AK Sponsor
Posted: 12/31/2009 4:22:45 PM EDT
| Can somebody tell me about these? They appear to be Yugo's without any grenade launcher, I hardly see any of them. |
|
I have one too. Pretty neat carbines... "beefier" than the Chi-Coms and even the Russian ones.
Quoted:
That's the one they should have stuck with. The M59/66 has oodles of problems.  Like what kind of problems? I certainly prefer the M59 but the 59/66 is still a robust, reliable weapon.
|
|
Quoted:
I have one too. Pretty neat carbines... "beefier" than the Chi-Coms and even the Russian ones. Quoted:
That's the one they should have stuck with. The M59/66 has oodles of problems. Like what kind of problems? I certainly prefer the M59 but the 59/66 is still a robust, reliable weapon.I don't own a 59/66 myself - never liked them & the muzzle device wrecks the balance and pointability of the gun IMO. I've read of folks having problems with the gas shutoff. |
|
Quoted:
I have one too. Pretty neat carbines... "beefier" than the Chi-Coms and even the Russian ones. Quoted:
That's the one they should have stuck with. The M59/66 has oodles of problems. Like what kind of problems? I certainly prefer the M59 but the 59/66 is still a robust, reliable weapon.I have one and the chamber was severley pitted, which made the rifle paperwight. Other problems are with the gas valve being worn. The grenade launching system just messes the rifle design up. Almost all the problems I hear with SKS is with the Yugo ones. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have one too. Pretty neat carbines... "beefier" than the Chi-Coms and even the Russian ones. Quoted:
That's the one they should have stuck with. The M59/66 has oodles of problems. Like what kind of problems? I certainly prefer the M59 but the 59/66 is still a robust, reliable weapon.I have one and the chamber was severley pitted, which made the rifle paperwight. Other problems are with the gas valve being worn. The grenade launching system just messes the rifle design up. Almost all the problems I hear with SKS is with the Yugo ones. I'd argue that the problems you refer to are a result of the hard use of the carbines during the irregular warfare in the Balkans, where cleanup from corrosive ammo was not routinely practiced, rather than poor design. The two 59/66s I owned ran like tops –– but then I didn't have ones with corroded parts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have one too. Pretty neat carbines... "beefier" than the Chi-Coms and even the Russian ones. Quoted:
That's the one they should have stuck with. The M59/66 has oodles of problems. Like what kind of problems? I certainly prefer the M59 but the 59/66 is still a robust, reliable weapon.I have one and the chamber was severley pitted, which made the rifle paperwight. Other problems are with the gas valve being worn. The grenade launching system just messes the rifle design up. Almost all the problems I hear with SKS is with the Yugo ones. I'd argue that the problems you refer to are a result of the hard use of the carbines during the irregular warfare in the Balkans, where cleanup from corrosive ammo was not routinely practiced, rather than poor design. The two 59/66s I owned ran like tops –– but then I didn't have ones with corroded parts. Had they chromed the bore, it might not have happened. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have one too. Pretty neat carbines... "beefier" than the Chi-Coms and even the Russian ones. Quoted:
That's the one they should have stuck with. The M59/66 has oodles of problems. Like what kind of problems? I certainly prefer the M59 but the 59/66 is still a robust, reliable weapon.I have one and the chamber was severley pitted, which made the rifle paperwight. Other problems are with the gas valve being worn. The grenade launching system just messes the rifle design up. Almost all the problems I hear with SKS is with the Yugo ones. I'd argue that the problems you refer to are a result of the hard use of the carbines during the irregular warfare in the Balkans, where cleanup from corrosive ammo was not routinely practiced, rather than poor design. The two 59/66s I owned ran like tops –– but then I didn't have ones with corroded parts. Had they chromed the bore, it might not have happened. True –– but neither the M59 or M59/66 has a chromed bore, so it's hardly an advantage for the former. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have one too. Pretty neat carbines... "beefier" than the Chi-Coms and even the Russian ones. Quoted:
That's the one they should have stuck with. The M59/66 has oodles of problems. Like what kind of problems? I certainly prefer the M59 but the 59/66 is still a robust, reliable weapon.I have one and the chamber was severley pitted, which made the rifle paperwight. Other problems are with the gas valve being worn. The grenade launching system just messes the rifle design up. Almost all the problems I hear with SKS is with the Yugo ones. I'd argue that the problems you refer to are a result of the hard use of the carbines during the irregular warfare in the Balkans, where cleanup from corrosive ammo was not routinely practiced, rather than poor design. The two 59/66s I owned ran like tops –– but then I didn't have ones with corroded parts. Had they chromed the bore, it might not have happened. True –– but neither the M59 or M59/66 has a chromed bore, so it's hardly an advantage for the former. Atleast the Yugo M59 didn't have ridiclous grenade launcher. |
AK Sponsor