M14 Forum

MrM4Guy · February 15th, 2012, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAMMAC

Sorry MrM4Guy, but I have to go along with the jbrooks and GeePee, you're mistaken about the gas system and to claim that something is a common problem based on your experience isn't really a valid proof. How many SOCOMs have you personally fired and found to have mechanical issues, not problems with the ammo or mistakes in handling, but honest problems in how the rifle was manufactured. Other than the gunsmiths that are on this forum, few of us are really qualified to claim that there is any kind of trend with any specific weapon, we just don't see enough of them to make a qualified evaluation.

Mine (among the three M1A style rifles I currently own) was a dog when I got it. It took no more than a few minutes of filing to make it a reliable weapon. Yes, SA's quality control doesn't seem to be as good as good as it once was but they usually do a good job of fixing the rifle if you give them the chance. I resist using the warranty because I'm a tinkerer and love to find my own solution. Now my SOCOM is my go to, do everything rifle and has been for several thousand rounds.

Like I said, my post was my opinion, not fact for every rifle sent out. About it having a proprietary gas system, that was what I was told from Springfield Armory in 2006 when mine had problems. They told me it was due to having to shorten the barrel, so they had to re-locate some things ( I am not an engineer nor gun smith ) and create a special muzzle break so that the action may work. Maybe the person at customer service was yanking my chain? Also, if you look up the SOCOM at wikipedia they also mention this.
As far as ," It took no more than a few minutes of filing to make it a reliable weapon. " goes, on a $1000.00 plus rifle? I would expect alot more.
Before I sold my SOCOM, I had shot mine and three others. One of them was a friend of mine that used it in 2006 at a Blackwater tactical pistol/carbine course in North Carolina. He had some issues with the rifle as well until a Blackwater gun smith did somethings ( maybe filing? ) so that my buddy could finish the week long class.
After my previous post and reading the positive responses, I did some more up to date research, and read that early models ( such as mine, and my friends ) did have quirks, but were now resolved for the most part. I may go down and plunk $1600.00 for one! I did love the feel and concept of the rifle, just not the issues.
About Springfield Armory having rifles that are not up to snuff as years ago, I can believe it. From what I have read, the earlier the serial number, the more USGI parts were used. I guess this makes a difference, but I do not know. I do know that I love my M1A!!!
Thanks for everyone that posted. I still want one, and now that maybe any issues, if there ever was one,are resolved. Now I gotta just scrounge up the money!

RAMMAC · February 15th, 2012, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrM4Guy

Like I said, my post was my opinion, not fact for every rifle sent out. About it having a proprietary gas system, that was what I was told from Springfield Armory in 2006 when mine had problems. They told me it was due to having to shorten the barrel, so they had to re-locate some things ( I am not an engineer nor gun smith ) and create a special muzzle break so that the action may work. Maybe the person at customer service was yanking my chain? Also, if you look up the SOCOM at wikipedia they also mention this.
As far as ," It took no more than a few minutes of filing to make it a reliable weapon. " goes, on a $1000.00 plus rifle? I would expect alot more.
Before I sold my SOCOM, I had shot mine and three others. One of them was a friend of mine that used it in 2006 at a Blackwater tactical pistol/carbine course in North Carolina. He had some issues with the rifle as well until a Blackwater gun smith did somethings ( maybe filing? ) so that my buddy could finish the week long class.
After my previous post and reading the positive responses, I did some more up to date research, and read that early models ( such as mine, and my friends ) did have quirks, but were now resolved for the most part. I may go down and plunk $1600.00 for one! I did love the feel and concept of the rifle, just not the issues.
About Springfield Armory having rifles that are not up to snuff as years ago, I can believe it. From what I have read, the earlier the serial number, the more USGI parts were used. I guess this makes a difference, but I do not know. I do know that I love my M1A!!!
Thanks for everyone that posted. I still want one, and now that maybe any issues, if there ever was one,are resolved. Now I gotta just scrounge up the money!

I'd be willing to bet that the early models had some differences since most companies seem to love to send a product out before it's time and then use the public as the guinea pig but the versions that have been made for the last several years have the same dimensions as the other rifles with the exception of the shorter barrel and the proprietary muzzle break and gas lock.

I know that there was a long standing rumor about there being differences in the gas port size and location, maybe it was true of the very first rifles and they changed them over time. All I know for sure is that my rifle, which is about 5 years old, uses all the same parts as the other M1As. I know that the port location is the same but I've never measured the size.

SOCOM16owner · February 15th, 2012, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrM4Guy

First, I hope whatever I am about to post will not be taken as snobby, but more just as my own opinion. My opinion is from actual ownership, usage, or reading from several sources.
If you already have made your decision, and purchase, are you posting to ensure yourself that you made the right one, or can you get a refund and go a different route?
I ask because the SOCOM is a good weapon, but if you base it on the M-14 or M1A platform, then you have made a mistake. The SOCOM has a shorter action, thus needing a different proprietary gas system which is fairly new compared to the previously mentioned models. In essence, it is not a battle tested rifle like the M-14 platform. I have owned a Springfield Armory SOCOM like a couple of my friends, and had more feeding problems than my SA M1A Standard. After owning it for a couple of years, I came to the conclusion that it was not a suitable battle rifle in the sense of reliability. Some people will argue with this reliability issue and say that they never had a problem with theirs ( I am glad they have not ), but if you do your research, you will find this is the majority and not the minority. Sorry if I sound like sour grapes, I am just passing on my personal experiences.
To let you know my background with combat style rifles, I currently possess 1 Springfield Armory standard, 2 M-4's by Bushmaster, 1 AK-47 milled Chinese manufacture, 1 Springfield Model 1903 Remington manufacture and several others in a bolt, pump, and lever actions.
I like the M-14 platform very much. With mine using iron sights, in a standing position, I can hit six inch rocks at 200 meters on a consistent basis ( when the guys and I are out hunting or plinking ). It is currently set up with a Leupold VX-R tactical patrol 3x9 powered 30mm tube illuminated scope model 113771. It is mount to the rifle via A.R.M.S. generation 3 #18 M-21 scope base, with #22m throw lever 30mm rings. The rings are quick detach allowing me to detach the scope to use the iron sights, then re-attach the scope without compromising the zero. Accuracy with the scope? Usually inside two inches at 100 meters ( not bad for a standard M1A battle rifle ). It is one of my hog guns.
Again, my humble opinion. I may be anal when it comes to large money purchases, especially on ones that I may depend on for my life, but in the end, the homework prior makes it worthwhile. In the end though, congrats on your SOCOM and have fun!!!!

Check your facts. If it said it on Wikipedia it must be true right?

The 'action' on the SOCOM is the same as any other M1A. The muzzle brake/gas lock is what is different as is the wider front sight associated with it. Please don't post FUD. I am on my second SOCOM the first being a SOCOM II with the cluster rail and both have been flawless in function. This current SOCOM I own is now just over 1500 rounds without a single malfunction and hasn't been cleaned in about 700 and it still works fine. The SOCOM series has its bugs and is fickle for some but misinformation doesn't help anyone. Mine SOCOM 16 was also one of the first to roll off of Springfields line in 2006 and I can honestly say it was a little better in terms of fit and finish than the SOCOM II it replaced.

cheepertokeeper · February 15th, 2012, 05:39 AM

Good choice 1911. Just looking over my Bro's targets from his Socom. Honest to God, freaky accurate, with pet load. NM sits in safe, doesn't do much better, at 100m. I think he swapped out the front rail system with FA Scout/squad unit? Make sense? I should know this stuff by now, said something about optics being far more "secure, repeatable" with whatever upgrade he did. Enjoy your new purchase, let us know how it shoots. CTK

426wedge · February 15th, 2012, 01:04 PM

I have a Socom 16 as well. When I first received it, it had a terrible accuracy problem. In fact it was so bad that SA sent me another rifle. You can't beat that for standing behind their product, although the downside was it took 9 weeks for the turnaround. Now I can nip paper plates at 100 yards. you will like it, 1911!

HereToLearn · February 15th, 2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheepertokeeper

Good choice 1911. Just looking over my Bro's targets from his Socom. Honest to God, freaky accurate, with pet load. NM sits in safe, doesn't do much better, at 100m. I think he swapped out the front rail system with FA Scout/squad unit? Make sense? I should know this stuff by now, said something about optics being far more "secure, repeatable" with whatever upgrade he did. Enjoy your new purchase, let us know how it shoots. CTK

My Socom 16 had a some minor accuracy issues out of the box (in addition to the guy pulling the trigger). I was literally 'all over the place' on the target. I knew it wasn't all me and the first thing I noticed was the SA fiberglass stock rubbing the SA handguard. I got a Fulton Armory Scout Squad Rail (Amega Ranges actually makes it, mine was a rebranded for FA) and a walnut stock for it. Now I'm pretty much able to hit bullseye or within 3 inches from 100 yards, when I have my act together. SA really needs to offer a version of the Socom 16 with a walnut stock, imo.

Wayne M · February 15th, 2012, 01:30 PM

Great choice and don't worry: Standard M14 parts will drop in if they are needed. Been there, done.......well, you get the idea!

MrM4Guy · February 15th, 2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOCOM16owner

Check your facts. If it said it on Wikipedia it must be true right?

The 'action' on the SOCOM is the same as any other M1A. The muzzle brake/gas lock is what is different as is the wider front sight associated with it. Please don't post FUD. I am on my second SOCOM the first being a SOCOM II with the cluster rail and both have been flawless in function. This current SOCOM I own is now just over 1500 rounds without a single malfunction and hasn't been cleaned in about 700 and it still works fine. The SOCOM series has its bugs and is fickle for some but misinformation doesn't help anyone. Mine SOCOM 16 was also one of the first to roll off of Springfields line in 2006 and I can honestly say it was a little better in terms of fit and finish than the SOCOM II it replaced.

Please remember that some of my "facts" were from Springfield Armory directly in 2006. If I cannot base what I write about a product from the manufacture itself.... Sorry. I am not here to piss anyone off, just pass along my personal experiences. Your experience will be different and I respect that. I believe the SOCOM rifle is a great idea ( hence why I purchased it originally ). I also love the M14 platform and think that along with the Garand, it is one of the greatest battle rifles of modern era. Which is why I own one!
I do appreciate the responses and will learn accordingly.

MrM4Guy · February 15th, 2012, 02:16 PM

As a side note. SOCOM stands for Special Operations COMmand. This would insinuate to the retail public that the SA SOCOM is an issued rifle for special operations units such as Navy SEALS or Delta Force. For this to be true, it must be issued a NSN ( Nation Stock Number ) which requires stringent testing. The SA SOCOM, has never been issued one, as checked with Springfield Armory today. My Trijicon TA-01NSN scope is a good example of this. Just food for thought.

1911A1Guy · February 15th, 2012, 02:26 PM

I've never assumed that the SOCOM was issued to special forces. I've never assumed that the SOCOM video game was issued to special forces either but I have not verified that with the game's manufacturer.

RAMMAC · February 15th, 2012, 03:43 PM

Rather than let this conversation get out of hand and go to the dark side I thought I would post some facts so that we can all be better informed.

First things first, the information I'm about to quote is from the June 3, 2007 draft version of Lee Emerson's online edition of his M14 Rifle History and Development book.

Second, according to Mr. Emerson, Dale Rader was the guy who built the first rifle for Springfield Armory so he might be a good guy to contact and he does post on this site from time to time.

Now for some direct quotes

Quote:

New in 2004, the M1A SOCOM 16 model had a 16.25 " 1:11 twist six groove non-plated molybdenum-chromium alloy barrel and black hand guard and synthetic stock. The overall length was reduced about 7 " from the standard model to 37.25 ". The syntheticstock had a steel hinged butt plate. The hand guard was cut out to accommodate the installed M1A Scout Squad scope mount. This model was given a gas cylinder with a slightly enlarged gas port and proprietary design combination muzzle brake and gas cylinder lock assembly and gas cylinder plug. The SOCOM 16 gas system was designed by Dale Rader and first tested in 2003. The visible portion of the operating rod was stamped SOCOM 16 on 2004 production M1A SOCOM 16 models. The front sight was an XS Sight Systems 24/7 stripe post and the rear sight aperture had been enlarged to 0.125 ". This change in the sights was done to facilitate faster target acquisition at Close Quarters Battle ranges. The pre-production design gas cylinder plug was flush with the gas cylinder end. It was removed and installed with a hex head wrench. Between February and April 2004 the gas cylinder plug design was changed. Production models of the SOCOM 16 use a proprietary gas cylinder plug that can be removed and installed using a M14 combination tool. After the gas cylinder plug is removed, the combination muzzle brake and gas cylinder lock assembly can be unthreaded from the barrel. The barrel used on the SOCOM models has a proprietary muzzle thread, 43/64 " diameter with a pitch of 40 right hand threads per inch.

Quote:

In 2005, Springfield Armory, Inc. upgraded the M1A SOCOM 16 design with the introduction of three new models, the SOCOM II, the SOCOM II LE, and the SOCOM 16 Urban (AA9628). These new M1A rifles were debuted at the 2005 SHOT Show. The M1A SOCOM II LE is based on the 2004 M1A SOCOM 16 but with significant differences. It is equipped with a Vltor Weapons Systems (Tucson, AZ) supplied collapsing butt stock, a pistol grip and an aluminum rail mount system that surrounds the black color synthetic stock (see Folding and Telescoping Commercial Stocks and Rail System Mounts). The M1A SOCOM II LE is marketed to government agencies and military forces so it is not listed in the firm’s retail catalog or on its web site. The M1A SOCOM II is the same as the M1A SOCOM II LE but sports a traditional black color synthetic stock with steel hinged butt plate. The M1A SOCOM 16 models come in a choice of black color or black and gray camouflage pattern synthetic stock. The M1A SOCOM series models have been outfitted with the steel hinged butt plate or a rubber butt pad on the stock. The M1A SOCOM II operating rod is marked SOCOM II. The M1A SOCOM II and M1A SOCOM II LE models lose the front sling swivel because of the rail system mount. Additionally, these models retain the M1A SOCOM 16 rear and front sights but revert back to a USGI design gas cylinder plug.

I also found mention that the SOCOM 16 actually started as a project for the military to find a short 7.62x51mm rifle but the project was dropped when the military complained about the muzzle flash and noise.

So, between that research and the blue text above, it seems that the SOCOM was, in fact, originally developed for some military unit, most likely under SOCOM command but it's either not being sold to them now or it's very black ops. It is also apparent that the original design did use proprietary gas system parts and dimensions. While I can't say when everything was changed to the current universal parts and dimensions (except for the gas cylinder lock and muzzle break of cours) I would say that it was no earlier than 2005 and probably more like 2006 or 2007.

SOCOM16owner · February 15th, 2012, 03:57 PM

This guy has got me face palming this whole thread. LOL

RAMMAC · February 15th, 2012, 04:59 PM

Ahh, the lost art of communication...

MrM4Guy · February 15th, 2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAMMAC

Rather than let this conversation get out of hand and go to the dark side I thought I would post some facts so that we can all be better informed.

First things first, the information I'm about to quote is from the June 3, 2007 draft version of Lee Emerson's online edition of his M14 Rifle History and Development book.

Second, according to Mr. Emerson, Dale Rader was the guy who built the first rifle for Springfield Armory so he might be a good guy to contact and he does post on this site from time to time.

Now for some direct quotes

I also found mention that the SOCOM 16 actually started as a project for the military to find a short 7.62x51mm rifle but the project was dropped when the military complained about the muzzle flash and noise.

So, between that research and the blue text above, it seems that the SOCOM was, in fact, originally developed for some military unit, most likely under SOCOM command but it's either not being sold to them now or it's very black ops. It is also apparent that the original design did use proprietary gas system parts and dimensions. While I can't say when everything was changed to the current universal parts and dimensions (except for the gas cylinder lock and muzzle break of cours) I would say that it was no earlier than 2005 and probably more like 2006 or 2007.

Agreed! I apologize if I ruffled a few feathers. My attempt is not to be "right" just "correct" in which sometimes I am neither. My aim is to provide things that I have learned or heard, and will differentiate the two. My major aim is to learn from this forum and it's members.

MrM4Guy · February 15th, 2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOCOM16owner

This guy has got me face palming this whole thread. LOL

This " guy " is also face palming how serious everyone is! Take it easy!