Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the 458 Socom very popular?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Smitty of the North
    replied
    Originally posted by Daveinthebush View Post
    One of the things we loved in Nam were packages from home. "Hopefully" the package contained Q-tips and W-D40 to clean our weapons. The main weapon we trained in basic training with was the M-14; cleaning, shooting and carrying. Actually the tactics we were taught were WWII tactics of warfare. Ironic....

    We shot the M-16, only one day to qualify. I remember distinctly our introduction to the weapon. "This weapon is awesome because as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel it tumbles around and kills instantly." I thought; This idiot knows nothing about shooting."

    Arriving in country I went to the armory to obtain a weapon. The supply person said he had no M-16's at all. SO I asked for a M-14. He has none of those either. Interesting that you are going to a war zone and no one has any weapons! So I opted for a M-79 that I carried almost my entire 2 tours. HE, Flares, WP, and buckshot. Only problem I ever had was ejecting the buckshot cases.

    Side note: Peacocks roost in big trees and one HE round could knock a couple down. Evenings of fire roasted Peacock with Hines-57 sauce were great. Tough bird but better than C-rations.
    Thanks Dave:

    For your service, and that interesting bit of real history.

    Smitty of the North

    Leave a comment:


  • hodgeman
    replied
    I've only seen one up here and the owner wasn't particularly impressed. He reported a lot of hassle for something that replicated a Trap Door Springfield.

    While the .458 SOCOM does replicate the old 405gr trap door loads (405r@ 1600fps)...it in no way replicates what the 45-70 can do in a modern gun.

    I'd think for dispatching BGs with a suppressor on the end it would be pretty darn neat...but that's pretty niche to generate a lot of interest outside of armchair.

    Leave a comment:


  • upstreamV
    replied
    The 458 SOCOM is not popular anywhere I travel in Alaska. It took me a long time to respect the AR platform. Turning in that M 14 for the last time was no fun. Shooters are like sailors. We tend to stick with the tried and true.

    On the plus side Uncle Sam did provide everyone with free comic books featuring a very hot Miss Preventive Maintanence to school everyone in the four or five cleanings a day needed to keep the rifle functional. Miss PM lives on today. Has the rifle itself improved? Certainly my first run civilian AR 18 was a better rifle. Smoking M 60s with the buffer welded solid were the real deal back when the 16 was being used club style with a cleaning rod stuck in the bore.

    Once upon a time...war stories...and fairy tales start the same...across the Mekong from Vinh Long the famous advisor John Paul Vann dug out a rusty AK 47 from the wet Delta muck. The AK was estimated to have been buried for about one year. Gathering GIs around Vann racked a round into the rusty hulk. Ripping off a full magazine he told the GIs to look at what a good infantry weapon could do after being long buried in wet muck. That's a tough act to follow and I would bet against any AR platform doing so even today. If the money is right that's a bet worth taking.

    Rounds of of power similar to the 458 SOCOM are common in Alaska. They say it's melpat and bone with that style. For a hiking tool that works for me. My neighbor guides and says the 375 shocks big critters into setting down and that's a much better tool. Most of us talk more than we kill, but I suspect the medium bore round at 2600 FPS will always be near the top of the heap in Alaska for people who kill big things with outsiders in tow.

    I did did see a box or two of 458 SOCOM somewhere in Anchorage in the past decade. Out in Wales or up toward Old Crow your going to wait a long time to see one. If you like the round more power to you. Go enjoy

    peace,

    UpstreamV

    Leave a comment:


  • Daveinthebush
    replied
    Originally posted by Smitty of the North View Post

    I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with your rifles. I know how aggravating that can be. Of course, there were soldiers in Viet Nam, who REALLY know, or "knew".

    You've already admitted that the M16 didn't work right, at the beginning. Can we agree that the M16 and the AR 15 that it was derived from, because the AR15 was unacceptable, had all the SYMPTOMS of a bad design?
    One of the things we loved in Nam were packages from home. "Hopefully" the package contained Q-tips and W-D40 to clean our weapons. The main weapon we trained in basic training with was the M-14; cleaning, shooting and carrying. Actually the tactics we were taught were WWII tactics of warfare. Ironic....

    We shot the M-16, only one day to qualify. I remember distinctly our introduction to the weapon. "This weapon is awesome because as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel it tumbles around and kills instantly." I thought; This idiot knows nothing about shooting."

    Arriving in country I went to the armory to obtain a weapon. The supply person said he had no M-16's at all. SO I asked for a M-14. He has none of those either. Interesting that you are going to a war zone and no one has any weapons! So I opted for a M-79 that I carried almost my entire 2 tours. HE, Flares, WP, and buckshot. Only problem I ever had was ejecting the buckshot cases.

    Side note: Peacocks roost in big trees and one HE round could knock a couple down. Evenings of fire roasted Peacock with Hines-57 sauce were great. Tough bird but better than C-rations.

    Leave a comment:


  • ADfields
    replied
    Originally posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    I think it's around 200 parts. I looked it up on the Internet, but even if it's 87, that's a LOT.

    As near as I can tell, the 1903 Springfield was a good design from the outset.
    Smitty of the North
    It is 87 parts for mil-spec and yes that is a lot in bolt action terms but not so much in automatic rifle terms.

    1903 was a great design . . . but it's a Mauser copy that took full advantage of over 25 years of Mauser development and field use. Still, as you know low numbered guns had a bad habit of exploding every now and then. It was a rather bad problem that likely did as much damage to our guys as not having a forward assist on the M16 did . . . and much of this damage was inflected stateside. John C also had about 20 years of design work and tuning that went into the M1 Garand before it replaced the 03.

    At this point the AR-15 "design" has served almost as long as both the 03 and M1 combined. It accounts for almost a quarter of total firearms sales now and almost half the hunting rifle market. The AR (though not my personal cup of tea) seems a very solid, adaptable, useful design to me. Also they are becoming very inexpensive and who knows how many un-papered ARs are out there made from 80% parts at this point so the numbers may be very under reported.

    Smitty I think the thing just might be here to stay like it or not . . . face it, they are just the ole 30-30s of this younger generation. You don't need to like it, your likes, dislikes and emotions are your own. But I see no way anyone that understands the design and history of the AR platform wouldn't have a healthy respect for it.


    Oh BTW about the politics . . . In October 1961 10 AR-15s were sent to South Vietnam for field testing . . . after John Kennedy himself had denied a request from the Air Force for 80,000 ARs. The response to the 10 from the guys in the thick was enthusiastic. In 1962 another 1,000 ARs were sent to Vietnam for testing. Special Operations units and advisers working with the South Vietnamese troops filed battlefield reports lavishly praising the AR-15 and the stopping effectiveness of the little 5.56 mm cartridge, and pressed for its adoption from the field but command back in the Pentagon wanted none of it. At this point the Kennedys switched sides and forced adoption but it was only due to a push from the battle field. The stateside power games led to no cleaning kits and no chrome bores which were huge mistakes! Chrome holds less debris and once the non chrome chambers got dirty (without a forward assist) there was no way to fire them, even as a single shot . . . and without a cleaning kit no way to make the dirty gun function at all in the field! These issues were quickly corrected, chrome bores and cleaning kits added and even a forward assist for the truly lazy grunt who never cleaned.

    So anyway I only see it as political in the sense that the bickering stateside led to the guys in the field not getting what they needed as soon as they should have . . . don't see how lack of cleaning kits and chrome bores are design problems and with those forward assist likely would never been an issue at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smitty of the North
    replied
    Originally posted by Akheloce View Post
    200 parts?

    How about 87. What do facts matter anyways.

    Your idea of what constitutes "design" is interesting. I guess the 1903 Springfield was a pretty flawed design too, since they had to change the bullet/ powder several times. Heck, how bout all those receivers that blew up? Oh yeah, that was a manufacturer defect, not a design flaw. Shall we continue with the rod bayonet? How bout that Garand with that "flawed" 30 caliber projectile? Was the .276 a design flaw?

    I guess just about any hunting rifle design is flawed, cause they don't all have the same caliber, powder type and charge, barrel contour, twist rate, etc.

    The closest thing you have come to a credible cohesive argument is the direct impingement vs gas piston argument. That is a matter of opinion, which I lean toward the original DI design. If you would have opened with this argument from the beginning, at least a genuine conversation could take place. Instead, you have regurgitated half truths and uneducated opinions that you've "heard" or read on the Internet, rather than with your personal experience.

    You want some personal experience? I've had to dump hundreds of dollars into a JM 1895 45-70 to get it to cycle reliably.

    I had to spend 3 hours with stones and files to get a 1892 to cycle reliably.

    I had to take a stone to a Kimber Montana to keep the rails from creasing brass while chambering, and smoothing the magazine well to keep the follower from sticking and tilting.

    Out of the box, they wouldn't shoot or cycle reliably. Are these design flaws in your eyes?
    I think it's around 200 parts. I looked it up on the Internet, but even if it's 87, that's a LOT.

    As near as I can tell, the 1903 Springfield was a good design from the outset.

    I haven't "regurgitated" anything, nor am I ignoring facts, or adding them. I've just mentioned what I believe are some to the short comings, of the Design, or whatever you'd like to call it.

    I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with your rifles. I know how aggravating that can be. Of course, there were soldiers in Viet Nam, who REALLY know, or "knew".

    You've already admitted that the M16 didn't work right, at the beginning. Can we agree that the M16 and the AR 15 that it was derived from, because the AR15 was unacceptable, had all the SYMPTOMS of a bad design?

    I really don't understand why you or anybody is upset. You have your AR, and claim to like it. And, make claims about it. I support your right to do that.

    We are not all privy to the same information, and influences, which would explain why we ALL have differing opinions, about things. I'm sorry I don't like the "design". Is that OK? Can I go now?

    Go Shoot, Be Happy.

    Smitty of the North

    Leave a comment:


  • Grayling Slayer
    replied
    There are only a handful of manufactures building 458's. They are all top tier and use only the highest quality materials built to exacting standards. You will not find a poorly built 458.

    Leave a comment:


  • limon32
    replied
    Originally posted by Akheloce View Post
    200 parts?

    How about 87. What do facts matter anyways.

    Your idea of what constitutes "design" is interesting. I guess the 1903 Springfield was a pretty flawed design too, since they had to change the bullet/ powder several times. Heck, how bout all those receivers that blew up? Oh yeah, that was a manufacturer defect, not a design flaw. Shall we continue with the rod bayonet? How bout that Garand with that "flawed" 30 caliber projectile? Was the .276 a design flaw?

    I guess just about any hunting rifle design is flawed, cause they don't all have the same caliber, powder type and charge, barrel contour, twist rate, etc.

    The closest thing you have come to a credible cohesive argument is the direct impingement vs gas piston argument. That is a matter of opinion, which I lean toward the original DI design. If you would have opened with this argument from the beginning, at least a genuine conversation could take place. Instead, you have regurgitated half truths and uneducated opinions that you've "heard" or read on the Internet, rather than with your personal experience.

    You want some personal experience? I've had to dump hundreds of dollars into a JM 1895 45-70 to get it to cycle reliably.

    I had to spend 3 hours with stones and files to get a 1892 to cycle reliably.

    I had to take a stone to a Kimber Montana to keep the rails from creasing brass while chambering, and smoothing the magazine well to keep the follower from sticking and tilting.

    Out of the box, they wouldn't shoot or cycle reliably. Are these design flaws in your eyes?
    My first completely DIY assembled AR-15 has operated flawlessly and prints 1 MOAwith a load that wasn't even tailored to it...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Akheloce
    replied
    200 parts?

    How about 87. What do facts matter anyways.

    Your idea of what constitutes "design" is interesting. I guess the 1903 Springfield was a pretty flawed design too, since they had to change the bullet/ powder several times. Heck, how bout all those receivers that blew up? Oh yeah, that was a manufacturer defect, not a design flaw. Shall we continue with the rod bayonet? How bout that Garand with that "flawed" 30 caliber projectile? Was the .276 a design flaw?

    I guess just about any hunting rifle design is flawed, cause they don't all have the same caliber, powder type and charge, barrel contour, twist rate, etc.

    The closest thing you have come to a credible cohesive argument is the direct impingement vs gas piston argument. That is a matter of opinion, which I lean toward the original DI design. If you would have opened with this argument from the beginning, at least a genuine conversation could take place. Instead, you have regurgitated half truths and uneducated opinions that you've "heard" or read on the Internet, rather than with your personal experience.

    You want some personal experience? I've had to dump hundreds of dollars into a JM 1895 45-70 to get it to cycle reliably.

    I had to spend 3 hours with stones and files to get a 1892 to cycle reliably.

    I had to take a stone to a Kimber Montana to keep the rails from creasing brass while chambering, and smoothing the magazine well to keep the follower from sticking and tilting.

    Out of the box, they wouldn't shoot or cycle reliably. Are these design flaws in your eyes?

    Leave a comment:


  • Smitty of the North
    replied
    Originally posted by Akheloce View Post
    I'm extremely familiar with the AR, and its design. I can tell you that all of the "design changes" were not. They were incremental improvements.

    The only difference from a basic 20" AR-15 commercially available today, and the first ones off the Armalite and later Colt production lines are: (except full auto of course)

    Chrome lining- maybe, both are available and desirable in certain circumstances

    Holder for cleaning kit in buttstock

    Forward assist- a generally worthless attachment to make people feel better- never used or needed by me

    Different twist barrel- because a different bullet was adopted

    Brass deflector- cause it was nice to have

    Thicker barrel- longevity

    Better sights

    Dust cover- makes people feel better

    Different flash suppressor


    There that's it. Where's the big design problems?

    Sure, the M-4 has a lot more changes, but that results mainly from perceived mission changes, not because the old one sucked.


    So, the 458 SOCOM was designed with the AR in mind (although not limited to it by any means). However, how the M-16 was introduced in Vietnam has NOTHING to do with its usefulness and reliability today. As previously discussed, the problems 40 years ago were with manufacturing quality, ammunition selection, and individual training, NOT the base rifle design.

    As I said before, the primary driver in people's dislike of the AR is emotional, not practical.
    "

    I see.

    Well, just to shortcut the issue, when you have a "Platform" that has 200 parts, how does that speak to design?

    If the "forward assist was not needed, as you say, why was it a part of the "design"?

    And, if the AR "Design" is so wonderful, why is there this controversy

    "Gun owners have strong opinions when it comes to Eugene Stoner’s AR design. There are those who decry the path of the “new and improved” gas piston guns as mechanically unsound and inherently flawed. On the opposite side are those who deride the traditional AR operating system as a poor design, self-fouling and jam-prone. Standing in the middle of the fork is everyone else, the undecided, trying to determine which way to turn."

    Is that an "incremental improvement"?

    Isn't the barrel twist awfully close to "design"?

    Then there were all the problems with finding ammunition to work with this "Design?"

    If the M16 had major problems, and it did, wouldn't that indicate a problem with "design". Isn't "design" the totality of the system?

    Don't they still have design flaws? (Excuse me, don't they still need some incremental improvements?)

    The M16 reminds me of a time in history when things weren't goin my way at all. The Military wasn't highly thought of, even by themselves. They were reviled, abused and accused, just for doin what they were sposed to do. And given a POS to do it with.

    SOTN

    Leave a comment:


  • limon32
    replied
    This is like arguing the effectiveness of snow tires with someone who's never used the, and just as pointless. More parts for me though, makes me happy!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Akheloce
    replied
    I'm extremely familiar with the AR, and its design. I can tell you that all of the "design changes" were not. They were incremental improvements.

    The only difference from a basic 20" AR-15 commercially available today, and the first ones off the Armalite and later Colt production lines are: (except full auto of course)

    Chrome lining- maybe, both are available and desirable in certain circumstances

    Holder for cleaning kit in buttstock

    Forward assist- a generally worthless attachment to make people feel better- never used or needed by me

    Different twist barrel- because a different bullet was adopted

    Brass deflector- cause it was nice to have

    Thicker barrel- longevity

    Better sights

    Dust cover- makes people feel better

    Different flash suppressor


    There that's it. Where's the big design problems?

    Sure, the M-4 has a lot more changes, but that results mainly from perceived mission changes, not because the old one sucked.


    So, the 458 SOCOM was designed with the AR in mind (although not limited to it by any means). However, how the M-16 was introduced in Vietnam has NOTHING to do with its usefulness and reliability today. As previously discussed, the problems 40 years ago were with manufacturing quality, ammunition selection, and individual training, NOT the base rifle design.

    As I said before, the primary driver in people's dislike of the AR is emotional, not practical.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smitty of the North
    replied
    Originally posted by Hoyt-Hunter View Post
    Not trying to be disrespectful. Just believe that the opinion of someone that had to rely on the AR day in and day out, out weighs the opinion of someone who's experience comes in the form of Internet research.

    The Vietnam War ended over 40 years ago. Your excuses for disliking the AR are also over 40 years old. Try to bring yourself up to date and get some firsthand knowledge.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    In response to your 1st paragraph, I DON'T believe that at all. And, it IS disrespectful to say such a thing.

    My reasons for disliking ARs are just as good as yours for liking them. Probably better because I'm not as gullible as you appear to be. There are things about that war, that should be remembered, including the problems with the M16.

    I don't know when history begins for you, but for me it goes wayyyy back. 40 years are just a drop in the bucket.

    Smitty of the North

    Leave a comment:


  • Smitty of the North
    replied
    Originally posted by Akheloce View Post
    I've read that essay. It refers to a quality control problem, not a design problem. Take your M-14 and ream the chamber undersized (possibly a scale of manufacturing increase problem with Colt, given the dramatic rise in orders at the time), and see how many stuck cases you get.

    The "problems" with the M-16 surfaced after mass production.

    How come Hal Moore's folks praised theirs so much (pre-Dick Culver story)?

    "Brave soldiers and the M16 brought this victory" - LTC Hal Moore after the Ia Drang battle (LZ X-ray).


    You want to read a better account? Try the book "American Gun" by Chris Kyle. It is a very interesting book chronicling 10 of the most influential and defining guns throughout the history of our country.

    I'm not lauding the M-16 as perfect, nor the AR "platform" as the end all be all of firearms. However IMO, it gets a bum rap by some sensationalist memories of history, and furthest, by an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO AN IMAGE rather than a recognition of function.


    Btw, what does all this have to do with the 458 SOCOM cartridge in AK?
    Apparently, some of the problems were due to poor design also.

    I had said that the AR design was selected more for political reasons, or something to that effect, and we got off into the other stuff.

    It was rushed into selection and then into production, as I said. At the time, I seen articles that were (Planted) in all kinds of magazines and puplications that normally would not have printed anything about a Service Rifle.

    The NRA was against it, and many in the Army were against it, but reason did not prevail, and they were stuck with it, and the only option then, was to make it work. That's still the only option, I guess.

    As to what all this has to do with the 458 SOCOM in AK, The 458 SOCOM is an AR cartridge isn't it? If there wasn't ARs, would there even be, a 458 SOCOM?

    SOTN

    Leave a comment:


  • Smitty of the North
    replied
    Originally posted by northwoods View Post
    On February 16, 2007, Jim Zumbo published an entry on his blog which read, in part:


    "I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.


    I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."


    Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."


    This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods."
    Thanks. I remember now.

    Gee, I hope I don't get Zumboed.

    SOTN

    Leave a comment:

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X