SKS with fixed 10 round mag.Loose or damange your 30 round AR mag and see what you have-a single shot plastic rifle.Oh yes a very accurate one but still a single shot.For a "grab and go" survival carbine this is the one!Not even getting into the bayonet stuff.
AR-15 vs SKS Poll
- Thread starter Shrinkmd
- Start date
- Status
jad0110
Member
The best answer I've seen in all these posts, IMO.
Just make sure it works, whatever it is.
MCgunner
Member
Another foil hat thread. 
woad_yurt
Member
I was in the military when somone in my company let his weapon slide off a field table onto a rock. The plastic forearm (correct term?)around the barrel cracked. I also remember cleaning the things. Not fun.
For crude, self-sustaining-only conditions, I'd go SKS over AR15. I prefer the Norinco Paratrooper model, in particular. They're light & handy and they never complain.
For crude, self-sustaining-only conditions, I'd go SKS over AR15. I prefer the Norinco Paratrooper model, in particular. They're light & handy and they never complain.
ccsniper
member
sks. perfect SHTF, TEOTWAWKI, gun. strippers are fast enough, 10 rounds is plenty. no mags to lose or break, easy to clean and maintain.
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
AR! There are only 2 negatives compaired to the sks (IMO). The sks makes a better club if your out of ammo and cost. Otherwise, I think an AR wins most other catagories.
That said, if the question was bang for the buck. What gun doesnt beat the SKS?
I still say all things being equal, I would take an AR, given the question asked.
That said, if the question was bang for the buck. What gun doesnt beat the SKS?
I still say all things being equal, I would take an AR, given the question asked.
flyboy1788
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 317
even if i didnt own an AR, I would still chose it over an SKS in a heartbeat.
flyboy1788
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 317
If we all had to do a red dawn and live in the dirt, we would have A LOT bigger and scarier problems to deal with than dirt getting in our firearms. Maybe tanks, trained soldiers with body armour, halftracks, APCs, helicopters, landmines, grenades. That is if you want to take the Red Dawn route
Paladin_Hammer
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 137
Well, when talking about SHTF situations, you always have to remember the possibility that its a zombie survival situation.
In that case, the SKS. Accurate enough under 100 yards, cheap, powerful, and reliable .My cousin has one, he once asked "what do you mean by oiling and lubing the rifle? Its a rifle, not a car!". That is after he shoved over 1000 rounds through it. All he ever did was clean the barrel, everything else was never touched. That included the piston, firing pin, and bolt group.
In that case, the SKS. Accurate enough under 100 yards, cheap, powerful, and reliable .My cousin has one, he once asked "what do you mean by oiling and lubing the rifle? Its a rifle, not a car!". That is after he shoved over 1000 rounds through it. All he ever did was clean the barrel, everything else was never touched. That included the piston, firing pin, and bolt group.
Id take the AR hands down for any situation over an SKS. Id take an AK over an SKS anyday. The AR is what a rifle is supposed to be, accurate.
The AR is far more realistic, 100 times as accurate, twice as light, carries more ammo.
Of course if I was clubbing someone to death, Id just take their AK or SKS from them and do so.
Id take my mini-14 over an SKS in any situation also.
Not too many years ago a relative bought an SKS (Russian made, new in crate) and an AK (Russian made new in crate and both covered in thick cosmoline). The SKS was only $65-$75, and the AK was around $200 or less. Both are clumsy, heavy, cheap, noisey, and inaccurate, but better quality and better looking than any Ive seen from other countries.
The AR is far more realistic, 100 times as accurate, twice as light, carries more ammo.
Of course if I was clubbing someone to death, Id just take their AK or SKS from them and do so.
Id take my mini-14 over an SKS in any situation also.
Not too many years ago a relative bought an SKS (Russian made, new in crate) and an AK (Russian made new in crate and both covered in thick cosmoline). The SKS was only $65-$75, and the AK was around $200 or less. Both are clumsy, heavy, cheap, noisey, and inaccurate, but better quality and better looking than any Ive seen from other countries.
ConstantineJ9
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 127
SKS, even if the ar is more acurate why go 223 when you can have 7.62.39? Because the ar looks cool?
BHP FAN
Member
SKS.Because I never trained on the M-16 [I'm old,and the Navy was pretty low on the procurement ladder] but I can field strip an SKS,in the dark,blindfolded,with my feet.OK,I kid,but really they're VERY simple.
RoostRider
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 670
I have both and have used both extensively....
I would take either and be relatively happy that I was about as protected as the other would make me.... but I would prefer the AR for lots of reasons... weight, ammo, accuracy, and capacity to name a few
I would take either and be relatively happy that I was about as protected as the other would make me.... but I would prefer the AR for lots of reasons... weight, ammo, accuracy, and capacity to name a few
ConstantineJ9
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 127
What about on medium to large game? And you can only have one of the two?
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,411
I have both, If just one, the AR no doubt. More effective range, better handling, Lighter, much more accurate, better made. Not as useful as a club
and the ammo is less effective against a harder target than an SKS. But either is better than many others. The SKS may take more abuse but I don't abuse my weapons.
and the ammo is less effective against a harder target than an SKS. But either is better than many others. The SKS may take more abuse but I don't abuse my weapons.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,411
J9, if you are that concerned get a Garand or M14. Neither one should be used on really big game. On deer size game the advantage the 7.62x39 has, is
more than offset by lack of accuracy at useful hunting ranges. Although I have killed large bucks with both. No I don't want to from anyone with dark age ideas about ballistics and no experience. See my photos and argue with them.
more than offset by lack of accuracy at useful hunting ranges. Although I have killed large bucks with both. No I don't want to from anyone with dark age ideas about ballistics and no experience. See my photos and argue with them.
Ive seen deer brought down by many .223 (the 5.56x45 is more potent, and a bit different in size, etc)at distances of 300 meters plus, I bet you would be hard pressed to get the 7.62x39 to hit anything aside from a barn at that distance. At that distance a 7.62x39 may not have enough force left to even do any damage.
The 2 cartridges do better at different distances. Why do you think the Russians got rid of the 7.62x39 and replaced it with a 5.45x39, to get the many more advantages of the smaller higher velocity round, which still does not perform as well as the 5.56x45 at longer distances.
If your goal is the cheapest wall of lead you can put up bar none, then get an AK-47. If you like the SKS for the way it looks, and because you want one, then get it.
There is no justifiable reason that the SKS would be better than an AR period, the 2 were made for 2 different purposes. The AR was made as a primary US combat rifle, a modern design, made to fix many long time problems inherant in combat rifles made before it. The SKS was a temporary fill-in until design, tooling, then production of the AK-47 was ready, and it could be distribuited.
The 2 cartridges do better at different distances. Why do you think the Russians got rid of the 7.62x39 and replaced it with a 5.45x39, to get the many more advantages of the smaller higher velocity round, which still does not perform as well as the 5.56x45 at longer distances.
If your goal is the cheapest wall of lead you can put up bar none, then get an AK-47. If you like the SKS for the way it looks, and because you want one, then get it.
There is no justifiable reason that the SKS would be better than an AR period, the 2 were made for 2 different purposes. The AR was made as a primary US combat rifle, a modern design, made to fix many long time problems inherant in combat rifles made before it. The SKS was a temporary fill-in until design, tooling, then production of the AK-47 was ready, and it could be distribuited.
flyboy1788
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 317
Constantinej9, you know what they say, it doesnt matter what size bullet you are shooting if you can't hit what you are aiming at. Shot placement is more important than bullet weight and size any day of the week.
Shot placement is more important than bullet weight and size any day of the week.ConstantineJ9
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 127
What about a brown/black/grizzly bear? Then which bullet would you prefer(out of the two mentioned)?
SKS for me!
A High school Marine friend of mine freshly back from Iraq And Afghanistan said they would have to shoot their enemy about six times to kill them with their m-16 or AR-15 what ever you want to call it.
That made my mind up making me think the .223 does not have the nock down power the 7.62x39 has. Of course they can't use hollow points or anything but full metal jackets. On another note if you use hollow points in a .223 you couldn't penetrate a piece of grass making it not worth having in a shtf situation.
Only good thing about AR-15 is you can carry more ammo with you if you are going on patroll.
Only problem I can see with the SKS is it might not be as acurate as the AR-15. Of course My Yugo that I had was plenty acurate for a shtf situation.
A High school Marine friend of mine freshly back from Iraq And Afghanistan said they would have to shoot their enemy about six times to kill them with their m-16 or AR-15 what ever you want to call it.
That made my mind up making me think the .223 does not have the nock down power the 7.62x39 has. Of course they can't use hollow points or anything but full metal jackets. On another note if you use hollow points in a .223 you couldn't penetrate a piece of grass making it not worth having in a shtf situation.
Only good thing about AR-15 is you can carry more ammo with you if you are going on patroll.
Only problem I can see with the SKS is it might not be as acurate as the AR-15. Of course My Yugo that I had was plenty acurate for a shtf situation.
ConstantineJ9
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 127
+1 7.62.39 all the way
IMHO
Just to add a few more things.
You guys are screaming "shot placement" at three to four hundred yards your .223 is going to bounce off a human skull not a 7.62x39.
Yes I can hit targets at 300-400 yards with a Yugo SKS.
Heavier bullets have more energy at greater distances. in your AR-15 you will be shooting 60 grain bullets. In a SKS more than likely 125 grains. you do the math.
The only reason any army would switch to a lighter bullet is so you can pack more ammo and equipment on a soldier.
AK-47s are very reliable but over all are a piece of crap machine gun and not worth having. AR-15/m-16 piece of crap but are ok if you want a cool looking rifle used for compitition shooting, show off to your friends, or kill an animal and look cool doing it in front of your friends.
If you want a real rifle get an M-14. Great reliable rifle and a strong caliber.
One more thing the SKS has just as many add ons as an AR-15 does. just do a google on it.
Not trying to start a pissing match but this is my strong opinion.
Just to add a few more things.
You guys are screaming "shot placement" at three to four hundred yards your .223 is going to bounce off a human skull not a 7.62x39.
Yes I can hit targets at 300-400 yards with a Yugo SKS.
Heavier bullets have more energy at greater distances. in your AR-15 you will be shooting 60 grain bullets. In a SKS more than likely 125 grains. you do the math.
The only reason any army would switch to a lighter bullet is so you can pack more ammo and equipment on a soldier.
AK-47s are very reliable but over all are a piece of crap machine gun and not worth having. AR-15/m-16 piece of crap but are ok if you want a cool looking rifle used for compitition shooting, show off to your friends, or kill an animal and look cool doing it in front of your friends.
If you want a real rifle get an M-14. Great reliable rifle and a strong caliber.
One more thing the SKS has just as many add ons as an AR-15 does. just do a google on it.
Not trying to start a pissing match but this is my strong opinion.
Domino
Member
I'd rather have 4 or 5 SKS's than 1 or 2 AR-15's. Dollar for dollar the SKS wins hands down.
If it comes down to one of each, it going to be difficult to beat the AR unless its up against an SKS M which takes AK mags...
If it comes down to one of each, it going to be difficult to beat the AR unless its up against an SKS M which takes AK mags...
SoCalShooter
Member
My next child will be named Bushmaster...but I stay up on my Chinese so I can talk to my SKS's.
- Status