SKS or M1A: SKS might be better

The SKS can still serve as a basic, if crude, rifle for hunting. I own one and keep it around due to the low price of the ammo. Picked it up in the 90s for around $80 if I recall. I added a stock pouch to hold extra ammo.

maxxhavoc said:

I have tech sights on 6 rifles now. The only one I took them off of was the SKS.

I should have stopped when I found out original parts needed to be removed.... But I love Tech Sights.

On the SKS they were not great. There is too much play in the rear sight for my liking, even with the set screws gouging the receiver.

I have swapped stocks, changed sights, and come to the conclusion that the SKS is what it is, and parts don't help it much. But what it is, is good in is own right.

But I like the m14 better. And the Garand. Even the Mini 14 makes holes closer together.

PS if you want SKS tech sights let me know. I can make you a deal. ...

Click to expand...

That's my experience as well. The dust cover is not a good place to mount sights or scopes as it isn't very solid at all. The only rifle of that type to have even moderate accuracy was a Saiga with a side mount scope mount in my experience. By contrast I posted another thread that shows what a $450 AR kit can do. That kit requires a stripped lower, scope and mount or rear sight so it costs closer to $550 or more total. Just to illustrate accuracy, not going into AR vs SKS.

Rockrivr1 said:

I didn't read all the thread so if this is a duplication, my bad. You can definitely put a scope on a Yugo SKS with no problems. I bought a dust cover that has a scope mount with a Picatinny rail on it. I mounted a 4x scope on it and she's been pretty accurate. Would be a lot more accurate if I worked on the trigger a little as the trigger is a real bear to activate.

View attachment 995233

Click to expand...

It is sad and funny at the same time. The Yugo Carbine is almost as long as the Smelly and weighs a little more (or feels like It does).

maxxhavoc said:

I have tech sights on 6 rifles now. The only one I took them off of was the SKS.

I should have stopped when I found out original parts needed to be removed.... But I love Tech Sights.

On the SKS they were not great. There is too much play in the rear sight for my liking, even with the set screws gouging the receiver.

I have swapped stocks, changed sights, and come to the conclusion that the SKS is what it is, and parts don't help it much. But what it is, is good in is own right.

But I like the m14 better. And the Garand. Even the Mini 14 makes holes closer together.

PS if you want SKS tech sights let me know. I can make you a deal. ...

Click to expand...

How much for the SKS? DM me. I'm interested. (From PA here)

I've got 3 SKS rifles.
The first one was a total Bubba job when I got it. Ugly stock (You can just see the butt end of it by the blue shop towels) Duckbill Tapco mags, and a dustcover with a rail.
I replaced the stock with a Monte Carlo style (Camo ain't everybody's thing, but I thought it was cool at the time.)
I found a 15 round fixed magwell that has since been replaced with an original magwell, and the dust cover has been replaced by an original style.
It's very comfortable, dependable and shoots well, and I think looks better than when I got it.


Then I got this Norinco
I think it's a looker and it's in really good shape.


My last one is another Norinco
Type-M
I'm probably set for SKSs unless I find a screaming good deal one one.

maxxhavoc said:

I have tech sights on 6 rifles now. The only one I took them off of was the SKS.

I should have stopped when I found out original parts needed to be removed.... But I love Tech Sights.

On the SKS they were not great. There is too much play in the rear sight for my liking, even with the set screws gouging the receiver.

I have swapped stocks, changed sights, and come to the conclusion that the SKS is what it is, and parts don't help it much. But what it is, is good in is own right.

But I like the m14 better. And the Garand. Even the Mini 14 makes holes closer together.

PS if you want SKS tech sights let me know. I can make you a deal. ...

Click to expand...

I was interested in the Tech Sights for my SKS, until I found out the method of attachment of the rear sight. Mickey Mouse as can be, though that’s not really the companies fault. Accesories were the very last thing the designers seemed to have had in mind when they designed the SKS.

They’re still a decent enough brush gun for 50 yards and in but other than that, they’re useful for very little except blasting at the range IMHO. Lots of better rifles and nowadays I would NEVER pay the asking prices people are expecting these guns.

Maybe the SKS are "junk". A secondary factor is that they easily prevented thousands of potential sales of US-made guns.

In addition, had they been the same guns- and - manufactured in Brazil (by Imbel: i.e. FAL), Belgium (Browning fame) or Maltby, England (Enfield), despite being at higher prices, our present, basic perspectives towards them could be a tad different.

“Objective evaluations” aren’t always detached. My SKS enjoyment morphed into imported AKMs and then a Czechpoint VZ-58.

Ignition Override said:

Maybe the SKS are junk. A secondary factor is that they easily prevented thousands of potential sales of US-made guns.

Click to expand...

That may be an understatement. During the SKS haydays of the late 80s/early 90s they were being imported and sold by the hundreds of thousands per year. I recall magazine articles bemoaning the effects this had on traditional US gun manufacturers. The Shooter Bible and Outdoor Life both ran copy basically saying it was becoming the most common poor man's deer rifle all the while questioning why people liked them so much (semi-auto rifles for hunting seemed quite uncouth). There was some joy and sighs of relief amongst this crowd seeing the supply choked off and the guns demonized by the nightly news folks. That said, I don't believe it truly was pulling sales away so much as creating its own market -- these things were cheap to buy and cheap to shoot. When they dried up you didn't see a huge number of US rifles immediately take there place. They were their own niche in many ways.

How i solved the peep sight issue on the sks...

Ill see if i can find pictures if the scope mount set up i did after deciding that I just couldn't shoot iron sights well enough to make me happy.

Personally, I'm not impressed with the accuracy of an SKS, I have two. For what they were designed for, the SKS is probably adequate for what they were designed for.

In my opinion, the M1A is a better design for accurate longer range shooting. The M1 Garand would be a good alternative to the M1A.

But bottom line, I'd rather have a 223 Remington AR-15 or a 300 BLK AR-15 instead of anything in 7.62x39 Russian.

The SKS is a better overall rifle because:

-Much easier on the wallet: ammo and parts are cheaper and plentiful.
-Simpler in overall design and therefore easier and quicker to strip and reassemble for maintenance
-It's a lighter rifle with lighter ammo
-The sks is far better suited to the single job it was designed for-- whereas the M14/M1A was intended to replace three guns at the same time and failed to replace any of them satisfactorily.

SKS over M1A every time in my book.

7.62x39mm is far cheaper than .308, or 5.56 for that matter.

I do plan on selling the above Norinco SKS soon, as well as my mint with importation box Russian and unissued in cosmoline Yugo M56/66. The reason is my Bulgarian milled AK is demanding all the 7.62x39mm lol and I just don’t have any use for an SKS at the moment.

Just sayin'

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m14-surely-worst-rifle-us-military-history-62692

Derek Wildstar said:

Just sayin'

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m14-surely-worst-rifle-us-military-history-62692

Click to expand...

He studied computer science and political science, so that makes him an expert on the subject??? The M14 is the longest (not standard issue) serving rifle used by the United States armed forces and is still in use. Comparing it to an M16 is stupid and that is where he lost my attention. Two different rifles with two different intended purposes.

Just saying'...

35W

35 Whelen said:

He studied computer science and political science, so that makes him an expert on the subject??? The M14 is the longest (not standard issue) serving rifle used by the United States armed forces and is still in use. Comparing it to an M16 is stupid and that is where he lost my attention. Two different rifles with two different intended purposes.

Just saying'...

35W

Click to expand...

The list goes on and on...

https://www.military.com/off-duty/2...s-good-thing-us-military-getting-rid-m14.html

https://sofrep.com/gear/the-m14-was-a-terrible-service-rifle-an-in-depth-analysis/

https://gunbelts.com/blog/the-m14-stinks/

https://firearmusernetwork.com/2015/03/06/m14-reliability-problems/

https://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

https://www.everydaymarksman.co/equipment/case-against-the-m14/


Just sayin'

When stating a particular rifle is better " overall" is a way broad brush with which to paint.
Having sks's from Yugos, arsenal refinished Russians, and norinco, I will attest to there durability. They will indeed ho bang, and occasionally very rapidly when that ' cheaper ' ammunition pops a piece of primer onto the firing pin channel. They are apparently " better " when firing at game or varmints as well. Annoying a prairie dog at 250 yards hoping to actually strike one must be" better " attempting to harvest, say an elk at 400 yds would be amusing as well, not that it would be nearly impossible to strike one, on the odd chance that a 6-12 minute rifle could, but the terminal ballistics would then be very suspect. I presume that's " better ' too?
An sks does have a viable place in shooting, and can be equipped with a wonky scope fixture to hopefully increase the usually poor accuracy. It can be customized to have all various kinds of things on it and can be fun to go blast away with. It accomplished a role and was abandoned after it was obsolete. Still fun. Still ( kinda) cheap.
I wont be drawn into arguments regarding ' better', but will assert that with lighter projectiles my M1a has accounted for dozens of prairie dogs at ranges further than 250 yds quite regularly. With standard weight bullets coyotes, more prairie dogs and several elk have been taken with mine plus antelope and deer. And also several hi power matches with the rock solid optics removed, but oddly I never saw an sks on the firing line. Let's now discuss the slew of " expert" opinions regarding a long serving US rifle, I'm not in the military any longer, and would doubt that most posters here are either, so that particular discussion is mute in regards to the new roles of each rifle in its sporting role today and if comparison is to be made perhaps fellas that actually served with and against either would be more practical. I missed the M14 by a coupla years so my opinion of it as a combat rifle are academic

This is classic Commie vs. Free world tech. I own a M1 Garand and SKS. My dad has an M14 and I have shot that a decent amount. The Garand is a shooter, along with the M14. Almost like a bolt gun the way you shoot them.

The SKS is a carbine fighting rifle. Call it a get off me rifle that is a bit hard to reload. (for most of us in 2021 who are used to mags) I love my Norinco SKS. Would love it more as a paratrooper because that's what it is meant to be. Handy but not the most accurate rifle. Totally different beast than an M14.

Quantity has a quality all it's own right? And obviously the American rifles exhibit great quality. But man the commies churn out capable if not great shooting rifles. And lots of them. We can go back and forth all day but both rifles are popular and polarizing for a reason. They are a great part of history and fun to shoot.

I bought an sks because it was inexpensive. So was the ammunition. Just recently I pulled my sks out of storage and am developing hunting loads for it. So far it can print 123 Speer and 150gr Hornady sp bullets within an inch at 50 yards. I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do at 100 and 200 yards the next time I'm at the range.

I traded a late war made P38 for a soviet made and refurbished SKS. The vendor also gave me two $100 dollar bills.
Due to sabotage by slave labor I never much liked shooting the P38, plus the few times I did the rear sight flew off.

(Without even glancing at the previous replies,)

Two completely different intents for a rifle. Two different ranges, power levels, and cost-benefit expectations.

I have owned an M1A, and I currently have an SKS I run a lot, there is not a single thing I used to do with the M1A that I would now try to do with my SKS. (I have an AR-10.)

Objectivity is long gone in even this premise. Both rifles were obsolete over 50 years ago.

I don't know which is better or more practical as a battle rifle but given a choice I would definitely go for the M1A. Of all the guns I would love to own the M1A is second only to a good shooting 1903 Springfield.