Is an SKS REALLY this accurate?!?!

[iraiam]

A quality SKS is a good rifle, mine is that accurate with quality ammo, steel cased "surplus" ammo is not that accurate for me.

[Justice06RR]

That's one of the biggest reasons I got rid of my SKS. I absolutely loved the rifle and what it was capable of, but there just wasn't any more affordable ammo available that wasn't absolute garbage.

IMHO think you got rid of your SKS for the wrong reason... but that is your prerogative.

They are wonderful rifles esp if you have a collector grade or even just a model that is in very good shape with matching #'s.

[tahunua001]

alright I'm seeing that there is a whole lot of hearsay and inferred information that is being passed off as fact.

1. the M1 was not used more effectively than the SKS. in the only war where they faced off against each other, the US found themselves biting off a lot more than they could chew, that did end in a draw.

2. while it was being used to much success in korea against the most feared military in the world(in the 50s), the VK(or whatever the acronym for the actual military force was) used it to completely crush the french in vietnam and then went on to fight the US forces all the way until we pulled out after the longest war in us history(at the time).

3. the SKS is not eligible for CMP GSM matches that's why you never see them alongside the M1 garand. the SKS is authorized and used in the MODERN MILITARY MATCHES.

4. there is a lot of "you never see gun A in CMP matches" or "gun x never wins match y". I have been to a number of CMP matches(all small ones mind you). I have seen everything from M41 swedish sniper rifles(required to have 1MOA accuracy at least to be accepted for service) to enfield number 4s, but 90% of the people show up with garands and springfields. you would think that the snipers would place highest but it didn't and the turnbolts almost never place even though the general consensus is that bolt actions are more accurate than semis. the fact is that most shooters, under high stress situations can't shoot as good as their rifles are capable of. my type 44 arisaka is capable of much greater accuracy than my M1 garand but I shoot consistently higher scores with the M1 than the Arisaka. I have no explanation for this. untimed I regularly hit gongs at 400 yards while my ability with the M1 usualy tops out at about 300 yards. you CAN NOT base a rifle's ability, utility, or battlefield effectiveness based on what you see on a CMP score board.

[DPris]

Mo,
The .30-06 issue round was a full metal jacket, so was the SKS issue round.

The .30-06 was obviously more powerful, but hardly a matter of blowing arms and legs clean off, and the SKS round was hardly a matter of just "pulling a bullet out" on an arm or leg strike.

And I think you're a little off on your assessment of "Vietnamese" SKSs being utter crap.

The North Vietnamese used almost entirely Chinese-made SKS versions, and those were far from crap.

But, keep asking & keep learning.
Denis

[JD0x0]

I've found pictures of the stuff a single 30-06 can do to human flesh, gaping holes in skin almost 4" deep, blowing if the rear parts of deer, etc.

Um.. Those were likely soft point hunting ammo. Which is ILLEGAL for use in war. You must use NON EXPANDING projectiles for war. non-expanding ammo was used in the Garand and SKS, in battle zones.
The difference in the wounding effects of a .310 @ 2400fps vs a .308 @ 2800 isn't going to be that significant with FMJ ammo. Like I said, with expanding ammo, it's a different story.

You obviously don't seem very educated on the subject because a typical FMJ from either .30-06 or 7.62x39 will not 'Blow arms off' That's right up there with people claiming .50BMG will take your arms off by just coming near you, or grazing you. It's hogwash.

Also it's very unlikely you'd be 'Pulling a sks round out' of someone. FMJ's at those speeds, whether it's the 06 or 7.62x39 will go through like butter much of the time, unless they hit bone, in which case many things could happen, including shattering the bone into fragments which then become projectiles in the body.

[tahunua001]

And I think you're a little off on your assessment of "Vietnamese" SKSs being utter crap.

The North Vietnamese used almost entirely Chinese-made SKS versions, and those were far from crap.

actually, they used a large variety of SKS, mosin nagant, and AK47 though the chinese versions were the most common. NVA actually had their own domestic SKS factory until it was destroyed early in the war. NVA SKS are one of the most sought after SKS out there, although more for their rarity than their quality.

[Mosin-Marauder]

Sorry for being stupid. :/

[tahunua001]

there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.

ignorance is correctable, stupid aint.

[DPris]

Mo,
You're not stupid, just don't have an extensive knowledge base.
The two don't necessarily go together.

Ta,
You misunderstood & I worded it poorly.

I'm very much aware that North Vietnam fielded numerous different weapons.

What I was referring to were strictly the SKS variants.

Most were Chinese, some were Russian, and the actual North Vietnamese-made SKS was only manufactured for three or four years. Did not see service in large numbers & is rarely seen today.
Denis

[Blindstitch]

Keep it coming. I still plan on buying one next month.

[kraigwy]

Kraig, of all of those rifles the SKS is at a disadvantage because it uses stripper clips instead of detachable box mags and the sights are not exactly on par with the AR or M14. the SKS that you see are capable of close to the same accuracy as all of those other rifles but the shooter's ability to shoot it as well may not all be there. can you honestly say that if the guys on top with ARs and the guys on the bottom of the rankings with the SKS swapped guns that they would instantly reverse positions?

tahumua:

Mag capacity has nothing to do with it, its accuracy at 100 yards. The Course A is 5 sighters in 5 minutes followed by:

10 shots slow fire prone, 10 minutes, single loaded.
10 shots rapid fire prone in 80 seconds, with a mag change or reload.
10 shots slow fire standing in 10 minutes, single loaded.

Matches are fired at 200 yards, except where limited to 100 yards where the 100 yards reduced NRA 200 yard target is used.

There is no real advantage using mags vs clips. I sometimes shoot my Krag and it doesn't use either magazines or clips, you toss loose rounds in the loading gate. Never had a saved round with the Krag.

The advantage has nothing to do with the loading, it's all about accuracy and the SKS/AKs simply don't cut it.

I've seen people who couldn't load stripper clips in Mosins single load and still get all 10 rounds off in the 80 time period

When I run CMP GSM matches, everyone shoots together. The rifle you shoot determines the category and the scores are listed by category.

Most CMP MIs do it that way, its the way the CMP runs matches.

You CAN shot the US M1 Carbine in Garand matches and we do if there isn't enough carbines to conduct a Carbine Course of Fire.

From what Ive seen, even the lowly M1 Carbine out shoots the SKS/AKs.

I use the term "lowly" as a joke, the Carbines if one learns to shoot them are highly accurate at 200 yards.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it. Just take in a CMP Modern Military Rifle match using the SKS and see how you fair.

Problem is you can't BS your scores like the Video, All Sanctioned CMP match results are posted on the CMP web site.

I put on two CMP Clinics/Matches this summer, June 14th and Aug. 16th, everyone is welcome. I don't charge for the matches or clinic. Bring your SKS/AK and see for your self. I'll loan you any other legal per CMP Rules rifle you might want to try for comparison.

As to combat rifles, I've never used a Garand in combat, I did use a M16a1 against those using SKS/AKs and there is no way in hell would I trade a M16 for either of those two rifles.

[Gbnk82]

The sks is not a precision rifle by any stretch of the imgination but it is still a fairly accurate gun.when I had mine it shot very consistent groups but I never really stretched it out to challenge it. I'd say anything inside 100 yards with this the average shooter can get decent groups.overall it is a great well built gun and IMHO it is better than the ak47 in every single way except for the fixed capacity.

[jeager106]

Gotta agree with Gbnk82.
The SKS isn't an accurate weapon compared to many battle rifles but it is rugged, depenable, & will take a beating and still work.
Great qualities in a battle rifle.
I like mine, play with mine, have fun with mine & would use it for defense in the right situation. Probably why I still own one.
Not because it's accurate.
I leave it behind when hunting varmints but know of several hunters that use an SKS with s.p. ammo for deer hunting where shots are seldom
taken at 100 yards & the average shot is 40 ish yards.
Powerwise the 7.62X39 is pretty close to the venerable 30-30, not such a bad deer round at all.

[SRH78]

Could an SKS shoot a 3 shot group like that? Sure but not consistently and that guy didn't do it the way he was shaking. Last time I shot my Yugo, 10 shot groups from a bench were about 4 inches at 100 with irons and steel cased ammo. 5 shot groups from my muzzle loader were about 2" with irons.

[HKFan9]

you CAN NOT base a rifle's ability, utility, or battlefield effectiveness based on what you see on a CMP score board.

Than what should we base it off of exactly? Real world combat? Problem is it was a short lived design for major conflict due to it getting out-dated and out performed by modern battle rifles.

[tahunua001]

note to self. 30 rounds, 20 of which are single feed fired at 100-200 yard bullseyes is an effective method of testing a battle rifle's effectiveness.

[Mosin-Marauder]

Well, how else do you suggest we test a battle rifles effectiveness?

[tahunua001]

reliability, durability, accuracy, ergonomics, and ease of maintenance should all come into play. all CMP shows is accuracy and the ability of a single shooter to shoot accurately. if all a battle rifle needs is to place high in a CMP match let me take a ruger american to a match, 20 rounds are single feed so really all I need to practice is the reload portion of the rapid fire portion. I'll let the dept of defense know they can scrap the M4 for a cheap bolt action.

the SKS wasa great rifle but it came at the end of an era. it was one of the last semi automatic battle rifles before fully automatic and select fire rifles became the norm and that was probably the largest reason that it had a short service life.

[JD0x0]

Well, how else do you suggest we test a battle rifles effectiveness?

You'd need a whole series of tests IMO.
A huge factor in a Battle Rifle's effectiveness, is it's reliability IMO. It doesn't matter how accurate it is, if it cant function well enough to save your life.

Also in battle you don't have time to let your barrel cool. You're likely shooting dozens of rounds at temps significantly higher than they would reach in a competition.

If I had to design a test for battle rifle effectiveness it'd likely consist of a few parts.
300 round dump this will test reliability and durability when the rifle is used at its hardest. Laying down cover fire, in a battle, for a period, is more than likely going to be just as hard on a rifle.

(While still hot)
rapid target firing 100m, 200m, and 500m on human sized targets, 10 rounds each.

Then the rifles go through mud, sand and water tests, where they are intentionally made excessively dirty, and after insuring the barrel is clear, fire 20 rounds at 100m.

even all that wouldn't be true proof that one rifle is more effective than another. There are so many factors, including the person behind the rifle. Some rifles are easier/faster to learn on. Some people just have a preference for a certain design.

[HKFan9]

the SKS wasa great rifle but it came at the end of an era. it was one of the last semi automatic battle rifles before fully automatic and select fire rifles became the norm and that was probably the largest reason that it had a short service life.

Yes.... BUT.... The US does not formally train troops on Full auto or even burst fire, most combat is done in semi automatic anyways.

If I had to design a test for battle rifle effectiveness it'd likely consist of a few parts.
300 round dump this will test reliability and durability when the rifle is used at its hardest. Laying down cover fire, in a battle, for a period, is more than likely going to be just as hard on a rifle.

While it does happen.. and was a big problem with untrained troops in Vietnam cooking their barrels and wasting all their ammo in the first 5 minutes of a fight... I suggest you look up fire fight tactics a little and how the US fighting teams move and fight and maybe tweak your testing some. No one should really be doing 300 round mag dumps with a battle rifle / carbine than trying to hit targets.

[kraigwy]

Where do people come up with "man size targets at 200, 300, 500, etc. yards.

Soldiers don't stand up to present a man size target. You get a small piece of the man size target.

Laugh all you want about target shooters, CMP, NRA, High Power, etc, If you can't hit a bulleye target, (the black of the 200 yard target (X-10-9 ring) is 13 inches), how do you expect to hit part of a head or body, under stress such as you get in combat.

If you learn and practice the fundamentals, it becomes second nature. The old saying is true, you fight like you train. If you train to hit a small target you're more likely to hit a small target.

But the rifle has to be capable of hitting the small target, I'm talking 4-6 inches if you're lucky, not 19X40 inches.

Ever see pictures of soldiers in Vietnam, they had the little bottle under the camo band on their helmets............its oil. Regardless of how hot a '16 barrel gets, if you keep a heavy dose of on poured on the bolt, it will keep shooting.

Again, if a rifle cant shoot targets, it cant shoot in combat. Any body can throw out lead, you can even toss rocks, or you can hit your target.