OT: Gun guys...can't afford, don't need, won't be able to hunt with..

munk, he doesn't.

1)Smaller framed team mates usually find it comfortable ( ; )

2)with the addition of the $5-$10 rubber but pad/spacer so do I (at 6’4” and over 250lbs. with a large frame

John
 
You're correct, Spectre. I misread him.

Smaller framed team mates usually find it comfortable and with the addition of the $5-$10 rubber but pad/spacer so do I (at 6’4” and over 250lbs. with a large frame I’d say that’s versatile).>>>>>>>>

He'd repeated himself so much I'd started skimming.

His experience with the 20 fixed echoes my own.

Tell me, do you have any experience with the various 'hell fire' systems? I don't.



munk
 
I never really saw the point of hell-fire type systems. As I understand it, it's basically a mechanism to bump-fire your weapon. The only weapon I might see an actual need to have automatic fire would be either an submachine gun (and I think carbines are better), or a support weapon. If it's
a support weapon, I don't think the hellfire would work, anyway, since I understand the user has to hold the weapon lightly...

Personally, I think a decent peep sight is a worthy investment, but that's just because I use them so much better than open sights. Others MMV.

John
 
I've had a couple of Hell-fire type systems I got for my AK-47. The first one was called "The GAT" and operated on the gatlin gun concept (four pulls of the trigger per complete rotation). The thing kept loosening up to where it wouldn't pull the trigger after one or two rounds. I returned that and exchanged it for the more conventional Hellfire. The one time I actually used the Hellfire, I had sporadic success. I don't often bump-fire, so it was more inexperience than anything else, but I'm with Spectre on the Hellfires.

Bob
 
The Hell-fire systems are junk, IMHO.

If you want full auto, there are other ways to go. Just don't forget your tax stamp or it's 10 years and a $250,000 fine. The rules on full auto weapons *and* their parts are draconian.


Semp
 
Speaking of typos, when I was looking to buy a used truck I saw this ad ~
"1979 Chevy 4x4, 350, mud tires, 8000 lb wench on front bumper." :eek: :D Laughed my butt off. Also, they were putting on a demo at my son's kajukenbo school ~ the flyer read "Marital Arts Demonstration ". I might go to see that, but I'll be damned if I'd let my 12 year go, HAH!
 
AKA Knife Knut said:
So would an SKS be a good first gun?
Click to expand...
A good first gun for what?? Need a little bit more info. What are ya wanting to do with it.


Semp
 
The first gun, and first rifle I ever owned was a polytech SKS when I was 31 or 32 years of age.


munk
 
If you are willing to take the time to really learn it, an SKS would be an excellent first firearm or rifle.

John
 
...and even as your interests and skill broadens, there will always be a use and place for the SKS. Just ask me; after being SKS free for over 4 years now another one is coming home.



munk
 
Knife nut?

I started this rambling thread asking about the SKS. I have some guns: a couple of handguns, and a few .22 rifles, one bolt-action larger caliber rifle, and er.... a "few" shotguns. :rolleyes:

Sure, the SKS would be a great first gun: it is inexpensive, durable, parts are available, ammunition for target practice is astonishingly inexpensive, hunting ammunition is fairly-priced, and it requires little, but regular, maintenance.

But...as Semper Fi said, what do you want it for? It has little hunting utility for anything other than deer, realistically speaking. It is "approximately" accurate, so for target shooting a tight group would be 3-5 inches. It is comparatively heavy for plinking in the woods (up to 8 pounds or so), it is not built for long-distance shooting (over 150 yards), and, aesthetically, it is an eyesore.

It was built to be a durable, man-shooting weapon which could be produced quickly and cheaply. But for home defense...it is really too much gun, at least in the city. If you live in the country, maybe it is the perfect "truck" gun because it doesn't know how to break if you do simple maintenance.

If you are interesting in learning shooting techniques, there is no better caliber than a .22 in my opinion. You can learn on any type of gun, and develop good skills right away, rather than having to un-learn bad habits
acquired with a larger caliber.

OK, lots of folks say start with a larger caliber. Fine. Back when I trained folks, I started with the basics of the cartidge, and then moved up to single shot .22 rifles, then a .22 pistol, then a .410 shotgun, then a .22 pistol, THEN a .38 pistol, then a .22 pistol, then a .20 guage shotgun, etc.....

Mostly, I worked on gun familiarity, thinking, safety and safe operations, thinking, how the shell worked, thinking, and then breathing, sight picture, breathing, sight picture.

One could do all of this with the SKS 7.62x39, but using the smaller caliber to start took out a lot of intimidation.

But that was just MY way; other, more expert instructors, or those with less time per student, or no outdoor facilities use different methods.

So...FINALLY...concise response: Sure it could be, but I'd go other ways.


Be well and safe.
 
I wouldn't. On deer it has the same range as a 30/30, but outshines that old hoss when it comes to civil disturbances. It's fun. More fun than many expensive weapons. I had one that would do under 2" at 100 yards, but Kis is right in expecting 3".

YOu can get in a lot of centerfire practise with this cheaply. I don't know of anything cheaper to shoot, unless it's .22 rimfire

Ugly is as ugly does.



munk
 
AKA Knife Knut said:
So would an SKS be a good first gun?
Click to expand...

I would say that a bolt action Remington or Ruger .22 rimfire rifle would be an excellent first gun. It would have more shooting fun and utility than most centerfires, be accurate with a good scope and provide a way to gain proficiency with safe firearms handling without requiring the understanding of a complex manual of arms.

Take a safety course and learn how to handle it safely, all the time without pause in your awareness/vigilance for safety. Put 30,000 aimed rounds through a .22 and you could outshoot many people who bought relatively expensive centerfires as their first guns. Once safety and accuracy become second nature, then put yourself into a more complex rifle that shoots more expensive ammo.

You don't ever 'graduate' from a .22. No one does.
 
I agree with Philthy and Kis. I prefer to familiarize folks with a .22 rifle first, preferably a bolt action or single shot. I think that a semi-auto is not the way to start if you are not gun savvy. Zero recoil and muzzleblast = zero flinching. The lack of these two things also helps in teaching proper trigger control. I feel that once you are proficient with a .22, something like the SKS or a .223 is a good stepping stone into the centerfires, as there is recoil but it is mild. I like my SKS, but I would take a .22 with a QUALITY scope any day as the ideal first rifle. Cheap to shoot, easy to learn, ammo EVERYWHERE, can keep a family fed if need be. BTW, Marlin just upgraded all of their bolt action .22 with a quality trigger mechanism, making them an even better deal.

stevo
 
I agree with some of the others that a .22 is a better first gun.

I've got a lot of other guns, and I mean a lot, but I really love the .22's. The ammo is cheap, the recoil and noise are minimal, and for me it is a lot easier to shoot offhand than my SKS, which to me is somewhat heavy.

I shot a deer last year and it almost got away. Ms Hollowdweller missed a big buck this year. So lately out comes the Ruger 10/22. We've been trying to get our offhand shooting skills back up. I remember my brother and I when we were kids had pellet guns we shot all the time. I was suprised when we would go shoot real guns how much better we shot for having used those pellet guns so much. I've got a Crossman .22 pellet pistol I love. We break it out when we have company in the summer and we set around outside and shoot at cans. I'd like to have another .177 rifle.

I like my SKS and all my other military guns, but just for the joy of shooting stripping away any macho crap a good 22 rifle with a scope, or a .22 pistol, or a Ruger 77 bolt action or Marlin lever gun for game is far more satisfying to shoot because it is more accurate and the trigger pull is less.

My favorite military gun to shoot is my M1 carbine. That peep sight is awesome and it shoots really well, recoil is low. It's pretty useless for sporting purposes like the SKS but it's fun to shoot. I wouldn't go to the woods with a SKS or a 30-30 for deer. Seen too many get wounded with the 30-30
 
philthygeezer said:
Put 30,000 aimed rounds through a .22 and you could outshoot many people who bought relatively expensive centerfires as their first guns. Once safety and accuracy become second nature, then put yourself into a more complex rifle that shoots more expensive ammo.

You don't ever 'graduate' from a .22. No one does.
Click to expand...

That is gawdshonest truth.

I hope to graduate to an expensive tack-shootin Kimber some day.

Can't make a trip to the range as much as I would like to shoot heavy calibers.

With care, and low velocity .22 ammo (Aguila Super Colibri or such) you CAN shoot every day... the only way to build skill, like strength workout, is through constant practice.



Ad Astra
 
Just remember to safely dry fire it too. They make snap caps for .22's now that are safe to use. I still think safe dry firing is on the road to mastery
 
I will look into the .22. Will start a new thread once I have some extra cash.
Not sure what I would do with my gun, I just feel it is a skill I should learn, and a tool that may someday come in handy. I would need to use a gun to decide what direction I would go in. Living in an appartment in an OK area, I have decided that a blade is the best way to go for home defense.

Now, getting back on topic, What countries built their own versions of the SKS?
 
I agree that starting with a .22 bolt rifle is a good way to build up markmanship and safe handling, but was thinking of those starting with a limited budget- and I think most folks would agree that addressing a need (defensive firearm) versus a want (target shooter) takes precedence. If you can, get both.

Code: 
But for home defense...it is really too much gun, at least in the city.

I must strongly disagree with this. Even most "high speed" SWAT-type units are getting away from the pistol-caliber subgun, and going to short carbines like the M4. The .223 and the 7.62x39mm have very close power levels (only about 200 ft-lbs difference at the muzzle, as I recall), with the 7.62 being a much shorter-ranged round. Small centerfire rifle calibers with QUALITY expanding ammunition would be the preferred "close range social solution". Higher speed (to a point)= less penetration and more tissue damage. In other words, as long as you hit your target, you'll do more damage with a rifle. If you miss your target with a relatively lightweight rifle bullet, you will usually have less penetration than with a pistol caliber (not necessarily the case with very sturdy and/or heavy rifle bullets, so I don't suggest M2 .30 ball for home defense). This is a win-win situation for the rifle caliber user. Never use a handgun when a longarm can be utilized.

Be Safe!

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top