[RTFM]

Perhaps I should have said which one first.... I just KNOW deep down, if I chose one the other will follow, sooner or later.

This week, I'm leaning toward the AK for it's ability to use magazines.
Last week, it was the SKS for it's length.


Not going to be used for anything specific.
I just can't decide.

(Please note the AK will not be the $1,000 variants, just the good old $300 garden variety AK.)


RTFM

[yesterdaysyouth]

i have both now, but back when i made the decision the first time i went for the sks first....

bad move...

could have had a sar-1 and a bunch of mags for 300 otd.... back then 300 was a lot for a rifle... :banghead:

[Tactical Texan]

I bought a SKS-D some years ago before the ban. It was Norinco. Carbine. It took AK mags. Thumbhole stock. I still have her.

I bought a VEPR carbine a couple of years ago. 7.62 Soviet. Very good gun. Not cheap, but not cheap either. Reliable. Relatively accurate. She looks good with Bulgarian polymer waffle mags in her.

[rbernie]

the good old $300 garden variety AK. I don't think that there ARE any $300 AK's any more. I've certainly not seen one for less than $400 in the last 5-6 years.

Despite the fact that I've owned 'em on and off, I have a hard time rationalizing the purchase of a semi-auto AK. Other than having detachable magazines, they really have no advantage over a SKS and they have some (IMO) significant disadvantages in usability and ergonomics.

[Red Tornado]

I'm with rbernie, severe ergonomic problems with me and the AK. Blast! The SKS feels great though, and I love mine, so that's how I voted. Someday I'll get an AK and change the furniture....someday.
RT

[Moondoggie]

I got in on a group buy of Norinco SKS's for $59 back in 93.

Works every time, never had a FTF/FTE and I can hit a gallon jug at 150 yds with mine. 10 rd stripper clips are fast enough..and a lot cheaper than mags.

For a hi-cap mag fed battle rifle I'll spend my $ on an AR.

[Rockrivr1]

I currently have both and am very happy with them. Yes they have thier major differences, but they are both fun as hell to shoot. I first bought a Yugo SKS and if you enjoy completely taking apart a rifle and cleaning it thoroughly to get the cosmoline off then this should be your first purchase. I had an absolute ball working on it. I even re-did the stock, which included baking it in the oven to get the cosmoline out of it. My wife at the time, who is now my EX wife, was having a fit over that one. :D

A few years later I purchased an AK. The one down side to the AK is the short butt stock. I bought an extended rubber pad that uses the existing screws on the butt plate to mount. It's now more comfortable to shoot. I'm also gonna buy one of those 75 rnd drums for it soon I thing.

[Rexrider]

What's wrong with getting both? :evil:

Actually, all things being equal, the SKS will be more accurate than the AK. A $100-$150 SKS will outshoot a $300 AK (probably even a $500 AK for that matter).

You do have the advantage of being able to dump 30 rd mags with the AK. You probably won't be able to hit anything but still a lot of fun.

I voted for the SKS. Go find a nice unissued Yugo for $150 and use the remaining $150 for ammo and stripper clips. You'll need it. :D

[Lonestar.45]

You've got to get both!!!

Seriously, I was in the same predicament. I got a shooter grade Yugo SKS first, and liked it so much, I bought an unissued Yugo SKS. Bought a ton of ammo and stripper clips. Then realized, I needed an AK! Now I'm after a cheap WASR. AIM has them, with 2 30rd mags, bayo, etc. for $329. You can find them under $350 all day long. They're not the prettiest, but these are durable and meant to be shot. Plus I'll probably be tinkering with it anyway.

I'm happy with the SKS's I've got. But I'm the type that enjoys taking them all apart, refinishing the wood, cleaning them up, etc. With a new AK, I wouldn't have gotten to do as much of that. To me, that's just as fun as shooting.

[R.H. Lee]

I'd love to have an AK, but unfortunately I'm a CA resident. :( But I do own two SKS's - a Yugo and a Chinese (thanks WA). The Chinese is more accurate for whatever reason, but they're both utterly reliable.

[Joe Demko]

I've had both. Unless the AK has "da switch" I can't see any reason to choose it over the SKS. The 10-round SKS lets you shoot from prone more easily. My SKS was notably more accurate than my AK, though neither would be described as a precision rifle. My SKS just as reliable as an AK. Get what you want, but if it is in semi-auto form, I think the SKS is the superior choice.

[Black Snowman]

I went with a Yugo M59/66 SKS because I liked all the gadgets on it and I could get it on my C&R. Sure it's big and heavy compared to other SKSes or AKs but it's fun to shoot, fun to play with and to me, visually appealing.

My friend Kamicosmos just got a WASR 10 and he has a lot of fun with it. He picked up a 75 round drum for it. Takes a while to use that up, takes a lot longer to load it up ;)

I just now got some stipper clips for the SKS. So I'll be shooting it a lot more than I have been. An AK never really ineterested me, mainly because of how the prices have been climbing. Now that I have the SKS, I have even less interest in one.

Either gun is a fun shooter. If you're going to get both, I'd say get the AK first and put in for your C&R 03 FFL and get the SKS when that comes in. Just the savings at Brownells and MidwayUSA make the C&R worth the hassle.

[RTFM]

Thanks for the quick reply everyone.

Leaning BACK to the SKS. *shees* this is terrible.
I LOVE tearing them apart and cleaning.
I find my self watching TV and cleaning the Mosin or the K98 and paying more attention to the craftsmanship and detail than the tube....

Thanks so far.

RTFM

[MAUSER88]

I own a few of each but prefer the AK.

[Kurt]

Between those two, it has to be an AK - no contest.

For most every reason there is to use the 7.62X39, the AK is handier, lighter and quicker. Even partially empty AK keeps on rockin' far longer than a full SKS, and then it reloads many times faster to close the deal.

Mentally distilled from years of conversations with friends and associates, the consensus is that even the cheaper AK’s are much more fun and "cooler" than any SKS ever made.

[jefnvk]

An AK w/o the GL cannot beat my SKS with the GL for fun.

You can get SKS's for a third the price of an AK, using the saved money on ammo.

And you can get those grenade adapters and shoot tennis balls, fruit, etc. off the end of your gun. How is that not awesome?

[dfaugh]

SKS strength, AK magazines--best of both worlds! And something not every third guy you meet is gonna have. I have a "regular" Yugo SKS and an SKS-M...The "M" is my favorite gun.

[5x5]

I started with a SAR1. I didn't like the fit and finish, so I went with an AK103k. I picked up a russian sks, but just traded it. The ak must have spoiled me. :D Now I'm breaking in a SSG-97 and a Saiga 12guage. They are all must haves. Once you start shooting one you'll want em all. :evil: -Ian

[8830]

I've owned both and prefer the AK. The SKS I had to get a different stock due to it's short length. The AK takes readily available mags and is alot easier to reload.

[DMK]

I have a bunch of SKS of different types and a SAR1 AK. I hardly ever shoot the AK. Next to the Romanian (My favorite) and Yugo SKS, it just feels and shoots like a cheap piece of junk. I like the AK just to have one, but I really don't like shooting it.

30 round mags get boring after a while when the gun has poor sights, a very short sight radius, terrible ergonomics and isn't very accurate.

[Marko Kloos]

I prefer the SKS.

Milled steel versus stamped, better LOP on the stock, better safety location, easier to shoot from prone, four inches more barrel length, more accurate, no magazines to break or lose, and a nice milled SKS costs less than half of what even a crummy stamped Romanian AK will set you back.

The AK is a good rifle, no doubt, but the only advantage a semi-auto AK has over an SKS is the capacity and the (marginally faster) reload speed. Oh, and the AK only has the edge in rate of fire as long as it works from loaded magazines. When you work out of the ammo box, the SKS is quicker.

[KaceCoyote]

AK all the way. I'm sorry but nothing can come to even matching the storied mystique of the AK. Everyone knows what it is at first sight, everyone knows what it sounds like. its always a hit.

Some AKs are vastly more accurate than others. From 1.5" on top quality ammo to pie plate. Personally I prefer the AK just because of the choices. I can do whatever combo I want with the buttstock, pistol grip, foregrip, there are 50 million great optics with scope rail that retain their zero to boot.

[Kamicosmos]

I voted for the AK. I just picked up one of the 'new' no-ban WASRs. It's great, especially with a 75 round drum mag!

As far as the SKS: It's about the same gun, technically. They're a bit heavier, and I think the trigger isn't as good, but not like the AKs have an awesome trigger. The sights on the SKS seem better, and they are a bit more accurate than the AK. The sights on both guns can be replaced with better though.

I think it comes down to price. Especially if you have a C&R, an SKS for $100-150 bucks is hard to beat! The AKs are getting more expensive. SARs aren't being imported in large numbers now apparently. You do have to hunt around for a 'nice-looking' WASR, but it can be done. I am really impressed with mine, I almost gave up on getting an AK because so many that I were seeing were just plain ugly.

This is a long way of saying you can't go wrong with either gun! (But, I like the AK a bit more than the SKS)

[Edmond]

I would go with the AK but I'm probably a little biased as you can see from my signature. :)

[KaceCoyote]

I dunno I'll put my Saiga against any SKS.

[MAKOwner]

I barely ever shoot my SKS anymore. The AK is just way handier, much shorter, etc.

But it depends alot on what you really want. If what you want is a "evil rifle" the AK is the way to go. If you just want a plinker for cheap the SKS is hard to beat due to the price. As far as accuracy goes mine both shoot basically identically (my 5.45 AK shoots slightly better than my 7.62 AK and SKS).

But if you think you want an AK, you probably won't be happy till you have one, the SKS is not a substitute IMO...

[SapperLeader]

I voted Ak, but I just got one. I have 4 sks before that. The ak design seems to be more tinkerable and robust, though i really like the simpleness of the sks. Neither is a bad gun, you will end up with both eventually.

[NMshooter]

Get a milled reciever Bulgarian AK. Best in my experience.

[Nitram68]

I bought an SKS-D with the montecarlo stock. As already mentioned, it takes the AK mags. I had to modify the stock a bit to get the AK drum mag in but not much. Very fun to shoot and very accurate.

[ksnecktieman]

Texan? I have a twin to yours, and I am very pleased with mine too. I have held a lot of thumbhole stocks that did not fit, but this one seems perfect to me. Is yours also blonde? Mine has a very light colored stock. I think I got mine in April of 95.

[Warner]

I voted AK.

I have to believe that those that degrade the "crummy stamped Romanian" AK's, with their shorter LOP and barrel somehow lost some perspective along the way. I personally value the lighter weight and overall shorter dimensions. For those who cannot drop $1500 on a DSA or M1A, these less expensive SAR/WASR guns give many a lot of performance and reliability.

The SKS is too long, heavy and slow in comparison.

[Kaylee]

As a rifle, I prefer the SKS, for all of the reasons Marko stated. So much the better stripped of the various grenade launching/bayonetting gewgaws and with the stock cleaned up or replaced with a lightweight polymer job.

As a tool to outfit a conscript third world army, or as an "evil black rifle" toy.. the AK.

I've owned both, I've sold both, and I don't have a burning desire to buy another of either. If I were to buy another... I'd go for the AK if I was after an example of Cold War/WoT history, or the SKS if I was looking for a beater truck gun.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate what was said above.. if what you really want is an AK, don't bother going the SKS route. No amount of fancy gewgwas will turn the SKS into an AK. It's a decent rifle in its own right, but it will never be the quintiessential "bad guy's gun" the AK is.

-K

[Warner]

Due to their cartridge, I've always put these two into the carbine class as far as performance goes. IMO, the rest is simply two different choices for getting their identical bullets downrange.

[landon74]

It's pretty hard to beat the SKS if you're on a budget. I got the rifle and 500 rounds of ammo for under $200. That being said, I'm trying to scrape together the funds to build an AK.....

[Justang]

Is a SKS a good AK alternative if you live in California?



and please don't say I should move... it's ignorant.

[Edmond]

Is a SKS a good AK alternative if you live in California?



and please don't say I should move... it's ignorant.


I would say an SKS is a good alternative. Before I got my Kalashnikov, I considered the SKS but knew deep down inside that I wouldn't be happy unless I got the AK. So I saved up for a few weeks and got the AK.

All I got to say about Southern Cal is that the folks here in Chicago are going to get 6" of snow! :(

[surfinUSA]

I had both, sold the AK and kept the SKS. Both are great guns. Well made relatively accurate and cheap to shoot.

But The one thing I really liked about the SKS is how quick it is to get into action. The gun carries easy with a round in the chamber and the safety on. Holding the rifle in its normal position I keep my trigger finger alongside the safety lever and just push down as my finger goes into the trigger guard. The AK on the other hand requires you to remove your hand from the pistol grip to disengage the safety. Not a big deal at the range, but it can be a big deal in the swamp when you stumble across that big hog you're after.

I didn't really notice a difference in accuracy between the two, at least not shooting from the shoulder.

[RTFM]

Week end check in, and all good points....
My dilemma continues....