Could this be the best all-around rifle ever?


PDA






hankdatank1362
October 15, 2008, 10:35 AM
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/springfield-1.gif

Just saw the Oct. 2008 edition of Special Weapons magazine. It's cover feature is an improved Springfield SOCOM II sporting what I believe is a JAE stock. From the pictures, it seems to be an incredibly attractive rifle, with many desirable features. Anybody out there have any real-world experience with this rifle?

It looks heavy.

MSRP is around $2K.

If you enjoyed reading about "Could this be the best all-around rifle ever?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gvnwst
October 15, 2008, 10:40 AM
chamber it in a 6.5mm caliber like 6.5 creedmoor, .260 rem or 6.5x47 lapua and very possibily. .308 is overkill for some applications, IMO

hankdatank1362
October 15, 2008, 10:45 AM
Yeah, but it's easy to come by, ballistics are well-known and published, and there's nothing in North America that CAN'T be killed with it.

Deer Hunter
October 15, 2008, 10:47 AM
H20 MAN will be in here soon telling you that it is.

:)

Vermont
October 15, 2008, 10:49 AM
It looks way too heavy. That bipod looks like aircraft landing gear.

Mass-Diver
October 15, 2008, 10:49 AM
I have a SOCOM 16 in the standard stock. It's a very nice rifle - but the one drawback is that it is very heavy.

hankdatank1362
October 15, 2008, 10:52 AM
H20 MAN will be in here soon telling you that it is.


I'd be suprised if he wasn't.

The bipod looks like a TangoDown Advanced Combat.

H2O MAN
October 15, 2008, 10:54 AM
Could this be the best all-around rifle ever?

No.

The .308/7.62 NATO round is just fine, but the SOCOM configuration pictured is all wrong and extremely heavy.

The MK14 SEI Mod 1 is a much better and much lighter all-around rifle configuration.

hankdatank1362
October 15, 2008, 11:04 AM
It does look rather heavy.

Thankyou for your insight.

Al Thompson
October 15, 2008, 11:20 AM
Loud! :)

H2O MAN
October 15, 2008, 11:53 AM
Deer Hunter H20 MAN will be in here soon telling you that it is.

Guess again ;)

Acera
October 15, 2008, 11:59 AM
hankdatank1362 I like mine, it's a SOCOM II with an EOTECH and a cheek piece. But as most everyone else has said, it's heavy. Would not want to hump it very far. But that seems to be the old argument between a battle rifle and an assault rifle.


H2O MAN, good looking project. I was wondering why all the Norinco/Chinese parts? My impression is that the American stuff is of higher quality.

Just curious.

hankdatank1362
October 15, 2008, 12:10 PM
I've always heard that the metallurgy in Norinco products was outstanding.

H2O MAN
October 15, 2008, 12:31 PM
Acera


H2O MAN, good looking project.
I was wondering why all the Norinco/Chinese parts?
My impression is that the American stuff is of higher quality.

Just curious.

Thanks!

Chinese trigger groups are just as good as USGI.
Chinese op rods are forged 1-piece items that are just like USGI TRW op rods.
Chinese receivers are forged and as close as you can get to real USGI receivers.

I currently have 4 M14s built on Chinese receivers, two with all USGI TRW and
SEI parts and two with a mix of Chinese and SEI parts. All four have TRW bolts.
The Chinese parts used are just as good as the USGI parts used.

I'm sure it does make things better that I use Ron Smith @ SEI to build my M14s :)

Eightball
October 15, 2008, 12:47 PM
If there was a way to lighten the dang thing and shift the point of balance a little farther back so it's easier to swing around (without just adding worthless weight), then sure, you might have something.

While I love my Garand and the derivative designs of it ("Mini" series excepted), the weight penalty is always one of the biggest drawbacks. M1As of their varying flavors are just unpleasant to hump around for extended periods--or so I hear from folks I know who have tried it.

ArmedBear
October 15, 2008, 01:12 PM
It looks heavy.

Oh yeah.

Any M1A is heavy, by modern standards. Add that stock, scope and bipod, and I think you're looking at 15 lbs.

No thanks.

For those who don't understand why the Army uses the M4, a hike with that thing and a couple hundred rounds of 7.62x51 ammo will be enlightening.

Tarvis
October 15, 2008, 01:35 PM
I've fired a friend's socom 16, which seems very robust for it's size; I can't imagine adding a ton of goodies to it and still be of a practical field weight. As quoted from "The 13th Warrior" - Antonio Banderas: "It's too heavy, I can't swing this," Northman "Grow stronger." I don't know how strong you'd have to be to be able to handle a 15lb rifle like an average/smaller male can handle a 7-8lb AR, but it sounds like the answer to a light weight 308 carbine/rifle is an AR10, unless I am totally ignorant about the weight difference.

gvnwst
October 15, 2008, 01:41 PM
well, a light AR 10. some are actually quite heavy

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
October 15, 2008, 01:59 PM
If by all around, you mean will double as a boat anchor for an Iowa-class battleship, then yes. :p :D

H2O MAN
October 15, 2008, 02:01 PM
My AR-10A4 carbine was a heavy SOB... I sold it & the 20" SPR upper with no regrets.



One thing that stands out in the picture is that everything is Cali-legal and that may be the point.
The JAE has no true pistol grip and the SOCOM can never be equipped with a bayonet lug.
Also, I bet the MSRP as pictured is over $3K

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/springfield-1.gif

If you live in a free state and want a modernized M14 type rifle consider a SOCOM or Scout
in a SAGE CQB M14, EBR Stock with the M4/M16 style receiver extension tube. M14ALCS/CV.
It's a much lighter and more flexible configuration than the JAE / SOCOM II contraption featured.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14SEI-mod1-reduced.jpg

Acera
October 15, 2008, 04:04 PM
Thanks for the info H2OMAN, I will now take a closer look at the Norinco's I have been seeing at the shows. It seems you can get some good deals on the ones produced during the ban.

gentleman987
October 15, 2008, 07:08 PM
looks awesome but very heavy

Domino
October 15, 2008, 07:15 PM
What does that thing have that this doesn't???

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/Mudd262/SA58CP.gif

HorseSoldier
October 15, 2008, 07:15 PM
I'm not sure what "best all around rifle" encompasses, but I'm not really sure a 16" 7.62mm carbine would meet the requirements -- too much gun for CQB, too little gun for long range work (hugely oversized scope and helicopter-skid style bipod notwithstanding).

stubbicatt
October 15, 2008, 07:20 PM
I will concur that the best all around rifle is probably a 7.62Nato chambered rifle, of your favorite flavor.

Heavy weight is not a good thing.

longdayjake
October 15, 2008, 08:52 PM
m1a socom is fun with 147 grainers but lacks any real long range capacities. I just can't figure out why someone would take an M14 and chop off the barrel so that it can be used in a building. The 5.56 in a building is more than enough to do the job and a lot lighter in the m4 config. But having shot one a lot I can say that they are fun albeit impractical for anything I do with most guns.

darkknight
October 15, 2008, 10:37 PM
i think tha rifle would make gecko drool. that thing is uber tacticool lol. somebody needs to contact him about it. or maybe he has preordered it already. all it needs is a good mall and a tactical wheel barrel and its good to go.

RonE
October 15, 2008, 11:46 PM
Just saw the Oct. 2008 edition of Special Weapons magazine. It's cover feature is an improved Springfield SOCOM II sporting what I believe is a JAE stock. From the pictures, it seems to be an incredibly attractive rifle, with many desirable features. Anybody out there have any real-world experience with this rifle?

It looks heavy.

MSRP is around $2K.

Do the tacticool gloves and sunglasses come with it or are they options?

hankdatank1362
October 16, 2008, 10:38 AM
They cost extra. ;)

Ignatius
October 16, 2008, 11:44 AM
I am pleased to see that someone else has already thrown a FAL into the mix as "best all around rifle ever". I am a fan of both the FAL and the M1A but I think that in many ways the FAL is closer to "best all around" then the Springer.I am NOT trying to start a flame thread here, just voicing my opinion as someone who has owned both.

Ignatius

gvnwst
October 16, 2008, 01:13 PM
ya, the fal is lighter, thats a big plus.

Art Eatman
October 16, 2008, 05:14 PM
Best "all around" rifle? Er, what part of "No!" creates difficulty? :D

Bulky. Awkward. Ugly.

Useful in some combat situations, for sure, but not all. Certainly no particular advantages for the vast majority of all shooters.

H2O MAN
October 16, 2008, 05:34 PM
gvnwst


ya, the fal is lighter, thats a big plus.

What does an FAL weigh?

Mongrel
October 16, 2008, 05:55 PM
What does an FAL weigh?

9.8 lbs empty

Specs:

Caliber : 7,62mm NATO (7.62x51)
Action: Gas operated, tilting breechblock, select-fire or semi-auto only
Length: 1100 mm (990 / 736 mm for "Para" model)
Barrel length: 533 mm (431 mm for "Para" model)
Weight: 4.45 kg empty (3.77 kg empty for "Para" models)
Magazine capacity: 20 rounds (30 rounds for heavy barreled SAW versions)
Rate of fire: 650-700 rounds per minute

Realbigo
October 16, 2008, 06:39 PM
beats carrying a BAR :)

H2O MAN
October 16, 2008, 06:47 PM
Quote:
What does an FAL weigh?

Mongrel

9.8 lbs empty

Interesting... the fiberglass stocked Scout Squad weighs less @ just 9.0 lbs empty.

hankdatank1362
October 16, 2008, 07:06 PM
Bulky. Awkward. Ugly.

I'll give you the bulky and awkward. :cool:

gvnwst
October 16, 2008, 07:08 PM
Interesting... the fiberglass stocked Scout Squad weighs less @ just 9.0 lbs empty.
i have found FALs that weigh less, but the rifle in the OP was heavier than 10lb. at least it looked a lot heavier.

H2O MAN
October 16, 2008, 07:17 PM
Yeah, all of the FALs I've ever handled seemed heavier than the standard M14 type rifles I've handled.

The M14 does gain a little weight when you put it in a modern stock, but all modern M14 stocks are not created equal.
Rail mounted goodies come with an additional weight penalty and the rifle pictured in the first post has a ton off goodies mounted on the rails.

gvnwst
October 16, 2008, 07:21 PM
how much will your new M14 (or whatever) weigh?

H2O MAN
October 16, 2008, 07:43 PM
gvnwst how much will your new M14 (or whatever) weigh?

It could be about 8.5 pounds, but I have it in an RRM stock with an UltiMAK rail,
optic and enhanced muzzle device... these items should bring it closer to 10 lbs.

I wasn't going for lighter weight, recoil & muzzle rise increase as weight is reduced.

gunseller2
October 16, 2008, 07:45 PM
I own a "standard" M1A that shoots better than I can hold it and I have a lot of time behind an M14, but IMHO the SOCOM, especially the SOCOMII, to paraphrase Col Cooper, is an answer in search of a question. It's neither fish nor foul. It's too heavy and has way too much muzzle blast to be useful in close quarters and not enough gun in be useful at long range. Then let's hang on all the mall ninja crap that one can stuff on every provided rail...hopefully the prospective owner spends a bunch of time in the weight room.
Get your hands on a full size M1A or a DSA FAL.

H2O MAN
October 16, 2008, 07:59 PM
gunseller2 IMHO the SOCOM, especially the SOCOMII, to paraphrase Col Cooper, is an answer in search of a question.

My thoughts:

The SOCOM was the perfect answer to the question Springfield Armory asked itself...
"How can we increase sales of M1As?" From a sales stand point, the SOCOM is a success.

It's neither fish nor foul. It's too heavy and has way too much muzzle blast to be useful in close quarters and not enough gun in be useful at long range.It weighs about the same as other M1As and the muzzle blast can be remedied by installing the new SOCOM 16 kit from SEI.
I understand the 16.25 can accurately reach beyond 400 yards and closer to 500 yards - YRMV.

gvnwst
October 16, 2008, 08:35 PM
I understand the 16.25 can accurately reach beyond 400 yards and closer to 500 yards - YRMV.

A AR 15 can do that more accuratly. Weighs less, less recoil, ect. only downside? Kenitic energy. but the chances of a non-DM troop being able to hit a enemy (or target) at that range is much higher with a AR than the M14.

H2O MAN
October 16, 2008, 08:37 PM
Reduced Kinetic energy and the round is more easily effected by wind & cover.

gvnwst
October 16, 2008, 08:41 PM
that is a valid point. I really would decide on the person doing the shooting. if he/she were trained correctly, give um a .308. if it is some kid who can nnot shoot that well, give him a AR.

kcmarine
October 16, 2008, 10:11 PM
The kinetic energy problem can be solved with a switch in uppers, really...

Coal Dragger
October 16, 2008, 10:57 PM
Best all around rifle ever? I don't think so. Unless the goal is the best all around gun-shop-ninja rifle in which case an argument could be made.

For an all around rifle that I would grab any time for most any use, I would go with a good all weather resistant bolt action in .308, or some other cartridge based on the .308. Add a good set of iron sights (aperture rear), top it with a good quality scope of reasonable size and magnification (scout or conventional). Make sure is has a good trigger, and a stock that fits you.... and you're pretty much all set for an all around rifle.

cliffy
October 16, 2008, 11:32 PM
Shows my age, but when I arrived overseas, M14s ruled. Lighter, with less recoil seemed cool. 20 rounds as opposed to 8 rounds seemed significant. Then they stuck me with a M60 machine gun. Where's the justice in that? My Drill Sergeant in basic, fired a M1 Garand from his nut-sack, but I thought heck with that! I couldn't even aim properly that way, plus I'll bet it hurt. I knew what he was implying, but I believed he needed lots of ice afterwards. Then I hit the field with a M14, which I never, ever fired from my nut sack. Seemed an impractical aiming point to me. I ended up as a Flying Crewchief in the Army. Then back to M14s for airfield patrol behind the relative safety of concertina wire and perimeter lights. Full-circle to M60 machinegun mounds, but I was also the Linechief of 20th Artillery Aviation, six miles south of the DMZ. Those were golden years, when ArtyFlight Captains called me, "SIR." Though, neither really called each other "SIR." All of us worked together to survive. Once I taxied a plane down the road to the concessionary to purchase a hamburger, and would you believe flack occurred the next day! Since, I had taxy orders to taxy anywhere, that one went no where fast. This is no stuff, and certainly not all my military misadventures. I guess I could write a book concerning ALL of THEM. cliffy

bender
October 17, 2008, 11:45 AM
I don't think I'd use the words "incredibly attractive" to describe a rifle...

H2O MAN
October 17, 2008, 12:10 PM
cliffy, great story! Thank you for your service sir.



gvnwst, I have canceled my 16.25 build.
When compared to my 18.0" MK14s, it's just not worth giving up 1.75" of barrel to reduce the OAL by 1/2 inch.

The SEI SOCOM kit is excellent for those of you that own a SOCOM and want a DC Vortex flash hider.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/M14SE%2016.25%20v%2018.0-2_small.jpg (http://www.athenswater.com/images/M14SE%2016.25%20v%2018.0-2.jpg)

I still think the best all-around rifle is the M14 type with an 18.0" barrel :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Could this be the best all-around rifle ever?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!