I don't know what was wrong with your carbine, what you had done or who did it. But I would never go afield with an sks in conditon one if it had a modified sear. I'll take my heavy, gritty, long pull trigger and neutral or minimally negative hammer travel over the modified gun-- 100 times out of 100. Why? Because it was designed that way.
Yes you do know, or you should based on your statements. You clearly stated that modifying the SKS trigger makes it unsafe. Mine was modified but displayed no unsafe behaviour. So it was, by your definition, malfunctioning since it was modified but not doing anything unsafe. So which is it? Was it unsafe with a trigger job or perfectly fine with a trigger job?
What I do know is this: The high friction coefficient between the sear and hammer consitute 99.9% of the sks safety function. When you alter the bearing surfaces of either, you alter the safety function of the rifle as it was designed, manufactured and issued for more than a half century.
Try learning a little more to expand your knowledge.
You learn something new every day.
Unless you choose to ignore new info.
Apparently the 'G' in GED stands for Genius. Maybe you should invent a time machine and go back and tell the Soviets, Chinese, Yugoslavians, Romanians, Albanians, and North Koreans that they were all mistaken. Fifteen million + rifles later and it wasn't until you stumbled onto the scene and figured out they'd been doing it wrong for more than fifty years.
Doing what wrong, exactly? Or are you trying to tell me that my choice to improve on an old design somehow equals an admission that something was done wrong in the first place?
