M1A SOCOM 16 range question(s)


PDA






checkmyswag
July 12, 2012, 12:01 PM
I understand that the SOCOM 16 (16" barrel) isn't meant to be a long range rifle. I read people referring to them as less than 100 yard guns but i just don't see how their accurate range can be that short.

What are it's upper limits?

Accuracy at 100/200/300/400/500 yards (or more)?

Optics make the difference?

What's your experience?

If you enjoyed reading about "M1A SOCOM 16 range question(s)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
July 12, 2012, 12:09 PM
Anyone who tells you it's only a 100 yard rifle has no idea how to shoot, or is applying entirely inappropriate standards.

It is a (semi) military carbine (sort of) that fits into pretty much the same niche as a combat AR-15 or AK. Out to 300 yds it should not be impossible for you to hit a man-sized target if you have a decent understanding of what you're doing. And that's the point of the thing. Engaging human-sized targets at the distances most modern "combat" happens. If you're hoping to shoot precision matches, or plink groundhogs, this isn't the gun for that.

Some form of low-magnification optic can help you, of course, thought the M14/M1A platform is not the easiest to scope.

checkmyswag
July 12, 2012, 12:30 PM
Sam1911,

that was my initial opinion, if Civil War soldiers were hitting accurately well past 100 yards, then a modern gun even with a short barrel should be fine.

So it comes down to marksmanship fundamentals. Training over gear...yet again!

Caliper_RWVA
July 12, 2012, 12:59 PM
Barrel length does not affect accuracy except that it will typically reduce the sight radius and decrease the shooters ability to aim the rifle as accurately.

I would say that you should be able to hit a man sized target within 500yd. Even with the short barrel, .308 should still have plenty of energy at that range. Realistically, in a combat situation, your ability to acquire and identify a target is the range-limiting factor without optics.

Workhorse6
July 12, 2012, 01:17 PM
checkmyswag,

I have heard a lot of people talk a lot trash about the so called accuracy of the SOCOM 16. You posted my exact questions about accuracy vs distance of this rifle but, I agree with what sam1911 posted. Personally, I think people are trying to compare a SOCOM 16 to a M1A Super Match and I think that is not realistic.

With the proper fundamentals of marksmanship you should be able to hit a man size target out to 300m. Now, with 400m - 500m you may need some type of optic with magnification but, it still boils down to fundamentals IMO.

Personally, I think this rifle will be great to 300m with irons and that is why I want this rifle. I am not looking to shoot out to 500m or more consistently and all I really want to do with this rifle is put a Ultimak M8 rail and mount a Eotech 517.

boricua9mm
July 12, 2012, 01:18 PM
In my experiences shooting the SOCOM 16, the giant, thick Tritium front sight post makes it difficult to reliably aim for & hit the vital zones of a B27 target when you get out to 300. You're adding a much larger potential for aiming error on top of ammo inconsistency and a rifle that is, per SAI, in-spec at 2-4 MOA.

Switching to a standard front sight or a 0.62 NM sight changes things drastically.

YMMV...

pilotlight
July 12, 2012, 01:19 PM
Met a guy who ran a DPMS LR-308 with a 16" barrel at Whittington out to 1,000 yards. Hit like 8 out of 10 times on steel.

Workhorse6
July 12, 2012, 01:25 PM
boricua9mm,

Do you think switching out the thick front sight post affect the speed of acquiring your targets at closer ranges being that this weapon is more of a "CQB" system. I agree that switching to a thinner blade would help with running irons but do you think running a eotech sight still accomplish being able to hit accurately at 300m and under?

Welding Rod
July 12, 2012, 01:36 PM
Mine is a 4 MOA gun with match ammo.

I will be shimming the gas cylinder shortly and see it that helps.

checkmyswag
July 12, 2012, 02:02 PM
The Scout Squad is reported to have better accuracy and range.

Is this due to the longer barrel/sight radius, smaller sights or?

dprice3844444
July 12, 2012, 02:13 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qj032UJ1I 18 inch bolt a 1k

Cosmoline
July 12, 2012, 02:14 PM
The big issue with M1A's seems to be that stock, which can be very loose fitting. AFAIK there's nothing in particular about the SOCOM which would make it less inherently accurate. I believe the sights may be designed for closer range shooting? But they can be swapped out for match sights.

boricua9mm
July 12, 2012, 02:16 PM
boricua9mm,

Do you think switching out the thick front sight post affect the speed of acquiring your targets at closer ranges being that this weapon is more of a "CQB" system. I agree that switching to a thinner blade would help with running irons but do you think running a eotech sight still accomplish being able to hit accurately at 300m and under?

In theory, the smaller front sight will be slower to acquire, but you've also got a shortened sight radius which makes the front blade appear larger than it normally would on a full sized rifle. Personally, I prefer small apertures and finer front sight blades, but that's in the daytime. Of course tritium irons or illuminated optics like a red dot or a reflex type would be faster and more effective in the dark.

On the subject of optics, I personally think that for a SOCOM the best solution is to get an Aimpoint H1/T1 as low as possible on the rail. The EoTech just sits way too high b/c it was designed for the inline buttstock and low rail height attributes of the AR15. If you sue one on an M1A, you're going to have a chin weld or else you'll need to find a good cheek rest or even a completely different stock.

Again, those are just my opinions based on my experiences.

Workhorse6
July 12, 2012, 02:20 PM
In theory, the smaller front sight will be slower to acquire, but you've also got a shortened sight radius which makes the front blade appear larger than it normally would on a full sized rifle. Personally, I prefer small apertures and finer front sight blades, but that's in the daytime. Of course tritium irons or illuminated optics like a red dot or a reflex type would be faster and more effective in the dark.

On the subject of optics, I personally think that for a SOCOM the best solution is to get an Aimpoint H1/T1 as low as possible on the rail. The EoTech just sits way too high b/c it was designed for the inline buttstock and low rail height attributes of the AR15. If you sue one on an M1A, you're going to have a chin weld or else you'll need to find a good cheek rest or even a completely different stock.

Again, those are just my opinions based on my experiences.
Will putting a Ultimak M8 rail work with a Eotech? I saw a YouTube video of a guy who put that rail on his socom 16 with a micro Aimpoint red dot. He said with that setup he could still co-witness through the Aimpoint without putting a check rest on the stock.

boricua9mm
July 12, 2012, 02:24 PM
It appears to me that the Ultimak is either the same height, or slightly lower than the factory Scout rail that comes on the rifle. I would expect to contend with the cheek weld issues if your plan is to stick with the EoTech. Aimpoints just seem to have many more mounting options with various heights, which helps greatly when mounting them on different types of firearms. With the EoTech, its design drastically favors the AR layout.

Workhorse6
July 12, 2012, 02:30 PM
It appears to me that the Ultimak is either the same height, or slightly lower than the factory Scout rail that comes on the rifle. I would expect to contend with the cheek weld issues if your plan is to stick with the EoTech. Aimpoints just seem to have many more mounting options with various heights, which helps greatly when mounting them on different types of firearms. With the EoTech, its design drastically favors the AR layout.
Cool.. I figured the EoTech were built more for the AR platforms but, I didn't know if it would work well with the Socom as I have seen pics with them mounted. Thanks for clearing that up since, I am trying to get my research done and wish list put together lol.

tech30528
July 12, 2012, 03:25 PM
That round is perfectly capable of terminal performance well out past 600 yards. If I understand this correctly the front sight blade on the 16 inch barrel is narrower than the standard M1A blade, is that right? If so there would be a good reason for that. Take an M1 for instance, the thickness of the blade is no accident. It is used for ranging. An M1 front blade represents 8MOA. Using this and comparing it to your target (in military terms roughly 20 inches for the width of shoulders) the thickness of the blade in relation to the shoulder spacing gives approximate range to target. So if the enemy's shoulders appear the same thickness as the blade, then 8MOA= 20 inches, and your range is approximately 250 yards. So it would make sense that the blade on a shorter barrel would be thinner is this metric were to be preserved.

Matthew Courtney
July 12, 2012, 03:44 PM
My socom is a 3-4 moa rifle. Nothing shoots better than 3 moa. Nothing shoots worse than 4 moa. I tried everything to get it to shoot better. No joy. I now have it set up with a micro aimpoint as my home defense rifle. My truck rifles are 1-2 moa LR-308's with Leupold 1.5-5 illuminated scopes.

Can a Socom get 300 yard hits on a man sized target? Sure. But if 3/4's of the target is behind cover at 300 yards, I'd rather have a more accurate rifle in my hands.

Sam1911
July 12, 2012, 04:08 PM
Met a guy who ran a DPMS LR-308 with a 16" barrel at Whittington out to 1,000 yards. Hit like 8 out of 10 times on steel.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qj032UJ1I 18 inch bolt a 1k
Neither of those have anything to do, at all, with the question at hand, which is what can a decent rifleman expect to be able to do with a Springfield M1A SOCOM 16. That's not an inherently accurate, direct impingement AR action, and it isn't a bolt rifle. It is a shortened, modified, loose, "CQB-style" M-14 clone with very coarse sights.

That round is perfectly capable of terminal performance well out past 600 yards.Well past that, certainly, but again, the round's capacity isn't in question.


If I understand this correctly the front sight blade on the 16 inch barrel is narrower than the standard M1A blade, is that right?
No, and that's a key issue. The front sight of the SOCOM is a big, chunky, XS Sights post with tritium insert for quick pointing at close range.

See?

http://practical-defense.com/products/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/f/i/file_19.jpg

You could certainly change things about the rifle, from the sights to bedding the action, shims, etc., and possibly get it to tighten up like a match rifle that's had similar treatments, but that's not a SOCOM 16 then.

Workhorse6
July 12, 2012, 04:42 PM
You could certainly change things about the rifle, from the sights to bedding the action, shims, etc., and possibly get it to tighten up like a match rifle that's had similar treatments, but that's not a SOCOM 16 then.

I couldn't have agreed with you more on that Sam. I think if you want that type of accuracy then go with a Squad Scout or Match rifle but, if you want a more compact easy to bring on target rifle then I think SOCOM 16 would fit the bill.

redbullitt
July 12, 2012, 06:23 PM
I have shot one on ipsc torso steel at 400 yards, so no worries. FWIW, my precision rifle has a 16 inch 308 barrel and it has gone to 1000.

Out of the dta with 175s and 43.0g varget, I get 2475 fps. I can't remember the SOCOM's velocity off the top of my head, but probably just a bit less than the DTA.

AK103K
July 12, 2012, 07:17 PM
I had a SOCOM when they first came out. The sights are the major issue for shooting with any precision past 100 yards. The fat front sight bascally covers, or exceeds a "people" target at 100 yards, and the rear sight has been drilled to a ghost ring. Nothing wrong with them if used as intended, but as the range increases, the challenge begins. I was told by Springfield you can replace them with the Scout/Bush model "standard" type sights if you want something a little easier for longer range shooting.

One thing to consider too with all of the different barrel lengths is the number of clicks each requires for the different ranges. For example, at 100 yards, my standard model zero was around 8-10 clicks, my Bush model was 14, and my SOCOM was 22.

I used both a Scout scope and Aimpoint on my SOCOM as well as the irons. My favorite was the Aimpoint, but the scope was OK too. Using ball ammo and the Aimpoint, the SOCOM shoots pretty much like my AKs at around a 100 yards, when shot the same way. The AK's are a lot easier handling wise though, especially when shot realistically.

At this point, I cant say for sure which shot which (hey, Im getting CRS :)), but one was my SOCOM with its Aimpoint, the other one of my AK's with an Aimpoint on it as well(Im thinking the one on the left was te SOCOM). Doesnt really matter though, as they are basically the same.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d700b3127ccec27e7113f8cd00000030O00CYuWbdo5bsQe3nwk/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/

If I were to buy another M1A, Id probably go with a standard rifle with an Ultimak/Aimpoint combo on it. The factory rail on mine was steel, got very hot, very quick, retained that heat a long time, and wasnt even mil spec, so none of my mil spec mounts would fit. The Ultimak is a class act, and works very well.

ROCK6
July 13, 2012, 08:13 AM
A co-worker had his SOCOM 16 at the range yesterday. He was using the .308 EOTech (which I really liked) and had it zeroed. Not sure what his zero was but it was spot on at 300 yards and with a little adjustment, we were making consitent hits out to 400 yards. With better optics, it would be more than capable out to 500 and maybe even 600 yards. The post range goes out to 1000 yards, so we'll eventually get to test that out.

Needless to say, I was impressed for such an "inaccurate" short barrel length;)

I have an older 18" barrel M1A Bush model and I've been able to his man-sized plates at 500 yards very consistently (with assistance of a low-powered optics).

ROCK6

Mot45acp
July 13, 2012, 06:32 PM
My SOCOM 16 would fry electric optics in rapid strings of fire. Nothing like having you're $1400 gun fry your $450 scope. Traded for a scout/squad, which I then traded for a Armalite AR-10 carbine, and haven't looked back.

checkmyswag
July 21, 2012, 12:51 AM
Any of you all mount a legit scope on an M1A SOCOM? Not a quick/short range scope, but a nice accurate long range scope.

What will this rifle REALLY do!?

Welding Rod
July 21, 2012, 01:18 AM
Same answer, about 4 MOA.

I took mine out last weekend. I have tried a new SAI plastic stock, a SAI walnut stock, a SAI heavy walnut stock, and the original GI fiberglass stock. Two of those had good forend draw, one little, and one none. 4-5 MOA, except with the plastic stock it was about 6 MOA.

I have use a red dot and a scope. 4-5 MOA.

I have shimmed the gas cylinder. 4-5 MOA.

I have tried match quality handloads and commercial match ammo. 4-5 MOA.

I can shoot sub 2 MOA with a red dot, as well as with (GI) irons. Somedays I can shoot either close to MOA, with a rilfe that is cabable of doing so. My SOCOM simply isn't.

My guess is it that it has something to do with the muzzle crown blasting gases right into an edge at the back of the interior surface of the muzzle brake. I also noticed my muzzle crown appears to be cut slightly non-concentric. Perhaps that is a contributor.

My gun could not be depended on to make a head shot at 200 yards with any sighting device.

Personally I have had enough of 4 MOA performance and plan to rebarrel and make a full size gun out of it.

Matthew Courtney
July 21, 2012, 01:32 AM
3-4 MOA with a Leupold 3.5-10x50. Nothing under 3 MOA. Nothing over 4 MOA. Very consistent. Never precise. My CMMG averages .5 MOA groups with Barnes Vor Tx TTSX and that same Leupold scope.

checkmyswag
July 21, 2012, 02:01 AM
I read about the Scout being a much better/more accurate long range rifle and it just puzzles me.

2" more barrel makes it THAT much more accurate? I know there sights are vastly different, so with a good scope they shouldn't be that disparate.

How/why?

Matthew Courtney
July 21, 2012, 10:34 PM
When all other factors are equal, shorter barrels are usually more accurate because they are stiffer. Cite your source and/or give us complete information about the accuracy tests involving the Scout model rifles and we may be able to comment intelligently. Data is required for an honest comparison and we have none regarding Scout rifle accuracy.

checkmyswag
July 22, 2012, 12:10 AM
Cite your source and/or give us complete information about the accuracy tests involving the Scout model rifles and we may be able to comment intelligently. Data is required for an honest comparison and we have none regarding Scout rifle accuracy.

That's kind of my point. I heard second hand (usually more distant than that) about how accurate the scout is even at long range and how inaccurate the SOCOM is and I'd like to hear from someone who has indeed compared both properly.

Welding Rod
July 22, 2012, 12:37 AM
I have never fired or even seen a Scout, but I have a Standard, a Loaded, and a SuperMatch and they will all shoot sub 2 MOA 10 round groups.

checkmyswag
July 22, 2012, 12:46 AM
While checking out (at the store, not shooting) the rifles side by side, I have really begun to consider them completely different rifles. Of course they are M1A's modified to whatever extent, but they are far more different than just 2" in length.

I'm interested in a longer range weapon. I think the SOCOM would be terrific for closer ranges.

So mostly looking at M1A Scout Squad and AR10 type rifles now.

The reports here on the separate rifles have been thankful, thanks for the info.

Matthew Courtney
July 22, 2012, 07:52 AM
In post 28 you wrote that you "read" about the scout rifle's superior accuracy, now you write that you "heard" about its accuracy second hand. Perhaps your reports are about as accurate as an actual scout rifle.

checkmyswag
July 22, 2012, 12:07 PM
In post 28 you wrote that you "read" about the scout rifle's superior accuracy, now you write that you "heard" about its accuracy second hand.

Good point.

Perhaps your reports are about as accurate as an actual scout rifle.

Uncalled for.

Wrote a long post and deleted it as second thoughts are often best.

Matthew Courtney and others, thanks for the input and reports on your SOCOM.

To clarify I have heard much and read some about how accurate the Scout is. What I have read I didn't "cite" here as it has been over the past year on various interweb forums and what I was inquiring about is if anyone owned/shot both rifles, set them up the same and had results for each.

Apologies if I was unclear or played loose and fast with the English language.

Been very happy with THR and look forward to more positive interactions.

Think I'll leave it be restated my most concise and clear thoughts on the matter. PM me if anyone wants to discuss more one on one. Thanks all.

I have really begun to consider them completely different rifles. Of course they are M1A's modified to whatever extent, but they are far more different than just 2" in length.

I'm interested in a longer range weapon. I think the SOCOM would be terrific for closer ranges.

So mostly looking at M1A Scout Squad and AR10 type rifles now.

The reports here on the separate rifles have been thankful, thanks for the info.

Rudedog
July 23, 2012, 01:16 AM
Since the SOCOM 16 is a military type weapon, the expectation put upon the military is to qualify with iron sights and hit man size targets at 300 meters.
Most warfighters today use optics as primary sighting systems.

M14, M21, EBRs, and any of the modern AR10 types are being used for their capability to hit/kill beyond the effective range of M4/M16 varmint ammo. That said if I had an SOCOM 16 and couldn't hit a target at 300 meters with irons than I would change out the irons.

Barrel length has nothing to do with accuracy, just velocity. I and others have shot the FN MK17 (SCAR) with a 13" barrel and the ELCAN scope (which is a battle type sight) have consistently hit steel E types at 800 meters from the prone supported.

lefteyedom
November 5, 2012, 02:37 AM
civility is so quickly lost on threads

Sheepdog1968
November 5, 2012, 03:59 AM
Well, I will give you a comparison to help. I have a 30-30 with a 16.75" barrel. I have hit steel 4 out of 5 times at 400 yards. It wasn't luck and I'm sure I could have sat there all day and rang the steel. You likely will have a bit better velocity out of your 30 cal bullets than I do so I wouldn't worry at all out to 400 yards. All I have is the Leupold 2.5 scout scope on my 30-30 which would easily mount your socom-16.

wayne in boca
November 5, 2012, 06:02 AM
I have both a Scout Squad and a Socom 16.The Scout is iron sighted (comes with NM .062 front sight blade and standard M!4 aperture) and is quite accurate (comparable to a full size 22" M1A).I have removed the barrel mounted scope rail and installed a USGI handgard.The Socom wears an Eotech 552 on a GG&G QD base and a Blackhawk strap-on cheek rest.It is equally accurate,but is set up for quick snap shots in deep woods.I have not shot it with the irons for a long time,but I remember the accuracy being respectable.

FSJeeper
November 5, 2012, 08:15 AM
I bought the Socom for a fast handling brush gun using the excellent iron sights it comes with. The sights are what limits the rifle at longer distances, not the rifle itself. For what I bought it for, it is perfect for that role.

So for me, it is a 100 yard rifle due to the sights, nothing else.

helotaxi
November 5, 2012, 09:01 AM
I bought the Socom for a fast handling brush gun using the excellent iron sights it comes with. The sights are what limits the rifle at longer distances, not the rifle itself. For what I bought it for, it is perfect for that role.

So for me, it is a 100 yard rifle due to the sights, nothing else.
However, the guys shooting them with magnified optics are still only getting 3-4 MOA out of them. That rules out the sights as the problem. Seems to me, and this is merely speculation, that the SOCOM gets pigeonholed by SA as a short range rifle and as such gets the short end of the TLC spectrum when getting barreled. Someone mentioned a questionable muzzle crown. Little things like that make a huge difference in precision.

What I'd like to see is a SOCOM that has been gone over be a good M1A smith and had a proper barreling job done. Not necessarily a match barrel from Brux or the like, but just a quality crown and threading job and the flash hider properly installed. From there it would not be getting away from the "spirit" of the SOCOM to bed the action and apply some of the other accuracy tweaks to the rifle. It's not like the M1A in rack grade form is the paragon of accuracy either. The ones that shoot really well do so because someone worked on them to get them to that point.

TCBPATRIOT
November 5, 2012, 05:40 PM
Id rather have the scout model. With the 18 inch plus most aftermarket stocks won't accept the shorter version

jon_in_wv
December 12, 2012, 12:40 PM
Wow, I really like the looks of the Socom 16 and was considering getting one but 3-4MOA? Cripes my Sagia AK does better than that. I think it was Jeff Cooper who said, "Only accurate rifles are interesting." I would expect better of a modern weapon like the Socom 16. Yes it has a lot of power but for closer ranges I would prefer the AK and anything further an AR platform or a bolt action would be better to me. I don't know what niche a 3-4moa 308 fits for a civilian shooter that can't be better filled by other weapons.

AK103K
December 12, 2012, 02:50 PM
I think youre going to find, that the 3moa thing is based on what the ammo will do, more than the rifle. Most GI ammo is spec'd at around 3moa.

Even a 1/4moa gun will only shoot as well as the ammo you put in it.

Matthew Courtney
December 12, 2012, 05:14 PM
I have shot Federal 168gr GMM and Barnes Vor Tx from mine and gotten no better than 3 MOA. Both of those loads are sub MOA from my AR style .308's.

Deputy25
December 12, 2012, 10:51 PM
I use a SOCOM-16 as a patrol rifle. I don't need MOA accuracy (it would be nice), and I can put rounds on a B27 at 200M that would cause problems for a human. I have the SOCOM in the vehicle rack because the 7.62 turns cover into concealment. I can't do that with most 5.56 rounds, if any. My M1A is stone reliable, and the 7.62 can do things that the 5.56 can't do at any range (at least in my experience). I can deal with the SOCOM's limitations as a match rifle because that is not what I use mine for.

Welding Rod
December 12, 2012, 11:36 PM
I think youre going to find, that the 3moa thing is based on what the ammo will do, more than the rifle. Most GI ammo is spec'd at around 3moa.

Even a 1/4moa gun will only shoot as well as the ammo you put in it.

The same loads (handloads with SMKs) that do 1-2 MOA in my other M1As result the dismal results I reported above. I tried special SOCOM loads using IMR 3031 and the results were about the same. Also tried Black Hills match and various commercial loads with similar results.

In my case I can see the barrel crown is off center. Don't know if that is the culpret or not.

AK103K
December 12, 2012, 11:51 PM
My point was, ammo is as much or more of a culprit for less than expected accuracy, than usually the gun itself.

My experience has been with most rifles, that the ammo was the weak point if all I relied on was factory or GI ammo. My reloads usually changed the results, and quite dramatically in some cases.

My SOCOM was no match rifle, but with ammo it liked, it shot better than 3moa, especially when a scope was used and the rifle shot from a rest.

helotaxi
December 13, 2012, 09:15 AM
In my case I can see the barrel crown is off center. Don't know if that is the culprit or not.It certainly isn't helping matters at all. An uneven pressure on the base of the bullet as it exits the bore will throw it off course as well as starting a wobble that may or may not dampen out. None of the above are conducive to consistent accuracy.

MTMilitiaman
December 13, 2012, 10:49 AM
It depends what your definition of "effective" is.

The .308 is a pretty effecient cartridge. You don't need a whole lot of barrel to get some good ballistics out of it. The current trend, as I understand it, is actually to put an 18 to 22 inch barrel on a rifle in that cartridge for shooting out to 1000 yards. You simply don't need the 24 to 26 inch tubes some people insist on.

Talking M1As, the 22 inch barrel on the standard and the 18 inch barrel on the Scout/Squad might get you a little farther out, but you'll only notice the advantage at the farther limits of the cartridges effectiveness. Therefore, unless you intend on shooting 600+ yards on a regular basis, I don't think the longer tube is necessary, or even beneficial. I have an M1A Loaded with a 22 inch barrel. If I had it to do over again, I would have went with a Scout because the 18 inch barrel is the shortest and handiest you can get in that platform without modifying the gas system.

If you're just shooting steel and paper, that rifle's effective range is limited only by you. If you have the optics and capabilities to reach out to 500 yards or more, the rifle should be able to do it. The iron sights on that model simply aren't meant for long range precision, but even with iron sights, you should be able to be accurate and effective out to at least 300 yards. That is a pretty intermediate range for a centerfire rifle. My brother and I have hit five gallon buckets at that range with iron sight equipped SKS regularely enough that I don't think you should have any problems with a more accurate and powerful rifle. Now if you were interested in terminal performance, your range might be a little bit more limited, but with the right ammo and preferrably some decent optics, I wouldn't hestitate to use such a rifle hunting deer-sized game out to at least 200 yards.

EDITTED TO ADD:

My M1A Loaded will do 1.5-2 MOA with cheap WWB 147 gr FMJ and a little better with Hornady 168 gr Match, with iron sights. With optics I could maybe do a little better. I don't have the best eyes. I wonder if the work Springfield had to do to modify the gas system to work reliably from a 16 inch barrel to cause the relative lack of accuracy in the SOCOM models?

I think it was Jeff Cooper who said, "Only accurate rifles are interesting."

Giving credit where it is due, I believe that quote came from Col. Whelen. I could be wrong.

jon_in_wv
December 13, 2012, 10:46 PM
Correct. It was Townsend Whelen.

johnnydollar
December 13, 2012, 11:40 PM
I use a SOCOM-16 as a patrol rifle. I don't need MOA accuracy (it would be nice), and I can put rounds on a B27 at 200M that would cause problems for a human. I have the SOCOM in the vehicle rack because the 7.62 turns cover into concealment. I can't do that with most 5.56 rounds, if any. My M1A is stone reliable, and the 7.62 can do things that the 5.56 can't do at any range (at least in my experience). I can deal with the SOCOM's limitations as a match rifle because that is not what I use mine for.
I agree. The SOCOM-16 is a short range battle rifle that hits harder than the poodle shooting calibers. Mine is certainly accurate enough for that.

If you enjoyed reading about "M1A SOCOM 16 range question(s)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!