SKS or AR-15? Which is better for defense?

[havanatrader]

Pick the AR. The arguments for the SKS boil down to:
1 - cost. What's your life worth? Unless it comes to having a $200 gun or nothing, spend the money for an AR.
2 - perceived superiority of the 7.62x39 cartridge over the 5.56. Guess what? The AR can be had in that and many other chamberings.

I'd rather have a rifle that allows me to hit where I aim.

 

[esmith]

I'd rather have a rifle that allows me to hit where I aim.

Ive seen sks's shoot 2 inch groups and i know theres other ones that can shoot better. Which is more than enough accuracy to shoot a man sized target.

And even though you can have ARs in other cartridges you often have to pay more which just adds up to the already sky high cost of an AR. Plus theres a lot more 5.56 ARs on the market than most others. Reliability of an sks plus the easy takedown makes it a lot easier of the owner.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Training is about a thousand times more important than the rifle. If you can get an AR15 and training, then I think that is the better choice; but an expensive one. Someone with an SKS and some training will do better than someone who spent it all on the rifle and never learned to use it (or someone who thinks that because they have hunted every season for 10 years and go to the range once a year, they have all the training they need).

 

[havanatrader]

Ive seen sks's shoot 2 inch groups and i know theres other ones that can shoot better.

They're the exception, not the rule.

 

[Rossshady120]

well never shot a SKS but i have fired a 9mm AR-15 it was pretty hard for me to get into the sights with the big ear muffs thats why i started using plugs, i hip fired the gun the whole time at i guess about 25 yds it was pretty good and it was my rifle time useing the AR-15 and plus it was a rental gun.

 

[elmerfudd]

Commonality parts, accessories, and ammo. There just seems to be more of 'em. Almost a commodity, like milk, unleaded gas, 12 gauge shells.

At the range yesterday, there were more ARs than anything else. ARs on either side of me at the 100 yd and then 50 yd areas. I saw one SKS in the place.

I'd choose an AR over an SKS myself, but this is a bogus argument if I ever heard one. First off SKS's are built like tanks. Maybe they do sometimes break, but I've never seen it. If, however, that were to happen at $150 a pop you could buy 4 good SKS's for the price of one cheap Olympic AR and just throw them away and pick up a different one if they were to ever break.

 

[RustyHammer]

Is this about price or performance?

Price, go SKS
Reliability and total performance ... I go AR15.

Have several of each .. but if I had to hit the road with only on, I'd have to take the AR.

YMMV

Rusty

 

[Picknlittle]

I shot an AR15 for the first time yesterday. It was a hoot, but with the sights on it, I couldn't hit a stinking thing.

I'm finally getting my SKS set up to where I''m very confident to it. My vote goes for SKS.

 

[kid_couteau]

Hi All

Just another country heard from here

I have an AR and an SKS

I think the SKS is tougher.

Maybe not as accurate as an AR
Maybe not as many toys for it.

But when you get right down to it. If the SKS had removable mags that were easy to change I think the SKS would be a better battle rifle as far as toughness goes.

I know if I butt stroke someone with my SKS it will not break

Not sure with an AR.

Just an opinion
Later
Kid

 

[762X39]

Wow this thread is still going... My choice is an SKS. In a SHTF situation I can get an SKS, 2000 rounds of steel core, a used pickup, 100 gallons of diesel fuel and pick up anything else I need after a bit of social work...

 

[Limeyfellow]

For an SKS you really need to do some stuff to make it in the same league as the Ar15. Bed the action, clean up the trigger and put on a better sight. With that done you cut the rifle to at least 2 moa many times. SKS' have even gone down to sub moa. It gets annoying when people compare match grade Ar15s to an off the rack SKS.

 

[Val USP]

4v50 Gary - I like the AR design better but for home defense, I'd take the SKS - why? Because, after you shoot someone (presumably a criminal), your gun will be confiscated and thrown into an evidence barrel. It won't be returned until after you're cleared of a wrongful homicide. So, why lose a $750-$1000 gun when a $110 gun will do the same job? Be Roman, be pragmatic.

I never think about it. But you re actually not 100, but 500% right.
VERY good point!

 

[Lonestar.45]

In a SHTF situation I can get an SKS, 2000 rounds of steel core, a used pickup, 100 gallons of diesel fuel and pick up anything else I need after a bit of social work...

Unless you run into a pack of 5-8 guys looking to do the same thing and just so happens they need some diesel and a used pickup truck....

 

[wezwez3]

so much to rant about just to lazy to start, sks will kill man or best @250 yds, with no problem.

 

[wezwez3]

I love SKS rifles, but when I really think about it- if you squared off against a guy in the woods with an AR-15, it might be rough. it all depends on who see who first! sks all the way baby.

 

[woad_yurt]

I'd go SKS, specifically, a Chinese one. They're light, cheap and totally dependable. I can buy 4-5 of them for the price of one AR 15. I was in the army in the early '90s and found the m16A2 uncomfortable to shoot and a pain to clean. The SKS needs far less TLC. Crude can be good, you know. One thing, though. I did put a Williams peep sight on the SKS. I wasn't too fond of the original.

 

[Bartkowski]

2 - perceived superiority of the 7.62x39 cartridge over the 5.56. Guess what? The AR can be had in that and many other chamberings.

Doesn't the actual "AR-15", the one asked about in the poll, only come in223/5.56 NATO? I am not a huge ar nut so correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Hunter0924]

GotGlock why is the 7.62X39 better than the 5.56X45?

 

[havanatrader]

Doesn't the actual "AR-15", the one asked about in the poll, only come in223/5.56 NATO? I am not a huge ar nut so correct me if I am wrong.

That's certainly the most popular chambering, but you can get it in 9mm, 40s&w, 10mm, 22lr, 204 Ruger, 223, 5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8mm SPC, etc... If the cartridge can fit into an AR-15 sized mag, you can find someone supplying it.

 

[DiN_BLiX]

The legendary inacuraccy of the sks stems mostly from poor stock the action fit, as withy any "iron and wood" rifle. bedded the action, smoothd out the trigger, chopped and recrowned the barrel at 17 1/2 inches, and cleaned it really good! it will shoot 3moa from a rest. Maybe better with non wolf ammo.
THats my vote.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

My SKS in a Choate dragunov stock does 1 moa. It can also hit steel at 400 yards if you know how to aim it. But as a previous poster noted anything over 300 yards is sketchy without a scope. So here is my setup for the cost of an AR.
$130-sino soviet SKS (what I actually paid for mine)
$80-Choate Stock
$130-Moisin Nagant 91/30 with great bore and crown
$70-scope mount for moisin
$200-Decent Scope for said moisin
$100-500 rounds of 7.62x39
$100-100 match grade rounds of 7.62x54r
saving 200 dollars and dropping the guy with the AR from 650 yards away-priceless

 

[Hunter0924]

I disagree that past 300 yards against a man sized target is sketchy without a scope.
Hits on a B modified targets from 500 yards away is common place at Parris Island and Camp Lejeune with an M16 that has had better days.
There is a place I reckon for both rifles but on the hole the AR 15 is the better built rifle capable is more accurate sustained fire and has the ballistic advantage.
I believe the comparison is apples to oranges.

 

[GotGlock]

5.56 NATO (XM16E1):

Bullet Weight = 55 grains
Nominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 3185 fps
Muzzle Energy = 1239 ft. lbs.
Muzzle Energy at 500 yds. = 252 ft. lbs.

7.62 X 39 (AK-47):

Bullet Weight = 125 grains
Nominal Muzzle Velocity = 2400 fps.
Muzzle Energy = 1598 ft. lbs.
Muzzle Energy at 500 yds. = 414 ft. lbs.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Cartridges of the World puts military loads of 5.56x45 at 1325 foot-pounds (velocity 3250 for 55 grain, 3100 for 62 grain) while the M43 7.62x39 military load clocks 1470 ft-lbs at 2329 fps.

As for retained energy at 500 yards . . . no one with an AK or SKS is going to be landing hits on anything smaller than a truck at 500. Hits at 500 with an AR are feasible (not that either caliber is being used much to engage people at those ranges, and not that 500 yard performance has much to do with civilian self defense).

 

[Glock19Fan]

Those extra 100 FPE dont mean a thing when the bullet cant propertly put it to use. In other words, although the x39 has slightly more energy, the wounds created by the bullets arent very satisfactory, but certainly lethal.

With the 5.56 ammo, you get a short neck, yaw, and pretty explosive fragmentation, along with controlled penetration on many targets. The x39 does yaw, but not normally before 4-5 inches, and does not fragment.

I have personally does comparison testing between the two in ballistic gelatin, and it is obvious the 5.56 is the clear winner.

There are x39 bullets that give the M193 a run for their money (American man. soft points), but when you step up to 75 grain OTM 5.56 then the 5.56 is right back up again.