AK or SKS?

"Second thought regarding the SKS's-in-Vietnam comparison--a key difference is that soldiers in combat carry belt pouches or bandoleers with lots of reloads, whereas the typical homeowner in an HD scenario will have only what's actually in the magazine (outside of some sort of Katrina/SHTF scenario), unless you habitually sleep in web gear."

That is not really that good of a comparison. They still had to reload and were engaged in full combat. When they made an assault, they were not stopping in mid-charge to reload.

Granted, kill ratio must have been absurdly lopsided towards the GI's, but the point is that the SKS's implied inferiority due to magazine capacity remains only theoretical.

Tell me, who on this board has found himself having to fire in anger at someone in a civilian home-defense situation? Of those who did, were you using a high-capacity rifle (not a pistol or shotgun)? Of those, how many shots fired?

Sure, some will say that won't matter, that the extra rounds may just save your life. But, then, who here has actually needed those rounds? True combat doesn't count because it is not in the realm of discussion here. In the end, the advantage, while real, is not in any kind of likelihood going to be realized in the least. We will all die of car accidents, disease, heart-attacks, or being struck by lightning first.

I have been shot at, as a civilian, by the way, by hostile rednecks. I also went through Katrina (where nobody even raised a gun at me). That means only so much, of course, but if anyone here reasonably has that expectation to go into urban combat where the SKS would signal their own death's knell, the first that person should consider moving and second, get an AK.

Now, all of this is not to disparage the AK. There's not a thing in the world wrong with owning one. There's not a thing in the world with preferring one over the SKS. However, in the real world in which we live as civilians with our personal arms, there's not ever going to be a lick of difference in the use and capabilities between the SKS or the AK.

Ash

Both

You can always get both and make up your own mind. I have several of each. Triggers can be made better, safely, on an AK, but if you're not going to mess with them, there's little difference.

The AK has superior reloading capability with is detachable mag. AK mags are very good, and they're cheap so you can get a pile of them.

SKS gives you the ability to carry more ammo for the same weight, because stripper clips are light. You can also get a pile of those.

Accuracy of the two systems overlaps. Some shoot better than others, but any of them in good condition will be acceptable. Some shooters report near MOA accuracy from some of them, but three to five is more common.

Personal taste is probably as much a factor as anything. Price may be also: SKSs are going for as little as 100 dollars, while the cheapest AK is around $300+ and really nice ones are getting close to 1,000.

As stated, the AK favors the use of optics a bit over the SKS.

AK takedown and cleaning is slightly easier, as the carrier stays all in one piece with the piston rod, and all poops out the back in one swoop.

The Russians adopted the AK and put the SKS out to pasture almost as soon as it was developed. As a fighting weapon the SKS was in fact obsolete the day it went into production (both in terms of production cost and operation). They are still however a nice sporting carbine, and with original, matching magazines they are near totally reliable.

Since that little 'incident' up in the Eau Claire area, showing up in the deer fields with an SKS or AK type rifle is considered rude and in bad form and in some areas it may very well get you shot.
Strangely, I have seen deer hunters carting Mosin bolt rifles around and they don't get so much as a rude comment, so,,,,,,

Click to expand...

That is an amazing statement. From what I read about the incident, it was almost impossible to tell exactly what kind of weapon was used. I heard "Saiga" and I heard other things. Still, isnt it considered rude to shoot people hunting with SKS's or AK based actions?

Personally, I like both, but because of the numerous different parts and calibers available in an "AK", I vote AK! I have a WASR-10, a milled SA-93, A Saiga 308, a Saiga 12, and a ROMAK III. Really? You figured the ROMAK III, you must be claravoyant. Anyway, I also have a GT underfolder and a GT AK pistol. All function quite well and are fairly accurate with the right ammunition. I also have six SKS's: with two Sporters, two Chinese military models, a Russian, and a Yugo. Sporters take AK mags, BTW. The two chinese military models have milled bolts and screw in barrels, and are quite accurate even for other than SKS's. One Chinese military model hads the T-6 type stock and and is a pleasure to shoot. The normal SKS stock seems a little short even for me, and it will adjust easily. I did the same on my WASR-10, well not the same, I changed the buttstock. The one on it now is sim iliar to an RPK design and is longer and drops lower, resulting in a great fit, where you can actually look through the sights. The WASR is also accurate, once the sights were adjusted. Cost is the only major difference as AK's will cost quite a bit more, usually.

Ash,

I wasn't meaning to come across as bashing the SKS, by any means. My wife has a beautiful 1952 Tula, and loves it (prefers it to my AK, actually), and her SKS did serve in the HD role for her when we lived way out in the boonies in NW Florida.

I was merely pointing out that there are differences between the SKS and AK, and there are rational reasons why some of us prefer the AK's features over those of the SKS (and vice versa). You may feel that 10 rounds is entirely sufficient in a defensive carbine; for me, I prefer a minimum of 20. I also want the magazine to be detachable for ease of loading and unloading, the ability to easily mount a quick-detachable optic that will hold zero when removed and replaced, and a pistol grip for ergonomic reasons. The AK offers me all of the above.

The SKS is a fine weapon; I just personally prefer the AK, and do have rational reasons for doing so. Whether those reasons apply to you or not has no bearing on whether or not they are rational, merely whether or not they apply to you. They definitely apply to me, as I see it, and for me, the AK is the superior platform. I recognize that for others, the SKS may be superior. Vive la différence.

Well, you might find it ironic, but I own a Bulgarian SA-95 I picked up not long after college as well as a Romanian PSL-54 yet I do not own a single SKS. I have oned a Yugo, two Russians, and several Chinese in the past. I have liked them and see their value, but when push came to shove (or a nice Finnish M28/30 showed up) I would let the SKS's go. My first SKS I traded to a fellow for an Enfield.

Ash

On LOP

Most people are used to shooting rifles for accuracy off a bench.....not fighting with a rifle/carbine/shotgun

So most people are used to a longer LOP .....which is less than ideal for actually fighting with the longarm

As Pat Rogers put it.(paraphrased) ..the marksmanship unit determined the original fixed stock length for the M16......it was designed to shoot with....not to fight with

Best of Both Worlds---SKS-M or SKS-D

Check out an SKS-M or SKS-D

accuracy like an SKS
Size and Magazines like an AK (but heavier)