AK vs, SKS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't count on it. There have been numerous instances in which firearms were completely legal until a new law was passed. Then they suddenly became illegal. That type thing has happened before, and it could happen again.
Right that's why California banned "assault rifles" but set up registration for preexisting rifles that you could retain but not transfer.
Last I checked you couldn't buy an AR15 in Cali but registered guns were in no danger of seizure. All they had were rules on transfer of ownership. What about machine guns. If you read HR 1022 it has a grandfather clause too.
 
As others have said, if you don't like the SKS as it is, then what you really want is a civilian AK. LEGALLY modifying an SKS can get expensive, and they're not nearly as cheap to start with as they used to be.

Here's my Romanian SAR-1, FWIW (older Romanian AK variant):

med_gallery_260_23_20379.jpg
 
why would anyone want a SKS over an AK?

I owned a SKS and they are what they are.
Again why would anyone compare one of the most dependable proven and manufactured assault rifles for something that shoots 10 rounds and jams and jams with 30 rounders not to mention changing mags is a pain. There is no argument here get your self the AK.
 
The AK seems to be better for your situation because its smaller and easier to use for HD/SD and accepts hi capacity magazines without modification. An SKS is best left stock anyway.

Again why would anyone compare one of the most dependable proven and manufactured assault rifles for something that shoots 10 rounds and jams and jams with 30 rounders not to mention changing mags is a pain. There is no argument here get your self the AK.

If you don't use cheap detachable mags and your SKS is in working condition, you should have no problems with it. And the price of a quality SKS is generally less than a quality AK. And I don't know of any SD situations that involve the person defending themselfs and shooting 30 rounds, then reloading, shooting more..........
 
Right that's why California banned "assault rifles" but set up registration for preexisting rifles that you could retain but not transfer.
Last I checked you couldn't buy an AR15 in Cali but registered guns were in no danger of seizure. All they had were rules on transfer of ownership. What about machine guns. If you read HR 1022 it has a grandfather clause too.

I bought 2 ar15 and 2 AK's you can get what ever you want in cali you just need to know the laws and the right people to make it happen if your in souther cali I might be able to help
 
If you don't use cheap detachable mags and your SKS is in working condition, you should have no problems with it. And the price of a quality SKS is generally less than a quality AK. And I don't know of any SD situations that involve the person defending themselfs and shooting 30 rounds, then reloading, shooting more..........

are you serious?
 
I bought 2 ar15 and 2 AK's you can get what ever you want in cali you just need to know the laws and the right people to make it happen if your in souther cali I might be able to help
No i'm in Utah I can get whatever I want, but thanks. I was just giving a response saying that rifles aren't seized after a gun ban on a specific rifle takes effect. So the danger of having your rifle seized is unlikely. (Unless they repeal the 2nd amendment and that better not happen until my great grandkids are dead) My point was that they made laws against transfer of ownership so it is a PITA, but no seizures.
 
Making Legal Guns Illegal

Those who think that ALL guns that are legally owned and possessed now will forever remain legal due to some "grandfather" clause had better think again. Here is a quote from http://www.gunowners.org/fs0202.htm that shows otherwise.

------------------------------------------------------------

"Registration and Confiscation

But why all the fuss about gun owner registration? Quite simply, gun registration has been used -- even in this country -- to later confiscate firearms. One such instance occurred in New York City just a few years ago.

It all began with promises made by New York City officials in the mid-1960s. They wanted to register long guns, over the vocal opposition of the city's gun owners. The city fathers promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.

Gun owners were ordered to get rid of their newly-banned firearms. Those who didn't comply were subject to having their firearms taken away.

For example, the Daily News reported in 1992 that "police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms.... Spot checks are planned [for other homes.]"30

New York City officials do not hold a monopoly when it comes to showing bad faith.

California passed a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms in 1989. Banned guns could be legally possessed if they were registered prior to the ban. In the spring of 1995, one man who wished to move to California asked the Attorney General whether his SKS Sporter rifle would be legal in the state. The citizen was assured the rifle was legal, and based on that information, he subsequently moved into the state. But in 1998, California officials reversed course and confiscated the firearm.31

Since then, documents leaked from the office of the California Attorney General have showed that state officials were planning a mass-confiscation of privately owned firearms from citizens who had previously registered their guns.32

The semi-automatic firearms in question were registered with the state pursuant to former Attorney General Dan Lungren's instructions. Lungren had granted an amnesty to thousands of gun owners and allowed them to register their guns after the initial deadline for doing so had lapsed.33

Despite the good faith shown by gun owners, the California government later ordered these gun owners to dispose of their weapons.

How did the authorities know whom to contact to notify them to turn in their weapons? The registration lists, of course.

This proves the point that the ultimate goal of registration is to facilitate confiscation."
 
i remember when wasr 10 were $315 at aimsurplus.com

They are 280 at my local dunhams, new i believe too.

Again why would anyone compare one of the most dependable proven and manufactured assault rifles for something that shoots 10 rounds

Because an sks costs half of what a WASR 10 will. Also sks' don't frequently jam, unless you are using ****ty duckbill detachable magazines, which are pretty much impractical in the first place when its going to cost more than getting an AK.

If you are looking for a HD rifle, then make it the AK. A plinker or cheap shooter, SKS.
 
Because an sks costs half of what a WASR 10 will.
Not anymore. At the last gun show I attended (a few weeks ago), Saigas weren't much more than Yugo SKS's, and SKS's were at least 2/3 the cost of WASR's.

You're right about the reliability aspect, though; SKS's are quite reliable in my experience.
 
Not anymore. At the last gun show I attended (a few weeks ago), Saigas weren't much more than Yugo SKS's, and SKS's were at least 2/3 the cost of WASR's.

Well last weekend i bought a Yugo for 160 when there were WASR 10s going upwards of 350 dollars. This too was at a gunshow. The sks is in good condition too. There was a rail for scopes that was drilled into the side of the recieve with a little wood chipped off so that it would fit. I made quick work to remove it.
 
there is no argument the AK replaced the sks in 1947 and has been in service till this day with over 50 country's the SKS is not even used by insurgents.

I think the SKS is a great rifle but not the killing machine the AK is.
I would save a little to go from the bottom of the barrel to the top of the food chain.
 
Because an sks costs half of what a WASR 10 will. Also sks' don't frequently jam, unless you are using ****ty duckbill detachable magazines, which are pretty much impractical in the first place when its going to cost more than getting an AK.

I live in California there are SKS everywhere. They jam with any High cap mag and to reload a mag takes holding the bolt back and juggling mag and gun.
I bought my AK about 2 months ago and have put my $1300 AR's away
 
They jam with any High cap mag and to reload a mag takes holding the bolt back and juggling mag and gun.

Doing hi cap mag conversions costs a lot and usually isn't worth it. If done correctly however they shouldn't jam as much as you say. Its most likely because they are using duckbill mags which are of low quality.
 
I want a defense rifle, and have been looking at the ak platform versus the sks(modified, of course) my budget will allow from $400-$700

OK, flat out forget the SKS if you're going to mod it. The SKS is every bit as reliabl;e as an AK until you start screwing with it. The SKS also makes a great truck gun, because it's cheap (just in gun shop yesterday, a NEW Yugo SKS was $179, a WASR-10 was $380), and ammo is cheap.

Your stated purpose is defense. The AK wins, hands down.
If you can fins a Yugo AK, you should be able to get it, a 4-pack of magazines and 1k of 7.62x39 for a little under your $700 ceiling. Buy a WASR and you can probably get another 1k of ammo.

I have both a WASR and Yugo, both are just as reliable as the other. The Yugo is a little more accurate, with its heavier barrel and 1.5mm receiver, versus the WASR's standard barrel and 1mm receiver. The WASR is quite a bit lighter.
 
Wal-Mart Mini-14 price check

Pete409. You are correct sir! I went to our local Wal-Mart today (11/13/07)for the purpose of pricing the Ruger Mini. They only had one in blue/wood, couldn't see from the distance if it was a Mini 14 or Mini 30(never can find a clerk!). The price was $583.00. I stand corrected.
 
Last edited:
The SKS has generally served me better. I'm not really a marksman but when I am in practice I begin to notice the deficiencies of the AK in terms of accuracy. I never had that problem with the SKS - offhand headshots at 100 yards were pretty routine.

But if you want high capacity anyhow, just get the AK. You really can't make an SKS into an AK and if an AK is what you really want you will never be happy with something else anyhow. So get the one you want.
 
Home Defense

My personal choice (between AK and SKS) would be the SKS. A shorter barrel version of the SKS can be maneuvered as easily as an AK. The only advantage an AK would have is magazine capacity and 10 rounds should be sufficient(most of the time NO shots will be fired). My choice is SKS and a lot of practice ammo.
 
The big advantages of the SKS:

You can add a TechSight, which gives an M16 peep-sight and adds almost a foot of sight radius, hence increasing accuracy (this is the ONLY mod you should make, IMHO).

You don't have to worry about buying lot of expensive magazines - stripper clips are .50 each.

You don't have to worry about losing your stripper clips or magazines - you can manually load 10 rounds pretty fast, if necessary, and the gun will not know the difference. An AK without a magazine is single-shot.

The lack of a big magazine means you can get pron(er).

It s CA friendly.
 
Both

I have both, and like both. But they are different. The lack of a need for magazines does give the SKS a little advantage as far as logistic are concerned. My SKS's (they are all short bbl Chi-com) are more accurate than the AK. If I had to have just 1 it would be the SKS simply because of the logistics.
 
I have used both M-16 and AK47/74 in combat. The AK is great in combat. Not a tack driver but most likely the best battle rifle the world has ever seen. Just my 2 cents. Never used an SKS in combat but shot one several times a great cheap rifle. One year I gave them out for xmas presents. Last year I gave AK's the AK's got bigger smiles!:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top