SKS-45 vs. AK-47

[Cosmoline]

I recently snagged a Tula made 1950 SKS-45 and it's gotten me rethinking my earlier assumption that the AK-47 was a superior design for warfare. I can see several advantages to the SKS-45.

First of all, it is a clip-fed firearm and does not rely on removing and re-attaching new magazines. On the down side this limits the firearm to ten shots. But on the plus side, this allows the user to carry vastly more ready-to-use ammunition than with an AK-47. The AK user will typically carry three spare magazines of thirty rounds each in a large purse-type bag. This gives total capacity of 120 rounds. The magazines can be re-charged, but this is a slow process unless the stripper clip device is attached, and even then it's something that's difficult to do during combat. The SKS user, OTOH, can carry hundreds of rounds on ten round strippers for no more bulk than the magazine purse of an AK-47.

Secondly, the machining on the SKS-45 is more precise, with a longer barrel and thicker steel used throughout. I have read that this is due to the SKS's origin as a shrunk-down antitank rifle. This gives the SKS-45 an accuracy advantage over the AK-47 on average, and makes it a more practical firearm for engaging targets beyond 100 yards.

Thirdly, it is at least as easy to break down and maintain as an AK-47. The parts are somewhat more unusual in their arrangement, but once you figure out how it comes apart it's pretty easy. Moreover, no screws are used to keep the firearm together. The ingenious design utilizes a series of hooks and levers to tie the key parts to each other and the stock.

Also, the SKS has vastly superior ergonomics. Though it looks odd, it actually handles and aims much more naturally than the AK, which is mired by having a stock far too high to use the iron sights without getting wryneck at the end of the day.

Overall, I'd say the SKS-45 is certainly the better firearm for a light scout weapon or rear carbine. The AK-47 has the advantage of selective fire for more serious engagements, but it's not clear how much of an advantage this is given its bouncy performance in full auto mode.

Anyway, color me impressed, esp. for $200!

 

[tomkatz]

I have both ak and sks, and I may be starting to agree with you....the russian guns especially are really decent guns for the money.....you got an awesome deal on yours IMO for two bills.....
here is my russian, and my homemade yugo paratrooper, and I have another 1951 tula sks on its way to me next week .

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I've got the best of both worlds, I have a Norinco that accepts AK-47 mags.


This is really apples and oranges. The theory behind each is completely different. If talking semi-auto..the SKS is a better rifle, but it could be a lot lighter for what it shoots. It also has a better trigger. But the AK is better in a number of other more important areas. At least in respect to modern battle.


If speaking for civilian use, then they are much closer in more ways when compared against one another.

 

[tomkatz]

I've got the best of both worlds, I have a Norinco that accepts AK-47 mags.

Yeah I should have bought one of those when I used to see them for cheap $.....last one I saw was marked $325.00.
.....tom

 

[Glockman17366]

I've got and SKS Sportster (takes AK magazines). Mines always been a bit of a pain to insert the mags...not near as easy as an AK rifle.

I like my SKS Paratrooper better. Definitely a fine truck rifle!

 

[georgeduz]

ak,s are not good for any battle,look what happened in iraq,they couldnt hit us and they where trying real hard.and only hits count.in 3rd world countries they sell for 50 dollars .crappy trigger cheeply made.friends dont let friends shoot ak,s.

 

[DMK]

I also prefer the ergonomics of the SKS over the AK. It still has the same crappy sights (which can be greatly improved with the Tech Sights rear arperture), but the stock fits better and one can actually shoot the rifle with some comfort and accuracy. The AK's magwell and controls are very awkward (the Norinco SKS-D, SKS-M, Sporter, etc is even worse), but the AK does at least allow you to reload and charge with your left hand, keeping your firing hand on the pistol grip. It's almost impossoble to do so with the SKS although it does have a last shot bolt hold-open. Overall, I much prefer shooting the SKS, especially my Romanian.

 

[White Horseradish]

One area where the SKS definitely beats the AK is prone shooting, what with no mag in the way...

 

[Cosmoline]

That's another good point. As much as I like the AK, I think the SKS wins as a brush/woods/scout carbine.

 

[trickyasafox]

tomkatz i am oh so envious of your yugo paratrooper

maybe this summer i'll get that C&R finally

 

[grimjaw]

One area where the SKS definitely beats the AK is prone shooting, what with no mag in the way

This is less of an issue if you have a 10 round magazine in a double stack AK.

I do *not* like the normal stock on an SKS. Reliable it may be, but comfortable it was not. Of the two, the AK is the less awkward for me to use.

jmm

 

[chopinbloc]

ak,s are not good for any battle,look what happened in iraq,they couldnt hit us and they where trying real hard.

the insurgents in iraq can't hit because they are poorly trained and rely on long, full auto bursts to put lead in the general direction of their enemy. any decent marksman with fire discipline can easily put rounds on target out to 150m or more with an ak. 150m is a very realistic distance for modern combat and it is rare to even see, let alone engage targets at greater range.

the ak is a fine combat weapon and definitely has a place on the modern battlefield or as a civilian self defense weapon. its ergonomics aren't as nice as an ar but we're not comparing ars and aks. if an sks has an accuracy advantage over an ak, it isn't much, is mainly a result of sight radius and not likely systemic; that is, the sks rifle is not substantially more accurate than the ak in general. i consider the ak to be superior in combat terms but if the rifle isn't intended to be used for defense it comes down to personal taste.

The AK user will typically carry three spare magazines of thirty rounds each in a large purse-type bag.

no sane person would enter combat with only 120 rounds for a self loading rifle except those who don't intend to live any longer than is necessary to detonate their explosives. those who plan on surviving the engagement use mostly chest rigs with a half dozen pockets or so. a bare minimum load for either ak or m16 is seven mags. sure, the magazines are more bulky but they allow three times as much ammo on tap and faster reloads. an ak requires use to get the mags to go in and out right and you need practice to get the hang of it but the magazine change IS faster than charging with a stripper. if the sks were truly superior to the ak in any combat capacity, then why is it that no nation fields the weapon for combat use and VERY few insurgents, militia and rebels use the weapon? the ak is almost universally preferred over the sks for good reason. this takes nothing away from the sks - it is a fine rifle - but the ak outshines the sks in every area except accuracy and that one's pretty darn close.

 

[tomkatz]

Despite what I said in my first post, I agree with you chopinbloc....I would use my sks rifles though for just about everything except an actual shtf firefight....my ak is a polish underfolder and it is not comfortable to shoot, but that isn't its purpose, it is a fighting weapon and comfort is not a factor. I agree it is superior to the sks for its intended purpose. I like em both
.....tom

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm referring to the standard four-pocket AK-47 pouch, traditionally used to carry three magazines in the field. You can of course carry more, but the weight adds up quickly. Whereas with the SKS you can carry the equivalent amount of ammunition with less weight and in a much more compact space.

then why is it that no nation fields the weapon for combat use and VERY few insurgents, militia and rebels use the weapon?

Where did you get that idea? The Chinese Army still uses the SKS extensively, and it remains very popular among rebel groups and insurgents. Our guys in Iraq keep pulling them off the insurgents.

Here's one seized by our guys in Kosovo:



And of course it was a favorite arm of the VC:

 

[chopinbloc]

you can absolutely carry more ammo for weight with strippers than with thirty round mags but weight is not the only consideration. if it were, we would all use loose .22 short carried in our pockets. the 30 round magazine offers the most combat utility.

notice that i did not say that the sks is never used by insurgents, rebels and the like, only rarely. often, all they can afford is an sks or an ancient turk mauser. that doesn't make those rifles superior for the task, only what could be afforded. in that first picture i count five sks rifles and twelve ak style rifles plus a couple machineguns and buttstocks sticking out from the bottom that look like ak but could be sks. the chinese military uses the sks for parades and ceremonies, not as a combat arm; it is similar to how we use springfields and m1 garands for ceremonies.

please understand that i am not disparaging the sks. it is a fine rifle but the ak outperforms it in combat.

 

[AK103K]

99% of the complaints against the AK go away once you take the time to learn the rifle. With a little practice, you'd be amazed at how easy they are to work and shoot, and shoot well I might add. If your basing things on crappy semi auto only "compliance" guns, your even farther off the mark. Its the US parts and crappy mag conversions what cause the majority of the problems.

All my AK's, even the the ones with crappy US parts, have all had better triggers than all but one of my AR's, and that one has a match tuned trigger.

You can easily operate the mag release and safety with your right hand on the grip. Mags will drop free on all my rifles and reloads are only slightly slower than an AR. Even well practiced, I dont think your going to get that SKS back into action anywhere near as quick, and it will take you two more reloads just to stay up with the AK. The lowly AK is pretty much an ambidextrous gun as it comes too, something most others cant claim.

For those that complain that the AK's stock is to short, I guess the M16/M16A1, M14, M1 and many others are too short too. They all have the same LOP. I dont have an SKS handy to measure, but those I've shot and handled, all seemed to have about the same, if not shorter LOP as the AK. Most all combat rifles are short stocked. Once you get used to them, they are all you will want to shoot, unless you do all your shooting off a bench. The short stocked guns shoulder quickly and naturally, and are much easier to shoot with from field positions, especially while wearing gear and heavier clothing. These short stocks are also the only way to go for any hunting/working rifle, especially if snap shots can be expected.

The SKS is a fun little rifle, but I dont think there is any comparison with it and the AK, and especially to a real one, when it comes to a combat rifle.

 

[armoredman]

The SKS preforms very well with what it was intended to do - give front line troops a big increase in rapid fire, lighter recoiling ammo, over the issued SVT40 and Mosin Nagant rifles, in the closing days of WWII. The troops who did get to feild test the SKS-45 against the Hun, loved them.
Nowadays, the fixed magazine, low capacity, heavy SKS is outclassed by many differant rifles. This is NOT to say it is useless by any means - I like the SKS, and want to get another Yugo when I can afford one. I have heard of those who practice with thier stripper clips until they are very fast - I am not, either with the SKS or the Mosin!
The SKS was one of the last combat rifles that forced the shooter to be a rifleman - semi auto only, and low capacity made you want to make those ten rounds count! At least, that's my take.
Good SHTF rifle, IMHO, and even though I'd vastly prefer a DSA FAL carbine, my wallet says SKS...

 

[MCgunner]

Since I don't plan on going to war anytime soon at age 52, I don't really care about fire and maneuver tactics. The SKS is at least TWICE as accurate, on the average, as any AK I've ever fired. That, alone, is why I'd not have a POS AK. The only reason I have an SKS, really, is cause they were dirt cheap and fun to dress up. I have one with a folding stock, 16" paratrooper, with the chinese 20 round magazine with the neat little commie star on the magazine. The other is sporterized with a chote camo stock, 5 round mag, bayonet lug cut off it, scope installed, case deflector, etc, etc. It's pretty worthless, really, but fun to shoot at the range. I've killed a deer with it. It worked at about 80 yards on a tough angle. But, I have lots of better hunting rifles. 7.62x39 is pretty worthless for most normal purposes, but it is almost up to .30-30 ballistics which makes it a lot more useful than 5.56mm NATO which is basically a varmint load suitable for jack rabbits.

 

[Crosshair]

Most of the accuracy issues of the AK come from its use by poorly trained rebbles that don't know how to aim a rifle. Yes the AR has an advantage in accuracy compared to an AK, but in combat, it is not going to make a noticeable difference. My Saiga AK is easily a 300 yard rifle, probably more if I get to a range that is farther than 300 yards.

 

[Cosmoline]

I think the AK has the edge in traditional front-line combat where each side needs to be able to deliver suppressive fire. But for shoot-and-scoot scouting or insurgency attacks, the AK offers little real advantage. I put it to you that the main reason these guys like to grab AK's is because they have the bling bling. They flash them in front of BBC cameras and parade around with them. But I know of no insurgency or rebel groups able to go toe-to-toe with our troops as the Red Army of old would have, so I really don't see the advantage of a heavier selective fire weapon over a lighter and more accurate semiauto.

Don't get me wrong, I love AK's. They're great assault rifles. It just seems to me that unless you're going into a traditional infantry fight or a suicide charge the SKS is a better choice. There is also the matter of reduced muzzle flash from the longer barrel.

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

First of all, it is a clip-fed firearm and does not rely on removing and re-attaching new magazines. On the down side this limits the firearm to ten shots. But on the plus side, this allows the user to carry vastly more ready-to-use ammunition than with an AK-47. The AK user will typically carry three spare magazines of thirty rounds each in a large purse-type bag. This gives total capacity of 120 rounds. The magazines can be re-charged, but this is a slow process unless the stripper clip device is attached, and even then it's something that's difficult to do during combat. The SKS user, OTOH, can carry hundreds of rounds on ten round strippers for no more bulk than the magazine purse of an AK-47.

You're being kinda picky here. Modern users are not limited to just 3 AK magazines. The Russians currently use a vest which carries 8, plus 1 in the magazine. I own several SKS rifles and I find its a bit more difficult to shove 10 rounds down into the magazine from a stripper clip then it is to pop out a mag and lock in a new one. It takes longer and requires you to move your face down from the stock to put in a stripper... and you have to do it more frequently. Whats more, stripper clips have the tendancy to slide around in your web gear and drop rounds here and there, to jingle around loosely. I can see the advantage to carrying just 8 magazines loaded and then the rest of your combat load on strippers though. They do save on weight.
Secondly, the machining on the SKS-45 is more precise, with a longer barrel and thicker steel used throughout. I have read that this is due to the SKS's origin as a shrunk-down antitank rifle. This gives the SKS-45 an accuracy advantage over the AK-47 on average, and makes it a more practical firearm for engaging targets beyond 100 yards.
Hmmm... the machining on the AK is precise where it needs to be. On the bolt carrier, the bolt head, the trunnions and the barrel. An AKM is lighter and cheaper to make then an SKS. In my experience, there is hardly any differance between AK and SKS accuracy. Whats more, the AK has the advantage of usually having a built in scope rail.

Thirdly, it is at least as easy to break down and maintain as an AK-47. The parts are somewhat more unusual in their arrangement, but once you figure out how it comes apart it's pretty easy. Moreover, no screws are used to keep the firearm together. The ingenious design utilizes a series of hooks and levers to tie the key parts to each other and the stock.
Hmmm... gonna disagree with you here too. The trigger assembly on the SKS is sometimes very difficult to get back into place. The trigger on the AK is as well, but the end user doesnt often take that apart. Its a necessity to remove the stock on the SKS. The SKS gas piston is a seperate piece, where it is integral on the AK.
Also, the SKS has vastly superior ergonomics. Though it looks odd, it actually handles and aims much more naturally than the AK, which is mired by having a stock far too high to use the iron sights without getting wryneck at the end of the day.
Debateable. I shoot the AK all day and dont get neck pains. Differant countries used stock sets with differant contours. The advantage of the AK is, you can get any shape you want and install it easily.
Overall, I'd say the SKS-45 is certainly the better firearm for a light scout weapon or rear carbine. The AK-47 has the advantage of selective fire for more serious engagements, but it's not clear how much of an advantage this is given its bouncy performance in full auto mode.

Anyway, color me impressed, esp. for $200!

.

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

ak,s are not good for any battle,look what happened in iraq,they couldnt hit us and they where trying real hard.and only hits count.in 3rd world countries they sell for 50 dollars .crappy trigger cheeply made.friends dont let friends shoot ak,s.

Ok. Yeah... that makes sense :

When I was in Iraq, I carried an AK part of the time. It shot fine for me. Of course, cutting the stock off past the rear trunnion, shooting from the hip, and running around screaming at the top of your lungs can do nasty things to accuracy. You know, the M16A2 doesnt have the greatest trigger in the world either

 

[Cosmoline]

the machining on the AK is precise where it needs to be. On the bolt carrier, the bolt head, the trunnions and the barrel. An AKM is lighter and cheaper to make then an SKS.

]

The AK is precise enough for what it does. My point is the SKS is better machined, at least the SKS-45 is. I'm sure this adds to the cost of the SKS, but it also makes it a higher quality firearm.

The trigger assembly on the SKS is sometimes very difficult to get back into place. The trigger on the AK is as well, but the end user doesnt often take that apart. Its a necessity to remove the stock on the SKS. The SKS gas piston is a seperate piece, where it is integral on the AK.

It is slightly more difficult to break down, but the difference amounts to about a minute of time so it's not too serious. The only hard part is freeing the trigger group. I find it all pops back together on mine with a little kung fu grip. I also appreciate how much easier the trigger area is to clean and maintain on the SKS. On my old SAR-1, all kinds of junk and sand would build up down in the trigger well and it was difficult to squeeze rags in there to clean it out without the trouble of taking apart the whole trigger assembly. I'd call it even on balance.

Debateable. I shoot the AK all day and dont get neck pains.

Well to each his own on that. I love the AK but fired from the shoulder the only way I can sight down it is to tilt my head over to the right. The angle and height are just way off.

 

[MCgunner]

Jeez, if a SKS trigger is better than an AK, I'll pass on the AK. I've fired three or four AKs, but don't really remember the trigger. I know I couldn't group better'n about 5 MOA with any of 'em. While that might be "good enough for government work", it ain't good enough to be useful for anything, to me. My SKSs are no better than about 3 MOA, but heck, for what they cost, they're fun at the range, and ammo's cheap. If it weren't for AKs, I wouldn't own any "black guns". I much prefer sporting bolt guns for their accuracy and usefulness as a hunter. Besides, in the worst scenario I can think of for needing a rifle, US attacked, etc, etc, etc, and I'm in survival mode, I'll take my Remington M7 in .308 with the 2x10 optics. I want to fire as a last resort and from long range, one shot one kill. I want to be hidden, camoed out. And, I'll use it to kill dinner, too. I wouldn't want a bolt gun as an infantry soldier, but I'm not an infantry soldier. I'm a civilian.

In a Katrina type situation, I'll want something very concealed, not a rifle that the "good guys" can take away from me. I'd be packin' my P85 with five 15 round mags full to the top.

I used to have an FFL and bought a lot of SKSs for people cause the sorta were cheap and everybody wanted one around here. I got to noticing about 2 out of every 10 had a rather crisp trigger. The rest were creep city. The one rifle I have I sporterized has a crisp trigger. My folding stock one is run of the mill, a creepy one.

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Well, it really depends on what you want.

If you want a cheap, very shotable, tough rifle that you don't have to do anything to, the SKS is great. Low recoil, yet handles like a rifle. They make great truck/ranch guns. Besides, the 7.62x39mm is planty of power to kill deer and small hogs with, despite what the magnum crowd believe.

The biggest weakness of the SKS is they tend to not take being customized well. Most modifications adversely affect their reliability.

The AK is for those that want a cheap, tough, reliable weapon that has many options for modification, and a plethora of accessories for. Most of the "cheap compliance" problems can be solved with a ~$40 set from Tapco. Big deal. Most of the accuracy problems I've seen were due to poorly assembled kits guns, old guns imported after being thoroughly shot out, people not used to the short sight radius, and people not bothering to zero the sights. The last two can easily be solved with one of those nice, inexpensive optics that attach on that handy-dandy side rail. The others can be solved, by not buying shot-out surplus guns, guns assembled by shadetree gunplumbers, and at least doing a once-over before buying to make sure the sights and gas tube aren't canted.

Both are excellent rifles, and a lot of fun can be had with either. It all depends on what your preferences are.

For the guys that really think they'll be riding with Mad Max on the way to the restaurant at the end of the universe, well, just buy what they use on your favorite movie or TV show. . .