New Techniques

I was at the Calgary gun show this year showing off my wares and a person came over to examine a S2.  He picked it up and shouldered it, grabbing the forend using what I can only describe as the Magpul overgrip method.

This prompted a lively discussion with my helper.  We are in agreement that there are a lot of new shooting methods coming out where an instructor with “Street Cred”, that is someone who has shot at people for a living, comes up with a new idea and markets it as the newest greatest thing.

What I find is that often people invent new things for the sake of inventing new things and use the cognitive fallacy of false attribution (claiming something as the reason for something else when they are in fact there is no causality).

Without naming names, let’s take a trip through inductive reasoning.

Premise 1)
Man trained as part of _______ where he won many harrowing gun battles.

Premise 2)
He used the methods taught to him by that elite unit.  Those methods clearly worked and therefore are proven and workable.

Premise 3)
He comes back to America and develops his own methods to sell to the public.  He uses his past exploits to justify why you should trust his new system.

Conclusion – His fancy new method was never tested in battle.  Its value is therefore called into question as a fighting method.  It may perform on a 3-gun range but can not be proven like his original skill set was.
Why can't he pass on his proven skill set?

Back to the Magpul overgrip method.  It is touted as a way to increase stability.  When I instruct I tell my students, I tell them that the farther they grip the rifle down the forend, the more stability they will gain; it does not matter if they use a forgrip, angled grip or the traditional hand grip. The trade off to gripping farther down the forend, is they will fatigue quicker.  All the Magpul overgrip method does is adds a silly grip to a proven theory and falsely claims the stability benefit as a result.

But if instructors taught what worked and did not invent new stuff they would have a hard time marketing themselves and standing out as a brand.  From a marketing standpoint, I can't blame them; they just want to make money. But from a gunfighting standpoint, I think they are subtly cheating the consumer out of what they should know and what they hope to learn.

I think the moral of the story is don't buy into every silly little method.  Critically ask yourself if these new novel methods actually make you a better gunfighter or if you are simply lining someone else's pockets or worse yet, buying into a cool looking fad.

SKS Considerations

The SKS rifle was developed by Sergei Siminov in 1943.  It was quickly replaced by the new AK47.  I suspect that its low capacity 10 round, non-detachable magazine was the reason for the change.
All the tooling was sold to China who also adopted the AK47 (as the Type 56 Rifle).  Although they primarily used the AK, they liked the SKS for certain advantages it brought to their infantry sections.  Although the SKS did not have a removable magazine, they could quickly be recharged with stripper clips.  Chinese doctrine used the SKS to help keep up the volume of fire while AK magazines were being reloaded.  The SKS was longer and (in theory) offered better accuracy.
The fact that it does not require a lot to run it, its low cost, plentiful ammo and ammo that can be used to hunt medium game, make it an ideal choice for a survivialist.

But if employed in combat its advantages and limitations must be considered.  The SKS is not without flaws in the tactical sense.  Remember that the Soviets were quick to abandon it and despite the Chinese fondness for the rifle it was not the primary weapon of their infantry.

The main problem comes from reloading.  On and empty magazine the bolt locks back and it is lightening quick to reload – a great advantage.  But what about replenishing a magazine that is not quite empty?  This is necessary during a lull in battle or before entering an unknown area like a room.  The user has to dump his magazine by opening the hinged magazine bottom and catching his rounds before they spill on the ground (or just dump them if he is rushed), close the cover, cock the rifle to lock the bolt to the rear and feed the stripper clip into the top.  This is quite slow.  I tried this process (retaining my rounds) and found that I take 3-4 times as long to do this versus changing a magazine.  You can change a SKS to use detachable magazines but often this renders the stripper clips useless as the detachable magazine’s feed lips block the stripper clip from being inserted.

The second major problem is maintenance; the thing is a bitch to take apart.  I can strip an AK in a tenth of the time that I can a SKS.  But to be fair the SKS is a very robust rifle and really only needs a detailed cleaning once in a while.  I do recommend you put a wipe through the barrel after a day of shooting to prevent possible corrosion from the ammo. (military ammo used corrosive primers to ensure ignition in cold weather – don’t ask me why, I am no chemist)
Thirdly is optics.  You must give the stripper clip loading ability if you are set on traditional short eye relief optics.  This is because normal optics cover the area that stripper clips are inserted into.  Mounting traditional optics on the receiver cover almost never yields a sold zero as this portion of the rifle is designed to be removed and has some play.  For SKS users I recommend a red dot or a long eye relief scope mounted forward of the bolt.  For those who insist on a traditional short eye relief scope, use a side mount rather then a receiver cover mount.

If you keep these considerations in mind the SKS will serve you well.  In a survival or defensive situation it is a hearty, battle tested design that offers the user a well rounded jack of all trades rifle at a low cost.