Rugers new .308 Scout rifle great but, is the socom16 the best concept??


PDA






jlott00
March 9, 2011, 09:11 PM
i really like the new ruger rifle, but as i watched the "show" (commercial) i thought.... this makes me think the socom16 is one of the best rifle concepts out there?a "do-all".....

they claim a 180-200 fps drop from a 22' barrel to a 16in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFhM0NHsYLk

If you enjoyed reading about "Rugers new .308 Scout rifle great but, is the socom16 the best concept??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
goon
March 9, 2011, 10:05 PM
What's the weight on the Socom?
I have carried rifles around enough to know that there is a difference between what you'd ideally want to have with you in a fight (I'd take a M-240B with three buddies to carry as much linked 7.62x51 as I could find) versus what will be convenient enough to pack that you'll probably always have it handy (such as a scout style rifle, lever action 30-30, or even an AR if you don't anticipate dealing with any overly tough four-legged animals).
If the Socom comes close enough to a Scout or other nice handy rifle, I'd say why not?

BikerRN
March 10, 2011, 12:16 PM
In my opinion the SOCOM is an overweight pig.

The Gunsite Scout barely meets spec when it's not kitted out as a Scout, but it still weighs less than the SOCOM. Heavy rifles, while great to shoot aren't so great to carry. In my expirience with both rifles I've found the Gunsite rifle to be fast at swinging through multiple targets, easy to carry, and a pleasure to shoot. I've also found it to be one of the most accurate out of the box rifles on the market.

The SOCOM isn't as "handy" nor as accurate in my expirience. That takes it out of the running for me. If I want a .308 caliber autoloading battle rifle I'll get a FAL. The almost two pound difference between the two rifles is really noticed at the end of a long day.

The Scout Rifle was not designed, nor intended to be a battle rifle, but rather a rifle one could press in to service as a battle rifle if needed. It is a general purpose, "handy" rifle that one carries and has with them all the time, much like the Lever Action behind the seat of the truck for an analogy. It can be used to perform a variety of task quite well, but specializes in none of them.

BikerRN

Uteridge
March 10, 2011, 12:28 PM
I have one of their old Frontier Rifles and have found that it is just the trick for brush hunting in Missouri with a Ching Sling that I picked up at Gunsite. I do wish it had a detachable magazine and backup sights. Ruger, you got me again but this time I am not falling for your tricks. I will wait until they come out with a lighter weight version of this rifle that is a true scout and pick that up. In the mean time my Frontier Rifle will do just fine.

BTW, my Frontier is very accurate for a rifle with a 16" barrel and it does a number on Missouri Whitetail Deer. I would have to say that it is on my short list of rifles that are just handy to have around. I always get a few looks when I pull it out of the case on the range but when I start shooting and my short rifle with the funny scope is shooting better groups than guys sitting on the bench with a 7mm Mag the looks turn to envy.

Art Eatman
March 10, 2011, 12:28 PM
Don't compare a scout-concept rifle with a battle rifle. Totally different uses. Never forget that a scout is trying his best to avoid an encounter with a hostile. He's scouting. Firefight = failure.

Uteridge
March 10, 2011, 12:40 PM
I think the OP's point was to use a SOCOM 16 as a scout rifle not using a scout rifle as a battle rifle. There is some overlap between the two when you start talking about short barreled battle rifles. It is a valid argument to make except that the increased weight of a SOCOM 16 negates much of what you look for in a scout type rifle.

The true niche of a SOCOM 16 is CQB not an all around handy rifle; though they do make a good truck gun. I wouldn't want to carry a SOCOM 16 all day on top of all the other gear that you have to carry when you are in an austere environment.

It is a fair comparison to make if your body type allows you to carry something like a SOCOM all day with relative comfort. Remember that Col Cooper's scout rifle concept was built around his concept of an all around handy rifle. His dimensions worked for him. If you are 6 foot 5 and a pretty solid 260 lbs a SOCOM 16 may be just as handy for you as a scout was for Col Cooper. I on the other hand am about the same size a Col Cooper was and his measurements for the perfect all around packing rifle for general use suit me fairly well so I stick fairly close to them.

7.62NATO
March 10, 2011, 04:00 PM
I don't understand the discussion here. Are we looking at the SOCOM as a "do-all" rifle or discussing if the Ruger Scout is lighter?

If I were looking for a "do-all" rifle I think the SOCOM would be a great choice. I own a standard M1A and love it (wish I would have gone with the SOCOM). The .308 caliber is excellent for knock down power. It is heavier than the Ruger obviously because of its autoloading gas system.

I don't see a bolt action ever being a "do-all" rifle because there are just some things it doesn't do well (engage multiple targets at short ranges very quickly).

jlott00
March 10, 2011, 10:31 PM
My discussion was that (minus weight) isnt the socom the better/best do all rifle?

sappnasty
March 10, 2011, 10:51 PM
The Socom is excellent for what it was designed for....it's a battle rifle people not a match rifle. IMO the best choice of any weapon in the battle rifle class.

axeman_g
March 10, 2011, 10:53 PM
No... a 16' 7.62x51 is just not a great solution to a problem that did not exist. 16" loses to much power from 18" barrel, it is obnoxiously loud and kicks harder then longer barrel guns. Plus that gun is way to heavy. I think the M1a Scout is a better gun because of the 18" barrel is a very good length, but the scout scope location is not needed. I do like the Bush Gun configuration.
The gunsite scout is a good gun but also not great. Too heavy, bright metal, laminated stock and overpriced mags.
I think 1 down side keeps any gun out of the great range... especially when there are so many very good + guns being sold presently.

sappnasty
March 10, 2011, 11:10 PM
Apparently axeman g you have never shot a Socom rifle in your life or have ever actually looked at any specs, or even held one from what I am gathering....weight is the same on the scout as the scocom 16...which is 8.8 lbs (Check Springfield's site). As far as loss of power..if you consider 30-40fps between an 18-16" barrel "to much"...you are sadly mistaken - ITS NOT A MATCH RIFLE...IT'S A BATTLE RIFLE. Also, the fact that a shorter barrel makes a gun kick harder is total crap....I have a standard M1A and a Socom II...the specially designed muzzle break makes the Socom a real pleasure to shoot....as a matter of fact, my Socom kicks less than my standard and I can accurately aquire and hit targets waaay faster than my standard. Now if your going to try and say a scout is better, more accurate, etc...just remeber...all M1A rifles were designed for different reasons an purposes. SO, to jlott 00, make your own choice from your own research because poeple will claim facts....facts that learned while drinking coffee in their local gun shop.

sappnasty
March 10, 2011, 11:11 PM
Oh Axeman g...you aare definately right about one thing...it is insanely loud

aubie515
March 11, 2011, 02:24 AM
I also think Axeman is talking out of his butt because the Ruger Scout rifle is really light...that is one of the appeals of having a scout type rifle.

The Accurate mags used on the Ruger rifle isn't cheap, but it's not terribly expensive either. You can also use AI mags. AI mags are the standard when it comes to using a mag system in a bolt action rifle.

Jim NE
March 11, 2011, 02:54 AM
I loved the Scout gun sight rifle when I saw a picture of it the other day, but then I saw the price and my heart kind of sank. I'd probably rather go out and look for an old sporterized .303 Enfield in good shape.

Al Thompson
March 11, 2011, 10:53 AM
My beef with the SOCOM is the noise that muzzle brake enhances. I've used a 16.5 inch .308 hunting with no ear damage, but I would not try it with a SOCOM or any other rifle with a brake. :uhoh:

I too like the SA Scout better than the SOCOM. :cool:

AK103K
March 11, 2011, 11:19 AM
In my opinion the SOCOM is an overweight pig.
I agree, especially in regards to a "scout" rifle.

Ive had a Savage Scout for a number of years now, and Ive also owned a SOCOM. For a general purpose rifle, the Savage wins hands down. Its lighter, better handling, and more accurate. The only thing the SOCOM has over it, is its larger mag capacity.


To be realistic here too, we're discussing two different things here in regards to "scout".

The "scout" rifle concept is for a general/all purpose use working gun that fits a certain criteria that enhances that.

As far a Springfield goes, its all a marketing thing, and an attempt to sell more rifles with out really doing anything innovative, other than whacking a barrel, adding a mount, and charging a premium for a coolness factor that actually takes away from instead of improving the host platform.

Now if they got the weight down, gave it a sleek and minimal side folding glass stock that follows the old E2 type stock, put an Ultimak rail on it that allows for a more realistic scope mounting, and allows you to cowitness a dot if you wanted, did away with the brake and went back to the flash hider, and tuned it up a little for accuracy, they might be on to something.

Still, Jenny Craig is going to have her work cut out for her. Maybe Springfield can market it as the "Kirstie Alley Scout" model. :)

harmonic
March 11, 2011, 11:35 AM
My discussion was that (minus weight) isnt the socom the better/best do all rifle?

You can't ignore the weight. After you install a scope, mounts, sling, full mag, etc, you're looking at toting a nearly 10 pound rifle all day.

I went with a BLR instead. Six pounds with lightweight scope. It makes a difference.

CraigC
March 11, 2011, 11:49 AM
My discussion was that (minus weight) isnt the socom the better/best do all rifle?
How can you ignore the weight??? You can't. Not a big deal if you KNOW you're headed into a fight but that is contrary to the Scout rifle concept. Besides, I don't put much importance on short barrels, though I think the velocity loss is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. If you're totin' a 9lb rifle anyway, what's a few more ounces for a few more inches?

Battle rifles for the battlefied.

Something better suited to its task for everything else.

axeman_g
March 11, 2011, 02:13 PM
dont start pointing fingers. ok.. I exagerated a little in regards to the Ruger... just a little. It is too heavy loaded. I would think a scout gun should be 6pds unloaded. CZ 527 would make a great scout gun.
remeber, this questions was about a scout gun, not M1a.

Look, I personally feel .308 should come out of 20"+ for optimal performance. The drop from from 2600 fps (averaging) to less then 2500 would still hurt, but I dont like it for a medium shooting gun. A 308/7.62x51 is really a 50yd - 800yd cartridge. you shorten that barrel to 16 you end up with a gun designed for less then 400yards.... a battle rifle. A scout gun is not supposed to be a battle rifle and that was what the questions was.

I own a loaded M1a and have shot socoms, I dont like socoms admittedly. They have no purpose other then power under 400yards. I could see that use, but it is not needed. It is heavy, it is loud and it is drastically over hyped/priced. And this was not a comparison to the scout, I do think the scout is the better solution to a MBR then the socom. And that muzzle break does wonders for the extra powder flash. Sorry dont like the gun, I am glad you like yours. Lord knows you prob paid enought for it.

Dr T
March 11, 2011, 02:59 PM
I picked up a Ruger Frontier (the predecessor of the scout) as a "pickup" rifle for the ranch. It is light and handy, and I really don't need a a 10 round magazine. The deer I shot with it this last year at 130 yard did not seem to notice the lower velocity of the 165 gr. bullet. Well, at least the deer didn't say anything to me about it...

Elmer
March 11, 2011, 03:03 PM
Look, I personally feel .308 should come out of 20"+ for optimal performance. The drop from from 2600 fps (averaging) to less then 2500 would still hurt, but I dont like it for a medium shooting gun. A 308/7.62x51 is really a 50yd - 800yd cartridge. you shorten that barrel to 16 you end up with a gun designed for less then 400yards....

It's unfortunate the various military commands that have specified and ordered 16" .308 rifles, to use for long range rifles, including in the sniping role, didn't have your wise council.

The British government's spec for their new long range, marksman rifle, included accuracy out to 800 meters, with non-match, ball ammunition.

How confused the Brits must be, as the winner of their testing was a 16" LMT AR. Their soldiers who have been using the rifle in Afghanistan, and reporting hits out past 800 meters, must be even more confused.

Maybe you can still get to Knight's Armament Company, and tell them that their 16" .308, which is capable of 1/2 MOA out to 800 yards, is really only good for "less than 400 yards". Maybe you can stop them from selling it to various Special Operations groups.

ATCDoktor
March 11, 2011, 03:04 PM
I happen to own all 3 (Ruger GSR, M1A Scout and M1A SOCOM 16).

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/ATCDoctor/007.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/ATCDoctor/000_0008.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/ATCDoctor/001-5.jpg

Of the 3, the Ruger is the lightest and most accurate.

Between the 2 M1A's, the Scout is the most accurate of those two. The Scout averages 2.5 inches at 100 yards with my handloads. The SOCOM is a 3.5-4 inch gun at the same distance.

Ballistically I find I lose very little between the the 16.5 inch barrels and the 18 inch.

People shouldn't believe what they read/hear about velocity in 16" 308/7.62X51.

I cant speak to velocity generated by factory loads but my Handloads of 45 grains of WC844T in LC brass with 165 grain BTSP bullets gives me an average of 2700 FPS in the Ruger and SOCOM 16. They will certainly reach to thr 800 yard mark with authority.

I will concede that the short barrels are loud but there are work arounds for that if your inclined to participate in the NFA process and purchase a suppressor.

Of three I own, two of mine are configured for suppressors.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/ATCDoctor/004-1.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/ATCDoctor/000_0006.jpg

They work extremely well and provide a recoil dampening effect (due to weight) as well.

Of the 3 the only one I have carried all day long is the SAI Scout. I have carried it hog hunting and have found it to be a little cumbersome/heavy. It would probably be ok if hunting from a Shooting House or Elevated Tripod but for all day carry in thick brush it was a bit of a pain.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/ATCDoctor/011-1.jpg

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c307/ATCDoctor/045.jpg

I will admit that the suppressor compounded the Scouts issue with portability. Without out it it was a better but the rifle was sighted with it on so I left it in place for the hunt. It performed extremely well on the hunt and I expect that very few bolt gun operators could be as quick on follow up shots as someone with this platform and sighting system (Bushnell Holosight).

With respect to the Ruger, to date I've run about 600 rounds through it and will be carrying it on a late Spring Hog Hunt in TX.

I expect it to perform well.

Is it a battle rifle, I don't think so (although battles have been fought with similar platforms)

Is it a Scout rifle, I don't know.

What I do know is that Ruger GSR is a light handy 308 bolt gun with factory iron sights that has an excellent trigger.

It is extremely accurate and with handloaded ammo it's the ballistc equal to any 308 on the planet.

sappnasty
March 11, 2011, 03:12 PM
Axeman g, I paid $1,378 brand new made to order from Springfield Armory....I'd say thats not bad for what nit retails for. Either way I'm happy and thats all that matters...:)

axeman_g
March 11, 2011, 04:04 PM
ATCDoktor... those are some fantastic rifles and have ben put to good use. I would love to supress my frifles, but until I move, that aint gonna happen. I would love to move back to Ga, but not until I get the career promotion I want.

Look I dont thing anyone is going to notice a drop in velocity between 16" to 20" barrell when they get hit, it is still going to be moving faster then a .38spl right? So, my main thought, and I am pretty sure it is wrong or someone here is going to tell me how wrong I am again, is that the accuracy will suffer out past 400yds. With a drop in velocity you are going to get a ton of drop correct?

Now, I am surpised the Brits have gone to a 16" LMT... good for LMT. If they are looking for an urban counter sniper/ sniper role, then it is a good choice I quess for them. I know they found their L36 unweildy at times, and many of their snipers walked patrols with the L85A2s. Maybe they are looking to mix in some power with the manueverability.

I do wish I had gotten a scout though... it does seem to be the best of both worlds and the ones I have fired have been almost as acurrate out to 600yds as my loaded.

Elmer
March 12, 2011, 04:28 AM
Look I dont thing anyone is going to notice a drop in velocity between 16" to 20" barrell when they get hit, it is still going to be moving faster then a .38spl right? So, my main thought, and I am pretty sure it is wrong or someone here is going to tell me how wrong I am again, is that the accuracy will suffer out past 400yds. With a drop in velocity you are going to get a ton of drop correct?

Both the LMT MWS 16" and the Knight's 16" EMC are capable of MOA or better at 800 yards.

Now, I am surpised the Brits have gone to a 16" LMT... good for LMT. If they are looking for an urban counter sniper/ sniper role, then it is a good choice I quess for them.

The 16" .308 tender won by LMT was an urgent request, specifically put out to supply UK troops in Afghanistan, hardly an urban conflict. The L129A1 has been fielded and reportedly used with great success there.

Nuclear
March 12, 2011, 04:53 AM
With the same load, a shorter barrel will generate lower velocities, which will result in more of a bullet drop at every range. Simple physics. Do not confuse drop with accuracy, unless you run out of sight adjustment due to drop.

As long as the bullet is still traveling fast enough to generate the terminal ballistic effects (large temporary cavitation, for example), the round will be effective at the distances under discussion.

And shorter barrels will be louder than longer barrels using the same ammunition, as pressure will be higher when the bullet exits the barrel. Again, simple physics.

teumessian_fox
March 12, 2011, 09:59 AM
I never understood why sportsmen ponder over the whole "battle rifle" concept? With whom do you expect to do battle? Bambi? He somehow got his hands on a weapon?

A nine pound rifle would be nice for a battle because it would absorb recoil and make the gun less punishing. I had a friend who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. He ruined the barrel of his Garand from firing so many rounds in so short a time. In a genuine battle, a heavy "battle rifle" would be good, right?

But buying a heavy battle rifle for hunting seems counterproductive. Or am I missing something here? (Unless you're hunting something that requires multiple, frequent shots, like doves or quail. I'd actually like to see somebody do that w/a 308.)

AK103K
March 12, 2011, 10:19 AM
I never understood why sportsmen ponder over the whole "battle rifle" concept?
I understand what youre thinking, but not everything is "sportsman" related, or even considered, and sportsman type weapons arent the best if it turns to something else.

With whom do you expect to do battle? Bambi?
I always said there'd be a lot less hunters in the woods if Bambi hunted back. :D

teumessian_fox
March 12, 2011, 10:46 AM
I understand what youre thinking, but not everything is "sportsman" related, or even considered, and sportsman type weapons arent the best if it turns to something else.


I was actually responding to the OP's quandary:

the best rifle concepts out there?a "do-all".....


But your "something else" is actually what's on people's minds when they start talking of "do all battle rifles." "Total chaos protect-your-food-stores" rifles are way different, I suppose.

Like I said, hunting is one thing. Battle is another. Each necessitates different rifles?

Personally, my "battle rifle" at this point is a HD Remington 870 w/Knoxx stock.

AK103K
March 12, 2011, 11:04 AM
Each necessitates different rifles?
A specific rifle for each is probably a better choice, not that you cant use what you have for either.

For a "do all", then youre probably better off with the scarier looking gun. :)

jlott00
March 12, 2011, 12:30 PM
I never understood why sportsmen ponder over the whole "battle rifle" concept? With whom do you expect to do battle? Bambi? He somehow got his hands on a weapon?

The normalcy bias- refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

you never know, so i think having a battle rifle that can obviously hunt is better then a
hunting rifle that will suck in a "situation" ... I think the scoped bolt actions are great for a battle.... but how would you know who you were shooting at? IE are they bad guys? have they done something to you? can you tell by the uniform? if so i think you should be running not "sniping"..... more then likely you wouldnt know unless they had already engaged you. meaning they know where you are....can you imagine a
scoped m1a against a bolt action when both parties know where each other are?
I'll take 2 extra pounds.

My main point was this, all of the good things they had to say about the ruger scout..the barrel length, the forward mount, the .308 etc all carried over to the socom (MINUS the weight..but really 2 pounds?) so if the ruger scout is a nice gun, then i dont think anyone can say the socom isnt one of the best concepts out there for do all.. including battle...(maybe with upgraded sights as well)

AK103K
March 12, 2011, 12:45 PM
To better understand the weight, go add two pounds to your favorite lightweight hunting rifle and see how it shoulders and shoots in comparison, especially on multiple or moving targets.

And thats just from the shooting standpoint, and not even taking into account carrying it around half the day before you need it and your arms are tired.

Added to the weight issue, the other issue from the battle rifle standpoint, is the stock. A better pistol grip design with appropriate sling set up would do wonders. The SAGE type while on the right track, just went the wrong way as far as weight and bulk. If youre going to stick to the M14 design, Id much rather see a streamlined E2 type pistol grip stock that folds just behind the grip, and made out of a lightweight composite or plastic.

That brake has to go too. Besides he noise and blast, try shooting prone on dry ground and you'll see why.

teumessian_fox
March 12, 2011, 06:30 PM
For a "do all", then youre probably better off with the scarier looking gun.

In my case, the 870 HD w/Knoxx, just racking a shell into to chamber is reputed as turning even the baddest bad guys into quivering jelly. Now I just need to come up with some slogan, something like they say in the movies.

AK103K
March 12, 2011, 06:47 PM
"Im in here" comes to mind, and you dont have to say a thing, already said it. :)

Elmer
March 14, 2011, 02:42 AM
In my case, the 870 HD w/Knoxx, just racking a shell into to chamber is reputed as turning even the baddest bad guys into quivering jelly. Now I just need to come up with some slogan, something like they say in the movies.

I'd recommend concentrating on proper shooting technique instead.

I've pointed 870's at a couple hundred people, some of them in the "baddest' category. Let me assure you, not all them turn into quivering jelly.

CraigC
March 14, 2011, 11:51 AM
Methinks people place way too much faith in the psychological effect of pump shotguns and dawgs.

AK103K
March 14, 2011, 12:11 PM
Depends on the dawgs. :)

Grousefeather
March 18, 2011, 09:59 PM
I saw this on one of the gun shows today, and did some site comparing on the puter after. I like the hadiness of it, but that short a barrel in 308 dosn't float my boat. I think the 6.8 SPC would be ideal. I have a Tikka T3 in 308 with burris 3x9 and I think I can do everything this is supposed to do. But it does look cool.

DBryant
March 18, 2011, 10:59 PM
I've got a Springfield Socom 16 and I bought it for use as a general purpose, do-all gun. The weight doesn't bother me, however, I'm a fairly large guy, 6'3" and 240 lbs. I actually replaced the factory plastic stock with a GI Big Red Birch from Fred's, which added more weight. If you don't mind carrying it, the extra weight helps cut down on the felt recoil. Also, the wood doesn't feel as cold when you put your cheek to it in winter and the larger cut stock fits my big mitts better.

The noise from the brake is rather noticeable, but not so much when you're shooting. I actually found it to be quieter than guns that didn't have any muzzle device, until I let my friend shoot it. When you're standing beside someone else shooting it, you can feel the shockwave coming back from that brake. Another thing about the brake, I've not been able to find anything that you can replace it with. This doesn't bother me since I like it, but if you want something different, then their M1A Scout would be better.

Oh, and I don't think much of the idea of shooting any .308 without ear protection.

One really great thing about the shorter barrel that nobody has touched on is how it handles in brush. There is just less barrel to get in the way, a lot like CQB in that respect. I live in New Hampshire and there are some pretty thick woods, so for me that is a definite plus.

Another thing about the SOCOM that is different from most M1A's is the sights. Both the front post and rear aperture are larger than standard sights. If you're going for a target rifle, this ain't great, but for anything else, I like it better. In the Marines we were told to use our large aperture for combat (something I thankfully never had to do). As for hunting, consider the express sights that African big game hunters use. It's the same concept: sacrifice a little accuracy and gain a quicker sight picture.

Also, for the battle role, you can get 25 round mags made by Checkmate Industries. I've got 4 of them and they all work great. They add a little more weight and they're not what would you would want for shooting prone, but they're still shorter than an AK mag. If you don't like them, get the standard 20 rounders, but if you want them, they're available.

My only gripe with the rifle is that with the factory rail, you can't co-witness a red dot. I'll probably get an Ultimak rail for it someday but till then, I just took the factory rail/handguard off and am using a standard GI handguard.

So, let's see, it's a .308 so it's got plenty of power and range. It's M-14 family, so it's reliable. It's pretty compact. Good sights. Mags from 5 to 25 rounds.

Is it the perfect do-all rifle? No, nothing's perfect, but if you don't mind the weight and like the factory brake, it's pretty durn close.

fragout
March 19, 2011, 08:40 PM
I have always been interested in finding the "1 rifle" that would fit into all of my requirements for a "1 rifle"....if that makes sense.After trying a few different bolt guns as well as levers, I ended up enlisting in the ARMY (Infantry),...well over a decade ago.... so to make a long story short........ decided that the rifle would be a semiauto after first hand experience with being involved on a 2-way shooting range. After owning several semi's, ( M1Garand, FAL, HK-91), as well as several different intermediate caliber rifles,I chose the 18 ish inch barreled M1A/M14S as my general purpose/go-to centerfire rifle caliber/hunting/scout/battle....etc ..... for the following reasons.

1. The overall design is a very reliable/durable design... along with the magazines that feed it. ( USGI 20rd and current CMI 5/10/25rd mags )

2. The rifle can be loaded using spare mags, or using it's stripper clip guide while a mag is inserted into the rifle. ( A nice little feature if no optics are being used, or the optic is mounted forward.)

3. I simply prefer the rifle's layout/controls/ergonomics. ( Rear sight, location of the safety, the op-rod, etc.....)It feels very natural to bring her up, aim, and shoot a rifle such as this. I can see why alot of folks refer to the M14/M1 as the "rifleman's rifle".

4. Plenty of options when it comes to this sort of rifle. I prefer to keep mine as KISS as possible externally, but have found a few mods to be of use with this type of rifle. The following is a reason as to why I went with this over the M1A Socom....
The Smith Enterprise Inc Vortex direct connect flash hider along with thier gas lock front sight.
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r178/fragout2000/Pic%20set%202010/SANY1246.jpg

It reduces the OAL of the rifle, making it very close to the Socom, does away with the std/scout castle nut system altogether...thus reducing overall parts count, and is also one less thing to go wrong... as it is a very simple and reliable design for the M1A/M14 from my experience with both types.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r178/fragout2000/Pic%20set%202010/SANY1256.jpg

The version I have pictured above( GLFS) is the "hooded", "HK" style variety, which has proven to be a very decent combination with the std aperture rear sight that is installed on the same rifle. Both front and rear circles sort of line up well for fast target acquisition, work well in low light, and the front sight post is better protected from unexpected "bumps and bruises" while moving thru the brush on a hog hunting exploit.

Another nice feature about the direct connect set up is that it is quite simple to mount a suppressor to the rifle, provided that one has the proper paperwork of course. I have done quite a bit of shooting in low light, and have seen a difference between the std flash hider of the M1A-A1, compared to the Vortex flash hider installed on the M14S tanker. The Vortex does a better job overall.


Just a few things to add here.

Someone brought up the difference in weight between the M1A Socom/Scout as compared to the Ruger Gunsite. If the difference is 2 lbs, then thats not all that much IMO. The more important thing to me at least, is how a given rifle feels in regards to balance. The shorty M1A's balance rather well in my mitts, which just plain feels right when I pull up to aim, because the rifle itself is well balanced. ( I turned a Socom II into a Socom 16 minus the forward rail because the SocomII rail system made it feel too front heavy for my tastes..... throwing the overall balance off for me.)

BTW........ The semiautomatic action of the M1A, coupled with reliable 5/10/20/25 round mags more than makes up for the 2lbs difference in my book. ( No way in hell would I choose a bolt action rifle if the possibility of engagement with armed hostiles is on the table.) I can avoid a gunfight carrying an M1A just as well as if I was carrying a bolt rifle, but on the chance that evasion becomes compromised, then I would want the option of a semiauto.

With that being said, I am always on the lookout for an excuse to get another rifle. :)

I have just recently purchased an LRB Arms M14SA Tanker, but the new Ruger being talked about here is awful tempting. I think I'll wait awhile on it, and see if Ruger comes out with "other" versions of the Gunsite first.

Edit: DBryant: SEI does make a Vortex flash hider for the M1A Socom.


11B

BikerRN
March 20, 2011, 12:39 AM
Someone brought up the difference in weight between the M1A Socom/Scout as compared to the Ruger Gunsite. If the difference is 2 lbs, then thats not all that much IMO.

If you had to carry that rifle over hill and dale I venture that the weight difference would be a factor. If you ain't humpin' it, then no the weight don't matter. If you have to complete an eight mile hike then yes, it does matter and you would probably be looking to shave every ounce of weight you could.

BikerRN

CraigC
March 20, 2011, 12:09 PM
Depends on the dawgs.
Like I said, lots of folks like to think so but in reality, not really. 99.99% of all dogs are all bark and no bite. Fewer still are actually trained to do what you would want one to do in a self defense situation.


If the difference is 2 lbs, then thats not all that much IMO.
2lbs is significant. It doesn't sound like much on paper but between the hands you're talking about a difference of 20-25%.

fragout
March 20, 2011, 12:22 PM
I have been humping around my issued M14 service rifle for quite some time now during this deployment I'm currently on, and a difference of less than 2 pounds makes little difference to me. A 20rd M14 magazine topped off = 1.5lbs exact.

Just my .02 here, but if a body is having issues humping a rifle, then shaving less than 2lbs off of said rifle is not gonna make much difference in the long run. Being physically fit for movement on foot, through various types of terrain, altitudes, and in all types of weather ....along with the equipment, weapons, etc...... would be my suggestion. :)

Hump an M240 around long enough, and an M14 will feel like a featherweight in comparison.

Maybe folks like me are the exception to this, but I can tote more stuff on foot further now, then I could do when I was a brand new 17yr old recruit many yrs ago. My point here is that if I can get to where my body is physically conditioned to carry what current grunts carry around, then civilians would also have this ability.






11B

AK103K
March 20, 2011, 12:39 PM
99.99% of all dogs are all bark and no bite.
Come to work with me and we can talk about the percentages. :)

Usually the smaller dogs bite a lot more, and with a lot less provocation or indication its coming. On the other hand, the big dogs that do, tend to be more memorable.

Fewer still are actually trained to do what you would want one to do in a self defense situation.
Training (attack) isnt necessary, especially if they are family members and live in the house.

Certain breeds are also more likely to defend the family, but many, if not most will if provoked.

All it takes around here is a change in demeanor or tone of voice, and you'll get to see the principle of how a light switch works.

Oh, and they'll be doing exactly what I want, and self defense has nothing to do with it, at least not on our end at that point. :)

Just my .02 here, but if a body is having issues humping a rifle, then shaving less than 2lbs off of said rifle is not gonna make much difference in the long run. Being physically fit for movement on foot, through various types of terrain, altitudes, and in all types of weather ....along with the equipment, weapons, etc...... would be my suggestion.
Youre absolutely right about fitness, but regardless, a rifle thats 2 pounds lighter is still more responsive handling wise, and nicer to carry all the time.

Reality for most in this discussion, is going to entail carrying it from the car to the bench and back, so weight and handling probably arent really an issue anyway. ;)

fragout
March 20, 2011, 12:52 PM
AK103K: How much does the bench weigh....:D

JK brother.


11B

BikerRN
March 20, 2011, 12:52 PM
Reality for most in this discussion, is going to entail carrying it from the car to the bench and back, so weight and handling probably arent really an issue anyway.

I was actually looking at it from a backcountry backpack hunting trip perspective. While one may be able to carry two more pounds, it's a lot nicer if you don't have to.

BikerRN

fragout
March 20, 2011, 12:57 PM
I was actually looking at it from a backcountry backpack hunting trip perspective. While one may be able to carry two more pounds, it's a lot nicer if you don't have to.

BikerRN



Why stop at 2 lbs then? There are rifles out there that weigh less than the Ruger Gunsite.;)

11B

CraigC
March 20, 2011, 12:58 PM
Maybe folks like me are the exception to this...
Ya think?

Civillains don't have misson requirements. Our needs aren't dictated by the government. We're not "deployed". We don't spend months and months training for most of the day. Nor do we have anybody breathing down our necks to reach a certain level of physical fitness. We're regular blokes with regular jobs, wives and responsibilities other than humping 75lbs of gear all over hell's creation and shooting insurgents. We don't "HAVE" to carry all that weight. Which is not to say that we CAN'T. I can carry a 10lb rifle all day no problem. I just don't like to. I don't have to. I hunt with 9-10lb rifles all the time. Why? Because there are 10lb rifles I choose to hunt with. The operative word there is "choose". Because I would rather hunt with a 9-10lb classic levergun or traditional muzzleloader than a 7lb synthetic stocked .30-06. However, were I needing a more serious rifle that 'may' be used as a fighting rifle but will be carried much more than it will be shot, like the scout concept, I want something a lot lighter than a friggin' M1A.

No offense intended whatsoever, we just need to understand that there are vastly different requirements between military and civillian shooters and sportsmen. Different purposes, different mindsets, different needs, different capabilities, different equipment. No better or worse, just different.


Come to work with me and we can talk about the percentages.
Ain't talking from my posterior. I jumped fences for ten years and dealt with A LOT of dogs. Like I said, the vast majority are all bark and no bite.

AK103K
March 20, 2011, 01:05 PM
AK103K: How much does the bench weigh....:D
The ones I have to push out of the way if I want to shoot at some ranges are pretty heavy. Glad I dont need to rely on them.

Rucks arent quite as heavy though, and work just as well, if not better if you really need one though. :)

I was actually looking at it from a backcountry backpack hunting trip perspective. While one may be able to carry two more pounds, it's a lot nicer if you don't have to.
I was being a bit of a smart ass there, but I was also somewhat serious.

I've seen all sorts of fancy rifles at the range (most of them pristine too), and most of them are shot off a bench by someone who was huffing and puffing just getting them there from the car over in the lot a few yards away.

I agree about the weight, as much as I agree about being in shape, and to me, both are the best choice, and the latter if you have to pick one.

AK103K
March 20, 2011, 01:07 PM
I jumped fences for ten years and dealt with A LOT of dogs. Like I said, the vast majority are all bark and no bite.
Would that have been the same if you hadnt made the fence? :D

CraigC
March 20, 2011, 01:11 PM
I was referring to jumping fences TO where the dog resided, not from. ;)

In all that time, I only remember two that were a real threat. Standing your ground typically has the same result with a 50lb dog as it does with a 2000lb bull. Deal with them enough and you can quickly discern those that bluff from those that mean business. Not unlike people.

AK103K
March 20, 2011, 01:22 PM
I was referring to jumping fences TO where the dog resided, not from.
Ive done both, and quite a few times, one right after the other. :D

Ive been chased around by bulls (cows are just annoying :) ), dogs, goats, pigs, and a few other things. The bulls were the scariest, especially when you didnt know they were there. They always seem to wait until youre halfway across the field before they let you know too. At least I wasnt carrying the instrument. Like they always say, you only have to run a little faster than the slowest person there. :D

CraigC
March 20, 2011, 01:37 PM
The scariest one I have is not the 2000lb bull who thinks he's a pet, it's the 1200lb heifer who is crazier than an outhouse rat but I digress. ;)

You bring up an excellent point about weight. It's not just about carrying it, handling is a major factor that weight has a significant impact upon.

fragout
March 20, 2011, 01:41 PM
Ya think?

Civillains don't have misson requirements. Our needs aren't dictated by the government. We're not "deployed". We don't spend months and months training for most of the day. Nor do we have anybody breathing down our necks to reach a certain level of physical fitness. We're regular blokes with regular jobs, wives and responsibilities other than humping 75lbs of gear all over hell's creation and shooting insurgents. We don't "HAVE" to carry all that weight. Which is not to say that we CAN'T. I can carry a 10lb rifle all day no problem. I just don't like to. I don't have to. I hunt with 9-10lb rifles all the time. Why? Because there are 10lb rifles I choose to hunt with. The operative word there is "choose". Because I would rather hunt with a 9-10lb classic levergun or traditional muzzleloader than a 7lb synthetic stocked .30-06. However, were I needing a more serious rifle that 'may' be used as a fighting rifle but will be carried much more than it will be shot, like the scout concept, I want something a lot lighter than a friggin' M1A.

No offense intended whatsoever, we just need to understand that there are vastly different requirements between military and civillian shooters and sportsmen. Different purposes, different mindsets, different needs, different capabilities, different equipment. No better or worse, just different.
==================================================================================================================

Ya think ?

My intent here was not to insult anyone. Just stating my own preference for a general purpose rifle and my reasons behind it. No more than you are doing with your choice of using your various 10 plus lbs rifles to hunt with. Different strokes for different folks.:)

I use mine to hunt with all the time, and they work just as well for droppin critters as any other rifle chambered in same caliber. ( TX hogs on private land = 20rd mags where I hunt)

If you choose a bolt action "scout" rifle as your go-to, then that's just dandy. The difference in weight between the 2 rifles of topic here is less than 2 lbs, which is not what I consider "alot"...... so I will respectfully disagree with you on that issue.

Since I do not have a crystal ball that can tell me what the future has in store, I cannot say for sure how much I may or may not have to carry a rifle for, or fire said rifle at others lookin to kill me and mine. I concentrate on the things that I have control over, such as choice of rifle, equipment, and keeping myself in good physical condition, as well as keeping myself up to snuff with my choice of said rifle/equipment.

One thing worth mentioning is that of personal past experiences with being shot at. ( when I mean past here, the last time this happened was only a few days ago.) Without going into further detail on the subject....... this is a big reason as to why I prefer a semiautomatic rifle over a bolt action rifle, even though the bolt weighs less than 2lbs in comparison. This difference is not enough to hinder movement or shooting in my case.

If this is in regards to movement from a car to a rifle range, then whats the big deal with a semiautomatic rifle weighing in at 8.8 lbs?

11B

fragout
March 20, 2011, 01:53 PM
"The ones I have to push out of the way if I want to shoot at some ranges are pretty heavy. Glad I dont need to rely on them."
======================================================================================================


I see what you mean AK103K.

I do utilize a shooting bench if zeroing an optic, and/or trying out a new load.

Before they sent me here, I was using FED 168gr OTM M852 through my M14S.

Ended up taking a hog with one rd of this from 376yds deep. Optic was zeroed at 300yds, and I was in the kneeling position at the shot.

My oldest boy's Socom loves this load, so it might be worth it for others here who own/shoot them, and see if their Socom shoots it well.:)

11B

336A
March 20, 2011, 02:38 PM
Just my .02 here, but if a body is having issues humping a rifle, then shaving less than 2lbs off of said rifle is not gonna make much difference in the long run. Being physically fit for movement on foot, through various types of terrain, altitudes, and in all types of weather ....along with the equipment, weapons, etc...... would be my suggestion.


If you got out of your bradely and actually humped a ruck on your back all day you would know full well that every ounce matters there horse Soldier:rolleyes: Looking at your profile I see that your in TX which tells me your part of the 1st Cav and are mechanized Infantry and therefore in Iraq. Right now we ain't doing very much of anything in Iraq I know this as I just returned so I know what is going on there.

Walking around Iraq with a M14 is one thing but until you hump around the mountains in Afghanistan you will think differently. I don't want to hear about your physical proess either, I'll bet my next pay check I'll walk you in the dirt given my M4 vs your M14 with full combat load and identical packing list in our rucks. BTW if you have 10yrs in you should at least be a SSG, so why are you carrying a M14? our snipers don't use them as we use the M24, M110 or M107. We issue the SOPMOD M14's (which is not a standard M14 and weighs close to 18LBS due to the add on picitinny rails)) to our DM which is not a NCO.

You may be able to pull the wool over some folks eyes here but not this ground pounders "Scouts Out".

fragout
March 20, 2011, 04:32 PM
336. Are you serious?

Wool over folks eyes????
You should be the one watching out for the wool. Scout = 19D in the Army that I'm in sweet cheeks. Your the one mouthing off about Bradley's in Iraq......not me. Guess all you want. Never said that I was in the Cav or Iraq.
Sure as hell don't answer to a frikin cav scout regardless. Ie....... none of your damm business what unit I'm with, or which theater of operations I'm currently in now.
But do tell us all about the M3 Bradley? While your at it, tell us all what you were up to during Desert Storm?

To hell with an M14. I'll out hump your butt any day of the damm week with an M240, and your M4.

Money up front? Put up or shut up buttercup.:neener:



If you dont like my opinion regarding the Socom/Gunsite, I could care less. Go to war with a 10-22 if ya feel the need. Just dont think you can sit there and run your mouth about someone you have no clue about.

Aint very nice when others talk doo doo about you now is it? Care to be pleasant, and be a constructive part of the thread here, or should we both continue to run our mouths at each other to see who is really the meanest MF in the valley?

I'm all for keeping this thread on track. Feel free to send me a PM regarding this other junk that YOU threw into it for no reason other than tooting your own horn.

11B

336A
March 20, 2011, 05:09 PM
In the interest of keeping things cicvil here a PM has been sent to you. BTW very nice language there.

fragout
March 20, 2011, 05:13 PM
In the interest of being correct, I removed Texas to prevent anyone from assuming that I'm out of Ft. Hood/ assigned to the Cav....

Edit: 336. Reply sent.

11B

If you enjoyed reading about "Rugers new .308 Scout rifle great but, is the socom16 the best concept??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!