We Shoot Springfield’s New M1A SOCOM 16 CQB — SHOT Show 2016

Read more at Springfield Armory: http://www.springfield-armory.com/m1a-series/

Buy one on GunsAmerica: https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=springfield%20armory%20m1a%20socom

From M1A SOCOM 16 to SOCOM 16 CQB

For the past 20 years I have been on a quest for the perfect close-quarters .308 Winchester rifle. This year, I have found a rifle that may be “the one”: Springfield’s newest offering in their line of M1A rifles, the SOCOM 16 CQB or Close-Quarter Battle rifle.

The new gun comes in a nice zippered bag.

The new gun comes in a nice zippered bag.

This gun has promise right from the start. Based on the M1A SOCOM 16 with a 16-inch barrel, the rifle is equipped with the legendary muzzle brake and gas system that makes the M1A so reliable and it has the SOCOM’s forward scope rail. It also comes with an XS Systems tritium front post night sight and a rear ghost ring aperture sight.

The traditional stock has been updated with a new Archangel pistol grip composite stock featuring a 5-position buttstock and adjustable cheek riser that can be fit to any shooter and collapsed for storage. But wait, there’s more! They have added an M-Lok rail system to the stock that comes with two three-slot Picatinny rails installed on the right and left sides of the forend and a 7-slot rail fixed to the bottom.

The ability to add accessories like a white light or laser is now a must on close-quarters long guns, and the M1A SOCOM CQB accommodates this need admirably. The stock is also fit with a soft buttpad, which makes an already soft-shooting gun even easier to shoot, facilitating rapid strings of fire.

All this in a zippered nylon case for storage and transportation.

Get a grip on the new SOCOM model. And adjust the length of pull, too.

Get a grip on the new SOCOM model. And adjust the length of pull, too.

The brake keeps the barrel flat, even during rapid fire--an excellent addition to a QCB gun.

The brake keeps the barrel flat, even during rapid fire–an excellent addition to a CQB gun.

Specs

Caliber:7.62X51mm NATO/.308 Winchester
Magazine:One 10-round
Barrel:Carbon steel, 16.25 inches, 1-in-11 twist
Front sight:XS Systems tritium night sight with a .125-inch sight blade
Rear sight:.135-inch ghost ring aperture
Trigger:Two-stage
Overall length:35.5 inches collapsed, 38.5 inches fully-extended
Stock:Archangel adjustable 5-position pistol grip  M-Lok
Weight:9 pounds
MSRP:$2,099

History

The M14 rifle was introduced in 1961 to replace the U.S. Army’s M1 Garand and later modified to replace the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. This gave birth to the M15 — think M14 but with a heavier barrel and stock, a hinged buttplate, a selector switch for fully automatic fire and a bipod. Next came the M14E2. It came with a pistol grip stock, a lightweight plastic handguard, a muzzle brake, an M2 bipod and a folding metal vertical foregrip.

Springfield M1A SOCOM 39

Much more recently the rifle was put back into service as the Mk 14 EBR or Enhanced Battle Rifle. The tactical version of the M14, the Mk 14 EBR has a compact 18-inch barrel, a retractable stock, and rails for accessories. This is the SOCOM’s big brother — emphasis on big, weighing in at over 11 pounds.

Sights and Optics

The SOCOM 16 CQB is slimmed down, which makes it more versatile. I wanted to try multiple optic and iron sight configurations, as this rifle is modular and thus allow for easily swapping accessories. The detachable cheek piece also facilitates a good cheek weld with a tall optic.

I really prefer simple when it comes to optics and sights. In my mind, optics and sights are there to help you shoot, not distract you from shooting. To that end I chose a Leupold FX-II Scout IER 2.5x28mm with see-through rings, allowing use of the iron sights. I also plan to run an Aimpoint Micro H1 red dot sight on this gun at some point.

Forward rail mounts make attaching a scout scope easy.

Forward rail mounts make attaching a scout scope easy.

Or tradtitional scopes can be mounted to the top of the receiver with the help of an adapter.

Or tradtitional scopes can be mounted to the top of the receiver with the help of an adapter.

Scout scopes are great for CQB, as they don't bite.

Scout scopes are great for CQB, as they don’t bite.

And Springfield is now offering a package with a Vortex Venom red dot. Talk about fast acquisition...

And Springfield is now offering a package with a Vortex Venom red dot. Talk about fast acquisition…

On the Range

I set up two targets at the 50-yard line, with one on the left for iron sights and on the right for scoped shooting. Moving back in increments I adjusted the sights and scope so that I would at least be on paper at 50 yards where I could finish the zero on the bench. A few adjustments later, and I could not have been happier with the rifle.

At 50 yards I could cover three-shot groups with a Kennedy half dollar using both the scope and the iron sights. For the second trip to the range I had two tests in mind: longer range, and up close and personal.

Accuracy was exceptional with both the iron sights and the scout scope.

Accuracy was exceptional with both the iron sights and the scout scope.

At 100 yards, I got to work trying to find out what ammunition produced the best accuracy with this rifle. After extensive testing, I found that the Black Hills 168-grain match ammunition delivered the best groups, hands down. Shooting from a bench using a Caldwell Lead Sled, consistent 1-inch groups were possible if I did my part. While the rifle was more accurate with lighter ammunition, it was 100 percent reliable with every brand and type of ammunition I tested.

For the last test I set up three targets various ranges up close for some fast shooting, putting multiple rounds down on each target. I was interested in seeing how this gun would transition from target to target at close range. To my delight, the M1A SOCOM 16 CQB handled more like an AR-15 than a .308 battle rifle.

It rapidly recovered from shot to shot and it was easy to shoot with precision even with fast follow-up shots. As short as the rifle is, it transitioned quickly between targets as well. The mass of the rifle did become noticeable after slinging the rifle for longer stretches — dead weight is dead weight — it’s up to you to decide if the extra weight is worth it for the larger caliber.

The charging handle is on the right side, which may mean you will need to do the old reach-around if you want to keep your right hand on the grip.

The charging handle is on the right side, which may mean you will need to do the old reach-around if you want to keep your right hand on the grip.

From AR to M1A

I do have some issues with how I ran this rifle, but all of them can be overcome with training. The magazine change seems to take me forever — I am so used to the button-style magazine release on ARs — an oversized magazine latch might help.

The safety, positioned in front of the trigger guard also takes some getting used to. On the plus side, the safety is ambidextrous. And I don’t know if this is even a possibility, but I like sights that can co-witness with the optic.

I think what I really should say is that these two platform are obviously different, and different doesn’t necessarily mean bad — it means training opportunity.

The safety is ambidextrous and very easy to disengage.

The safety is ambidextrous and very easy to disengage.

The mag latch is also easy to access, though it takes some adjustment for AR shooters.

The mag latch is also easy to access, though it takes some adjustment for AR shooters. That’s it in front of the safety.

Is The Quest Over?

MSRP for the new SOCOM CQB with the Vortex Venom it is $2,396. It is selling for closer to the $2,000 mark. Without the Vortex, it should be even less. Price aside, I would say that this may not be “the one” forever, but it definitely is “the rifle right now.” The M1A SOCOM 16 CQB is a keeper — that is, as soon as I can buy one.

The gun comes in at 8.975 pounds.

The gun comes in at 8.979 pounds.

M-LOK and rail panels.

M-LOK and rail panels.

The Archangel stock is a fantastic addition.

The Archangel stock is a fantastic addition.

It has well spaced QD mounts, too.

It has well spaced QD mounts, too.

The outside of the bag.

The outside of the bag.

The rear sight and base for a scope mount.

The rear sight and base for a scope mount.

The old M1A is given new lines.

The old M1A is given new lines.

The rear sight.

The rear sight.

Through the Leupold.

Through the Leupold.

Warming up at 50 meters.

Warming up at 50 meters.

Punching one clean hole, just off of point of aim.

Punching one clean hole, just off of point of aim–the SOCOM was a breeze to sight in.

The front sight, though wide, has an insert that helps with fine tuned accuracy.

The front sight, though wide, has an insert that helps with fine tuned accuracy.

The controls will be familiar to anyone who has run an M1A.

The controls will be familiar to anyone who has run an M1A.

The 5 position stock.

The 5 position stock.

{ 56 comments… add one }
  • WildBill August 26, 2016, 12:56 pm

    As a former Marine I’ve. Used both rifles M14/M16 these are great tools both have long Histories as All firearms/calibers have various ballistic. Challenges my opinion is its in the indivual confidence of the user/ Thank God for our Freedom and for ALL the the young men an women serving in our stead with these rifles in their hands

  • Lawrence Myers August 8, 2016, 9:23 pm

    Firearms dealer here. Customer pointed out that non-adjustable raised comb on Archangel stock prevents sight picture through factory aperture sights without uncomfortable head extortion. A bad set-up and not well thought out. Solution: We removed the stock and installed Mag-pull CTR stock. Fixed the problem. A cheaper solution is to remove the raised comb from the factory stock (pry it off). Looks cheap but also works. Be aware, Archangel uses commercial size buffer, not mil spec.

  • CAGLS July 2, 2016, 4:19 pm

    Just got a Scar 17 which can do a CQB role as well as midrange and farther, but I still want a Socom 16.

  • Greg February 10, 2016, 10:22 am

    I own a Ruger SR-762 that will do everything this rifle will do and cost less while doing it. The author talks about 1″ groups at 100 yards if he “does his part”. That’s honestly a bigger group than I’d expect out of a .308 in this price range. The M-14 is a great rifle. I’m not taking anything away from it. The Springfield guns should be using a forged receiver IMHO. The stock on this gun looks far too gimmicky for my tastes. I am amused at the comments saying a .308 is no better than a 7.62×39 in a 16″ barrel. I took two white tails with my Ruger this year. One ran 20 yards after being hit and the 8 pointer dropped where he stood. I highly doubt either deer would have done the same with the Russian round and they sure didn’t care the barrel was a couple inches shorter. I use the SR-762 as my patrol rifle. It goes to work with me every night. I’ve cleared buildings with it just as easily as my partners with their AR-15s. I have not had to fire on a fellow human thankfully but I have no doubts it will do the trick if ever called upon. I just don’t see how this bastardized plastic version of a great battle rifle is anybody’s “perfect CQB in .308” but to each his own. For my money, I’d rather buy the Ruger and spend the difference on practice ammo. Just my opinion and everybody’s got one.

  • Mark January 31, 2016, 8:16 pm

    Front heavy.

  • Wicked_Mainah January 27, 2016, 9:17 pm

    Meh. At that price I’ll pass. I never liked the Springfield M1As and this kinda junk is why. The stock set up is cheap. Archangel stocks have always felt and looked cheap to me.

    I’d much rather have a Fulton Armory M14 at these prices. You know, a real FORGED M14, not cast…

  • Glen Hasdley January 26, 2016, 6:48 pm

    If the gun isnt a AR 15 5.56 nato i dont want it

    • Evan January 26, 2016, 7:57 pm

      How narrow minded of you. There are lots of very good guns out there, and most of them aren’t AR15s. There are some very good ARs out there, in a variety of calibers, but saying that you’d rather have some piece of junk from Bushmaster or DPMS than a good M14 or FAL just speaks to a lack of knowledge about guns in general.

    • James T Kirk January 27, 2016, 3:24 am

      Wow, what a “I actually know nothing about guns” thing to say.

    • Peter August 5, 2016, 11:27 pm

      Tavor FTW over an AR any day. Own both and love my Tavor.

    • Peter August 5, 2016, 11:27 pm

      Tavor FTW over an AR any day. Own both and love my Tavor.

  • devildog1971 January 26, 2016, 6:15 pm

    I trained with the M14 in bootcamp and what a scooter at 1000 yards and not only did it have the right ballistics the M14 was capable of being used to defend yourself when it came to hand to hand combat, which you cannot do with the M16 yes it was heavy but many Marines carried it and did not lay down and cry that it was heavy. I know the explanation for the M16 is you can carry twice the ammo ect but I think part of the development was for the new army, that was expecting to accomodate females. just my opinion

  • Evan January 26, 2016, 4:55 pm

    I love M14s of all stripes, but I have a couple problems with this one: first, M-lok is worthless. There is no GOOD reason not to put full length rails at all four positions instead of this silly fad. Second, based on the gas system sticking out so far and the barrel being so short, I doubt this is suppressor compatible. I’d like to suppress it, but it doesn’t look like you can.

    • James T Kirk January 27, 2016, 3:28 am

      Have you ever shot a full caliber weapon with quad rails while holding them and not wearing gloves? M-Lok and Keymod definitely have their place. 1913 will chew your hands to pieces if you do anything more than just stand and punch paper. Even when gloved it will wear them out, and if its not a decent pair (ie. not very expensive) they last no time. I have having useless rail on my guns I cannot remove. It’s just extra weight and I can’t use the right hold I want because the rails eat up your hands.

      • Scott July 31, 2017, 8:06 pm

        I agree. I have the standard SOCOM (green stock) with just the rail up top for the scout scope mount. I have been using a Crossfire 2x7x32 Scout which is not half bad even if it may be made off shore. I fired a friend’s SOCOM II with the quad rails and hated it. Scott.

  • Shrapnel_ January 25, 2016, 8:29 pm

    I actually spent time reading most of the article negative replies and all I can say is…WOW, What a bunch of girl scouts…lol.

    For all those AR15 critics against the M1A SOCOM you’re absolutely right. All of you need to stay with AR15 because its all you’re able to handle. No need to jump up to the big boys league because if you can’t handle the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen…lol. No comparison between 308win to 223/556 and you can throw in the girly 7.62×39 if you like. Shoot deer size game with 308win and its dead. Shoot deer size game with 223/556 or 7.62×39 and most often you’ll spend a lot of time tracking a wounded deer for a long distance.

    Lots of name brand 308 Win ammo on the market designed not to over penetrate deer size game and with “adequate marksmanship” harming innocent bystanders less likely compared to the average 62 grain M855 ammo that so many AR15 owners have depleted the ammo market from time and time for the last two years. I own several AR15 including some of my competitive ARs costing over 2k as well. To build an AR today equal to the quality 2-stage trigger, barrel, and overall accuracy of the Springfield M1A will cost over 2k.

    If you thank your $800 AR15 will hang with the M1A in every classification of survival with great knock-down ability from short to long range accuracy you should thank again. Reason so many love the AR is because people can shoot lighter recoil firearms more comfortable and allows the to stay in there comfort zone. Real men can handle the kick and make it count when the stress heat is on high.

    • Stef January 26, 2016, 1:35 am

      An, I’ll stick to my heavy SCAR

    • James T Kirk January 27, 2016, 3:35 am

      If I could only have one single rifle, to do everything, I’d take a PTR/G3. It might be heavy and you have to man handle that thing, but it will never ever quit you when you need it. Excellent post.

      While I agree that a proper OTM or Ballistic Tip 5.56 round will drop a target well given sufficient velocity, you can do the same thing from a full power .30 caliber FMJ just from the shock of the impact. Much less the devestating rounds they have come out with now. 7.62 NATO is THE best man stopper that is wildly in used right now.

      More people have been sent to heaven doorsteps from a 30-06/8mm/.303 then all the 5.56 NATO combined. Grow up, do some hiking in your gear, and lift some weights. If a 20 year old could jump off a LCVP into a raging channel at Normandy with 150 pounds of gear on his back while carrying his Garand and make it to shore. I think you can carry your MBR sized rifle from the car to the bench.

  • Mark January 25, 2016, 6:57 pm

    Why is it ok for a 5.56 rifle to have a 16″ or shorter barrel but anytime the mention of a 7.62×51 barrel at 16″ comes up many say its to short? 5.56 relies heavily on fps to stop threats. A couple hundred fps less from a 150 grain 7.62 is hardly a worry for a fighting rifle unless you intend to use it a max ranges.

  • David January 25, 2016, 4:57 pm

    This rifle needs a strong steel collapsible stock not a plastic one, I would not fight with that rifle. Perhaps you could look at the HK 91 stock or perhaps a folder like the Galil not the New Galil, maybe the FAL and its folder, just strengthen the recoil pad, and add adj cheek mount, use a little engineering skills….This reminds me of the new Faxon Rifle why use a collapsible stock when your upper doesn’t require a buffer tube?

    • Evan January 26, 2016, 7:58 pm

      Adjustable length of pull, for one.

    • Eric Kevitt January 26, 2016, 7:59 pm

      I agree with you that the stocks buffer tube area needs to be a little more stout,..would be great if it was reinforced w/metal . I have the A. angel stock for a mini 14 and it really is a sturdy resin that they use,.. but that said I dont know if this one is the same, and /or if its even adequate enough for a full size battle rifle. Had this issue been addressed it would be near perfection,.. IMO anyways…but Im not goin into battle either…I hope !

  • John Bibb January 25, 2016, 3:24 pm

    ***
    The M14 and SA’s M1A are excellent high power battle rifles. However, they seem way too heavy and real overkill for short range work. High recoil and loss of sight picture problems, and capable of going through a perp, and through the walls into a neighbor hundreds of yards away! $2000 bucks seems a tad pricy also.
    ***
    I went with the modern AO .30 cal. M1 Carbine clone. Added a good scope mount and a 4x mildot scope and a bright green NC Star laser under the barrel. Very accurate, light, cheap to shoot with FMJ, low recoil, 30 rounds, and simple. With the great Hornady expanding bullets–very capable of protection up to 150 yards. Good to 300 yards if you understand bullet drop and mildot. All for under $800 bucks. Old school all the way–with upgrades!
    ***
    Rocketman
    ***

  • Lyman Moss January 25, 2016, 2:36 pm

    Why did Springfield Armory waste all that money and time to develop a rifle that nobody wants instead of coming out with a 5.56 x 45 (223)? It has been way to long for them not to have done it. They cold created all the same models that they currently offering in the 7.62 x 51 and been way ahead of the game, instead they let the AR’s dominate. I love the M14 style rifle over the AR style and think they have completely missed the boat by not doing it.

    • BuryTheHatchet January 25, 2016, 6:52 pm

      If you are talking about an M1A chassis rifle in 223…that is found in the Ranch Rifle and Mini-14 made by Ruger.

  • DR_T January 25, 2016, 1:38 pm

    Why bother, The gun is still overweight!! Much prefer a DSA FAL PARA w/ 16inch BBL. Better scope/ optics mounting rails available and legendary reliability.. ergonomics are far better. The newer version although overpriced but a pound or so less is the SCAR. Have them both ! and wont look back..

    • Gregg Cole January 25, 2016, 2:55 pm

      Well if you want to rail out 308’s in close quarters the FAL 16″ Para is hands down the best and cheaper.

      • James T Kirk January 27, 2016, 3:39 am

        Every FAL I’ve ever shot was around 3-5 MOA that is counting the extreme ends of the scale. Most shoot about 4 MOA. If it will truly only be used CQB and in urban conflict less than 100 yards, I could be okay with someone saying FAL. Outside of that, AR-10, PTR/G3, or M1A are much better IMO if you believe you will engage targest past a medium distance. Irrelevant in a discussion about a CQB M1A, but I have a suspecion that even the CQB M1A would outshoot an 18″ FAL.

        • Charlie August 26, 2016, 3:01 am

          My friends socom16 outshot my German DSA 18in FAL, and it was that way for both of us.

  • Seabee January 25, 2016, 1:32 pm

    I have to agree with posts here, the shorter barrel is going to lose velocity in the .308. Hate the plastic stock, just looks cheesy, it may hold up to battle use but time will tell. Guns are tools and as such there is no one tool useful for all applications,this looks like they just chopped down a perfectly good long range battle rifle to try and make it a CQB carbine. Honestly if I need to go CQ I’ll draw my sidearm.

  • steve January 25, 2016, 12:24 pm

    Been there, done that. About 10 years ago, AND for less money. This rifle has the same problem MANY of the rifles today that use that weird buffer M16 stock… NO FOLDING STOCK. Without that ridiculous buffer the M16 has, you free yourself to have a folder. Sig, HK, FN, … and ME! Photos at Google https://goo.gl/photos/R9K11z6gRZeBFLQT8

    • Tom Horn January 25, 2016, 2:14 pm

      Nice!

  • Tom Horn January 25, 2016, 12:24 pm

    Almost every short coming that everyone is complaining about this rifle, are addressed in different model of the same rifle, from Springfield Armory. This is the CQB (emphasis on “close quarter”) version, hence shorter, more maneuverable 16″ barrel, and collapsible stock. Great rifle in all it’s variations, dress it as you will.

  • Elnonio January 25, 2016, 10:40 am

    The last full size picture caption says rear site and base for scope. That’s not a base, that’s a stripper clip guide which, when removed, can be used as an anchor for a base. Most bases don’t use that frature though.

  • DG Jeffcoat January 25, 2016, 10:24 am

    Great gun, great review, but I also agree with leaving it in the original stock.

    • munchie January 25, 2016, 10:55 am

      Yep, looks like it was made in a high school shop class.

  • Mike Hendrickson January 25, 2016, 10:18 am

    A better CQC .308 rifle has been available for years from DSArms. I have owned a SOCOM and a 16″ folding stock FAL. I sold the SOCOM no quams.

  • Kim Owens January 25, 2016, 9:34 am

    The M14 that we had in the sixties was a strong tool. The plastic guns could not take the abuse .

  • Richard January 25, 2016, 8:29 am

    This thing just looks like some cheap Tapco aftermarket drop in stock that actually gives far less quality and durability as the factory artificial stock. I agree with Bisley too, for a .308 rifle, you need that longer barrel to take full advantage of the extra powder in the round. The M1-A1 is a stellar rifle in it’s natural form. Sometimes these companies need to realize that good enough, is good enough.

    • Paul Helinski January 25, 2016, 8:50 am

      If you bothered to look instead of yap, you’d see that it is an updated Archangel stock that we have covered in the past. They are extremely high quality.

    • Gem Gram January 25, 2016, 9:59 am

      I have to agree with Richard. The M-14 was the finest battle rifle ever created to date. Having carried one with the opportunity to actually shoot it at someone I can assure you that such an opinion is not unfounded. Almost everything done to creates this “new version” makes it less so. The “14” that the SEALS prefer is NOT this one. As a gun enthusiast “as opposed to “nut”” I have about every caliber AR that one can have. A light weight 6.8 MM AR carbine would be far superior to this for “CQB”. That said, if I had to carry ANYTHING in the world into actual combat in anything other than a building or heavy jungle, it would be a M-14 or a M1A in full size. Of course I would want all the accuracy mods available on it. 🙂 And even though I have AR15’s in most of the calibers and AR-10’s in every caliber you can think of from the.243, 6.5 Creed, 7MM-08, .308 family,; FAL, G-3, etc if I was going to grab one rifle to go out with bad intentions to protect my family it would be a M1A full size rifle in 7.62 X51

      If as much ammo was available in it, I might really want a M1A in 6.5 Creedmore. Now that might actually be an improvement. Maybe I should build one, just for fun. 🙂 The great advantage of the AR over the M1A is if I get curious about such a thing I just stick a new upper that is easy to assemble on and check it out. 🙂

      • JohnP January 25, 2016, 11:22 am

        I hope someone from Springfield Armory marketing reads your comment. Their reluctance to offer the M1A in calibers other than .308 is perplexing. Why not take advantage of the whole .308 family of cartridges, when so many shooters have others rifles in those calibers? I could see a lot of buyers wanting hunting rifle/battle rifle compatibility.

        • Nick January 25, 2016, 7:14 pm

          I already have that. Browning BAR II Safari and M1 Garand…

      • Billy January 25, 2016, 5:50 pm

        Like you, I also carried the M14 in Vietnam and I loved it, still do today. The rifle is heavy as is the ammo if you are carrying several hundred rounds through the jungle when it’s 120 degrees. That said, it is my all time favorite rifle. I own an M14 and an M1A and I would never get rid of them. The M14 is extremely accurate and very dependable. The best all around battle rifle ever built.

    • Valentine January 25, 2016, 12:14 pm

      And BTW its the M1A, not M1-A1.

  • Sonny Reeves January 25, 2016, 8:06 am

    I would not be happy with this. Reminds me of the aftermarket stock kits that are sold to wanna be’s to play with rifles.
    Having carried the M14 in combat after training with iron sights at 500 meters as a marine rifleman I am entirely comfortable with mag changes, longer barrel, safety position and the idiosyncrasy of the M-14 series of rifles. The NVA had great respect for the long range accuracy and the close up ability to cut bush to kill. I suppose one just likes what they are raised with and no one likes change but wet babies. I will keep my standard M1A and let the young one’s enjoy what they like. It is a great platform. Semper Fi

    • Alan Lee January 25, 2016, 9:08 am

      Thanks for your service to our nation.

    • Jeff January 25, 2016, 5:09 pm

      Well said Sonny!

    • Thumper January 25, 2016, 7:52 pm

      concur….put my socom back in a GI walnut stock also,in case the opportunity arises that someone needs a vertical buttstroke.

      Semper Fi

  • John R Shirley January 25, 2016, 7:10 am

    It is difficult to believe that a modest evolution of the least successful general issue rifle in US history is going to be “the one”. I notice that you mention “fast shooting” and “rapid recovery” without giving any standards for what that actually means.

    Also, if consistent 1″ groups are possible “if you did your part” what groups were shot the rest of the time?

  • Bisley January 25, 2016, 6:36 am

    The problem this thing is supposed to solve would be better addressed by an AK. A .308 should have enough barrel to get most of the benefit out of the powder that’s being burned (20-24″, not 16″). It may look cool, but it’s too short, too heavy for a short carbine, and likely to produce a great deal of flash and bang, without very much more real power than a 7.62X39.

    The full-size M14-M1A is great, but it needs to be full-size to get the velocity and range that makes it better than an AK.

    • Gary January 25, 2016, 11:55 am

      Very true about the muzzle flash. I’ve shot a short barrel M1 “Tanker” Garand carbine (Springfield Armory) before, and that did produce a pretty substantial blast… and that was with an 18″ barrel. Then again that was firing the .30-06 round. Still, if firing a .308 out of a 16″ barrel produced a similar muzzle blast, I think I’ll pass on that one.

      Would tend to agree that one of the better AK variants or a Mini 30 would be better suited for the job this rifle is intended for.

    • DarthVaderMentor January 25, 2016, 1:21 pm

      Good point, Bisley. There is a lot to be said about the M1 Garand (and its technological descendants) and its place in battle. It is without a doubt, the finest open battle implement a soldier could have, as Patton aptly postulated. However, one gun cannot fit all situations. In engineering we tend to take a good design to its extremes. In those extremes, the gun will do well in some instances, but taking a good design out of its envelope exposes the compromises and in itself compromises it from being the optimum solution for that environment for most situations. In the case of the M1A-M14 the cartridge weight,length, the chamber design required to support that charge powder charge, weapon size, weapon flexibility, size, weight recoil, etc. are key factors that must be dealt with in the arena of CQB and home defense. In CQB, the AK must take its place as the pre-eminent replacement of the M1A-M14. The Germans knew this in WW2, with the development of the Sturmgewehr StG-44 and the 7.92×33 cartridge. The weapon highlighted is a more compact M1A-M14, but it is naturally stretching its design in order to be of a size and weight to compete with other weapons as a CQB weapon of choice. Adherents of a power bullet with the strength to carry such a weapon and those who admire the OQB (Open Quarters Battle) king the M1A-M14 will be adherents of this ordnance, but the average person will stick to the AK or the Stoner/AR .223 ordnance for CQB.

      The real answer in warfare is combined arms. A team with both UB and CQB optimized ordnance will always be superior to one with more limited ordnance choice.

  • Charles Ross January 25, 2016, 5:10 am

    I do not like pistol grips on a long gun, but nice video, I’ll take that gun in original platform.

    • Bob June 20, 2016, 6:35 pm

      I was one of the last basic classes at Ft Knox to train with the M14…”C-15-4…we are the greatest, Rah!”. I really liked the weapon and was not happy when we switched to the M16 in AIT. I purchased a SOCOM 16 a few years ago for under a grand. At 65 years old with iron sights I can still hit a dinner plate pattern at 200 yds (pretty quickly) and “burn up” a shilouette target at 100 yds or less. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it, but if in some future apocalyptic lifetime you find yourself being opposed by this weapon, don’t under estimate it.

      • Ross July 14, 2016, 8:03 pm

        Just ordered my Socom16 cqb. Bottom line is I’ll have one. It will hit cqb, mybe add a bayonet for giggles.45 for backup.didn’t want 5.56 etc.like comparing 9mm to 45.There’ll tools,some just make you smile

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend