AR-15 vs SKS Poll


PDA






Shrinkmd
November 2, 2005, 10:22 PM
If you could only have one SHTF rifle, with enough ammo to last, and a reasonable amount of cleaning supplies, would you rather have a nice, shiny new AR-15 or an unissued new SKS, probably a Yugo since they're on the market right now. This assumes it may be the last rifle you ever own!

Please consider durability, reliability, accuracy, firepower (fixed 10 rnd SKS vs the AR), weight, etc. Leave out the pricetag for now.

If you enjoyed reading about "AR-15 vs SKS Poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cslinger
November 2, 2005, 10:52 PM
I do believe the SKS is the more robust rifle but that is really it's only benefit over a good AR15.

For any kind of civillian TSHTF that most of us would ever experience the AR15 would be just about perfect. Light, handy, very accurate, forgiving to the shooter, large capacity, cheap light ammo etc.

Even if you are talking about a TEOTWAWKI fantasy then should you survive your first firefight you will have other guns to choose from should your AR break later etc.

The fact is though any half decent rifle should be just fine for any real SD scenario. Heck even with looters running rampent or mobs a scoped '06 would probably be more then enough. Sure I would feel better with 30 rounds on tap but me thinks a lever gun or bolty would do fine too.

Just my two cents.

No_Brakes23
November 2, 2005, 10:58 PM
Well I live in Cali, so Lockyer and Feinstein already decided that one for me.

If I lived elsewhere, I would buy an AR. User-friendliness and higher capacity trump the otherwise excellent Simonov. Besides, my Yugo looks kinda goofy with a 3 point sling on it.:D

me thinks a lever gun or bolty would do fine too.
Yeah. They will definitely be better than nothing, and dead looters don't care that you only have 7 rounds of .30-30 or 4 rounds of '06 left versus 9 rounds of x39 or 20-some rounds of 5.56.

browningguy
November 2, 2005, 11:13 PM
Since cost doesn't matter in this poll I picked AR. I really have a KelTec SU16 (and an AR in .50 Beowulf), but I also have an SKS, and for most people money does matter. 5 mint, or 8 shooter grade SKS's for the price of a mid range AR. Or make it 2 Mint SKS's and 5,000 rounds of ammo to practice, that's a tradeoff to think about.

MaceWindu
November 2, 2005, 11:27 PM
The only thing that polls are good for is fishin....:scrutiny:

MaceWindu

Warner
November 2, 2005, 11:43 PM
I voted SKS.

I'd take almost anything over an AR and it's questionable caliber, even a bolt gun.

W

Lonestar.45
November 2, 2005, 11:48 PM
I haven't had much experience with AR's, and don't own one, but I know I'd be happy with my SKS(s) in just about any SHTF situation.

Mulliga
November 3, 2005, 12:54 AM
I've owned both. AR is lighter, smaller, uses common ammo (at least here in the US), common mags, fairly common parts, etc. SKS will be tougher but the 10 round fixed mag is a serious problem if we're really talking about an end of the world situation IMHO. Think about it this way - no one who can use an AK uses an SKS.

jefnvk
November 3, 2005, 01:23 AM
AR, no doubt.

Much more realistically, I would probably go for the 870.

beerslurpy
November 3, 2005, 02:02 AM
That is the oddest choice I've ever seen. Most people choose between the AKs and the ARs. The SKS might be seen as an alternative to a Garand or a lever gun.

I think whatever rifle you practice with regularly should be your SHTF gun. You want to free as much of your mind as possible for dealing with the problems at hand, rather than expending effort to familiarize yourself with a new gun.

I personally favor the AK because it has tons of extra reliability, which I think will be the commodity in shortest supply during SHTF. A well built AR with tested reliable ammo and mags would be just as good.

Contrary to popular belief, not all AK mags are compatible with all AKs. My Bulgarian cant take romanian and polish mags, but fits russian bulgarian and chinese very well. So using your gun a lot to ensure that all the parts are reliable together is important no matter what gun you settle on.

Shrinkmd
November 3, 2005, 07:03 AM
In weird NJ, we are allowed to have post ban AR-15, and we can have SKS with non detachable magazine (yugo grenade launcher and bayonet are fine) but we can't have any type of AK, far as I know. If I'm wrong someone please tell me! That is why it is AR vs SKS...

beerslurpy
November 3, 2005, 08:14 AM
I thought NJ did everything by way of "substantially similar" which means as long as the gun doesnt have the "evil features" it is OK. There was a case about the XM15 and whether it was an AR15. I think CA had a similar case about whether the Saiga was an AK since it wasnt on the evil guns list.

I'm not an expert on NJ firearms law though.

vanfunk
November 3, 2005, 09:02 AM
Nothin' wrong with an SKS, but I'd take my AR. For me, the AR is a simple platform, easy to work on and repair, easy to maintain and keep clean (yes, there, I said it - easy to clean!), durable and accurate.

vanfunk

TrafficMan
November 3, 2005, 09:22 AM
I think CA had a similar case about whether the Saiga was an AK since it wasnt on the evil guns list.


yes. there was a time that the Saiga was legal in CA, primarily because it lacked a pistol grip....however our brilliant law makers outlawed everything associated with a Kalashnikov action. I remember I was thinking about getting a SAIGA, but I was poor and it was outlawed before I actually had the funds to do so. Ho-Hum.

SKS for me.

1911JMB
November 3, 2005, 09:31 AM
How about neither. I'd take a Fal.

Too Many Choices!?
November 3, 2005, 09:40 AM
Why? If you have to ask you been under a rock...

Onslaught
November 3, 2005, 10:00 AM
I voted for the AR over the SKS, and in my house the AR is the SHTF rifle.

HOWEVER, (even though you didn't ask) if you don't like the platform, or the caliber, or the look etc. of the AR then I would rather have an AK over an SKS for that same purpose.

I'm just not personally fond of the SKS, but it's just a personal thing. If you like 'em, buy 4, they're cheap :)

No_Brakes23
November 3, 2005, 10:11 AM
there was a time that the Saiga was legal in CA, primarily because it lacked a pistol grip....however our brilliant law makers outlawed everything associated with a Kalashnikov action. I remember I was thinking about getting a SAIGA, but I was poor and it was outlawed before I actually had the funds to do so.

Same here. My dad got one when they were legal, and after he put a pad on it to extend the LOP, it started shooting like a dream. Totally changed my opinion of AKs. Made me extra sad that I didn't scrounge up the money to buy one.

Here in Cali the choice is not AR versus SKS, it is SKS versus SU-16CA versus Garand versus BigMoneyM1A.

beerslurpy
November 3, 2005, 08:44 PM
Yeah, I have nothing but love for the SU16CA. I might even go so far as to recommend it for NJ use as well, due to the reliability of the design.

Daemon688
November 3, 2005, 08:47 PM
I really don't think these two rifles should be in the same category for comparison. It would be more appropriate to have an AK clone of some sort.

Stauble
November 3, 2005, 10:10 PM
i voted sks
in a real SHTF senerio i dont visualize myself takin out time to clean the gun, and most would agree that a dirty AR will most likely jam, wile and SKS can take much more abuse and neglect.
i like the bayonet, and possibily of launcing grenades (assuming i can get hold of the adapter, cartridge, and grendae;) )

jefnvk
November 3, 2005, 10:17 PM
most would agree that a dirty AR will most likely jam Cleaned my AR action for the first time since I got it about 6 months ago the other day, never had any issues. Only upkeep in that time was a boresnake after every range trip.

cslinger
November 4, 2005, 12:56 PM
Now all things considered I am more of an oprod AK/550/M14 kind of guy but as far as a modern AR15 goes most will function just fine with a modicum of care. There are many many reports of AKs jamming when poorly taken care of over in that hellhole of a sandy environment. That type of sand is hell on any man made machine be it firearm, helicopter, tank, AK, M1 Garand or AR.

Chris

Too Many Choices!?
November 4, 2005, 01:53 PM
Your chosen SHTF, rifle only needs to get you through,'First Contact", with an opposing force(b/g), once he is no longer a threat you got what the GI's call a good ol','Battlefield Pick Up". My AR-15 has fired 650 rounds out of a case of 1000 laquered cased Wolf ammo,with no cleaning just to prove to myself the reliablity of the design. Wolf ammo mind you, arguably the dirtiest, nastiest, smelliest ammo on the market, and I only had two ammo related failures...YMMV, but don't try to use the red herring of AR's,"Jamming", if not kept ,"surgically clean":rolleyes:...

Do you even own an AR? I ask because annecdotal and second hand evidence, from suspect sources(error-net), will not cut it against real world results an experience...:neener:

PS-What kind of SHTF do you see where you have to carry and fire more than 650 rounds without time to clean your weapon :confused: :uhoh:....

Gunnutz13
November 4, 2005, 02:02 PM
either one will do the job...nuff said...:evil:

Pilot
November 4, 2005, 02:08 PM
If it were a survival situation in which I had to hunt game to stay alive, I'd take one of my Russian SKS and the 7.62x39 cartridge. I'd think it would be hard to kill a deer or larger game with the 5.56, but I'm sure its been done.

middy
November 4, 2005, 02:26 PM
I'd think it would be hard to kill a deer or larger game with the 5.56
But a .243 will kill them everytime, eh?

I've seen a deer killed with a single round of .223, and heard of many more.

I've also seen a coyote run over by a car, jump up and run away (well, limp quickly away), only to be brought down by a single round of .223.

Don't tell me people are tougher than coyotes. A "varmint" round seems to be adequate for humans, if many combat veterans are to be believed.

cslinger
November 4, 2005, 03:10 PM
I am not a hunter but do not poachers use the .22LR very commonly since it has such a small sound signature?

I am not saying this is humane, I am not saying it is right, I am just saying that in a survial type situation with a few skills killing a deer with a .223 should be no problem.

Chris

Too Many Choices!?
November 4, 2005, 03:53 PM
With less meat loss... 2nd, I doubt the game warden will be working checking mag capacity and caliber selection, when the SHTF:rolleyes:...

3rd, I can follow up shot in less than a second with an ~6" dispersion, off hand, from the original shots point of impact, out to 100yds with iron sights...If I can't take even a medium-large white tail deer, at ~100yds with two shots and after addin my 3-9xmagnification scope, I need more help than a bigger bullet will offer:uhoh: :neener:

Too Many Choices!?

UberAmerican
March 29, 2008, 11:04 PM
My choice would be the SKS..... because I own one.

FlyinBryan
March 29, 2008, 11:19 PM
i own both, my sks is the version that accepts the ak mags, and its fun to shoot.

but its really not even a contest in my opinion.

the ar is far superior in every category that matters to me:

precision
accuracy
available goodies

i keep hearing how you can shoot an sks or an ak packed full of mud.

i dont pack mine with mud.

sometimes a fun thing to do is put maple syrup on a target and hang it on the 100yrd range and give the flies 5 mins to find it, then blast them.

it makes targets really last a long time.

kingjoey
March 30, 2008, 12:04 AM
SKS ;)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/kingjoey/Picture016.jpg

jdc1244
March 30, 2008, 12:22 AM
I own no ARs nor do I pan to. An SKS will do fine: very accurate and reliable in all conditions and it can be reloaded quickly with stripper clips.

springfield30-06
March 30, 2008, 12:38 AM
I would take the AR-15. First off, I own one... Second, I was in the military and am very familiar with it.

CannonFodder
March 30, 2008, 12:46 AM
If we're talking about total SHTF where it might be a while between the next time we can clean, and the terrain will be tough: SKS all the way. It'll just keep on running. And, in a pinch, you can use it to hammer tent spikes. Or as a mighty club. Or a spear. And then as a rifle again.

In fact, if I ever got shot while holding one, I fully expect the rifle to yell at me in Russian to get up and stop being such a pansy.

sixgunner455
March 30, 2008, 12:53 AM
AR15 is my favorite centerfire rifle. I also have a Yugo SKS. It weighs twice as much as my lightweight carbine.

I mostly shoot my 10/22. It's a money thing -- 20 rounds of 5.56 cost as much as 500 rounds of .22lr.

The last time I shot that SKS was last summer, before I finished building my AR.

possum
March 30, 2008, 12:56 AM
i have a bushmaster and i would take that if i could only have one rifle to last me. capacity accuracy, etc. plus that is what i trainined and most prefecient with.

The Swede
March 30, 2008, 12:57 AM
AR. Accuracy. American made. And like FlyinBryan I don't pack my weapons with mud.

10-Ring
March 30, 2008, 12:59 AM
My vote went AR s

jpwilly
March 30, 2008, 01:15 AM
The AR is the superior weapon!

But the SKS is no slouch and would serve well enough in SHTF. But it is long and heavy. The sights are only good enough...with enough practice you would have no problem putting lead on target with either.

Me I'll take the better faster sights, lighter rifle, 30rnds per mag and supurb accuracy of the AR any day.

Odds are in SHTF tactics would win the day and that includes having the proper rifle.

35 Whelen
March 30, 2008, 01:40 AM
IMHO, the AR is a much, much better built, more accurate weapon. But let's face it, bigger bullet = quicker death. Period. I'd have to go with the SKS.
35W

FlyinBryan
March 30, 2008, 02:01 AM
but the ar bullet will reach you faster.

and an exploded head is an exploded head. both will result in this.

i dont shoot heads though. i shoot targets, balloons, rocks, cinder blocks, and stuff like that.

my buds and me often smear a little aunt jamima on a target and shoot the flies that land. we use 6x24 variable power scopes from 50, sometimes 100 yrds. its a lot of fun. sometimes butterflies land on them and when you hit a butterfly, they kinda go poof, into powder.

to do this with an "out of the box" rifle, the secret is to make sure the first 2 letters are "ar" and whats left should be "15".

lol, im just hackin' on ya, but really,,,,,it is fun to chase a fly across your target, its like this:

boom boom boom boom splat.

High Planes Drifter
March 30, 2008, 02:03 AM
I'll take AR.


"Now thats a fight'n rifle".

Funderb
March 30, 2008, 02:04 AM
I voted sks,
because I know how to shove 10 rnds into the mag,
then empty said mag into a 1.5" circle at 50 yards in
about 7 seconds.
I also know that .30 inches is bigger than .223 inches,
and that I'd rather hit someone with a baseball bat than a pool stick.

just my humble opinion...
oh, and the report of an AR is horribly annoying. I prefer the more endurable loud low "BOOM" of the sks as opposed to the
high-pitched, piercing, "BEHHHC" of the AR.

guntotinguy
March 30, 2008, 02:31 AM
I have both a RRA AR-15 Entry Tactical .223 and 2 SKS's a Yugo and a Russian.To me the AR would be more 'convenient' and for distance fire,but this one with the 'thread question' would be hard for me to decide.Right now it would be the AR but different situations call for different SHTF 'on site' judgement calls.

coondawg47
March 30, 2008, 02:54 AM
Since were talking SHTF and I don't have the U.S. Military support machine anymore, I would choose the SKS. As accurate or better than most of the M-16/M-4s that I carried over 25 years of military service. Did carry an A-2 that was truly outstanding for about two years until PCS. I never have fired one of those modern AR-15s hand built and all with every do-dad known to man attached to every square inch of the front hand guards. I really wouldn't want to try rushing and rolling with all that crap attached to my rifle, probably scar me for life, and break expensive things off the rifle. One mans Cadillac is another mans Pinto. Either one would get the job done.

Acheron
March 30, 2008, 12:03 PM
I voted AR.


I would have voted SKS but I own a Yugo M59/66. That thing is way too clunky to be carrying around all the time.

Now if I had a Russian SKS, that would be a different story.

scubie02
March 30, 2008, 01:48 PM
take the sks, then take the money you would have used for the lifetime of cleaning supplies for it and buy the AR, because you probably won't ever have to clean the SKS...:D

JWarren
March 30, 2008, 01:55 PM
I wonder if Shrinkmd remembers starting this poll.

When there is no more room in Hell, dead threads will walk THR.

hehe...


-- John

Greenspartan117
March 30, 2008, 03:49 PM
I pick an AR-15. I live in California and have to have a slightly modded AR, with a mag lock device, prince 50 or bullet button, or to use grandfathered hi-caps, use a monsterman grip.

nathan
March 30, 2008, 03:53 PM
I go with the SKS. The round is quite devastating esp the hollow point. My son shot a hog and it had a big exit hole.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l210/nathan_068/HPIM1263.jpg

MMcfpd
March 30, 2008, 05:29 PM
I have multiples of both, including a very reliable 7.62x39 AR. There's no question in my mind that the AR is the far superior choice.

jpwilly
March 30, 2008, 05:42 PM
Currently have 2 AR's and one SKS. I've had a few SKS's so far. I love the SKS but the AR is the better weapon.

lightweight
March 30, 2008, 05:52 PM
I voted Bushmaster but wouldn't own one.
And I would rather have my 10/22 than any SKS.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b317/demusn79/th_Im000478.jpg (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b317/demusn79/Im000478.jpg)
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b317/demusn79/th_Im000356.jpg (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b317/demusn79/Im000356.jpg)

Shrinkmd
April 5, 2008, 08:54 PM
Ha ha, I was just looking through my old threads and found out that this one rose up again.

The AR is a lot more fun to shoot, and ergonomically the 20 years or so from Simonov to Stoner feels more like 100 in terms of technology. I still wonder, though, if I had no access to modern cleaning supplies, how well would an AR15 run compared to the SKS.

I'm assuming someone has done a torture test comparing these two (and likely an AK as well) with just maybe rubbing a little motor oil over the moving parts and keeping on shooting. I imagine that bone dry they all jam up pretty quickly. I was shooting an SKS in very cold weather which wasn't oiled (or shot) in probably about a year, and the bolt didn't want to go fully into battery when I pulled it back. Once it was firing it was fine, however.

Auburn1992
April 5, 2008, 09:24 PM
ar15

dispatch55126
April 5, 2008, 09:53 PM
I love these threads because every Rambo comes out to play.

Its fun to think about blasting away with large capacity mags, but here's a little tip...if you're in a firefight, there's chance you may be hit...and if you're hit in a SHTF "end of world" scenario, you're dead as there will not be any form of organized medical care.

The SKS may have less capacity, but it makes you think about options. Steel core 7.62 will pierce light steel to keep their heads down while you back out and live another day. And if your pinned down? Who cares how many rounds per load, you'll only need to pull the trigger when they advance.

Another thing to consider is in a true "end of world" event, the SKS (or AK) was designed for limited maintenance and repair, more so to the SKS. The AR is a fine rifle and has served our country well and has been in service far longer that any other rifle. It is, however, designed around the prospect of a guaranteed depot of parts behind the lines.

snow
April 5, 2008, 10:39 PM
Well I have shot the sks yet do not own one. I do not own a AR but I do own a .223 saiga which so I chose the middle ground. AK platform AR caliber. best of both worlds. Only downside is I only have ten rounds, but I do have detachable magazines and a ruger sr9 as a backup weapon.

Ignition Override
April 6, 2008, 12:58 AM
Dispatch 55126:

Interesting.
The steel-core ammo NOT allowed at my favorite store with indoor range (you shoot/test their used rifles etc!) will be the ammo which could win a firefight. Good idea.Maybe that is why the Russians, and others such as Bulgarians etc put it in their x54R for my Mosin, and the modern x39 also has some steel in certain Wolf ammo. The small Wolf packages colored yellow have little or none.

Two days ago a guy (FO: his leg over J-38, GRB, EAU. Arr..) I worked with had been a Marine Combat Engineer in s.e. Asia. He understands some practical uses for guns, but would rather not discuss those from 'over there'.

As for the Yugo versus Chinese Norinco SKS, suppose that right now you are a novice and want a truly dependable SKS simply for long-term plinking. Also, having a seasoned escort for a possible pig hunt, or even survival in distant future during an "uncivil event", do the Chinese guns have noticeably better actions than many Yugos, or were they refurbished more recently etc?
Would both types be just as functional and durable years from now, in a general sense?

Yesterday tested an SKS for the first time.

azhunter12
April 6, 2008, 01:05 AM
I personally don't worry about shtfs.No hurricane is coming to AZ anytime soon and I don't know why else there would be a shtf in AZ anyway. Both would work so its up to you which you like better.

Funderb
April 6, 2008, 01:05 AM
most indoor ranges don't allow steelcore. it tends to mess up the stops.
outdoor range is the answer. I wouldn't really like to shoot indoors anyway. outside is nice.

jpwilly
April 6, 2008, 01:54 AM
Me, I'd like to think the trip wires and claymores I set up will take care of most of my needs. I can use the poodle shooter to finish any survivors off.

RockyMtnTactical
April 6, 2008, 03:08 AM
I'll take a high quality AR15 carbine over anything you can name pretty much.

DSAPT9
April 6, 2008, 07:48 PM
I have shot both and feel confident that both would work quite well and each design has in battle, even against each other, Viet Nam. I would trust my life with both, as they are well-made and truly strong weapons. But if I only had one to choose from I would go with the AR15. Lighter weight, 1 mag holds three times the ammo, and if the SHTF I do not feel I would find myself in a firefight except as a last ditch effort. I believe in hiding and picking my battles. It is easier to pack 3 mags with 90 rounds than 10 rounds in the gun and 80 rounds lose or in stripper clips. Also even though the weight difference is not that much difference after carrying that extra weight all day gets heavy.

As far as reliability I carried a M16 A1(yes I said A1 not A2) during the first Persian Gulf conflict and had no problem what so ever. Yes I kept it clean, rubber balloons on the barrel keep dirt and sand out and a toothbrush keeps the rest clean.

Just one mans thoughts.

XD-40 Shooter
April 6, 2008, 09:57 PM
In a Red Dawn type scenario, I'd take the SKS. Simple, rugged, reliable, can go many thousands of rounds without cleaning, and needs very little maintenance. The soldiers in Iraq clean their M-16's and M-4's THREE times a day, that says it all right there. I'll take the SKS, or even better yet, an AK-47.:D

The Russians know how to build very tough, rugged, reliable weapons. They may not be 1 MOA accurate, but they will keep running under the harshest of conditions. The SKS is the chevy 3/4 ton, the AR is a Mercedes.:D:p

From what I have seen and read, in Vietnam, the M-16's jammed up at the worst possible times, during the first years of the war, during firefights = dead soldiers. Stoner blamed it on the ammo change and ball powder, once they finally chromed the chambers, it got better, but they still had problems.

A neighbor if mine is an ex-marine, he carried an AK-47 in Nam, no joke!

sarduy
April 7, 2008, 12:07 AM
Not all sks still use the 10 round fixed mags...:evil: and dont forget that the yugo SKS come with a Granade Launcher! hehehe... :evil:

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/2880/pict0722ex3.jpg

http://www.keepshooting.com/productimages/militarysurplus/collectibles/israeli_training_grenademid.jpg

Ignition Override
April 7, 2008, 12:44 AM
JPWilly and other Experienced Shooters:

If you don't want to pay the price for a good Russian SKS, from a long-term dependability standpoint, for basic plinking etc, would the basic Chinese gun function just as well as the Yugo types?

Or is the common appeal of the Norinco SKS because people claim that they have a better, cleaner appearance and they cost less?
Due to so many types of personal bias, it is very difficult for a novice with rifles to objectively isolate the functional differences from these other factors (i.e. modern politics... and ironically many have an AK, or lots of Russian,
Warsaw Pact ammo for our Mosins).

I've read the 'Simonov' and 'SKS' websites, along with full descriptions on 'TheFiringLine' and 'Perfectunion' or 'GunBoards' SKS topics among others.

BigGunsMoreFun
April 7, 2008, 01:01 AM
I have several SKS rifles and a few AR-15s. While the SKS is a great rifle that you can drop in the mud and pick up and it will still keep shooting, I much prefer the AR-15.

AR-15 has better trigger, better sights, better magazines, better accuracy, better ammo, more possibilities for add-on toys, etc.

The only problem with a good AR-15 is it costs 4 times what an SKS costs. It also does not take kindly to being dropped in the dirt or mud.

I enjoy shooting the SKS and the AR-15 but I'd take the AR-15 over the SKS if I had to choose.

Molon Labe,
Joe
:cool:

jackdanson
April 7, 2008, 01:26 AM
ar-15 if given the choice. (if you can afford it) Imagine how PO'd you would be if you had to be in a firefight with a rifle that had 20 less rounds, 1/3 the range and not nearly the accuracy of the enemy, that would suck regardless of the ultra-reliability of the soviet weapons. (which is mostly unfounded anyway)

Ignition Override
April 7, 2008, 03:21 AM
BigGunsMoreFun & Jackdanson and Gang:

As a novice shooter (since last October), although I'm not qualified to actually debate these topics, my decision for my next gun has been made: an SKS, despite lots of advice for the AR-15.
My Mosins might shoot ok at a distance if needed. My amateur aiming skills are the main limitations. Waiting to be selected in a few weeks by the local, superb outdoor range will help a bit (they even have a 200 and 600-yard range).

I will persist in my questions about simple durability, operating reliability between Yugo and Chinese SKS rifles until objective comparisons are offered by whoever.
Appreciate your advice but I'm a hard-headed ("Kopf aus Holz") 52 years old late-bloomer (not seeking advice on other types).
This may be irrational, but I only really like/buy certain lower-cost military or military-style rifles, and based upon my discovery this winter of affordable $.20-25/round .223/7.62x39 ammo (less for my Mosin ammo: this was the only factor in my decision to buy them), bought a used Mini 14 and used 30, contrary to most advice. My new (Kahr) M-1 Carbine's bolt got somehow stuck after owning it for two months, and after the factory repair I sold it (did not even want it back during the repair: had been purchased at gun store for $700).

Are any SKS comparisons out there -based upon somebody's experience- between Yugo and Chinese? Any advice, however helpful and logical, to buy another type of gun will not answer my question.
I've already read the Simonov, SKS and other websites, plus a tiny bit on a 'Survivalist' site (they might have the answer, and probably be motivated by simple reliability and durability).
Any info/advice to buy costlier Russian, Alb. SKS (or just an AK-47, HK, M-1A1, FN-FAL, M-1) etc will also not answer my question. Thank you.

coloradokevin
April 7, 2008, 05:12 AM
I own both, and either would do.

I'd probably go the AR-15 route, personally. The AR is more accurate, holds more ammo, and is lightweight (both in design and ammo). Parts are relatively easy to find in this country, as is ammo.

The SKS is a great gun, and I don't think it can be beat for reliability. But, it has some limitations in the accuracy department (and that could be an issue if hunting with it, depending on species). The ten round magazine is a limiting factor, and replacement parts might be harder to find (don't misunderstand this... neither of these guns are hard to find parts for, and I doubt you'd ever need an SKS part to begin with, so this point is perhaps moot).

Again, either would be fine, I'd just carry my AR as a personal choice!

HJ857
April 7, 2008, 10:10 AM
Keep in mind this is just my own opinion.

The only advantage the Yugo SKS has is the grenade launcher. If that has no meaning or usefulness to you, then the Yugo is a mistake. Overall it has a very rough trigger, non chromed bore and overly heavy. A lot of folks seem to think a "beefier" rifle is a good thing. If you look at AR and AK builds, I don't think you'll find a single example where a manufacturer claims "It's BEEFIER!" as a selling point.

The Norinco is sleeker all around, accuracy that is as good or better than the Yugo, no gas port valve, chrome bore. My stamped trigger is much better than my milled trigger group (both Norinco), the lesser of those triggers is twice as good as my previous Yugo trigger.

Pretty much all Norincos were made specifically for export and sold new. Yugos are all veterans with many rounds down the pipe. Even though there is no such thing as a new Norinco any more, the chances of finding an excellent one is high and the odds are that the Norinco will have had better care compared most any Yugo.

Check your local pawnshops and gunshops. Around my area Norincos are as common as Yugos in the second hand market. Just due to the fact that there are millions of Yugos around and shop owners have been unwilling to accept Yugos on trades, or they give such incredibly low trade value that there's no point in trading them.

If you go with a Norinco, check out the cartouche marking references. This will help you identify the factory. Factory 26 is the most common and generally regarded as the best factory. However I have a Factory 106 as well and it's a noticeably nicer rifle. Both my 106 and 26 are milled with screw in barrels, but the 106 has a stamped trigger group that is much smoother and lighter.

Hope that helps a bit.

Funderb
April 7, 2008, 11:48 AM
Ignition
The norinco that I have has a beautiful smooth and light trigger pull, that is probably the best triggers of all the rifles. Cept maybe the new savage .22

It is pretty precise to, I have little time shooting at 100 yards compared to my other rifles, but at 50 yards, concentration can put all 10 into an inch circle.

When you buy it, spend $35 on a receiver cover mount and compact optics, I've had good experience with them. (NcStar is a good, very cheap starting point there.)
The only thing I can think of for the yugos is the nice soft rubber pad and the neat bayonet they come with.

NG VI
April 7, 2008, 11:59 AM
AR. They aren't nearly as unreliable as they are made out to be, and they are light and easy to handle. And in that kind of situation I would not want to be stuck with only one rifle without a detachable mag.

xjchief
April 7, 2008, 12:13 PM
Each is great in it's own way.

Bang for the buck though it's absolutely no contest. You can have an arsenal of great SKS's for the price of a single AR. A couple high capacity mags and you've got AR firing capacity in a very well built rifle.

theotherwaldo
April 7, 2008, 12:18 PM
The SKS will probably still be usable long after the AR is shot-out, worn-out and broken.
Until some part of its fragile system breaks, the AR is probably the better firearm.
After that, the gun that works is always best.

SSN Vet
April 7, 2008, 02:37 PM
AR Baby...

30 good reasons....

bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

push right index finger, slap new mag. in w/ left hand (never take eyes off of target or rifle out of firing position)

play it again Sam...

dewage83
April 7, 2008, 03:11 PM
the only reason for the ar is detachable magazines i cant see any place for a stirpper clip in modern combat. but like has been said the sks is a trooper and will work long after the ar in my opinion in a shtf situation.(battle or unusually high use.)

benEzra
April 7, 2008, 03:46 PM
AR, hands down (for me).

Make it AK vs. AR, and it be a lot tougher question, IMO.

rcmodel
April 7, 2008, 03:53 PM
i cant see any place for a stirpper clip in modern combat.How about bandoleer packed M-16 ammo then?

It comes in 10-round stripper clips for loading magazines quickly.

rcmodel

UberAmerican
April 8, 2008, 10:54 PM
Though I'm working on aquiring an AR,(and as of now can't have an opinion of the AR based on experience) the SKS is a good, reliable utility rifle. I certianly don't feel unarmed with one.... Guess ya can't really go "wrong" with either one! For me, and I assume others, the question boils down to price tags - not just the rifle, but mags, clips, ammo, and all the other accessories.
Either way, having any rifle is WAY better than having NONE.
KYPD!

elmerfudd
April 8, 2008, 11:09 PM
The SKS is a great rifle for the money, but it's also quite obsolete. I would still feel capable of defending myself with one, but there are many rifles out there that are much better and the AR is one of them.

Now if you only have $200 or you just want an SKS, by all means buy one. They're a great bargain, extremely reliable and reasonably accurate. They also don't take optics worth squat, have very few options when it comes to mags and have relatively poor iron sights.

If you have the cash and want a better fighting rifle, get the AR.

hso
April 8, 2008, 11:14 PM
An excellent quality AR or an unissued Yugo SKS?

AR

jayofthejungle1985
April 9, 2008, 06:34 PM
10/22 for life :D

frogomatic
April 9, 2008, 08:06 PM
SKS over AR hands down. I think the SKS is the better field gun. It is the more durable build. I don't think I even need to make the stopping power comparison. Ammo capacity is a drawback, but there are 30 round detachable mags available for the SKS. I have a few of them, and every one of them had to have the feed lips bent, filed, and/or stoned before they would function reliably.

I have both. Both are very good examples of their respective type. The SKS is a Russian, The AR is a Bushmaster. Both are very accurate, both are very reliable. The SKS, however, is a brick compared to the AR, and that's what I like about it. The SKS is also the simpler of the two designs, is made of more sturdy materials, and is easier to work on.(like you'll ever need to) The SKS will withstand much more neglect and abuse.

UberAmerican
April 16, 2008, 08:10 PM
As I'm reading this discussion, I began to wonder just what sort of situation one would want these rifles for (besides shooting fun). I know some folks out there envision a scenerio with Western Civilization destroyed and bands of decent patriots forced to defend themselves against a government military turned against them:what:. I'm not saying this never could happen-- The names Hitler,Stalin, Castro, etc. remind me that it CAN happen here. In this case, yeah, I'd want an AR with lots and lots of magazines and ammo. ( I still do, but more for fun shooting at paper and steel targets and such).
On the other hand, Others, such as myself, can envision what I think is a much more likely a scenerio - much like the LA riots, Or the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,where civil unrest, or natural or man made disasters disrupt normal law enforcement temporarily.
Can anyone here on this whole website forget the Korean store owners in LA defending themselves and their property on the rooftops with their SKS's and shotguns? (I don't remember any reports of them actually shooting any rioters/looters. It seems just the sight of a determined man with a rifle dissuaded them from atacking). Or the people patrolling their neighborhoods after Katerina to prevent looting? ( Or the New Orleans police confiscating the firearms of citizens?).
In these cases, where one would be guarding one's homes and families, and perhaps assisting police and military relief operations with neighborhood patrols with neighbors, and not "going into battle" with anyone, I think the SKS is the rugged bargain. If the "authorities" did something as bone headed as confiscating weapons, you'd not be out so much money if they took your SKS ( at least the one they knew about:neener:). Then again, for home defense and encouraging troublemakers to "move along", Maybe a Mossberg 500 and a case of OO Buck might be the best buy!
KYPD !

UberAmerican
April 16, 2008, 08:37 PM
As I'm reading this discussion, I began to wonder just what sort of situation one would want these rifles for (besides shooting fun). I know some folks out there envision a scenerio with Western Civilization destroyed and bands of decent patriots forced to defend themselves against a government military turned against them:what:. I'm not saying this never could happen-- The names Hitler,Stalin, Castro, etc. remind me that it CAN happen here. In this case, yeah, I'd want an AR with lots and lots of magazines and ammo. ( I still do, but more for fun shooting at paper and steel targets and such).
On the other hand, Others, such as myself, can envision what I think is a much more likely a scenerio - much like the LA riots, Or the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,where civil unrest, or natural or man made disasters disrupt normal law enforcement temporarily.
Can anyone here on this whole website forget the Korean store owners in LA defending themselves and their property on the rooftops with their SKS's and shotguns? (I don't remember any reports of them actually shooting any rioters/looters. It seems just the sight of a determined man with a rifle dissuaded them from atacking). Or the people patrolling their neighborhoods after Katerina to prevent looting? ( Or the New Orleans police confiscating the firearms of citizens?).
In these cases, where one would be guarding one's homes and families, and perhaps assisting police and military relief operations with neighborhood patrols with neighbors, and not "going into battle" with anyone, I think the SKS is the rugged bargain. If the "authorities" did something as bone headed as confiscating weapons, you'd not be out so much money if they took your SKS ( at least the one they knew about:neener:). Then again, for home defense and encouraging troublemakers to "move along", Maybe a Mossberg 500 and a case of OO Buck might be the best buy!
KYPD !

Neo-Luddite
April 16, 2008, 08:44 PM
Welll, ughh....WHY do we do this...OK.

Given the limitations--if it was only 1 rifle vs. only 1 rifle--a good AR is a better bet. However, if we are talking 3 (or 4 Yugo's) vs. that 1 AR on doomsday--I'd go with the SKS's.

Any single gun can fail and the only TRUE parts source is a complete twin for 100% certainty. Dollar for Dollar, the Yugo is a good deal *IF* bought in pairs or more.

Both is always nice, too.

Ignition Override
April 17, 2008, 12:21 AM
Sarduy: Your SKS is a 'foxy' rifle.

So many people have recommended an SKS with a good higher-cap. magazine.
I just picked up my unfired SKS today and for longer-term options, would the typical Norinco from years ago require difficult or costly work (for a gunsmith) to enable an AK type of mag to operate really well?

I have no idea whether the original 10-rd. mag would also still function very well after such work.
This Norinco has such a rugged, simple, dependable feel to it
(More so than the Mini 14 & 30-but also very dependable ), having only fired twenty rounds through one weeks ago.

What a fun gun!:D
Maybe somebody can create a "Blood plasma for 100 rds. of Wolf ammo" bank.

Only classic combat or military-style rifles for me.

Appaloosa
April 17, 2008, 02:59 AM
Seems I heard this debate somewhere before? Oh yeah every gun forum since the invention of the internet. If there is a god some day AR vs AK vs SKS vs glock vs 1911 vs m14 vs etc,etc,etc will have been discussed so much that everyone else is as bored of it as I am.

I know I cant be alone in feeling this way right?

UberAmerican
April 29, 2008, 09:30 PM
Only way to really end this debate is to advise those who ask to buy one (or two) of each !!!!:rolleyes:

jkingrph
April 29, 2008, 09:34 PM
Got two match/varmit grade AR's Don't have or want an sks or ak

Cmdr. Gravez0r
April 29, 2008, 09:50 PM
In fact, if I ever got shot while holding one, I fully expect the rifle to yell at me in Russian to get up and stop being such a pansy.

I Lol'd

Cmdr. Gravez0r
April 29, 2008, 09:53 PM
OK...I just saw that this thread is three years old...and I feel dirty for having participated in necromancy,

Ignition Override
April 30, 2008, 12:40 AM
UberAmerikaner;

Under what emergency authority did the New Orleans police take away peoples' weapons? What if they said "No"?

Did homeowners just bring them to the door, or did they bring only one (a tough-looking, low-cost Russian rifle), with the police believing that it was the only one?
I can't believe that this was legal, and that they had the time to leave patrols and emergencies.

Wasn't the hurricane an emergency?

sernv99
May 1, 2008, 06:37 AM
I'm thinking about this as well. I was reading on the SKS forum that in order to use 30 round AK clips you must buy a specific SKS model with the designation "A" or something like that.

What SKS rifles will accept the AK magazines without doing any homemade modifications?

UberAmerican
May 9, 2008, 12:44 PM
It happened. NRA has class action lawsuits trying to get gun owners their property back. You Tube has a really disturbing video of New Orlean's finest tackling an elderly woman who was handing over her .38 special, and holding it by the barrel, empty, in her own house, -- because she committed the crime of not evacuating her dry, well supplied home! .. Google "New Orleans gun confiscation".
From "Reason" Magazine:
http://www.reason.com
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html


Defenseless On the Bayou
New Orleans gun confiscation is foolish and illegal

David B. Kopel | September 10, 2005

In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

Last week, thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger. Tuesday's New Orleans Times-Picayune reported some of the grim results, as an Arkansas National Guardsman showed the reporter dozens of bodies rotting in a non-functional freezer.

In the rest of the city, some police officers abandoned their posts, while others joined the looting spree. For several days, the ones who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them. To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses with their own firearms.

These people were operating within their legal rights. The law authorizes citizen's arrests for any felony, and in the past (in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason), a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a legitimate citizen's arrest.

The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens legitimately defending lives and property. New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a car-jacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city's top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.

The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. Yet instead these citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these ones government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation.

The Mayor and Governor do have the legal authority to mandate evacuation, but failure to comply is a misdemeanor; so the authority to use force to compel evacuation goes no further than the power to effect a misdemeanor arrest. The preemptive confiscation of every private firearm in the city far exceeds any reasonable attempt to carry out misdemeanor arrests for persons who disobey orders to leave.

Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Governor Blanco has done), "the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition." But the statute does not, and could not, supersede the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."

The power of "regulating and controlling" is not the same as the power of "prohibiting and controlling." The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language, which refers to "prohibiting" price-gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations, but only to "regulating and controlling" firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent's order "prohibiting" firearms possession is beyond his lawful authority. It is an illegal order.

Last week, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity. Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.

UBER:

Lots more documentation out there. Just because it's not right or legal doesn't mean governments won't do it!

Limeyfellow
May 9, 2008, 02:43 PM
I guess the good thing about the SKS is for the same cost, you can arm 4-5 people with them for the price of one Ar15. They also would be a preferable choice against larger animals and hunting, which is more a problem with animal attacks here, than roving bands of rioters, or you don't have the ability to maintain for weeks on end, which seems unlikely. Most situations the AR15 is far superior however and a much more realistic choice when you have the money.

ScratchnDent
May 9, 2008, 03:28 PM
SKS for me. I envision myself more likely to try to disappear into the wilderness and try to feed myself before engaging in extended firefights with hordes of zombies.

76bronc
May 9, 2008, 05:02 PM
with limited supplys i would take an ak just because of the fact they are not as compex as an ar but if your sniping id be the ar heck withe sks.

juarez
July 10, 2008, 04:30 PM
SKS with fixed 10 round mag.Loose or damange your 30 round AR mag and see what you have-a single shot plastic rifle.Oh yes a very accurate one but still a single shot.For a "grab and go" survival carbine this is the one!Not even getting into the bayonet stuff.

jad0110
July 10, 2008, 04:58 PM
I think whatever rifle you practice with regularly should be your SHTF gun. You want to free as much of your mind as possible for dealing with the problems at hand, rather than expending effort to familiarize yourself with a new gun.

The best answer I've seen in all these posts, IMO.

Just make sure it works, whatever it is.

MCgunner
July 10, 2008, 09:06 PM
Another foil hat thread. :rolleyes:

woad_yurt
July 10, 2008, 10:07 PM
I was in the military when somone in my company let his weapon slide off a field table onto a rock. The plastic forearm (correct term?)around the barrel cracked. I also remember cleaning the things. Not fun.

For crude, self-sustaining-only conditions, I'd go SKS over AR15. I prefer the Norinco Paratrooper model, in particular. They're light & handy and they never complain.

ccsniper
December 12, 2008, 07:08 PM
sks. perfect SHTF, TEOTWAWKI, gun. strippers are fast enough, 10 rounds is plenty. no mags to lose or break, easy to clean and maintain.

jdc1244
December 12, 2008, 10:19 PM
sks. perfect SHTF, TEOTWAWKI, gun.

True – if we all had to do a ‘Red Dawn’ and live in the dirt the ARs would eventually have to be abandoned.

Ohio Gun Guy
December 12, 2008, 10:22 PM
AR! There are only 2 negatives compaired to the sks (IMO). The sks makes a better club if your out of ammo and cost. Otherwise, I think an AR wins most other catagories.

That said, if the question was bang for the buck. What gun doesnt beat the SKS?

I still say all things being equal, I would take an AR, given the question asked.

flyboy1788
December 12, 2008, 11:25 PM
even if i didnt own an AR, I would still chose it over an SKS in a heartbeat.

flyboy1788
December 12, 2008, 11:29 PM
True – if we all had to do a ‘Red Dawn’ and live in the dirt the ARs would eventually have to be abandoned.

If we all had to do a red dawn and live in the dirt, we would have A LOT bigger and scarier problems to deal with than dirt getting in our firearms. Maybe tanks, trained soldiers with body armour, halftracks, APCs, helicopters, landmines, grenades. That is if you want to take the Red Dawn route ;)

Paladin_Hammer
December 12, 2008, 11:31 PM
Well, when talking about SHTF situations, you always have to remember the possibility that its a zombie survival situation. :p

In that case, the SKS. Accurate enough under 100 yards, cheap, powerful, and reliable .My cousin has one, he once asked "what do you mean by oiling and lubing the rifle? Its a rifle, not a car!". That is after he shoved over 1000 rounds through it. All he ever did was clean the barrel, everything else was never touched. That included the piston, firing pin, and bolt group.

SHvar
December 13, 2008, 02:05 AM
Id take the AR hands down for any situation over an SKS. Id take an AK over an SKS anyday. The AR is what a rifle is supposed to be, accurate.
The AR is far more realistic, 100 times as accurate, twice as light, carries more ammo.
Of course if I was clubbing someone to death, Id just take their AK or SKS from them and do so.
Id take my mini-14 over an SKS in any situation also.
Not too many years ago a relative bought an SKS (Russian made, new in crate) and an AK (Russian made new in crate and both covered in thick cosmoline). The SKS was only $65-$75, and the AK was around $200 or less. Both are clumsy, heavy, cheap, noisey, and inaccurate, but better quality and better looking than any Ive seen from other countries.

ConstantineJ9
December 13, 2008, 02:12 AM
SKS, even if the ar is more acurate why go 223 when you can have 7.62.39? Because the ar looks cool?

BHP FAN
December 13, 2008, 02:34 AM
SKS.Because I never trained on the M-16 but I can field strip an SKS,in the dark,blindfolded,with my [I]feet.OK,I kid,but really they're VERY simple.

RoostRider
December 13, 2008, 03:18 AM
I have both and have used both extensively....

I would take either and be relatively happy that I was about as protected as the other would make me.... but I would prefer the AR for lots of reasons... weight, ammo, accuracy, and capacity to name a few

ConstantineJ9
December 13, 2008, 03:32 AM
What about on medium to large game? And you can only have one of the two?

d2wing
December 13, 2008, 11:23 AM
I have both, If just one, the AR no doubt. More effective range, better handling, Lighter, much more accurate, better made. Not as useful as a club
and the ammo is less effective against a harder target than an SKS. But either is better than many others. The SKS may take more abuse but I don't abuse my weapons.

d2wing
December 13, 2008, 11:39 AM
J9, if you are that concerned get a Garand or M14. Neither one should be used on really big game. On deer size game the advantage the 7.62x39 has, is
more than offset by lack of accuracy at useful hunting ranges. Although I have killed large bucks with both. No I don't want to from anyone with dark age ideas about ballistics and no experience. See my photos and argue with them.

SHvar
December 13, 2008, 12:23 PM
Ive seen deer brought down by many .223 (the 5.56x45 is more potent, and a bit different in size, etc)at distances of 300 meters plus, I bet you would be hard pressed to get the 7.62x39 to hit anything aside from a barn at that distance. At that distance a 7.62x39 may not have enough force left to even do any damage.
The 2 cartridges do better at different distances. Why do you think the Russians got rid of the 7.62x39 and replaced it with a 5.45x39, to get the many more advantages of the smaller higher velocity round, which still does not perform as well as the 5.56x45 at longer distances.
If your goal is the cheapest wall of lead you can put up bar none, then get an AK-47. If you like the SKS for the way it looks, and because you want one, then get it.
There is no justifiable reason that the SKS would be better than an AR period, the 2 were made for 2 different purposes. The AR was made as a primary US combat rifle, a modern design, made to fix many long time problems inherant in combat rifles made before it. The SKS was a temporary fill-in until design, tooling, then production of the AK-47 was ready, and it could be distribuited.

flyboy1788
December 13, 2008, 12:25 PM
Constantinej9, you know what they say, it doesnt matter what size bullet you are shooting if you can't hit what you are aiming at. ;) Shot placement is more important than bullet weight and size any day of the week.

ConstantineJ9
December 13, 2008, 04:26 PM
What about a brown/black/grizzly bear? Then which bullet would you prefer(out of the two mentioned)?

Clint C
December 13, 2008, 04:55 PM
A High school Marine friend of mine freshly back from Iraq And Afghanistan said they would have to shoot their enemy about six times to kill them with their m-16 or AR-15 what ever you want to call it.

That made my mind up making me think the .223 does not have the nock down power the 7.62x39 has. Of course they can't use hollow points or anything but full metal jackets. On another note if you use hollow points in a .223 you couldn't penetrate a piece of grass making it not worth having in a shtf situation.

Only good thing about AR-15 is you can carry more ammo with you if you are going on patroll.

Only problem I can see with the SKS is it might not be as acurate as the AR-15. Of course My Yugo that I had was plenty acurate for a shtf situation.

ConstantineJ9
December 13, 2008, 04:56 PM
+1 7.62.39 all the way

Clint C
December 13, 2008, 05:16 PM
Just to add a few more things.

You guys are screaming "shot placement" at three to four hundred yards your .223 is going to bounce off a human skull not a 7.62x39.

Yes I can hit targets at 300-400 yards with a Yugo SKS.

Heavier bullets have more energy at greater distances. in your AR-15 you will be shooting 60 grain bullets. In a SKS more than likely 125 grains. you do the math.

The only reason any army would switch to a lighter bullet is so you can pack more ammo and equipment on a soldier.

AK-47s are very reliable but over all are a piece of crap machine gun and not worth having. AR-15/m-16 piece of crap but are ok if you want a cool looking rifle used for compitition shooting, show off to your friends, or kill an animal and look cool doing it in front of your friends.

If you want a real rifle get an M-14. Great reliable rifle and a strong caliber.

One more thing the SKS has just as many add ons as an AR-15 does. just do a google on it.

Not trying to start a pissing match but this is my strong opinion.

Domino
December 13, 2008, 06:00 PM
I'd rather have 4 or 5 SKS's than 1 or 2 AR-15's. Dollar for dollar the SKS wins hands down.

If it comes down to one of each, it going to be difficult to beat the AR unless its up against an SKS M which takes AK mags...

SoCalShooter
December 13, 2008, 10:10 PM
My next child will be named Bushmaster...but I stay up on my Chinese so I can talk to my SKS's. :)

Ignition Override
December 14, 2008, 12:16 AM
Would the bullet from an SKS go at least as far as a bullet from a Mini 30?

Check the Youtube video and type "Mini 30 420 yards". It should be on the first page to appear.
The bullet loses lots of energy at 420 yards, but he hits fairly consistently by a target on a dusty Kali hill.
He has no visible gimmicks ("auxiliary systems") such as a barrel stiffener etc, just a scope.

Tomorrow, a very large enemy pumpkin:evil: and nine cheap, waterborne insurgent grapefruits will be ambushed by a highly-trained novice (using only modern iron sights :scrutiny:while standing at 50-80 feet). This one-way mission is only for the fearless.
To "exfil", a hazardous 15-yard march near hibernating cottonmouth snakes (more terrifying than kraits or bamboo vipers) is required to reach the extraction point. No smoke allowed at the Toyota LZ.

Minis, MN 44s, SKS: only the best weapons for our elite forces in harm's way.

gunmaker2872
December 14, 2008, 01:34 AM
Well, hands down bushmaster AR 15 period, i own several sks and ar's and there is no comparison, other good survival guns would be a ruger charger or a 10 22 converted into 17hm2, or a kel tec sub 2000. all of wich i own among others

http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo241/jbmovingservice/1227767925.jpg

http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo241/jbmovingservice/newsksak47005.jpg

http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo241/jbmovingservice/IMAGE_210.jpg

http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo241/jbmovingservice/Photo_092508_002.jpg

http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo241/jbmovingservice/ar15.jpg

d2wing
December 14, 2008, 10:36 PM
J9, as I said before, neither is very good for dangerous big game. I wouldn't go grizzly hunting with a sks or for sure. If you do, scratch your name on your belt buckle so people know which pile of bear scat is you.
A black bear is different, but I wouldn't shoot one anyway. I know guys that
bow hut bears too. But to each his own.
My point is, If you plan on hunting bear you really should use a more powerful cartridge than either ar or sks.

dogngun
December 15, 2008, 12:45 PM
Well, I can have all I want, and I have 2 SKS's, bith Chinese, and a FAL. I have no problems with the AR, but I like a little larger bullet, and the price of the 3 rifles I own combined is less than t good AR.

SKS is very simple, very rugged, and I have yet to have a FTF in either one in the several years I have owned them.

They FAL is just a great rifle,IMO, and in a class with the M 14.

Really hard to go wrong with any of the choices you listed.

mark

nathan
December 15, 2008, 12:50 PM
Give me a case of Yugo in strippers and id be happy for life. My Yugo M 59 is hungry as always.

mongo4567
December 15, 2008, 02:46 PM
I would pick the SKS over the AR, assuming we were talking about a 5.56 AR. Cost would not be a factor; my choice is about reliability and the effectiveness of standard ammunition.

scottishclaymore
February 20, 2009, 11:59 AM
Is not SKS? Is poodle shooter.

In Mother Russia, my SKS is breaking you.

m4joey94
February 20, 2009, 12:42 PM
Ar-15. sks isnt bad, i just prefer the ar15.

If you enjoyed reading about "AR-15 vs SKS Poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!