Just How Much Abuse Can an SKS Take?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dynasty

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
205
Can an SKS rifle truly take as much abuse as an AK rifle? Could the SKS still shoot after being buried in mud, sand, water? I have an SKS, but was considering getting an AK. However, if the SKS is just as reliable then I think I will be fine with the SKS for a while.

Anyone have first hand experience of testing how reliable and how much abuse an SKS can take?
 
I had a blown out primer once lock up the trigger group on a Chinese SKS. Had to break it down (easily done) to dislodge the bit of material. It's not a stretch to think some other bit of stiff material could get in there and do the same.

I don't really think of AKs as being that tough, anyway. In general, it's a stamped piece of sheet metal. It's just designed to work in less than ideal conditions.

I think the AK is more tolerable of neglect than the SKS. How much more? Not sure.

jm
 
Well I know for a fact my Glock runs after pouring sand into it, with the slide off. Do you know how I know this? Because I did it. There's only one way to find out if "your" gun will do the same.
 
The only SKS related problems I know of have been with BUBBAD SKS's. People try to turn their SKS's into an AK with detachable mags and the whole works. With a stock SKS I've never had jam problems. They're real workhorses and have been field tested and proven all over the world, same as the AK's.
 
in stock form an SKS is as reliable as an AK except under EXTREEM conditions. And since you didn't specify conditions I can't really answer your question. Also, there are many different quality AK's and SKS's from different countries so there's also that! but generally both AK's and SKS's are some of the tougest most reliable rifles on the planet.
 
Never had any trouble with either of them but since the SKS has more small parts it might be the first to have a problem of some type.
 
While the SKS is rather reliable, it isn't as simple a design as the AK. More moving parts, a bolt more susceptible to dirt (due to the firing pin design), etc. Sure, it still has a great deal of reliability. I'm not sure that I'd grab any gun out of the ground, load it, and shoot it. Any gun coming out of long term storage (especially in dirty conditions) gets a thorough cleaning and lubing before bang time. The last thing you want is an obstructed bore or crap in the gas tube.
 
Anything Russian-designed is going to be pretty well bombproof.

A WWII T34 tank was pulled out from the bottom of a lake recently where it spent the last 60 plus years. There was some "catch-up" maintenance, etc., in order, but they were able to fire up the diesel engine without any major work on it.:what:

Not sure what the Russian phrase for KISS is but they probably have the patent on it. :p
 
The Russians do seem to be masters at making cheaply produced, efficient tools and machines that are stone cold reliable..

Their military technology is a good example of this with the mosin and the AK amongst many others.
 
The ruggedness of the AK is often exaggerated to a large degree. Don't be mistaken in believing every AK tale you read on the net.

The SKS is fairly comparable overall. In some ways, even more rugged seeing as how much more abuse the receiver can take.
 
I would be concerned with getting dirt in the firing pin channel of either an AK or an SKS.To my thinking they are about equal in their overall ruggedness and ability to function in almost any environment.
I have owned both and prefer the SKS.
Stan
 
The SKS is a more solid rifle, in my opinion. I have both, and my Chinese MAK-90 is accurate and reliable, but not as well built as my Russian SKS. This is probably due to the different countries of manufacture. I'd love to get my hands on a Russian AK for comparison. ;)
 
The SKS is a more solid rifle, in my opinion. I have both, and my Chinese MAK-90 is accurate and reliable, but not as well built as my Russian SKS. This is probably due to the different countries of manufacture. I'd love to get my hands on a Russian AK for comparison.

get a saiga, made in the same factory. Much nicer than most other AK's I've seen, cheaper too. Stock sucks though. Build quality is very good for the price.
 
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=360364

I realize that poll is unscientific, but it does seem to lend evidence to the point I was trying to make. Almost 1/5 of the people in that poll experienced slamfires, probably due to firing pin issues. I'm willing to bet I wouldn't get the same slamfire rate if I posted a poll about AKs.

I submit that an SKS (like the vast majority w/o Murray's kits) requires more maintenance to ensure reliable and safe operation than an AK, and is thus less tolerant of "abuse" than an AK. How much more maintenance? Not sure. I've personally never had one slamfire, but I know I was much more conscious of it than I was with any of my AKs.

Also, some (probably a very small number) SKS trigger groups suffer from negative engagement, making them more prone to drop the hammer in the event of a dropped or banged gun. Small cause for concern but I always checked for that on any SKS I bought.

jm
 
....yeah....okay....

No, he's dead on. An SKS is not an AK. An AK is not an SKS. Just because many people spend a great deal of time and money to make an SKS into a poor man's AK does not mean it is the same rifle. They're both intermediate cartridge carbines, and with a semiauto AK, they are similarly accurate and similarly reliable. But their underlying parts are far different, and the AK will slog through mud, sand, and whatever else more happily than the SKS due to the increased tolerances and reduced number of parts. It is also lighter and quicker handling than the SKS.

An SKS built up into a wannabe AK is often a finicky thing, workable only with particular items. The AK from the get-go will run. They're both good guns, but they are most certainly not the same gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top