M1A SOCOM 16

[HPCadm17]

I tripped over one of these at the LGS and convinced myself that I needed it. I've wanted an M1A for a long time, and with these being rare as hen's teeth around here, I decided it was time.

This rifle is tons of fun, accurate enough for anything out to 100 yards. Much beyond that the shooter (me) is the limiting factor. On the off chance that I would ever use it on a hunt, due to the relatively small scale of property where on can legally hunt around here, I'd be very unlikely to tag something beyond 75 yards anyway.

Being a short barrel .308 it tends toward the loud side, thus I welcome any recommendations from the experts regarding factory loads that tame this to some degree. It is what it is, so I don't expect miracles. Some folks mention that faster powders are better at reducing report, but I'm not equipped for reloading and don't have the wherewithal to experiment with that.

Overall this is a nice, but strange little battle rifle. Not as tactical or practical as my AR, but still makes for a very satisfying day at the range.

 

[Charlie98]

Love me some Socom16...



If you are saddled with factory ammos, you are kind of limited. I will say the Hornady TAP 110grn load is a lot of fun to shoot... significantly less recoil than the standard 150grn surplus, or anything heavier. Stay away from ammo like Hornady's Superformance... not only is the purpose lost with the 16" barrel, but the way it works isn't kind to the M1a action. I fired exactly 3 rounds of it through mine and gave it up. Beyond that... the short barrel and muzzle brake make it loud no matter what ammo you use.

 

[AlexanderA]

I would have passed on it. The shortened barrel is too much of a deviation from the original concept.

 

[Charlie98]

The shortened barrel is too much of a deviation from the original concept.

That's like saying the M4 is too much of a deviation from the original M16. Functionally, the Socom and the standard M1a are the same, just the shorter barrel and the optic mount. The 'original concept' of any weapon very often gets morphed into something else...

 

[AlexanderA]

That's like saying the M4 is too much of a deviation from the original M16. Functionally, the Socom and the standard M1a are the same, just the shorter barrel and the optic mount. The 'original concept' of any weapon very often gets morphed into something else...

This reminds me of the spate of shortened "Tanker" Garands that hit the surplus market in the 1960's. "Tanker" Garands never existed in the military. This was a way of selling reclaimed demilled guns. The very first Garand I bought was such a reclaimed demilled gun. I didn't know any better at the time. But later I realized that the receiver was made of two halves welded back together, and the barrel was reamed out and sleeved with a turned-down surplus Springfield barrel. I've kept the gun as a reminder of my early collecting mistakes.

Short-barrel M14's are not military. Like the "Tanker" Garands, I don't think such things were ever issued.

 

[entropy]

I think the 18" Squad Scout is the perfect length, but the SOCOM's are nice also. An LGS has both, and the only reason I don't bite is that's just another caliber I'd have to reload.

 

[Charlie98]

Never said they were military issue, but similar rifles were developed and put into service... the SOPMOD and EBR, for example.

The Tanker Garand... I always thought those were quite odd, although I'll bet it was pretty handy. I lucked out on my Garand... I bought a FedOrd rebuild back in the '90's. Thankfully, it was a one piece receiver with a new barrel, although FedOrd was known later to ship anything they could put together out the door. Mine is a piece of junk, but it shoots and I like it.

 

[Charlie98]

I think the 18" Squad Scout is the perfect length, but the SOCOM's are nice also.

I originally tried to buy a Scout. None anywhere locally, so I emailed Springfield... they said they were not slated for production any time soon, so too bad. I went to the LGS with the intention of buying a Loaded Standard... but that crazy Socom16 was hanging on the wall below the Standard... and I came home with it, instead. No regrets. Only down-side to the Socom is the proprietary gas lock and muzzle device.

 

[trackskippy]

Not to pee in anyones Cheerios...

Ive had Standard, Bush, and SOCOM models and dont have a one now. If I were to get another, it would be another Standard model (preferably one from the 80's), and unless Springfield gets its **** together, that ain't likely to happen any time soon.

I got my SOCOM when they first came out, and it had a number of issues with it that soured me on it pretty quick.

They had modified a glass GI stock, and did a piss poor job of it, and then swore to me on the phone it wasnt. They had ground off the molded-in checkering on the grip and forearm and put something like a bed liner finish on it. As soon as the brass started knocking the bed liner paint off, it was really obvious.

The fit and finish on the metal wasnt all that great, and you couldnt take the gun down to clean it without a tool of some sort (to get the bolt out). At the time, they were also having issues with the bolt lugs shearing off. Luckily, I didnt have that happen, but it was always in your mind while shooing it.

The rail wasnt Picatinny (Weaver, maybe) and wouldnt take any of my lever mounts that were. They swore up and down that it was too and couldn't explain why the real stuff wouldn't fit on it. It was also steel and quickly got hot and remained hot, and hot enough you couldn't touch it.

The sights are at best, 75-100 yard sights, and fine for that, but youre better off replacing them with a standard set if you want any real precision.

I had a Scout scope, and a red dot on the rail, and between the two, the red dot would be my choice, as long as it doesnt get cooked and you can deal with the height. Personally, Id ditch the Springfield mount and put an Ultimak on it. It will get the sight lower and make it more shootable. They arent steel either, and dont hold the heat. They also are a true Picatinny rail.

About all you gain with the shorter barrels is, they are a little handier, and that's really it. The guns weigh about the same (you dont shed pounds with a few inches of barrel), and you lose a good bit of velocity with the shorter barrels.

If you use the iron sights, your sight settings will not be the same as the standard length barrel, and you use up a lot of the click adjustments with the shorter barrels. My standard guns usually had an 8-10 click setting for a 100 yard zero. My Bush model was around 14, and my SOCOM was 22.

The brake they have on it actually works pretty well, but if youre shooting around others, especially in an enclosed area, youre not going to be very popular.

 

[Charlie98]

My Socom is a pretty early one... 2007. It has the USGI fiberglass stock on it, too. Personally, mine's been tip-top; I wasn't aware USGI 'glass had checkering at all. That is opposed to the new SAI plastic stocks, which do. I do agree about the forward mount turning into a heat sink... that's one of the reasons I took mine off. I would also agree about the Ultimak being a good solution if you want an optic... it would certainly be better than the other options, including the stock Scout rail. As far as fitment... mine disassembles and reassembles without problems, only tool needed is a wrench to get the gas plug out.

There is no doubt the Socom is a niche weapon... it is not a standard M14/M1a, that's true enough.

The brake they have on it actually works pretty well, but if youre shooting around others, especially in an enclosed area, youre not going to be very popular.

Shoot... shooting it indoors... I hate myself when I'm done.

 

[silicosys4]

This reminds me of the spate of shortened "Tanker" Garands that hit the surplus market in the 1960's. "Tanker" Garands never existed in the military. This was a way of selling reclaimed demilled guns. The very first Garand I bought was such a reclaimed demilled gun. I didn't know any better at the time. But later I realized that the receiver was made of two halves welded back together, and the barrel was reamed out and sleeved with a turned-down surplus Springfield barrel. I've kept the gun as a reminder of my early collecting mistakes.

Short-barrel M14's are not military. Like the "Tanker" Garands, I don't think such things were ever issued.

Your evidence that the socom 16 is a bad rifle is your m1 tanker that was welded together from chopped up receivers by a small-time gunshop 60 years ago?

Shortening a barrel by a few inches isn't rocket science for a hobbyist, let alone a big company like SA with an actual R&D division and it sure isn't the same as a small gun shop inventing a concept wholecloth by welding chopped receivers together.

 

[dredd]

Congrats on the new rig.

I picked up a Socom 16 over 3 years ago. It was on sale at PSA, so I jumped on it.
It had the tuperware stock. I dropped it into some wood shortly after.

Since it's not a "real M1A".
I put it in a not "real M1A" stock.

Go to M14forum.com if you are not familiar with it already.
Be careful, you can end up going down lots of different Rabbit Holes!!! LOL

Mine has been working just fine.
I also reload for it.

Stick with standard M80 type ammo and you will be fine.
Their operating systems don't like running too fast, being over gassed etc.

You will probably see an accuracy improvement (from the shooter) by changing up the irons a bit.
I narrowed the front and went with a smaller aperture in the rear. It wasn't the little national match.
I don't remember the size right now.

Enjoy your rifle!!!

Below is my nasty Socom 16 in its sacrilegious furniture.

 

[silicosys4]

Congrats on the new rig.

I picked up a Socom 16 over 3 years ago. It was on sale at PSA, so I jumped on it.
It had the tuperware stock. I dropped it into some wood shortly after.

Since it's not a "real M1A".
I put it in a not "real M1A" stock.

Go to M14forum.com if you are not familiar with it already.
Be careful, you can end up going down lots of different Rabbit Holes!!! LOL

Mine has been working just fine.
I also reload for it.

Stick with standard M80 type ammo and you will be fine.
Their operating systems don't like running too fast, being over gassed etc.

You will probably see an accuracy improvement (from the shooter) by changing up the irons a bit.
I narrowed the front and went with a smaller aperture in the rear. It wasn't the little national match.
I don't remember the size right now.

Enjoy your rifle!!!

Below is my nasty Socom 16 in its sacrilegious furniture.


View attachment 1127190

What stock is that?

 

[dredd]

Dupage Trading Company, LLC
https://www.dupagetrading.com

They have lots of offerings.

It looks like prices have gone up over the years.
I think I paid $150 for mine. It's $255 now

They have new production Walnut M14's for $150 plus $60 for the Hand Guard.

My rig dropped right in with ZERO fitting required.

 

[AlexanderA]

Your evidence that the socom 16 is a bad rifle is your m1 tanker that was welded together from chopped up receivers by a small-time gunshop 60 years ago?

Just to clarify, my reclaimed M1 (which I still have) is not a "tanker" model. To all intents and purposes, it looks like a standard issue GI gun. You can only see the telltale signs of the rebuild upon close examination. My first hint that something was wrong was when I tried to use it in a Highpower match, and I had a bunch of malfunctions. Very embarrassing. But because of that competition, I was able to obtain a for-real DCM M1 -- those were doled out only to competitors, and there was a limit of one per lifetime.

These rebuilds were not done by small shops. In the early 1960's, surplus M1's had not yet been released to the public. But there was heavy demand to get them. So some enterprising companies obtained tens of thousands of scrap-metal cut up receivers and other parts, and rebuilt them on an assembly-line basis. These were sold through mass outlets like Sears and Montgomery Ward, for around $80. That was expensive, since around the same time you could buy a surplus Lee-Enfield for about $12.

I bought my first M1A in 1973 for $250. This gun, serial number under 1,000, was one of the first put together by Elmer Ballance, before he sold the rights to "Springfield Armory™" to the Illinois company. Such "Devine, Texas" guns are worth a fortune today. They are made of all GI parts except for the receiver. Subsequently, the quality of M1A's steadily went down, as the supply of GI parts dried up. Here's mine:

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

They look awesome, handle great and I would get one.....

......but they are too damn loud.

 

[silicosys4]

Just to clarify, my reclaimed M1 (which I still have) is not a "tanker" model. To all intents and purposes, it looks like a standard issue GI gun. You can only see the telltale signs of the rebuild upon close examination. My first hint that something was wrong was when I tried to use it in a Highpower match, and I had a bunch of malfunctions. Very embarrassing. But because of that competition, I was able to obtain a for-real DCM M1 -- those were doled out only to competitors, and there was a limit of one per lifetime.

These rebuilds were not done by small shops. In the early 1960's, surplus M1's had not yet been released to the public. But there was heavy demand to get them. So some enterprising companies obtained tens of thousands of scrap-metal cut up receivers and other parts, and rebuilt them on an assembly-line basis. These were sold through mass outlets like Sears and Montgomery Ward, for around $80. That was expensive, since around the same time you could buy a surplus Lee-Enfield for about $12.

I bought my first M1A in 1973 for $250. This gun, serial number under 1,000, was one of the first put together by Elmer Ballance, before he sold the rights to "Springfield Armory™" to the Illinois company. Such "Devine, Texas" guns are worth a fortune today. They are made of all GI parts except for the receiver. Subsequently, the quality of M1A's steadily went down, as the supply of GI parts dried up. Here's mine:

View attachment 1127210

Ok so if I'm following you right, you think the socom 16 is a bad rifle because you heard that 60 years ago m1 tankers were garbage with rewelded receivers,
You bought a non-tanker m1 with a rewelded receiver that was garbage
The tanker had a short barrel and a rewelded receiver, your standard m1 had a rewelded receiver, both were garbage,

therefore your conclusion is that....short barrels are a problem? I think it has more to do with the rewelded receiver....because SA makes a good short barreled M1A, sorry to break it to you. Here's mine, and I prefer it far more than the military standard length barrel.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

Just to clarify, my reclaimed M1 (which I still have) is not a "tanker" model. To all intents and purposes, it looks like a standard issue GI gun. You can only see the telltale signs of the rebuild upon close examination. My first hint that something was wrong was when I tried to use it in a Highpower match, and I had a bunch of malfunctions. Very embarrassing. But because of that competition, I was able to obtain a for-real DCM M1 -- those were doled out only to competitors, and there was a limit of one per lifetime.

These rebuilds were not done by small shops. In the early 1960's, surplus M1's had not yet been released to the public. But there was heavy demand to get them. So some enterprising companies obtained tens of thousands of scrap-metal cut up receivers and other parts, and rebuilt them on an assembly-line basis. These were sold through mass outlets like Sears and Montgomery Ward, for around $80. That was expensive, since around the same time you could buy a surplus Lee-Enfield for about $12.

I bought my first M1A in 1973 for $250. This gun, serial number under 1,000, was one of the first put together by Elmer Ballance, before he sold the rights to "Springfield Armory™" to the Illinois company. Such "Devine, Texas" guns are worth a fortune today. They are made of all GI parts except for the receiver. Subsequently, the quality of M1A's steadily went down, as the supply of GI parts dried up. Here's mine:

View attachment 1127210

That's a beautiful m14.

Would you mind sending me pics of your tanker Garand ?

 

[JT-AR-MG42]

......but they are too damn loud

if youre shooting around others, especially in an enclosed area, youre not going to be very popular.

You got that right.
A dealer friend got a like new socom with the black stock in from an estate and offered it to me for 6 (what he had in it).
I was pumped to buy it until he fired several rounds to test function.
'No thanks' I told him, 'sell it to someone who doesn't care about their buddy's hearing'.

JT

 

[AlexanderA]

Would you mind sending me pics of your tanker Garand ?

First of all, it's not a "Tanker" Garand. It's a regular infantry rifle that was brought back from the dead, so to speak. Here's the front:



Here's the receiver section. Notice the rough machining in the op rod channel, where they had welded the halves of the receiver back together. This is a Winchester, according to the markings on the heel. Whether the front of the receiver was also a Winchester, is an open question. The sling, btw, is an early-war M1923. An original M1923 sling, like this one, is hard to find. Reproductions are being made.

 

[Whiskeyhotel2020]

View media item 3361 Congrats on the purchase. I wanted a SOCOM16 since they were introduced by Springfield. They were scarce at best and anytime I came across one it was outta my price range. I got my first chance to shoot one while I was working for a gun shop/ range. They had one for rent so I picked up a box of ammo and headed into the range. I was warned about the muzzle blast so didn't pay attention to it. What sold me was the fact my sights barely move from shot to shot. I was in love.

Years had gone by and I started to think maybe it would be a waste to pick up a SOCOM16 when the Scout Squad seemed to fall in the middle of a "real M1A" and the SOCOM16. Then my boys were born and the rifle faded from my mind mostly do to the fact that no one had them around here and getting one ordered was next to impossible. Then one fine day in 2020 while visiting a local gun store I spotted what appeared to be a SOCOM16, however it was different. I picked it off the wall and was amazed to find that Promag and Springfield had come together and brought out the SOCOM CQB. Wow that's cool and I can put it on layaway? Eff yeah! Not the rifle I left that store with however.

Nope instead the sales person brought out my rifle. She was very lightly used and already set up with a Burris 2.75X scout scope. Dressed in wood and the original stock would come with it. I didn't hesitate. I knew that rifle was going to be in my possession in a few short weeks (had to wait for my permit to purchase paperwork).

I call her Vera (after Adam Baldwin's character Jane favorite piece in Firefly) and she hasn't had a hiccup yet.

I hope your SOCOM brings you as much joy. I am thinking of getting a Delta14 chassis to drop her in for the simple fact I find having a pistol grip more comfort able than the traditional stock.

 

[1KPerDay]

This reminds me of the spate of shortened "Tanker" Garands that hit the surplus market in the 1960's. "Tanker" Garands never existed in the military. This was a way of selling reclaimed demilled guns. The very first Garand I bought was such a reclaimed demilled gun. I didn't know any better at the time. But later I realized that the receiver was made of two halves welded back together, and the barrel was reamed out and sleeved with a turned-down surplus Springfield barrel. I've kept the gun as a reminder of my early collecting mistakes.

Short-barrel M14's are not military. Like the "Tanker" Garands, I don't think such things were ever issued.

who gives a crap?

 

[Kingcreek]

I already had a M1a supermatch when they came out with the”Bush Rifle” around 1990 and before the scout version. I bought one with walnut stock and replaced the flash hider with a smith brake. Yeah it’s loud but mine is quite accurate and a blast (literally!) to shoot. I like the 18” barrel and never had any desire to go shorter.

 

[Charlie98]

and a blast (literally!) to shoot.

My first range session with my Socom... I had to go to an indoor range. Terrible range, poorly lit. I had some different ammos for it, including some steel-cased Monarch (Academy Sports house brand, made by Barnaul, I believe...) I figured I'd fire the cheap stuff, first, to get a feel for the rifle, so I put loaded up some of that Monarch. That stuff blew a 8-10" flame up out of the muzzle brake every shot... it was like getting zapped with the high-beams! Thankfully, I only bought 2 boxes of that junk...

 

[AlexanderA]

My first range session with my Socom... I had to go to an indoor range. Terrible range, poorly lit. I had some different ammos for it, including some steel-cased Monarch (Academy Sports house brand, made by Barnaul, I believe...) I figured I'd fire the cheap stuff, first, to get a feel for the rifle, so I put loaded up some of that Monarch. That stuff blew a 8-10" flame up out of the muzzle brake every shot... it was like getting zapped with the high-beams! Thankfully, I only bought 2 boxes of that junk...

This exactly points out the drawbacks of the short barrel. The Army adopted the length of the issued rifle for a reason.