panzerslob2 said:
Don't you mean a mauser. I thought it was the greatest rifle of all time.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71138
SKS confession
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
Don't you mean a mauser. I thought it was the greatest rifle of all time.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71138
- Location
- Surrey, BC
This is exactly the kind of useless crap that we don't need on these forums. I know it's a free country and the right to free speech and everyone's entitled to their own opinion and blah blah blah, but frankly if I were a mod I'd have deleted this post a long time ago. This isn't the Jerry Springer Show for chrissakes!!panzerslob2 said:
As far as the actual topic of the post, if you want an SKS there's more than enough to go around. It's obvious that there are some people who wouldn't be caught dead within 10 feet of an SKS, and that's just fine by me
I like mine, and I like shooting it, and that's all there is to it. There are other factors to consider, the cost factor being the most commonly argued point, but it all comes down to personal preference. If you can go home after a day at the range with a smile on your face, that's all that should matter. It sounds pretty Mr. Rogers and cliche, but it's true.Accuracy, especially in a case like this, is a bit of a moot point. I don't care, quite frankly, if I can shoot 2" groups at 100 yards, and neither should anyone else. It is what it is; a cheap mass-produced rifle, designed to function and meet spec, and that's all. What about the MP-40 Schmeisser and variants? They're pressed/stamped construction, extremely basic and no-frills, designed to function and meet spec while being mass-produced by the boatload as fast as possible. They weren't as accurate as a Thompson, but they were close enough, and got the job done. In the immortal words of Robert DeNiro in the Deer Hunter, "this is this, it ain't somethin' else, this is this!!"
When I was little, I had a crappy chinese break-action pellet gun, and my buddy who I used to go shooting with had a Crosman multi-pump BB repeater. He never razzed me about his gun being better, in fact we'd trade guns back and forth all the time just for fun, it was all about blasting cans or rotten apples or eggs or whatever. That's how it is today with my SKS. I shoot it because it's fun, it goes BANG and punches holes in water jugs and all the other fun stuff I used to enjoy doing with my crappy old chinese pellet gun, but on a bigger scale. So there
I have a 1978 Norinco Chinese Police Issue SKS and....
1. It shoots good nuff fer me
2. The ammo is cheap but still shoots well (although dirty ball powder)
3. I always enjoy myself when I take her to the range
Whats to complain about?
I'm with Ardent on this one.
1. It shoots good nuff fer me
2. The ammo is cheap but still shoots well (although dirty ball powder)
3. I always enjoy myself when I take her to the range
Whats to complain about?
I'm with Ardent on this one.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
cannonfodder said:
Where do I start, man o man...
Lets go with the 6PPC has nothing to do with 7.62X39. The 6PPC case is a blown out and necked down 7.62X39. Basic case geometry is still in keeping so far as base diameter and length, and the .30 bore and flat base bullets actually make for an excellent cartridge, not that far off from the .30 BR in a proper gun, which there are VERY few of. When I say proper, I only mean bench capable bolt guns, things that can shoot in the .1's and .2's. The 7.62X39 alos happens to be one of the most efficient cartridges ever made. The low pressure level and large basal area of the bullets make it a reliable shooter time and again that is easy on guns and the geometry ensures it feeds like a dream.
There are only a few good sporters that are suitable for bench shooting the 7.62X39, and in Europe they play with them more than here. In Europe with handloaded 7.62X39 they are producing phenomenal groups. My whole point here is that to demean the 7.62X39 as inaccurate is dumbfounding ignorance without peer.
Next; the SKS is no AR. Certainly not, you're quite right. The price tags certainly don't match either, do they?
Now how much do my AR's cost me on average? Lets see, one's $1800, and one's $6000, and... Do they shoot that many multiples better than my $320 Yugo SKS? Hell no. Granted, my $6000 AR is fitted with a grenade launcher, then again so is the Yugo SKS I compare it to...
As you can tell, I'm biased, no doubt. But I've tried them all, and one I've kept time and again after cycling through countless balck rifles is my SKS, and I'm not ashamed to admit it!
- Location
- Surrey, BC
Do you know how to say anything else? "get a grip, out!" Idiot. I hope you get hit by a bus, and all your fingers get broken so you can't type anymore and inflict your horrible stupidity on others. Out!!panzerslob2 said:
Nice flower in your little avatar pic, BTW. Very masculine.
Well I remember the AR’s of the 80’s that were issued to the US Army, they were junk, constantly jamming, and what does it say about a firearm that needs a “bolt assist” to push the bolt forward?
Now I realize that the AR has finally become an excellent rifle, firing an anemic cartridge. But it only took 40 years and craploads of money to do so. The SKS sold by the Chinese is pretty much a direct copy of a firearm designed and produced 60 years ago. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.
While I am no expert I certainly don’ consider the AR as the top of it’s class, the only one I ever liked was the AR-10.
Now I realize that the AR has finally become an excellent rifle, firing an anemic cartridge. But it only took 40 years and craploads of money to do so. The SKS sold by the Chinese is pretty much a direct copy of a firearm designed and produced 60 years ago. Talk about comparing apples and oranges.
While I am no expert I certainly don’ consider the AR as the top of it’s class, the only one I ever liked was the AR-10.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
panzerslob2 said:
Sigh... How old are you, really? 13, 14? Have you ever even shot a rifle? Those groups aren't even anything remotely special, just solid workable accuracy, the fact you doubt them makes me question your experience level.
But in reality, we're all just here to have fun, and I get miffed when people try and dump on other's guns because they are cheap. Happens all the time. I own very expensive, and very cheap guns, and I like both for their own reasons. Some, I don't. But then again I try to avoid dumping on them for no good reason when I know little about them. Doing so makes one look like an ass...
Chuck3436 said:This thread gets my vote for Intellectual redundancy
Comparing ar15 to SKS.
Please stop.
They certainly can be compared, or assessed against one another in therms of price, accuracy, durability, practicablity,etc.
If you want, I'll even make up a chart for you...lol. Are they equal? No, they're not, but that doesn't mean that because the AR costs ten times more, that it is ten times a better gun. As a matter of fact, whether it is a better gun at all depends on whom you ask.
I don't wish to generalize but speaking from personal experience, the people I know, who put AR's on a pedestal and idolize them are all about looks and are wanna be comandos.
They have thousands of dollars invested in their guns, replica uniforms of different Special Forces outfits, badges that they haven't earned in any way, comm gear, binocs, night vision, etc.
While there is nothing with having all this stuff and playing with it, owning it and "training" with it doesn't make you a "specialist" and doesn't give you any braging rights. How many of you who knock the SKS as a "turd" have seen any combat and were able to evaluate first hand the quality of different firearms, in real situations?
Last edited:
WOW you little cup cakes sure don't like to get called on.
and if you ever have the guts you can get one too! Little boy, do you know what and where this flower comes from, Do the reserch and you'll be surprised! and when you do you'll really have a grip on things.
and if you ever have the guts you can get one too! Little boy, do you know what and where this flower comes from, Do the reserch and you'll be surprised! and when you do you'll really have a grip on things.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
panzerslob2 said:
You strike me as a young fellow in a trenchcoat wearing eyeliner buddy...
Not to mention you entirely avoided the questions.Not that it matters, might was well bring this back on course.
And, yes, you can of course compare the AR and the SKS, why wouldn't you be able to? They have been for ages, even from the perspective of military planners.
- Location
- Surrey, BC
Ooooh, hit a nerve with the flower jab, did I? I'm not going to waste my time doing research on your flower avatar, you meatball. I don't care what kind of flower it is. I just want you to shut up and go away.panzerslob2 said:
panzerslob2 said:
You almost speak English. Not well enough for most of us to know what the fu.ck you're saying though, so I'll reply to you with ..." Dragon flys and laundry detergent are like a freshly baked turtle!"
Now, go finish the next stage of your ESL course before you subject the rest of us to your non-sense.
- Location
- Alberta land of many guns
Declan,
In reference to your pictures, those hardly look like consistent 3" groups. as a matter of fact in the BC shoot N see target you have a FLYER at your 10 o'clock position. The top target has several and the silhouette I can't tell. Either way, you have the best shooting SKS I have ever seen, given that these targets were not shot at close range as some suspect. I don't believe you'd fabricate results and therefore take your word for it.
Ardent7,
I'm confused? In a previous past you state that the 6ppc catridge originates from the 7.62x39. In your last post you state that the 6ppc has nothing to do with the 7.62x39 catridge. In the very next sentence you negate your own words by again indicating that the 6ppc is indeed BASED upon the 7.62x39 catridge. In regards to their efficiency, I did not contest. The reliability of the cartridge has little to do with its accuracy. as far as being easier on guns, I agree. Lower velocities, lower pressures will definitely increase life of the platform being used.
Your cost comparison is something I fail to follow? No where did I indicate that the cost of a firearm determines its quality(can we say Rhineland Arms). Cheap doesn't necessarily relate to monetary value. My question is why bring up this point if this was never a point of contention? Perhaps it is used as a foundation for some to validate their particular firearm or its related costs in comparison to others of greater value or stigma. Either way it plays no role in this argument.
Colin,
You indicate you "remember the Ar's of the 80's issued to the US Army...) Are you remembering because you served or because you heard? Little has changed in the AR platform in the last 20 years. MOST problems occured in the very early years of service, well before the 1980's. Some issues were attributed to ammunition, not the platform.
In reference to your comment about the 223 round being "anemic" all I can say is this; Would you stand in front of my AR and let me shoot you with it? No? Than I guess its doing its job quite well. Keep in mind that the 223 round produces nearly identicle numbers(at the muzzle) as the 7.62x39 and retains its energy and velocity better than the 7.62x39. Lets not forget that the 223(rather 5.56) produces greater ballistic trauma and permanant wound characteristics than the 7.62x39. 223 has less recoil, lighter ammo, and better flight characteristics than 7.62x39 as well. I would reevaluate the title of "anemic" for the 223. How many Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghani, Paelstinian, and south American people have been killed by 223/556? The toll in Vietnam alone is 500,000 plus. Not all being attributed to the 556 catridge but being as the 5.56x45mm M16 constituted the majority of firearms used throughout the war I'd be willing to bet that a good portion if that number came from the 556.
Many SKS owners feel that their rifle is great just the way it is. That being the case could someone please tell me why the first thing an SKS owner does is try to imitate any other firearm other than the SKS. How many threads are on this board about turning your SKS into a pseudo AK47 or a Dragunov. How many SKS owners attempt to turn their simple reliable "battle rife" into a precison rig(using poor quality parts no less). Why is there such hype about an SKS adapter that takes AR or AK butt stocks or other AR/AK type accessories? The answer is simple. A lot of SKS owners want the real thing, whether that be an AK or an AR. For those who feel that some AR owners are nothing more than "wanna be commandos" simply because they buy "cammonado" type equipment. Tell me how that is any different? Atleast those who play commando with theire AR's are using real commando equipment. Based on some of the products offered by companies such as ATI, I'd say the SKS crowd and especially some of the break action shotgun owners are far better at being wannabe's than AR owners.
Seeing as how a large portion of CGN members feel that the SKS cannot or rather should be compared to the AR than I see no reason to ever read another thread comparing the SKS to the AR or anything else.
CF
In reference to your pictures, those hardly look like consistent 3" groups. as a matter of fact in the BC shoot N see target you have a FLYER at your 10 o'clock position. The top target has several and the silhouette I can't tell. Either way, you have the best shooting SKS I have ever seen, given that these targets were not shot at close range as some suspect. I don't believe you'd fabricate results and therefore take your word for it.
Ardent7,
I'm confused? In a previous past you state that the 6ppc catridge originates from the 7.62x39. In your last post you state that the 6ppc has nothing to do with the 7.62x39 catridge. In the very next sentence you negate your own words by again indicating that the 6ppc is indeed BASED upon the 7.62x39 catridge. In regards to their efficiency, I did not contest. The reliability of the cartridge has little to do with its accuracy. as far as being easier on guns, I agree. Lower velocities, lower pressures will definitely increase life of the platform being used.
Your cost comparison is something I fail to follow? No where did I indicate that the cost of a firearm determines its quality(can we say Rhineland Arms). Cheap doesn't necessarily relate to monetary value. My question is why bring up this point if this was never a point of contention? Perhaps it is used as a foundation for some to validate their particular firearm or its related costs in comparison to others of greater value or stigma. Either way it plays no role in this argument.
Colin,
You indicate you "remember the Ar's of the 80's issued to the US Army...) Are you remembering because you served or because you heard? Little has changed in the AR platform in the last 20 years. MOST problems occured in the very early years of service, well before the 1980's. Some issues were attributed to ammunition, not the platform.
In reference to your comment about the 223 round being "anemic" all I can say is this; Would you stand in front of my AR and let me shoot you with it? No? Than I guess its doing its job quite well. Keep in mind that the 223 round produces nearly identicle numbers(at the muzzle) as the 7.62x39 and retains its energy and velocity better than the 7.62x39. Lets not forget that the 223(rather 5.56) produces greater ballistic trauma and permanant wound characteristics than the 7.62x39. 223 has less recoil, lighter ammo, and better flight characteristics than 7.62x39 as well. I would reevaluate the title of "anemic" for the 223. How many Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghani, Paelstinian, and south American people have been killed by 223/556? The toll in Vietnam alone is 500,000 plus. Not all being attributed to the 556 catridge but being as the 5.56x45mm M16 constituted the majority of firearms used throughout the war I'd be willing to bet that a good portion if that number came from the 556.
Many SKS owners feel that their rifle is great just the way it is. That being the case could someone please tell me why the first thing an SKS owner does is try to imitate any other firearm other than the SKS. How many threads are on this board about turning your SKS into a pseudo AK47 or a Dragunov. How many SKS owners attempt to turn their simple reliable "battle rife" into a precison rig(using poor quality parts no less). Why is there such hype about an SKS adapter that takes AR or AK butt stocks or other AR/AK type accessories? The answer is simple. A lot of SKS owners want the real thing, whether that be an AK or an AR. For those who feel that some AR owners are nothing more than "wanna be commandos" simply because they buy "cammonado" type equipment. Tell me how that is any different? Atleast those who play commando with theire AR's are using real commando equipment. Based on some of the products offered by companies such as ATI, I'd say the SKS crowd and especially some of the break action shotgun owners are far better at being wannabe's than AR owners.
Seeing as how a large portion of CGN members feel that the SKS cannot or rather should be compared to the AR than I see no reason to ever read another thread comparing the SKS to the AR or anything else.
CF
Last edited:
- Location
- Alberta land of many guns
On a side note, the flower in Panzerslob 2's avatar is indeed the Swiss/Austrian/German edelweiss. In German it means noble(edel) white(weiss). The flower was given to German and Austrian mountain or Alpine soldiers for bravery. Definitely a sign of masculinity if you ask me. As is often the case around here. Don't #### talk that you know nothing about.
CF
CF
panzerslob2 said:
Get an education. Then maybe try to string together more than a few sentences.
After that learn to research wtf you are talking about so you don't sound retarded.
Also get a life. No one cares.
