M1a Socom16 : Adding NM or scout sights or a scope, crazy talk?


March 7, 2011, 07:26 PM
I love the socom16..its so dang handy. Im thinking of adding normal sights or maybe NM? Maybe even a nice scope. I know what they designed the 16 to do, but i dont see why it cant be a do all rifle, handy,powerful enough to reach out, (scope for that)..and i could leave the socom sights on for fast up close ....

I just wondered what everyone else thought about this.

Ive got my Socom16 siting in a Mossy oak stock, doesnt look as mean as the all black :)

If you enjoyed reading about "M1a Socom16 : Adding NM or scout sights or a scope, crazy talk?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 7, 2011, 07:58 PM
I think if you want to realistically shoot at 100 yards and beyond, its a good idea. If I had kept mine, I would have.

The sights they have on the SOCOM as it comes are fine for up close quick shooting, but really suck for anything deliberate.

Optics wise, I preferred the Aimpoint over the scout scope.

March 7, 2011, 08:03 PM
The bigger issue is going to reduced sight radius. There's a discussion I'm involved in (http://m14tfl.com/upload/showthread.php?t=95420) over at M14tfl.com about this.

Putting a NM rear iron sight on a SOCOM doesn't make much sense. The reduced sight radius screws up the click values of the rear sight pretty significantly.

As an example, the reduced sight radius of the scout/squad model changes the rear sight click value from 1MOA to 1.2348MOA. The SOCOM will be an even greater deviation.

Actually, it would really help me out if you could measure the sight radius on your SOCOM and post it here. I could do the math to work up the true click value of the rear sight, given the sight radius.

March 7, 2011, 08:18 PM
Yeah, lots of people ditch the front and rear sight on the SOCOM.

I would recommend a .062 NM front sight. The shorter sight radius will make the front sight wider in MOA than it would be on a full length barrel. A standard front sight is already relatively wide (7.8 MOA on a 22" barreled rifle), and would appear even fatter in your sight picture on a SOCOM. The .062 sight would be fine.

I would also recommend a standard M-14/M-1 rear sight, with the standard size aperture instead of the SOCOM's ghost ring. You could go NM, but I don't really see those half value elevation clicks helping any, especially considering how they will be some wierd fractional MOA value... and do you really need a hooded target aperture on this kind of rifle?

A NM front sight and an M-14/M-1 rear sight is the way to go, IMO.

Well actually the way to go is a barrel that doesn't burn half the powder after the bullet has left the barrel, but If you're gonna cut the balls of an M-14, at least give it some decent sights! :D

March 7, 2011, 09:19 PM
radius is 21 inches from the front of the peep to the front sight

im thinking of just changing the front site to the .062
Do you think with the bigger ghost ring ill still be able to shoot pretty accurate?
Ill be honest i havent been to a long rang yet with an m1a..so im a newb

i believe the socom will be 100fps less then the scout so i dont think the balls are gone :)

March 7, 2011, 09:28 PM
Be careful asking for peoples opinions here on THR about any Socom model rifle. There's ALOT of Socom haters on here and I'm sure they will eventually pipe in later about how stupid it is to have a 16" .308 and how it was made just to be "tacti-cool" and blah blah blah blah....Fact of the matter is, I own a Socom II and I love everything about it. I bought it to be my primary hog rifle down here in the scubs and brush of Florida. Never had any problems with it and it shoots like a dream and was worth every penny...I've only had it out to 100, but I'm sure it shoots just as well after that. If you like the smaller sights, get em....if you like the scope get it.....despite what others may tell you on here. Basically, do whatever you want to your rifle as long as it benefits you and not some member that has no idea what their talking about (That wasn't meant to anyone who has posted anything here so far...more in reference to the members who will eventually tell you how terrible Socoms are). I was also considering at one time to change my sights from the "fat" post, but decided to stay with them when i shot a perfect score on steel while moving and shooting. It was awesome. I think a scope would be great too....but get a nice one and a nice mount to make it worth your while.

March 7, 2011, 09:44 PM
Let it be said that I'm not a big fan of the 7.62x51 round in a 16" barrel.

The unburned powder issue is adequately dealt with by the SOCOM's muzzle brake.

The muzzle velocity loss is nowhere near as significant an issue as the reduced sight radius for long range shooting.

I think the SOCOM models are entirely adequate within 300 meters, for which I believe they were designed.

They do their job well.

The 7.62x51 cartridge does well out to 800 meters.

I can understand why people would find the SOCOM to be an inefficient use of the round's potential.

But the energy of the 7.62x51 round versus that of the 5.56x45 round at 300 meters makes me not care so much.

As long as muzzle blast and flash are adequately dealt with, the 7.62x51 round is fine out of a 16" barrel.

March 7, 2011, 09:51 PM
Never had any problems with it and it shoots like a dream and was worth every penny...I've only had it out to 100, but I'm sure it shoots just as well after that. If you like the smaller sights, get em....if you like the scope get it.....despite what others may tell you on here.
Not all of us were as lucky as you in the "Never had any problems.." department.;)

The gun will shoot past 100 yards without to much trouble, just not with the supplied "fat" sights. With them, even 100 yards can be a chore. I found the Aimpoint to be the best choice for all around shooting, but the scout scope worked well too. The biggest problem with either, was trying to get lever mounts or rings that would work on the rail.

March 7, 2011, 10:05 PM
radius is 21 inches from the front of the peep to the front sight

Your click value on the rear sight will be ~1.32MOA, instead of 1MOA. Halve that for an NM rear sight.

I think the better mod is to go for the thinner NM front sight and keep the rear ghost ring.

With the click value being so odd, the better practice will be to set a BZO based on the maximum point blank range of the 7.62x51 round from a 16" barrel with the height over bore line (which presently escapes me) of the M1a. The MPBR should be around 275 meters.

March 7, 2011, 10:23 PM
Very well said Lemme.....That's about the best way I have heard someone make an opinion. If you research other posts about the Socom you will find that other members are down right rude about it. The fact of the matter is that the .308 is a devastating round at any range and far out performs the
.223 (which is what everyone seems to rave about) in almost all aspects. It's too bad the military doesn't use the .308 as a standard issue round and platform....I think we would see alot more enemy KIA's. Oh and from what I hear (and don't take it to heart cause I don't have a chono) the loss difference in FPS between the 18" Scout and 16" Socom is only about 40-80fps depending on various variables. You also said it best when you stated that they are perfectly capable out to 300 meters and that they were designed for just that. If I would have wanted a long range rifle, I would have bought a standard. It's really that simple.

March 7, 2011, 10:28 PM
AK103....That would probably be the opne complaint I have about the rifle is the difficulty to mount optics on the rails...it is a challenge. However, again the rifle was not designed for that. So that's why I bought Lucid HD7 Optic and mounted it just in front of the bolt...the eye relief is fine. The only other thing I gotta get now it the same thing you have to buy for all M1A's...a cheek riser :).

March 7, 2011, 10:45 PM
One issue between the models is number of clicks. My standard M1A's usually have a 8-10 click zero at 100 yards. My Bush was around 14. My SOCOM with the ghost ring was 22 clicks, which really surprised me at the time.

Im wondering now if thats an issue with the XS front sight height, or if its an issue with the SOCOM's shorter barrel, or both. I wonder if the Scouts front sight height will change that, and improve things all around?

Its been awhile since I counted the clicks on one up until it bottoms out, but how close are we getting here?

March 7, 2011, 10:49 PM
That would probably be the opne complaint I have about the rifle is the difficulty to mount optics on the rails...i
If I were to do it again, I'd replace Springfields rail with an Ultimak. I like the forward mounts, and I hate the lace on cheek risers, as you basically lose the irons as soon as you put it on, which sort of defeats the purpose.

March 7, 2011, 11:03 PM
i have a 22' loaded version as well... i really like the feel of the socom.
Im hoping it can hold its own. Im never gonna shoot from a bench. all my shooting is real world type...run and gun etc.....on the ground etc

I think the socom can be an awesome MBR out to 400 with smaller sites, while still being handy. I cant even find a range i can go to thats 300 yards..so i never see myself having an open shot that far anyways.....

March 8, 2011, 10:52 AM
Ive had all three, and now just have the standard rifle. The only way to know whats up is go for it. If it doesnt work out, you can always sell it.

Other than some functionality issues, and Springfield trying to BS their way out of a couple of things, I didnt totally "dislike" the SOCOM, but other than it being a little shorter, it was what it was, and I already had other things that were better suited for what it was trying to be.

March 8, 2011, 11:57 AM
If it doesnt work out, ill just keep the Loaded.

I may go for a Mini30 tactical. thoughts on those?

March 8, 2011, 12:50 PM
My buddy had a couple of the Mini 30's, although they werent the tactical models. He doenst have them anymore, and replaced them with a couple of AK's.

Now he does have a couple of the newer souped up Mini 14's, and does like them. Seems they have corrected some of the older issues. Maybe they got the 30's worked out as well.

I personally prefer the 7.62 x39 AK's, especially with an Ultimak/Aimpoint combo on them. They shoot every bit as well as the SOCOM, and are a lot handier and more natural/easier to shoot with. You also get an extra 10 rounds in the gun and the iron sights cowitness with the dot.

I always looked at the 7.62x39 as a 7.62x51'K', and about the perfect round for realistic use.

March 8, 2011, 06:12 PM
I have a new version of the mini14 and have enjoyed it.

i think the 762x39 really is a great round. ive heard good things about the new mini30's....i never got one bc i didnt want to mess with adding a flash suppresser ...and i wanted a 16in...i just found out about these.

March 9, 2011, 07:50 PM
hey guys, found this video interesting, its about a ruger rifle BUT

they talk about the .308 and barrel length. They claim .308 is very INsensitive to barrel length. that on average its 30fps lost per inch on average.
meaning the socom shoots 180-200 fps less then a 22" and only 60-75 less then a scout.......

March 10, 2011, 12:47 AM
That is very true, however some "experts" on here would claim that its way more than that. It really is negligable...

March 10, 2011, 09:14 AM
Using those numbers above, it is starting to bring you into the 7.62x39 range though. If the "numbers" are all that important to you that is.

Not that it really matters, as the SOCOM still handles like a full size gun for the most part, weight , bulk, and recoil wise, and isnt realistically a 300 yard gun as it comes (just barely a 100 yard gun). Changing the iron sights, adding a red dot, or scope will help get you there or a little beyond.

I personally just didnt see that it was doing anything better than my AK's or AR's, which I consider 300 yards guns as well, and offer a smaller, lighter, lighter recoiling, and easier to handle package, plus they carry 30% more ammo.

As I said earlier, the only way to know if its what youre looking for, is to get one and give it a try. You may find its the greatest thing since sliced light bread, and love it. For me, it just didnt work out.

March 10, 2011, 09:42 AM
so 150gr at 2640 fps is close to a 124 gr at 2300 fps ??? im really asking

bc to me it seems there would be a noticeable difference....? and to me if the 300 or so fps doesnt matter then, that tells me that 2800fps wont be any better then 2640fps ......
this is just my thoughts ,which are again limited.
it also tells me there is no reason for a scout either since the difference between it and the socom are 60fps..so anyone who says the scout is great but not the socom isnt making since (besides the gas system and sights)

thanks for all the post btw.

i will be testing the socom..i just enjoy the discussion

March 10, 2011, 10:28 AM
My point was, its not 2700 fps out of the SOCOM if its lost the 180-200 fps due to the shorter barrel, its now around 2500 give or take.

Im not saying they are the same with the different bullet weights, just its now a lot closer and what do you gain with the SOCOM over the others in the other respects?

The problem with ballistics is everyone has "numbers" they found somewhere to try and make their points, and it usually ends up in a shouting match over a few fps, that can all change in either direction by simply switching guns or bullets, or the weather conditions on a specific day.

My point here too is, Ive shot my SOCOM and my AK at 100 and 200 yards, and the hits were virtually the same on the targets, and either round would have been effective. So all the worrying over ballistics is pretty much a moot point. Same goes for my AR's too for that matter. Take the red dots off any of them, and the AK and AR are still shooting and hitting at 2-300 yards. Thats not the case with the SOCOM, so it doesnt matter anyway.

If you feel its important, then go with what you feel is best. You have to be comfortable with what you choose, regardless what anyone else thinks, and again, the only way to know, is to pony up and do it. Trust me, you wont have to much trouble selling it down the road if it doesnt work out.

March 10, 2011, 01:39 PM
AK I agree with you on the ballistics argument...I think that people just use it as a reason to argue. However, I totally disagree with your comments on the Socom's accuracy. I have taken mine out to 200 and can hit a small paper pie plate easliy (smaller than the size of a human head)....and as far as you saying that it's barely a hundred yard gun, well it must just be your particular rifle....I don't think that it would be fair to claim that ALL Socom's will be similar. I can shoot an inch and under with only my iron sights at 100 easliy, I do it all the time....In fact, all the shooting I have done at all ranges have been with the irons sights. My Socom shoots very well and performs flawlessly. And then in the same sentence to claim that an AK-47 is just as accurate? Well, I love AK-47's and I think they are awesome rifles...however, I personally have never shot ANY AK that out performed my Socom...Not to say that they are not out there...just saying I haven't seen it yet. And don't take my statements the wrong way, I love a good conversation and debate..

March 10, 2011, 02:38 PM
so 150gr at 2640 fps is close to a 124 gr at 2300 fps ??? im really asking

bc to me it seems there would be a noticeable difference....? and to me if the 300 or so fps doesnt matter then, that tells me that 2800fps wont be any better then 2640fps ......

I think you're looking at it in the wrong way.

If we agree that the SOCOM, due to sight radius and the nature of the sights is a 300 meter rifle, then why not chamber it in a 300 meter cartridge, such as the 7.62x39?

Since the rifle is designed as a 300 meter rifle, why not reduce the recoil, blast and flash of the 7.62x51 by using a smaller round?

The Scout, with its longer barrel, better muzzle brake and better iron sights is going to be effective out to 600 meters. At that point we need the 7.62x51 round. 7.62x39 isn't effective at 600 meters.

March 10, 2011, 02:51 PM
One of these was shot with my SOCOM with an Aimpoint on it, the other my SAR1 with an Aimpoint on it. At this point, I dont remember which was which (it was awhile ago), but does it really matter?


When I said the SOCOM was barely a 100 yard gun, I was referring to using it as it comes out of the box with the XS front sight on the gun. At 100 yards, that sight completely covers the body on an IPSC type target, making it difficult to make good hits. On anything smaller, its pretty tough to hold anything with any kind of consistency. Even with a Leupold scout scope on mine, I could never get it to shoot better than 2-3" at 100 yards using reloads the gun liked. With a red dot, well, you can see the results above. Now, I normally dont shoot off a bench, and most of my shooting is done at targets that dont have an aiming point, but that usually isnt to much of an issue when it comes to being realistic in the guns capabilities.

Unfortunately, I dont have any of my SOCOM's 200 yard targets, but I do have one shot with my old SAR1 at 200, using only its slightly canted iron sights. The lower three rounds were fried from a rest to confirm zero, the upper group from a cross legged sitting position and fired at a fairly steady cadence. Ammo was Wolf 154 grain SP's the gun likes.


And just so you dont think it was a fluke, this was one just prior to the first while I was chasing the zero around....


I know I couldnt do that with the SOCOM and its XS front sight at 100 yards, I didnt even bother at 200. I do know it shot about the same as my AK's and my AR's, when using the Aimpoint though.

Now, whether it was my rifle or not, I cant say. It seemed to shoot reasonably well with the dot or scope, and with the irons within their reasonable use. To be fair, the only way I could tell you if it was, would have been to put a set of the "Scouts" irons on it and compare the results to that of my standard size and Bush (pre Scout) models when shot at high power targets. At least there, it would be an even comparison.

March 10, 2011, 03:00 PM
The SOCOM II I had would launch Hornady 110grn TAP rnds at an average of 3000fps FWIW.

March 10, 2011, 03:18 PM
I think you're looking at it in the wrong way.
Not really. Im looking at it from my way, and what I was getting out of it, or not. Im not mad at the SOCOM, and Im not bad mouthing it (other than some quality issues I had with Springfield), but after living with one for awhile and trying to get to like it, I just found I liked other things that did its "job" better, thats all.

The SOCOM's biggest limitation from a shooting standpoint, is its sights. With a red dot, its realistically a 300 yard gun at best. With a scout scope, you might get a little more, but then you lose in other respects.

Having had all three, other than the shorter guns being a little handier in tighter places, they all pretty much weigh and handle the same. While the shorter M1A's are slightly smaller than the standard, they still arent near as handy as the AK or AR, which I find to be more usable and shootable, especially when shot realistically.

If I was going to be shooting at 600 yards, which for me these days would be on a target range (I can actually take that shot out my back door, but why would I use an iron sighted M1A?), it would be with the standard model. Why limit myself?

March 10, 2011, 04:38 PM

I'm confused. I thought I was responding to jlott00's post about 7.62x51 vs. 7.62x39. Why are you rebutting me?

I think you and I are in pretty close accord on the SOCOM.


March 10, 2011, 04:52 PM
Sorry, youre right. I misread.

March 10, 2011, 05:20 PM
I put an Eotec on my Socom 16. It is zeroed in for 200 yards. That makes it an up close gun plus I can make longer shots. 300 yards being max for good accuracy. I think it is a damn good rifle.
Senper Fi

March 10, 2011, 07:30 PM
DAMN good rifle...

If you enjoyed reading about "M1a Socom16 : Adding NM or scout sights or a scope, crazy talk?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!