January 2, 2012

Springfield Armory M1A Socom II AA9627 308 Winchester

Semi-automatic carbines have become enormously popular. Applications range from law enforcement and home defense to competitive target shooting and hunting. The most popular platform is the AR15-based weapon chambered for 223 Remington. But if you visit your local shooting range, you will find AR-style carbines, circa the 1960s, shooting alongside historical battle-rifle actions made popular in the 1940s.

Gun Tests magazine recently tested an M1A variant in the form of Springfield Armory’s $2090 Socom II AA9627 with black fiberglass stock.

The 308 Winchester test ammunition consisted of Federal’s American Eagle 150-grain full-metal-jacket boattails, Winchester 150-grain Power Points; Black Hills Gold 155-grain Hornady A-Max cartridges, Hornady 168-grain TAP FFDs, Black Hills 168-grain boattail hollowpoints, and Black Hills 175-grain boattail hollowpoints.

They performed two firing sessions, one for accuracy and another for fast-action capability that featured multiple targets at close range. For the accuracy tests they fired from the 100-yard line at American Shooting Centers in Houston (www.AmShootCenters.com). They usually test carbines from a distance of 50 yards, and this gun’s sights were suitable for that. The Springfield Armory carbine arrived with iron sights.

But because the 308 Winchester is widely used for precision rifle applications, they fitted the gun with a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10X40mm LR/T No. 60010 long range-tactical scope, which had a mil-line reticle with illumination on demand (www.Leupold.com).

They found the chore of zeroing the 30mm-tube Leupold was no chore at all. Adjusting for windage and elevation were as simple as working an Etch-a-Sketch. Mounting a scope on the Socom II did produce a challenge. The Socom II AA9629 has an extended top rail that reaches over the chamber and all the way back to the rear sight. But the AA9627carbine was set up with a rail that did not reach fully across the receiver. So, they had few options. One was to remove the stripper clip bracket and mount a longer mount. Another was to utilize a long-relief scope. To mount the Leupold, they resorted to using an extension mount.


The Socom II is expensive, but you will be boss of the block.

For the bench session we turned the Leupold’s power up to 10X, and for close-quarters shooting they reduced magnification. Using the technique of bracketing targets at shorter distances, they framed the torso between the mil lines, making the scope more flexible. The close-quarters tests consisted of a series of six-shot strings of fire wherein they engaged three IPSC Metric targets, originally referred to as Milparks. The Milpark is a corrugated cardboard target representing a human torso and head measuring about 30 inches top to bottom. Target placement was mapped with the central target 45 feet downrange. The left-side target was 20 feet downrange, and the right-side target was 30 feet away. Each peripheral target was about 12.5 feet from the center line. The routine was to begin with the long gun at low ready, come up on the target and attempt to place two shots on each target as fast as possible. They fired left to right, right to left and working from nearest target to farthest target, then back again. They weren’t looking to collect timed data, instead they wanted to learn more about the guns than a bench session or plinking could tell them. For this portion of the test, they tried the gun with its supplied sights as well as with the Leupold Prismatic 1X14 Tactical No. 63300. This is a 1X non-magnifying scope that provided a reticle consisting of crosshair and circle. The reticle could be illuminated when desired. Brightness of the circle-plex reticle was variable and could be turned on and off, returning directly to the desired setting. Use of the 1X Prismatic enabled them to put the aiming reticle and the target on the same visual plane. This meant the eyes did not have to work at comparing the front sight to the rear sight and then the target.

As usual, they were looking for a function level of 100% and to see how the gun helped the shooter get the job done. Here is what they learned:


Built more like artillery than a rifle, note the gauge of the bolt lever on the far side (right arrow), the heavy bolt catch along the near side, and the stripper-clip guide at the rear of the ejection port. The top rail was machined with a channel (left arrow) in its center to accommodate sight line from the rear aperture.

There are actually nine different variations of this platform in the Springfield Armory catalog, including an urban-camo stock. They likened the visual appeal of the Socom II to a 1950s custom sedan with big fenders and grill. Members of the staff took to calling it the Rocket 88, comparing it to the famous Oldsmobile.

The Socom II is not your father’s M1 Garand. Overall length has been shortened considerably with a 16.25-inch barrel. The test stock was black fiberglass with a non-skid finish that absorbed glare and was good looking in a tough-guy sort of way. The 20-round magazine was an impressive rectangular casing with Parkerized finish. Garand-like features included the safety, charging protocol, and the manner in which the magazine was held in place. The Ghost Ring sight was adjustable for windage and elevation. The front sight was an XS-brand sight that included a rectangular tritium insert centered between a hefty set of protective ears. The top rail featured a deep channel to accommodate the sight line between front and rear sight units.

But what dominated their eyes was the array of Picatinny rails mounted on the fore end—Springfield Armory’s new Cluster Rail System. The forward portion of the full-length stock was hidden by the Cluster Rail System. The rail system was in two parts. The lower portion of the assembly was heavily vented on the sides, and it offered a 10-inch rail on the bottom. The upper portion of the rail offered a 5-inch rail on each side. The top rail covered the entire distance from the muzzle end of the stock to the forward wall of the chamber. Only 4 inches of barrel protruded from the shroud of the rail system. This included about 1.5 inches of muzzle brake. They thought holding the fore end would be uncomfortable. But when they began shooting the Socom II, they realized that they didn’t need to wear gloves to protect their hands after all. The rails weren’t sharp and didn’t dig into their hands on recoil.


The VLTOR rail system was attached like the grill on a locomotive. GT was sure it would make for an uncomfortable hold, but they were wrong.

In today’s weapon designs, there seems to have been a conscious effort to limit the job of the index finger to pressing the trigger. But they found their index finger was busy with an extra dose of caution because the Socom II’s safety moves from inside the trigger guard for safety-On to outside the front of the trigger guard for ready to fire. The substantial bolt featured an operating handle on the right side, which they found was placed perfectly for being pulled back and released by the right-hand trigger finger. This was handy because this design demands manual bolt release. The latch that holds the bolt back was on the left-hand side, but it does not function as a release.

They found the magazine was the easy to load and, if necessary, strip off rounds. But it’s easy to be spoiled by the convenient operation of today’s AR carbines. Dropping the magazine was not achieved with the push of a button but rather by a lever hanging directly behind the magazine. With a little practice it was easy enough to compress the release lever with the thumb as they grabbed the magazine from the receiver. With the bolt locked rearward, they could see straight through the ejection port and out the magazine well. This was because this rifle was designed to feed from a cluster of ammunition bound by a clip to be loaded from the top. A bracket to guide a stripper clip was mounted above the rear of the chamber ahead of the rear sight.

Described on the www.Springfield-Armory.com website as a two-stage military trigger, they liked the Socom’s trigger best. They said this made for a shooting experience that was as enjoyable as it was unexpected when compared to their first impression of this weapon.

Thanks to its 10.4-pound weight (without magazine or scope) and the efficiency of the muzzle brake, the Socom II was a pussycat to shoot. From the bench they only found one variety of ammunition that they were not satisfied with. Firing the Winchester 150-grain Power Point, the groups formed a cluster averaging about 2.7 inches across at 100 yards. With one exception, the remaining supply of ammunition was grouping about 1.6 inches across per five shots. They did, however, conquer the minute-of-angle barrier firing the Black Hills 168-grain boattail hollowpoints. Their tightest group measured only 0.9 inches across. Their average size group firing the Black Hills 168-grain BTHPs was 1.1 inches.


The muzzle brake did a great job in taming the beast. The four-sided rail surrounded much of the black synthetic stock. The front sight looked mighty sturdy.

For the action test they fired first with the Leupold MK 4 in place set at the minimum magnification, 3.5X. The key here was to perform a consistent mount to guarantee clarity of visual relief. Also helpful was the small open space where the cross hairs intersected. They mentioned that they did not find this feature as usable at 100 yards as they had hoped. But it added greatly to their ability to aim at longer distances and at close targets for a more surgical aim. However, for true close-quarters engagement, it was hard to beat the supplied sights. But they pointed out that they would have preferred a front-sight blade that was not square or rectangular in profile. They said this was because when working as fast as they could, it was too easy to confuse the protective ears with the front sight. Initially the tritium insert did help distinguish the front sight, but once it was dirty they were faced with three nearly identical vertical planes to choose from. They resorted to making a quick visual check of the sight channel in the rib to set us right. It did not take long to get a feel for aiming the Socom II quickly. They thought the Springfield Armory Socom II was the most effective weapon at both close and intermediate ranges.

Comments (32)

I think you'll like it, slugger6. My time in Vietnam was mostly blade time in helicopters, but I kept an M-14 handy when ever I was out and about the Central Highlands. The M-16 was easier to throw into the chopper, but with a little ingenuity you can squeeze and M-14 in OK, and the 7.62x51mm definitely could reach out and touch someone far more reliably than the little 5.56x45mm.

Posted by: canovack | March 10, 2012 4:57 PM    Report this comment

Based on these, and other, comments I have decided to order the SOCOM ll. The .308 has long been my favorite rifle cartridge. As a sniper in Vietnam I came to trust the take down power of this cartridge over the anemic 5.56. I am very much looking forward to shooting it in this platform.

Posted by: slugger6 | March 10, 2012 12:43 PM    Report this comment

Dragonchow, I heartily recommend the Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle to anybody who wants a stout, handy, general purpose rifle in a sensible caliber that can fill just about any mission we might have. That I was able to obtain one for what I considered a very reasonable price of $768.00 is just frosting on the cake.

Posted by: canovack | January 8, 2012 5:28 PM    Report this comment

I use simular yardsticks for estimating "real world" accuracy, Canovack. Benchresting is great fun, but has little to do with field expedient weapon handling.
I was poking you more for your experiences (a fellow non-gunwriter) toting, handling, care/feeding, peeves, etc. with the Ruger - you know, The kinda stuff it takes a while to feel out.
Not to start yet another zombie gun thread (please guys, don't -I've already jacked the hell out of this thread) but would it rate high on your list as THE bug out rifle? That's sorta what I'm thinking the scout style rifle is really about and why I want one.

Posted by: Dragonchow | January 8, 2012 3:22 PM    Report this comment

Somewhere in one of the discussion threads, Dragonchow, I commented about the rounds that I had gotten through the Ruger Scout. I haven't punched any holes in paper, so I really don't have any experience concerning group size. What I have done, though, is taken it out to the pasture and plinked with it. I can manage to put puffs of dust on fire ant mounds and fracture tree stumps at about 300 meters with it, so it's doing essentially what I want it to do.....reliably hit deer and/or human sized targets.

Posted by: canovack | January 8, 2012 12:27 PM    Report this comment

Canovack, I was wondering how you were getting along with that Ruger. I was quizzing you when you first got it 'cause I was looking at one with a fair price ($800) on it at my LGS.
At the time I don't think you had any bang time with yours yet IIRC.
Regardless, next time I went into that shop they had a brand new Steyr Scout on the rack WITH a very correct Leupold EER scope for $1850 - that sucker was sooo sweet it made me vapor lock!
Before I got off the pot and slaughtered my piggy bank they sold it - left me so bereft I just didn't feel like I deserved any new rifle..."not to decide is to decide".
Consoled myself with several exhausting range outings - M1A, Garand, AK, SKS, etc.
I'm feeling m u c h better now. Watching for the next smoking deal on either Ruger or Steyr (fat chance on that one!) and will jump on it this time!
Methinks one M1A in the collection is enough- so my lust for the SOCOM is very minimal...right now.

Posted by: Dragonchow | January 8, 2012 11:58 AM    Report this comment

Canovack, I know what ya mean about all those rails. I reasently took one of my 10-22's and put a foldin stock on it and some rails, top bottom and sides and am glad that the rails have rubber covers on them or it would be real hard on the bare hands, but now the rifle is almost 3 time heaver. But with the 3-9x40 scope and lite and laizer it sure is a nice peace for speacilty work or if you want to make somone think a larger round is going off farther away. so far works great for all them gritters that like to come around a night, like, coons, skunks and them, shot a coyote in the back yard just the other night and dropped him in his tracks, first time I ever used a laizer, right betweeen the eyes.
God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future.
Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry.
Get the US Out of the UN and the UN Out of the US

Posted by: bear1 | January 7, 2012 10:49 PM    Report this comment

Well, Dragonchow, the original intent of my purchase of the Burris 2.75x Scout Scope was for use on the mid-barrel rail of my SOCOM 16. Only problem was that I really like the metallic sights on the SOCOM, since they are so reminiscent of those on the M1 Garand, with which I qualified in Basic. And.....the front sight of the SOCOM has a tritium insert that makes the thing leap out at you, even in fairly good light. Anyway, I was despairing of ever making use of the Burris Scout Scope, until I brought home my Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle. Installation of the Burris on the Ruger was a match made in Heaven.....especially when I used see-through rings so I can still use the metallic sights on the Ruger.

Posted by: canovack | January 6, 2012 8:25 PM    Report this comment

I just started a project. Operation cheap tactical rifle. I started with a Remington 700 SPS Tactical rifle in 7.62. I'm taking the action and installing it in a H.S. Precision M-24 stock. I'm putting a 3-9 Leupold VX-R Partol scope with a TMR reticle. I'm replacing the factory trigger with a Timney trigger. I'm thinking I should get a sub MOA group when the thing is all together and proplerly torqued. Any suggestions on bedding or not bedding?

Posted by: sivispace | January 6, 2012 8:23 PM    Report this comment

To be sure - if you have a good piece and enhance it with well mounted, solid accessories that work for you - now your cooking! I put a EOtech 517 on a 9MM AR15 carbine, fitted a JP trigger and Magpul butt and it went from OK to OMG! Likewise,a simple WASR10 AK became vastly more usable when I added a fairly decent red dot and a functional compensator. Heck, even my chinese SKS became one of my favorite boom sticks when put it in a Tapco T6 stock with a Leopold EER scope mounted on the forend rail.
I really love it when mods work, but I've sure screwed a few pooches too. Trying to fix a POS by hanging candy on it has never worked out for me. Sometimes it doesn't work on good arms either - I spent a pile of cash setting up the M1A with a SA 3rd gen mount and older SA 4-14x56 scope. Bad move - heavy got way heavier, mount wouldn't hold zero, big scope bell blocked the iron sights, cheek weld was hopeless...struggled with it for a long time, finally just stripped it off and now I love it again.
Another expensive lesson...shoulda just got a SOCOM and a scout scope.

Posted by: Dragonchow | January 6, 2012 6:44 PM    Report this comment

Thanks Dragonchow, that gives me hope at 47.

Posted by: sivispace | January 6, 2012 5:26 PM    Report this comment

And a sound opinion it is, Dragonchow. While I have a couple of laser sighted handguns, one laser sighted shotgun, and a couple of red-dot sights, my "go to guns" are pretty much metallic sighted. Two exceptions: My Savage M99 .308 has a Bushnell wide field variable, and my Ruger Gunsite Scout has a Burris 2.75 Scout Scope mounted on the mid-barrel accessory rail. I wear glasses, but at age 71, I can still bring effective fire on targets at moderate ranges.....out to 300 meters.....with metallic sights.

Posted by: canovack | January 6, 2012 5:10 PM    Report this comment

Kinda forgot to make my point on that last post (old pharts do tend to wind drift) which is: black polymer, pistol grips, yards of picatinny rail, fancy shmancy electronic optical doo-dads - do not a "tactical" rifle make if the basic core weapon is not already capable of delivering decisive firepower on target...just an opinion.

Posted by: Dragonchow | January 6, 2012 3:06 PM    Report this comment

A semi-private outdoor range I frequent allows me the tremendous priviledge of sharing the sport with many young (and some old) veterans as well as assorted LEO's. Several times I've been approached by them with questions about the funky old iron I'm chewing up the 200 yd steel with and I get a real kick out of handing them my 1989 vintage standard M1A with a full mag of surplus 7.62 NATO. These fine people have often never experienced anything other than AR type long guns - they are amazed at the accuracy and handling quality. They ALWAYS love the hell out of the Springfield and start reckoning how they are gonna get them one...then I pull out my old Garand and let them experience the grandaddy of all semi-auto battle rifles...ya, know - I may be partially responsible for a few overlimited credit cards!

Posted by: Dragonchow | January 6, 2012 2:26 PM    Report this comment

I'm not a big believer in automatic fire in the first place. I believe a semiautomatic battle rifle can solve most problems. The British used the semiautomatic L1A version of the FAL in the Faulklins and did fine. Automatic fire may be necessary in an ambush situation or where there is great disparity of forces but I believe an accurate double tap can put down the average varmint. I would like to add the FN SCAR to my collection but it's very expensive and I can build an AR-10 for half the price and have a half MOA rifle. However, if Springfield didn't charge so much for their M1A Super match I would buy it too.

Posted by: sivispace | January 5, 2012 7:31 PM    Report this comment

Speaking of accuracy was just out to the range this morning and shooting at 600 yards, the longest range I have available. Shot the AR10T with a Nightforce 3.5x15 scope, and the FAL with the Burris Eliminator rangefinder scope. Had a crosswind had to hold 4 to 6 inches to the right. On the M1A Scout have a Leupold 3.5x10 and the PTR91 a Weaver 3x15, the Vepr Ak has a Leupold 6x18,,all these rifles will shoot into 10 to 12 inches at 600 yards,,,my buddy who shoots F-Class with a custom bolt gun will shoot into 3 inches at 600 yards. As an old Viet Nam combat veteran, paratroopers, I know better than to leave cover,,but I would hate for anyone with the M1A or any of these rifles with a good scope to be shooting at me at any range out to 800 to 1000 yards.

Posted by: Pointman | January 5, 2012 7:25 PM    Report this comment

The lame M14’s and AR15’s of the Viet Nam era are not the same rifles today. They have been tweaked to an extent that right now they are excellent fighting machines. What will come next? I don’t know but both the ACR and the SCAR come full of promises. I already have seen and handled both, liked both. About a month ago I had in my hands a new FN-SCAR 17 in 7.62 x 51. What a gun!

Posted by: Firemouth | January 5, 2012 7:21 PM    Report this comment

Oh, I’m sorry, Mr. Sivispace, I was not answering or commenting about any of the previous comments posted by the participants of the blog nor yours. My commentaries were directed at the overview of the firearm by GunReports and no one else. By the way, I concur with you about the virtues of the G3 and the FAL. Both are superlative battle rifles and in their battle versions a lot better than the M14. But modern soldiers prefer lighter rifles because of the weight of the extra equipment they carry on foot and the weight of the ammo is a consideration. None of the rifles you mentioned is “light”. Both the G3 and the FAL are heavy rifles, the G3 goes between nine and twelve pounds depending of what version, and the FN-FAL from 8 ¼ pounds to a hair more than thirteen, depending on which version. The G3 is an optimized version of the Spanish CETME (Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales) and the FN FAL incorporated various ideas from different designs, like the SVT-40, the SKS and the MAS-49. As I said earlier, both designs resulted in a lot better fighting machines than the M14. The M14 evolved from the Garand, an excellent fighting tool for its time. But the idea of making it to go full auto was a bad one. It heated like hell, and kicked like a mule; it was incontrollable. Some people have theorized that slowing the rate of fire would cure the problem. I don’t think so. .308 ammo is a notorious kicker in guns of the M14 weight. The light FAL rifle had the same problem, but, it is more reliable. In accurized versions of the three guns I found that no one is better than the other. In 1995 a friend of mine expended $14,000.00 in a new in box HK PSG-1. We found that with Match ammo it was no better than my tuned M1A. No accurized version of the FAL is better than the PSG-1 and none of the aforementioned rifles is better than a purposely built precision gun on a SR25 or AR10 frame.

Posted by: Firemouth | January 5, 2012 7:20 PM    Report this comment

I have a couple ARs and like them both. I'm going to build my self an AR-10 with an emphasis on accuracy.

Posted by: sivispace | January 5, 2012 6:59 PM    Report this comment

In 308 I have the FAL, AR10T, VEPR AK, PTR91 and the Springfield M1A Scout. The AR10T is the most accurate and ergonomic, but all are fine rifles. I prefer at least an 18 inch barrel in 308, but the Socom and Scout and full sized M1A's are fine rifles and I believe I have seen the Scout and full sized M1A's at $1500 either on Gunbroker or some of the big box stores which is a lot more of a reasonable price. When you get to 2 grand or above,,,I would probably be looking at an M1A built by LRB or Fulton Armory.

Posted by: Pointman | January 5, 2012 6:51 PM    Report this comment

I don't consider either the G3 or the FAL to be "ballerina" rifles. The G3 is built like a Swiss bank vault and the roller lock system functions like a bank vault for decades no matter what barrel length is employed. The FAL is light years ahead of the M-14 and was when the army chose to update the Garand instead of stepping up to what was state-of-the-art, the FN FAL. Ask the Aussies who served in Vietnam. I'll bet they would tell you that they were quire happy with the FAL while the American troops were logging the M-14 around in the mud and dying when their M-16s jammed at the most inopportune moments. The FAL is a thinking man's AK and a much better rifle that either the M-14 or the AK.

Posted by: sivispace | January 5, 2012 4:07 PM    Report this comment

M1A’s are one of those artifacts, which you either hate or love; nothing in between. In 1995 I bought one of the “loaded” variety, with a laminated stock, National Match sights, stainless Match barrel in medium-heavy weight, 22” in length. I liked the big beast. Yes, M1A’s are big and heavy. If you prefer ballerina like rifles, I assure you, this is not your lady. They are as subtle as an anvil, tough as the hammer of Thor. Mine went under surgery and I got it bedded and installed a tunnel rear sight. Trigger also got some tuning, but never found it good, crisp and light as I like. If you want a spectacular trigger go and buy another gun. M1A’s triggers, even tuned, are reasonable triggers, but never good or spectacular. Before tuning, my rifle was capable of one inch groups with Federal Gold Medal Match launching Sierra 168’s. After tuning, groups went a little better, and if you did your own, ¾” were on there and once in a while a 5/8” came up, obviously with a Bushnell 3500 Elite scope, if I remember in 5-15X, 50mm. That glass was riding a Springfield Armory mount. I’m sure the M1A Socom II brings nothing new, except for the VLTOR rails, the short comp and barrel length. These are excellent guns, no matter the length, no matter the accessories. If Lord God Himself sends me in a mission to hell to bring him to his feet the horns, ears and tail of the devil, I’ll feel more than sure armed with a M1A Socom II. Mine with a Mark 8 Leupold riflescope and a Delta Point Reflex sight mounted piggy back on the scope, please. The .308 is more than enough for any chore. It is good in capable hands for hunting any game on earth short of buffalo or elephant. Excellent for zombies on earth or devils in hell…

Posted by: Firemouth | January 5, 2012 3:32 PM    Report this comment

I own an HK 91, a Vector V51 pistol and an IMBEL FAL. any of these is more user friendly than the M-14 and the HK rifle and pistol are quite accurate. Given the accuracy and reliability of these three guns, I have a hard time appreciating what the SOCCOM could do for me that my current trio of 7.62 rifles can.

Posted by: sivispace | January 5, 2012 2:57 PM    Report this comment

M14 is an excellent platform ,just ask those using them over in the mideast.The soccom should have a tritium(no battery) forward mounted sight so the stripper guide can still be used. It's a scout rifle!I can think of no good reason for not making changes to the bolt catch to make it a release. As for price my preban chinese clone was $800.But has been just perfect in performance. $1000 would be competitive with some AR10s. We have .223/5.56 and the chinese have our best battle rifle and the AK also a .30 caliber,hope they don't get any crazy ideas .

Posted by: Robert T | January 5, 2012 2:48 PM    Report this comment

(Just writing so I can get the updates)

Posted by: david b | January 5, 2012 2:11 PM    Report this comment

Thats nice they made a newer replacement. Now they need to get real with the price. No way a firearm like that could be in that price range.

Posted by: Rob55 | January 5, 2012 12:24 PM    Report this comment

I have had a SOCOM 16 for about 4 years. Love it. Carbine in size, rifle in stopping power. I paid about $1800 out the door then, so I do not see this pricing as out of line. Regardless, it's a handy friend to have around the camp.

Posted by: blanddragon | January 5, 2012 12:19 PM    Report this comment

I know one of the Gun Test FFLs that bought a bunch of these when the mark up went crazy. Sold every last one of them. I am sure they are fine, fine rifles. For around $1000. $2000 is about twice what one would be worth to me.

Posted by: Markbo | January 5, 2012 12:08 PM    Report this comment

I have owned a standard length M1A, and I still own a Springfield SOCOM 16. I am partial to the metallic sights on this piece, and while the SOCOM 16 provides a mid-barrel accessory rail, I have removed the Burris Scout Scope from mine, choosing to mount it on my Ruger Gunsite Scout rifle. I am 71 years old, and while my eyesight is not what it used to be, I can still pretty well focus on the sights and bring accurate fire on any target that I choose at ranges out to 300 meters. That said, all of those accessory rails on the SOCOM II serve no purpose for me. In fact they make the forward hand guards pretty uncomfortable when shooting bare handed.

Posted by: canovack | January 5, 2012 11:56 AM    Report this comment

Personally I would prefer the Armalite AR10T.

Posted by: Day0 | January 5, 2012 11:54 AM    Report this comment

I like the original SOCOM 16 much, much better. I guarentee you if you really, really, really need the red dot gadgets the battery will be dead!

Posted by: DONNA C | January 5, 2012 11:33 AM    Report this comment

I carried a M14 in the srevice...They took this Classic rifle and made it look like a POS.....Sorry

Posted by: carmen f | January 5, 2012 9:20 AM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In