View Full Version : SOCOM 16
A buddy just bought one and let me shoot it, man it is sweet. That .308 has a nice punch to it. The question is that he wants to put a tactical type side mounted sling. I like and use the BFG VCAS sling. Can this be attatched to the SOCOM 16? Anyone got any pics of how they have theirs set up?
Now we have to get those approved for duty use.
Any help is appreciated.
Jack
Socom 16 is a 3 to 4moa gun with match ammo as per SAI. Mine does 6 o 8 moa with Aussie,LC and Argentine surplus and 4moa with Federal match. Don't think for $1400.00 you are getting accurate rifle. My SA 85 AK holds 4moa with military classic jhp.
Socom 16 is a 3 to 4moa gun with match ammo as per SAI. Mine does 6 o 8 moa with Aussie,LC and Argentine surplus and 4moa with Federal match. Don't think for $1400.00 you are getting accurate rifle.
Wow! That sucks big time! What kind of accuracy did the American made M14s used to get?
Jay Cunningham
10-12-07, 08:29
That does suck. I had a SOCOM and it was a solid 2 moa shooter with Aussie ammo.
Blue Force Gear has some adaptors listed on their website (http://www.blueforcegear.com/slings.cfm) that should work.
-Matt
That does suck. I had a SOCOM and it was a solid 2 moa shooter with Aussie ammo.
Are you sure ?
BushmasterFanBoy
10-22-07, 16:51
I have fired one. My only dislike was the size of the front sight post seemed larger than the regular M14. The weapon handled very well and the recoil was very mild. I didn't shoot for accuracy so I can't comment on my groups or anything.
Issue rack grade M14's back in the day were NOT known for their accuracy.
The M1A SOCOM is plagued by many faults--I've seen quite a few launch front sights downrange. The non-USGI parts seem to break with regularity. At a recent Pat Rogers course I was at, several went down with mechanical problems. If you have the choice, there are better options available.
Jay Cunningham
10-22-07, 23:18
Are you sure ?
What do you mean?
DANGER CLOSE
10-23-07, 03:06
i'm dinging out 12-16 circle at 500 yards with iron sights, i love my socom 16. i have only used 150 grain lake city ammo. i use the 3 point sling from specter gear, and it serves me well. i am not big on the rail package available for it, but i did buy the front sling / rail adapter. i forget the company. its about 4 inches of rail and a sling swivel.
What do you mean?
Two MOA with Aussie ball
Jay Cunningham
10-23-07, 14:30
Two MOA with Aussie ball
Um... yeah... I was getting 2 - 2.5 moa out of my socom16 with Aussie ball. This was shooting at 100 yards.
Either you believe me or you don't - doesn't matter to me either way. I have no reason to make up a tall tale.
Um... yeah... I was getting 2 - 2.5 moa out of my socom16 with Aussie ball. This was shooting at 100 yards.
Either you believe me or you don't - doesn't matter to me either way. I have no reason to make up a tall tale.
You are very lucky, I only do 4moa with match and that was done be SAI. Mine done about 6moa with assorted surplus and SAI says that is the best they expect the Socom to do.
Um... yeah... I was getting 2 - 2.5 moa out of my socom16 with Aussie ball. This was shooting at 100 yards.
Either you believe me or you don't - doesn't matter to me either way. I have no reason to make up a tall tale.
Well I believe you because that was my experience with my socom also...
The Socom 16 is a short handy weapon but it definitly has it's problems. I was visiting a gun shop in Henderson NV when the owner showed me one with a blown out receiver, split stock and a mag that was split open like a banana peel. I found out later the weapon had fired out of battery. Thats a gun I would never own.
Mine hits pie plates at 100yds from standing all day long using Port and SA milsurp.
My Soc II has been nothing but reliable and tremendously fun!
Them SOCOM 16 are too damm loud with that brake. Besides, the M1A scout rifle with 18" bbl & standard flash hider isn't any less handier, hits a wee bit harder and more pleasant to shoot.
I didn't have a problem hitting IPSC A- zones with 80% consistancy at 300 yards with 2x leu scout scope on the 3 M1A's I shot early last year. Maybe I was lucky or these were exceptional guns. This isn't the first time Ihave heard of accuracy problems with these.
hahagobangbang
08-02-08, 23:30
Here are some photos of an old project. The Socom 16 had just come out and I had to have one. I did a lot of work on the stock. If memory serves me well i just move the sling swivel from under the barrel in front and mounted it on the left side of the stock. I reinforced the stock with fiberglass and cloth before drilling and mounting the swivel. It looked skookum to me & I carried the rifle in the back country a lot. I always felt comfortable with a 20 magazine and that rifle in heavy bear counrty, brownies and/or blackies, so that gun became a boat gun for awhile. I also bought an adjustable cheek piece later and installed it. I used a Smith Enterprise scope mount with a Trijicon 1.25 x 4 Accu-Point scope, good setup! I also took time to set up a jig so I plane a nice flat surface an inch wide with my router. I then strengthened the inside of the stock with fiberglss cloth, two or three layers, checked for clearance between the barrel and stock of course, and them i mounted a nice 12" M1913 rail from Atlas metal, (Brownell's catalog) for lights, grips. That was the first gun i spray painted! Have fun with your gun, a friend talked me out of mine. I see it at the range all the time and other people still ooh & ahh over it.
I never thought myself to be a lucky guy. I never win much of anything. I must rethink this position as I think about my SOCOM-16 - I must have hit the jackpot - it's a stellar rifle. I bought mine almost three years ago while unsuccessfully searching for a Scout. I was a bit disappointed in having to "settle" for the 16" SOCOM - that disappointment evaporated with the first trigger pull. I have had zero rifle related issues in over 10k down the pipe. My SOCOM-16 is also full of USGI parts - including a complete USGI trigger group, which I and many who have fired it, believe to be a match trigger.
I read all the negative hype on the gun boards - the mythology was amazing: "inaccurate, too loud, unreliable, giant flameballs going downrange, (love that one), cheap parts, no USGI, sights flying off, ammo sensitivity, on and on and on". Most of it was generated by purists - many of whom had never even handled one and thought the idea of a chopped M1A as an abomination. Some was put out there by those who had no concept of how to properly set up and maintain the rifle - some with legitimate issues, (which happens). Still others seemed to ignore the method behind the madness and were too quick to point out that the wide front Trijicon blade was a hinderance more than a help. The SOCOM-16 was not designed as a match rifle. MOA claims, (or lack) were generated by many who may have failed to realize that the SOCOM-16 is intended to not punch nice tight holes on the center of a little black circle - it was designed to punch holes in people - at close range.....And guess what? It does this superbly - with a truckload of power. This rifle will disappoint paper punchers, but put some optics on deck, or sink it into a Troy MCS, (or in my case both) and not only will groups shrink and effective range increase, but the accuracy potential and power of this little package will become quite evident....As for being "too heavy and loud" - buy some hearing protection and get your butt to the gym....This rifle is not for panzies.... :p
Mass,
I agree and also thank you for your guidance concerning the Troy MCS. I got a good deal on one from Dynamic Armament in FDE. Though mine has only had about 220 rds. through it, it functioned flawlessly. As a matter of fact I took my 13 y/o out shooting with me last time and he was hitting a man size target at 100M with an EOTech mounted on there. I never intended for it to be anything more than a close distance rifle with a punch.
However, once I get home and add the Troy MCS to it, slap on the Leupold MR/T scope and get it dialed it I feel it will perform as I want it to do.
I never thought myself to be a lucky guy. I never win much of anything. I must rethink this position as I think about my SOCOM-16 - I must have hit the jackpot - it's a stellar rifle. I bought mine almost three years ago while unsuccessfully searching for a Scout. I was a bit disappointed in having to "settle" for the 16" SOCOM - that disappointment evaporated with the first trigger pull. I have had zero rifle related issues in over 10k down the pipe. My SOCOM-16 is also full of USGI parts - including a complete USGI trigger group, which I and many who have fired it, believe to be a match trigger.
I read all the negative hype on the gun boards - the mythology was amazing: "inaccurate, too loud, unreliable, giant flameballs going downrange, (love that one), cheap parts, no USGI, sights flying off, ammo sensitivity, on and on and on". Most of it was generated by purists - many of whom had never even handled one and thought the idea of a chopped M1A as an abomination. Some was put out there by those who had no concept of how to properly set up and maintain the rifle - some with legitimate issues, (which happens). Still others seemed to ignore the method behind the madness and were too quick to point out that the wide front Trijicon blade was a hinderance more than a help. The SOCOM-16 was not designed as a match rifle. MOA claims, (or lack) were generated by many who may have failed to realize that the SOCOM-16 is intended to not punch nice tight holes on the center of a little black circle - it was designed to punch holes in people - at close range.....And guess what? It does this superbly - with a truckload of power. This rifle will disappoint paper punchers, but put some optics on deck, or sink it into a Troy MCS, (or in my case both) and not only will groups shrink and effective range increase, but the accuracy potential and power of this little package will become quite evident....As for being "too heavy and loud" - buy some hearing protection and get your butt to the gym....This rifle is not for panzies.... :p
...As for being "too heavy and loud" - buy some hearing protection and get your butt to the gym....This rifle is not for panzies.... :p
Yeah, preach it brother.
I have a SOCOM 1 and it shoots better than I. No problems to report. The gun was designed for CQB and urban warfare. Not killing paper at 300 yards. I'm not going to say others haven't had a problem but every manufacturer who mass produces rifles will have a few dogs, mine is not.
Yeah, preach it brother.
I have a SOCOM 1 and it shoots better than I. No problems to report. The gun was designed for CQB and urban warfare. Not killing paper at 300 yards. I'm not going to say others haven't had a problem but every manufacturer who mass produces rifles will have a few dogs, mine is not.
Exactly - I have read failure reports on everything from LRB's to SEI's and beyond. Springfield Armory eclipses most other variant builders combined in numbers of rifles produced - of course there's going to be issues, but when a lemon gets out - look out...All hell breaks loose on the Internet. But people like me who have poured ammo through it with zero problems, get largely ignored. I love the AR-15 and can;t wait to get my M4 built, but when crap goes down - it's staying in the safe or going to my wife - my SOCOM-16/Troy MCS is my go-to gun bar none...
Mass,
I agree and also thank you for your guidance concerning the Troy MCS. I got a good deal on one from Dynamic Armament in FDE. Though mine has only had about 220 rds. through it, it functioned flawlessly. As a matter of fact I took my 13 y/o out shooting with me last time and he was hitting a man size target at 100M with an EOTech mounted on there. I never intended for it to be anything more than a close distance rifle with a punch.
However, once I get home and add the Troy MCS to it, slap on the Leupold MR/T scope and get it dialed it I feel it will perform as I want it to do.
You're most welcome and thank you! Looking forward to you getting home and wringing that puppy out. Adding the troy MCS to my SOCOM-16 changed the dynamics of the rifle completely, (and for the better). Groups shrunk and with the Tripower on deck, I can hit anything I put the chevron on. I'm no threat at Camp Perry and never intended to be, but if it's a target the size of a mans chest - it's cooked....
Amen to all the positive comments on the SOCOM 16. LOVE mine, as does my wife. She actually prefers shooting it over my M4 variants. I also want to echo the fact that these rifles were designed for close work, not long range.
I am looking for a new stock for it though and have been reading up on the Troy/MCS, the VLTOR and the JAE-100. The JAE is definitely the priciest with all of the "bells & whistles" with the Troy not far behind. The VLTOR looks like the best "bang for the buck" though.
Any thoughts on these? What about the weight of each? Would especially enjoy seeing "real world" pics of these platforms sporting these stocks!
Gutshot John
08-05-08, 08:55
Two questions:
Does the SOCOM use a different receiver than the standard/loaded M1A?
Likewise do any military units employ the SOCOM itself for CQB or otherwise?
Two questions:
Does the SOCOM use a different receiver than the standard/loaded M1A?
Likewise do any military units employ the SOCOM itself for CQB or otherwise?
Yes - the SOCOM-16 indeed uses the same receiver as the standard and the loaded. The barrel is a cut down heavy barrel threaded for the comp and the gas system is the same.
As far as I know, the SOCOM-16 is not employed with any standard military units, though a buddy of mine in Afghanistan says he has seen a couple floating around, (private contractors perhaps?). The SOCOM-16 name is likely just for marketing purposes, as I do not think there are any military contracts pending.
Mark,
It is my understanding that the SOCOM II name was derived from the Mk 14 MOD 0 EBR program and apparently was a "contender" for one of the programs. I know for a fact the some SEALS have used them (Mk14 MOD 0 EBR) as I saw some in their armory in Bahrain. So the military may not be using the SOCOM II but they are using a modified shorty M14.
Contractors would not be using a weapon like this. It is a NO GO to be caught using unauthorized weapons 99% of the time and as far as I know no one has these.
BTW- Do you have a recommend for a buttstock for my Troy MCS build. I have been looking at the Magpul UBR, Vltor EMOD or maybe an LMT SOPMOD.
Yes - the SOCOM-16 indeed uses the same receiver as the standard and the loaded. The barrel is a cut down heavy barrel threaded for the comp and the gas system is the same.
As far as I know, the SOCOM-16 is not employed with any standard military units, though a buddy of mine in Afghanistan says he has seen a couple floating around, (private contractors perhaps?). The SOCOM-16 name is likely just for marketing purposes, as I do not think there are any military contracts pending.
Mark,
It is my understanding that the SOCOM II name was derived from the Mk 14 MOD 0 EBR program and apparently was a "contender" for one of the programs. I know for a fact the some SEALS have used them (Mk14 MOD 0 EBR) as I saw some in their armory in Bahrain. So the military may not be using the SOCOM II but they are using a modified shorty M14.
Contractors would not be using a weapon like this. It is a NO GO to be caught using unauthorized weapons 99% of the time and as far as I know no one has these.
BTW- Do you have a recommend for a buttstock for my Troy MCS build. I have been looking at the Magpul UBR, Vltor EMOD or maybe an LMT SOPMOD.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I remember John sending me an E-mail saying he saw two tan stocked SOCOM-16's - maybe I'll drop him a line and see if he has pics. There are plenty of M-14's out there though and Troy MCS is popping up more frequently as well in theatre. I bet he may have seen some Navy guys with the MK 14 - thanks again.
You know? I received my MCS chassis from Tony Lawrence, (Law483) himself, complete with an A2 stock. Collapsables are a big no-no here behind enemy lines, (we can't be trusted with adjustable LOP), so I had thought about putting a Vltor A2 Clubfoot on my rifle, as I like the looks of it and it has some adjustability to it. However, the more I shoot this rifle with the A2 on deck, the more I like it. I bought a Sully off of Thekatar, so I have been kicking around putting it on the Troy and seeing if I like it. The A2 just lines my eyeballs up with my BUIS and my Trijicon perfectly, so I have found no need to change it, (yet). That being said, I did shoot one belonging to a bordering free-stater and it had the Vltor collapsable clubfoot on deck. I see now why people like that stock so much - it was pretty sweet.
Mark,
Thanks for the info. I will be mounting a Leupold Mark 4 MR/T scope on this with iron sights. I will have to kick the whole stock thing around, I still have time to figure it out before I get back.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I remember John sending me an E-mail saying he saw two tan stocked SOCOM-16's - maybe I'll drop him a line and see if he has pics. There are plenty of M-14's out there though and Troy MCS is popping up more frequently as well in theatre. I bet he may have seen some Navy guys with the MK 14 - thanks again.
You know? I received my MCS chassis from Tony Lawrence, (Law483) himself, complete with an A2 stock. Collapsables are a big no-no here behind enemy lines, (we can't be trusted with adjustable LOP), so I had thought about putting a Vltor A2 Clubfoot on my rifle, as I like the looks of it and it has some adjustability to it. However, the more I shoot this rifle with the A2 on deck, the more I like it. I bought a Sully off of Thekatar, so I have been kicking around putting it on the Troy and seeing if I like it. The A2 just lines my eyeballs up with my BUIS and my Trijicon perfectly, so I have found no need to change it, (yet). That being said, I did shoot one belonging to a bordering free-stater and it had the Vltor collapsable clubfoot on deck. I see now why people like that stock so much - it was pretty sweet.
Dusting off this ol thread...
I just got a Socom 16. With a NightForce 10X scope at 100 yards, the best I am able to coax with Federal Gold Medal Match 168's is..... 2-3 inch groups.
Thats 2-3 MOA.
That is not great, or even all that good.
My 14" AR will do 1.5 inch groups or better. Apples to Oranges.
But:
I am not impressed with the accuracy at at all with this particular Socom 16, but who knows, my rifle may not be representative of all of them, but it is a sample.
Has anyone tried to shoot one seriously for accuracy?
Mine is about the same, and is pretty standard from everything I have read. The thing to remember is these are battle rifles and were not meant to be that accurate. They are meant to hit center mass out to about 300m, which they will do if the shooter is doing his/her part.
I have heard that the JAE G2 stock will cut the stock MOA about in half. They are a pretty penny, though.
RogerinTPA
01-30-09, 18:28
I never thought myself to be a lucky guy. I never win much of anything. I must rethink this position as I think about my SOCOM-16 - I must have hit the jackpot - it's a stellar rifle. I bought mine almost three years ago while unsuccessfully searching for a Scout. I was a bit disappointed in having to "settle" for the 16" SOCOM - that disappointment evaporated with the first trigger pull. I have had zero rifle related issues in over 10k down the pipe. My SOCOM-16 is also full of USGI parts - including a complete USGI trigger group, which I and many who have fired it, believe to be a match trigger.
I read all the negative hype on the gun boards - the mythology was amazing: "inaccurate, too loud, unreliable, giant flameballs going downrange, (love that one), cheap parts, no USGI, sights flying off, ammo sensitivity, on and on and on". Most of it was generated by purists - many of whom had never even handled one and thought the idea of a chopped M1A as an abomination. Some was put out there by those who had no concept of how to properly set up and maintain the rifle - some with legitimate issues, (which happens). Still others seemed to ignore the method behind the madness and were too quick to point out that the wide front Trijicon blade was a hinderance more than a help. The SOCOM-16 was not designed as a match rifle. MOA claims, (or lack) were generated by many who may have failed to realize that the SOCOM-16 is intended to not punch nice tight holes on the center of a little black circle - it was designed to punch holes in people - at close range.....And guess what? It does this superbly - with a truckload of power. This rifle will disappoint paper punchers, but put some optics on deck, or sink it into a Troy MCS, (or in my case both) and not only will groups shrink and effective range increase, but the accuracy potential and power of this little package will become quite evident....As for being "too heavy and loud" - buy some hearing protection and get your butt to the gym....This rifle is not for panzies.... :p
Amen brother! I am one of the "purist", shooting a match grade M1A1 competitively for many years. The mistake was to try to AR/Modularize, the M-14 with commercial grade parts. It does do well at close range but don't expect match grade accuracy. For the most part, I'd rather just have a descent AK variant than the SOCOM. They're much better made, inexpensive and the recoil feels the same to me.;)
The accurracy issue with the SOCOM is strange. A friend picked up a SOCOM and installed a Sage EBR stock ect and the Vortec flash suppressor. He had trouble sighting in the irons so I gave it a try. I popped two groups off a bipod that were 1.5 - 2.5 each. Didn't have a ruler with me and didn't expect that type of performance with Wolf. Yea.... I know. I've been wanting to shoot it again but haven't had the opertunity. The only thing he has dome with that rifle was install the Sage stock and use a Tubb final finish fire lapping kit.
I spoke with him the other day about it and he sold the stock because it made it too heavy for deer hunting which was it's original intended purpose.
I much prefer the 18" M1A's to the SOCOM 16...for that matter, I'd rather shoot an M1 Garand than a SOCOM. Rack grade iron sighted M1A's shoot a lot like AK's. If you want consistent, reliable accuracy with a semi-auto, an AR15 based system is a much better choice.
ROCKET20_GINSU
01-30-09, 21:45
Its one of the most fun rifles that I have fired, but certainly not the most practical. While I am certainly not an exceptional marksman, I come from a mil background and can shoot expert on the pop up range all day. I tried to group at 100m w/ the irons and that thick tritium front sight and...well I felt like a beginner :rolleyes: To its credit, I was suprised by how light the recoil was and I like things that really go boom =) But at that price point I would expect better accuracy...
I put my SOCOM II into a Troy MCS and I like it. With the my Leupold Mk 4 I can't definitely do minute-of-perp with it. I was able to easily hit targets out to 220 yards when markm and I went shooting while I was on R/R.
Littlelebowski
02-01-09, 14:01
I have a buddy over at LRI who's a combat veteran Marine Scout Sniper and he just sold his SOCOM in disgust after getting 4MOA and above out of it with good ammo.
Anyone know the real truth to Springfield's claims that "elite military units requested" this rifle?
RogerinTPA
02-01-09, 16:48
It's more like, "Hey, no one's buying our M1A1's, not even the competition folks (The AR variant's dominate Camp Perry). Let's make up some BS about SOCOM, chop it up and modularize our M1A1's to compete with the AR's!":rolleyes:
I haven't had any problems with mine. I didn't buy it to push bullets through the same hole at 600 yards as I knew that wasn't the purpose behind the rifle. For me it was purchased because it could turn cover in to concealment at CQB ranges. I placed it in a SAGE MK14 Mod 0 EBR stock & have loved it ever since.
I wouldn't want to lug it around all day long, but it isn't that heavy to where that wouldn't be an option. To each their own, though.
wow... i had no idea- i admit i'm ignorant to basically anything non-M4, but i'd thought the whole point of the socom was accuracy. sounds like nothing more than an expensive mini30
not to hurt anyone's feelings..
no the whole point to a socom isnt accuracy. I dont even know where ppl get this notion?? I bought a scout a few weeks back and in the first 5 min of my search I knew that these guns were 2-4 moa rifles. Hell even a supped up M14/M1a match rifle is a 1moa on good days. sure ppl get 1/2" moa out of them but thats probably a few warm up shots a five shot groups, instead of 10 which a battle rifle should be shot 10 shot groups.
Its the reliability factor, the minute of muhamed Jihad @ 3-400yrds factor, the tooless disassembly factor, the greatest battle rifle ever factor, Its soft recoil and fun as hell to shoot factor, ect.
yeah it sucks that a 1600 dollor rifle isnt that accurate, but thats not their claim.. there are tricks to accurizing it too.. unitized gas system, Sadlak spring guide, bedding the stock, ect.
heres mine. Ive gotten under 2moa using handloads and shooting 5-shot groups using iron sights. this was the first and only time ive shot it. now that I have a load to go with, I will do more testing in the comeing weeks.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/Dirknar77/100_2355.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/Dirknar77/100_2351.jpg
A.R.M.S. #18 mount and solid handquard added.. slowly upgrading. Im thinking of this scope: http://www.swfa.com/pc-5649-1108-burris-2-7x35-fullfield-ii-tactical-rifle-scope.aspx
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/Dirknar77/100_2488.jpg
This one is just plain B.A. this is from SEI's website.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/Dirknar77/bill-SmithM14SE_02.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.