You Don't Own A Type 81 - You Can't Speak For Us

Epoxy7 said:
Again disagree. I've seen more than a few threads on this forum with "fanboys" claiming junk was great. It became more about the status symbol than the actual firearm. I'm hoping this isn't one of those threads!!
Click to expand...

I hear what your saying and don't disagree with you... If it turns out that my Type 81 is junk then I'll be the first to admit it. I am nobody's poster boy. However there are people claiming it's junk who cannot back those claims.

Also, who is it that gets to deem something junk and what are they comparing it too to determine wether its junk?

Nobody is asking this to compare to the fit and finish of a CNC machined gun and nobody is expecting it to be a precision rifle.

The only fair comparison for the Type 81 is other Chicom, or Red rifles...
 
Last edited:
Epoxy7 said:
Again disagree. I've seen more than a few threads on this forum with "fanboys" claiming junk was great. It became more about the status symbol than the actual firearm. I'm hoping this isn't one of those threads!!
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm no fanboy and was one of the biggest t81 skeptics in Ti's treads before I bought one t prove it was junk. Instead, I'm pleasantly surprised. I think my review thread was fair and realistic and I'm now going to keep the rifle.
 
Claven2 said:
Fair enough. I'm no fanboy and was one of the biggest t81 skeptics in Ti's treads before I bought one t prove it was junk. Instead, I'm pleasantly surprised. I think my review thread was fair and realistic and I'm now going to keep the rifle.
Click to expand...

True, your review was pretty decent.
 
Mantis said:
So tell me, if the SKS is so much better, why did the Chinese adopt the type 56 AK for frontline service and then replace the Type 56 AK with the Type 81 as the standard service rifle? Why was it and not the SKS in service for all those years?
Click to expand...

Couple reasons... Russian influence at the time of adoption, then Russian hated a few years later which led to the T63 abortion being adopted to replace the AK. The T81 replaced the T63.
Also the AK was uncontrollable for the wee Chinese soldiers so they didn't like it.
 
Hitzy said:
Couple reasons... Russian influence at the time of adoption, then Russian hated a few years later which led to the T63 abortion being adopted to replace the AK. The T81 replaced the T63.
Also the AK was uncontrollable for the wee Chinese soldiers so they didn't like it.
Click to expand...

Chinese doctrine was different than 1960s Soviet doctrine. The era of Soviets treating their soldiers as expendable ended in the 50's, more or less. Chinese doctrine was still human wave thinking with a bayonet emphasis until the late 1960's. The type 63 was never adopted in any numbers, and when the t81 came out, it replaced mostly t56 rifles, which in turn trickled down and removed sks rifles from service - many of which ended up in afrika and other armpits of the world as foreign aid or exports.

The ak had a solid run in China and the t81 was widely accepted as an upgrade.

Fwiw, the NVA had no issues using the type 56 AKM against the Yanks.
 
Since there are no realistic accuracy tests yet, what is the basis of the claim that the Type 81 can outshoot an SKS, on average?

Is it just the sight radius (highly subjective) or is there somehow more to it?

Not pulling one way or the other here, if people like their rifles, great! But I don't see any evidence to make that claim yet.
 
Hitzy said:
Couple reasons... Russian influence at the time of adoption, then Russian hated a few years later which led to the T63 abortion being adopted to replace the AK. The T81 replaced the T63.
Also the AK was uncontrollable for the wee Chinese soldiers so they didn't like it.
Click to expand...

Lucky for the Vietnamese they are nordic giants in comparison to the Chinese lol
 
Joel said:
Since there are no realistic accuracy tests yet, what is the basis of the claim that the Type 81 can outshoot an SKS, on average?

Is it just the sight radius (highly subjective) or is there somehow more to it?

Not pulling one way or the other here, if people like their rifles, great! But I don't see any evidence to make that claim yet.
Click to expand...

The t81 is continuously made of rigid steel from muzzle to back of receiver. The barrel to trigger group arrangement is not dependent on stock fit to maintain trigger to firing pin geometry and nothing can shift around between shots.

On an sks, the shoulder stock is only rigidly attached out at the midpoint of the barrel. It's stability is a function of how tight the in letting is at the back of the trigger group, and in the length of the receiver tang slot in the stock in relation to the stock cross bolt. Every time you fire an sks, the barreled receiver sits differently in the stock, sometimes it's a minor difference, sometimes it moves enough to change barrel harmonics and the bearing pressure on the front stock ferule.

So the sks design is inherently less consistentfrom shot to shot than a t81, whose barrel harmonics will be the same with each shot.

That's the only real difference, but is why we see the sks printing a Little more erratically than the t81 on the few comparison targets posted so far. I noticed the same in my early shooting of the t81. Neither rifle is a. Tack driver, but the t81 is a bit more consistent and has a much better trigger.
 
Seeing as how just about every SKS I ever owned had a bit of play to move around in its stock...yeah I can see that mattering.

Definitely not one of the "My SKS shot 2 MOA" guys...but they shouldn't be doing worse than 5" at 100 yards for a 5 shot group average either.

Which seems really close what it looks like the Type 81 does, at least this early in. I really wonder how much difference you get off the two of them when you bench em, but at least those answers do make sense. Thanks, Claven.
 
Joel said:
I had thought it was more of a national pride thing than anything else.
Click to expand...

Thats not quite accurate, the pla had a mix of both rifles in their units at the same time. Kinda like in ww2 when armies gave rifles to soldiers and subguns to nco types.

Eventually they went all ak, then all t81, then all t95, etc.
 
Joel said:
Seeing as how just about every SKS I ever owned had a bit of play to move around in its stock...yeah I can see that mattering.

Definitely not one of the "My SKS shot 2 MOA" guys...but they shouldn't be doing worse than 5" at 100 yards for a 5 shot group average either.

Which seems really close what it looks like the Type 81 does, at least this early in. I really wonder how much difference you get off the two of them when you bench em, but at least those answers do make sense. Thanks, Claven.
Click to expand...

In my case, I won't be happy with groups until it's warmer and I can take my time with the rifle without freezing my nads off.
 
Joel said:
Got ya...I never really grasped what it did any better than an AK I guess.
Click to expand...

The biggest improvement the t81 brought over the ak was an integral grenade launcher and gas valve. There are other cool upgrades like a more user friendly safety, but the grenade capability being standard for every soldier was the big one. For us in Canada, it's moot.
 
Claven2 said:
In my case, I won't be happy with groups until it's warmer and I can take my time with the rifle without freezing my nads off.
Click to expand...

One of the great pleasures of being in the bush and not on a formal range. get to sit in the truck with the heat cranked and a thermos of Tims, get out and shoot a group, then get right back in. You never even really get cold ;)

Been a while since I saw ya, not for many years at the EOHC mil surp shoots, but good to "talk" a bit!
 
In case someone missed the Calibre magazine review.. the best they could get was 5-6 moa
Before the 81's even landed some guys were saying they could get 1-2 moa
Its all fantasy world....Yeah maybe the stars might align and they get a few close shots.. But cherry picking your groups is for the guys that don't want to admit its a $700 bullet hose .. at best
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom