SOCOM II or AR15

[Sunnyinhollister]

Like the title says, I'm looking at buying either a SOCOM II or an AR15. Now if I lived any where else other than kalifornia I would probably be leaning towards the AR15. However, owning an AR15 on the left coast can be a pain with the button release for the magazines and the latest attempt by the legislators to retroactively ban the AR15s. The SOCOM II is more money, ammo is more expensive, it's a little heavier, packs a bit more punch, but I don't have to deal with the tool release style of magazines or worry about the legislators attempts to ban them.

Any thoughts about the two styles would be greatly appreciated.

 

[AVB]

What kind of range do you have available? One thing to consider is with a AR15 with a multi-cal lower you have lots of options. You can get the .308 performance out of the AR, and go back to 5.56 for cheaper training and recreational shooting.

 

[bdcardinal]

I have both. Basically those are the pros and cons. The SOCOM gets more drools and comments though.

 

[pzev]

What are you using it for? Home defense, plinking, hunting, etc? Either weapon can be used for any of those and more, but as you alluded to, the SOCOM has considerably more punch at the expense of more expensive ammunition and more recoil.

I'd personally get the AR. More upgrade options, and just less expensive to own and operate. Yes, you have various restrictions on the west coast, but even still an AR should be plenty fun.

That said, a SOCOM II would be an excellent choice, and in an ideal world you'd have both! One last thing though...an AR with a .223 and 6.8SPC upper would fill just about every role you'd need, and even with both uppers you'd still come in at around the same cost as a SOCOM II.

 

[bdcardinal]

SOCOM II's have gone up in price dramatically. I got mine for 2299 plus tax and doc fees. They were saying some of the newer batch should be closer to 3000 due to the newer CA regulations.

 

[Robenstein]

All depends one what you want to use it for. You can get one heck of an AR15 for the cost of a SOCOM II. And if its just for plinking, I would say a Mini 14/30 or even a retro cool M1 Carbine might worth a look.

 

[Falken]

You are better off with a Ruger Mini-30, stainless synthetic.

A SOCOM is big money. .308 is a very accurate round though, and no recoil.

But, if it is what your heart desires just buy it, that is what you probably want to hear.

A guy had one at a shooting range east of Montreal that I saw years ago, nice gun but the price is truly insane for such a minimalist weapon.

Edit: I don't find that much of a differnce between .223 and .308 recoil that would be an issue. .223 is a useless round except for shooting varmints.

 

[hatt]

I'd go Mini 14 in Kali. AR second. SOCOMs are just too much money.

Quote:
.223 is a useless round except for shooting varmints.

Come on now.

 

[tom slick]

Install a monsterman grip and you don't need a bullet button.

Have you visited calguns.net yet?

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: hatt
I'd go Mini 14 in Kali. AR second. SOCOMs are just too much money.

Quote:
.223 is a useless round except for shooting varmints.

Come on now.


When the 5.56/223 was first field tested with the old 1 in 14 twist barrels in Vietnam by U.S. advisors they mentioned the round was exceptionally lethal and describe some quite horrific wounds that were almost always mortal. If you have proper barrel length and twist rate to match your bullet weight, the 5.56 can be exceptionally lethal on two legged targets.

 

[Falken]

If you read reports of our urban combat in Iraq the .223 gets set aside when someone can get an AK in 7.62X39 in their hands.

I have a Mini-30, and it is just a deer gun. The 7.62X39 is almost a direct equivalent of the 30-30, except has a spitzer instead of a blunt nose (so the rounds don't pop in a tube mag).

Now, the 30-30 is made even better with rubber spitzer tips that wont crush and detonate the rounds in a lever gun and give the round better aerodynamics.

The 30-30 is an American West round from way back, invented by Americans to kill Indians and deer. By Winchester.

No other round on the planet bucked more bush and dropped more deer than the 30-30 Winchester. NONE.

The closest animal to man, in willingness to live when shot, body size, skin, etc. is the deer. And deer love to hide in the bush it seems.

The closest cousin in ballistics to the 30-30 is the 7.62x39.

If Stoner designed the M-16 to use a Spitzered 30-30 round in his space-aged gun, nobody would have batted an eye.

The key focus was ammo weight. One .223 round weighs LESS than one 9MM hangun cartridge and has rifle range with low recoil.

"Spray and Pray" never really worked. People shoot semi-auto or with VERY short bursts in real life. Hosing down targets is only to get to cover. If you want to kill something, aiming is necessary.

If I was dumped into a war zone, I'd take an M-16 chambered in 7.62x39 any day of the week. And I could then use bad guy ammo if I needed as a bonus.

My next choice, or even my first choice, would be vanilla .308. The .308 is absolute perfection in my opinion.

All the concepts and stories behind the .223 and "yawing" and spinning through bad guys and turning them into ground beef are great, provided they aren't hiding behind the thinnest of shrubbery.

Every old-school gun mag I used to drool over when I was 12, where it was printed in black and white on newsprint but had a color magazine cover, loved to have a .223 vs. 7.62x39 story every once in a while.

They'd shoot at targets through hedge rows, through steel drums, car doors with glass blocks set on the seat... And they all came away scratching their heads with why the .223 is the U.S. issued load.

The debate has been on since I was a young boy in the late 70s and 80's. I am not in the military, and I could only base my opinion on what I'd go deer hunting with.

If a vet can add to the discussion that would be probably the best thing...

Edit: If you want to see what a 7.62X39 M-16/AR in action (barrel rise etc.) you'd see that it would be a great round in combat. Go to YouTube... Very sweet guns.

Edit 2: Check out vs. videos between the 2 rounds as well. This was a basic one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5euXm5msz1Y&feature=related

 

[Robenstein]

Actually the push for the small caliber high velocity concept had to do with controllability and accuracy in full auto fire. And the 30-30 has jack to do with any of the Euro intermediate rounds like the 7mm EM2 round, the 7.92 Kurz, or the M43 7.62x39mm round. The issue to their development was the realization that most combat takes place in 150 to 200 yards and that you only need a round that passes muster at that range.

The U.S. set the bar higher making standards at 300 to 500 yards, demanding more accuracy than the intermediates in various platforms (which were tested at length and found wanting, and this includes the Soviet round)So if Stoner had designed an intermediate cartridge weapon, the Dept of Defense and Army Ordnance would not have even looked at it.

 

[Falken]

I'd have to shoot .223 a lot more to get a better feel / confidence for the round.

The bullet weight is just something that I have a hard time looking past.

If I was forced to make a choice that I had to live or die by, I'd just cave and get a battle weapon in .308.

So, my mind is made up, I'd just get a SOCOM.

Picking a bullet to take to a gunfight is like discussing politics!

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester

What's not to like??

 

[hatt]

Quote:
If Stoner designed the M-16 to use a Spitzered 30-30 round in his space-aged gun, nobody would have batted an eye.

Actually Stoner designed the AR10 in 7.62x51 first and later scaled it down to the AR15.

 

[Falken]

^^ cool info hatt

So the downsize was to give more ammo per soldier as per design guidelines.

So the ballistics were closer to .308 originally, nice.

 

[hatt]

I don't know if firearm designers get all caught up in the caliber wars. They build guns in the calibers that are wanted by the people who write checks. John Garand built his famous rifle for .276 when the army wanted that. Then upsized to .30-06 when they decided to stay that route. The .276 Garand was lighter, with less recoil, held 10 rounds vs 8 with the same basic actual ammo effectiveness.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Quote:
If Stoner designed the M-16 to use a Spitzered 30-30 round in his space-aged gun, nobody would have batted an eye.

Actually Stoner designed the AR10 in 7.62x51 first and later scaled it down to the AR15.


That I know, but that was the Ordnance designed T65 round, something a lot more powerful than the 30-30. In fact it was based loosely off the 300 Savage. Its all in Ed Ezell's "the great rifle conspiracy"

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: hatt
I don't know if firearm designers get all caught up in the caliber wars. They build guns in the calibers that are wanted by the people who write checks. John Garand built his famous rifle for .276 when the army wanted that. Then upsized to .30-06 when they decided to stay that route. The .276 Garand was lighter, with less recoil, held 10 rounds vs 8 with the same basic actual ammo effectiveness.


Wasn't the switch to 30-06 due to the HUGE stockpiles of that round from WW1 and using the 1903 Springfield rifle up until the beginning of WW2?

 

[Mr_Incredible]

From what I just read this month, Gen MacAurther "suggested" that the army use a new rifle in the 30-06 because there were huge amounts of that already stockpiled, and the army supply chain being what it was, to add another round to the mix would simply not work.

I got my M1A and FAL in the early 90's. I love them. They are simply awesome. They are heavy (no big deal in a civilian environment) and expensive to shoot. I don't hunt, and shooting them at 25 yards on an indoor range is not very exciting. Still, it's good to keep proficient and keep the trigger finger up to date.

I just got a S&W MP 15, Optics Ready. I have about 600 rounds through it so far. Cabela's has 20rd boxes of 55gr HP for $6. That's 30cnt/round. The same brand of .308 is 50cnt/round. That adds up for a lot of shooting or stockpiling.

I really enjoy shooting the AR platform. The rifle is more accurate than am I, and the wife can shoot it without whining about how heavy it is. She really likes it. It's easier to teach the young'uns with, too.

It took a loooong time for me to be able to afford both platforms, but if I had it all to do over again, I'd get the cheaper ones first and the expensive one(s) later. You'll have a blast either way.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

However, the AR platform has uppers of different calibers. It would be another $500-ish to get the 7.62x39.