Have to handle one, looks a bit awkward, or may just be I'm not use to seeing a 30 rounder hanging out of a hunting rifle stock.

Jean and I own an SKS—Jean's car rifle.
My take on this new version: Lipstick on a pig.

No matter how expensive the lipstick, it's still a pig.

Originally Posted by sgms

Have to handle one, looks a bit awkward, or may just be I'm not use to seeing a 30 rounder hanging out of a hunting rifle stock.

The nice thing about this model is that it takes AK mags. Its not as awkward as you would think. Like steve said same pig, only you get a 30rd mag, rather than a 10.

I like the stock! One of the cleanest SKS's I've ever seen.

Beautiful stock, no doubt, but real carbon fiber is massively expensive. I couldn't justify that kind of money on an SKS.

Originally Posted by Harryball

The nice thing about this model is that it takes AK mags...you get a 30rd mag, rather than a 10.

I'm not sure about the value of this. To wit:
1. The 30-round magazine makes shooting from low prone somewhat difficult. Even though the SKS is no long-range rifle, prone shooting is still tactically very useful, even at close range.
2. The main use of a high-capacity magazine is for feeding fully-automatic fire. If you can't solve the problem with 10 semi-auto shots, maybe you shouldn't've engaged in the first place.
3. Perhaps the most important use of a 30-round magazine is that it encourages the untrained user to waste ammunition, thus enriching the ammunition's manufacturers and retailers.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

I'm not sure about the value of this. To wit:
1. The 30-round magazine makes shooting from low prone somewhat difficult. Even though the SKS is no long-range rifle, prone shooting is still tactically very useful, even at close range.
2. The main use of a high-capacity magazine is for feeding fully-automatic fire. If you can't solve the problem with 10 semi-auto shots, maybe you shouldn't've engaged in the first place.
3. Perhaps the most important use of a 30-round magazine is that it encourages the untrained user to waste ammunition, thus enriching the ammunition's manufacturers and retailers.

1. We do it with our AKs and ARs. What the diff....

2. We have them for our semi auto AKs and ARs...Again, whats the diff...

3. Pure crap, we train with 30 round mags, we use them for home defense. I think you are making excuses....

Steve you were right about the lack of value of your count down. So I had to bust on you for it...

Bust away, Harry...
But I'll stick by my statement: "If you can't solve the problem with 10 semi-auto shots, maybe you shouldn't've engaged in the first place."

Tactically speaking, in my opinion, a long arm—even the SKS—should allow you to choose whether or not to engage. Starting with the assumption that I (myself, only) am very likely a much better shot than the opposition, I can successfully engage him/them at a much greater distance than they successfully can engage me (unless they land a very lucky shot). Thus if I am alert and aware, I have distance—and probably both concealment and cover—as my friend, and I can comfortably decide whether to engage or to disappear.
If I decide to engage, part of that decision has to be a pretty certain bet that I can succeed with an economy of ammunition, since re-supply would be at best problematical. Therefore my comment, based solely upon my own experience and capability, that if one cannot solve the problem with (arbitrarily) 10 shots, maybe one shouldn't've engaged in the first place.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

Bust away, Harry...
But I'll stick by my statement: "If you can't solve the problem with 10 semi-auto shots, maybe you shouldn't've engaged in the first place."

Tactically speaking, in my opinion, a long arm—even the SKS—should allow you to choose whether or not to engage. Starting with the assumption that I (myself, only) am very likely a much better shot than the opposition, I can successfully engage him/them at a much greater distance than they successfully can engage me (unless they land a very lucky shot). Thus if I am alert and aware, I have distance—and probably both concealment and cover—as my friend, and I can comfortably decide whether to engage or to disappear.
If I decide to engage, part of that decision has to be a pretty certain bet that I can succeed with an economy of ammunition, since re-supply would be at best problematical. Therefore my comment, based solely upon my own experience and capability, that if one cannot solve the problem with (arbitrarily) 10 shots, maybe one shouldn't've engaged in the first place.

A lot of times in a gun fight you do not have the choice that you describe. Let me phrase that another way. You do have a choice, that choice is dieing at the hands of someone else, or returning fire. In a perfect world and a perfect gun fight you are correct. The only problem is if you are in a gunfight, its not going to go the way you or I think it will go. I personally believe that a lot of folks get rapped up in their own little gun fight and prepare just for that. I cannot fault you for that, it would appear that you might have a lack of experience with this. Which is OK. However, I have never heard anyone say that 10 would be enough for a rifle fight. Even 30 might not be enough, thats why we practice a reload....

Well, I admit to having been in only one gunfight that involved a rifle, and that one was aborted (my opponent left quickly) before I had gotten into position to fire even one shot.
I have never been in a gunfight involving pistols, although I've come pretty close a couple of times.

But also I have sufficient tactical practice to know not to expect that any fight—guns, knives, or fists—will go according to any particular script.
According to what I've learned, the thing to expect in any fight is the unexpected; and that is something for which one cannot prepare.

Generally speaking, a civilian—someone not under orders to fight—can, and should, avoid fights to the best of his ability. Being alert and aware will almost always facilitate this.
It is upon this fact that I base my opinion that if the problem can't be solved with 10 shots, one probably shouldn't've engaged in the first place.
This is, of course, not at all true if you are in military or police service. But we are writing in a civilian context, on this forum.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

Well, I admit to having been in only one gunfight that involved a rifle, and that one was aborted (my opponent left quickly) before I had gotten into position to fire even one shot.
I have never been in a gunfight involving pistols, although I've come pretty close a couple of times.

But also I have sufficient tactical practice to know not to expect that any fight—guns, knives, or fists—will go according to any particular script.
According to what I've learned, the thing to expect in any fight is the unexpected; and that is something for which one cannot prepare.

Generally speaking, a civilian—someone not under orders to fight—can, and should, avoid fights to the best of his ability. Being alert and aware will almost always facilitate this.
It is upon this fact that I base my opinion that if the problem can't be solved with 10 shots, one probably shouldn't've engaged in the first place.
This is, of course, not at all true if you are in military or police service. But we are writing in a civilian context, on this forum.

Steve, I think you have fallen into the trap of, because we are civilians, that the fights will be different than LEO and that the BGs are not going to be the same BGs. I really understand were you are coming from. IMO it is a mistake...

Most of us will never need our pistols much less need hi cap magazines. That in itself doesn't mean we should not have them or be allowed to have them. In the same light most of us will never need a rifle with a 30 round magazine. That doesn't mean we are guaranteed not to need one.

I certainly hope we never experience conditions such as the Arab Spring brought to several nations but if we do many of us will not only want, but need rifles with hi capacity.

If the Mexican drug cartels begin executing people in large numbers on the North side of the border as they have within sight of the border on the south those of us in border states will need hi cap or belt fed full auto rather than semi.

Hopefully you will remain safe on your island Steve but the rest of us have good reason for obtaining more than 10 round capability.

Starting with the assumption that I (myself, only) am very likely a much better shot than the opposition, I can successfully engage him/them at a much greater distance than they successfully can engage me (unless they land a very lucky shot).

First fatal flaw, underestimating your opponent.

Well, I admit to having been in only one gunfight that involved a rifle, and that one was aborted (my opponent left quickly) before I had gotten into position to fire even one shot.

That is not a gun fight, if no shots were fired. You may have taken fire, but that again is not a gun fight.

With the SKS ( I have owned a few) I prefer the 10 round mag and stripper clips for reloads. The fight may not be over with 10 rounds or 100 rounds, it is up to you to create the lull that allows time to reload from cover.

Originally Posted by Nanuk

...With the SKS...I prefer the 10 round mag and stripper clips for reloads. The fight may not be over with 10 rounds or 100 rounds, it is up to you to create the lull that allows time to reload from cover. [emphasis added]

Yup. Exactly.

Originally Posted by TOF

Most of us will never need...a rifle with a 30 round magazine. That doesn't mean we are guaranteed not to need one...

Not my point. (See Item #1, in my original post.)
It has little to do with the capacity of the magazine. It has everything to do with the way a high-capacity magazine can interfere with going prone for cover, concealment, and accurate shooting.
Assessing one advantage against the other, I suggest that, in the trade-off, going prone wins. It's easy to change or reload magazines, especially with stripper clips, but it is damn' difficult to go to low prone with a 30-round banana acting as if it wanted to be a monopod, and getting in the way.

Originally Posted by Harryball

Steve, I think you have fallen into the trap of, because we are civilians, that the fights will be different than LEO and that the BGs are not going to be the same BGs...

Because we are civilians, we have the option, in most cases, of avoiding the fight in the first place.
LEOs and the military are required to fight. They do not have an option.
Civilians will do better by being alert and thereby avoiding fights.
And BGs are BGs, the world over.

Q: Well, what if you're in a gas station, and a guy comes up and robs you or hijacks your truck?
A: My first thought is that you might've chosen a gas station in a poorly-lit or low-traffic location. Going elsewhere might've been better.

Q: But what if you don't have that choice?
A: Then you need to be extra alert, and very well prepared for a save-your-life fight. Buy your gas as quickly as possible, and get out of Dodge.

Because we are civilians, we have the option, in most cases, of avoiding the fight in the first place.
LEOs and the military are required to fight. They do not have an option.
Civilians will do better by being alert and thereby avoiding fights.
And BGs are BGs, the world over.

Q: Well, what if you're in a gas station, and a guy comes up and robs you or hijacks your truck?
A: My first thought is that you might've chosen a gas station in a poorly-lit or low-traffic location. Going elsewhere might've been better.

Q: But what if you don't have that choice?
A: Then you need to be extra alert, and very well prepared for a save-your-life fight. Buy your gas as quickly as possible, and get out of Dodge.

Steve you are right about SA. However, sometimes the fight is brought to you, me, or whomever. That fight will not be dictated at first by us, it will be dictated by the BG. Sometimes in life we do not have that choice. I will not, nor do I advocate training to the lowest level. If you need a rifle, why in the world would you limit yourself. Notice nanuk said he would bring a reload. You are falling into the trap a lot of new people fall into. They believe what all of the others say, they fall into the stats game, they never think about the worse case scenario and train for it.

You will never know how many rounds you will need in a fight. You may only need one. You might need 50. So as I see it. If the weapon system allows for more, Ill take more, and advocate others do the same. The saying "If I need more than 10 rounds, I am already dead" is a defeatist attitude which I will not condone.

Originally Posted by Harryball

...You will never know how many rounds you will need in a fight. You may only need one. You might need 50. So as I see it. If the weapon system allows for more, Ill take more, and advocate others do the same. The saying "If I need more than 10 rounds, I am already dead" is a defeatist attitude which I will not condone.

You seem to be willfully misunderstanding me.
Never and nowhere did I write that no more than X-number of rounds would be needed, but rather that one would find that 30-round magazines were counter-productive due to interference with prone shooting and optimism about one's ammunition supply.
I also stated that if a civilian was faced by a rifle problem—that is, a fairly long-range one—that would require more than 10 rounds to solve, then it might be seen that evasion and escape was the better, simpler, safer, and more life-promoting tactic. Neither surrender nor fatalism was discussed or advocated.

You may, of course, teach and do anything that you believe to be best.
I reserve the option to do the same.


Nanuk;
I promise you that I never underestimate any opponent. However, I do know my own capabilities quite well, and I am almost absolutely certain that I am a far better rifle shot than the vast majority of the people who might oppose or hunt me. This is not braggadocio, but rather firm knowledge based upon long experience.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

Nanuk;
I promise you that I never underestimate any opponent. However, I do know my own capabilities quite well, and I am almost absolutely certain that I am a far better rifle shot than the vast majority of the people who might oppose or hunt me. This is not braggadocio, but rather firm knowledge based upon long experience.

Confidence is always a positive attribute to have. I feel the same about my abilities but I know there is always someone better.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

You seem to be willfully misunderstanding me.
Never and nowhere did I write that no more than X-number of rounds would be needed, but rather that one would find that 30-round magazines were counter-productive due to interference with prone shooting and optimism about one's ammunition supply.
I also stated that if a civilian was faced by a rifle problem—that is, a fairly long-range one—that would require more than 10 rounds to solve, then it might be seen that evasion and escape was the better, simpler, safer, and more life-promoting tactic. Neither surrender nor fatalism was discussed or advocated.

You may, of course, teach and do anything that you believe to be best.
I reserve the option to do the same.


Nanuk;
I promise you that I never underestimate any opponent. However, I do know my own capabilities quite well, and I am almost absolutely certain that I am a far better rifle shot than the vast majority of the people who might oppose or hunt me. This is not braggadocio, but rather firm knowledge based upon long experience.

I fully understand what you are saying. It would appear that you have never had to run a rifle, but that is ok. You are correct, your option is your option....

Here is a video for you to look at. Proper modern day prone with a 30 round mag....

Originally Posted by Harryball

...It would appear that you have never had to run a rifle...

"Never had to run a rifle"? What does that mean?

I've been "running" various rifles since I was 15, back in the mid-1950s. I started hunting when I was 16.
I've shot innumerable tactical exercises, starting in 1978 and ending in 1999, in a very rigorous and realistic program that I helped to found and which is still going strong.
I was mentored in my tactical rifle work by two former Marines, one of whom had been a sniper in Vietnam.
I have helped teach, mentor, and coach other tactical rifle shooters, as part of the same program.

In your video, Alex is cited as being able to make "good, clean shots out to 300 yards." How nice for him.
Perhaps he'd like to try shooting at 1,000 yards against me and my bolt-action, semi-scout rifle.
Or how 'bout man-vs.-man, first hit wins, at 600 yards, starting from standing at port arms?
And I'll give him an advantage: I promise not to wear any wanna-be camouflage.

Successful, accurate shooting with a "Klash" at 300 yards truly is a feat of marksmanship.
But tell Alex that I believe that he'd do even better, if he didn't use the magazine as a monopod.

Since we have reached a point in our discussion at which you have descended into an ad hominem attack ("It would appear that you have never had to run a rifle..."), I believe that it is time for me to drop out of it.
You may, of course, continue on your own, if you so desire.

Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1

"Never had to run a rifle"? What does that mean?

I've been "running" various rifles since I was 15, back in the mid-1950s. I started hunting when I was 16.
I've shot innumerable tactical exercises, starting in 1978 and ending in 1999, in a very rigorous and realistic program that I helped to found and which is still going strong.
I was mentored in my tactical rifle work by two former Marines, one of whom had been a sniper in Vietnam.
I have helped teach, mentor, and coach other tactical rifle shooters, as part of the same program.

In your video, Alex is cited as being able to make "good, clean shots out to 300 yards." How nice for him.
Perhaps he'd like to try shooting at 1,000 yards against me and my bolt-action, semi-scout rifle.
Or how 'bout man-vs.-man, first hit wins, at 600 yards, starting from standing at port arms?
And I'll give him an advantage: I promise not to wear any wanna-be camouflage.

Successful, accurate shooting with a "Klash" at 300 yards truly is a feat of marksmanship.
But tell Alex that I believe that he'd do even better, if he didn't use the magazine as a monopod.

Since we have reached a point in our discussion at which you have descended into an ad hominem attack ("It would appear that you have never had to run a rifle..."), I believe that it is time for me to drop out of it.
You may, of course, continue on your own, if you so desire.

Not an attack. If you had run your rifle before you would have understood what it meant. It means train with it. Use it outside the realm of a hunting trip or a range trip..The video was to show you how to prone with a 30 round mag. Guess you missed that part. If you think a 300 yard shot with a Klash is something find travis haleys video doing it out to 700 yards.

I will leave it with this. You have been using your rifle since you were 15, hunting and having a good time. Some of us run our rifles. Putting more than 2000 rounds down range in a single class. That is the difference. Have a good day Steve....

Originally Posted by Harryball

Not an attack. If you had run your rifle before you would have understood what it meant. It means train with it. Use it outside the realm of a hunting trip or a range trip..The video was to show you how to prone with a 30 round mag. Guess you missed that part. If you think a 300 yard shot with a Klash is something find travis haleys video doing it out to 700 yards.

I will leave it with this. You have been using your rifle since you were 15, hunting and having a good time. Some of us run our rifles. Putting more than 2000 rounds down range in a single class. That is the difference. Have a good day Steve....

I tend to disagree with Steve on some points, but accusing him of not training with his guns, long or short, is a terrible mistake.

KG

I once got into a huge fight with a pound of bacon...the bacon lost.

Originally Posted by kg333

I tend to disagree with Steve on some points, but accusing him of not training with his guns, long or short, is a terrible mistake.

KG

KG,

As I see it. There have been no mistakes made here.

Up in Canada, if I may redirect, we have the CZ-858 available in both restricted, and non-restricted versions for civilians.. I'm ex-military, and, giving away my age, was one of the first platoons in ROTC to qualify with the "new" C-7 rifle, having replaced the old FN.

I don't want to start any flaming, for I believe any AR-based platform .223 has its' place, and under ideal, dry & clean circumstances, is an extremely accurate weapon. I know both of our armed forces use variants and derivatives. I'm sorry, I think any M-16, M-4, AR, whatever, they're all the same with pretty much the same breech mechanism, are all pieces of unreliable crap when the situation is less than ideal. The Canadian C-7 rifles wouldn't even make a decent club because of all the plastic. I would trust them more in an urban setting, on a clear sunny day than I would ever carry something like this in a filthy wet jungle ever again.

I'm not too sure about the laws governing AK-47 ownership up here. I think the rifle may even be prohibited, but don't quote me. I don't know. Whatever the case, the CZ is a fairly accurate AK variant. I believe it is better. Components are all milled, and there's even a larger ejection aperture for spent casings. This thing can be beat on in much the same manner as an AK. I was originally going to buy an SKS, but found the CZ instead. Now, pricing is certainly different. An old SKS can run you as low as $150-$200 here, whereas the CZ-858 will cost you around $600. The furniture that comes with it is adequate. I didn't like it, and found the rifle felt small in my hands, so I purchased some upgrades from Zahal, and now couldn't be happier. It fires any ammo I put into it, including the ghetto milsurp garbage. It eats it up with narry a jam. In fact, with the addition of a 2x42 red dot scope on the thing, I was shocked to see I could shoot it accurately out to 250 yards (the farthest I've tried yet). I am fully aware of the differences of the AR, but I was quite satisfied with these results. In an urban setting, I don't think my target would be much further away, house-to-house, and in a questionable environment I certainly don't plan on walking out in the open where someone can peg me from 500 yards away.

Just my two cents, anyways. Firearms are just like motor oil. Everyone has their favorite brand and reasons why theirs is the best. I just thought I'd add in about the CZ, because I feel it has a place in with the SKS family.

Cannon