AK Vs. SKS


PDA






BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 01:05 AM
I have both, and my opinion is the SKS is a much better weapon. Obviously the AK is reliable, but I just like the heavier design of the SKS instead of the seemingly flimsy stamped construction of the AK. I'm talking an SKS with detatchable mags, and an AK with a stamped receiver, not the nice milled ones. Both semi-auto. A couple people jumped all over me for my opinions which I beleive are based on fact, and I'm curious what everybody's opinion is on this.

SKS= machined steel, heavy construction, longer barrel, more accurate, similar mag. capacity (detatchable).

AK= stamped steel, light construction, shorter barrel, loose construction, less accurate?

What's your opinion?

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!
mr.folk
August 22, 2010, 01:11 AM
i don't know if it's more reliable or anything,but when the sks came out the russians loved it and a shot time later the ak-47 was revealed and the stored all of the sks's and used the ak-47's there still store in weapon bunkers as reserve weapons it ultimately had the shortest service length of any of russias main infantry rifles that has to say something.

Snowdog
August 22, 2010, 01:13 AM
I like the SKS in it's original configuration (10-round fixed mag). It's a fine rifle. Though I sold both of mine, I hold them in high regards. That said, I like the AK as well. Between the two, I'd choose an FN-FAL.

BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 01:21 AM
Very true. I think the internal 10rd. capacity was the deciding factor at the time. That, and the ease of manufacture.

Ha!! FN totally!

OkieOFT
August 22, 2010, 01:23 AM
If you are a russian soldier, which rifle would you rather go to war with, a fixed magazine 10 round semiauto rifle or a detachable magazine fully automatic rifle? I'll take spray and pray in any wartime situation, thank you. Now, as a range plinking rifle, i'll take an SKS over the AK and an AR15 over both of them.

Girodin
August 22, 2010, 01:27 AM
A couple people jumped all over me for my opinions which I beleive are based on fact

1. Nobody jumped all over you. They may have asked you to back up your assertions but that is all. You failed to back up any of those assertions. You failed to even respond to most of the questions asked of you.

2. You are entitled to your opinion, but you did not offer your comments as opinion. You asserted them as fact with tautological arguments and zero evidence to support them other than that you said so. Don't be shocked if people want a little more support for "the facts" than that.

an AK with a stamped receiver, not the nice milled ones.

I'll ask here too since you failed to answer on the other thread: What task does the milled gun do, what is it good for, that a stamped isn't? In what practical way is a ("nice") milled gun functionally superior to a well built stamped gun?

You've asserted repeatedly that milled is significantly better to but you're yet to back up that there is any practical difference for the end user.


Lastly if you want to have a meaningful discussion you need to define more clearly what you mean by better? Better from whose perspective? A military's, an individual infantryman? A individual civilian? Better for what task? War? HD? Police patrol rifle? 3 gun? what?

Justin
August 22, 2010, 01:29 AM
The SKS makes for a reasonably priced 200 yard trunk gun.



Sent from my G1 using Tapatalk.

TimboKhan
August 22, 2010, 01:30 AM
If you personally like the SKS better, awesome. I own two, and I enjoy shooting them both a great deal.

On the other hand, if your referring to these two rifles from the perspective of them being combat arms, the AK wins hands down.

1. The AK is, I believe, shorter and therefore easier to handle. This is a little bit subjective, but I think most people would prefer the shorter length and subsequently lighter weigh of the AK.

2. The SKS has a big, open receiver. That is find for having fun, and it isn't the worst thing ever, but in combat conditions a closed receiver like the AK is superior in almost every way. This is not subjective, and this is why 100% of the worlds combat rifles now have closed receivers.

3. The AK has a larger capacity magazine that is easier to swap than the stripper clips of the original. Even the SKS's with the detachable magazines are slower than the AK. Additionally, AK mags can be found virtually anywhere, which is nice.

4. The SKS may be more accurate, but neither is a tack driver. Both offer acceptable combat accuracy.

5. AK, by virtue of being substantially more widely distributed are far easier to find parts for. Not really the SKS's fault, but it is a fact.

I could go on, but why? If you like it better, cool. If your making a claim that in general the SKS is superior, I would disagree.

hexidismal
August 22, 2010, 01:45 AM
I also have both. I find the SKS to be very slightly more accurate at the range. However I still prefer the AK platform to it by far for practical use. You could say the SKS has a stronger construction, but really there are plenty of "flimsy" stamped AKs out there with many tens of thousands of rounds through them working just fine. The AK wins in my book though already just based on magazines. You mention the similar capacity, but detachable SKS mags are very slow and awkward to load, oftentimes poorly constructed, but most importantly well known to be finicky to particular guns and generally unreliable. Whereas typical comm block steel AK mags are hard to beat up, almost always work in any model AK, and can be changed and charged in about 2 seconds by a well trained user.

BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 01:59 AM
Oh, here we go again.

BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 02:00 AM
1. Nobody jumped all over you. They may have asked you to back up your assertions but that is all. You failed to back up any of those assertions. You failed to even respond to most of the questions asked of you.

2. You are entitled to your opinion, but you did not offer your comments as opinion. You asserted them as fact with tautological arguments and zero evidence to support them other than that you said so. Don't be shocked if people want a little more support for "the facts" than that.



I'll ask here too since you failed to answer on the other thread: What task does the milled gun do, what is it good for, that a stamped isn't? In what practical way is a ("nice") milled gun functionally superior to a well built stamped gun?

You've asserted repeatedly that milled is significantly better to but you're yet to back up that there is any practical difference for the end user.


Lastly if you want to have a meaningful discussion you need to define more clearly what you mean by better? Better from whose perspective? A military's, an individual infantryman? A individual civilian? Better for what task? War? HD? Police patrol rifle? 3 gun? what?
The trunion is riveted into the sheet metal receivers, and the barrel is installed in the trunion. The barrel goes right into the milled receiver, there's no transition part, which tends to allow movement where the trunion is attached to the receiver, causing the barrel to move.

Milled receivers are more solid, without the rivets and welds, etc. Stamped receivers are weaker. They can twist and warp with stress. Rivets, welds and screws can work loose.

advantages of milled receivers over stamped:

1. Rigidity.

2. Strength. Considerably more tensile, shear, cross stress strength. Milled, forged steel is just plain stronger and more durable than any stamped assembly (regardless of how “thick” the stamping is).

3. Part/action alignment. The part and action alignment is consistent throughout the life cycle of the rifle. Being milled from one piece, there is nothing in the frame to loosen or shift out of alignment.

4. Much more stable platform. Fixed mating surfaces ensure alignment and function.

5. Longer service life. Stronger, more rigid, consistently aligned frame retards part wear and extends service life of action parts.

I've stated that the milled receivers are tighter, more rigid, and more accurate, you just for some reason fail to beleive it. If you like stamped receivers, please stick with them and leave me alone. If you cannot understand the facts it's not my problem.

LHRGunslinger
August 22, 2010, 02:18 AM
I've heard but I have no personal experience to back it up that the SKS' modified for detachable mags have alot of feeding issues.

MaterDei
August 22, 2010, 02:27 AM
This is simply, like so many things, a matter of taste. fwiw, I agree with the OP. I have both and prefer the SKS by far.

Girodin
August 22, 2010, 03:32 AM
I've stated that the milled receivers are tighter, more rigid, and more accurate, you just for some reason fail to beleive it.
If you read what I wrote you would know that what I do not believe is that any of that translates into any practical advantage. Perhaps you can plagiarize something addressing that point.

advantages of milled receivers over stamped:

1. Rigidity.

2. Strength. Considerably more tensile, shear, cross stress strength. Milled, forged steel is just plain stronger and more durable than any stamped assembly (regardless of how “thick” the stamping is).

3. Part/action alignment. The part and action alignment is consistent throughout the life cycle of the rifle. Being milled from one piece, there is nothing in the frame to loosen or shift out of alignment.

4. Much more stable platform. Fixed mating surfaces ensure alignment and function.

You are describing attributes and then making an a priori assumption that said attributes are better with out really speaking to why they are better. I guess it shouldn't suprise me that your response is not tailored to address that point since you plagerized the above lol.

If one were to try to summarize why those attributes are superior they might simply say that a milled gun offers a longer service life (point 5 of your copy and pasted reply) and is more accurate. I asked about what practical advantage existed. So lets treat those two points in turn and see if there genuinely is a practical advantage, ok?

Service life. Let take as our starting point that milled receivers have a longer service life and are generally more durable. Does that offer a practical advantage? Do you know of stamped receivers failing? Do stamped receivers exhibit an unacceptably short service life? The fact is one can put tens of thousands of rounds through a stamped receiver. Most users will never wear one out. Even if they did there is another consideration. The cost of a stamped receiver versus a milled one. A stamped is much less expensive. Given the cost to manufacture or buy each one could replace the stamped receiver multiple times. Thus where is the real practical advantage? There really isn't one. Thing A being more durable than thing B doesn't matter if you are never going to wear either one out. It matters even less when the cost of thing B and a couple replacements is less than thing A.

Accuracy
Some say that milled are more accurate. This claim is probably mostly theory. I've never seen any real evidence to bear it out, particularly anything that attempts to isolate receivers as the variable. Even if it were taken as true that a milled receiver is more accurate we are wanting to know if there is a practical advantage held by the milled receiver. The first question is how much more accurate is the milled gun? Most people who claim they are more accurate only try to claim that it is slight. We are not talking about the milled gun being sub MOA or even 1 MOA and the stamped gun being 4 MOA. I am not aware of any data that can reasonably show what difference can be attributed to a milled receiver. The state of the bore/crown on an individual gun is likely to account for much more. A stamped gun can be a 2 MOA gun fairly easily and I have seen stamped guns with hand loads, scopes, and a bench do better than that. What kind of accuracy do you think can reasonably be expected from a milled gun? They aren’t MOA guns. Further most people shoot cheap ammo through their AKs which, along with the shooter, is most likely the limiting factor. All the surplus ammo I have shot (i.e. what militaries are feeding AKs) is far from match grade ammo. It doesn’t matter if you have a custom bolt gun with a Krieger barrel if you are putting crappy inconsistent ammo through it. The mechanical accuracy of the rifle is only one factor.
Further with an AKs open sights and/or shooting from field positions most shooters cannot take full advantage of the accuracy of a stamped AK. If the mechanical accuracy of the weapon is not the limiting factor what practical advantage is gained by an increase in the weapons mechanical accuracy, particularly a relatively slight one? So if you are going to shoot hand loaded ammo, with a scope, from a bench a milled gun might offer a slight advantage in accuracy that would show up one paper with nice inch marked squares on it. If you are going to use it as the OP states in the one thread or as weapon (the topic in the other) there is no practical accuracy advantage to a milled gun. A milled gun in practical terms really only offers more weight IMO.

Thus the question that I asked remains unanswered. What practical advantage does a milled gun have? I’ll also repeat the other question you do not want to or cannot answer; what task does the milled gun do, what is it good for, that a stamped gun isn't?

Maybe you can find something else to plagiarize in order to answer those questions.

jimmy0622
August 22, 2010, 03:43 AM
If you are a russian soldier, which rifle would you rather go to war with, a fixed magazine 10 round semiauto rifle or a detachable magazine fully automatic rifle? I'll take spray and pray in any wartime situation, thank you. Now, as a range plinking rifle, i'll take an SKS over the AK and an AR15 over both of them.

Which is exactly why you would die and I would live in that situation, there is no substitute for well placed shots, no matter what weapon you're shooting.

fiddleharp
August 22, 2010, 04:19 AM
One thing to bear in mind in these AK vs. SKS debates is the fact that as American civilians, almost none of us owns or even has access to a selective-fire AK47. Almost none of us, in our civilian lives, has ever fired off a burst from a fully-automatic weapon.
So, it all breaks down to which 7.62x39 semi-automatic range toy you like best. Whoopdeedoo. :rolleyes:

Mr. Bojangles
August 22, 2010, 04:43 AM
Several good points have been brought up. Both are incredibly reliable and durable. I do prefer the feel of a fixed magazine SKS as a range toy, but this is personal preference. While some people have good results converting an SKS to a detachable magazine, I have never handled one that had anything better than mediocre reliability.

U.S.SFC_RET
August 22, 2010, 05:56 AM
The SKS makes for a reasonably priced 200 yard trunk gun.
You are right about the trunk gun. Don't let the price fool you. An SKS is one of the better made dependable rifles as long as you don't muck with it's originality.
I like the way an SKS handles. They are light and short enough.

Mp7
August 22, 2010, 06:08 AM
apples and pears ....

If u have a fortress and want to arm the walls with riflemen
then the SKS would be nice for longer barrel
and saving ammo ...

for moving operations i think the lighter reliable weapon
is the better weapon....

The main point is the semi- to full-auto difference
in the idea of the weapon.

The AK is a submachine-carbine, the SKS a Rifle.

As a weapon the AK wins handsdown just
for its overall simplicity, reliability, weight and firepower.

fireside44
August 22, 2010, 08:15 AM
I have to agree with the OP.

For the most part, especially civilian use, the SKS is the better choice. In my experience they are generally speaking slightly more accurate than your run of the mill AK.

Outside of funny tang on the detachable mags the SKS uses, I think the $150-200 difference between them is mainly on account of the AK mystique.

ScratchnDent
August 22, 2010, 10:08 AM
I have both. If I had to tromp off into the woods tomorrow, never to return, I'd choose the SKS as a survival rifle. If I had to engage the zombie hordes in an urban setting, I'd choose the AK.

briansmithwins
August 22, 2010, 10:19 AM
AK.

Compare the trigger groups. AK's has 4 parts and 2 springs. SKS has a Rube Goldberg contraption that boggles the mind.

Internally, the AK has lots of places for crude to get out of the way of the action, while the SKS depends on tight fitting to keep junk out. Anything that gets inside can jam the works.

Functionally, the AK's rotating bolt offers good primary extraction to break sticky cases loose, the SKS does not.

Magazine capacity. The AK's 30 round mags are tough, reliable, and cheap. Even if you can load a clip in the SKS as fast as a AK gunner can change mags (not likely) you still have to load the SKS 3 times to get the same firepower as the AK. SKSs with aftermarket detachable mags usually take a hit to reliability and the mags aren't as tough.

Another consideration, AKs can be had with optics plates to securely mount red dot scopes or magnified optics. There is no good way to mount optics on an SKS.

BSW

Redneck with a 40
August 22, 2010, 10:19 AM
I like my SKS, bought it for $150 5 years ago, its absolutely reliable, bulletproof, shoot's a 4" group at 100 yards, and it would make a dandy survival weapon. In a shtf scenario, I'd have a hard time deciding between my Mini-14 and the sks. The SKS is great fun at the range, I agree with the others on that point.:)

fireside44
August 22, 2010, 10:24 AM
SKSs with aftermarket detachable mags usually take a hit to reliability and the mags aren't as tough.

I've seen real good results with the polymer mags. Only drawback is you can't really keep them loaded full time or the feed lips warp.

briansmithwins
August 22, 2010, 10:43 AM
Only drawback is you can't really keep them loaded full time or the feed lips warp.

I'd call that a hit to reliability and not being as tough.

BSW

zhyla
August 22, 2010, 11:03 AM
AK wins hands down on ergonomics and weight. Way more important than stupid things like service life and wear resistance. So I guess my list of things that prove AK's are 100% superior to SKS's for all people in all circumstances is:

1. Weight.

2. Ergonomics.

3. Reliability.

4. Reliability.

5. Reliability.

6. Reliability.

7. Reliability.

8. Reliability.

BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 12:04 PM
Thanks, everyone for the great opinions. I have to disagree about the optics point, though. A Choate scope mount is the best choice for an SKS. Unfortunately you have to drill and tap the receiver, but it is a solid mount that holds zero, and you can clean the weapon without removing the scope.

briansmithwins
August 22, 2010, 12:13 PM
I have to disagree about the optics point, though. A Choate scope mount is the best choice for an SKS. Unfortunately you have to drill and tap the receiver, but it is a solid mount that holds zero, and you can clean the weapon without removing the scope.

I have to disagree with your disagreement, mostly. Even the Choate mount limits your selection of scopes so the rifle can still be clip loaded and/or eject without beating the scope to death, given the SKS's ejection path. But given those limitations, the Choate or receiver plate options are the only reliable ways to mount optics on a SKS.

BSW

BigDeesul
August 22, 2010, 12:22 PM
Definitely true. You'd almost have to go with detatchable mags, and using a shell deflector is a must, unless you have a red dot or very short scope.

pezo
August 22, 2010, 01:52 PM
Just my opinion. The sks in its original military configuration hands down. Having the 10 round fixed magazine and using stripper clips at the gun range is just fun. Its a beautiful rifle.



n

TIMC
August 22, 2010, 04:22 PM
Well I owned a Norinco SKS, Romanian SAR1 AK and a Norinco MAK 90 AK. I still have the AK's and the SKS is gone so that tells you my opinion. Nothing wrong with the SKS I just like the AK's better.

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!