Socom II poll
- Thread starter taliv
- Start date
- Status
Cpl Punishment
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 118
Father Knows Best
Member
Cpl Punishment said:
+1.
Having carried an M-14 in combat, it is a sturdy, reliable and accurate combat RIFLE, not a "gimmick" that needs after-market doo-dads added on to make it look "cool".
The SOCOM II is no longer a RIFLE, in my opinion. Where is the forearm? How many doo-dads need to be removed before it is returned to being a RIFLE?
No one seems to believe in the "KISS" theory of combat weapons anymore ("Keep It Simple, Stupid")!
The more intricate the doo-dads get, the more subject to FAILURE they become! "HMM! Batteries for the doo-dad's dead!" "HMM! What's this little nub on the front of the barrel, and the small little hole on the back of the rifle used for? Oh, they're sights? No, my doo-dad that uses batteries is the sight, isn't it?" "HMM! What's a forearm?"
"HMM! Why is this rifle, with all of the doo-dads, so HEAVY?"
Just my "dos centavos"!
The SOCOM II is no longer a RIFLE, in my opinion. Where is the forearm? How many doo-dads need to be removed before it is returned to being a RIFLE?
No one seems to believe in the "KISS" theory of combat weapons anymore ("Keep It Simple, Stupid")!
The more intricate the doo-dads get, the more subject to FAILURE they become! "HMM! Batteries for the doo-dad's dead!" "HMM! What's this little nub on the front of the barrel, and the small little hole on the back of the rifle used for? Oh, they're sights? No, my doo-dad that uses batteries is the sight, isn't it?" "HMM! What's a forearm?"
"HMM! Why is this rifle, with all of the doo-dads, so HEAVY?"
Just my "dos centavos"!
iamkris
Member
My view is that there are about 2 too many rails on this. One on top for optics would have done it. Shortening the platform wasn't too bad of an idea but they are trying to make it into a CQB weapon which the M1A isn't meant to be. I like the standard SOCOM.
DMK
Member
Personally, I think the Socom 16 is more realistic and I think the 18" barreled Scout Squad is right about perfect.
thanks for supplying the pic, sgt.
quick, onmilo, patent that picatinny snack pouch adapter idea! you'll make a fortune! and why not a camelbak buttstock? you could drink w/o losing your sight picture, and the water could reduce recoil (until you drink it all)
for the record, the socom I rocks.
quick, onmilo, patent that picatinny snack pouch adapter idea! you'll make a fortune! and why not a camelbak buttstock? you could drink w/o losing your sight picture, and the water could reduce recoil (until you drink it all)
for the record, the socom I rocks.
Jesse308
Member
+2
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The neat thing about all those doodads is they add actual functionality to the weapon. The neat thing about the Picatinny rail is you can remove the doodads if you don't need them but the doodads will still be zeroed and properly in place next time you attach them.
Everybody likes to harp on KISS; but the fact is the Picatinny rail means you can always go from complex to simple if you need to. A plain smooth KISS rifle is as complex as it is ever going to get without major modification.
Everybody likes to harp on KISS; but the fact is the Picatinny rail means you can always go from complex to simple if you need to. A plain smooth KISS rifle is as complex as it is ever going to get without major modification.
Red Tornado
Member
+1
It looks like Springfield's going overboard trying to woo the AR-15 crowd. If you like it, get it, more power to you.
However, the M1/M1A crowd realizes that you're just adding unnecessary stuff to an excellent battle rifle platform.
There is this thing going around on the internet right now, where it is cool to mock "tactical" stuff. Hey, more power to you. But rail systems add functionality to the gun. An IR laser along with some NODs is not a gimmick. Vertical foregrips are not gimmicks. And reddot sights are certainly not gimmicks. If something helps you shoot better, and it actually works, it isn't a gimmick.
So if somebody wants a really short .308, and they want to be able to accesorize it. Good for them. Not all guns need to be pretty walnut and blued steel and just like what grandpa used to shoot.
So if somebody wants a really short .308, and they want to be able to accesorize it. Good for them. Not all guns need to be pretty walnut and blued steel and just like what grandpa used to shoot.
i like it. it's like an AR-10 but not crappy.
the rails are handy for anything that you might want to put on it. short barrel is good for CQB, and it's still accuarate to, what, 500yds? i'd especially like it is SA came out with a Socom III - just like the II but with only one or two pictanny's - more simplified like the scout squad.
~TMM
the rails are handy for anything that you might want to put on it. short barrel is good for CQB, and it's still accuarate to, what, 500yds? i'd especially like it is SA came out with a Socom III - just like the II but with only one or two pictanny's - more simplified like the scout squad.
~TMM
hey, i'm not knocking tactical stuff. i've got a 16" AR with quad rail forearm. and it's got an IR laser and NVS on it. I'm actually using 3 of the four rails (I made a brass catcher on an ARMS throw lever that's mounted on the right rail).
it works like a champ and I love it.
but... the AR is sort of made for that. the quad rail IS the forearm. it's not a thin piece of sheet metal that adds an extra 3-4 inches of circumference around forearm. adding that stuff to an AR doesn't change the balance of the gun as dramatically as it does on the socom II, because it's not as far forward. it doesn't interfere with the natural position of your hand on the forearm.
i guess my beef is that the optimal config might need just one or two rails. for the sake of flexibility, to accomodate each individuals' tastes and make it infinitely customizable, they've created something that's a bit less useful for everyone. i.e. is it really that hard to tap a couple holes on the right/left/bottom of the forearm and let people put a regular rail there if they want one?
i could have an ir laser on a 3" rail on the right, and a flashlight on a 3" rail on the left and still have a place to put my hand on the bottom AND my pretty traditional profile (in wood or plastic)
what they've created just FEELS awkward, even if it looks good on the spec sheet
it works like a champ and I love it.
but... the AR is sort of made for that. the quad rail IS the forearm. it's not a thin piece of sheet metal that adds an extra 3-4 inches of circumference around forearm. adding that stuff to an AR doesn't change the balance of the gun as dramatically as it does on the socom II, because it's not as far forward. it doesn't interfere with the natural position of your hand on the forearm.
i guess my beef is that the optimal config might need just one or two rails. for the sake of flexibility, to accomodate each individuals' tastes and make it infinitely customizable, they've created something that's a bit less useful for everyone. i.e. is it really that hard to tap a couple holes on the right/left/bottom of the forearm and let people put a regular rail there if they want one?
i could have an ir laser on a 3" rail on the right, and a flashlight on a 3" rail on the left and still have a place to put my hand on the bottom AND my pretty traditional profile (in wood or plastic)
what they've created just FEELS awkward, even if it looks good on the spec sheet
Oh, no disagreement there at all. On the SOCOM in particular, when I saw it at SHOT show, my comment was "I'm not man enough to carry that gun." 
I wasn't defending this gun in particular, just some posters seem to have it in for "tacticool" guns. There are much nicer M14 modernization systems out there.
I wasn't defending this gun in particular, just some posters seem to have it in for "tacticool" guns. There are much nicer M14 modernization systems out there.Father Knows Best
Member
+1 again to taliv and Correia. I have "tactical" stuff, too. I don't own an AR yet, but I'm thinking of picking up an LE6920 or LE6921. I do have a FAL Para Congo complete with a rail top cover and rail forearm. I also own an AK with a red dot and a tricked out G3 clone.
It just seems to me that SA is getting carried away. I like the Scout Squad, but they've now taken the idea and made it into a caricature. It's like modifying a car. Better rims and tires, stiffer springs and some well thought out ground effects may indeed make it handle better and get around a track quicker. Just 'cause a set of 17" wheels and rubber and an air dam work well doesn't mean that it's a good idea to slap on 22" rims and a top fuel wing.
It just seems to me that SA is getting carried away. I like the Scout Squad, but they've now taken the idea and made it into a caricature. It's like modifying a car. Better rims and tires, stiffer springs and some well thought out ground effects may indeed make it handle better and get around a track quicker. Just 'cause a set of 17" wheels and rubber and an air dam work well doesn't mean that it's a good idea to slap on 22" rims and a top fuel wing.
Nightcrawler
Member
I still think they should take about an inch off of the buttstock, or bring back the folding stock Springfield used to make.
Still, the offerings from McMillan, Troy, and others seem better, but of course cost more.
I dunno. The 1913 rails aren't a BAD thing. They give a uniform ("industry standard") way to attach stuff, much like cameras have standard lense sizes and such. I haven't bought the rail handguards for my FAL, but then, I can't think of anything I'd want to attach, either, so.
But, if I DID, I'd rather use that system than duct tape.
Still, the offerings from McMillan, Troy, and others seem better, but of course cost more.
I dunno. The 1913 rails aren't a BAD thing. They give a uniform ("industry standard") way to attach stuff, much like cameras have standard lense sizes and such. I haven't bought the rail handguards for my FAL, but then, I can't think of anything I'd want to attach, either, so.
But, if I DID, I'd rather use that system than duct tape.
C5Cruiser
Member
I lke the darn thing. I should have one in about 2 to 3 months and dress it up like the one in the link below 2 months after that.
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dm-open.gif
I think it's the best thing next to a Phase Plasma Rifle in 40 Watt Range. JMO
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dm-open.gif
I think it's the best thing next to a Phase Plasma Rifle in 40 Watt Range. JMO
possum
Member
no thanks, i have enough rails on my ar, IMHO there should have never been any kind of rails on an m1a except of course a scope rail, a vfg, lights, lasers imho have no place on an m1a.
i wouldn't mind having a scout model, but no thanks on the socom or the socom 2.
i wouldn't mind having a scout model, but no thanks on the socom or the socom 2.
I like it since I'm more concerned with function rather than appeasing the old timers that seem to think that anything new is automatically a bad thing. I look at what TODAY'S soldiers are using on TODAY'S battlefield. I wonder how many old timers would be complaining about wearing an RBAV while wandering the streets of Baghdad ... I can here it now "we didn't need no stinking ballistic vests in our day!"
However, I ordered one of these since I'm not planning on kicking any doors down in Fallujah ...
However, I ordered one of these since I'm not planning on kicking any doors down in Fallujah ...
Last edited:
Retro
Member
SOCOM 16 was a superbly designed rifle, great for CQB in cement-built buildings in Iraq, and it is a great medium range rifle if you remove the scout mount to improve the barrel harmonics. Bedding is required to make it accurate in long range.
SOCOM II was an oddity without a pistol grip or bedding.
SOCOM 16 + SAGE EBR stock = perfect bedded combination for CQB and Medium-to-Long range engagement.
SOCOM 16 + JAE 100 Stock = too heavy for CQB use. A lot of SOCOM-JAE pictures are seen on the internet. But JAE 100 stock is designed for a full-size M1A with medium or heavy weight barrels, so it is optimized as a bedded long-range sniper rifle. JAE-100 can cripple a CQB weapon because it is heavy and clumpsy.
my 2 cent.
Retro
SOCOM II was an oddity without a pistol grip or bedding.
SOCOM 16 + SAGE EBR stock = perfect bedded combination for CQB and Medium-to-Long range engagement.
SOCOM 16 + JAE 100 Stock = too heavy for CQB use. A lot of SOCOM-JAE pictures are seen on the internet. But JAE 100 stock is designed for a full-size M1A with medium or heavy weight barrels, so it is optimized as a bedded long-range sniper rifle. JAE-100 can cripple a CQB weapon because it is heavy and clumpsy.
my 2 cent.
Retro
- Status
