AK or SKS?

[pinstripe]

Which one of these rifles do you like the best and why. I am trying to decide which one to purchase. I have owned several sks's in the past but never an ak. Tell me your likes and dislikes if you would and help me make the decision. Thanks

 

[Princi]

SKS

I bought a SKS and then I bought an AK. Then I bought 2 more SKS's. I'm not at all fond of the AK. As supplied, the bolt doesn't lock open after the last round. The whole thing, being made out of stamped metal just has a cheezy appearance to me. The trigger leaves a lot to be desired, and was harder for me to work on than the SKS.

I may buy more SKS's, but I doubt if I'll ever buy another AK.

 

[Clipper]

AK is lighter & shorter. If you like them, Hi cap magazines are easy to find & cheap, and are much easier to change without altering the rifle. AK also has a built-in rigid scope mounting system. The SKS system of using the cover or it's screws is either unsecure, or requires alterations to the mount to be really rigid. However, my buddy is sticking to his SKS, and I'm happy with my new AK...

 

[Ash]

An SKS feels better as a truck/tractor gun and is more compact without removing the magazine. AK's can be made more compact with the folding stock, but the mag has to be out in order to store it compactly. The SKS has more of a rifleman feel to it, with the safety in the right place. The AK has higher capacity and many have scope mounts. Yet, the AK is hardly the most accurate weapon out there and I doubt a whole lot is really gained by mounting a scope itself. Other optics may prove more valuable on an AK, but a plane-jane scope, not really in my opinion.

It really is just your taste. Which do you like better?

Ash

 

[Onmilo]

SKS is actually a great hunting and general purpose rifle.
Put a five round short magazine in one and you are ready to go.
The SKS isn't quite as easy to scope mount and keep the scope zeroed as an AK but then again every SKS I have every owned or fired has been more accurate than every AK/AKM that I have ever owned or fired too with the exception of my Saiga Sporter Carbine.

 

[J_Dillinger]

At the gun show I attended last weekend, all the SKS rifles were such poor quality in machine finish - especially around the bolt whereas the AK's were much better. It's been awhile since I fired an SKS and I remember it to be somewhat inaccurate though very easy to fire. Since you have lots of experience with the SKS you may want to tryout an AK first to see if it's to your liking.

The AK's seem like the better choice to me and Vector makes a darn good one from what I hear. Here's the link:

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/programming/expand.asp?Prodid=233

Just my 0.02 cents.

 

[AK103K]

Since you already have owned SKS's, buy the AK and decide for yourself.

I have both and like both, but if it came down to one, it would be an AK.


Just thinking about it, is this the Com Bloc version of "...the M14 is better than the M16"?

I'm always amazed at how many people, and many who were not even born when the "older" weapons were even issued, are so vehement about them being the better choice over the newer "issue" weapons that replaced them. Is it just an internet thing, or what?

 

[elmerfudd]

An SKS is a super reliable rifle that's capable of about 3 MOA accuracy. They also have terrible triggers, very few good ways to mount optics and no good detachable magazines. It's hard to really improve an SKS much over the original design. You can install a peep sight, polish the trigger and maybe add a fixed 20 round mag. Most other modifications will tend to work poorly and may devalue the rifle.

An AK is also a super reliable rifle and in the traditional 7.62x39 is capable of about 4 MOA accuracy. They tend to have better triggers and they do have better optics mounting options and detachable mags. If you get one in 5.45, 5.56, .308 or 7.62x54R, you'll also have better accuracy. An AK lends itself to customization much more than an SKS.

Personally, I've got both and since my AK's are in 5.56 and .308 and have RSA triggers and side mounted optics, they are significantly more accurate than my SKS's. I think the AK is a much better combat weapon, but SKS's are still a bargain. They are well made, pleasant to shoot, less likely to be banned and the price on them is only going to go up. If you don't have a couple of SKS's in your safe now you'll probably be kicking yourself in 20 years.

 

[jesse485]

I now own a Yugo example of each: a 59/66 SKS, and an Underfolder AK. I put a scout scope mount and cheap red dot (www.scoutscopes.com), and it makes a wonderful plinker. The AK rides in my truck's toolbox in a tennis racket case. I think of the SKS as an actual rifle, while I think of the AK more like a common tool. For home defense, I'd take the SKS, but for SHTF, the AK is much easier to carry and is plenty accurate.

 

[benEzra]

Depends on personal preference, I think.

My wife likes her SKS--recoil is gentler than an AK (i.e., hardly noticeable, thanks to the weight and wide buttplate), the safety is convenient, and hers is a 1952 Tula with beautiful wood and an immaculate finish. Here's hers (she's ditching the receiver cover mount shown in favor of a Millett scout mount, though):

I personally my "AK" (SAR-1). It's much easier to mount an optic on, the optic can be removed and replaced without losing zero, it's much easier to reload, capacity is better (that's a Hungarian 20-rounder in the photo), it's much handier than my wife's SKS, and it's lighter. I also strongly prefer a pistol grip to the Mauser-style straight stock of the SKS. With the optic, it's at least as accurate as the SKS, I think, though the SKS is easier to shoot well if you are limited to iron sights only. (A lot of the AK's trouble is the short sight radius, methinks.) Here's mine:

 

[J_Dillinger]

Here's the SAIGA AK which is closer in price range to the SKS :

http://www.rrarms.com/catalog.php?prod=GIZ114

 

[dstorm1911]

Depends on what ya WANT, a QUALITY AK (and please a WASR is the very bottom of the AK barrel if your going to use it as representing AKs then by all means get a Chicom SKS) even the lower End price range of say a Yugo AK (around $400) ya get a base rifle that is very accurate or go to $500 and look at a Lancaster consulting built Romanian G (ex military with all military grade components) Personally though the Yugo as assembled by Century is a great deal with the 1.6 mm reciever, hammer forged match grade barrel etc..

Compact? go underfolder and a 10 round mag ....... there ya are at exactly the same capacity as the SKS, wanna go hunting swap out that 10 for a 5 round, the big difference is that with the flick of a lever ya can switch to a 20 round, 30 round or a 75 round drum the options are endless...... The Yugo has the only underfolder I will recomend as they set their geometry different from every other countrys underfolders it actually provides a very decent cheek weld with much reduced recoil....

As far as accuracy, we build custom AKs as well as FALs, G3/CETMEs, M1 Garands, I've locked em all into a shooting machine at one time or other, for the YUGO Aks we build we are using the exact same components Century is useing except our parts are brand new virgin parts (no diffrence except the parts kit built guns have more history and serial numbers already engraved on em) Nodakspuds 100% fully heat treated 1.6 mm thick recievers, brand new USA Made Green mountain barrels hammer forged match grade barrel, I can lock any Yugo with a new GM barrel into our shooting machine (this is a huge heavy chunk of steel that clamps the gun in tight for zero movement recoil is handled by hydraulic pistons that return the gun to the exact precise spot every time, there is zero human interaction with the gun once its clamped in other than to hold down the [SHIFT] key then tap the [F4] key to fire) every single one when fired from that machine with quality ammo will print a 1-1.5" group every single time...... ironically this is exactly the same from MOST SKSs provided the SKS is new, The only real accuracy difference between an SKS and a Yugo AK is in the shooter some people are more comfortable with a traditional stocked rifle as opposed to a pistol grip stocked rifle, the SKS 4" longer sighting radius which means if ya aren't a very stable shooter then ya are going to see slightly better accuracy as the extra 4" of sight radius helps minimize sighting errors velocity with the same ammo from either gun... ya gain 50-75 FPS with the extra 4" of barrel....

It comes down to what ya want partner, if ya were not happy with the SKSs before then ya probably won't be again, if ya were wanting to change or modify the SKS to be more like an AK well then ya already got your answer...

BTW, the NON WASR AKs will appreciate faster in value than an SKS too, if another ban gets passed the SKS will still have the same value the AK it'll suddenly jump up considerably a Yugo M70AB2 (underfolder) ya pay $450 for today will at the very least double in value over night but as we watched during the last ban when Don was selling Norinco Military configured AKs at $189 ea at a Texas gun show when the news hit that the ban had passed EVERY dealer pulled down the $150-$200 price signs and put $1000-$1500 signs up and they got overrun with buyers who had walked right past the same guns hours earlier priced at $200 or less.............. the SKSs they stated at $59 for unissued ones ...........

As far as chrome bores or non chrome bores, unless ya have a stash of true surplus corrosive ammo, ya will never see any benifit as the chrome linings primary benifit is in FULL AUTO rifles as it helps minimize barrel wear from the extra heat generated by very high rate of fire ie; the barrel is not getting to cool down at all between shots the slicker chrome helps reduce friction when its hot providing a lil more barrel life...... as far as corrosive ammo even if ya do shoot corrosive primed ammo (I do almost exclusivly) and fail to completally clean your rifle accordingly ya will still get a corroded gas block, gas tube, bolt face and magazine..... none of these areas is chromed and they are all exposed to the same salt residue as the barrel is in fact the gas system more so than the barrel.......

The chromed barrels are softer steel as needed for the button rifling process of pulling a button through the bore to create the rifling a hammer forged barrel however is much much harder as they can start out with a higher grade steel to begin with it is then placed over a mandrel with the EXACT precise bore diameter and the rifling pattern the steel is then beat with hydraulic hammers that form the barrel contour and impress the inside of the bore with the rifling pattern, the original blank starts out as basically a bull barrel then gets compressed via hammering into a military configuration barrel its then lathed to give a clean extrerior, the hammer forged barrels are much more uniform and consistant this is why they are the first thing ya add when building an accurate target rifle........

AK or SKS? what are ya the most comfortable shooting?

 

[amprecon]

When I owned an SKS, a Norinco Para, I tried to turn it into an AK. Then thought, why not just buy an AK? So I sold the SKS and bought a SLR-95, a high-end milled receiver AK and haven't looked back. It's just as accurate or more than the SKS was and I don't have to buy those clumsy hi-cap magazines with the big ole bracket sticking out.

 

[Lonestar.45]

I own both. I like both. I'd get rid of the AK long before the SKS. The SKS is machined, the AK stamped. The SKS is more accurate. The sights on the SKS are better. The length of pull on the SKS fits me better. I enjoy shooting the SKS more.
Now, if I were to go into battle against a horde of zombies, or I wanted to bubba/tapco-ize a rifle, the AK would be the choice, but for everything else, the SKS in my book is a better rifle.

 

[Ash]

""issue" weapons that replaced them. Is it just an internet thing, or what?"

No, it is a practicality thing. Consider that the primary advantages to the soldier the AK had over the SKS were magazine capacity and automatic fire. The Soviets did not add scopes to the AK's for a very long time, so that was NOT an advantage at the time. Now, we civilians cannot have fully-auto (as a general rule not counting insanely-expensive NFA firearms). So, one of the primary advantages of the AK disappears. Thus, magazine capacity is the only one. And that is of no great advantage in anything but a protracted fire-fight. Now, one can argue overall length, but that is not a design issue as the SKS could be made shorter. Therefore, many civilians view the inferior accuracy of the AK as a tremendous mitigating issue supporting the SKS. The view that the decreased magazine capacity can be offset by the increased inherent accuracy is certainly valid.

Also, an SKS is going to be much, much less expensive to buy than an AK. Coupled by its more stream-lined shape and less scary appearance, the SKS becomes quite the attractive firearm as compared to the AK to civilians. Just because it was better for the military doesn't make it better for the civilian.

And, if you want to compare M14 to AR-15, there are very definite advantages of the M14 to civilians over the 15. First and foremost you can hunt with the 14 whereas for most hunting you cannot use the 15. Therefore in civilian hands, the 14 is far more versatile than the 15. Therefore, a civilian can choose the M14 for very logical and sound reasons over the AR-15.

Ash

 

[Ash]

Of course, folks can choose the AK/AR over the M14/SKS for sound reasons, too. But it would be absurd to say the choosing the SKS over the AK is wrong. But in any case, the best finished/assembled SKS is still generally less expensive than the worst-finished/assembled AK.

Ash

 

[Lonestar.45]

"And, if you want to compare M14 to AR-15, there are very definite advantages of the M14 to civilians over the 15. "

That's an apple to oranges comparision. The M14 compared to the M16, or the M1A compared to the AR15, that's apples to apples.

 

[MudPuppy]

Not all AKs are stamped.

I'd argue that my milled bulgarian is any less accurate than an SKS (not to mention my Yugo 223--but assuming we're sticking with 7.62x39).

The only experience with an SKS was a yugo 59/66 (irrc) and it's a fine rifle, but I like the balance, shootability, and quality of my bulgarian.

 

[Ash]

"That's an apple to oranges comparision. The M14 compared to the M16, or the M1A compared to the AR15, that's apples to apples."

Oh, I agree, but it really is nit-picking as we are talking about civilians. And, since I can indeed get M14 pattern rifles stamped M14, then it isn't a big deal. Again, my point is not for the military but for civilians.

Ash

 

[Joe Demko]

AK also has a built-in rigid scope mounting system.

Not all of them. The Maadi I used to own didn't have the optics mount. Neither do the Yugo underfolder nor the Polish AK I have right now. Absent the rail, the AK has no better method for optics mounting than the SKS.

Some time back, I purchased one of the SKS after-market receiver covers with integral scope mounts. It worked surprisingly well. The key was that it was an extremely tight fit. In fact, I had to use a rubber mallet to seat it. I made it a point to not remove it unless I absolutely had to, and for the three years I kept that rifle I had no complaints about a wandering zero. For the record, since I never used corrosive ammo there was no real reason to constantly be stripping and cleaning the rifle. I sold it to another fellow, who still has it, and advised him to leave the receiver cover alone unless there was a definite need to remove it. He's had the gun for about 6 years now and, if it loosened up and started giving problems he hasn't mentioned it to me.

 

[foghornl]

I have shot both the AK & the SKS, and I prefer the SKS due to the "fit & feel".

Nothing to do with how put together, I like the way the SKS "fits" me. The AK series seems a bit "odd" to me.

 

[AK103K]

I've often wondered about the "inferior accuracy of the AK" comments and what those who make them base them on. Also, just what are we comparing and are the comparisons realistic. Its been my experience that the AK's are capable of very good combat accuracy. I have AK's from SAR's and WASR's to upper end Saiga conversions, and all of them shoot pretty much the same, at around 4-6" at 200 yards from a good field position on IPSC type targets with no aiming point. The only ones I have had that didnt do as well, were those assembled here on US receivers. I dont find my Russian SKS to shoot any better or worse than my AK's, and any of the other SKS'd I've shot have been about the same.

As far as I'm concerned, mag capacity trumps minor differences in combat accuracy at realistic ranges. A quick to change, 30 round mag wins out over a 10 round stripper fed gun right off, as its already two reloads ahead. Add to that, the SKS's strippers are notorious for dropping rounds in the pouch and when drawn from them, that you often only get 8 or 9 rounds in the gun when you do reload it.

Shooting either rifle well comes from shooting them A LOT. If you shoot one more than the other, which do you think you will most likely be better with, and feel more comfortable with? You need to shoot them BOTH a lot to make a realistic comparision. Now you have to buy the one you dont have and work at why one is better than the other. Who said it was easy?

Just curious here, but those who say the SKS "fits" them better, what do you find about the AK to be different? Is it the pistol grip vs traditional stock? Or LOP? Most complaints about the AK's are that they are to short in the LOP. The SKS's tend to be even shorter, by about 1/2 -1" than the AK's.


None of this really matters if all your going to do is do a little target shooting once in awhile at the range off a bench. The real difference is if your comparing the rifles as they were meant to be used, even if they are both only semi auto guns. Just like the M16 superseded the M14, (over 40 years ago I might add, for those who cant get over it. ) the AK superseded the SKS, and has itself been upgraded even more. I havent seen anyone who made the switch abandon the newer technology and go back.(The current DM M14 stop gaps dont count, they will soon be gone once they decide on the replacement. So stop slobbering. )

 

[esmith]

Put a five round short magazine in one and you are ready to go.

What must you do this?

 

[foghornl]

Some (read as "Most") states require a 5-round magazine capacity limit for hunting with a semi-auto rifle/carbine.

I prefer the traditonal stock on the SKS vs. how the AK series guns are generally setup, although I have to say I have not tried a "tradational full wood stocked" AK like the one BenEzra pictured. And the fire/safe control seems out of place to me on the Ak-series.

 

[Il Duca]

I have had an AK for a couple years now. I recently bought a nice Norinco SKS that was too cheap and nice to pass up. I haven't taken the AK out of the safe since I brought the SKS home. I have never really been too impressed with the AK, I have always considered it an extremely homely rifle but liked it because it was cheap to shoot and reliable. Well, I found a replacement.