Sad to hear about the student, but it's cool to see a terrier at work. I think there's was a gent in BC that bred Airdales and used them for black bear and cougar hunting. I'm not sure if he is still in business.
Last Shipment of Type 81 SR
- Thread starter Tactical Imports
- Start date
Sad to hear about the student, but it's cool to see a terrier at work. I think there's was a gent in BC that bred Airdales and used them for black bear and cougar hunting. I'm not sure if he is still in business.
I observed no improvement with mine.
I would argue that the longer heavy barrel setups aid in marksmanship. The stripped down LMGs and SRs feel way more natural to shoot unsupported at longer ranges then the basic rifles. The SR out of the box and with a zeroed optic will boiler room a deer out to 400 yards, twice the distance many would say is ethical energy wise... and it will consistently strike a my torso gong at 500. Short of shooting smaller targets its hard to justify why someone would need it to do better.
You talk about not splitting hairs then you go straight to how two inches of extra barrel "condemn" the design. lol, lmao even.
I believe there are plenty of 30cal rifles with barrel lengths much longer than 20" which are capable of orders of magnitude more precision than you'd ever wring out of this platform so that's a patently ridiculous statement.
Besides you've got a 20" barrel on an SKS, and while those aren't tack drivers by any means it really undermines the concept 20"barrel on a 7.62x39 gun is a catastrophically bad decision. Heck the CZ 527 was available with a 26" tube.
Now it *is* true that longer barrels, for a given barrel profile, are less rigid than shorter barrels for a given length.
But when it comes down to what length of barrel is going to be inherently more accurate it's much more complicated than that, within a reasonable, normal range of barrel lengths (like 10"-30") the dominant factor is going to be harmonics. Where those nodes are has to be determined by experimentation, and in order to do so properly you'd need to experiment with different barrel lengths.
Some manufactures do this, diemaco in particular while developing their C8's made a series of barrel getting incrementally shorter and found the ideal barrel length for their particular action and barrel profile. To figure out which barrel length would have the least whip in the type 81 you'd have to do that type of testing, not just say "oh it's 2" longer so it's going to deflect more". Especially when we're comparing different barrel profiles. And then you have to consider how the barrel will handle heat, that's the main advantage of a heavier profile, not rigidity.
Now, in my opinion, the heavier barrel profile of the SR and LMG more than make up for any loss of rigidity from the marginally longer length. Which is more optimal harmonics wise? I'd really have to shoot every variant more, and at this point while I have a thousand odd rounds through an LMG my experience behind the trigger with the other T81 is limited. I will tell you that I really don't like how thin the barrel profile is on the standard type 81's, i've really given the LMG a few hot suppers and was pleasantly surprised with how the groups stayed consistent, i've seen varying reports about the standard T81 throwing fliers when hot and I could see how that would be case, especially when you'd got that sleeve fit over the barrel and how contact between it and the barrel will change as the barrel heats up. I just don't want any part of that, looks and diminished sight radius with irons aside even.
It's well established that anything touching the barrel with effect it's harmonics and point of impact, just look at the LMG where when shooting offhand folding or unfolding the bipod changes the weight distribution and moves the point of impact a foot at a hundred meters, consistently. It'll still group relatively tight, but the POI shifts dramatically and repeatable.
Now as a final though, the dragunov acceptance spec was only about 3 MOA, and reports i've read seem collaborate them being capable of 2.5ish MOA with the right ammo.
That's more than sufficient for the role they were designed for.
Tactical Imports claims the SR will do 1.5-3MOA.
So I find it *really* funny when people ##### and moan specifically about the accuracy (as opposed to range) potential of these compared with a dragunov, those aren't sub MOA rifles either like many seem to believe.
Not that we're going to try to say that the SR is actually comparable to a dragunov otherwise, but people really overestimate just how accurate rifles used as "snipers" have been throughout history, ww2 era that same 3MOA or so was typical across the board, we're really spoiled today when you can expect a cheap hunting rifle to shoot under an inch at 100m out of the box without any particular effort.
Last edited:
I am well aware of how barrel harmonics work. My point is that they made several design decisions, moving the front sight forward, increasing the barrel length, adding a hilariously long muzzle device, etc which make the gun *look* like more of a “sniper rifle” but in principle undermine its accuracy. Certainly with this philosophy nobody was optimizing the barrel length for whip so that’s irrelevant, and according to data and tests I’ve seen, the heavier profile only makes up for these changes and the gun is not more accurate.
2 inches more on the barrel and a total 9 inches more OAL is not nothing. And the overall change in moment due to greater cantilevered mass from the other design changes is substantial— it is far greater than just 2 extra inches of barrel.
If someone could corroborate the claims of 1.5-3 MOA reliably this conversation wouldn’t even be happening. But all I’ve seen is order 3-5 MOA.
It's interesting we're talking primarily about accuracy potential here when you keep bringing up how much shorter the folder is with the stock collapsed.
I've handled the folder, I found the stock to be particularly uncomfortable, in terms of the actual, practical potential accuracy with one of these rifles the stock might actually be the limiting factor for me.
Do you want want to larp with a short foldy boi or do you want to larp with a DMR style? We're talking about two different things here.
You say moving the front sight forward and making the barrel length longer "undermine the accuracy", I say that's completely backwards. I do a lot of my shooting offhand with irons, at steel of various sizes between 50m and 400m. For me a major selling point of the LMG was *specifically* the practical (as opposed to theoretical/mechanical) increase in accuracy you get from the much improved sight radius. Much more so than the profile or the length. Or the asthetics, although those all factored in.
I shoot a lot of different iron sighted rifles, and there is a huge difference in how well I can shoot a rifle that has a few inches more sight radius. Moving the front sight to the end of the barrel, where it should be, instead of half a foot backwards to accommodate that ridiculous "grenade launcher" is real, major, tangible improvement. Absolutely not a "detriment".
Complaining about a "hilariously long muzzle device", well. The rifle comes without one by default. I'll personally stick a muzzle brake on mine because I found with the LMG doing so gave a dramatic improvement in keeping muzzle down compared to without one. The LMG does actually tend to rise a bounce more than other x39 guns i'm used to, take that for what it's worth. I'll note that on the SE with you do *not* have the option of using a muzzle device of your choice without some extensive gunsmithing.
I do still completely discard the entire concept that (not even) two inches more barrel "undermines" the accuracy potential of the rifle, profile aside. Again, there are plenty of rifles with relatively very long (and thin!) barrels that are an order of magnitude more precise than anything we're discussing there, fixating on that particular detail and making it out to be a fundamental flaw is ridiculous. Completely and utterly.
I've handled the folder, I found the stock to be particularly uncomfortable, in terms of the actual, practical potential accuracy with one of these rifles the stock might actually be the limiting factor for me.
Do you want want to larp with a short foldy boi or do you want to larp with a DMR style? We're talking about two different things here.
You say moving the front sight forward and making the barrel length longer "undermine the accuracy", I say that's completely backwards. I do a lot of my shooting offhand with irons, at steel of various sizes between 50m and 400m. For me a major selling point of the LMG was *specifically* the practical (as opposed to theoretical/mechanical) increase in accuracy you get from the much improved sight radius. Much more so than the profile or the length. Or the asthetics, although those all factored in.
I shoot a lot of different iron sighted rifles, and there is a huge difference in how well I can shoot a rifle that has a few inches more sight radius. Moving the front sight to the end of the barrel, where it should be, instead of half a foot backwards to accommodate that ridiculous "grenade launcher" is real, major, tangible improvement. Absolutely not a "detriment".
Complaining about a "hilariously long muzzle device", well. The rifle comes without one by default. I'll personally stick a muzzle brake on mine because I found with the LMG doing so gave a dramatic improvement in keeping muzzle down compared to without one. The LMG does actually tend to rise a bounce more than other x39 guns i'm used to, take that for what it's worth. I'll note that on the SE with you do *not* have the option of using a muzzle device of your choice without some extensive gunsmithing.
I do still completely discard the entire concept that (not even) two inches more barrel "undermines" the accuracy potential of the rifle, profile aside. Again, there are plenty of rifles with relatively very long (and thin!) barrels that are an order of magnitude more precise than anything we're discussing there, fixating on that particular detail and making it out to be a fundamental flaw is ridiculous. Completely and utterly.
Apparently we are. I don’t larp with my gun. The standard type 81 does not promise much on accuracy and delivers on that promise. It’s a fine handy gun that fits its design and purpose.
The SR on the other hand is a larp and has unclear purpose except to look cool— since it very definitively was not designed as a DMR.
As for the sight radius and practical accuracy… this gun was clearly made to be used with an optic. We’re not talking about the LMG. And just because the AK has the sight at the end for sight radius, does not mean that’s “where it should be”. The M16 also has the sight at the gas block.
I think though that you are taking the whole point too personally. It is a fact that the longer barrel and redistributed weight does not help the accuracy. Why defend it so vigorously? There are other merits to the gun, namely how it looks, but I do wish they had done more to make it accurate to align with the DMR concept.
Front sights should absolutely be positioned as close to the end of the barrel as practical, and those M16's also happen to have a 20" barrel (sometimes a pencil barrel!) so please go ahead and tell me more about how that totally "undermines" the design. 
I did assume you mostly larp since you keep talking about how short your folder is as opposed to practical aspect of the rifle, I really did find it quite uncomfortable for any serious shooting. Also the grenade launcher is extremely larpy, if you're not then take it off the gun, we're going back and forth talking about excessive weight here and that's the elephant in the room, that useless dumb sleeve.
I prefer the practicality of the SR, or lmg with accessories taken off, in comparison.
At the very least if i'm going to have the weight and bulk of a "grenade launcher" sleeve hanging off the end of my barrel i'd rather have that weight *in* the barrel where it's doing some good.
I do not think "it's a fact" that accuracy hasn't been improved on from the standard T81 rifles. I have reports to the contrary and will know for myself shortly. I've talked to a few owners and read online reports that collaborate the idea SE's pencil barrel loses accuracy with extended shooting compared to the heavier barreled varieties, and i've had lots of experience with other pencil barreled self loaders throwing shots after they warm up.
I've had good luck with the lmg and as long as the SR didn't actively get *worse* accuracy wise it will be an improvement over what I see the standard T81 doing. I'm also intrigued by the longer gas system and the idea it recoils less/differently as a result.
I did assume you mostly larp since you keep talking about how short your folder is as opposed to practical aspect of the rifle, I really did find it quite uncomfortable for any serious shooting. Also the grenade launcher is extremely larpy, if you're not then take it off the gun, we're going back and forth talking about excessive weight here and that's the elephant in the room, that useless dumb sleeve.
I prefer the practicality of the SR, or lmg with accessories taken off, in comparison.
At the very least if i'm going to have the weight and bulk of a "grenade launcher" sleeve hanging off the end of my barrel i'd rather have that weight *in* the barrel where it's doing some good.
I do not think "it's a fact" that accuracy hasn't been improved on from the standard T81 rifles. I have reports to the contrary and will know for myself shortly. I've talked to a few owners and read online reports that collaborate the idea SE's pencil barrel loses accuracy with extended shooting compared to the heavier barreled varieties, and i've had lots of experience with other pencil barreled self loaders throwing shots after they warm up.
I've had good luck with the lmg and as long as the SR didn't actively get *worse* accuracy wise it will be an improvement over what I see the standard T81 doing. I'm also intrigued by the longer gas system and the idea it recoils less/differently as a result.
Last edited:
BeaverMeat
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nanaimo, B.C.
… here we go now. “I know stuff betterer then you know stuff”
Front sights should absolutely be positioned as close to the end of the barrel as practical, and those M16's also happen to have a 20" barrel (sometimes a pencil barrel!) so please go ahead and tell me more about how that totally "undermines" the design.
I did assume you mostly larp since you keep talking about how short your folder is as opposed to practical aspect of the rifle, I really did find it quite uncomfortable for any serious shooting.
A long barrel on an m16 is much more justifiable due to .223’s velocity gain with barrel length and its superior long-range performance that allows it to utilize that extra speed.
Even then, they now issue 14.5 inch barrel ARs.
apexanimal
CGN Regular
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I didn't read the entirety of the short novel written above, but i glanced at a few points and just wanted to reiterate that personally i found no difference whatsoever in the accuracy between the SR or SE variants of the type 81. I'll attach the photo of the groups of each rifle. Also i would recommend anyone buy whatever version of this rifle they like best. The SR is awesome, myself i prefer the lighter and shorter standard version with the folding stock, but i usually carry it around a bit. Red was the t81 se (red furniture, folding stock) yellow was the SR. Range was 75 yards, standard norinco surplus ammo. The grey circles are 3 inches in diameter.
[/url][/IMG]
Last edited:
According to most of the testing I could find between 18-20" of barrel length 223 gains 60fps or about 1.9% about while 7.62x39 gains about 50fps or 2%. Depending on ammo of course, ect.
Just to be clear about what we're dealing with here.
Now, you would have heard that on the low end of barrel length (14" and down to the 8" builds you see even), 7.62x39 does not lose as much power as 223, and conversely having a longer barrel with x39 isn't as much of an advantage has having a longer (20") barrel with 223.
That is very much the truth, 223 really starts to get unimpressive with short barrels.
That does NOT translate to;
Not even the Hornady black? It's been good in my experience. I think I'll get some Geko for the brass too, I want to play around with reloading x39. Lee dies are cheap, I already have some brass, and Hornady makes a decent 124gr .311" bullet.
Hopefully one day we'll get Barnaul back, the Dominion stuff made in Luhansk (headstamp LCW) was decent too, but again, you know, the thing.
BeaverMeat
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nanaimo, B.C.
I’ve had good-ish results with the current Norc Redbox in my SKS. Not as good as Barnaul and better than PPU. As for the Norc being “non-corrosive”… I’d say it’s “less-corrosive”.
As for Type-81 accuracy… all the barrel length talk aside the major downfall is the trigger. It needs some major work IMHO. It doesn’t take much to improve the SKS trigger… just “dish” the sear so the hammer dips downward as you pull the trigger. Removing some material from the front of the sear can reduce the pull a bit. It’s worked quite well for me.
The problem with the Type-81 is the loose trigger, hammer, and pin tolerances. Of the guns I’ve owned the mechanism slops around as you pull the trigger and could never get it to break predictably/consistently. If only you could acquire a kit of different pin sizes to match the tolerances of you gun… idk.
I’m just reading this thread to keep myself from buying one. lol. I dig the SR… maybe just get one to mess with.
Last edited:
None of that data means anything until you’ve curve-fit it to account for error. In those very articles he mentions that after doing so, 223 gains about 30 FPS per inch and 7.62x39 gains about 12 FPS per inch. It is a substantial difference.
And yes, 7.62x39 does indeed gain almost no speed in those 2 inches and you apparently have the data on hand to see that.
At this point we're getting *seriously* invested in "longer barrels bad and compromise the design" when again, this thing has almost exactly the same barrel length as an sks.
I'll also note the tabuk had a 23" inch barrel and that *was* purpose built as a 7.62x39 sniper rifle.
And it has the front sight on the end of the barrel where it belongs too! Although to be fair I'm not sure if the 23" includes the very similar looking flash hider or, as you described it the;
Last edited:
Also, for tactical imports;
When are these going to be shipping out?
Did yours ship yet? Mine hasn’t and I ordered when you did I think.
