I finally had some time to try my first batch of handloads and baseline some chronograph results.

Here's the chronograph results (all taken 12 feet from the muzzle):

175gr FGMM
Average 2454
Std Dev 16.02
MAX 2468
MIN 2428
MAX spread 40

168 gr FGMM
Average 2475
Std Dev 13.77
MAX 2498
MIN 2461
MAX spread 37

125 gr TNT's, LC cases, 44.0 grains of IMR-3031, Remington 9-1/2 primer, COL 2.750":
Average 2739
Std Dev 13.18
MAX 2760
MIN 2711
MAX spread 49

155 gr Berger Hybrids, LC cases, 40.5 grains IMR-3031, Remington 9-1/2 primer, COL: 2.810"
Average 2565
Std Dev 10.15
MAX 2585
MIN 2552
MAX spread 33



The 125's are running pretty hot and the primers are pretty flat but I like the groups from the 125's and the 155's. The 155's have a lot of headroom and according to JBM, the 155's will stay supersonic out to 900 yards as-is. That charge is middle of the road for the Berger book with the max charge listed at 42.5 grains.

My next trip will be a ladder test of the 155's up to 42 grains. I really want a Delta-P adapter soon!

I'll also try some 168 grain hybrids as well as some hot 175's loaded with 43 grains of RL-15 in LC cases. I may even go as high as 43.5 grains which my push my 175's up to 2500 FPS.

But with the 155 hybrids having the same BC as the 175 SMK, I don't see the point. Maybe I'll just mess with the 168 hybrids instead.

Also note that I haven’t bedded this rifle into this stock yet. I may switch to the JAE-100 G3 now for load development and determine an accuracy baseline, then try different stocks after I find the best loads for accuracy. This is now my POR (Point Of Reference) for all load and accuracy experiments to follow.

For those that forgot what the rifle looks like now, here it is...


Tony.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: benny6,

Those target dots are on the small end for accuracy testing with a 1-6. And the bright construction paper backing looks to my eyes like it would make contrast worse, not better.


There are downloadable black and white targets on the Larue Tactical website that I like for load development.

If you can't resolve 4 even quadrants of target around your main crosshairs, you probably aren't resolving the target as well as you could.

Just my 2 cents. Target selection can make a big deal when shooting groups.


I like black and white targets.

I’ve found the color works pretty good for me and I can see 30 cal hits out to 300 yards pretty easily with my spotting scope.

I need the large construction paper when using such drastic load differences with the SOCOM. I Was zeroed with 149 grain XM80 but when switching to FGMM, I’d completely miss a sheet of printer paper.

I normally draw grid lines with a large marker and a carpenters level but I left my level at home that day.

The groups will tighten up a lot after I install the JAE and the Delta-P adapter.

Tony.

Tony-

Who makes that cheek riser? I may want one for my Ruger Scout.

Bruce

Bradley cheek rest.

Www.bradleycheekrest.com

Tony.

I'm uncertain what you find surprising about the chrony results. BTW, it is much more useful to summarize the MV data than list all the numbers. For example:
Fed 175
average 2454, SD 14

Fed 168
average 2475, SD 12

In my book these are expected MVs from a relatively short barrel.

What I do find surprising is how....unspectacular....the groups are. I understand the platform's history and like its looks, but every time I see examples of its accuracy I am reminded of why I like the AR10.

Looking at this thread and the one for the M21, I was wondering what glass you are using and what magnification you prefer?

I've considered going to contacts as shooting with bifocals are a pain ... I typically focus on a higher magnification and put the glasses on the bench ... which is fine for me!

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
(snip)What I do find surprising is how....unspectacular....the groups are. I understand the platform's history and like its looks, but every time I see examples of its accuracy I am reminded of why I like the AR10.

Well, there is a reason the M14 was soundly upstaged by the AR-15 at Camp Perry in the mid 1990s. The M14 sucks the big one as a precision rifle. An NM M14/M1A needs a lot of work, and needs to be reworked every season or two. It's a lovely rifle, but a lousy match rifle, especially compared to an NM AR-15 or a decent AR-10.

Heck, I've been taking my ArmaLite AR-10-b (T) to F-class matches at 300 and 600 yards. Something I would never have done in with an M14/M1A.

Those aren't groups, they are patterns.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
I'm uncertain what you find surprising about the chrony results. BTW, it is much more useful to summarize the MV data than list all the numbers. For example:
Fed 175
average 2454, SD 14

Fed 168
average 2475, SD 12

In my book these are expected MVs from a relatively short barrel.

What I do find surprising is how....unspectacular....the groups are. I understand the platform's history and like its looks, but every time I see examples of its accuracy I am reminded of why I like the AR10.

I suspect it will tighten up some when it beds it to the stock.


Beyond that, I don't know much about the M14 platform other than how cool it looks and that it is quite reliable.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
I'm uncertain what you find surprising about the chrony results. BTW, it is much more useful to summarize the MV data than list all the numbers. For example:
Fed 175
average 2454, SD 14

Fed 168
average 2475, SD 12

In my book these are expected MVs from a relatively short barrel.

What I do find surprising is how....unspectacular....the groups are. I understand the platform's history and like its looks, but every time I see examples of its accuracy I am reminded of why I like the AR10.

Noted. I crunched the numbers today. Better?

I guess for the guys who really know ballistics up and down, this isn't surprising. I was surprised. I wasn't expecting the 175's and 155's to be supersonic out to 900 yards. That was surprising to me but perhaps old news to the salty dogs here.

I agree that the groups are unspectacular. Again, this is a PROJECT rifle. I can skip to the end but this is part of the documentation process; a starting point. Chapter 1, if you will, of the journey. We'll see how it ends. I'm not the kind of guy who posts only sub-MOA groups. I'm a realist.

I already know there are some things wrong that need addressing. One of the major flaws in the SOCOM is the gas lock/flash suppressor. The way its designed, there's a gap between the muzzle crown and the internal crown of the flash suppressor which creates roughly a 0.1" gap between the barrel crown and the flash suppressor crown. This allows gasses to disrupt the bullet as it exits the barrel.

One solution is the Delta-P adapter. It is a two-piece part that mates the thread adapter tightly to the muzzle crown, alleviating this problem.

Another option is to mill the back of the gas lock and internal crown to adjust the timing of the lock so that the two crowns meet when the gas lock is lined up with the gas cylinder. This requires trimming the gas piston to match the amount you took off the gas lock.

As I make these changes, I'll be documenting the accuracy changes.

Tony.

quote:

Originally posted by kimberkid:
Looking at this thread and the one for the M21, I was wondering what glass you are using and what magnification you prefer?

I've considered going to contacts as shooting with bifocals are a pain ... I typically focus on a higher magnification and put the glasses on the bench ... which is fine for me!

This was with a 1-6x Razor HD.

The M21 was a SWFA fixed 10x. My absolute max for an accuracy M14 is under 1.5 MOA. Once its shooting under that, trying to improve groups is all about load development and learning how to shoot it well.

If It shoots over 1.5 MOA, I keep tweaking it. Most rifles I build fall into the .8 to 1.25 MOA ballpark. Other groups I shot out of the M21 DMR in the other thread indicated that it will settle in and shoot tighter over time.

Tony.

This is an interested thread in that I find the goals to be conflicted.

Please do not take this the wrong way, and you certainly do not have to justify anything that you're doing here, but I must ask: What are you trying to do here?

Yes, I read about the process and first steps and all that, but what is the goal? If the answer is "I'm just trying to see how far I can go with accuracy and so on," that absolutely works for me and I'll keep reading the thread with that concept in mind.

But to my uneducated mind, I am looking at a short-barreled .308 Win semi-auto rifle shooting bullets, some of which are designed for the longer range. The entire setup is a an oxymoron: 16 barrel, long range bullets; 1-6X scope, 900 yards+ supersonic; accuracy, franken setup on a non-accuracy action.

The rifle seems to be suited for 300 yards and less, with a pie-plate accuracy. It should be simple, utterly solid and dependable and just fun to shoot at those distances. With that short barrel, you want to have a bullet closer to 147gr or 150, where it can achieve proper velocity in that little barrel. In a pinch, I could understand the use of 168gr projectile, but anything bigger or longer is a ill suited.

Now you want to tweak it and make it more complicated, thus obviating its main asset, dependability, in an effort to squeeze out tiny bits of precision.

But hey it's your money and time.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
This is an interested thread in that I find the goals to be conflicted.


Yes, I read about the process and first steps and all that, but what is the goal? If the answer is "I'm just trying to see how far I can go with accuracy and so on," that absolutely works for me and I'll keep reading the thread with that concept in mind.

That's exactly it. The SOCOM is probably the least researched version of the M14 that has ever existed. My experience with the SOCOM is very little which is why I'm doing this project. It behaves much differently than its longer barreled brothers. The SOCOM is limited to a standard weight barrel with a non-standard muzzle device. To date, nobody makes a medium or heavy weight 16" barrel (why would you want to? But someone already hacked one together anyway).

I get requests to build many M14's but lately there's been more interest in the SOCOM. But then the customer wants their custom SOCOM to be MOA-ish as well. Now I'm expected to give them a cool rifle that shoots nice too. I have to be up-front about accuracy expectations before the build can begin.

The questions I ask customers are:
-What distances will you be shooting?
-How accurate would you like it to be? (MOA, Minute of clay, minute of man?)
-What stock or chassis would you like?
-How heavy would you like it to be?

I have other scopes I'll use as I increase the distance, but for a mere 100 yards, the Razor 1-6x is fine as a baseline.

This is a long-term data collection project to find out the maximum range and accuracy that the SOCOM can be made to shoot as well as what loads and bullet weights would give the best accuracy for shorter distances. I'll also take those loads and drop the action into different stocks and chassis to see how they work in those.

Here are the different stocks I'll be experimenting with:
-JAE-100 G3
-SAGE
-Blackfeather
-AG Composites CBR (bedded)
-USGI fiberglass
-Aerospace stock, the one its in now, bedded
-Delta-14 chassis (flimsy plastic)
-SAI plastic
-Big Red Birch (bedded)

In summary, I'll be documenting "This is what a SOCOM can do, but this is what it will take to get you there."

Tony.

Thank you for the clarification and it all makes sense to me now.

I'm still puzzled that a customer would be asking for a custom SOCOM this is capable of MOA precision, all day long, at any distance, as long as I do my part. The virtually always means that it's for "bragging rights" and the person asking for that level of precision is simply incapable of doing. But, it's their money and if you have to put a guarantee on the precision, then you will need to live up to it.

I should think that for a light, scout type rifle with a short thin barrel, a good measure would be 2MOA with good ammo. Getting to 1MOA is going to be epic.

Interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
Thank you for the clarification and it all makes sense to me now.

I'm still puzzled that a customer would be asking for a custom SOCOM this is capable of MOA precision, all day long, at any distance, as long as I do my part. The virtually always means that it's for "bragging rights" and the person asking for that level of precision is simply incapable of doing. But, it's their money and if you have to put a guarantee on the precision, then you will need to live up to it.

I should think that for a light, scout type rifle with a short thin barrel, a good measure would be 2MOA with good ammo. Getting to 1MOA is going to be epic.

Interesting.

I attribute it to many people not really knowing what they need.


Everyone wants a MOA gun, which is why they ask Benny to build it for them. Are they a MOA shooter willing to pay for MOA ammo? Probably not.

It is a damning indictment of many in the modern day gun culture, but I feel fairly comfortable in making it.


It is like people who want to go shoot 1000 yards. It is a round number and it sounds really impressive. 98% of people haven't even put in the work to know how their gun shoots at 400-500-x00 yards, but they think they want to shoot 1k. Never mind that their rifle, ammo and optic aren't actually up to the task. And they would be better suited to spending time shooting at 400 yards.


Modern consumers are often stupid.



It's like the people who will go out and run a marathon on very little training so that they can brag about running a marathon. They wind up with hip injuries and stress fractures, and they would have been better off spending a few months training for a modest 5k. But then they can't put that 26.2 sticker on the back of their car.....

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
This is an interested thread in that I find the goals to be conflicted.


Yes, I read about the process and first steps and all that, but what is the goal? If the answer is "I'm just trying to see how far I can go with accuracy and so on," that absolutely works for me and I'll keep reading the thread with that concept in mind.

That's exactly it. The SOCOM is probably the least researched version of the M14 that has ever existed. My experience with the SOCOM is very little which is why I'm doing this project. It behaves much differently than its longer barreled brothers. The SOCOM is limited to a standard weight barrel with a non-standard muzzle device. To date, nobody makes a medium or heavy weight 16" barrel (why would you want to? But someone already hacked one together anyway).

I get requests to build many M14's but lately there's been more interest in the SOCOM. But then the customer wants their custom SOCOM to be MOA-ish as well. Now I'm expected to give them a cool rifle that shoots nice too. I have to be up-front about accuracy expectations before the build can begin.

The questions I ask customers are:
-What distances will you be shooting?
-How accurate would you like it to be? (MOA, Minute of clay, minute of man?)
-What stock or chassis would you like?
-How heavy would you like it to be?

I have other scopes I'll use as I increase the distance, but for a mere 100 yards, the Razor 1-6x is fine as a baseline.

This is a long-term data collection project to find out the maximum range and accuracy that the SOCOM can be made to shoot as well as what loads and bullet weights would give the best accuracy for shorter distances. I'll also take those loads and drop the action into different stocks and chassis to see how they work in those.

Here are the different stocks I'll be experimenting with:
-JAE-100 G3
-SAGE
-Blackfeather
-AG Composites CBR (bedded)
-USGI fiberglass
-Aerospace stock, the one its in now, bedded
-Delta-14 chassis (flimsy plastic)
-SAI plastic
-Big Red Birch (bedded)

In summary, I'll be documenting "This is what a SOCOM can do, but this is what it will take to get you there."

Tony.

Gotcha.

quote:

Everyone wants a MOA gun, which is why they ask Benny to build it for them. Are they a MOA shooter willing to pay for MOA ammo? Probably not.

Conversation I had with a buddy building his first AR. Was looking at some of the Proof Research Carbon Fiber barrels.

Was planning on shooting trash bulk ammo out of it. (Same garbage I shoot) Had to point out how flawed it is.

quote:

Originally posted by myrottiety:

quote:

Everyone wants a MOA gun, which is why they ask Benny to build it for them. Are they a MOA shooter willing to pay for MOA ammo? Probably not.

Conversation I had with a buddy building his first AR. Was looking at some of the Proof Research Carbon Fiber barrels.

Was planning on shooting trash bulk ammo out of it. (Same garbage I shoot) Had to point out how flawed it is.

I face this problem frequently. I tell customers what I think but end with “at the end of the day, I want to build you the rifle of your dreams.”

I know most shooters will never use match ammo. I bedded a scout into walnut a few months ago and it ended up being a sub-MOA shooter. Surprised the hell out of me.

The owner shot bulk ammo and couldn’t get better than 2 MOA. I finally convinced him to buy match ammo and he wrote me back and told me he was able to get multiple sub-MOA groups on his last range trip. He was more than pleased.

That’s why I always test every rifle for accuracy and send the final groups to the owner before I send the rifle back. I always make it clear that accuracy is only guaranteed if the ammo and shooter and bench setup are good to go.

Most shooters have no idea what it takes to shoot a rifle well or how to test a rifle for accuracy.

I do my best to provide them with a rifle that will shoot better than they can, unless their component selection prohibits that, which I make clear at the very beginning that there are no guarantees in those situations.

Tony.

I dropped my rifle into a JAE-100 G3 chassis now and have been in the process of doing some load development. I went out to do some chrono testing and loaded up some 155 grain Berger Hybrids in some LC cases with Remington 9-1/2 primers and began ladder testing with IMR-3031

I tested all the loads first with my 22" barreled M14 to see if the velocities came close to matching the published velocities and they peaked out at 2787 FPS 12' from the muzzle with max recommended load of 42.5 grains of IMR-3031. The best group was 42.0 grains at 2750 FPS.

I began testing the SOCOM but the wind picked up and began to blow my chronograph out of alignment. I wasn't able to finish the last load as the screens were so far out of alignment that I couldn't physically shoot through them. For the ones I could shoot through, I couldn't shoot at the target as the alignment was too far out and I had to just park them in the berm. It was the end of the day anyway and I didn't have time to just reset the screens and try again.

I was very frustrated and ordered a labradar as soon as I got home.

The 41.5 grain load out of the SOCOM measured 2606 FPS. I still have a full grain to work with. I only got 2 shots off on the 42.0 grain load and they were right around 2605, but that's not enough data to tell me anything, so I'll have to do those over. I plugged in 2605 into JBM ballistics and it just becomes subsonic right at 1,000 yards. I'll be curious to see what happens when I get out to the range with the Labradar and the 4.20 grain load and the 42.5 grain load to see what kind of velocity gains I pick up.

On average, the SOCOM barrel was 130 FPS slower than the 22" barrel, so at max load I might be able to get 2650 FPS.

I'm still waiting on Delta-P to make another batch of their gas locks as I believe they are a great accuracy improvement.

Tony.