Why is there so much opposition, on a gun forum, to people discussing the merits of various rifles for the main purpose behind the Second Amendment?
There is definitely a major difference between what you would want to defend yourself from small-time criminals (i.e. home invaders) versus what you would want to defend yourself against the really bad criminals (i.e. the types who have committed all the worst crimes in history and rack up 7 or 8 digit body counts).
I think there is a lot to be said for a good battle rifle in 7.62 NATO for this role. Indeed, barrier penetration would be a positive, not a negative, in a 2nd Amendment situation. "Turning cover into concealment," so to speak. But the SOCOM wouldn't be my first choice. They are generally less reliable than a full sized M-14, and use proprietary parts that you can only get from Springfield. They also suffer a loss of velocity from their short barrel, and as was mentioned, the sight radius is not great. They do not have a chrome-lined or nitrided barrel, as most modern serious-use rifles do. They are also not the easiest platform to mount optics on (that goes for all versions of the M-14). Basically you get a rifle that is not effective at any greater range than an intermediate-powered rifle like an AR, but without any of the advantages of an intermediate power rifle (lighter weight, less recoil, lighter/smaller ammo, higher capacity). It's only advantage is that it has better barrier penetration.
I am a big fan of the M1A. My own main go-to rifle is a standard M1A with a 1-4x scope. I am highly familiar with it and am not planning on getting rid of it. But if I had it all to do again, I would probably go with an Armalite AR-10A4 for that role these days. I would get a sturdy, high-quality optic such as an ACOG or a good 1-(n) power variable scope, some backup iron sights, plenty of mags, and most of all, some good training.
An Appleseed is a good place to start, and then maybe a carbine course. Maybe go to some "run and guns" if you have anything like that where you are. The training part is the most important. When you actually have to run yourself and your gear hard, like you would in real life, it gives you a very different perspective on these things. It will likely change your ideas quite a bit when it comes to equipment, and what you actually will need if that day ever comes. Also you must realize that carrying a rifle is only one way to resist tyranny, and certainly not the most effective for every situation. It would pay to study up on some real resistance movements and insurgencies in recent history... Ireland in the 1920s, the Winter War in Finland, all the various resistance movements in WWII (French, Yugoslav, Norwegian, Polish, etc.), Indochina/Vietnam, and the people who are resisting our military's current police actions, to name a few. There are lots of lessons to be learned from all, and suffice to say that the way things work out in real life are very different from how most "armchair commandos" picture it unfolding. As they say, the fight will not be what you want it to be... the fight will be the fight. You have to adapt. The Swiss Army manual "Total Resistance" is a good read. The Swiss certainly don't shy away from discussing the main political function of an armed citizenry.
