all but serious target shooters looking for every .001 inch they can find, but I still thought there was an effect...

June 19, 2007, 12:57 AM
Actually, shorter barrels will be more accurate, all other factors being equal, because they're more stiff and flex less (better harmonics).

I believe it was Clint Smith who tested this. He took a heavy-barreled .300 Winchester Magnum Remington 700 and began to cut the barrel down, inch by inch, testing accuracy each step of the way. He went from 26" to 16" without a statistically significant effect on the rifle's accuracy.

Long ranged shooters like longer barrels because of the better muzzle velocity they provide. Also, when using iron sights, a longer barrel gives you longer sight radius.

June 19, 2007, 01:52 AM
I'll stick with my Springfield Loaded M1A.

June 19, 2007, 02:36 AM
Can one get a polymer Scout Squad with the standard buttplate with the tools carrier in the stock or is that an upgrade?

Just buy a USGI buttplate and install it in place of the rubber one. The black stock that Springfield puts on these rifles is a USGI fiberglass stock that's been painted. At least, that's what was on my Scout

June 19, 2007, 02:36 AM
I think that real the determining factor is how you shoot.

What is your training/experience level and what do you want the rifle for?
What ranges do you plan to shoot, what kind of targets? If you configure your weapon for CQB, it's pretty pointless to expect it to shoot 1000 yards. Both rifles are designed for shorter ranges and fast target aquisition. Go ahead and get the one that you think 'looks' better. Within 100-yards, I do not expect any real difference in either rifle.

June 19, 2007, 04:09 AM
bear in mind that the socom has its own gas system.

i may be wrong but i believe the socom is also much more front heavy.

June 19, 2007, 04:15 AM
Nightcrawler, interesting. I guess you learn something new everyday, although it's painful to lose yet another of my precious assumptions!

June 19, 2007, 07:11 PM
Nightcrawler: So are we saying here that a scoped Socom will be more accurate than a scoped Scout Squad because the barrel is shorter? Or at a very minimum there is no difference in accuracy between the two when using a scope?

June 19, 2007, 07:30 PM
Loaded Synthetic stock carbon barrel 9.8lbs., 22", 2 stage trigger 4.5-5 lb. 1:11 RH Twist
SOCOM II Synthetic Stock Carbon Barrel 10.5 lbs. 16.25", 2 stage trigger 5-6 lb. 1:11 RH Twist
SOCOM 16 Synthetic Stock Carbon barel 9.3 lbs. 16.25", 2 stage trigger 5-6 lb. 1:11 RH Twist

The SOCOM II & 16 almost identical except for front rail & weight. All considered I'd rather have the linger barrel, and lighter trigger than the shorter heavier rifle. Also better accuracy from the longer barrel.

June 19, 2007, 08:04 PM
glockman19: Your opinion is noted. However, I am attracted to the handiness of the shorter models and have little interest in the Loaded or other full sized models at this time. It’s not to say that they are not great rifles, but I already have several full sized rifled that fulfill the same role.

What truly excites me about the Scout Squad and SOCOM is the dual role capability: a handier rifle that is quicker to bring to bear and easier to handle indoors for short ranges than a full size with enough punch and accuracy to reach out to longer ranges when needed.

I have no interest in the SOCOM II by the way, but the difference between the SOCOM variants is somewhat trivial and has more to do with personal tastes and wallet size.

We all seem to agree that the longer sight radius and smaller front sight of the Scout Squad means that that rifle has the edge for longer ranges when using iron sights. One could put “better” iron sights on the SOCOM but the two inches less in sight radius cannot be resolved. However, for the longer ranges, scopes serve better than iron sights anyways so the point is a bit mute.

So I guess the question for me really boils down to this. Which is more accurate, a scoped SOCOM or a scoped Scout Squad? Or is there no difference?

June 19, 2007, 09:43 PM
The Scout would be my choice because it is the same as the SOCOM 16 but weighs only 9 lbs synthetic stock, 9.3 lbs walnut. Same trigger, sights, trigger pull and twist as the SOCOM. barrel 18" instead of 16.25"

I'd Get the scout. If you are going to put on a bipod get the factory to install a QD stud.

If you enjoyed reading about "Springfield SOCOM vs. Scout Squad, again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!