Springfield Scout or Socom?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Huesman

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
28
Location
Ky.
I have researched most of the forums I have been on for the past 10+ years and need some honest opinions.

I'm looking at buying either a Springfield Scout or a Socom soon. I plan on using it for mostly range play and as a travel gun. I don't care for the Socom II with the huge rail on the forend so I'm looking at the Socom 16. I know there is going to be a lose with the Socom but out to 300m will it matter?

What problems are to be found with the M1A? I've stuck with the AR platform for years since learning it in the service but think it's time to try a semi auto .308 and I'm drawn to the classic look of the Scout. The Socom 16 looks like a great CQB rifle but how is it one the range?

Thoughts?
 
i have the standard Springfield M1A and LOVE it i have not experience with either of the models you are interested in i think either will make you very happy
 
Go with the Scout.

The Socom 16 looks like a great CQB rifle but how is it one the range?
Click to expand...

It's an ergonomic disaster for a CQB gun if you mean really doing combat marksmanship and don't just mean a close range gun because the barrel is short. For the cost of making the SOCOM a good CQB gun you could just as easily buy a couple AR-10s, about a FAL and a half, or a SCAR-17 and after spending all that money you'd still have a gun that was inferior to any of those three as an actual fighting rifle.
 
I had a Bush model, which is the "pre" Scout version, and a SOCOM. I also have had a couple of standard M1A's, and currently still have one.

If it has to be between the Scout and SOCOM, Id go with the Scout, and even then, Id look for an older Bush model over the Scout. Ive had a lot better luck with Springfields older guns than I have with their newer guns. Fit and finish on the older guns was better too.

My Bush model was one of the first ones out, and always shot well, and never had any function problems.

My SOCOM had issues right off, mostly build quality problems, but it had its share of stoppages too. The rail would not "mil spec", and would not work properly with mil spec mounts.

The stock was a poorly done over GI stock, and the cheap Fred's M14 stock I replaced it with was a major improvement.

The gun was at best a 75-100 yard gun using the sights it comes with. They work OK for closer range shooting, but once the distance increases, they are way to large/coarse for any kind of precise work.

I never found the brake to be loud or annoying when I shot the gun, but a number of people around me at the range did. Also keep in mind, the brake and gas system are proprietary to the gun, and not "standard" parts.

One thing that always annoyed me with my SOCOM was, I had to use a small screwdriver to get it apart to clean it. The op rod would not come off otherwise. It was never felt as smooth operating as my other M1A's.

Personally, I dont see that either are better than the standard M1A. All they have going for them is, they are a little shorter. They still weigh about the same as the standard gun, and you will see little if any difference in handling. Shooting might, and probably will be though.
 
Go ahead and chalk it up as the scout...that's what everyone on this forum will tell you...thehighroad.org is full of socom haters. I have the Socom II..and I love it....I didn't necessarily buy it because of the cluster rails...I bought it cause I had the opportunity to get it for 1,378 out the door direct from the factory...I would have loved to have a scout version..but they were not available at the time. But I can tell you I could not be more happy with it. I have got it down to an inch at 100 with a caldwell lead sled (iron sights)...shooting 168 grain Federal Match Kings. I'd put it up against any of these socom hatres scouts anyday!:D
 
"...the classic look of the Scout..." There's nothing 'classic' about 'em or the SOCOM's. Both are silly marketing things. A SOCOM 16 is even moreso. The velocity loss alone is enough to make it a waste of a large pile of money.
 
I am very happy with my scout, it's being used as the Jack of all Trades. Don't feel like I wasted 1 cent
 
Sunray said:
"...the classic look of the Scout..." There's nothing 'classic' about 'em or the SOCOM's. Both are silly marketing things. A SOCOM 16 is even moreso. The velocity loss alone is enough to make it a waste of a large pile of money.
Click to expand...
You must really think something like Noveske's 12.5 or 14.5 inch 7.62 guns are goofball.

I have a SOCOM I bought several years ago. I put a walnut stock and a brown handguard on it after removing the forward rail.

I like it alot. It is fun to shoot and that is why I bought it.

It has functioned perfectly however it shoots 8" high at 100 yards with the rear sight bottomed out. I have been meaning to get with SA about this but haven't got around to it yet.
 
I have both a Scout and a Socom.The Socom excels in the woods (and in the close confines of a vehicle),and the Scout is great in the wide open spaces.Both are excellent rifles,and are worth every dime I paid for them.If I could have only one of the two,it would be the Scout.It is so beautiful it hurts to look at it.Get one in walnut.
My Socom wears an Eotech 552,and is possibly the world's best hog gun.The iron sights on a Socom are .125 aperture rear,and a wide tritium-illuminated front sight,designed for close-in snap shooting,not target shooting.The Scout has a standard M14 rear aperture,and a fine National Match front sight,better for distance.Nether rifle has ever malfunctioned,not even once.
There is no wrong choice.Both the Scout and Socom sit proudly in the safe next to the standard length 22" barrel M14's.Each has their place in the great scheme of things.All M14's are outstanding rifles.
 
I'd put it up against any of these socom hatres scouts anyday!:D
Click to expand...
I be gentle with you. Somewhere "around" 2-300 yards, any "field" position you like (sorry, no "lead sleds" :) ), factory iron sights, shot at half an IPSC target propped by itself on the ground. Two rounds no spotting scope. No excuses. :)

It has functioned perfectly however it shoots 8" high at 100 yards with the rear sight bottomed out.
Click to expand...
Mine required 22 clicks for a 100 yard zero.

The iron sights on a Socom are .125 aperture rear,and a wide tritium-illuminated front sight,designed for close-in snap shooting,not target shooting.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but its handy to have sights that are usable at reasonable ranges as well. At 100 yards, the factory front sight on the SOCOM completely covers/obliterates a man sized target. Making a "precision" shot is much more difficult.

Springfield did say the Scouts more traditional M14 type sights (apparently, they are not the same as the standard sights either) would also work as a replacement, and I think if you wanted the iron sights, they would probably be the better choice.

I found an Aimpoint worked the best, if I could get it to stay tight, which was a challenge. It took three different ARM's mounts to find one that would stay "snug", and all moved when mounted. My Larue mount would not go on the rail at all. A low Weaver mount would probably be your best bet, but you still wont get a cowitness. The cheek weld isnt bad, but its also not great. Still better than the rear mounted optics without a lace on rest though.
 
Interesting article. But I would still vote for the Scout.

In the article they were shooting match bullets at 2,665 fps and they don't mention how much powder they are using. While the 168gr BTHP at 2,660fps is obviously a capable load, the .308 has the potential to do more.

And it is acknowledged in the article that heavier bullets or slower powders will result in a longer barrel becoming more desireable.

All the long range and F class shooters use the longer barrels for a reason - the .308 can be loaded to benefit from the extra length.

Obviously neither the Scout or Socom is a long range precision rifle, but I would hate to limit my gun and catridge's ability by getting a 16" barrel. If a load optimized for short barrels is losing 32 fps going from a 20" to 18" barrel, its going to lose quite a bit more going down to a 16" barrel - and this is the best case scenario. What about all the 150gr FMJ loads that were developed for use in the 22" M14s?
 
What about all the 150gr FMJ loads that were developed for use in the 22" M14s?
Click to expand...

My 18" Fulton Armory M14 shoots M80 ball ammo at an average of 2680fps over my Chrony F1. The listed MV for M80 out of a standard M14 is 2800.

120fps just isn't any meaningful loss shooting inside of 200-300 yards. And let's be honest. If you are shooting plain old milspec ball ammo out of your M14 you're probably not looking for maximum performance anyway.

Use those numbers and you get around 180fps less out of a 16" barrel. 6% velocity loss just doesn't seem that big a deal to me.
 
sunray:

i agree and disagree with you. the OP said "classic look", and yes, if you want a "classic look" go with the standard. i dont agree that getting a scout is a waste of money. i used to be a short-barrel-hater, as i own 3 standards.......but i wanted something that would ballance better in my pistol-gripped vltor stock. the 18" barrel will work fine for medium range sniper duty......doesnt fulfill the potential of the .308 or M14 platform, i agree. but in this case, i wanted a "jack of all trades" rifle......so i built this one:

DSC04100.jpg

the scout in this configuration is great for run and gun, or rapid fire senarios. i dont think handling will be better with a 18" in general, but with a pistol grip it makes a difference.
 
skipbo32,

The Bush model came with an 18" barrel and a traditional M14 type flash hider, with the bayonet lug milled off so you could take the cylinder plug out. Other than the shorter barrel length, it wasnt any different than the standard rifle.

The Scout is basically a Bush rifle, but now has a "brake" instead of the flash hider, and it also has a forward rail mounted on the barrel.
 
I guess I don't really understand the point of a short .308 like the SOCOM for CQB... if you are going to limit your max effective range like that, you might as well just use a poodle shooter or an AK. Both have adequate ballistics for close quarters, better ergonomics, lighter weight, lower recoil, and a cartridge that can use that short of a barrel without producing a gigantic fireaball that blinds you and gives away your position in low light. In other words, they were tools that are designed for that job, instead of just taking a tool that was intended for another job and hacking the barrel off short and giving it a gas system that will make it work. If you're going with a suppressor, it reduces the flash issue, but I still think you'd be better off with a different caliber for that job.

Even an 18" is a little shorter than I would want on an M-14... I greatly prefer the 22" barreled ones. But out of the 2 you mentioned, I would take the Scout It is a little more "well rounded."

Whatever you end up getting, you should put a GI M-14 sling on it and bring it to an Appleseed marksmanship clinic. We shoot the original Army Qualification Tests they shot back when the M-1 and M-14 were the main service rifles. You will learn a lot about field marksmanship, and it is a lot of fun to see how you stack up on the AQT. We teach some cool Revolutionary War history, too. www.appleseedinfo.org
 
Last edited:
henschman:

i agree. if you want something for indoors, or close quarter, then you are better off with a shotgun or an AK. they are lighter and will do the job.
 
TexasRifleMan...I think you said it best. Really people? Like I said just a bunch of short barreled haters. Oh and AK103K...I wished you lived here in Florida cause I would place that bet. All in good fun everyone!
 
Im far from a short barrel hater. If anything, I prefer them, as they are usually lot handier and more user friendly.

Its the reason I tried both the Bush and the SOCOM, both of which I had when each first came out. Unfortunately, they just didnt live up to the hype for me.

I get the more from my AK's and AR's, which are lighter, handier, faster handling, and easier to shoot with.

My experience with the SOCOM actually was the last straw for me with Springfield. Between its problems, and the problems with the last half dozen or so pistols of theirs I had, it was enough. Unless its one of their early guns, I wont buy another, rifle or pistol.
 
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm going to look at both Sunday and see which one feels best. So far the scout is getting the nod.
 
Texas Rifleman,
I agree that none of this matters at 200-300yard ranges, and I think the 18" barrel strikes a really good balance.
Don't forget that velocity loss becomes more pronounced as the barrel gets shorter, thus the loss of velocity between 16" and 18" will be greater than the loss between 20" and 18".


Henshman,
Great post. Why hack up and modify the M1A/M14 to be a short range/close quarters rifle when the AR or AK series will give you so many advantages?
 
please tell me the advantages of .223 vs .308 at close range ?

i like my bush a lot. its accurate enough for me. nobody complains about the hk g3. its only an 17.7 inch rifle
 
aside from weight and recoil, the .308 has the advatage over the .223 at any range. basically if someone is shooting at you with a .223 you can run for cover. if a .308 is being shot at you, then there are not many things you can hide behind that a .308 will not go through.

also, when hunting it is nice to be able to make a kill with one shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Anyone have pics of a SOCOM with scout scope?
Replies
4
Views
654
The Janitor
T
Rockrivr1
  • Locked
SA Socom 16 or Scout Squad Rifle - Decisions Decisions
Replies
14
Views
3K
Nightcrawler
N
S
  • Locked
SOCOM 16 vs. Scout Squad?
Replies
11
Views
4K
VA27
VA27
L
  • Locked
SOCOM II vs Standard M14
Replies
22
Views
3K
lamazza
L
W
  • Locked
Tell me about your socoms
Replies
3
Views
391
jpcolt76
J
Back
Top