View Full Version : 'What Kind Of Gun Is This?
Panther_99FS
July 2nd, 2010, 13:46
:bump: ...
Allen
July 2nd, 2010, 13:53
Somthing in the AK-47 family...
Navy Chief
July 2nd, 2010, 14:06
Er, forget the gun, who is the babe?!!!!!
NC
Snuffy
July 2nd, 2010, 14:12
Er, forget the gun, who is the babe?!!!!!
NC
Now then you hit on the whole point of Panther posting .... LOL! :bump:
Moparmike
July 2nd, 2010, 14:15
That would be an SKS. Stuck in one of those cheap plastic aftermarket stocks.
Good thing she's not actually at a range. If she lit it off the way she's holding it she'd get that cheekpiece right in the snout!
And tell her to flip the rear sight down where it's supposed to be.
Willy
July 2nd, 2010, 14:35
Yep, modified SKS. Used to have a "stocker". Sold it to buy a lever action rifle in 357 Mag. The SKS didn't really impress me, but I've still got that levergun.
Panther_99FS
July 2nd, 2010, 14:38
Er, forget the gun, who is the babe?!!!!!
NC
Ask & ye shall receive...:d
Navy Chief
July 2nd, 2010, 14:44
Pretty, but (in my opinion) more attractive with less muscles showing!
NC
Bjoern
July 2nd, 2010, 14:52
Ask & ye shall receive...:d
I've just reconsidered making a "There's a gun in the pic?" comment. :isadizzy: :icon_lol:
Tom Clayton
July 2nd, 2010, 14:56
I wanna know more about that handgun on her hip!
JoeW
July 2nd, 2010, 16:37
Thas one of them bannana clips in there that shoots all day.
Daveroo
July 2nd, 2010, 16:37
she looks like she could hurt me..................i like her........
Prowler1111
July 2nd, 2010, 17:32
So..i was like huummm...might happen....
..then P clarified the situation and i went like
AAARRRRGGHHHH..my eyes, my eyes, OMG!!...
Thanks Panther..
Prowler
wombat666
July 3rd, 2010, 09:11
She looks like Linda Hamilton on way too many steroids.
:jump:
As for the SKS, why do people bother with such junk, even the Russians dumped them as quickly as they could!
Cactuskid
July 3rd, 2010, 10:11
Actually, the Siminov wasn't a bad weapon for what it is, a carbine. When Soviet tactics changed in the late 40's to "spray and pray", the AK took over. I own a 1951 Tula Arsenal SKS, and it is fairly accurate for a carbine in an intermediate caliber and is quite pleasant to shoot. In 'Nam, the VC made good use of the SKS. We captured quite a few of them. I don't care for all the Buck Rogers, plastic after-market crap that people put on them, but IMHO, it's not a bad weapon...
middle
July 3rd, 2010, 10:24
I don't know about the gun but I have an engine block that needs moving!!!
Moparmike
July 3rd, 2010, 13:54
She looks like Linda Hamilton on way too many steroids.
:jump:
As for the SKS, why do people bother with such junk, even the Russians dumped them as quickly as they could!
Actually, the Siminov wasn't a bad weapon for what it is, a carbine. When Soviet tactics changed in the late 40's to "spray and pray", the AK took over. I own a 1951 Tula Arsenal SKS, and it is fairly accurate for a carbine in an intermediate caliber and is quite pleasant to shoot. In 'Nam, the VC made good use of the SKS. We captured quite a few of them. I don't care for all the Buck Rogers, plastic after-market crap that people put on them, but IMHO, it's not a bad weapon...
I've gotta agree with cactuskid. The SKS is a good solid design but it came at the wrong period in time. A semi-auto carbine with a charger-fed fixed magazine when the rest of the world was switching over to detachable-magazine select-fire designs.
I've had several of them over the years. None of them ever failed me for sport shooting...accuracy is good for a post-WWII battle rifle and functioning is flawless even if you abuse the heck out of them.
My favorite was a Tula but I've had a several Chinese versions, both surplus and new Norinco build. I have yet to try the Yugo variant and I doubt that I will since the days of cheap 7.62x39 shooting are over here in the US (compared to the heyday in the early 90s anyways). I've got one Chinese surplus "keeper" though.
Given the choice between a Simonov or Kalashnikov, I'll stick with the SKS.
Wombat, I realize that you might have actual combat experience with the gun which might flavor your bias but as a sport shooter and varmint rifle I've been very happy with em.
Jagdflieger
July 3rd, 2010, 14:11
As far as Combloc weapons go I've always prefered the SKS to the AK-47 and its AKM and AK-74 derivitives. All are very reliable weapons, but I can shoot the SKS much more accurately at greater distances than the Kalishnikov designs. I've always regretted not bringing my SKS back from the Nam.
Cactuskid
July 3rd, 2010, 15:41
As far as Combloc weapons go I've always prefered the SKS to the AK-47 and its AKM and AK-74 derivitives. All are very reliable weapons, but I can shoot the SKS much more accurately at greater distances than the Kalishnikov designs. I've always regretted not bringing my SKS back from the Nam.
It wasn't so easy to do. I tried to bring a captured Type 56 home in my duffle bag in '67, and got caught with it in Cam Ranh before getting on the plane. Bummer, it was still in the wrapper! :tgun2:
TeaSea
July 4th, 2010, 15:46
Thas one of them bannana clips in there that shoots all day.
You know Joe I used to be able to......well, never mind.....
Agree with previous comments on the SKS....everything is a trade off, and the Soviets clearly went with the AK series out of clear sense of pragmatism. But if you're a marksman, the AK is not your choice of weapon.
Well, The Military Channel Top Ten Combat Rifles Of All Time placed the AK at number one, so I guess that settles it! :icon_lol: The most modern combat rifle I own is an M-1 Garand. Firing that weapon is a moving experience.
norab
July 4th, 2010, 17:35
Well, The Military Channel Top Ten Combat Rifles Of All Time placed the AK at number one, so I guess that settles it! :icon_lol: The most modern combat rifle I own is an M-1 Garand. Firing that weapon is a moving experience.
Those Military channel top ten programs are so full of it. The SKS is a nice little rig. Mine shot
really well even with steel case chinese ammo captured in Viet Nam used to have tons of fun at my gun club with my" ugly rifle" and "trash ammo" wiping the smiles off of their faces
TeaSea
July 5th, 2010, 04:26
At the risk of stealing the thread, (my apologies to Panther and his women), but in the comparison business, you have to pay attention to the factors that are being used when comparing various weapons systems. Like aircraft, everything with a combat rifle (old term) is a trade off. The AK-47 is clearly one of the best combat rifles in the world, one of the best ever made. However, whether it's the "number one" depends on what you hold near and dear. I think the Military Channel made a good case (I don't personally agree with it, but it's a good argument).
The Soviet Union needed a robust, cheap, easily maintainable weapon that could be easily produced from stamped parts and was easy to use. The AK is the answer to those criteria. It is all of those factors. It is not particularly accurate beyond 200 yards however adapts well to standard Soviet Infantry tactics which do not emphasize fixing an enemy at longer range and maneuvering against him. The same criteria that produced a great combat rifle for Soviet Infantry also produced the "revolutionary" weapon for export. So ubiquitous that it's silhouette is part of numerous country flags.
U.S. and NATO Infantry tactics are different, and so our solutions of rifle were different. We maneuver on a target and want to engage at longer ranges. We also emphasize marksmanship over "point and spray". If you have been trained in these tactics and have been trained to hit the broad side of a barn, the AK is not your answer. I personally would rather carry an M-16A2 than an AK-47 in combat (as I did for years). I would rather carry an M1 Garand than an AK-47 if I knew I was going to be fighting in open terrain. (Longer ranges do not lend themselves to automatic fire. If you need automatic fire out to 500 yards, you're going to be using a different weapons system.) I do not have much experience with the M-14 other than basic familiarization. I did have to carry one for several days and found it to be quite a load.
If I was in an urban enviornment, such as U.S. and NATO troops have recently found themselves in, then I want a carbine, sacrificing range and accuracy for rate of fire and size. Again, I find myself preferring the M-16 hybrids or one of the numerous European combat rifle designs. Key point here being the weight of the ammunition. If I'm going to be using more, then I want to carry more. Soviet rounds are HEAVY.
PRB, I also own a Garand, and love to fire it. It's accurate, powerful, and will stop anything on the American Continent with one shot (man or beast). It is a Combat Rifle. I also own an M1 Carbine, which my daughter and I both shoot (the Garand has literally knocked her off her feet). The Carbine, being a supplement to the .45 Cal M1911A1, is not a combat rifle, nor is it an assault rifle, but close in it can definitely do some damage. It is also a joy to shoot. I would prefer an AK-47 over this rifle though if I were in a fight.
Incidentally, the Carbine came under the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban, where as the Garand did not....that's one of the reasons I shy away from the "Assault Weapon" terminology....it's too widely used.
Bjoern
July 5th, 2010, 06:18
Soviet rounds are HEAVY.
Even the 5.56s?
I learned to love the G36. All plastics... <3
TeaSea
July 5th, 2010, 09:17
Even the 5.56s?
I learned to love the G36. All plastics... <3
No, you're right, they are not, But I was speaking of the 7.62 39 mm ammunition, which is the standard round. M-14 fired the 30.08/7.72 NATO Standard, which is just as heavy.
Here, I toss a bone to the AK-47 crowd.....
11993
Perhaps not as interesting as Panther's opening photo's....but work with me.....
Bjoern
July 5th, 2010, 13:35
No, you're right, they are not, But I was speaking of the 7.62 39 mm ammunition, which is the standard round. M-14 fired the 30.08/7.72 NATO Standard, which is just as heavy.
I was just about to ask if the M-16 didn't have the 7.62mm NATO rounds, but apparently the M-16 was 5.56mm from the start.
The reason: The Bundeswehr used to have the G3 which fired 7.62mm rounds up until 2000. The switch to the G36 wasn't completely popular, as many missed the punch of the old rounds.
But personally, I prefer light weight over anything else. That's why I'm not necessarily a fan of the AK.
Cactuskid
July 5th, 2010, 13:40
I was just about to ask if the M-16 didn't have the 7.62mm NATO rounds, but apparently the M-16 was 5.56mm from the start.
The reason: The Bundeswehr used to have the G3 which fired 7.62mm rounds up until 2000. The switch to the G36 wasn't completely popular, as many missed the punch of the old rounds.
But personally, I prefer light weight over anything else. That's why I'm not necessarily a fan of the AK.
Then you would have hated the G-1 (FAL), which IMHO was one of the finest battle rifles ever designed.
TeaSea
July 5th, 2010, 16:13
I too like the FAL and am considering purchasing an earlier model.
Bjoern, The debate between heavier rounds and faster rounds resulted in the 5.56 versus the NATO standard 7.62. The argument was which was better, a heavier (theoretically) more powerful round (more punch), or a faster round which delivered greater kinetic energy (more punch). This is a Sunni vs. Shia, Catholic vs. Protestant, Mustard vs. Ketchup argument and it goes on to this day. The M-16 was caught up in this argument as it was always 5.56, which was key to the design and concept of the rifle.
The U.S. Army decided long ago that kinetic energy was preferable in that it also allowed the individual soldier to carry more ammunition, and had the added benefit of making the rifle itself lighter. The idea is that a smaller projectile, traveling faster, delivers more kinetic energy, and therefore as much stopping power as a larger round. What it lacks in mass, it makes up in kintetic energy. This is simple physics and is mathematically true, but I've never witnessed anyone being hit with a 5.56, so cannot personnaly attest to it. My father, who had 2 tours in Viet Nam as an infantryman, was sold on the concept and reported on the lethality of the round at both close and long ranges. He was a thorough "M-16 Man" (as they came to be called) who thoroughly preferred that rifle to both the M-14 and the AK-47 (He used both). I would hasten to add that both his tours of duty were in the central highlands of that country which is mountainous and where combat was typically at longer ranges. I am perhaps somewhat biased in my regard for that round and those rifles based on my conversations with him.
The U.S. has still used the NATO standard 7.62 in crew served weapons. SOF also use a 7.62 version of several rifles, to include the M-16 varients.
Piglet
July 5th, 2010, 16:24
I got a '50's or '60's Chicom SKS. Very well made, and it's always done whatever I wanted it to do.
Had a more modern Russkie SKS, but it just didn't catch my fancy as my other one, so I sold it.
P.S. I recently took out my M-1 Garnand, and sure love firing that good ol' rifle!
norab
July 5th, 2010, 21:17
all right, time to fess up, how many sufferers of "Garand Thumb" (sheepishly raising my hand)
Cactuskid
July 5th, 2010, 21:35
all right, time to fess up, how many sufferers of "Garand Thumb" (sheepishly raising my hand)
Probably everybody the first time you load it, but you only do that one time. Ya just gotta remember to keep the heel of your hand on the op rod handle. That problem went away when they adopted the box mag fed M-14. Well, mostly anyway... I was an instructor my last two years in the Army, and we had idiots that would still chamber their thumb with a 14... :isadizzy:
norab
July 5th, 2010, 21:48
we had idiots that would still chamber their thumb with a 14... :isadizzy:
LMAO
yeah, that first time was the most effective teacher:icon_lol:
HouseHobbit
July 6th, 2010, 09:13
I am going to start a fight with this..LOL
I have been a shootist, all my life, as too a gunsmith for over 30 years.
Have owned every military rifle out there..
And in the the army with 14 expert badges, three from the NRA also..
US Army Small Bore team Europe also..
The SKS and AK's and M 16's were fun, But not able to hit the Broad side of a barn for the most part.
They are JUNK Guns, good for military use but NO sporting use to a Shootist..
Whenever my friends and I went to the ranges, they would break out the military Junk
and shoot all day with little effect.
I would break out my old remingtom 742 in 30-06, and give them a lesson in shooting and laugh loudly afterwards..
The ONLY Military rifle I ever owned that I could Hit anything with is My FN 49/8mm Mauser
I still have her.. The rest including Most of what has be spoken of here are useless
to me as a target/Varmit shooter..
I don't care how many Bullets they can throw downrange, if you can't hit But once in a hundred rounds SO WHAT..
For me is to put 5 rounds through the same Hole..
And i do it often, with my Remingtom 40x rifles, and My Heavy varmit rifles..
AKs and SKS and M-16 have a place, But not for accurate shooting long distance..
Requiring Hits every time..
You all can play Army and Make like your Gi Joe's, with this JUNK. i'd rather hit My target EVERY TIME, Thanks..
Off to hide..
:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Laughing at you Poor fools that think these have some use besides the military..
Some day I hope you learn what it means to beable to shoot and hit every time..
OOPPPS..
:icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Thanks all But No use here for Military JUNK..
Bjoern
July 6th, 2010, 11:54
Then you would have hated the G-1 (FAL), which IMHO was one of the finest battle rifles ever designed.
I don't care how fine they may be. If they're unnecessarily heavy, they're useless to me. I'm not the most Schwarzenegger person out there and carrying pure steel like the MG3 or MP2 (aka Uzi aka the "bullet based hand grenade") over long distances was a sheer horror back in the days. Not to mention operating this prehistoric stuff.
The U.S. Army decided long ago that kinetic energy was preferable in that it also allowed the individual soldier to carry more ammunition, and had the added benefit of making the rifle itself lighter.
A great decision if you ask me.
The U.S. has still used the NATO standard 7.62 in crew served weapons. SOF also use a 7.62 version of several rifles, to include the M-16 varients.The 7.62 ammo is slowly waving byebye in the german army with the advent of the MG4, at least in the infantry.
Vehicles will still use the MG3 as a coax or self-defense MG for a long time, seeing that the Bundeswehr hasn't even managed to replace the ancient Uzi as a crew-based self-defence weapon yet.
MaddogK
July 6th, 2010, 12:06
WOW !!! Gotta be a 50 rd clip. 30's are hard to handle even with my AK adapter installed- thank GOD for stripper clips. Good light weapon that SKS, but for accuracy I prefer my HK-91.
Willy
July 6th, 2010, 12:14
I've had several military rifles but the only one I've kept for any length of time is a 1908 vintage British SMLE. I bought it in 1999 for $60 with belts of 303 machine gun ammo. It's rough looking with rust pitting, but the bore is like new and I can hit a 2 liter pop bottle at 200 yards with it.
I shoot left handed so I much prefer my lever action rifles over the bolt action Enfield.
Cactuskid
July 6th, 2010, 12:52
I am going to start a fight with this..LOL
:icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Thanks all But No use here for Military JUNK..
No fight here, but you're comparing apples to bananas. The military weapons were not designed for punching bullseyes. They were designed to be thrown in the mud then hit a man sized target 200 meters away. Target/sniper rifles are a totally different thing.
As an Army instructor, I had to qualify expert with every weapon that I taught, including the M1911A1 pistol all the way up to the 106mm recoiless rifle, and a number of foreign made weapons. Nothing the military uses, aside from sniper rifles, was designed for long-distance shooting. Weapons changed as warfare changed, and sometimes we made the wrong choice. For instance, the M16A1 rifle was useless in Vietnam in areas of dense foliage, where a leaf could deflect the light 55 grain (at the time) 5.56mm bullet. My weapon of choice in those AO's was the 12 ga. shotgun, since most of the encounters we had were "in your face", at relatively short distances (less than 100 meters). Targets at long distances were handled quite well with M-21's and M-40's.
I'm curious as to what your opinion is of today's military long distance king, the Barrett .50 cal?
Blackbird686
July 6th, 2010, 15:39
I like the SKS for what it is... a durable weapon that will fire when I want it to. I have a standard SKS (longer barrell) as well as the paratrooper. Both are "screwed barrell" as opposed to "pinned" and the longer rifle has a chrome lining inside its barrell. Years ago you could get a "milled" trigger groupe for the SKS Rifle, a good gunsmith could work the trigger creep out of it. Made the pull alot smoother. :salute:
BB686:USA-flag:
TeaSea
July 6th, 2010, 16:03
No fight here, but you're comparing apples to bananas. The military weapons were not designed for punching bullseyes. They were designed to be thrown in the mud then hit a man sized target 200 meters away. Target/sniper rifles are a totally different thing.
No fight from me either Mr. Hobbit, but everything is a trade off and military arms are designed for a different mission. They are at best a series of compromises and are affected by differing considerations extending beyond the mere utility of the weapon. As an example, let me point out that the U.S. decision to move to a lighter round means a significant savings in logistics overhead...an important consideration to a military force. Another example going back to aircraft in WWII, the U.S. quickly set the .50 Cal as it's standard aerial weapon, for much the same reason....standardization means easier logistics.
I'm curious as to what your opinion is of today's military long distance king, the Barrett .50 cal?
I've never fired one, but have seen it used on the range. It is impressive. I suspect a lot of training and teamwork is required to make it a truly effective weapons system though.
And no Norab, I've not gotten "M1 Thumb"..............yet :).
I have heard that, in general, military rifles are made to less precise standards than civilian sporting/hunting weapons, but it has not always been the case. From everything I have read about the early Model 1903s, built before and after WW-I, they were very well made weapons, as finely crafted as anything you can buy today. And if you can find one of those early 1903s in good condition (you won't...) you will pay a lot for it. It was from WW-II onwards that military weapons starting diverging sharply, in terms of quality, from their civilian counterparts. Up until Vietnam, the 1903 was used as a sniper rifle. I'm guessing those guys knew a thing or two about precision shooting...
And I don't have M-1 thumb either! :icon_lol:
Willy
July 6th, 2010, 17:50
Nice looking Springfields there PRB.
Here's my 1908 SMLE with the M1892 lever action in 357 that I bought when I sold the SKS.
12121
Drzook
July 6th, 2010, 18:26
Willy,
I absolutely LOVE the M1892. One of these years I'm gonna have to get one of those; it looks like my Ithaca .22 magnum.:ernae:
I had an SKS for 15 years; bought in 1994 because of the pending 'assault weapons' ban. IIRC it was a Norinco variant. Nice shooting gun, but I didn't really get to go out and shoot all that often. I got a blade type bayonet for it and kept the wooden stock (even if it was a bit short in my opinion).
I always thought that if I had a daughter I would keep this gun for when prospective dates would show up; I would take this out (with the bayonet out) and clean it while making small talk with my daughter's would-be-paramour. I was convinced that this way he wouldn't try anything too...forward.
Years went by, I got married (my wife hated this gun-hates all my guns), we had a daughter, and I ended up trading in the SKS for a S&W Model 10-6 .38 revolver last year. I could probably do the same trick with would-be boyfriends; this gun looks like it's seen some action with the bluing worn off at the muzzle and cylinder and all. Now granted my daughter is only five years old right now but you can't plan too much for such contingencies. I shoot my .38 a lot more often than I ever shot the SKS, and it's creepy accurate.
Willy
July 6th, 2010, 20:01
I have an old cap and ball Remington 44 cal revolver that I used for a boyfriend gun. Always made sure I had it out cleaning it when they'd bring one by. ;)
That 1892 is a Navy Arms clone of the original Winchester 1892. It's got a 24" heavy barrel and is more accurate than I am. 357 Magnum ammo is pretty impressive when shot out of a rifle and has little recoil. And it'll shoot 38 Special too, although I stick with the 357s.
Piglet
July 6th, 2010, 20:33
Military rifles are made for ease of manufacture, operation, and reliabliity in adverse conditions. So they may look as nice, nor are made to Swiss watch tolerences.
Poo Poo us all you want, HouseHobbit, makes no difference to us. I like my military "junk" for historical reasons, and I find them fun to shoot, accurately or not! Now I'm with you if I wish to do some serious pecision shooting.
P.S. One thing I never got into was all this "dress up" stuff one can buy for their guns. All my stuff is pretty much stock- no scopes, lasers, Star Wars flash suppresors. "rad-looking" drop-in stocks, etc. Pretty sad when some one can't figure out why they can't hit anything, even with all these gizmos.
Moparmike
July 6th, 2010, 20:59
I am going to start a fight with this..LOL
snip
The SKS and AK's and M 16's were fun, But not able to hit the Broad side of a barn for the most part.
They are JUNK Guns, good for military use but NO sporting use to a Shootist..
Whenever my friends and I went to the ranges, they would break out the military Junk
and shoot all day with little effect.
I would break out my old remingtom 742 in 30-06, and give them a lesson in shooting and laugh loudly afterwards..
The ONLY Military rifle I ever owned that I could Hit anything with is My FN 49/8mm Mauser
I still have her.. The rest including Most of what has be spoken of here are useless
to me as a target/Varmit shooter..
snip
AKs and SKS and M-16 have a place, But not for accurate shooting long distance..
Requiring Hits every time..
You all can play Army and Make like your Gi Joe's, with this JUNK. i'd rather hit My target EVERY TIME, Thanks..
Off to hide..
:icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Laughing at you Poor fools that think these have some use besides the military..
Some day I hope you learn what it means to beable to shoot and hit every time..
OOPPPS..
:icon_lol: :icon_lol:
Thanks all But No use here for Military JUNK..
LOL HH! You'll get no fight from me for the type of shooting that you prefer. A mild disagreement maybe though...:)
My SKS is an excellent varmint weapon. It gets used daily during calving season for coyote control (around our place coyotes are varmints during that time of year).
Light, quick handling, fast follow-up shots, and enough power to roll a 'yote that is licking it's chops over a newborn calf. This happens at close range...50-100yds. In this role, the SKS is pretty much a modern equivalent of the venerable 94 Winchester in 30-30. Mom's got her 94 that is scabbarded to the 4-wheeler in spring, I've got my SKS...I'm just not as worried about beating up my old clunker as she is her pretty little lever gun. :d
Note: My SKS isn't all "duded up" with the plastic stock and gew-gaws that the one in the original post has. Just the original wood stock with a recoil pad added to lengthen the pull to fit me. As for inside the trigger group...like 686 posted, there are a few tricks to clean up that battle rifle trigger into a very usable and clean two-stage trigger.
Now onto the inaccurate military weapons... :)
I've got a 1903 Carl Gustaf '96 Swede that will give your 742 a run for it's money all the way out to 500-600 yds. Come to think of it, it has embarrassed a few brand new bolt-guns too. All this with a kinda dark bore and the factory two-stage trigger. ;)
I've had my mitts on a few old Springfields like PRB is showing off that will still do their duty on the long range too.
BUT...we can't compare either of these fine bolt guns to the autoloading battle rifles. different weapons from a different time.
I know of a few non-National Match Garands that will do a fine job punching small groups too. They'd be a better parallel to your 742, which by the way is a very nice hunting rifle...I like the 74xx & 76xx Remingtons.
There ya go. No arguement, just a good BS session. :)
Willy
July 6th, 2010, 21:53
Coyotes are varmints year round in these parts. A 357 rifle has their number too.
Raven
July 6th, 2010, 23:50
:bump: ...
Yeah its a heavily customized Simonov SKS carbine, fitted with after-market stock and magazine
norab
July 7th, 2010, 04:13
Now you started it Househobbit :-). I don't entirely agree with you but that's why there is vanilla and chocolate ice cream. lest you think I'm some sort of barbarian, with my own loads in my favorite Savage that I've tweaked I can keep 5 rounds into 3/8" center to center all day long. Best hunting style autoloader I ever shot was my uncle's .308 Model 100, which, despite that thin whippy barrel, would stay under an inch all day long. Point that I was trying to make was that the SKS was not without it's uses and that in a "typical" shooter/hunter's hands it was likely as accurate as anything they would shoot if they were realistic about their offhand abilities and not suffering from "I'm the world's greatest shooter" syndrome.
Now I'm gonna hide
Jagdflieger
July 7th, 2010, 06:26
Ammo quality has a great deal to do with rifle accuracy. Anyone who has handloaded or used match grade ammo in competition or as a sniper can attest to that. US military ammo is of a very high standard, although while attending an international shooting match a few years ago, I noted that the British Army refused to use the US ammo and brought their own saying it was much more accurate. At one time the British 7.62mm Radway Green ammo was considered some of the worst ammo extant. Times change!
Military rifle quality in Europe with the Mauser series of rifles, in Japan with the earlier 6.5 and 7.7 Arisaka rifles and in the US with Springfield Armory made rifles from the 1870s till the end of production with the M-14 can not be matched today. Those rifles were works of art (well perhaps not the Arisaka), but were labor intensive to manufacture and companies today can not afford the labor costs anymore. Between the wars (and often up to the end of the various conflicts) the fit and finish of wood and metal on military rifles was unmatched by current manufacturing methods. Granted the modern CNC machining can make a part to closer tollerences, but the end product that is designed for mas production just does not have as much appeal to me personally as the older weapons. Many of these old rifles, if the bores are in good shape, can still shoot as well or better than modern rifles.
The accuracy of the current M-4 carbine and the M-16 A2 & A4 is actually very good. With the 77 grain load (usually not with the 63 grain green tip) they will often hold close to minute of angle accuracy if cared for and not abused. Even with green tip ammo they aren't bad. The current military rifle teams use modifed M-16s with heavy match grade barrells to compete through 600 and 1000 yards and they will often shoot right with fellows using the older M-14 match rifles. With handloads, I've dispatched countless prairie dogs at quite long range with my personal AR-15A2.
There is currently a lot of interest in increasing the US Army's standard round, the 5.56mm, to a larger round of greater power. Something in the .26 or .27 caliber range. It's interesting that the original M1 Garand rifle as designed by John Garand in the 1930s, was a 27 calibre weapon. General of the Army Macarthur demanded that it be rechambered to Cal 30 US (30/06) due to large war stocks of the 30/06 round in storage in various depots in the US.
Here are a few of my favorites:
Bjoern
July 7th, 2010, 08:06
Amateurs.
http://i45.tinypic.com/10igpjk.jpg
:icon_lol:
luckydog
July 7th, 2010, 08:52
http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=72143
HouseHobbit
July 7th, 2010, 09:41
Well, i expected more of a Roar, from the military collectors.. LOL..
Yes i realize that no Military rifles are tack drivers.. And I also own a SKS and a AK OPPPS, they are fun Guns..
I can hit a clay pigen at 100 yds with either of the ones I have..
Both were brought by me from a lots I recieved in my gun shop in the 80's..
Put a recoil comp on the ak that works Great ordered in during the 80's from some place in Texas if I remember..
It really calmed down the AK, My Daughter loves this Thing GOD KNOWS WHY, it Must be a girl thing..
I was a bit hard on you all, My 1903 springfield is a custom Built by Jon Anderson in the early 60's for His personell collection, My Father got it in the 70's, And Besides being beautiful it is very accurate with Hand loads.. 1' groups five shots 100 yds..
Yes, as all shootists, I load my own ammo..And cast my pistol Bullets also..
Have since I was 10 years old, one skill My father required before I could Burn up all his guns as a child..LOL..If shot it, I had to load for it..
I have several mausers i've built up, new stocks Barrels triggers, finish..
And There are some Great old 98's out there i've built and sold..
No compairing Military and custom isn't fair..
But My shooting has be to a higher standard them most..
I know i've been training men and women to shoot for 35 years..
And Most can't hit the broad side of a barn..
I use a custom S&W 29 for Deer hunting since the 80's.. Yea I Hunt using a hand gun..
Taken 12 deer at various ranges 60 to 140 yds..With her..
To say all military guns are Junk isn't fair.. There are some "shooters" out there..
I went through 60 to 70 AK's to find one that would shoot to a descent level and perhaps 100 sks's to finally find one that you can Hit clay pigons with at 100 yds..
But to compair them to The Target rifles I grew up with Isn't fair..
I enjoy My AK and SKS I use them when I want to return to my childhood for Plinking..
And just throwing massive amounts of ammo at tin cans..
They are fun..
As for Varmit's anything less them 350 yds on a ground hog reqiures a head shot to count..
And Crows out to 400 yds with My 22-250..Just hitting them is the challange there..
Long range is either my Weatherby 270 mag, hand built Roy Weatherby, from my father Pre 68' rifle when weatherby still built their own rifles, and a Herters 7mm Remingtom mag..
Those are for 500 yds+..
To finish each shooter has their own standard, I grew up in a family of shootists, women included..
Putting 5 through the same hole is what we do..And the standard set in My life..
And Loading ammo is art I learned as a Child. Need good ammo to Hit anything..
So keep blasting away and enjoy the fact at least here in the US we can still enjoy the shooting sports.. THANK GOD..
To each of you I say BRAVO..
Keep your Skills up, and your Love alive for this..
TeaSea
July 7th, 2010, 15:17
Hmmmm........
So what should we use to go Hobbit Hunting....???
:jump:
HouseHobbit
July 7th, 2010, 15:32
Hmmmm........
So what should we use to go Hobbit Hunting....???
:jump:
:applause: :applause: :applause:
:icon_lol: :icon_lol:
That was great,
Blondes and Redheads are good bait I am sure..
Easy to catch in traps, just set a bottle of Mead down and You'll get a Hobbit..
As for which to use, wow those little guys are hard to spot in 5" grass, i'd recommend a Scoped rifle..
LOL...LOL..
TeaSea
July 7th, 2010, 15:35
Okay, everyone else got to show off theirs....so here's mine:
12197
The M1911A1 is not an original, but a reproduction from Springfield Armory....I just couldn't spend the money for an original, which would not shoot nearly as well.
The revolver is a .38 Police Special. It's not really mine. It was my Grandfather's and is handed down from eldest son to eldest son. I'm now the eldest grandson so I have it, and will pass to my cousin. You may notice it's kept loaded, but I keep a trigger lock on it (removed in this photo), and only my wife and I know and can access the key. I have trigger locks for the other weapons as well although the ammunition is also kept under lock and key.
I personally think the .30 cal would be best for taking a Hobbit, but I've never really taken to hunting and don't care for the gamey Hobbit taste. The meat is generally pretty tough too.....so I will defer to others.
Sorry HouseHobbit, I just couldn't pass it up.....
TeaSea
July 7th, 2010, 15:44
Blondes and Redheads.....I like it.
Piglet
July 7th, 2010, 19:28
So what should we use to go Hobbit Hunting....???
Shire Sweeper?
P.S. One day I'll make a pic of my 25-35 guns (haven't counted lately):wavey:
norab
July 8th, 2010, 12:29
Hmmmm........
So what should we use to go Hobbit Hunting....???
I'm thinking a 6 bore Holland & Holland double ought to be just the ticket for a charging hobbit waving "Sting" about :icon_lol:
Cactuskid
July 8th, 2010, 12:48
I'm thinking a 6 bore Holland & Holland double ought to be just the ticket for a charging hobbit waving "Sting" about :icon_lol:
Ha! That's if you survive after shooting one! Some of those express rifles weighed almost as much as an M-60. At the SHOT Show last year, I stopped by the Kynoch booth. They are one of the few companies left that still load for the big express rifles. .600 Nitro Express rounds sell for $180 for a box of five and about $40 each on the collectors market! Not exactly what you want to go plinkin' with... Not to mention, a decent H&H or Rigby double express rifle can set you back about 60 grand or more...
Anyway, I'm sure it would work quite well on Hobbits...
HouseHobbit
July 8th, 2010, 12:51
:jump: TOO MUCH FUN..
You all are a ball, and some very good shots too..
OUCH, Damn Holland and Holland a six bore, yea that would hurt..
And I Have had the pleasure of the.50 cal..
A GREAT Long range gun, But again the .50 BMG is one round that it is hard to get away from..
Kicked Like a Mule in Heat..OUCH, But very accurate..
And very costly to shoot..
Off hiding, you all are getting good at Hobbit Hunting, almost got me with the mead.. RATS..
The Blondes and redheads worked well too..
God Bless each of you ..
On goes the Ring :pop4:
norab
July 8th, 2010, 16:25
Ha! That's if you survive after shooting one!
had the rare privilige of shooting 1 round out of one about 25 years ago. suffice to say one round was enought to rattle my teeth and I was shooting offhand rather than bench per the owner's suggestion. I don't know how those hunters were able to get used to that much recoil, but the rifle was the most exquisite piece of gunmaking it has ever been my pleasure to handle.:jump:
vBulletin® v4.2.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.