Is there a SKS high capacity magazine that can be change quickly for fast reloading?

Today, 04:49 PM Is there a SKS high capacity magazine that can be change quickly for fast reloading? I started a thread a few days ago inquiring about my SKS 30 round fixed magazine. I bought it back in the 1990's when there were no detachable alternatives. This all started because I was trying to track down the tiny loading tool it came with and I have now lost, but I have gotten a renewed interest in my rifle after all the research. I found out I had an old Zytel fixed mag and it is now nearly obsolete, but after researching, I see the detachable alternatives, but after watching videos, I have not really seen anything that allows for quick reloading like dropping a mag from an AK-47 and popping in another one all in one movement. It seems the SKS detachable mags all have situations that slow you down, like the bolt has to be open and you have to tug and work a bit to get the empty one out. I have not seen a video yet of anyone cutting loose with a 20 or 30 round mag and snapping in a new loaded mag within a couple of seconds of the time it would take to reload an AK or AR. It seems most people still load from the top even with their new detachable mags. Back in the 90's when I bought a SKS, I figured I could store it loaded with 30 rounds and keep a few 10 loading strips close by so I could at least reload 10 at a time fairly quickly, that solution is starting to look like about the best the SKS has to offer. I am hoping I am wrong, anyone with a better solution or other ideas please post. I know those Tapco modifications look cool, but I have not seen much improvement in firepower. I know we are working with 1945 technology, but I have developed an interested in anything that might make this rifle better. Along with a renewed interest in shooting. Cleaning out my closet did me some good




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:01 PM.

View the original article here

357 Sig and 10mm = best compromise of capacity, KE, and control

I have shot those guns, I own them; that data was obtained from my chronograph.

I've also shot them using a shot timer, so the PF calculation has been tested and subjectively confirmed in my hands.

Not being especially fast about anything I do, my 2nd shot times may not seem very impressive; however, I do very likely have a more rigid criteria for what constitutes a good or "qualifying" 2nd shot than others would accept.

I put a 6'' circle on a larger target about 6 - 7 yards away.
Both 1st and 2nd shot must hit the 6'' circle, close to the 6'' circle does not count. This is a very important point to remember, a perfectly good hit 1'' above that circle will not be counted or it would ruin the validity of any comparison. I can pull the trigger faster, but keeping both shots on the 6'' circle becomes increasingly difficult.

I've obtained consistent averages on different days, so I'm confident that the averages are representative of my performance with different pistols, using the given ammo.

My subcompacts (26, 27 and 33) all have a Pearce +0 magazine base that provides a place for my pinky.

Using the 26 (9mm):
.28 sec average from 1st - 2nd shot with a standard pressure 115 gr. JHP
.31 sec average with Ranger T 124 gr. +P

Glock 27 (40 S&W)
.29 one day, .32 average on another, both times with relatively mild kicking Rem 180JHP; the time would definitely increase with a hotter round like Ranger T 165 like I used for the PF calculation in my initial post.

Glock 33 (357 Sig)
.32 one day with a 147 gr. XTP, .31 average on another day with 125 gr. Gold Dot.

Notice that there is essentially no difference in my 1st - 2nd shot average time between the 9mm +P and the 357 Sig (maybe because I'm slow either way).

With the Glock 29 SF and Hornady 155 gr. XTP I averaged .34 sec (not bad considering the size of the pistol and the power produced).

The 1911 was good for a very respectable .23 sec average.
The Glock 32 in 357 Sig essentially a match at .25 average using Ranger T

None of my data is speculative.

View the original article here