Red rifles, why is the length of pull so short?

bobdbldr said:
I would stand sideways if I could still get a good shot off, smaller target silhouette and a shot through the arm first before it enters the vitals would be my preference! Perhaps the arm would deflect the round!!
Click to expand...

if you're relying on your arms to protect your vitals, not only will you only have one remaining arm to administer first aid on not only your other arm, but also your potentially fatal chest wound...another reason why that wouldn't work, is if your bring your sights up your arms are no longer "protecting" your sides anyways, if that were the case, you'd be shooting from the hip.

if you're wearing plates, you stand square, if not, i would still stand square as a single hit can only immobilize one half (leg or arm) and a center of mass hit would still allow you use of both arms and legs. i wouldn't rely on my arm bone to deflect a round...i'd take my chances of survival by offering more of a target. it's a trade off, standing square increases the liklihood of getting hit slightly, but decreases the potential damage of a single hit...obviously that depends on where you're hit, but that variable is present in any stance...

but in reality, if you hear the gun shot and you haven't been hit, then you should probably and hit dirt, or take cover...preferrably both...and you would return fire from as concealed or protective of a location as possible. so at the range, whatever is comfortable. i don't think it has a whole lot to do with length of pull.

way off topic, but i would think the length of pull is shorter for the same reason modern assault rifles have adjustable butt-stocks and shorter barrels, it just allows you to manoeuvre better in confined conditions. makes it a better well rounded battle rifle. another logical reason is that because one size fits all would be geared toward a happy medium between short people and tall people, because adjustable LOP wasn't an option, so shorter people can keep the center of balance as close to the body as possible, and tall people will just manage...
 
Last edited:
On a more serous note. I also found the SKS strange and uncomfortable when grasping the stock as well. After reading the manual, I find holding the magazine very comfortable as it all fell into place after that. On other thought, would all these claims of crap accuracy stem from not having the bayonet extended? I believe most Russian rifles of this era are designed to shoot best with the bayonet attached, or extended.
 
+1 for clothing and web gear and a universal size to fit all.
The manual is cool and I can just invision someone with a spy camera secretly pictures to send back to Intel spooks.cou:
As for the grip, I was talking to a friends brother who is knowledgable in military things. Can't say who but what he says makes sence. The rifle is design to shoot to kill, be used as a club, and functional for bayonetting people.

Grasp the wrist with the bayonet extended and adopt the position. I bet you'll find you have a solid grip.

Form and function does not equal comfort.
 
I was told by a fellow from the Balkans that they stood sideways in the 90s when the war was happening.

There wasn't exactly a lot of body armour to go around.

Meaning no one had body armour unless they made it at home.

Standing sideways minimizes your profile when being shot at.
 
TV-PressPass said:
I was told by a fellow from the Balkans that they stood sideways in the 90s when the war was happening.

There wasn't exactly a lot of body armour to go around.

Meaning no one had body armour unless they made it at home.

Standing sideways minimizes your profile when being shot at.
Click to expand...

Somewhere, there's a Democrat or Liberal writing this down to use in a future gun control speech.

"If you are attacked, you don't need to defend yourself with a gun. Stand sideways, close your eyes, and wait for the threat to pass. It works for the Russian military so it can work for you. I read it on a pro-gun website, so it's what the gun experts recommend."
 
As well as all the reasons previously given, there's also the fact that Russians never really emphasized the cheekweld like Westerners did, at least with more volume fire oriented guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom