Poll: SKS or FN-49 for deer hunting?

[DuneHopper]

Ok - In the big 'scheme' of things the SKS is a relatively crude rifle, with typically large and impractical sights and poor ergonomics. Disagree if you want but this is my observation from shooting many of them. I guess if you believe you have mastered your SKS to the point of acceptable hunting accuracy and are using quality ammo then knock yourselves out. Reality being what it is will show the experienced, SERIOUS hunter will choose a traditionally patterned rifle in a caliber suited to the environment and potential distance that might be encountered as opposed to the obvious ballistic shortcomings of the 7.62 X 39 round. But Hail, I am a guessin' them thar 'Fudd' gunz within' there bolt akshuns jest don' shoot as fast ta satisfy som peepul...

Ok I get you point , I wont turn it into a debate but thanks for explaining it.
My own observation is also from shooting many of them, but as I said thank for clarifying your thought.

 

[DuneHopper]

Its too bad so many good rifles are priced where you need a second mortgage , Joe average can't just pick up a couple of rifles and try them out..... for the OP,.... dang this thread could be confusing as there has been an answer and opposite response from many people. And everyone is sure of their positions.
And then everyone trumps or attempt their position making it hard to get a clear choice.

I mean if I was going hunting id use our Rem 700 7mm mag would be what I would use.
But then if I didn't have it , and couldn't just go out any buy a rifle ........ guess depends too if you hunt to eat or hunt for survival because one on limited income would have to justify purchases.

 

[Modeler]

Thanks. It's not really that confusing, especially since I already made the choice and went on my hunting trip two weeks ago.

I know neither rifle is ideal, and I know I should have a modern scoped bolt action rifle. And next year I will have that rifle. But I didn't have it this year, so I went hunting with what I had. And I knew that I was limited to 100 yards, and I was confident that I could get a good hit out to 100 yards with my SKS with aftermarket sights.

When I read a thread where someone asks an "A or B" type question and someone comes in with a "why don't you consider C, D or E" type response I tend to ignore it. Reading a thread and comprehending the specific question asked can be hard I guess.

 

[jluck]

Or to put it another way:

If the choice is either go hunting with a rifle with limited range (and stay within that limited range) or not go hunting at all because a "proper" hunting rifle is not owned (and will not be purchased this year) which is the better choice?

For me, the answer is go hunting with what I have.

I thought the issue was the best choice of two options you already have? No?

One variable I don't see factored in enough if available velocity and terminal ballistics for a given bullet choice. Just because you bought a soft point or monolithic doesn't and guarantee the velocity is not enough to let the bullet expand at the (much further than guesstimated) point of impact. I know the X39 purists may never agree like something magical happens when a underdog cartridge is chosen. YMMV, And it will.

 

[DuneHopper]

Thanks. It's not really that confusing, especially since I already made the choice and went on my hunting trip two weeks ago.

I know neither rifle is ideal, and I know I should have a modern scoped bolt action rifle. And next year I will have that rifle. But I didn't have it this year, so I went hunting with what I had. And I knew that I was limited to 100 yards, and I was confident that I could get a good hit out to 100 yards with my SKS with aftermarket sights.

When I read a thread where someone asks an "A or B" type question and someone comes in with a "why don't you consider C, D or E" type response I tend to ignore it. Reading a thread and comprehending the specific question asked can be hard I guess.

Then a guess the other question is did you have fun ?
The SKS should be good at about 150 yards to 200.

 

[Modeler]

Then a guess the other question is did you have fun ?
The SKS should be good at about 150 yards to 200.

I did! It was a good time with a good friend.

 

[rick49]

Been out of town for awhile so I'm getting caught up on threads.

I couldn't find any mention of hunting ammo used in the FN.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't commercial ammo a little hot for the rifle? What I understand only Garand rated ammo should be run through an FN to avoid pressure issues and that is what I use in my Lux contract 49. Unless of course you are rolling your own.

 

[Modeler]

Been out of town for awhile so I'm getting caught up on threads.

I couldn't find any mention of hunting ammo used in the FN.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't commercial ammo a little hot for the rifle? What I understand only Garand rated ammo should be run through an FN to avoid pressure issues and that is what I use in my Lux contract 49. Unless of course you are rolling your own.

My understanding is that the FN's adjustable gas system can be tailored to run safely with most any load, but I could be wrong. Mine is a Lux FN as well, although all I've used up to this point is Garand loads.

 

[rick49]

Hard primers are your friend.

 

[RVTECH]

guess depends too if you hunt to eat or hunt for survival because one on limited income would have to justify purchases.

If one is hunting to survive (or eat which are essentially the same) then one is most likely poaching and it will not likely matter what one is using. The reality is unless someone is living entirely off the grid in a remote part of the world then hunting for 'survival' is a not a reality. I am sure many of us know people who live is extremely remote parts of the US and probably have supplemented they're freezer with a deer or elk but the average person is not going to 'survive' by hunting - especially not legally. Hunting is a 'tradition' based sport and requires a certain amount of experience, time and money to approach pragmatically and effectively to ensure even a minimal amount of success. If the average hunter were to factor all hunting costs on a per pound basis of a deer or elk taken the amount would be alarming. Can one hunt more economically than someone else? Sure, but there are elements to it such as the location where one lives. I can hunt considerably 'cheaper' than say one who lives in Portland or Seattle due to my proximity to the game as the NF is minutes from my house (providing I draw a tag for an area close to me or use a 'general' tag and then all I have for general is elk - no general provisions for deer) If not and I draw for an area some distance away I need to plan for time off, travel, gear and some time to scout the area if I am not familiar with it - and with the hopeful payoff of a deer or elk.

 

[windy wales]

Neither was designed for hunting; the SKS round wasn't designed for hunting and functions poorly, the 30-06 round wasn't designed for hunting but functions extremely well for it, but both firearms were designed for killing people efficiently and should be used for that purpose. Good taste, if nothing else, would dictate that you hunt with a hunter's rifle. In my case, that would require blued steel and a walnut stock, but then I'm a purist--and I'd had my fill of AK's and Stoner rifles by 1966.