H2O MAN wrote:Keith wrote:Have wanted A Springfield Socom 16 for some time. Finally purchased one and took it to the range. ...
Congratulations!
I also wanted a SOCOM ever since SA, Inc. came out with the stubby blaster... I have handled and fired a few of them, but I resisted buying
one because I wanted to run my sound suppressor on it. About this time last year I had my smith custom build this CQB-16 EBR for me on a
Poly Tech receiver. The barrel is 16.25" (same as the SOCOM), but it has 4 grooves and a 1:10 ROT and it is set-up to accept my M14 DC can.
It's very accurate with iron sights... the front sight has a thin NM blade and recoil is nothing now that I have installed a .30cal Muzzle Brake.
The low sitting quick release Aimpoint Micro T-1 is fast and easy to use, but it does not co-witness the iron sights. It's a keeper
I saw your collection of blasters in the "black guns" thread, and I have to say that you're one of the first members of this board of whom I am intensely jealous!
I
LOVE me some M1A! Yes I do. I have some questions about your Polytech receiver.....
Did you have it magnafluxed or anything like that before building the rifle to make sure that it was up to mil-spec for durability, lack of internal stress cracks, etc.?
Earlier this year, Gun-Tests magazine pitted three M14/M1As against one another in a test. (
LINK TO ARTICLE, requires subscription to read the whole thing....) Their guns were 1) a Polytech M14 that had been completely gone through and upgraded by Fulton Armory and which had 2-8X scope mounted; 2) a Fulton Armory "service grade" M14; and 3) a Springfield M1A "standard" model. Gun-Tests recommended that anyone who has a Polytech receiver who wants to build up a nice M14 should send it to Fulton Armory and have Clint McKee make sure that it is safe to use. Both Fulton Armory and Springfield use cast receivers, but the Polytech receivers are apparently forged, and while they can be very strong, forging adds some complexity to the manufacturing process and has more stringent quality control implications. Since the Polytech receivers are not "mil-spec"—in that they were not built to U.S. military contract specifications for actual U.S. military delivery—they were not required to undergo the same QC at the factory as were actual contract receivers. That does NOT mean that they are junk. It merely means that the buyer should have that QC performed himself to be certain that the receiver is up to snuff.
Gun-Tests rated the Fulton Armory M14 the better of the three, although they also liked the Polytech rifle a whole lot. In fact, they said that the Polytech stock was the only one of the three that had the
true original slimness of profile of the original M14 issued rifles. They graded the Springfield rifle last among the three, although they did not
dislike it. It was simply a matter of the superior fit and finish of the Fulton built rifles, particularly the absolute perfection and attention to detail of the Fulton "service grade" rifle that won the day for them.
They did observe one notable issue with the Springfield gun, and that was tiny, almost microscopic brass shavings accumulating in the receiver around the feed ramps which was not present in either the Polytech or Fulton rifles. I have noticed this same brass shaving in my own M1A, pictured above, when I shoot it. I have no experience shooting anyone
else's M1As or M14s, so I have had occasion to observe that phenomenon in any other similar rifles. Do any of yours shave brass? Gun-Tests concern with the shavings was that, over time, they might be carried into the chamber; or worse yet, eventually get into and foul the gas piston system.
I have had no malfunctions myself related to these things. I did have one
MAJOR failure in my rifle early on. In the Springfield rifles, many of the parts are MIM, which I did not know when I bought mine. MIM is not necessarily a bad thing if properly done. (Kimber 1911s use MIM parts, and I've never experienced a part failure in my own Kimber due to MIM, or seen one in anyone else's Kimber.) In any case, at some point during the first 100 rounds of various commercial match loads, one of the two hammer feet in the fire control group snapped off. SA had me send them the fire-control group, and I received it back from them 11 days later, repaired, and with a forged hammer installed at my request in place of the OEM MIM hammer. SA will not
volunteer to use forged parts in their repairs, but they
will use them if you ask for them and they have them on hand. At the time, they had forged fire-control group parts on hand. There have been no more issues since then.
In any case, I do plan to take my M1A to my gunsmith and see if I can't have him smooth out the feed ramps (or whatever it takes) to eliminate the brass shaving problem. The cost of having to do this is not a big deal if you consider this perspective: smoothing the feed ramps will likely cost you under $100.00. The price difference between the standard Springfield M1A and the service grade Fulton Armory M14 is $1,000.00. As long as you regularly clean your rifle after every range trip, these brass shavings are probably not an issue. They really are nearly microscopic, and you don't see them unless there is a buildup around the ramps. But if I had to go to war with this rifle where regular cleaning and maintenance was more difficult, it would be a concern of mine.
One other caution with M1A/M14 rifles per Clint McKee of Fulton Amory:
do NOT use lead soft-point bullets! FMJ is fine. BTHP is fine. Ballistic Tip is fine. Skived bullets like the 165 grain Federal Fusion .308 are fine. But lead soft points hit the feed ramp at such an angle that the lead tip is distorted. This will A) affect accuracy considerably, and B) cause lead build up in the chamber which can eventually lead to catastrophic failure.
I originally though that this was a little bit too paranoid. But on my last range trip with my M1A, just a month ago, I tried some Nosler Custom 165 grain soft-points in the rifle to test for accuracy. After firing a few rounds (which did not group well at all), a cease-fire was called. I dropped the magazine and ejected the chambered round. The bullet nose was
severely distorted. The tip was pushed off to the side, and you could see where it had been "wiped" along the side which had made contact with the ramp. I wish I had thought to take a picture of it, but that wiping was definitly enough to convince me that lead is definitely being carried into the chamber (along with brass shavings). Never again.
I just bought a box of 165 grain GMax bullets the other day to try and work up a load for my M1A. This rifle really likes match loads with the AMax bullet, but match bullets are not the best choice for hunting, and I want to be able to use this as a hunting rifle also. The GMax bullet is supposed to have ballistics much like the AMax, but it is an excellent hunting bullet. We will see.
Oddly enough, I've never fired a single round of standard NATO FMJ through this rifle, although I plan to give it a shot (pun intended). If it shows reasonable accuracy, I'll buy 1,000 rounds of it for TEOTWAWKI and store it with my other "get out of town" stuff.
I really wish I had the money for a Fulton Armory rifle. They transcend function into being works of gun art.
