Is an SKS REALLY this accurate?!?!

[HKFan9]

And I didn't say anything about an SKS.
I said 1" groups at 100 yards is not unusual.
You guys act like hitting a target is difficult. I see people practicing at 7 yards for all their SD shooting. Rifles being shot at 25 yards. People need to learn to shoot. I mean REALLY learn to shoot.

I regularly shoot my 1911's at 50 and 100 yards.... however I regularly shoot my SD carry guns at 7 and 10 yards.... because that is statistically most likely how/where they will be used. You could even go so far as to shoot point blank or from retention as instructors often teach people because chances are you will be defending your life from short distance rather than long distance.

I shoot my AR's at both long and close distances. 14.5'' barrel with a 25 yard zero with good ammo I can hold my Aimpoints dot center mass and should still hit out to 300yards. I use one for home defense because I live in the country where cops are about 30 minutes away.

Step down from your high horse and think about what you are actually saying rather than acting macho. I CAN hit my targets with a 5'' 1911 at 100 yards.... doesn't mean that will help me in a HD/SD situation, I would much rather know at what speed can I rattle off rounds close range and still keep them in a 16'' human chest.

[JohnKSa]

I've fired a few sub-moa groups with iron sights, and I can tell you that my rifle was definitely not moving around like the one in the video when I managed to achieve that level of performance. I also had a target with a well-defined, high-contrast aiming point.

If he really shot that group as it appears to be shown happening in the video, he got very lucky.

It was easy to see his front sight moving around even right up to the point of the shot. I kept waiting for it to settle before the shot but it kept shifting around.

Without a clearly defined aiming point and with his rifle moving around like that, a group like the one in the video and at the distance claimed would be an extremely unlikely proposition. Consider that with a 2.5 foot sight radius, if the front sight were to move a single millimeter, the bullet impact would be about 5" off the point of aim. The front sight in the video is definitely moving around by more than 1mm.

[Ignition Override]

This is incidental, but maybe his trigger was modified.
SKS sears are regularly modified by TriggerDoc, and "Iraqiveteran8888": Erik -. Erik is in the s.e. Atlanta area and has a Youtube Channel.

Both locations are known to have very satisfied customers.

[JT-AR-MG42]

I'm pretty sure that you cannot post a video on u-tube if it is fake or staged.
They will not allow it. So the shooting exhibition must be true.

Never seen a SKS shoot benched 5 shot groups under 1" at 50yds with surplus/Wolf ammo.
Close, but not with all five shots.

A LOT of folks tell me theirs will do that and better, but they never seem to have the gun at the range that day.

I've had five different ones over the years. Got rid of them all because it got old shooting basketball sized groups.

JT

[Mosin-Marauder]

Okay, fellas. This conversation has spiraled way out off topic, which usually happens with most of my posts like this. I'm not asking whether you can shoot sub-moa groups with a scoped hunting rifle or a semi-sniper, or if you can shoot your 1911 at 50-100 yards (I'm still wondering why you would do that...). But my question has been answered. An SKS is NOT this accurate, this was most likely a fake with someone else shooting at the target. Anyone who says they can get sub moa at 100 yards is most likely a fake (it's possible, but highly, highly, highly unlikely).

[Mosin-Marauder]

I'm pretty sure that you cannot post a video on u-tube if it is fake or staged.

You can. They do it all the time.

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by Mosin-Marauder

But my question has been answered. An SKS is NOT this accurate, this was most likely a fake with someone else shooting at the target.

More seem to have suggested he simply got lucky and/or cherry picked, which is what I'm thinking. But the bigger point remains that it's highly unlikely these 3 shots represent typical accuracy.

[FrankenMauser]

An SKS is NOT this accurate, this was most likely a fake with someone else shooting at the target. Anyone who says they can get sub moa at 100 yards is most likely a fake (it's possible, but highly, highly, highly unlikely).

You're mixing separate concepts.

Video: Most likely faked.
Most SKSs: Can't do it.
Good SKSs: Well within reason .... with quality ammo.
SKSs in general... not in the 'good' category. That qualifier, in my opinion, is reserved for Russians, a select group of Chinese rifles, and the rare Israelis.


Stating that pretty much anyone that claims they can do it, or have done it, is a liar... not very polite, and ignoring the fact that there are many different varieties and quality levels in the SKS world.

For starters....
Lumping Russian SKSs with Romanian and Yugo SKSs is like saying that all cars are slow, because the average person drives a Honda Accord or Dodge minivan, rather than a Ferrari or Corvette.

Just because the lesser examples are more common, does not suddenly mean that the minorities vanish from of existence.


Honestly, lumping all SKSs together is, to me, like claiming that all bolt action rifles are crap, because there have been some bad designs made over the last 120+ years.
The different SKSs may share a common name and design, but quality of materials and workmanship varies dramatically by country, production facility, time period, and intended market (Chinese quality, in particular, was based on destination market).

[Mosin-Marauder]

I never said they were a liar,I said most likely fake. And yes, the vast majority of SKS' s are not this accurate. Whether it be Yugo, Russian or Chinese. Unless you are of a very small percentage of the people who have a great SKS and is an expert shooter. I see no one here claiming they can get sub MOA accuracy with their SKS. It's like my Mosin, it's not going to get Sub MOA or even MOA most likely. It still shoots well for what it is, and I see no point in lying just to say "my obsolete 80 year old military surplus rifle shoots better than your 80 year old military surplus". I honestly don't care if it's polite, lying isn't polite either.

[FrankenMauser]

Before you go too much further down that path, don't forget:

YOU asked the question.

This wasn't a chest beating contest. It was a collection of experiences being shared by people responding to your question.

[Mosin-Marauder]

Yes, I did ask the question and like I said, no one said their SKS can shoot sub MOA. No one , as far as I know, made it into a competition.

[jeager106]

Quote:
"The argument could be made that the only time we were out gun by the Soviets was when they used the SKS and we still had the Garan ."

I'm curious as to when WE ever got into a shooting situation with the Soviets?

Is the SKS superior in ANY way to the Garand? Ever? How so?
What is a Garan anyway?
You mean Garand perhaps????

[Mosin-Marauder]

It would only be superior to a Garand if it wasn't chambered in a carbine caliber. The Garand is highly superior in almost every way (The SKS only wins in magazine capacity IMO.)

[Unlicensed Dremel]

It's the small amount of knowledge I've gathered from doing so that causes me to call bullhockey on implausible internet marksmanship claims. There are lots of people who shoot great with a keyboard, Bill. (You may remember that it used to be called the "M1 Pencil".

Amen to that.

As I said above, CLEARLY that range is well under 50 yards, not anywhere close to the claimed 97 yards, so the groups are believable. That could be as little as 35 yards. Still a great group for 40 yards, though, as I said. But the man is a liar. Well, either a liar or he doesn't know feet from yards. 97 feet is 32 yards - that's about right where that target is.

[psalm7]

Like I said the argument colud be made and has been in several popular shooting magazines . They are both obselete as far as modern military rifles . As I remember the points were made about not needing the expensive to make metal wasting Garand clips and most Militarys were going to lighter to carry less recoil cartridges . A little more compact for street to street fighting . Other than that our main battle rifles have been a few steps ahead of the Russians . Between the 2 I had rather have a Garand then I would trade it for top of the line AR .

[jeager106]

[I]Bill DeShivs

Posts: 6,965 And I didn't say anything about an SKS.
I said 1" groups at 100 yards is not unusual.
You guys act like hitting a target is difficult. I see people practicing at 7 yards for all their SD shooting. Rifles being shot at 25 yards. People need to learn to shoot. I mean REALLY learn to shoot.
__________________

Bill, really? The thread was about the SKS rifle, nothing else, just the SKS.

I'm curious why do you mention "people" shooting SD handguns?
Why not shoot SD handguns at 7 yards?
I taught my officers to shoot at arms legnth distances as well as 7 yards and more.
Self defense shootings almost always happen at very close range so why not practice at close range?
Anyway I'm drifting from the topic almost as bad.
The SKS has much going for it, else it wouldn't be so popular, & I wouldn't still have one.
It's strong suit isn't accuracy at all.
It is accurate enough for what it was made for.
I suppose once in great while an SKS might be assembled just right & with just right ammo could occasionally shoot a 1 inch group but it ain't likely.

[Mosin-Marauder]

Hit the nail on the head^

[JD0x0]

It would only be superior to a Garand if it wasn't chambered in a carbine caliber. The Garand is highly superior in almost every way (The SKS only wins in magazine capacity IMO.)

Why does that matter? If anything it makes the SKS superior for battle. For one, the x39 will recoil less. It's smaller and lighter meaning you could also carry more ammo.
I really doubt that a 123gr FMJ .310 bullet @~2400fps will be that much less effective than a 150gr .308 FMJ @ ~2800fps. Yeah, the 06' has more muzzle energy and a flatter trajectory, but the military is restricted to non expanding bullets. If we compared modern hunting ammo, then yes the .30-06 will have quite a bit more power.
I would say that unless you're planning on penetrating heavy armor, the 7.62x39 would be quite similar in effectiveness with FMJ to the .30-06, with FMJ.

Besides, if you want a full size rifle cartridge in a Russian weapon, the SVT or Dragunov SVD would be every bit as effective, if not more effective than a Garand.

As to the video, I don't believe it was faked I think his 'range' is much shorter than he claims, and shot a decent ~30 yard group. He does move the rifle around a lot, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to shoot a group like that at such a short range. I've shot groups @ 100 standing, offhand where I felt like I was moving as much, if not more than the person in the video, yet I managed to put 2 bullets on top of each other, with factory ammo through my Ruger, and the third hole touching the other. Part of shooting is timing. Everyone is going to have that crosshair wiggle to a point, but if you can time your breathing right, and pull the trigger right as your crosshair passes over the correct spot, you can shoot tight groups. No one is 100% steady even when using a rest, in some cases.

[P5 Guy]

Originally Posted by P5 Guy
I have a nice Russian refurb that from a bench and sandbags with me on the trigger will put 10 rounds of Red Army Standard into a 6 inch bull at 100 yards.

There's about a 5" difference between 6" and 1".

That is kind of what I was meaning. I'm really doubtful that even the best SKS will put the best commercial 7.62x39 into a MOA. But I can believe 4 to 5 MOA all day long.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

That is kind of what I was meaning. I'm really doubtful that even the best SKS will put the best commercial 7.62x39 into a MOA. But I can believe 4 to 5 MOA all day long.

Exactly - that one is doing better than average - 3/4ths" at 40 yards is 1.88 MOA - that's about what he's shooting - a shade under 2 MOA - pretty darned good, and he's obviously skilled with iron sights to do that. Much better than I would have expected.

[Mosin-Marauder]

Well, you've got to think, a 30-06 soft point (or whatever they used in war) Hitting someone in the arm and darn near blowing their arm off, is going to be more effective than a x39 hitting someone in the arm or leg and just having to have a billet pulled out. A 30-06 M1 also has better sights and is obviously more accurate. The Garand is heavy, so the felt recoil isn't that bad, especially for a trained soldier. I'm still going to go M1> SKS simply because the M1 used in battle was more effective than an SKS used in battle. And please don't bring up that an SKS would be better at close range, the M1 handled street fighting in Europe and dense foliage in Japan just fine, even though it's a Medium to long Range gun, of which the SKS is not.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by mosin-maruader

a 30-06 soft point (or whatever they used in war) Hitting someone in the arm and darn near blowing their arm off, is going to be more effective than a x39 hitting someone in the arm or leg and just having to have a billet pulled out.

You really ought to do some real research rather than just believing anything you read on the internet. Maybe do a little hunting and get some first-hand experience on the effects of different ammo on animal flesh.

Originally Posted by mosin-maruader

A 30-06 M1 also has better sights and is obviously more accurate.

Hopefully you'll never have to find out, but there's a BIG difference between the accuracy required for a target rifle and the accuracy required for a combat rifle.

Originally Posted by mosin-maruader

I'm still going to go M1> SKS simply because the M1 used in battle was more effective than an SKS used in battle.

Only direct conflicts where the two were used concurrently that I'm aware of were Korea (maybe) and Vietnam. Korea was pretty much a tie, in Vietnam we pulled out, they're still there. Seems that the SKS won that one. Which conflicts are you referring to where the Garand was more effective?

[jeager106]

The last full scale combat in which the Garand was the primary U.S. battle rifle was Korea.
By the time VietNam came about the U.S. battle rifle was the M-14.
I doubt anyone would argue that the M-14 was inferior to anything used by any forces at that time.
Well, maybe here there are people that would argue anything.
The predominant rifle used by the Communist forces in the Korean conflict was the old chinese bolt action rifle with with a lot of small caliber subguns often refered to as "burp" guns.
The Chinese army didn't adopt the SKS officially untill 1956, well after the Korean conflict ended.
Not saying some SKS rifles didn't find a way into the Korean conflict but not likely many.
(Chinese type 56 rifle, SKS adopted in 1956 you see?)
I'm not even going to adress the comments about the 30-06 being inferior to the X 39.
On SKS accuracy, it isn't very.

[tahunua001]

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?

[Mosin-Marauder]

You really ought to do some real research rather than just believing anything you read on the internet. Maybe do a little hunting and get some first-hand experience on the effects of different ammo on animal flesh.

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.

Hopefully you'll never have to find out, but there's a BIG difference between the accuracy required for a target rifle and the accuracy required for a combat rifle.

Yes, there is a big difference between target accuracy and Battlefield accuracy . But the M1 wins in both. Better sights and the fact it doesn't shoot a pistol round, has made it a great target shooter AND "the greatest battle implement ever devised" (In the words of General George S. Patton). How many SKS' s do you see in CMP Matches?

Only direct conflicts where the two were used concurrently that I'm aware of were Korea (maybe) and Vietnam. Korea was pretty much a tie, in Vietnam we pulled out, they're still there. Seems that the SKS won that one. Which conflicts are you referring to where the Garand was more effective?

A rifle doesn't have to fight against another rifle to be better than said rifle. And are you implying that the SKS won the Vietnam war? If so then maybe you need to do your research, Vietnamese SKS' s were utter crap, which is why there are so few of them today, they jammed alot, we're unreliable, and on some cases broke in the soldiers hand.