I have a friend who’s interested in a Springfield Armory Scout 18" or a SOCOM 16" any opinions please on these rifles?Thanks.
RONK
Yes, avoid the SOCOM. Not as reliable nor as accurate as the Scout/Squad.
Both are commercial hobby rifles that are a hoot at the range. I like the Scout since it has the standard M1A gas system and a barrel length more appropriate for .308. The factory scout mount is routinely out of spec and gets rocket hot during fire. It will need to replaced with something like an Ultimak which helps accuracy a bit too. Some barrels like the one I had wouldn’t work with the Ultimak since the barrel profile was out of spec from the factory. The commercial bolt and parts are mediocre and are known to disassemble themselves on occasion. This happened to someone I know just last week on round number one in a brand new M1A. The front sight on the SOCOM also is known to work loose and fall off during fire. For more serious use, be prepared to write big checks for real USGI parts and installation. In the end, you would still have a M-14 replica that is ‘close but not quite’ after a big investment. All said and done, a SCAR 17 probably ends up being better and cheaper for defensive use. Search for 'Different’s M1A Page" to get robust info.
I suggest the scout squad, it’s a handy rifle and is really nice with an Ultimak mount. You can even cowitness an
aimpoint micro on it 
And someone posts the hard truth.
There have been several discussions about this exact question, if you do a search here on the forum you’ll pull up about 5 threads.
Short answer…Scout 18".
Scout Squad, simple; reaching out reliabley (400-500). I would never clear a house with a 7.62! I don’t think this round was meant for 7 -12 yd. shots.It’s compactness is a added benefit.I’m obviously no expert but these points seem to make sense.
And that is indeed the simple, hard truth.
I have the scout and I love it! Ive been lucky and haven’t had any problems with it. For a while I was trying to mount optics and look at different stocks like the SAGE and troy, but in the end I just gave up and used the stock fiberglass stock and iron sights. I couldn’t be more happy with how simple, fun and accurate the rifle is. I wish I realized this a long time ago and used the money on ammo. Also SA has great customer service, I personally had to send my 1911 to get the slide to frame fit better and they paid for everything and had it back to me in under two weeks.
I had a Scout. Stupid extractor broke. Receiver was out of spec. Scoping it was a joke. Parts and mags were atrocious. Trigger was fine. Accuracy was good.
All in all, I would look for a HK91 or one of the FAL clones.
You can also look at Smith Ent. or Fulton Armory for information and better rifles.
If you can swing it, grab a 17s. If not, get a FAL. Dont waste time trying to bring an obsolete platform back into something usable.
The only thing i see the M14 being good for would be a brush gun in a bubba town where you’d get hassled for hunting with an “assault” type weapon. Otherwise its a heavy, unergonomic, money-pit rifle with average accuracy.
Scout Squad
And the FAL is a modern platform?
Here is another view:
There is nothing of real substance in that gentleman’s “review.” And we’re talking about Springer’s rifle, not the one used in the military which is obviously being belt to a different (better) standard.
You’re conflating obsolete with a mature design. The SKS is obsolete, the AK-47 is simply mature.
While the FAL is certainly mature, unlike the M-14 design it is certainly not obsolete.
Right, because our military isn’t using an M14/EBR in Iraq or Afghanistan, because its an obsolete platform… I agree with you on the SCAR 17, but the rest of your post is ignorant.
That’s a bit of a straw man, there are plenty of obsolete designs still in use in many of the world’s militaries. They can be made to work but the cost involved with supporting their issue is a significant drawback. Do you know how much those EBRs run? The FAL is still in pretty wide use with plenty of parts available. Is it acceptable issue for a modern army with tens or hundreds of thousands of units? Maybe, maybe not, but for the individual shooter, the FAL is a far more economical choice for a serious combat rifle.
That said the OP asked for a choice between Springfields, there are neither SOCOMs nor Scout/Squads in Iraq/Afghanistan. Totally different animals.
If the OP wants an M1A for nostalgia/fun purposes, the Scout is the way to go though if he wants a bona-fide combat rifle he’s going to pay a pretty penny to make it barely acceptable but if that’s the way he wants to go, that’s on him.
The military brought the M14 back out of storage to fill the roll as a DMR because it was an expedient and economical thing to do. The M14 is a nice rifle, but is a minor improvement over the M1 Garand. I wouldn’t call it obsolete, but it has quite a few short comings. Myself and Larry Vickers prefer the FAL.
Just because we use something does not mean that it is not mediocre. His statement was not that far off.