[Newton]

Having just picked up a Yugo SKS, I found myself wondering just how I would feel carrying this rifle in actual combat.

This version is long in the barrel because of the grenade launcher, and is restricted to 10 rounds as with all the standard fixed magazine models.

Other than that it seems like you could do a lot worse, what do you guys think, would you take one over any of the other leading "main battle rifles" of the 1950's onwards.

[Smoke]

Yes, you could do a lot worse...but you could also do a lot better.

I had a SKS. It was fun and cheap to shoot.

But I felt like a traitor carrying communist bloc weapons. I also prefer the accuracy of an AR. So I traded the SKS on a good AR and have lived happily ever after.

[Al Thompson]

Considering the standards of the day, out to 200m or so you probably can't do much better. If I was in a desert environment, the full size MBR would be more reassuring.

The SKS worked pretty well for the bad guys in Vietnam.

[cool45auto]

I'd feel pretty comfortable carrying my SKS in battle. It hasn't given me any problems so far and groups pretty good for a 44 year old rifle. I'll just have to make sure I have plenty of stripper clips!

[dude]

I feel very well armed with my shorty 'stock' (10 round) SKS

[Dain Bramage]

Do I get rifle grenades too? :)

[MiniZ]

I'd feel fine with an SKS, if I was budget constrained. If finances allow, keep the SKS for fun, and add an MBR or intermediate round carbine to the mix.

[enichols]

If an SKS were all I had on hand or if it was issued to me, I would probably feel fine carrying it into combat. I can hit a man-sized steel target at 200 yards in the standing position fairly easily, so I think I could do fairly well with it. Weight isn't too bad, it's a reliable rifle, you can carry more stripper clips than you can magazines and I can load a stripper clip pretty much as fast as I can change a box magazine.

However:
Other than that it seems like you could do a lot worse, what do you guys think, would you take one over any of the other leading "main battle rifles" of the 1950's onwards.
Since you asked this question, I'd have to say that given the choice I'd probably take an M1 Garand or an M14 over an SKS. More accurate out to longer distances, better sights and they are more comfortable to hold and shoot (for me).

[Mannlicher]

Newton, I think you would be better served with your SKS than with a bolt gun like a M44 Russian or old SMLE.

[Dave Markowitz]

I would not feel undergunned with an SKS. It's good out to a couple hundred yards, which covers 90% or more of real combat. It's utterly reliable and packs a decent wallop. You can reload quickly with the stripper clips if you've practiced beforehand.

Heck, I wouldn't feel undergunned with my pet No.4 Mk.I, but that's a different ball of wax. :)

[cslinger]

Define combat.

Now if I was going to war with a modern army or even a second rate army I would much rather have something more modern, higher capacity, lighter, more accurate etc.

Now if you are talking about SHTF rifle for the average civillian I need the gun as a last resort kind of thing I think it would be great. As a matter of fact I have a couple hundred rounds on stripper clips in a chest pack ready to go for mine just for that reason. Stripper clips don't weaken like magazine springs. Now if I had time to load magazines etc. I would take the AK or AR. but my SKS is my grab and go fast weapon.

Like I said, pitched battle against a trained military no way. Post apocalyptic fight off the mutants and crazies SHTF rifle. Heck yea, not to mention that bayonet is scary looking.

[Sir Galahad]

Nothing wrong at all with "communist bloc" weapons. (Some people forget the Cold War has been over for 10 years now.:rolleyes: Besides, the BIGGEST communists live in the United States and Western Europe now. As far as "traitors" go, the biggest traitor of the latter 20th century United States was actually its president for two terms and he probably never held a SKS in his life.) The SKS is a fine weapon. It has made plenty of believers and fed plenty of ravens.

[DMK]

I like shooting the SKS and every one I have is 100% reliable and very easy to maintain. Just don't get confused, the SKS is not an MBR, it's a carbine. It's certainly more powerful than an M1 carbine though and not any harder to shoot although the sights aren't as good.

I'd rather have a Romanian, Russian or Chinese than a Yugo 59/66 though. They are more carbine like, being lighter and shorter. My beat up Romanian with a Chinese fiberglass jungle stock is very light, handy and one of my favorite shooters.

Loading strippers gets easy with practice and I can shoot the SKS a lot better than my SAR. To be fair though, I haven't had the SAR nearly as long.

The AK would be better for CQB for sure though with it's shorter stock and 16" barrel.

[OEF_VET]

I just got a Norinco SKS today. I finally took the plunge and traded my Universal M-1 Carbine for it. The M-1 was sitting around collecting dust because it's a little too expensive for me to shoot with my current financial situation. The SKS, being chambered for the same round as my SAR-1, will be a bit more economical to shoot. I didn't intend to trade for an SKS, it just worked out that way.

I've had a Russian SKS in the past, and was less than impressed with it. I experienced several slam fires, with the scariest being the rifle blasting a hole 3 feet in front of my toes when the bolt was released (safety on BTW). However, ya'll SKS fanatics have done it, you've convinced me to give them another try.

Would I feel undergunned or poorly armed in a combat scenario with just an SKS? There are weapons I'd always prefer to have, an M-4/M-16 or an Ak being top of the list. However, if an SKS was all that was available, I'd carry it without reservation, that is until I smoked somebody with an AK or M-4/16! Mostly, it boils down to operator, not equipment. If you're well-trained, competent, and know the limits of yourself and your hardware, you'll be ahead of the game. It's when you start thinking that your SKS is a sub-MOA, 700 yard sniper rifle that you start getting into trouble. As long as you use it as it was intended, that is as a close to intermediate range, fighting rifle, you'll be good to go.

Frank

[JohnKSa]

I think an SKS is an excellent weapon.

I'd take it over a Garand on weight, length, capacity, recoil, cost and cost of ammo.

IMO, for the distances that an iron sight gun gets used, the SKS will outperform the Garand in a practical situation.

For handiness, it's hard to beat. Easier to shoot from the prone position than an AK.

[HIPOWER]

SKS is one of my favorite rifles. Inexpensive, reliable and indestructable. Ammo is cheap as all get out and it has the ballistics of a 30-30 which isn't too shabby. It is a great SHTF rifle.

[SodaPop]

My #1 go-to rifle is my SKS.

I don't keep loaded rifles around the house but I can load my SKS faster than any other rifle.

Whenever I go camping my SKS goes with me................

[4v50 Gary]

SKS is fine for home defense. Sure I'd feel well armed. Remember, blast a bad guy and it goes into police property as evidence. It's cheaper to pick up another SKS than a pre-ban Colt M-forgery with Aimpoint red dot sights.

[MagKnightX]

As to the "traitor" remark, I collect old Soviet memorabilia, have many of their medals, a few garments and such, and would much prefer an AK and an SKS to an AR-15 (but let's not get into this argument now), and I would also prefer to keep my Nagant than to give it up for a Springfield. I am, however, one of the most conservative, libertarian people you could hope to meet. Am I a traitor?

Anyhoo, I would much prefer to hump an M-60 with a few belts and boxes into combat than use an assault rifle, and I'd much rather use an assault rifle than an SKS, but if I was trained well on it and could use it accurately, I would not feel outgunned.

[Engineer]

The SKS also makes a great car/truck gun for those in states that don't allow loaded mags. Just keep the ammo on strippers and in the event of an emergency, the SKS can be loaded and operational in just a few seconds.

[russlate]

For those who got them bought pre ban, I substituted the 20 round fixed mags and then tweaked them to work reliably.

A Norinco paratrooper with Butler Creek stock and 20 round fixed mag reminds me of the perrenial farmer's "gun behind the truck seat": the bolt action Savage 340 - in 30-30. So sweet since they are cheap, so nice performing that you take care of them.

[Smoke]

QUOTE]Nothing wrong at all with "communist bloc" weapons. (Some people forget the Cold War has been over for 10 years now.[/QUOTE]

Ok. Then how about "the SKS and AK is the preferred weapon of middle eastern terroists?"

Besides, the BIGGEST communists live in the United States and Western Europe now

Point taken.

the biggest traitor of the latter 20th century United States was actually its president for two terms

Amen. ( I may be losing ground here:) )

I am, however, one of the most conservative, libertarian people you could hope to meet. Am I a traitor?

No, I said "I" felt like a traitor.[

[DMK]

Then how about "the SKS and AK is the preferred weapon of middle eastern terroists?" That's actually a compliment. It shows that they are cheap and reliable in bad conditions.

Terrorists and rebels don't have brand loyalty. They get whatever they can on their low budgets and stick with it if it works. BTW: M1 Carbines, and Thompson SMGs are used by a lot of rebels and terrorists also.

[El Rojo]

Yes.

[Vic303]

Would you feel well armed with an SKS ? Yes.
Are there better rifles? Yes.
For under $200? Not in semi-auto...to my knowledge.
Are there other rifles I'd take if TSHTF? Yes, but they're all bolt actions...
Would I throw one in the back of my truck for a truck rifle? You bet!

--Vic

[Johnny Guest]

It may be a personal thing, but I can't see the worry over the standard SKS mag holding "only" ten rounds.

The mighty M1 Garand held only eight, and was harder to top off, as well.
People go to great lengths (;) ) to install the long, fixed 20 and 30-round magazines on the SKS and end up with a carbine which is less reliable, far more susceptible to damage and consequent reduction to a clumsy single-shot. The relatively few SKS types adapted to accept the detachable AK47 mags are a different matter. Those are rugged and the arm can be cased with the mag out.

One of the nifty things about the SKS is it's adaptability as a car trunk or behind-the-truck-seat piece - - Highly rugged, resistant to dust, rust, and scuffing. Put in a 20 or 30 fixed mag and it becomes FAR less compact to uncase or pull from beneath the seat. the ease with which it can be loaded with strippers is already mentioned.

Let's face it - - EVERY situation we discuss here is predicated on either individual activity, or, at most, action in concert with family or a couple of pals at a time. You'd need to work hard to picture a scenario of defending a fixed position and requiring high capacity and sustained rapid fire. Almost anything I can conjure up has to do with a couple of shots, perhaps five or six, then maneuver or relocate. If one is part of an army, one takes what is issued, and all this "choice" stuff is moot.

Within it's limitations of accuracy, weight, and size, the SKS is a great fallback arm. Certainly, I would CHOOSE an AR15, M1A, or possibly a scoped bolt gun for most purposes, but if the SKS was what I had on hand, I could surely make do for a time. There are better long range MBRs, sniping tools, CQB, or charge-the-enemy-pillbox weapons. Nowadays, the SKS is something akin to a good ol', handy .30-30 lever gun: something that is available and usually adequate for the moment.

Best,
Johnny

[Bostonterrier97]

Psychologically I would feel a bit undergunned by the SKS but not because of the 10 round fixed mag.

The feeling would stem from the slower target acquisition due to type and placement of the rear sight and because of the ballistics of the 7.62x39mm round.

I would feel adequately armed with an M1 Garand or a Lee Enfield.

[hillbilly]

I read the posts and don't know if I saw this idea or not.

If the right person with the right attitude and the right skills has his or her hands on the SKS, it is a fearsome weapon.

But then again, for the right person, a flintlock Kentucky rifle in .45 might prove to be a rather fearsome weapon in a combat situation.

If it's a rifle and goes "boom" reliably, it can be a fearsome weapon in the right hands.

hillbilly

[Bruce H]

hillbilly, you are exactly right. It isn't the tool as much as the operator. I feel quite well armed with any of the firearms I have, from .22 on up. As to the original question about an SKS, anytime anywhere.

[OEF_VET]

hillbilly and Bruce H,

My point exactly. The SKS, in the hands of a trained warrior, is a formidible weapon. Personally, if I were to have only an SKS to go into combat with, I'd use it willingly until I could procure a preferred weapon, and then I'd relegate the SKS to fall-back rifle duty.


Frank

[Oleg Volk]

the biggest traitor of the latter 20th century United States was actually its president for two terms and he probably never held a SKS in his life
I think it was three terms, though he died during the third...

SKS is a fine rifle, esp. in the Chinese short carbine trim. I am not too fond of the clips as they tend to drop rounds during loading, but they'd do for close encounters of the rabid kind.

A police instructor who taught me to shoot had to sell his Daewoo .223 after a divorce and ended up with two short SKS carbine, for himself and for his new wife. He got deer with it and said he felt well enough armed for bad humans. He ran into enough of those in Nam to know what he is talking about.

[gryphon]

Yes.

[DFBonnett]

Been on the receiving end. They seemed well armed to me.

[telomerase]

>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the biggest traitor of the latter 20th century United States was actually its president for two terms and he probably never held a SKS in his life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>I think it was three terms, though he died during the third...

There was no US President in the 20th Century elected to three terms. FDR was elected to FOUR (and died in the fourth).

It's a wonder the US survived.

[Mannlicher]

JohnKSa says :"I'd take it over a Garand on weight, length, capacity, recoil, cost and cost of ammo.

IMO, for the distances that an iron sight gun gets used, the SKS will outperform the Garand in a practical situation."

SKS weighs 8.8 lb, and is 41 inches long, cartridge is 2400fps
Garand is 9.5 lb, and is 43.5 inches long, cartridge is 2800fps

To say that the SKS will outperform the Garand is to ignore fact, and history, and make the outcome of your comparison fit your preconceived notions. No problem there, we all do that, but you are just wrong in your comparison of the two. At least you said 'IMO', Now you have mine.


:cool:

[DMK]

SKS weighs 8.8 lb, and is 41 inches long, cartridge is 2400fps
Garand is 9.5 lb, and is 43.5 inches long, cartridge is 2800fps
Not to mention that the SKS shoots a 125gr bullet while the Garand shoots a 150 gr. bullet.
To say that the SKS will outperform the Garand is to ignore fact, and history, and make the outcome of your comparison fit your preconceived notions. What history? The Garand has proven itself in battle against bolt actions, it has never fought against any semi-auomatic in appreciable numbers, much less the SKS.

Don't get me wrong, the SKS *is not* an MBR and cannot replace the Garand at long range fire. IMO, comparing the two is like comparing a 30-30 lever action to a Remington 700 in 30.06 to see which is the better deer rifle. It all depends on where you hunt your deer!

[JohnKSa]

Mannlicher,

As you pointed out, the SKS is lighter and shorter. (Even though both the weight and length numbers quoted are inflated. 40" and 8.25lbs is closer to the truth.)

So, 1.25lbs lighter and 3.5" shorter. Not a huge amount, but significant nonetheless. Also, I submit that the SKS is a much handier gun--the balance is closer to the trigger guard than the Garand which makes it point faster.

It also holds 2 more rounds and is easier to reload.

It also has less recoil.

The ammo is lighter and the ammo on stripper clips is much more compact (flatter) which means that you can carry more of it for both reasons.

Furthermore, while the Garand is very reliable, the SKS is a much simpler rifle overall. The clip mechanism in the Garand is a weak point that the SKS completely avoids.

In short, there's a lot more to performance than velocity.

Also, you'll note that I added the caveats (for the distances that an iron sight rifle gets used) and (in a practical situation).

On the range shooting at clearly defined targets in a low pressure situation, a Garand can get good hits at much longer range due to the faster cartridge and extra bullet weight (better wind resistance). In terms of accuracy, issue versions are very similar. I think a lot of people who are enamored with Garands find themselves thinking about their tricked out National Match Garands, or the dolled up Garand their buddy has instead of what a GI would have been likely to pull off the rack.

At 200 yards in a serious pucker-factor situation the faster reloads, lower recoil and extra ammo, could easily make the difference between living and dying. The theoretical advantage of a higher power cartridge all by itself just doesn't transform into anything practical as far as I can see.

I'll add one more caveat--if you have a need to defeat vehicles, the Garand is a better choice. Other than that, the extra 400fps or so doesn't make it even a tiny bit more likely to put a hole in an enemy at any distance that you could make a hit with the issue sights.

The Garand does have better sights, but I'm not sure how much of a practical difference they make at combat distances.

In short, with the exception of the more powerful cartridge of the Garand, and possibly the sights, the SKS is superior in every other performance criteria I can think of. That's not ignoring facts as far as I can see.

As far as your comment about history. I don't think the Garand and the SKS ever met in battle in any way that proved either one conclusively superior or inferior.

[Sir Galahad]

Oleg, sorry, but you are incorrect. I said "latter", meaning the final, or, closing decades of the 20th century. Prior to 1950 is not even mid-century, but close enough. So that would properly be "mid-century". I did not say that. I said "latter". So, regardless of what we both may think about FDR, what I said refers to one person and one alone. Though some might think it pertains to Ronald Reagan. :D

[JShirley]

The SKS was a bargain at $79. It ain't bad at $200. If I could change one thing (which you can, incidentally!), it would be the sights.

I'd feel well armed enough, with an SKS. They are handy and reliable weapons.

How "perfect" a rifle is for someone is a very personal thing. There are some perfectly adequate firearms that are just tools, and that will do the job. There are other firearms that may not appear to be ideal, but that seem to just "fit" the shooter.

The FN49 appears to be one such weapon for me. No detachable mag, limited capacity, and heavy...but it just feels right, and I can hit well with the girl. Can't wait to get my own.

John
Doesn't care for M1 Garand

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

DMK,

The Garand went to Korea. I think it saw battle directly against the SKS.



If $200 is pushing it, one can always pick up a 7.62 Saiga for $169. Pretty much the same kind of gun, just mag fed.

[VG]

Ask Korean War vets (while you still can) if they'd rather have an SKS or a Garand. There are reasons why Garands sell for $500-$1,000.

That's not the question, though, which was about being "well armed". Compared to anyone who had no gun, or a handgun, absolutely! And they're very cheap for a semiauto. SKS's can probably hold 5-6" groups at 100 yards, which is adequate for most plinking needs.

Use Western ammo, though, if you want accuracy. Most of the Chinese and Russian ammo is poor.

[ReadyontheRight]

SPE -- Where do you find a Saiga for $169?

I notice on www.Gunsamerica.com that they also offer one in .308 Win. Interesting.

I would definitely NOT feel undergunned with an SKS. Clip-fed seems better than magazine fed if you're talking about sending hundreds of rounds downrange quickly.

[DMK]

The Garand went to Korea. I think it saw battle directly against the SKS. Perhaps against a few, but not in any appreciable numbers. It was certainly not an even match numerically. The N. Koreans and Chinese were mostly armed with bolt actions and Subguns.

[goon]

I wouldn't feel unarmed with an SKS, but I would rather have my AK.
I would feel well armed with my AK, but I would probably be better armed with my M-39.
The SKS is a decent gun, but there are better choices at this point in time.
However, if I were to find myself in need of a good rifle that I could get for around $200, I would give one serious consideration.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

RoR,

A local shop had em. Maybe they're gone up some, but 7.62x39 ones are listed at $190 to $200 on gunsamerica.


DMK,

Do the Garand users get any credit for fighting MG38 and 42s, as well as MP44s and others, or do you have some sort of magic cut off number that is "appreciable"?

[DMK]

Do the Garand users get any credit for fighting MG38 and 42s, as well as MP44s and others, or do you have some sort of magic cut off number that is "appreciable"? Sure, but then you'd have to include the Thompsons and Grease Guns that fought alongside the Garand. ;)

[Redlg155]

Well armed?

Well, I'm used to going into combat with a 155mm Single shot leading the way. :D

Still, I would take an SKS in a pinch. During the first Iraq( Desert Storm) there were many days I would have rather have had an SKS or AK than that infernal M16!

Good Shooting
Red

[GHILLIE]

No, I don't feel inferior at all by having an SKS as a SHTF weapon. Although I have other "battle rifles" I would choose if going into a hostile situation for a lengthy period of time, my SKS is my ready rifle. I have a Yugo in a Choate stock, removed the bayo and grenade sight to save some weight. I have a double ammo pouch that is for the Mosins actually, that hold 5 full stripper clips of 7.62x39 on each side. That is 100 rounds at the ready, with no mags to fumble with or springs to worry about weakening. Were I packing up and taking the fight somewhere else, I would take my FAL and all the extra ammo I could carry...however I think the SKS makes a dandy Homeland Defense weapon. The way I see it, if 100 rounds of 7.62x39 doesn't save your bacon in an unexpected crisis, anything short of a quad .50 probably wouldn't either. The big plus is that the rifle is inexpensive, but extremely reliable, recoil is minimal, and ammo is cheap...meaning you can practice a great deal and become proficient with your weapon. A Barrett .50 is worthless if you can't hit anything with it. As the saying goes..."Beware the man with but one rifle, for he likely knows how to use it".

[Fish Springs]

Yes, I would feel poorly armed with an SKS as my primary rifle--combat or not. This thread points to SKS advantages of weight, cheap ammo, reliability--but seems to lack a significant discussion of field accuracy.

A bunch of SKS's showed up at the local gun club over 6 months or a year to be used in "as issued" position rifle matches. These were 100 round, 4 position shoots with period battle rifles.

No SKS ever shot well enough to stay in the match past 50 yards. When worked over and fed handloads they shot better, but remained un-competiative when shot with nearly any other battle rifle of the 20th century. There were some very talented shooters working on these "100 dollar wonders" just to see if they could be made to shoot better--it is fun to shoot obsolete weapons and learn to shoot them well. No one made any significant progress with the SKS platform.

At 50 yards, rapid fire, the SKS was regularly out shot by M-1 Carbines and a couple of Egyptian 6.5x55 semi-autos. At 100 and beyond we had to go to bigger backers to catch the SKS shots. One salty old character challenged an SKS owner to shoot the course against his 1911 1A. It was a tight match out to 100 yards where the 45 ACP's trajectory gave way to the better ballistics of the 7.62x39. this was the only match an SKS shooter won that year ;)

It would be interesting to see some SKS shooting results posted here to see how SKS's shoot. There must be some out there some where that will, but the SKSs no longer show up at the "as issued" rifle matches.

[omega5]

Vic303. I've fought against people using the SKS and I've used and SKS on occasion when we didn't want Charlie to know we were in the area and I never once felt under powered. The SKS using stripper clips in almost as fast to reload as a clip once you get the hang of it. Of course that's 10 rounds vs 20 or 30 but it never slowed the VC down that I could tell while being on the recieving end of SKS fire. I love mine. Cheap enough so a real good day at the range ain't much more costly than going to see a movie and a whole heck of a lot more fun.:D
To be honest, in a Red Dawn Senario, I'd take my SKS over my M1A most likely. Lighter and ammo more readily available, even in the states.

[JShirley]

Fish Springs,

Had a buddy hit a 20oz pop bottle with one shot from my SKS, at over 100 meters. I personally think that's accurate enough.

omega5, welcome to The High Road.

John

[Fish Springs]

Yes, that is sufficient.

[standingbear]

sks..yes.i enjoy my russian built gun.i dont care for stamped or riveted in parts or anything else made that says it was made in a hurry.im very picky i guess.