- Location
- Federal Riding of Wascana
AHHH, you do know the SKS and CZ use the same cartridge right? So how can one be more powerful than the other?
858 0r sks?
- Thread starter davecasey
- Start date
i don't think the cz is more sought after than sks, theres just a bigger supply of sks in canada than cz. there's probably more sks owners than cz. supply is also the reason the cz cost almost 3 times than the sks.
the sks actually has more power than the cz since the barrel is 1.5 inches longer giving you more velocity
Dude in G.P.
CGN Regular
- Location
- Having Fun on The Firing Line
"the sks actually has more power than the cz since the barrel is 1.5 inches longer giving you more velocity"
F&*k me, now this thread got stupid....
F&*k me, now this thread got stupid....
- Location
- London, Ontario
SKS....cheaper and non-restricted
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
It would be interesting to chrono the CZ and the SKS, to lay this matter to rest.
With the medium powered 7.62 x 39 cartridge, all the powder could very well be burned completely in an 18.5 inch barrel so the SKS may not have a velocity advantage. Only a chrono will be able to tell.
And you can roast hot dogs on the unfolded bayonet.
Clearly, the SKS is a better rifle.
GROAN... you're just not getting it huh?
Handling between a fixed stock SKS and VZ58 = negligible. The 58 less perhaps with 30 rd mags.
Ergonomics = ??? You're kidding right? The VZ58 buttstock is the crappiest most uncomfortable POS I've ever used - EVER. That's why most ppl change it.
Accuracy??? = BS. None of the VZ's I've owned shot markedly better than the average SKS off the rifle rest.
Each gun has it's place but I just don't understand our need to "prove" the VZ is vastly superior? Do you sell them?
Yeah, pretty much my impression as well...
You see, with Mini most of the unhappy owners were unhappy, because they were trying to adopt this little carbine to the roles this weapon was never designed for.
I can see that You do realize that.
It's not a good choice if You are focused on punching holes in the paper at 100 yards (with the exception for the target version).
This is one, great all around, light rifle capable of defending You and your family if such need arise.
It's not a black, tactical rifle on pair with AR though.
Now back to SKS/ CZ debate.
Certainly SKS was a huge improvement over the clumsy bolt-action Mosin, but in 1943 when this rifle was created it was verging on retro at its birth.
When production finally halted, it had been replaced by the AK-47, a far better military weapon.
Now many people who had real life experience with the AK platform believe that CZ is improvement over the Russian rifle.
I'm one of them, so sorry, but I can't wrap my mind around the idea of the superiority of the SKS in this comparison.
CZ is more accurate, better handling, better designed more modern rifle.
Price reflects this very well.
I wouldn't mind buy one, but I have no need for SKS having CZ.
...and You never heard about the shorter, original version?
Well, enjoy your SKS Sir.
There is no need to waste my time here.
To me they are pretty much even in terms of accuracy and function. The revovable mag is pretty much a wash when we are limited to 5 rds. So an sks at 200$ is pretty much on par with a 600 dollar cz. That being said the boring sks was around in 1995 when c-68 and it was not scary enough to be banned, while if a CZ had made an appearance then well it would be prohib now.
Enjoying a rifle that we probably would not be allowed to enjoy well it is worth the few hundred to me. For that matter though it was not that long ago that several parties were running on a platform to ban all semies so enjoying a scary sks is worth a couple hundred bucks to me as well. You can buy one or the other, or both or neither and be happy with you decision.
Enjoying a rifle that we probably would not be allowed to enjoy well it is worth the few hundred to me. For that matter though it was not that long ago that several parties were running on a platform to ban all semies so enjoying a scary sks is worth a couple hundred bucks to me as well. You can buy one or the other, or both or neither and be happy with you decision.
- Location
- Federal Riding of Wascana
In a rifle barrel an inch and a half isn't going to give you any more power, and velocity, what an extra 2 feet per second, hardly more powerful, arguing semantics about a fu--ing 1.5 inches is stupid.
CanuckShooter
CGN frequent flyer
I had read that you lose 20fps per inch of barrel between 16" and 20" for 7.62x39. So about 30FPS? Not anything big, but not quite 2fps.
I think it works out to be 0.45 ft-lbf when using E=.5 MV^2 I'm pretty sure that's the formula.
I used metric just to make it easier.
E= .5 (0.008Kg)(9.144 m/s)^2
E= 0.33 Joules
Divide by 1.36 to get lb ftf.
Maybe my math is off.
tactical870
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Buckhorn, Ontario
I've had an SKS for quite a while but only recently bought a CZ858. There's no comparison. The 858 is a hundred times the gun (at least as far as I'm concerned). Of course for you SKS fans my Tapco'd Tula sks is on the EE now....
Correction as of today:
Users: (As per Wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa_vz._58#Users
Czech Republic: Standard service rifle.[2][3]
Lebanon[4]
And I would like to add a short comment and ask a question. My comment is me saying its a service rifle in these (no only two countries?) was for sake of proving that it was in use still as a service rifle to whom asked it BUT I would like to add to all you 'Service Weapon' fans that want them because an Army uses them.
Army's use them because they were the lowest bidder, end of story. They are not the best, they are the cheapest for certain specs.
And my question is where the hell can we find a 'CZH 2003 Sport' model I saw only one in EE and am more interested in having the slightly better barrel that is still non-restricted. And does anyone know if they take the same magazines/ come with 4 magazines?
As well the SKS has an unbeatable price IMO, it is the cheapest (ok, to my knoweldge) semi-automatic non restricted that has the option (though it may seem a bit weird) of a box magazine.
As well one more question, can you fit those weird looking magazines into a mag pouch
Users: (As per Wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa_vz._58#Users
Czech Republic: Standard service rifle.[2][3]
Lebanon[4]
And I would like to add a short comment and ask a question. My comment is me saying its a service rifle in these (no only two countries?) was for sake of proving that it was in use still as a service rifle to whom asked it BUT I would like to add to all you 'Service Weapon' fans that want them because an Army uses them.
Army's use them because they were the lowest bidder, end of story. They are not the best, they are the cheapest for certain specs.
And my question is where the hell can we find a 'CZH 2003 Sport' model I saw only one in EE and am more interested in having the slightly better barrel that is still non-restricted. And does anyone know if they take the same magazines/ come with 4 magazines?
As well the SKS has an unbeatable price IMO, it is the cheapest (ok, to my knoweldge) semi-automatic non restricted that has the option (though it may seem a bit weird) of a box magazine.
As well one more question, can you fit those weird looking magazines into a mag pouch
If your SKS is "tapco'd" then you should have bought a VZ in the first place because you wanted a semi-auto rifle in assault-rifle configuration.
The SKS is a conventionally stocked carbine. Not the same thing and not the same target audience.
It's more cost effective and sensical to just buy a CZ if you want a PG, detachable mags, folding stock, etc.
Also as per wikipedia:
So by the "still used today" criteria, China, Vietnam and "several" African, Asian and Middle-Eastern countries still issue the SKS as standard (note that China is arguably a super-power!) compared to TWO for the VZ58.
I think the VZ58 is a far better modern battle implement in it's assault-rifle select fire configuration and standard capacity magazines, but still, food for thought.
