SKS-45 vs. AK-47

[Dave Markowitz]

I have experience with both platforms. I own a Chicom SKS that I bought in May 1988 and have put several thousand rounds downrange with. I also own an unissued Yugo M59/66, although I've only put less than 100 rounds through it.

AK-wise, I've owned and shot extensively a SAR-1, a Saiga converted into an AK-103 look-alike, and an Arsenal, Inc. SL-101SG (the only one I still have and it's a keeper).

One thing that skews most Americans' views of the AKs is the shoddy quality of most in this country. Sure, a Norinco or SAR-1 will work damn near 100% of the time, but they are rough and not especially accurate. A quality AK is a different beast. Check out an AK from Arsenal, Inc. for example. Mine is as well made as a Bushmaster or Colt AR-15 (had a Bushy, currently own a Colt AR-15A3).

Every SKS I've tried has an atrocious trigger. Light for one shot, heavy the next. Gritty for all. In contrast, AKs tend to have pretty nice triggers. My Arsenal AK has a much better trigger than my Colt AR-15A3. The crummy SKS trigger goes a long way to negating its longer sight radius when compared with an AK.

I find loading an AK to be much easier than an SKS. Stripping rounds into my Chicom SKS is pretty rough, although it's much smoother on my Yugo.

To make an AK handier try the 20 round Hungarian magazines.

Many/most AKs of recent manufacture have an optics mounting rail on the receiver. This makes it easier to mount a red dot (magnified optics make little sense on a rifle chambered in 7.62x39 and intended for social use, IME).

I like both designs a lot, but I prefer the AK platform as a SHTF/goto rifle.

 

[DMK]

To make an AK handier try the 20 round Hungarian magazines.

I agree. I love those mags. They are my favorites with both my SAR1 and my Norinco Sporter. The carbines handle much better than with the 30s, even the polymer Bulgarians.

With Hungarian 20s and the stock folded, my AK is very compact indeed and that's the only reason I prefer it to a standard SKS.

 

[CentralTexas]

Hey-

If I can get "strippers" to carry my ammo for me I'd be a happy warrior!
CT

 

[clange]

Could you fit ten loaded thirty round AK mags in there? I think you'd need a very large duffle bag.

How about AK mags plus loaded stripper clips?



And loose 30 round mags dont actually take up that much space anyway.

 

[Cosmoline]

But if you lose that little adapter, you're up the creek

 

[clange]

But if you lose that little adapter, you're up the creek

Heh, I've got more.

 

[chopinbloc]

what, you can't pull the rounds off the strippers with your fingers?

there is no combat purpose that the sks would exceed at, except maybe designated marksman, but who the hell would pick an sks for that, anyway?

there are many reasons to like the sks, but personal preference does not equal combat effectiveness when we're talking about the merits of the hardware. it does mean YOU are more likely to be effective but it doesn't mean that rifle is fundamentally better. let's say it again:

1. the ak is at least accurate enough for combat. it is, in most cases as intrinsically accurate as the sks. the sks' perceived advantage of long sight radius is negated by its terrible trigger.

2. the sks is not nearly as quick to load and has to be loaded more often. it's perceived advantage of lighter ammunition carry is countered by the ak being able to do exactly the same, if weight is the primary consideration.

3. the ak is more customizable, can more easily mount a wide variety of optics and maitain zero when disassembled. there is a wide variety of inexpensive, quality furniture available for it. the rifle can use any size magazine from 5 rounds to 100 rounds and change magazine size almost instantly to suit the user's preference.

4. the ak is more ergonomically comfortable and it's design is much more suited to combat shooting positions, clothing and gear.

5. power is the same.

did i miss anything? for combat, the only reason to pick an sks over an ak is price. there is absolutely nothing an sks can do better than an ak that is relevant to combat. like i said earlier, if it were superior for any combat purpose why don't any nations issue it to line troops anymore?

 

[Cosmoline]

What AK's are you shooting, anyway? To claim they have a better trigger than the SKS is nutty. AK triggers have in my experience been slappy and downright painful--a rare thing for a trigger. The ergonomics issue is a matter of preference, but the SKS is absolutely a more traditional design that aims and sits in the shoulder just like earlier Soviet semis. The AK must practically sit ON TOP OF the shoulder. Unless you can load AK's via stripper directly from the top, no they cannot be loaded just the same as the SKS. The little Chinese stripper clip adapters work OK at the range, but are a far cry from integral clip rails and a bolt that holds itself open. As I'm sure you know, judging the effectiveness and utility of a firearm based on what governments have decided to issue is laughably absurd. Do we need to talk about the abominations the UK and French governments have foisted on their soldiers?

You still keep arguing about the AK's use as a front line combat weapon. My point is the SKS is superior as a scouting firearm, and it clearly *IS*.

 

[AK103K]

The "slappyness" of the AK triggers available to most of us here is due to the crappy US compliance parts, and even with slap, all I've shot were decent if not good triggers, as far as function. They might be painful over time, but they were not heavy, hard or gritty. Slap is also not something you see in all compliant AK's. I have four and only one, a Century SAR, had slap. Isnt it amazing that for all the complaints about the AK's being crappy, the things that tend to make it so are American made.

I would think anything your comfortable with carrying would make a good "scouting" rifle, carbine, or whatever. If you like the SKS, then use it. Personally, I'd prefer to have something that would more allow me to deal with things when they got up close and nasty, but thats just me. I wouldnt plan on shooting at anything but up close in that situation anyway, and then I'd want the firepower to deal with it.

I suppose in a perfect world, a scout could get by with no gun at all, if he was any good.

 

[Shane333]

What AK's are you shooting, anyway? To claim they have a better trigger than the SKS is nutty. AK triggers have in my experience been slappy and downright painful--a rare thing for a trigger....

That's strange. I've never experience trigger slap with my Saiga AK. Not with the Russian trigger group it came with from the factory, and not with the Tapco G2 trigger group I put in when I did the conversion to pistol grip.

To claim that a rifle must have a slappy trigger just because it's an AK is nutty.

Slappy triggers would be the fault of poor parts or poorly trained gunsmiths.

 

[Crosshair]

Same here, no slap from the factory trigger or the G2 trigger kit that I installed.

 

[rbernie]

You still keep arguing about the AK's use as a front line combat weapon. My point is the SKS is superior as a scouting firearm, and it clearly *IS*.

Well, evidently it's not as clear to others as it is to you.

I think that the additional ammo capacity of the AK's magazines and proven track record for reliability in all sorts of conditions, coupled with the availability of quality furniture (e.g. steel folder hardware) and a shorter barrel, make the AK a better rifle than the SKS for just about any mission you can imagine short of a full-on sniper role (in which case the SKS won't be far ahead).

Any suggestion that the 16" barrel of the AK relegates it automatically to a 100-yard status is silly, and trying to minimize the utility of thirty rounds on tap before needing to recharge the weapon isn't much better. More importantly, any suggestion that the SKS is 'as reliable' as the AK is not borne out in any documented fashion - it may be so, but there's just not enough data to support that position.

It is fair to state that you can get a quality SKS for about half of what a quality AK would cost you. It is an exercise for the reader to determine if the hi-cap detachable magazine capability and furniture selection and proven reliability of the AK is worth the extra $$$.

It is also fair to state that the SKS-D helps address at least the hi-cap detachable magazine gap between the two, but finding one is akin to finding the proverbial needle in a haystack.

 

[chopinbloc]

You still keep arguing about the AK's use as a front line combat weapon. My point is the SKS is superior as a scouting firearm, and it clearly *IS*.

okay, so i'm guessing you mean GAME scouting, right? i thought you meant scouting like you would in combat, where you would try to avoid contact with the enemy but if discovered, you would lay down a massive volume of fire and retreat.

Unless you can load AK's via stripper directly from the top, no they cannot be loaded just the same as the SKS.

that's not what i meant at all. you tout the advantage of carrying your ammo on stripper clips because it is slightly lighter and more compact to do it that way. i say that you can do that with an ak, as well, if that's what's important to you. hell, you could limit yourself to ten round magazines, too, if you felt a need to make the rifle inferior, as is the sks. the point is that the ak will do anything an sks will do, only better.

look, once again, i'm not saying that the sks isn't better for you. the best rifle for you is whatever you are comfotable with and whatever you shoot best. objectively, the ak is a superior rifle to the sks at any job that either rifle would be appropriate for. even as a scout rifle. in combat.

the idea that the sks is superior to the ak is somewhat like saying the garand is suprerior to the m14. i realize that there are significant design differences between the ak and the sks but the comparison is about right as far as capabilities are concerned.

again, the ak has in its favor:
1. selct fire vs semi only (in military versions which is germane to this argument)
2. large capacity vs limited capacity
3. ability to add amunition easily before rifle is dry
4. lighter weight
5. better trigger (crisp, light and with little over travel compared to the spongy, heavy and sometimes gritty with lots of overtravel trigger found on the sks)
6. more manueverable
7. easier to shoot from combat positions
8. quicker to load or reload
9. needs to be loaded less often

you have stated no advantage of the sks over the ak aside from personal preference (stock fit, though for some reason, all the ak shooters here find it fits them just fine) and the ak's lack of a bolt hold open device. this device is absolutely mandatory for a firearm that has the disadvantage of being charged by stripper clips but is somewhat superfluous on a rifle fed by detachable magazine. it IS useful in a weapon system like the m16 which allows you to simply hit the bolt catch after inserting a new magazine but this is not germane to the discussion at hand because neither rifle has such a feature. both rifles require the manipulation of the charging handle after reloading so the addition of a bolt hold open to the ak would be completely ridiculous.

name one thing the sks does measurably and objectively better than the ak.

 

[Cosmoline]

1. selct fire vs semi only (in military versions which is germane to this argument)
2. large capacity vs limited capacity
3. ability to add amunition easily before rifle is dry
4. lighter weight
5. better trigger (crisp, light and with little over travel compared to the spongy, heavy and sometimes gritty with lots of overtravel trigger found on the sks)
6. more manueverable
7. easier to shoot from combat positions
8. quicker to load or reload
9. needs to be loaded less often

1--Granted
2--Both rifles have limited capacity. What is the advantage of 30 over 10 other than mass supressive fire in direct combat?
3--You have to remove the AK mag to top it off, you can top off the SKS by pulling back the bolt and sticking some new rounds in with the other hand.
4--Not when fully loaded.
5--Have you honestly never experiened AK triggerslap? Neither firearm sports what I would call a good trigger!
6--I don't see how. The SKS is slightly longer, but also thinner.
7--Is prone not a combat position?
8--Marginally
9--True, but again so what unless you need to lay down a ton of bullets?

name one thing the sks does measurably and objectively better than the ak.

It does a number of things the AK doesn't do at all--including accept stripper clips directly through the receiver and it is on average more accurate.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

What AK's are you shooting, anyway? To claim they have a better trigger than the SKS is nutty. AK triggers have in my experience been slappy and downright painful--a rare thing for a trigger. The ergonomics issue is a matter of preference, but the SKS is absolutely a more traditional design that aims and sits in the shoulder just like earlier Soviet semis. The AK must practically sit ON TOP OF the shoulder. Unless you can load AK's via stripper directly from the top, no they cannot be loaded just the same as the SKS. The little Chinese stripper clip adapters work OK at the range, but are a far cry from integral clip rails and a bolt that holds itself open. As I'm sure you know, judging the effectiveness and utility of a firearm based on what governments have decided to issue is laughably absurd. Do we need to talk about the abominations the UK and French governments have foisted on their soldiers?

You still keep arguing about the AK's use as a front line combat weapon. My point is the SKS is superior as a scouting firearm, and it clearly *IS*.

WRT triggers:

1. SAR-1 for the first 200 rounds had no slap. It then developed slap, which I remedied following the instructions on Linx310's Romanian AK page. Pull was light and consistent.

2. Russian Saiga: No slap with either the original parts or the Tapco G2 FCG that replaced them. Light, crisp, and consistent.

3. Bulgarian Arsenal, Inc. SLR-101: Absolutely no slap. It's light, crisp, and consistent. This rifle has one of the best triggers I've ever felt on ANY factory rifle. It beats the triggers on my Colt AR-15A3, the ArmaLite AR-180B I had, and most other.

4. Norinco SKS: Heavy, gritty, creepy. Or light, gritty, creepy. It varies from shot to shot.

5. Yugo M59/66: Ditto.

IMHO, the single biggest failing of the SKS is the trigger. It prevents most people from being able to maximize the gun's inherent accuracy.

If we're limiting our discussion to which rifle is a better scout rifle, then yes, it's true you can carry a lot more ammo in SKS clips than AK mags, for a given weight. However, as a scout the odds that I'd need to have 300 rounds ready to go immediately or suffer are remote. The odds that I'd survive such a situation are microscopic. There's no reason I cannot carry 2 or 3 spare AK mags + 1 in the gun with the remainder of my ammo in clips or boxes, then reload the mags as necessary using a stripper clip guide or my preferred tool, a LULA. To further cut down weight, use with the Hungarian 20 rounders, or the Bulgie or Polish polymer 30s.

WRT to ergonomics, they are personal and while an SKS may fit you better, many others find that the AK is more comfortable for them. I fall in the second category.

 

[Shane333]

Cosmoline,

I respect you alot, but you just aren't doing well in this argument.

One rifle only needs to be reloaded every 20, 30, 40, or 75 rounds depending on the magazine it's using, while the other rifle has to be reloaded every 10 rounds. That isn't a marginal difference at all in reload time.

Also, if shooting prone is your concern, use a 20 round mag or 75 round drum. That effectively negates most of the advantage the SKS has in that arena.

You've also suggested the higher ammo capacity in an AK is only good for suppressive fire. Some hunter with a bolt action could make the exact same claim about your sks and its ten round capacity, though you and I both know he would be wrong.

Of course, a person with an AK could turn that same argument around and criticize your SKS for not having the same capacity for suppressive fire if needed.

As for trigger slap with an AK? No, I've never experienced it. You must have the poor luck of only handling poorly assembled AK's.

As for "laying down a ton of bullets": I'd rather have them readily available and not need them than need them and not have them. It's just the old Boy Scout in me.

Another factor to touch upon: There are quite a few accessories for the SKS, but the AK has considerably more. Especially in the area of optics specifically designed for it.

Also, the AK comes in a number of calibers now, from .308 to 7.62x39 to 5.56 to 5.45. I'd doubt that your SKS, though accurate, would shoot any more accurately than my .223 AK.

Going back the the traditional AKM/AK47 design. An AKM with a 75 round drum shares almost every advantage of your SKS (prone shooting being the biggest you mentioned) while adding other substantial advantages. If the shooter has any trigger discipline at all, reloading simply isn't a concern anymore (there goes the importance of stripper clips). Suppressing fire is an available option, in which case the sks can't even begin to compare.

Now having said that I recognize that there are a few sks variants out there that can take AK mags, but those are by far the minority.

 

[chopinbloc]

2--Both rifles have limited capacity. What is the advantage of 30 over 10 other than mass supressive fire in direct combat?
3--You have to remove the AK mag to top it off, you can top off the SKS by pulling back the bolt and sticking some new rounds in with the other hand.
4--Not when fully loaded. (lighter weight)
5--Have you honestly never experiened AK triggerslap? Neither firearm sports what I would call a good trigger!
6--I don't see how. The SKS is slightly longer, but also thinner. (more manuverable)
7--Is prone not a combat position?
8--Marginally (quicker to reload)
9--True, but again so what unless you need to lay down a ton of bullets?

2. an aircraft carrier has limited capacity. the only guns that don't are in movies. the advantage is that you have to reload less often. reloading means not shooting. not shooting is a bad thing when people are shooting at you. as i mentioned, the only reason a scout would use his rifle at all, is if he were discovered. in that case it is unlikely he will survive but the tactic he will use is to lay down a massive volume of fire and attempt to withdraw.
3. this is not an advantage. it MIGHT be if the sks magazine were the same size as the ak. problem is, topping off the sks magazine is akward and slow. it also means a live round is ejected. that means you have to attempt to catch it and jam it back in the magazine if you don't want to just ditch it. in the time it takes you to "top off" your magazine with three rounds, i can add thirty, forty or seventy five.
4. it is lighter if i only use a puny ten round magazine. the weight you talk about is ammo. ammo is rarely a liability. if it IS, you can just use a smaller magazine. once again, this is a non-issue and if it were THAT important, the ak's superior adaptability will allow you to use an objectively inferior setup to meet that narrow requirement.
5. yes, my SAR-1 had trigger slap due to inferior, american compliance parts. then i fixed it. the ak design does not have a trigger slap problem. the rifle cannot be blamed for shoddy materials and workmanship on our side of the pond. no, neither rifle usually has a great trigger from the factory but the ak's trigger is much better and often, as mentioned above, they come with an outstanding trigger even compared to other rifles.
6. that, and it's muzzle heaviness is what gives it poor handling characteristics. the ak is faster on target and more comfortable to carry for long distances.
7. yes, prone is a combat position, however, it is not common. standing and kneeling are field expedient positions which are much more likely to be used as prone takes to long to get into and out of. that said, i have no difficulty shooting from the prone position even using thirty rounders but i'm sure i'm built differently and we may be using different techniques. further, as mentioned above, if it is difficult for you, you can use a twenty round mag and still have twice as much ammo as an sks.
8. substatially. it's also easier to perform under stress.
9. if you need them, you have them, if you don't, you haven't lost anything. the whole point of carrying the rifle is in case you need it, not to look cool. if you need it, especially in the "scout" role you put forth as the premise, you need ALOT of fire in a hurry. the sks is probably the worst for that role. it would be acceptable for a "rear carbine" as you suggested in your earlier post, but nearly anything would be as the carrying of rifles in the rear is mainly for appearance.

It does a number of things the AK doesn't do at all--including accept stripper clips directly through the receiver and it is on average more accurate.

the first is not an advantage, simply a difference. the second is debatable as many examples of the ak will outshoot the average sks and many examples of the sks will be soundly beaten by the average ak. i will say that on average, you're probably correct but the difference in accuracy is so small that it isn't particularly important and both rifles are capable of acceptable combat accuracy. further, whatever the inherent accuracy of the rifle itself, the ak's trigger and optics capabilities allow it to take advantage of what accuracy it has in real world conditions. conversely, the sks is limited by a crappy trigger and horrid, notch style sights. this makes it difficult to take advantage of what accuracy advantage it might have over the ak. if we want to talk about civilian after market modifications, one could attach an aperture sight or a scope but both have to be removed for field stripping, thus losing their zero and therefore are not the advantage they would appear to be. one could probably find a gunsmith to do a trigger job as well, though i'm not too enthusiastic about the likely result. in short, the ak has better combat accuracy. that is, the ak is better able to put hits on targets who are shooting at you and that is what matters, right?