Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sell a DSA SA58 for a SOCOM 16?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Henry-Krinkle, Mar 1, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Henry-Krinkle

    Henry-Krinkle Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    34
    Hey guys I gonna gonna down size my collection and thinking about getting rid of a few firearms and replacing some. I've been pondering the idea of gettin rid of my dsa sa58 carbine and getting a Socom 16 as a replacement. I've been wanting a M1a type platform, and also I think that the socom has a better mount for optics and alittle bit better accuracy than the FAL carbine.. Does anyone have a socom 16 here on the forum that can help me make my decision?

    Thanks
    HK
     
  2. henschman

    henschman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Better accuracy? Maybe. But not necessarily a better mount for optics. I guess it depends on what type of optics you want to use. If you're talking about mounting a scope over the receiver, you can get it lower over the bore on a FAL with a dust cover scope mount than you could on an M1A with a receiver mount, which means you don't need as high of a cheek riser.

    But if you're talking about a red dot, like an Aimpoint, you can actually get one lower on an M1A. In fact, with an Ultimak scout mount, you can get an Aimpoint to co-witness with the iron sights, and you don't need a cheek riser at all. Unfortunately they don't make any low scout mounts like the Ultimak for the FAL, and the dust covers are just high enough that you can't get a co-witness, even with the red dot in a low ring.
     
  3. Robert

    Robert Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    10,418
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    I'd rather have the FAL.
     
  4. axeman_g

    axeman_g Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,153
    Location:
    South Jersey
    if your looking to put an optic on the socom you are prob talking a forward mount, correct? if you add the dsa mount for $180 you will get better battle accuracy, a gun that is easier to use, faster in a pinch and less obnoxiously loud at the range. those socoms can clear a firimg line.
    if you want an accurate m1a get a loaded versio..SA is offerimg them on special right now. only 50 more the a standard.
     
  5. Z-Michigan

    Z-Michigan Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    Michigan
    I would keep the FAL. If you switch you'd be going to worse ergonomics; more felt recoil; slower and more difficult mag changes; no adjustability; slightly lower quality on the barrel, action parts, and almost everything else; inferior optic mounting options; etc. Probably lower accuracy too - while some M1A types are very accurate (Loaded and match models) the SOCOM 16 has a pretty poor reputation for accuracy, and would probably not group any better if even as good as your SA58.
     
  6. BruceB

    BruceB Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    718
    Location:
    nevada
    I agree....keep the FAL.

    The SOCOM (I think) is one of the worst perversions of a decent rifle design that I've ever handled or fired. I truly enjoy the full-size M1A, and even the Scout Squad....but I CANNOT abide the monstrosity called "SOCOM".

    I'm no spring chicken, having owned M1As, M14s, FALs etc for the last forty years and more. I will say this in all seriousness: You could not GIVE me a SOCOM (unless I had an instant way to turn it into cash ....or a decent rifle.) I reckon that should give you an idea about my thinking....

    Hmmm. I guess I AM an opinionated ol' f--t!
     
  7. nyc71

    nyc71 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    313
    I wonder how many of the commentators actually have/had a SOCOM to give such low opinions.
    I love mine but I would like to own a FAL too.



    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"- Benjamin Franklin
     
  8. Z-Michigan

    Z-Michigan Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    Michigan
    I've had two Springfield "loaded" M1As, an SA-58, and a couple other FALs. Haven't owned a SOCOM-16 but I've handled them several times. Not many rifle designs adapt well to losing 6" of their original barrel length, and the M1A is the second least adaptable of any I can think of (Garand the very worst).

    I like the M1A as the ultimate evolution of a pre-WWII infantryman's rifle with power and accuracy.... and weight and length and limited adaptability. The FAL is a more modern design (albeit still over 50 years old) with better ergonomics and flexibility. I would take a quality M1A over any FAL for Camp Perry, but the 16" SOCOM with its funky operating system changes and all just doesn't do anything for me.
     
  9. xxxleafybugxxx

    xxxleafybugxxx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    333
    I say go for it. IMO any M1a, rifle is going to better than a FAL
     
  10. Z-Michigan

    Z-Michigan Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    Michigan
    Have you owned or extensively used examples of both types?
     
  11. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,609
    Location:
    Arizona
    I'd say some of the advice isn't really taking into account that you in fact already own the DSA.

    Having been down both roads and actually still being in the position, I would maybe look at it another way. If I had both and could - for whatever reason - only keep one, based directly on my experience it would be the FAL platform over a fully aftermarket M-14 platform.
     
  12. xxxleafybugxxx

    xxxleafybugxxx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    333
    Z michigan, I have only owned an M1a. Have not ever had an FAL, but based on the fact that I bought an M1a over a FAL, it goes to show I would rather have the M1a.
    All I'm doing is offering MY opinion :D
     
  13. unit91

    unit91 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    88
    Agreed. I've shot several boxes through 2 SOCOM 16s and was highly disappointed with the accuracy in both cases. Thank God I didn't own them!
     
  14. Limey46

    Limey46 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    177
    Another vote for the FAL. I bought a SOCOM and did by best to like it, but failed. It's loud, heavy, badly balanced, hard-recoiling, and inaccurate -- the sawed-off shotgun of battle rifles, basically. I understand the marketing concept (I fell for it, after all), but really...
     
  15. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Having owned both, I can say that both have their merits. The M1a will be slightly more accurate in full battle length configurations. 16" Fal rifles typically fare no better than a Socom 16. Both have had battles with decent scope mounting systems. The ergonomic equalizer with the M1a is a Sage stock.

    It all boils down to personal preference. I'm on my third M1a and have owned both DSA and frankelfal rifles built on Imbel recievers. My current M1a, and keeper is a 18" Scout.
     
  16. Z-Michigan

    Z-Michigan Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    Michigan
    So by adding a $700-850 stock I can make a $1300-1600 M1A comparable to a $1100 DS Arms FAL (or $1500-1650 DSA SA-58 model)? Somehow that doesn't sound so appealing.

    Agree on the personal preference. But really at this point someone just looking for function should be looking at a LMT MWS or FN SCAR 17S, or possibly some of the less expensive .308 AR platforms.
     
  17. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,132
    The quality of the M1As goes down in inverse proportion to the number of USGI parts that are used to make it.

    In the 4 day rifle class I did our one M1A shooters MIM ejector broke and he switched to his backup rifle. The only other failure was a S&W M&P AR15 whose dis-connector broke.

    I'd stick with the FAL.

    BSW
     
  18. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,609
    Location:
    Arizona
    I've got a Sage on one of my Armscorp receiver m-14s and only really keep it 'cause it looks cool. It's heavy enough as is but then I had to reinforce the extender arms with internal steel rods raising the weight even more.

    One day, I'll be slipping her back into a GI fiberglass stock and selling on that crew-served weapon bed and never look back.

    Did I mention it was heavy?
     
  19. Henry-Krinkle

    Henry-Krinkle Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    34
    Thanks for thr advice guys. So I guess, I'm keeping the FAL lol.... :eek: I really wanted another battle rifle that was as reliable as the FAL. My little hang up with the FAL when you want to scope it is the DSA scope mount. To me it just seems flimsy and too bulky for the top of the rifle reciever.

    I looked into the SCAR17 and an AR in 308, but being in a banned state there is no way I'll be able to own high cap mags for the rifle . I don't own a M1a type rifle and the short stout carbine appealed to me. Also after watch a review by hickok45 on youtube I really I got the "I gotta have that" feeling. Just need to make room in my safe and I don't know which one I gotta let go. You guys will probably comment " you need a bigger safe" lol.
     
  20. ol' scratch

    ol' scratch Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,382
    Location:
    South of Hell....Michigan.
    I have not owned an M1A SOCOM, but a friend let me shoot his. I handed it back quickly. Muzzle blast from the M1A was too much for me. Perceived recoil was also higher. I would say keep your FAL over the 16 inch SOCOM.
     
  21. Limey46

    Limey46 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    177
    My experience with the DSA scope mount has been good. I had one on a para FAL with a fairly heavy 1X-4X tactical scope in Warne QD rings, and it was solid as could be, no problems. Now I have one on an Aussie L1A1 with an Elcan C79 scope, certainly no lightweight, and again, so far so good.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  22. Henry-Krinkle

    Henry-Krinkle Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    34
  23. Z-Michigan

    Z-Michigan Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    Michigan
    Never saw that one before. I'm skeptical about its durability and holding zero, and it doesn't cost much less than a DSA. But if you buy one, report back on how it works.
     
  24. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,132
    In my experience optics mounts that use existing dust covers are total carp.

    BSW
     
  25. zeke

    zeke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    638
    Location:
    NW Wi
    Have always justified owning em both at same time, before deciding to sell one off.

    Own 16 in DSA sa58 and Socom. In stock config, the Fal has it for balance, controllability, accuracy and easy maintenance. The Socom needed new muzzle crown, viltor stock and rail detachment to equal the controllability, accuracy and balance of the FAL. Neither has a scope.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page