Just How Much Abuse Can an SKS Take?

[Neo-Luddite]

I dunno--my Yugo works 100% so far with a broken firing pin. I have bought a spare but I can't bring myself to take apart the thing--as it keeps working anyway.

As for a side-by-side with an AK in a 'torture' test--the AK would likely win out eventually--maybe. But if it was truly one example vs. another single specimin---I think you'd find that the failure rates would approach equality--because the theoretical advantage is so slight that it would be outweighed by the practical considerations of a single part failing owing to un-detected defect or chance.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

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.

Dependability might change based on the circumstances. As to where the SKS has more numerous parts (the gas system operating on different pieces as opposed to a whole unit on the AK), gunk might catch individually on one part and not on the whole on the SKS but be dragged along further by the AK. An example would be mud in the gas tube of an SKS not going much further past the piston where it hits the gas extension spring since the parts are seperate, but the mud going further along in the AK as the whole system moves back and forth. This would have to be an extraordinary event anyways.

 

[REOIV]

The SKS is a tough gun but the AK has it beat hands down.

The AK has less moving parts, the piston and bolt carrier are once piece instead of 3 parts like in the SKS.

If you have a yugo SKS you have the gas valve which can corrode and turn your gun into a single shot rifle very easily.

Compared to something like an AR15 the SKS and AK are leagues ahead in dependability.

Against each other the AK wins out because it has less things that can break.

 

[Bartkowski]

Compared to something like an AR15 the SKS and AK are leagues ahead in dependability.

Oh, yes. The AR15 and all rifles like it are so unreliable compared to the AK design. But I thought that the gas valve on yugo's would corrode so easily, that means they can't be dependable right? So how does an SKS have an AR beat? Please explain how you came to the conclusion that AR's are so much less dependable than an SKS or AK.

 

[mr.trooper]

The receiver of an SKS is much more durable. that said, the trigger group is more complicated.

 

[Technosavant]

As to where the SKS has more numerous parts (the gas system operating on different pieces as opposed to a whole unit on the AK), gunk might catch individually on one part and not on the whole on the SKS but be dragged along further by the AK. An example would be mud in the gas tube of an SKS not going much further past the piston where it hits the gas extension spring since the parts are seperate, but the mud going further along in the AK as the whole system moves back and forth. This would have to be an extraordinary event anyways.

True, but the AK has more empty room in the receiver, and the gunk can accumulate there without impeding functioning. I'm not quite sure how somebody would get mud in the gas tube (I'd think the barrel would have been plugged solid first). Really, if a person just gives the most basic cleaning and maintenance, either would work just fine, but it's easier to care for an AK- that SKS firing pin channel is impossible to clean without tools.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Not the main topic, of course, but the new Chinese SKS I had until recently would shoot a basketball sized group at 50 yards no matter HOW it was held. Seemed rugged and decently made, just poor repeatability as to accuracy, and therefore, worthless - at least to me. And no, my other guns, shot same day, same targets, would easily shoot silver dollar size groups, even at 100 yards. Dunno what the problem was with my SKS - maybe an anomaly, but poor just the same - maybe tossing it into the mud would have actually IMPROVED it?

 

[esmith]

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.

You are correct upon saying the SKS design is not as simply designed as the AK. Yet as i assumed from his post he was meaning in the area of reliability that an SKS has can't touch that of an AK. Which is bogus. Both weapon designs feature an action that carries a high amount of momentum. Both will power through mud and scum. Even though the AK has less parts than an SKS, it makes little difference. Occum's razor does not really apply to this situation. The only time that an SKS reliability is lessened is when amateurs try and fiddle with the magazine or traditional design of the weapon.

 

[briansmithwins]

Kalashnikov talked about this in his biography. He was comparing the design philosophy of Simonov vs himself. Simonov liked to 'tightly seal' the action from outside contamination. Kalashnikov thought of the AK action as being 'suspended in space' so debris would have a place to go.

Given equally bad operating conditions I suspect that the AK will keep chugging along after the SKS has given up.

BSW

 

[tinygnat219]

Sometimes I feel like either one could be repaired by any competent blacksmith <grin>.

Ze,

Depends on the kind of blacksmith. If we are talking about the drunk blind Orangutan that has Parkinson's, we are in agreement.

 

[REOIV]

Oh, yes. The AR15 and all rifles like it are so unreliable compared to the AK design. But I thought that the gas valve on yugo's would corrode so easily, that means they can't be dependable right? So how does an SKS have an AR beat? Please explain how you came to the conclusion that AR's are so much less dependable than an SKS or AK.

Ok this is why the AR15 is less reliable than an SKS or AK47:

If you bend your buttstock at all on your SKS or AK47 it still works.

AR15 catastrophically breaks. A thin metal tube is all that stands between a rifle and an aluminum club on the AR15. I can't imagine a situation where a butt stock could be slightly bent easily.

If your buttstock comes loose on the SKS or AK47 the guns still work.

The AR15 shoots out a detent spring and now your gun won't stay closed unless you find a 10 cent spring to keep it locked in place.

If you get a jam from a cartridge rim being ripped off by the extractor in the SKS or AK you can pop the dust cover off and fish it out by hand.

The AR15... good luck the bolt is locked back in the buffer tube and the only way to get to the chamber now is to reach in through the teeny tiny ejection port.

You get a missfeed from your magazine in an AK or SKS you rock the mag out and pull the misfed round out.

The AR15 mag can't drop free because it drops straight down so better hope your round isn't past the egde of the mag well or the damn mag won't come out.

The SKS and AK are gas piston operated. They don't get as dirty and they are built to looser tolerances than the AR15 meaning they can deal with extra crud in the action.

The AR15 by default is gas impingement operated and built to tighter tolerances which makes it inherently more accurate. By its very nature it flngs crap into its own action making it that much easier for things (sand, mud, lubricant, blood etc) to cling and stick to the bolt and fire control group leading to easier jams. PERIOD.

The problem with Yugo SKSs is that Yugoslavian guns aren't chrome lined/plated and they used corrosive ammunition when they were military rifles. Lack of chrome on the steel leads to pitting on rifles not carefully kept clean over the last 50 years.

So if you get a Yugo SKS your gas valve may be corroded and not seal properly when firing in semi-automatic mode. The gun will still function but only as a single shot.

That is one extra part that can break on an SKS vs an AK.

 

[Organdonor]

Soooo... if I want rifle that's accurate, I'm fine with my AR. But if I want something to use a crow-bar, I need to pick up an AK.

 

[REOIV]

Soooo... if I want rifle that's accurate, I'm fine with my AR. But if I want something to use a crow-bar, I need to pick up an AK.

Pretty much.

The AK is about the most stupid simple gun I've ever seen.

It is so simple it is elegant when you get down to it.

I've built and tinkered on SKS, AK47s and AR15s so its not like I am just making sh** up about them.

Don't believe me pick up one of each for yourself.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Sorry, I know there's a lot of guys that put all their eggs in the "lots of SKS's an no AK's basket, but SKS's simply cannot compare to AK's. There's a reason AK's are renowned throughout the world, and not sks's converted to ak mags.

 

[Bartkowski]

There's a reason AK's are renowned throughout the world, and not sks's converted to ak mags.

Ya, probably because they are shorter, lighter, full auto, and have a detachable magazine that works well.

 

[Bartkowski]

If your buttstock comes loose on the SKS or AK47 the guns still work.

On an sks if the stock came loose it would probably come off soon after, leaving you with a functioning gun but it would be a pain to use.

If you get a jam from a cartridge rim being ripped off by the extractor in the SKS or AK you can pop the dust cover off and fish it out by hand.

The AR15... good luck the bolt is locked back in the buffer tube and the only way to get to the chamber now is to reach in through the teeny tiny ejection port.

You get a missfeed from your magazine in an AK or SKS you rock the mag out and pull the misfed round out.

The AR15 mag can't drop free because it drops straight down so better hope your round isn't past the egde of the mag well or the damn mag won't come out.

The above are just about ease of unjamming or otherwise making the gun operable again. They don't have to do with how reliable the gun is.

By its very nature it flngs crap into its own action making it that much easier for things (sand, mud, lubricant, blood etc) to cling and stick to the bolt and fire control group leading to easier jams. PERIOD.

I will assume that you mean that things can stick to the lubricant because lubricant will not lead to easier jams.

 

[REOIV]

On an sks if the stock came loose it would probably come off soon after, leaving you with a functioning gun but it would be a pain to use.

Yes but you can still use the SKS even without a stock or with a broken stock it is still usable. Even with a slightly bent stock it is usable.

Not so with the AR15

The above are just about ease of unjamming or otherwise making the gun operable again. They don't have to do with how reliable the gun is.

Reliable to me means being able to RELY on that firearm when I need it. If it jams and all guns jam, how quickly and easily I can get the jam cleared out figures into how reliable the gun is.

If every time your gun jams it is impossible to clear the jam without a work bench I would say that gun isn't as reliable as one that you can clear a jam by hand. Wouldn't you?

I will assume that you mean that things can stick to the lubricant because lubricant will not lead to easier jams.

Unburnt gunpowder, wadding, lacquer etc get flung into the action by the direct impingement. It gets on the bolt, the bolt carrier the inside of the upper. The lubricant starts to collect and bunch up with all the rest of the crap until the AR15 becomes a single shot rifle is what I mean. This requires hundreds upon hundreds of rounds mind you to do this. Problem is you introduce stuff like sand, dust, mud, leaves etc it speeds up the process.

The tight tolerances plus the requirement to run the AR15 'wet' can and does lead to jams.

I'm not saying the AR15 is a jam-o-matic rifle but when compared to the AK or SKS it has a significantly higher rate of jams and lock ups that the SKS and AK won't ever have by sheer virtue of their design.

 

[Wolfgang2000]

I like and have both. True a SKS is not an AK, and a AK is not a SKS. BUT I would feel adequately armed with either.

 

[blackhawk2000]

The AR15 mag can't drop free because it drops straight down so better hope your round isn't past the egde of the mag well or the damn mag won't come out.

Completely not true.

 

[CBS220]

We're overlooking the real issue here.

Can an SKS be as reliable as a Mosin?

 

[esmith]

If you keep your AR lubed consistenly (which really isn't mucht o ask for), it will last FAR longer than anyone of you bashing it are giving it credit for. The fact of the matter is the AR is a precision tool, and because of its high accuracy the operator will need to deal with the few complications tighter tolerances bring forth. That usually entails cleaning it occaisonally. I still believe its a good trade-off considering i can just about 'snipe' AK armed soldiers from about 300+ yard with iron sights. Plus most AK users in warfare are untrained, drugged, and use spray and pray strategies.

 

[vzenmn]

The SKS would take more abuse then any sane and smart person would give it.

 

[Albatross]

I found an SKS approximately 25 feet under water in the Pacific Ocean. It was surmised that it fell off someone's ATV while they were loading/unloading it into their boat.

One day when the tide was out I saw it through the water. We had to wait a couple months, but when an extra low tide occurred we pulled it out of the muck. A co-worker of mine cleared the barrel of gunk, loaded it up and emptied the magazine.

Then we tossed it behind the work tent for the rest of the summer. When we broke camp (about four months later) I took it home, cleaned it up (with a wire brush and gallons of hot soapy water). It doesn't have a finish anymore, but she's a shooter to a couple hundred yards.

Just from the time I first spotted it in the ocean from when I pulled it out, the gun was in the ocean for about two months (needed a real low tide). However, it had almost undoubtedly been lost months before during the hunting season. The area we were in is a very low use area during early spring.

I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with the SKS system in regards to hardiness.

 

[35 Whelen]

So....why don't you just keep your rifle out of the mud, sand, and water? I don't know about anyone else, but I was taught to protect my rifle with my life. I hunt alot including trips in the high mountains in snow, rain, mud, etc., and if I slip or fall, my instant reaction is to get my body between the terra firma and my rifle.
I've never owned an AK (never will unless I'm given one), but have 3 Yugo SKS's. I find it quite remarkable how quickly and easily the rear housing along with the bolt and recoil spring can be removed.
35W

 

[Conqueror]

I used to throw handfuls of dirt and mud into the chamber/magazine area of my yugo SKS with the bolt locked back, just to see if it would work. Never had a problem.