AK vs, SKS


PDA






stevereno1
November 8, 2007, 12:37 AM
I believe that the 223 is a weak round, suited for prarie dogs. I want a defense rifle, and have been looking at the ak platform versus the sks(modified, of course) my budget will allow from $400-$700. I would not rule out a .308 autoloader, but they can get a bit pricey. Help!

If you enjoyed reading about "AK vs, SKS" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tnieto2004
November 8, 2007, 12:40 AM
I have a WASR 10 that has been flawless

nwilliams
November 8, 2007, 12:49 AM
If you want a modified SKS then you might as well buy an AK.

So many people buy SKS's and then try to make them look like AK's when in actuality they end up with a less reliable SKS and still end up longing for an AK.

Not only that they spend as much money on replacement "tacticool" parts to make it look like an AK that they might as well have bought one to begin with.

If you want an SKS then buy one, if you want an AK then buy that. Best option is to just buy both and start with the one you really want most. For a budget of up to $700 you could easily get both with money left over to buy ammo and mags.

For home defense an AK would be my choice over the SKS, maybe a WASR underfolder.

Just my 2

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 12:57 AM
Don't waste money modifying an sks. You really need to check every hicap sks mag in your sks to see if they will even work right. PITA
You can save a lot of money and have a better rifle with a AK.
My advice is look for a used Vepr. Excellent rifles. They have thicker receivers and as a consequence shoot better. Made in Russia and have excellent finishs.
The modified SKS is just a poor man's AK it doesn't do anything any better.

RobTzu
November 8, 2007, 01:02 AM
A SKS would stand up to a ban better than an AK. AKs are evil don't you know?

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 01:07 AM
A SKS would stand up to a ban better than an AK. AKs are evil don't you know?
If you already own it then it is grandfathered. So why wouldn't you buy it before they ban it?

elmerfudd
November 8, 2007, 01:24 AM
For that price you can get a Yugo, Vector, Lancaster or a DIY Saiga. All of them are decent AK's.

Going the SKS route doesn't make as much sense. The SKS works best as an ultra low budget fighting rifle. For $350 you can get a Yugo SKS, stripper clips and a full case of ammo. You'll have a rifle that will do an adequate job of defending your castle in an emergency and enough ammo to become proficient with it. When you start modifying the SKS however the price goes up and the rifle doesn't really get any better. SKS's don't take optics well. If you add high cap mags they have these awkward duckbills on them and they are hard to change out. What's more, the majority of them are not reliable.

jpwilly
November 8, 2007, 01:25 AM
Get a WASR 10, an SKS, and a case of ammo - you'll have spent your $700.

Anteater1717
November 8, 2007, 01:40 AM
I say buy a Saiga .308 or 7.62x39 they are usually between $200 and $350, and then spend the rest on ammo and magazines.

http://www.raacfirearms.com/rifles.htm

RockyMtnTactical
November 8, 2007, 01:43 AM
Saiga

Frog48
November 8, 2007, 01:48 AM
If you get an SKS, just leave it original. It isnt worth the time, money, and frustration to try to make one into an AK-wannabe.

You can get a Romanian WASR for around $350, so I'd start there.

stevereno1
November 8, 2007, 01:56 AM
what's a wasr?

stevereno1
November 8, 2007, 01:57 AM
I had a nice sks with the 16" barrel, and the plastic stock, 30 round fixed mag, and sold it for $300 years ago. you say that I can get a quality ak-47 for $500? where?

Frog48
November 8, 2007, 02:03 AM
www.atlanticfirearms.com has all sorts of AK's in that price range.

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 02:54 AM
If you don't like the parts you can upgrade into folding stocks, poly furniture, wood furniture and even triggers with a lot more options than an sks.

1lostinspace
November 8, 2007, 03:16 AM
Actually .223 fmj has better terminal ballistics then 7.62x39 fmj to about 150 yards.
But when it comes to SP the 7.62x39 is far more powerful.
I load Barnuel Soft points but the cheap wolf SP will do a great job as well.
Do your self a favor get an AK the sks is not up to par.

Wasr are the bottom of the barrel but tend to work great I have shot a few and are almost as good as my $800 ak.

jimmyraythomason
November 8, 2007, 03:23 AM
Another option would be a Ruger Mini-30. Around $430.00 at Wal-Mart. High capacity mags are readily available.

jrfoxx
November 8, 2007, 08:08 AM
I have a WASR 10 that has been flawless

Ditto here.

Don't waste money modifying an sks.
Agreed again, based on my experiance with 4 sks's I've owned and played with here and there to see what I could do with them.

Limeyfellow
November 8, 2007, 11:12 AM
I perfer to keep the SKS basically in the same shape. Just slap on a Tech-Sight rear peep sight, bed it and clean up the trigger and you have a really reliable, fairly accurate weapon, for not much of an investment. There are people who turned the SKS into a sub-moa shooting machine. Mine right now does closer to 2 moa, and sometimes a little better.

I still like my Yugo M70 ak though. It's short and handy and easily tucked out of the way.

rugbyer81
November 8, 2007, 11:38 AM
stevereno- A WASR is a Romanian variant of the AK rifle. They have been criticized for being cheap and poorly made, however mine only needed slight modifications before it performed fine. Rounds would not feed into the chamber from the magazine in mine, so I grinded down the bottom lip of the chamber, and now it feeds completely reliably. I've only put about 80 rounds through mine so far, but i've heard it may take a couple hundred before the rifle "loosens up." My first magazine would not cycle rounds, the bolt would stay open every shot. By the last few shots, it was cycling perfectly. Thats just how these guns are, need to be broken in.

Pete409
November 8, 2007, 12:18 PM
"If you already own it then it is grandfathered. So why wouldn't you buy it before they ban it?"


Don't count on it. There have been numerous instances in which firearms were completely legal until a new law was passed. Then they suddenly became illegal. That type thing has happened before, and it could happen again.

Pete409
November 8, 2007, 12:24 PM
"Another option would be a Ruger Mini-30. Around $430.00 at Wal-Mart."

I think that your price is WAY out of date. I checked at several Wal-Marts recently for a Mini-14 and they started at about $600. The Mini-30 was even more expensive.

If you can buy a new one for $430, I suggest you jump on that deal.

Agouti
November 8, 2007, 01:43 PM
Buy an SKS that takes AK mags from the factory.

I didn't buy an SKS wanting an AK, I bought an SKS wanting something that I can actually hit stuff with. For the most part, the accuracy of an AK is quite poor. Death, Taxes, and the inaccuracy of the AK are all facts of life. Some people jog, take vitamins, and cheat the IRS. You can try this too. You can run but you can't hide. Maybe you can get the AK down to 2-3 MOA if you spend some crazy money modding it. But it will never catch up to that slight edge the SKS has on it in accuracy. Of course, the SKS is no tack driver either.

Or you could simply buy an AK-74 and wonder why that is so much more accurate compared to an AK. Or maybe try and find a type 81. 1.78 inches or less at 100 yards, and takes 7.62x39. Good luck finding one anywhere around here though.

Loanshark
November 8, 2007, 01:46 PM
Why would you buy a mini 30/14 when a saiga is so much cheaper.... IMHO they're better too...

I'd recommend a saiga .308... if you do allot of plinking the 7.62 soviet would be a better (cheaper) option.

Cosmoline
November 8, 2007, 01:54 PM
The less you do to an SKS, the better. If you prefer the AK platform, get it. I'm really liking the Norinco "Paratroop" model. It's more accurate than any AK I've had and has better ergonomics.

JHansenAK47
November 8, 2007, 02:05 PM
Don't count on it. There have been numerous instances in which firearms were completely legal until a new law was passed. Then they suddenly became illegal. That type thing has happened before, and it could happen again.
Right that's why California banned "assault rifles" but set up registration for preexisting rifles that you could retain but not transfer.
Last I checked you couldn't buy an AR15 in Cali but registered guns were in no danger of seizure. All they had were rules on transfer of ownership. What about machine guns. If you read HR 1022 it has a grandfather clause too.

benEzra
November 8, 2007, 03:10 PM
As others have said, if you don't like the SKS as it is, then what you really want is a civilian AK. LEGALLY modifying an SKS can get expensive, and they're not nearly as cheap to start with as they used to be.

Here's my Romanian SAR-1, FWIW (older Romanian AK variant):

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1168567538/med_gallery_260_23_20379.jpg

wisocki
November 8, 2007, 11:10 PM
AK kicks the pants off of sks. Get an AK from Arsenal Inc. Trust me.

1lostinspace
November 8, 2007, 11:20 PM
why would anyone want a SKS over an AK?

I owned a SKS and they are what they are.
Again why would anyone compare one of the most dependable proven and manufactured assault rifles for something that shoots 10 rounds and jams and jams with 30 rounders not to mention changing mags is a pain. There is no argument here get your self the AK.

Bartkowski
November 8, 2007, 11:20 PM
The AK seems to be better for your situation because its smaller and easier to use for HD/SD and accepts hi capacity magazines without modification. An SKS is best left stock anyway.

Again why would anyone compare one of the most dependable proven and manufactured assault rifles for something that shoots 10 rounds and jams and jams with 30 rounders not to mention changing mags is a pain. There is no argument here get your self the AK.

If you don't use cheap detachable mags and your SKS is in working condition, you should have no problems with it. And the price of a quality SKS is generally less than a quality AK. And I don't know of any SD situations that involve the person defending themselfs and shooting 30 rounds, then reloading, shooting more..........

1lostinspace
November 8, 2007, 11:24 PM
Right that's why California banned "assault rifles" but set up registration for preexisting rifles that you could retain but not transfer.
Last I checked you couldn't buy an AR15 in Cali but registered guns were in no danger of seizure. All they had were rules on transfer of ownership. What about machine guns. If you read HR 1022 it has a grandfather clause too.

I bought 2 ar15 and 2 AK's you can get what ever you want in cali you just need to know the laws and the right people to make it happen if your in souther cali I might be able to help

1lostinspace
November 8, 2007, 11:52 PM
If you don't use cheap detachable mags and your SKS is in working condition, you should have no problems with it. And the price of a quality SKS is generally less than a quality AK. And I don't know of any SD situations that involve the person defending themselfs and shooting 30 rounds, then reloading, shooting more..........

are you serious?

dstorm1911
November 9, 2007, 12:55 AM
AK, In particular Century built (or actually farmed out to be built) Yugo M70AB2 they start at around $450 up to $500 leaves ya $200 for a case of ammo

JHansenAK47
November 9, 2007, 12:59 AM
I bought 2 ar15 and 2 AK's you can get what ever you want in cali you just need to know the laws and the right people to make it happen if your in souther cali I might be able to help
No i'm in Utah I can get whatever I want, but thanks. I was just giving a response saying that rifles aren't seized after a gun ban on a specific rifle takes effect. So the danger of having your rifle seized is unlikely. (Unless they repeal the 2nd amendment and that better not happen until my great grandkids are dead) My point was that they made laws against transfer of ownership so it is a PITA, but no seizures.

1lostinspace
November 9, 2007, 01:05 AM
i remember when wasr 10 were $315 at aimsurplus.com

Frog48
November 9, 2007, 01:18 AM
i remember when wasr 10 were $315 at aimsurplus.com

They're still only $339 at www.militarygunsupply.com

I picked one up a couple months ago, and I like it alot. It compliments my other military style guns nicely.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/SigEpGrant/Outdoors/Firearms/M4AKSKS.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/SigEpGrant/Outdoors/Firearms/AK47.jpg

Pete409
November 9, 2007, 12:12 PM
Those who think that ALL guns that are legally owned and possessed now will forever remain legal due to some "grandfather" clause had better think again. Here is a quote from http://www.gunowners.org/fs0202.htm that shows otherwise.

------------------------------------------------------------

"Registration and Confiscation

But why all the fuss about gun owner registration? Quite simply, gun registration has been used -- even in this country -- to later confiscate firearms. One such instance occurred in New York City just a few years ago.

It all began with promises made by New York City officials in the mid-1960s. They wanted to register long guns, over the vocal opposition of the city's gun owners. The city fathers promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.

Gun owners were ordered to get rid of their newly-banned firearms. Those who didn't comply were subject to having their firearms taken away.

For example, the Daily News reported in 1992 that "police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms.... Spot checks are planned [for other homes.]"30

New York City officials do not hold a monopoly when it comes to showing bad faith.

California passed a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms in 1989. Banned guns could be legally possessed if they were registered prior to the ban. In the spring of 1995, one man who wished to move to California asked the Attorney General whether his SKS Sporter rifle would be legal in the state. The citizen was assured the rifle was legal, and based on that information, he subsequently moved into the state. But in 1998, California officials reversed course and confiscated the firearm.31

Since then, documents leaked from the office of the California Attorney General have showed that state officials were planning a mass-confiscation of privately owned firearms from citizens who had previously registered their guns.32

The semi-automatic firearms in question were registered with the state pursuant to former Attorney General Dan Lungren's instructions. Lungren had granted an amnesty to thousands of gun owners and allowed them to register their guns after the initial deadline for doing so had lapsed.33

Despite the good faith shown by gun owners, the California government later ordered these gun owners to dispose of their weapons.

How did the authorities know whom to contact to notify them to turn in their weapons? The registration lists, of course.

This proves the point that the ultimate goal of registration is to facilitate confiscation."

esmith
November 9, 2007, 08:16 PM
i remember when wasr 10 were $315 at aimsurplus.com

They are 280 at my local dunhams, new i believe too.

Again why would anyone compare one of the most dependable proven and manufactured assault rifles for something that shoots 10 rounds

Because an sks costs half of what a WASR 10 will. Also sks' don't frequently jam, unless you are using ****ty duckbill detachable magazines, which are pretty much impractical in the first place when its going to cost more than getting an AK.

If you are looking for a HD rifle, then make it the AK. A plinker or cheap shooter, SKS.

benEzra
November 9, 2007, 10:17 PM
Because an sks costs half of what a WASR 10 will.
Not anymore. At the last gun show I attended (a few weeks ago), Saigas weren't much more than Yugo SKS's, and SKS's were at least 2/3 the cost of WASR's.

You're right about the reliability aspect, though; SKS's are quite reliable in my experience.

esmith
November 9, 2007, 10:22 PM
Not anymore. At the last gun show I attended (a few weeks ago), Saigas weren't much more than Yugo SKS's, and SKS's were at least 2/3 the cost of WASR's.

Well last weekend i bought a Yugo for 160 when there were WASR 10s going upwards of 350 dollars. This too was at a gunshow. The sks is in good condition too. There was a rail for scopes that was drilled into the side of the recieve with a little wood chipped off so that it would fit. I made quick work to remove it.

1lostinspace
November 10, 2007, 02:12 PM
there is no argument the AK replaced the sks in 1947 and has been in service till this day with over 50 country's the SKS is not even used by insurgents.

I think the SKS is a great rifle but not the killing machine the AK is.
I would save a little to go from the bottom of the barrel to the top of the food chain.

1lostinspace
November 10, 2007, 02:16 PM
Because an sks costs half of what a WASR 10 will. Also sks' don't frequently jam, unless you are using ****ty duckbill detachable magazines, which are pretty much impractical in the first place when its going to cost more than getting an AK.

I live in California there are SKS everywhere. They jam with any High cap mag and to reload a mag takes holding the bolt back and juggling mag and gun.
I bought my AK about 2 months ago and have put my $1300 AR's away

esmith
November 10, 2007, 05:47 PM
They jam with any High cap mag and to reload a mag takes holding the bolt back and juggling mag and gun.


Doing hi cap mag conversions costs a lot and usually isn't worth it. If done correctly however they shouldn't jam as much as you say. Its most likely because they are using duckbill mags which are of low quality.

Magnum88C
November 10, 2007, 05:58 PM
I want a defense rifle, and have been looking at the ak platform versus the sks(modified, of course) my budget will allow from $400-$700

OK, flat out forget the SKS if you're going to mod it. The SKS is every bit as reliabl;e as an AK until you start screwing with it. The SKS also makes a great truck gun, because it's cheap (just in gun shop yesterday, a NEW Yugo SKS was $179, a WASR-10 was $380), and ammo is cheap.

Your stated purpose is defense. The AK wins, hands down.
If you can fins a Yugo AK, you should be able to get it, a 4-pack of magazines and 1k of 7.62x39 for a little under your $700 ceiling. Buy a WASR and you can probably get another 1k of ammo.

I have both a WASR and Yugo, both are just as reliable as the other. The Yugo is a little more accurate, with its heavier barrel and 1.5mm receiver, versus the WASR's standard barrel and 1mm receiver. The WASR is quite a bit lighter.

jimmyraythomason
November 13, 2007, 06:26 PM
Pete409. You are correct sir! I went to our local Wal-Mart today (11/13/07)for the purpose of pricing the Ruger Mini. They only had one in blue/wood, couldn't see from the distance if it was a Mini 14 or Mini 30(never can find a clerk!). The price was $583.00. I stand corrected.

goon
November 13, 2007, 06:40 PM
The SKS has generally served me better. I'm not really a marksman but when I am in practice I begin to notice the deficiencies of the AK in terms of accuracy. I never had that problem with the SKS - offhand headshots at 100 yards were pretty routine.

But if you want high capacity anyhow, just get the AK. You really can't make an SKS into an AK and if an AK is what you really want you will never be happy with something else anyhow. So get the one you want.

jimmyraythomason
November 13, 2007, 07:07 PM
My personal choice (between AK and SKS) would be the SKS. A shorter barrel version of the SKS can be maneuvered as easily as an AK. The only advantage an AK would have is magazine capacity and 10 rounds should be sufficient(most of the time NO shots will be fired). My choice is SKS and a lot of practice ammo.

roscoe
November 14, 2007, 12:39 AM
The big advantages of the SKS:

You can add a TechSight, which gives an M16 peep-sight and adds almost a foot of sight radius, hence increasing accuracy (this is the ONLY mod you should make, IMHO).

You don't have to worry about buying lot of expensive magazines - stripper clips are .50 each.

You don't have to worry about losing your stripper clips or magazines - you can manually load 10 rounds pretty fast, if necessary, and the gun will not know the difference. An AK without a magazine is single-shot.

The lack of a big magazine means you can get pron(er).

It s CA friendly.

Wolfgang2000
November 14, 2007, 01:00 AM
I have both, and like both. But they are different. The lack of a need for magazines does give the SKS a little advantage as far as logistic are concerned. My SKS's (they are all short bbl Chi-com) are more accurate than the AK. If I had to have just 1 it would be the SKS simply because of the logistics.

Mr. Wilson
November 14, 2007, 01:09 AM
I have used both M-16 and AK47/74 in combat. The AK is great in combat. Not a tack driver but most likely the best battle rifle the world has ever seen. Just my 2 cents. Never used an SKS in combat but shot one several times a great cheap rifle. One year I gave them out for xmas presents. Last year I gave AK's the AK's got bigger smiles!:)

MMcfpd
November 14, 2007, 01:18 AM
What's it take to get on your Christmas list?

bang_bang
November 14, 2007, 01:21 AM
You can't go wrong with either an SKS or an AK. SKS is a little more accurate. I have a 30 round detachable on mine, had to do some filing to the magazine to get it to feed properly. The gun has never jammed or stove-piped and is cleaned extensively after every shooting, even if it's just a couple of rounds. My advise would be to stay away from a Yugo is you do get an SKS. The gas valve for the grenade launcher could end up being a pain. But it would be a nice project like my old one, makes you get more acquainted with the rifle.

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