M1A Socom II. talk me out of it.

Status
Not open for further replies.
what bruceb and mobuck said. loud, expensive, unattractive, unbalanced, better choices for less money, such as the standard M1A. but that's just my opinion after owning two standard M1A's and being impressed with a squad scout. I wouldn't go any smaller than that, and prefer the standard M1As.
 
I have owned pretty much every M-1a variant and have shot real M-14s extensively.

That said I would never buy another socom. instead opting for the regular size M-1A.
The shorter length of the socom degrades accuracy and they weight almost as much as the full size rifle.

Plus, after years of goofing around with trying to find a good reason for a Scout Scope. I quit... All a scout scope mount does is goof up the barrel harmonics.

So SOCOM : shorter louder and less accurate.
Full Size, more accuracy, more velocity and less muzzle blast. For about the same weight.
 
1st choice for me is full sized national match or super. 2nd choice would be Bush model. Then Scout, SOCOM, then SOCOM II. I've heard of SOCOM II accuracy issues and it is heavy enough without all the additional front end regalia.
 
The first thing I did when I bought mine was to remove the rail system. (It just defeated the purpose of what I wanted out of a short, handy rifle.) For me at least, the rails destroyed the balance of one of the best designed "point and shoot" rifle ever made. It had a front heavy, bulky feel to it. (I bought it because it sported alot of USGI parts).

I bought this SocomII back when they were selling them with USGI synthetic stocks and metal buttplates. The front sling swivel had been removed, as it wasnt much of a use with the rails on it. (Not sure about the new SocomII's).
Once I added added a GI handguard to it along with a sling, it felt more like a rifle of this type should feel. ( I sold off the rails)

Mine has the 24/7 XS front sight post along with a rear sight aperture that is quite a bit wider vs a std aperature. They work well together for what they are designed for from my hands on with them. ( Close quarter shooting/ aquiring targets in low light/ moving targets)

In comparison with my M1A Bush rifle/ M14S Tanker/ M14S 22in bbl......... my findings were that while it's short length makes it handy, it didnt have that much of a difference vs an 18in bbl M14 type to matter. ( Especially with an 18in tube sporting a SEI DC Vortex flash hider with GLFS). Sight radius was very close, as was OAL of both.
The big difference is noticed when comparing the Socom to the 22in bbl M14S with it's 44in of OAL. Much more "user freindly" when using it to hunt hogs in brush, compared to the std 22in bbl types.The iron sights on the Socom are better suited for this type of hunting from my experience. It also shined when moving in and out of vehicles, as well as ATV's, and horses. (Especially with a 10rd mag, or a 5rd flush fit mag)......... Same thing for the 18in variety)

I also didnt notice much difference in one from the other in terms of shooting them, but I firmly believe that hearing damage will be the result around any bbl length M1A without the use of hearing protection, so I cant help much in this dept.

I was impressed with the short little muzzle brake, as it does the intended job quite well. Then again, the other M14 types I have all sport flash hiders. If memory serves here, it did tame muzzle rise a tad bit better than the muzzle brake that the M1A Scout sports.
One other thing I would mention is what the front sight looks like after a few 20rd mags of South African. The front sight post caught alot of residue from it. More so than the Scout's muzzle brake did.

For $ 2000, I would save up a little more cash and have LRB Arms build me a "Tanker" off of thier M14SA or M25 receiver. The extra money for such a build would be worth it to me, as I would end up with a rifle built the exact way I would want it, and be the more versatile of the bunch over a wide range of shooting situations….. plus I got a thing for well made chrome lined bbls.

At the time, I didnt want to wait a year for the build, but looking back now, I wish I would have had more patience.

11B
 
Last edited:
If you want it and if the price does not take food off of the table, get it. If I were interested in one I'd buy it. As it is, I like the M1 Garands as they are genuine US Military and all have some historic value.
 
May not be very accurate - my SOCOM isn't. The balance will suck. The balance will be even worse if put some kind of optic on it. If you don't, the sights suck for any kind of precise shooting. They are made for up close and fast.

Additionally, the workmanship on the M1As is questionable in my experience. I would be sure to give the gun a very thorough inspection before buying. Check for a misclocked barrel, bent sight ears, gouges in the chamber, no fore-end pressure, no clamping pressure on trigger guard closing, sloppy op-rod to receiver fit, an so on.

I have owned the SM, Loaded, Standard, and SOCOM. The Standard or Loaded are my favorites. However the my Standard essentially ruins brass on one firing due to extreme stretching... so I haven't been too head over heels for it either.

The only M1A I have bought that met my expectations was the Loaded, and I like the gun very much, though I prefer the weight of the Standard barrel.
 
M1A's

I have several M1A's and have shot them since the 60's.....I competed with a rack rifle and then a NM in service rifle comp for years, then used a M-21 as a precision rifle "on the job".....I bought a SOCOM II several years ago and use a EO 552 on it or a T-1 aimpoint for close work.....it is heavy with the quad rail.....and LOUD.....but it is a .308 with a short bl.....for me, it is "another tool in the tool box".....handy for getting in and out of vehicles, handy for urban work.....Over the years I have shot and worked with all the main line battle rifles ( FAl's, G-3's,AR's .308 / 5.56, Ak's, Garands, etc), and they all have their pro's and con's....I have a long track record with the M1A / M-14 and they work for me.
 
My experience has not been the best. I've owned four M-14 type rifles. One Norinco and three Springfield Armorys. The Socom I bought was an early version. It had to go back twice and i traded it before a third time. The front sight was like an oak tree (far too wide). I am much happier with a scout squad which doesn't compromise the original gas system.
 
Late to the party and brand-new to the board, but I had to post after reading Welding Rod's post. "gouges in the chamber" is what caught my attention.

I bought a SOCOM II in January of 2010 that was rife with problems from day one. To make a long story short, (because this story is plastered all over the M14 forum), the receiver was "out of spec" (magazines went in and out as if the receiver had been run over by a truck) and there was some serious gouging in the chamber. Also, it stovepiped brass almost every other time you pulled the trigger. Springfield Armory re-barreled it, swapped the receiver for a new one, and gave it back. Mags fit properly, gouging was gone, but it still jammed up. I swapped the bolt guts for GI parts, changed the op-rod spring, and put a Sadlak spring-guide in and the brass finally started to behave. Don't take my word about accuracy, but I gave my m1a to a certain Garand/M14 expert near Trenton, NJ and he was impressed with the accuracy.

I don't know what S.A. does to their guns before shipping them out, but I've never seen gouging like that before in my short life.

Steering this post back on topic... I would probably go with the SOCOM 16 if I had the chance to go back and do it again. The SOCOM II is heavy for a CQB gun and it has more picatinny rail real-estate than I know what to do with (I have the extended rail version of the SOCOM II, because I'm a jerk). The positive side to the weight of the gun is that it reduces felt recoil, which isn't such a bad thing. Nothing I've said here probably helps, so I apologize. S.A. has a fantastic warranty and customer service is great if anything breaks. All that said, I really don't regret my S-II, despite the fact that I said I would probably get the 16 if I had to do it all over again. Do what makes you happy... that is, if you haven't already done it in the past three months.

Pics of the gouges:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22350840/Gouge4.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22350840/Gouge5.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22350840/Gouge6.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22350840/Gouges with arrows.jpg
 
IronPriest:

I can't believe those gouges in the barrel. I've never seen anything like that on any firearm. My own SOCOM 16 is awesome. It is heavy as I installed a McMillan adjustable stock. I also added am ARMS 18 mount. It fires reliably, and is accurate easily keeping 1.5" to 2"ish groups at 100 yards with an EoTech sight. Indoors, the muzzle break does create quite a flash upwards. I don't notice it outdoors. But, it quells recoil nicely too. I can never decide f I like my SOCOM 16, or my M1A Loaded better. Different rifles, different applications I suppose. As to the OP's question of the SOCOM II, I looked at it and found it felt bulky, and awkward, so I went with the SOCOM 16.

Geno
 
I think you could do better for $2000. For that kind of dough, you could almost get an M-14 with a forged receiver, mil spec parts, and chome lined barrel from one of the higher end vendors like 7.62mm Arms, Smith, or Fulton, instead of the commercial spec Springfield. Like others have said, if you must have a carbine version, the Scout or Bush type rifles with 18" barrels are preferable. They have more GI parts compatibility instead of the funky gas system and muzzle device of the SOCOM, and handle just as well if not better. If you want a forward mounted optic, Ultimak's M8 rail is a lot better than any of the factory rails. It is lighter and sits lower, so you can actually co-witness a red dot with the irons.

Other options that I think would be better include the S&W M&P 10 and Armalite AR-10, both in the $1500 range.
 
I was horrified when I saw the gouges. No one who has seen the pictures, including S.A., has been able to offer up an explanation. I didn't ram anything down the barrel, either, so that takes my own foolishness out of the equation.

Looking back at the things for which I've used my SOCOM II, I probably would have been better off with the SOCOM 16, Geno. The McMillan's added weight combined with the SOCOM's flash suppressor really do a great job with recoil, haha. I only sort-of notice the flash at indoor ranges, but it's invisible outside. I have Ruger's AR15 and since I live in New Jersey, they shipped it here with a naked barrel. It puts out way more flash than my m1a.

The worst part about its bulkiness are the two bolts on the left side that attach to the receiver and the VLTOR rails. I hate them with a passion. They dig into my back and seem to get caught up on everything from straps to slings to clothing and more. I can hardly believe that VLTOR couldn't machine or find bolts that were less obtrusive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
SOCOM II vs Standard M14
Replies
22
Views
3K
lamazza
L
J
  • Locked
Springfield SOCOM question...
Replies
3
Views
552
H2O MAN
H
1
  • Locked
Contemplating a SOCOM M1A
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Kingcreek
K
G
  • Locked
I need recommendations for a bipod for an M1A Socom
Replies
5
Views
480
geekWithA.45
G
D
  • Locked
Springfield Armory SOCOM II
Replies
14
Views
1K
Browns Fan
B
Back
Top