Who is buying a Type81?

cranswick said:
that's what I'm saying...

I never said that you would...the point is it's nearly impossible to achieve 1-2 moa on irons for most people...so when people are saying 5 moa is trash, it sure is but on iron sights and unknown shooting conditions I.e. From a bench, vice, etc. 5 moa means nothing to me...I can shoot 5 moa all day long with an sks from a bench and bag with irons...without optics it's not even worth reporting really.
Click to expand...

This was shot with irons off a bench at 100m with a 6.5x55, and I don't consider myself to be much of a shooter. It's pretty typical of what a half decent rifle in my stable can do with irons. Optics don't make a rifle more accurate, lets you see your target better and that's all. I would hope a mag reviewer like Caliber were trying their best to give an accurate description of the rifles capabilities and shooting well that day. The groups certainly are constant across the different brands of ammo, so that particular rifle might just be a 5moa shooter. Hopefully they are not all like that, kind of like SKS rifles...some are really good shooters, some are barn door. For $1000 I would not be happy with 5moa. Same reason I don't own Ruger Mini-14/30's.

 
Hitzy:

It may not be fair to compare a 6.5 bolt action with a front sight that comes to a fine point and a shallow V rear to a Type 81, which is a sheet metal receiver semi-auto with a large aperture-style rear sight placed forward like a tangent sight and a square post front sight.

Even with a 6 o-clock hold, I can't shoot a square post as accurately as a pointed blade sight and I shoot a LOT of iron sights - almost exclusively.

Honestly, I would not believe a type 81 accuracy test (or even an SKS test) unless the gun was mounted in a rigid fixture. I don't know what Calibre did, but I suspect htey used a lead sled (or similar) and relied on the human eye to re-aim each time. The front sight likely obscured the full width of the target, as is often the case with military post sights at 100m.

5 MOA is pretty awful and 90%+ (rectal pluck figure) of SKS's will do better than that if they are in a decently tight stock. When an SKS shoots poorly, the action almost always has fore/aft movement in the stock and the rear tang could stand to be shimmed. That will generally get any SKS down to the 3 MOA range if the shooter is good. The gun is maybe capable of better, but the sights become the limiting factor.

The Type 81 is probably a similar deal, but we shall see when they are out in the wild.
 
Very well put Claven.

Don't forget people that this IS the prototype rifle that was in the hands of the rcmp for how many years and subject to what kind of abuse!?!??!?!
 
Hitzy said:
This was shot with irons off a bench at 100m with a 6.5x55, and I don't consider myself to be much of a shooter. It's pretty typical of what a half decent rifle in my stable can do with irons. Optics don't make a rifle more accurate, lets you see your target better and that's all. I would hope a mag reviewer like Caliber were trying their best to give an accurate description of the rifles capabilities and shooting well that day. The groups certainly are constant across the different brands of ammo, so that particular rifle might just be a 5moa shooter. Hopefully they are not all like that, kind of like SKS rifles...some are really good shooters, some are barn door. For $1000 I would not be happy with 5moa. Same reason I don't own Ruger Mini-14/30's.

Click to expand...

I guess AR15s are a waist of money by your logic...
 
Claven2 said:
Hitzy:

It may not be fair to compare a 6.5 bolt action with a front sight that comes to a fine point and a shallow V rear to a Type 81, which is a sheet metal receiver semi-auto with a large aperture-style rear sight placed forward like a tangent sight and a square post front sight.

Even with a 6 o-clock hold, I can't shoot a square post as accurately as a pointed blade sight and I shoot a LOT of iron sights - almost exclusively.

Honestly, I would not believe a type 81 accuracy test (or even an SKS test) unless the gun was mounted in a rigid fixture. I don't know what Calibre did, but I suspect htey used a lead sled (or similar) and relied on the human eye to re-aim each time. The front sight likely obscured the full width of the target, as is often the case with military post sights at 100m.

5 MOA is pretty awful and 90%+ (rectal pluck figure) of SKS's will do better than that if they are in a decently tight stock. When an SKS shoots poorly, the action almost always has fore/aft movement in the stock and the rear tang could stand to be shimmed. That will generally get any SKS down to the 3 MOA range if the shooter is good. The gun is maybe capable of better, but the sights become the limiting factor.

The Type 81 is probably a similar deal, but we shall see when they are out in the wild.
Click to expand...

Russian SKS's cleaned house at the last EOHC (or whatever they call it now) milshoot I was at 2 years ago, they are pretty capable rifles, 28 shooters I think were there.
I'm holding out hope these are at least comparable accuracy wise to the lowly SKS.

And a tip for shooting large square front post rifles, zero using the corner of the front post with a 6'oclock hold, off a bench this works very well.
 
Dsiwy said:
I guess AR15s are a waist of money by your logic...
Click to expand...

Waste....not waist.
But I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I haven't paid $1000 for an AR15 to date, built every one I have now for much less then that. The 2 I bought as complete rifles were Norks and were $500 each, not worth it and got flipped.
The ones I have now are pretty solid shooters, considerably better then 5moa, best running under an inch, worst closer to 2moa. The AR15 d/i platform is one of the neatest and most accurate auto loaders ever made, every one should have one even if they are restricted and limited to the range.
 
DILLIGAF said:
My ####ty SKS gets 3.5 -4 MOA with a huge fiber optic front sight...lol...
Click to expand...
I've got similar results with my SKS as well, but it's hard to to repeat a shot when you're eyeballing the center of a post that is wider than your target...it's very easy to be off a hair which down range translates to an inch in either direction...giving you a best case scenario of 3 moa. Which is slightly better than what I've achieved. Which is why I'm not too worried about 5 moa. Like bfiles said, only god and the rcmp know what the prototype endured in those 3 and a half years...they could have put 10k+ rounds down the pipe for all we know...20k even...who the heck knows...2 or 3 moa would be much more respectable for sure, but we'll still have to wait and see. I've also had issues with my sks rifles shooting tighter with surplus ammo, and shooting 5+ moa with Hornady. Never tried anything but surplus and Norinco in my SKS, other than the Hornady which shot like crap...
 
lol, The tavor is a steel barrelled action embedded in a flimsy plastic housing and it has terrible mid to long range accuracy. You can buy 10x sks for one tavor and those sks s give you under 2moa constantly. Maybe I had a lemon tavor, maybe, but it was as @#$@%# as my mini 14 semi auto shotgun
 
Philthy1 said:
The SKS is an outstanding rifle.
Click to expand...

lol_vladimir_putin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom