SKS vs VZ58 - my review

[Canadiankeeper]

Everyone has their own preferences but for me the SKS offers me everything that I need in a Rifle and even though I can afford to get a VZ58 I am quite happy with my collection of SKS's...I simply love the looks and feel of them....again it comes down to preference and to each his own.

this 2x also cant beat the price tag of an SKS !

Don't get me wrong I think CZs are cool just not for me. Hell I have a picture of one as my background. (stock lol)

 

[ztunelover]

Most people don't spend that much on ammo, thankfully im not most people. So yeah I say just over that mark over a year and a half.
Yes have shot in -20.
Have "rapid fired" it waiting for something to go wrong ( 100 rounds and had to hold the mag because the for end of the gun was so hot)

I don't call this "tests" I call them treating and sks like an sks, my buddy shot and never cleaned his for a year... Still shoots fine and works fine. I would assume they use the CZ over the SKS is because full auto and 30 round magazines are better then semi and 10. Seeing in Canada we are limited to 5 and semi in both guns. Again show me why I should hold the CZ in such a high regard? Same round, same reliability, both a fun 7.62 plinker rifle. Pay an extra 800 for a pistol grip and a bit of looks, nah im ok.

Edit: rounds all are not through the same rifle, the first sks was left in a flooded basement, then not cleaned so had some good rust and pitting... Still fired but looked ugly was rough. So hey for 200 bucks I went and got another ! Took the old ones firing pin out and slapped it on the wall. If I wanted a modern military rifle with cool optics and is black and scary Ill get a tav, T97, XLR, XCR or AR platform type rifle that comes ready for optics and gadgets. Something that is made for them !

Was that with corrosive ammo?

You still havent told me how many rounds you have down the tube of your sks?

100 rounds rapid? And it was too hot to hold? Superb quality.

Same reliability? Can you prove that? I will happily put one of my czs against any sks if you want to do a reliability torture test and 1grand on the line. Feel free to take me up on that offer. Hey I'm taking a carbine course next summer, feel free to tag along and bring your sks. Lets see how well it holds up. If your rifle proves to be of equal or superior reliability I will pay for the course fee.

 

[dimeN]

just a thought

ww2 they brought in the semi's with 10 rnd capacity because it was indeed a game changer ... G43, Garand, svt40... so these rifles are indeed great guns ... ofcourse a detachable high capacity mag and lighter weight of the cz is better ... BUT you are definitely not losing with an sks.. if the sks was produced today, i can imagine its price being quite high ... we are just extremely lucky to get them for such a bargain, especially in such a great caliber ! ... and a bayo system that is probably the best i've seen

why quibble over this ... they are both exceptional rifles in my opinion !

 

[TDC]

I think after taxes and shipping my prices are bang on. The SKS has hardly any flip it is very easy to make quick hits. My stance is fine because I do square up to target, called adapting to the rifle. Something I learned I needed to do after shooting it a bit.

A CZ has very little flip, even less with a good comp. Your SKS weighs the same as the CZ with a full 30 round magazine, its a beast.

As for the argument of stripper clips I agree most people are terrible with them. That's why there are detachable mags now.

precisely my point, stripper clips suck, we've evolved into detachable box magazines because they're superior.

You keep bringing things back to modern military rifles. If you want one then go buy one ? A CZ and SKS are both old, no matter what useless crap you put on them.

You're right, the CZ is an older design, but its still relevant to modern designs. I run what works, and that includes both AR's and CZ's.

For what most people use the rifles for unless you have an urge to spend extra money SKS>CZ any day of the year.

Here is the answer I was looking for. "For what most people use the rifles for...." That is plinking, wasting ammo and generally infrequent screwing around. If you compete, train, or are serious about hunting, you don't use an SKS as its a poor choice for all of the above.

If your using the guns for competition why not use 223 instead ? If you arnt using the gun for competition then why are you doing all the mods anyways ? 100% personal choice. I choose to not be a mall ninja and just shoot the damn thing. Instead of trying to turn an old gun into a modern military marvel.

I use both .223 and 7.62x39 when I compete. Mods such as optics are not discipline dependant, they're an advantage regardless of what you're shooting. Not sure what "all the mods.." you're referencing are? The pistol grip sucks, and an optic is a net benefit. I've changed nothing else.

Nothing personal here just my point of views. The way I look at it I buy a rifle for what it is, not what I can spend even more money on it to make it become. If I want to buy a modern, fast shooter I can slap optics off and on easily, has good ergonomics and plenty of variety of parts I can put on then I will go buy an AR type platform that comes ready for that. God knows there is enough companies with AR platforms out there! If I want a fun gun that will go bang no matter what, something I can spend that extra money on shooting and having fun with the rifle. Im not thinking of the CZ im thinking SKS all day long...

Nothing wrong with your opinion and your intended role/use for your rifle. The problem comes in when you proclaim that it is better than a CZ. For your personal tastes and uses, yes it is. When we compare the rifles side by side, its no contest. The CZ is far superior in every way regardless of how you employ it. Cost is not a factor when comparing attributes, cost is a personal factor and not a fixed value. Had you said "the SKS is better for me than a CZ" I wouldn't have had an issue. When someone claims X is better than y, they best back that up with fact or I will pick their claim apart. Its not to pick on individuals, its about portraying facts to those who are new to shooting. Biased unsubstantiated opinions are not facts and lead the unaware astray.

If you want to go and spend the money knock yourself out, I still personally see no reason to spend all the extra money. SKS is great for target and hunting as is, im sure the CZ is swell also. I just prefer not to spend the extra money. Call me stingy lol.

EDIT: Also for my buddie, yea hahah hes daft when it comes to optics. My point with him was some people prefer irons.

In the bold.

The beautiful thing about a bone stock sks is that its cheap as dirt, reliable as hell, and it works pretty well. Its not an ar, and ak, or a cz, it is something a little more rudimentary. It is cheap enough to not worry about it banging around in the back of a truck, or getting muddy or wet, and its tough enough that it will still work fine after any kind of abuse. Love it or hate it, it is what is is, and does its job well.

So is the CZ, doesn't mean I would treat either rifle as such unless required. A dirty wet and scratched firearm is a good thing, it means it gets used like a tool not treated like a mantle piece.

TDC

 

[Canadiankeeper]

In the bold.



So is the CZ, doesn't mean I would treat either rifle as such unless required. A dirty wet and scratched firearm is a good thing, it means it gets used like a tool not treated like a mantle piece.

TDC

Was that with corrosive ammo?

You still havent told me how many rounds you have down the tube of your sks?

100 rounds rapid? And it was too hot to hold? Superb quality.

Same reliability? Can you prove that? I will happily put one of my czs against any sks if you want to do a reliability torture test and 1grand on the line. Feel free to take me up on that offer. Hey I'm taking a carbine course next summer, feel free to tag along and bring your sks. Lets see how well it holds up. If your rifle proves to be of equal or superior reliability I will pay for the course fee.

yes corrosive, first sks was at least over 2400 rounds.

You both seem to think im saying the gun is better then the CZ. I have not said that once yet. I have pointed out that most people find them (including myself) close to par with the CZ and would rather spend the money else where. OR would rather save a bit of cash.

It just seems lost in the middle of tactical and just for fun and for how cheap sks's are and how well they fulfill the roll of fun woods gun why not get it instead ? Also for tactical why not have a gun that comes ready for attachments like optics, different fore grips or lasers/lights? Maybe im lazy and don't want to spend the time changing all the parts around but hey.

Now I think I need to find a NR CZ and try it.

 

[Dad003]

personnally i own the 2 , i prefer largely my cz over the sks , lighter , better balance , and more easy to clean than the sks , the only thing that may made the sks more popular is because they sell it for 200

 

[Eaglelord17]

For those that call the stripper clip dated then proceed to talk about the VZ 58 (or CZ 858 or what ever you want to call it) you will notice that it accepts stripper clips as a integral part of its design. My point in regards to the SKS is that it really isn't that out of date. Yes there are better options for actual combat (M16, FN-FAL, AK-47 etc.) but as far as it goes it can still reasonably hold its own. I am not saying a army should issue a SKS as its main rifle right now, what I am saying is if YOU were in a situation where you needed a rifle that functions and is easy to use I would go for a SKS. Unless we get unpinned mags then a CZ 58 has very little advantages over a SKS. For those that think having full auto is the end of the world, here's the truth, it is virtually useless in a main battle rifle except in some very niche roles (house clearing for example). Look at the US most there issued M16 are semi-auto only. You can easily get by with a semi-auto only rifle in war, it doesn't have to have 20+rds. A SKS with 10 rounds will hold its own. It has more to do with how skilled you are with a firearm then how well made or crafted it is. The SKS is very easy to get skilled with, you could probably cover everything about the rifle in 20-30 minutes (including detailed strip and assembly).
Yes people struggle with stripper clips but let me ask you how many of them had full 10rds mags for the 10rds stripper clips to be inserted into. Probably none. Everything else I have already said.

 

[Rdrash]

Ive owned skss since the early 90s and they are damned hard to beat, But my cz definitely does. The trigger is better hands down and the groupings Ive got so far are very impressive for a 7.62x39. My advice is by both!
Trevor

 

[fireball]

Was that with corrosive ammo?

You still havent told me how many rounds you have down the tube of your sks?

100 rounds rapid? And it was too hot to hold? Superb quality.

Same reliability? Can you prove that? I will happily put one of my czs against any sks if you want to do a reliability torture test and 1grand on the line. Feel free to take me up on that offer. Hey I'm taking a carbine course next summer, feel free to tag along and bring your sks. Lets see how well it holds up. If your rifle proves to be of equal or superior reliability I will pay for the course fee.

I bought an SKS in the 90's.
Put 600-800 rounds of corrosive though it, shot a couple deer and a bear with hunting ammo and got it wet in the rain. After a couple of years of use I tossed it under the work bench and forgot about it, without ever cleaning it.
10 years later I dragged it out of storage, sprayed the brown fuzz with G96 and flawlessly put another 50-100 rounds of corrosive through it.
Having a VZ, CZ and SKS, I'd put money on the SKS outlasting either the VZ/CZ.
Good old, over built, Russian design that really knock some teeth out.

But I prefer my Valmets over either.

 

[TDC]

yes corrosive, first sks was at least over 2400 rounds.

You both seem to think im saying the gun is better then the CZ. I have not said that once yet. I have pointed out that most people find them (including myself) close to par with the CZ and would rather spend the money else where. OR would rather save a bit of cash.

It just seems lost in the middle of tactical and just for fun and for how cheap sks's are and how well they fulfill the roll of fun woods gun why not get it instead ? Also for tactical why not have a gun that comes ready for attachments like optics, different fore grips or lasers/lights? Maybe im lazy and don't want to spend the time changing all the parts around but hey.

Now I think I need to find a NR CZ and try it.

2400 rounds? That's a drop in the bucket my friend. Add a zero and then we'll call it something else. The SKS is by no means on par with a CZ, period. For the use most have for their SKS rifles, yes they won't see the advantages of the CZ, they're looking for a CHEAP rifle that goes bang. Little to no interest in improving their perofrmance and likely lacking all the fundamentals. The rifle is a TOY not a TOOL for those who buy them, because as a tool, it isn't one. When you compare rifle to rifle, not users or use, the advantages are clear and they're not in favor of the SKS. The design sucked when it came out, and was quickly replaced with.....The AK47 which was the basis for the better built better designed VZ/CZ series.

personnally i own the 2 , i prefer largely my cz over the sks , lighter , better balance , and more easy to clean than the sks , the only thing that may made the sks more popular is because they sell it for 200

Here's the answer as to why the SKS and SVT40 sell so well, they're CHEAP! Don't forget, there is a profit margin in that low low price, so tell me what it's really worth?? Next to nothing...

For those that call the stripper clip dated then proceed to talk about the VZ 58 (or CZ 858 or what ever you want to call it) you will notice that it accepts stripper clips as a integral part of its design. My point in regards to the SKS is that it really isn't that out of date. Yes there are better options for actual combat (M16, FN-FAL, AK-47 etc.) but as far as it goes it can still reasonably hold its own. I am not saying a army should issue a SKS as its main rifle right now, what I am saying is if YOU were in a situation where you needed a rifle that functions and is easy to use I would go for a SKS. Unless we get unpinned mags then a CZ 58 has very little advantages over a SKS. For those that think having full auto is the end of the world, here's the truth, it is virtually useless in a main battle rifle except in some very niche roles (house clearing for example). Look at the US most there issued M16 are semi-auto only. You can easily get by with a semi-auto only rifle in war, it doesn't have to have 20+rds. A SKS with 10 rounds will hold its own. It has more to do with how skilled you are with a firearm then how well made or crafted it is. The SKS is very easy to get skilled with, you could probably cover everything about the rifle in 20-30 minutes (including detailed strip and assembly).
Yes people struggle with stripper clips but let me ask you how many of them had full 10rds mags for the 10rds stripper clips to be inserted into. Probably none. Everything else I have already said.

The stripper clip feed slot on the CZ is a hangover from years previous. It doesn't work worth a sh*t and if you'll recall, the same stupid feature was incorporated on the M14 as well. The SKS cannot hold its own. Its overweight, has poor sights that are useless at night, a pathetic ten round magazine and feeds via the ever slow and aggravating stripper clip. The five round limit applies to both the SKS and the CZ, so there's no loss or gain for either side. A reload on the CZ is far faster than that on an SKS. That being said, the XCR mag adaptor allows you to double your capacity, I guess that's no advantage at all. Do tell, how do you top off the magazine on an SKS quickly?

You're correct FA is overrated and very specialized in use. You're wrong about the M16, it is in fact issued in semi/full or semi/3 round burst. It is not issued in semi only configuration.

Honing ones skills is easily done with most offerings, its called sweat equity. Put in the time and the effort and you can be proficient with most anything. The SKS is no more or less difficult to operate than the VZ. Where the difference lies is in repeated ability to operate the firearm. As mentioned, the stripper clips are a huge downfall, the 10 round magazine is a negative, the weight is a negative, the iron sights are a negative, the inability to mount optics is a negative. Some of these negatives greatly effect ones ability to operate the rifle efficiently whereas others simple hinder the operation as a whole. The SKS is nowhere near "on par" with a CZ.

I bought an SKS in the 90's.
Put 600-800 rounds of corrosive though it, shot a couple deer and a bear with hunting ammo and got it wet in the rain. After a couple of years of use I tossed it under the work bench and forgot about it, without ever cleaning it.
10 years later I dragged it out of storage, sprayed the brown fuzz with G96 and flawlessly put another 50-100 rounds of corrosive through it.
Having a VZ, CZ and SKS, I'd put money on the SKS outlasting either the VZ/CZ.
Good old, over built, Russian design that really knock some teeth out.

But I prefer my Valmets over either.

So you put a half crate through a rifle, neglected it, cleaned it and it ran.. So where's the wow in that?? Neglecting a firearm speaks to the owner/operator not the design. If one can abuse it or in your case neglect it, then its not something one appears to need to preserve life and limb. I have to ask, why the neglect, were you preoccupied with a better firearm?

TDC

 

[fireball]

So you put a half crate through a rifle, neglected it, cleaned it and it ran.. So where's the wow in that?? Neglecting a firearm speaks to the owner/operator not the design. If one can abuse it or in your case neglect it, then its not something one appears to need to preserve life and limb. I have to ask, why the neglect, were you preoccupied with a better firearm?

TDC

A rifle isn't cleaned when exposed to rain while being carried through the mountains in BC. No wow, a post was made and I responded.

It was abused, dropped, tossed around, never cleaned but 10 years later still works and still hits the 200m gong.

$70 SKS is a throw away.

 

[TDC]

A rifle isn't cleaned when exposed to rain while being carried through the mountains in BC. No wow, a post was made and I responded.

It was abused, dropped, tossed around, never cleaned but 10 years later still works and still hits the 200m gong.

$70 SKS is a throw away.

I have yet to see a wet rifle stop functioning, the elements are part of the experience when using firearms outdoors. Dropping a firearm happens, tossing it is a bit odd. Neglecting the firearm afterwards is entirely user dependent.

TDC

 

[Mumbles Marble Mouth]

Owning a VZ makes me feel like I should be in Serbia or Chechnya, wearing a heavy black leather jacket, and listening to Eastern European techno music.

I prefer the SKS. Often the user will blame the tool for their performance, or lack there of.

I load stripper clips quite fast, especially with 5 rounds attached only instead of 10. That way you don't get that 6th round coming off and sitting loose in the action, adding time by fishing it out.

I also use and very much like Tapco mags. Strong and reliable. When people offer the usual negative cliché comments about them being plastic, they're opinion value to me drops a few points.

Its not that the magazine doesn't feed ammo into the chamber as its intended purpose. Its just, as 5 rounds only, it completely hinders the rifles performance rather then approve upon. Its a detectable magazine that's a pain in the ass to take out and put a new one in. The magazine deletes the use of stripper clips. Although, people have told me you can modify them to work with stripper clips. The Tapco mags can't be removed without the bolt open and with my SKS, the bolt wouldn't hold open on the last shot nor would it stay open making it even more of a pain in the ass to change the mag. On top of the point of the bolt must be open to remove the Tapco mag, if you get a jam or failure that requires you to remove the magazine to clear it and you can't pull the bolt to the rear, you're #### out of luck. They're are plenty of bad points for the Tapco mag and they're none for the box magazine it was engineered to use. If it works for you, that's great. Tapco is a good company that supports the gun community so I would like to never say they're a ####ty company.

 

[EL34/6L6]

,,,

 

[Shin_Gunto]

 

[superlative]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: you can't easily top up ammo in a loaded SKS. With a VZ58, at least you can top up the magazine fairly easily, or just insert a fresh one.

 

[Phat Eagle]

There is a reason the SKS was replaced by the AK... because it had all the features you are lauding in the VZ (detachable mag, etc). That said, you can buy three SKS for the price of a VZ, and I shoot as we'll or better with an SKS than I do with a VZ. Plus most we're issued at some point, so they have collectible interest to those so inclined... The 58/858 are commercial.

Just my two cents.

 

[TDC]

There is a reason the SKS was replaced by the AK... because it had all the features you are lauding in the VZ (detachable mag, etc). That said, you can buy three SKS for the price of a VZ, and I shoot as we'll or better with an SKS than I do with a VZ. Plus most we're issued at some point, so they have collectible interest to those so inclined... The 58/858 are commercial.

Just my two cents.

How many firearms can you use at one time? ONE.

If your ability between rifles doesn't change, then drive on with the SKS because it is you who's limiting the performance of the rifle not the other way around.

One of the greatest issues with the firearms community is the "collector" attitude. They're tools, use them.

TDC

 

[Dake21]

My impression is that the CZ/VZ is a more refined rifle compared to the SKS.

 

[oldbadger]

I have a small collection (MORE THAN 10, BUT LESS THAN 20) of mid 20th century SA military rifles. All have their good points, as well as their own peculiarities and drawbacks. Some cost less than $100, others cost 4-500. What makes them special is that they represent a historical snapshot of world politics and conflicts during their years of manufacture. All are fun to shoot, but none are tacticool; if I wanted to be a mall ninja, Airsoft is the only way to go. with the money I saved on ammo, I could buy camo clothing, flashlights, even a ghilly suit!

My point is, whatever you have, treat it well, take it out and shoot it, learn its foibles, have some fun.