RUT
Member
>>Just as good? As a general thing, probably not. History shows that one rose and the other fell<<
Pretty much sums it up. Each has its purpose, and I like 'em both.
Pretty much sums it up. Each has its purpose, and I like 'em both.
SKS just as good as an AK 47?
- Thread starter Scoped
- Start date
- Status
I choose the AK because it's more ergonomic, easier to use, easier to clean and maintain, easier to load and make safe, and every bit as accurate.
Nothing wrong with an SKS per se, but for a "traditional" pattern milsurp semi-auto with a limited capacity internal magazine, I'll stick to my Garand. It'll will out-shoot any SKS all day long.
Nothing wrong with an SKS per se, but for a "traditional" pattern milsurp semi-auto with a limited capacity internal magazine, I'll stick to my Garand. It'll will out-shoot any SKS all day long.
Biohazard1993
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 124
Thats a good point. As stated the sks is heavier and longer. Both attributes I do not want while shooting long periods of time or lugging around... but if I was in the market for a heavy, long, internal mag gun, why not 30-06 with block clips (much easier to load). And I agree with others the sks is what it is, a target gun (due to the weight and longer barrel). Why take an sks and make it look like an ak or somewhat function like an ak? I don't know, the same reason people tacticool up garands and 1903 springfield bolt actions probably; they want something they do not have or at the time could not get for different reasons and want to change what they already have to save $$$. I understand that concept, Ive been there (and vowed to never do it again) and in the end I have found it is best to keep the traditional gun traditional and buy the tactical to stay tactical. in the end it will still be a heavier and longer rifle which are the reasons for having the ak.I choose the AK because it's more ergonomic, easier to use, easier to clean and maintain, easier to load and make safe, and every bit as accurate.
Nothing wrong with an SKS per se, but for a "traditional" pattern milsurp semi-auto with a limited capacity internal magazine, I'll stick to my Garand. It'll will out-shoot any SKS all day long.
Blade First
Member
Haven't read every post, but has there been any consideration that the touted "superior" accuracy of the generic SKS is a simple matter of a longer sight radius? And the attendant ability of the average shooter to use that longer sight radius for effect?
The protocol of the Soviet-bloc countries would suggest that a standard barrel twist for the 7.62x39 military cartridge wouldn't change between the SKS and AK variants, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to suggest otherwise.
In my experience, the SKS is a clearly inferior weapon for one obvious reason: reloading is not just a more cumbersome effort but requires a multiple of those efforts to equate to a single 30-rd. mag change with the AK.
High-adrenaline situations dictate that gross-motor skills trump fine-motor skills. Notwithstanding the specific federal 922r prohibition that SKS rifles should not be "converted" to detachable mags [and we're still searching for a single instance of prosecution of same], why would there be a specific bias for the SKS?
Other than the less-expensive purchase price...before the "lipstick on a pig" tariff, of course...
The protocol of the Soviet-bloc countries would suggest that a standard barrel twist for the 7.62x39 military cartridge wouldn't change between the SKS and AK variants, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to suggest otherwise.
In my experience, the SKS is a clearly inferior weapon for one obvious reason: reloading is not just a more cumbersome effort but requires a multiple of those efforts to equate to a single 30-rd. mag change with the AK.
High-adrenaline situations dictate that gross-motor skills trump fine-motor skills. Notwithstanding the specific federal 922r prohibition that SKS rifles should not be "converted" to detachable mags [and we're still searching for a single instance of prosecution of same], why would there be a specific bias for the SKS?
Other than the less-expensive purchase price...before the "lipstick on a pig" tariff, of course...
JHansenAK47
Member
The SKS is not an AK and shouldn't be turned into one.
If time spent reloading isn't a problem and iron sights work for you the SKS has everything you need.
The Detachable AK magazine is clearly superior in capacity to the fixed ten round and easier to change than the SKS Aftermarket mags. The exception being the SKS-M. The SKS-D may use a better magazine but still has the same ackward mag change.
Siderail optics mounts are rare on the SKS, but common on the AK. The top cover SKS mount is loose and wanders. Both can be forward mounted but at the end of the day the AK simply has more widely available and varied mounting options.
Lastly the AK has more accessories, everything from muzzle devices, pistol grips, stocks, forends, triggers and mag release modifications.
If you don't like the stock SKS for what it is, then get an AK.
If time spent reloading isn't a problem and iron sights work for you the SKS has everything you need.
The Detachable AK magazine is clearly superior in capacity to the fixed ten round and easier to change than the SKS Aftermarket mags. The exception being the SKS-M. The SKS-D may use a better magazine but still has the same ackward mag change.
Siderail optics mounts are rare on the SKS, but common on the AK. The top cover SKS mount is loose and wanders. Both can be forward mounted but at the end of the day the AK simply has more widely available and varied mounting options.
Lastly the AK has more accessories, everything from muzzle devices, pistol grips, stocks, forends, triggers and mag release modifications.
If you don't like the stock SKS for what it is, then get an AK.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
So the consensus is that an SKS with detachable mag would be far and away the superior breed? Because that's the only recurring detraction I've read.
Well, they already have that; it's the Chinese Type 63 specifically, and the VZ58 speaking more broadly (the latter is lighter, too). Unfortunately, they both suffered from the same (and only) drawback, and one that the AK lacks; none of these were cheap enough to blow out freely all over the world by the millions. Milled AKs didn't exactly hold the mantle for very long, either, why would any other milled-receiver firearm?
Since we are neither nation states nor revolutionaries, the cost of the individual gun is much less important (keep in mind, the guns have already been paid for, so we are only paying for demand nowadays) than the quality. The average SKS tends to be better built than the average AK, though that may be changing as both dry up. They also do the same thing (send semi-auto 7.62x39 downrange). The SKS has a better safety layout, and nicer recoil due to the short stroke piston design. Some people really like a fat op-rod slamming their shoulder though, and don't care for the accessible ejection port.
At least with the SKS, you won't be tempted to buy a stupid number of spare magazines, so the cost savings is double
TCB
Well, they already have that; it's the Chinese Type 63 specifically, and the VZ58 speaking more broadly (the latter is lighter, too). Unfortunately, they both suffered from the same (and only) drawback, and one that the AK lacks; none of these were cheap enough to blow out freely all over the world by the millions. Milled AKs didn't exactly hold the mantle for very long, either, why would any other milled-receiver firearm?
Since we are neither nation states nor revolutionaries, the cost of the individual gun is much less important (keep in mind, the guns have already been paid for, so we are only paying for demand nowadays) than the quality. The average SKS tends to be better built than the average AK, though that may be changing as both dry up. They also do the same thing (send semi-auto 7.62x39 downrange). The SKS has a better safety layout, and nicer recoil due to the short stroke piston design. Some people really like a fat op-rod slamming their shoulder though, and don't care for the accessible ejection port.
At least with the SKS, you won't be tempted to buy a stupid number of spare magazines, so the cost savings is double
TCB
Yep.
One might say I like the SKS over the AKM for the same reasons I prefer the M1 Garand over the M14.
The only real advantage the newer designs offer is firepower.
Of course, the fan boys will tell you an M14 is more accurate than the M1 Garand at longer ranges, which it really isn't and AKM fan boys will tell you the AK is more accurate than the SKS at longer ranges to which I say HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I wonder if the fan boys have ever shot an AK or M14 in steady prone position at 500 meter targets because if they have, they will want for a five or ten shot magazine after the fact.
One might say I like the SKS over the AKM for the same reasons I prefer the M1 Garand over the M14.
The only real advantage the newer designs offer is firepower.
Of course, the fan boys will tell you an M14 is more accurate than the M1 Garand at longer ranges, which it really isn't and AKM fan boys will tell you the AK is more accurate than the SKS at longer ranges to which I say HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I wonder if the fan boys have ever shot an AK or M14 in steady prone position at 500 meter targets because if they have, they will want for a five or ten shot magazine after the fact.
Actually it is possible to load an SKS the way you say it can't be done. You just have to know how. I keep mine stored just that way (loaded mag, no round in the chamber). It's not as easy as an AK but it isn't something you'll likely be doing under stress. If the heat was on I'd want to go ahead and chamber a round anyway.
Also it's been said that we buy what we "can afford". Really? I had an AK. I sold it. I have rifles that cost over 12 times as much as I paid for my first SKS. Yes I would just as soon keep my money. But if I thought the AK was superior I'd likely have one. I do think AR's are superior but I don't have a collection of ammo for those that dates back 20 years. Ammo that I didn't pay much for too.
Inebriated
Member
Firepower is the name of the game, these rifles are built for fighting, not sitting in perfect field positions, punching paper at 500m. Why ANYONE would say that firepower is the "only" advantage, as if it isn't THE only advantage is beyond me.Onmilo said:
Have you? That 30-round mag makes an excellent rest, but I don't know why you would assume that they couldn't just put a 5 or 10 round mag in if they wantedOnmilo said:
These rifles are made for fighting, and the AK is just the better rifle for that. Lighter, more reliable, easier and more secure ways to mount optics, better triggers, more mag options, more parts, and will put shots on target 500m away in a hurry. The SKS works, but the AK is just better suited, and to pretend that any accuracy difference between a quality AK and SKS means that one is better is just silly.
dprice3844444
member
hey,they both work.they have both been proven in battle.they both will get the job done.plus,you can buttstroke easier with the sks
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I understand what youre doing, but its not the same as I was describing. Once the SKS is loaded, you cant "unload" it like an AK. The SKS is still cumbersome to reload compared to the AK, and again, it has to be done three times to match just one AK mag, and thats assuming you get 10 rounds in the gun each time.
Ive learned its best to buy what you cant afford, right off. Its usually cheaper in the long run. Only a rich man can afford cheap stuff.
Scoped said:
In your case, getting back to the original question, I'd say none.
You shouldn't trade a good rifle away unless there is some reason you just don't like it. I've done that with a few, an SKS and a couple Finn Mosins among them, and I regret it. If you lose interest in the SKS, consider greasing it up and sticking it in the back of the cabinet or safe for a few years instead of getting rid of it.
One thing against AK's is that you picked the wrong time to buy one. Prices have gone hysterically insane on AK's since the panic. It used to be you could pick up a cheap AK to learn on and experiment with for under $300 used or around $350 new. Now a $300 AK is priced at $600 and a $600 AK is priced at $1,200. If you want one, either wait for prices to come back down some or really do some shopping and hope for a little luck.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's the second time that's been said and I'm still confused as to what you mean.
If you have a loaded AK, pop the mag release lever, rack the charging handle, and you have an unloaded AK.
If you have a loaded SKS, pop the mag release lever, rack the charging handle, and you have an unloaded SKS.
What in the world is the difference? Except that it's easier to drop the 10 loose rounds from the SKS into your pocket than it is the AK mag and one loose round.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
All I have to do with the AK, is drop the mag. I was also referring to loading the AK, "without" loading it. I dont need to chamber a round at all.
Theres no fiddling with loose rounds as with the SKS, however you want to unload it. I can just pop the AK's mag in my pocket just as easily, and instantly reload the gun if necessary.
Theres no fiddling with loose rounds as with the SKS, however you want to unload it. I can just pop the AK's mag in my pocket just as easily, and instantly reload the gun if necessary.
Float Pilot
Member
There is nothing wrong with a good tight SKS that has not been bubba'ed. I had an old Russian model and a Norinco paratrooper version that would both shoot 1.5 MOA at 100 yards.
I had a East German model for a couple years that was so nice I never shot it... It turned into a snow blower one day during a swap.
I had a East German model for a couple years that was so nice I never shot it... It turned into a snow blower one day during a swap.
theotherwaldo
Member
I have a stock Romanian SKS. It loads with stripper clips. When I'm hunting I usually load one stripper, as that's more than enough for the average hunt. The safety works fine.
I also have a Chinese SKS that has been given the full Bubba treatment - not by me, by the way. It can be loaded with 30-round detatchable mags from the empty state (with the bolt held back) and the initial load is as quick and almost as safe as with an AK. When empty and with the bolt open, I can slap another 30-rounder in and continue to shoot or I have the option of popping in a stripper clip.
I find that the SKS models are more accurate and that the stock SKS is easier to shoot from cover, tree stands, and the reclining position.
Stock SKS's also attract much less attention from game wardens.
It isn't really a question of which is better. It's a question of what you want the gun to do,
I also have a Chinese SKS that has been given the full Bubba treatment - not by me, by the way. It can be loaded with 30-round detatchable mags from the empty state (with the bolt held back) and the initial load is as quick and almost as safe as with an AK. When empty and with the bolt open, I can slap another 30-rounder in and continue to shoot or I have the option of popping in a stripper clip.
I find that the SKS models are more accurate and that the stock SKS is easier to shoot from cover, tree stands, and the reclining position.
Stock SKS's also attract much less attention from game wardens.
It isn't really a question of which is better. It's a question of what you want the gun to do,
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I know I didn't just read that the SKS is less ergonomic than the AK. Dat safety, man, it's heinous. no doubt. . I will grant takedown is generally easier, but it's also easier to knock off the AK tip cover with recoil or contact. It's still pretty easy for both in any case, but the AK selector is undeniably in an unreachable spot and noisy/hard to use. A run o the mill SKS is generally more accurate than an equivalent AK (though who really cares at that point?), but have you priced those? A nice AK (not 'decent') will be more than double the SKS for what, maybe 1/4 better accuracy? Bench rest ARs are more cost efficient.
I noticed you didn't refute the VZ part. No one ever does
TCB
. I will grant takedown is generally easier, but it's also easier to knock off the AK tip cover with recoil or contact. It's still pretty easy for both in any case, but the AK selector is undeniably in an unreachable spot and noisy/hard to use. A run o the mill SKS is generally more accurate than an equivalent AK (though who really cares at that point?), but have you priced those? A nice AK (not 'decent') will be more than double the SKS for what, maybe 1/4 better accuracy? Bench rest ARs are more cost efficient.I noticed you didn't refute the VZ part.
No one ever does TCB
I actually thought you were talking about detachable mag converted SKS's. Even if talking about a fixed 10 round mag though I can load 9 rounds in the mag and have an empty chamber. It's just a matter of holding the cartridges down when the bolt comes forward so that the bolt doesn't catch a cartridge. I've done it many times.
With detachables there is a fix for loading and unloading a mag whether the bolt is open or not. It's a matter of cutting some metal but once it gets done the gun will always function pretty much exactly like an AK. You can find a good description on how this works on this web page.
Another point is that some SKS's were built to work with AK magazines and AFAIK they can be loaded with the bolt closed also. The Chinese did a lot of experimenting with the design including an uber rare full auto version. The AK mag versions were pretty rare too.
I don't agree that the AK is more ergonomic either. Maybe the Yugos are less ergo but not the Norincos. I very much like the way my SKs shoulders. I'm not a small person either but the short stock doesn't give me any trouble. I'm 6'1" so I'm not super tall and I can see where taller people or people with longer arms could have problems but I don't.
I don't agree that loading an SKS is slower either. Those stripper clips work smooth if you practice with them a while. And instead of carrying a heavy mag to hold 30 rounds you have 3 light stripper clips to hold 30 rounds. The GI's in WWII didn't have a lot of problems loading their M1's with stripper clips. IMO Russia copied that design because it was so effective. I have a chest pouch that holds 20 loaded stripper clips. That's 200 rounds of ammo and it's very accessible and quick to load IMO.
Last edited:
Stripper loading can be fast if you practice a lot. Its old school but effective. The US Recon forces in Nam used AK 47s when deep inside enemy territory. They carry the SKS bandoleers loaded with ammo in strippers. The AK steel mags can be loaded using a mag loader.
Owned an SKS, shot an RPK "AK" setup. Personally prefer the SKS, as it mimics the ergos of a traditional rifle (as mentioned), and it's easier to go on/off safe with it. Mine had a scope and was moderately accurate, but it may have been the scope that was bad. I prefer the SKS trigger, and find the weight on it balances nicely.
The way I'd compare perks:
SKS:
-Longer barrel (less blast, better sight radius, better velocity).
-More familiar ergos - that bolt-rifle like stock is more familiar to shoot with than the pistol/foregrip/etc of the AK, and the safety is MUCH quieter.
-Trigger is arguably better. I personally prefer it. Also I found the SKS piston to be smoother.
-can load single, 2, 3, 5, rounds easier (top off's are easier - just push 'em in and go)
-Bolt hold open!
-Bayonet, or steel buttplate. Good for..well, things that such items are good for.
-Less expensive
AK:
-More compact shape, lighter, better for close-in work (building clearing, competition, etc.)
-Mags mean rapid unload and reload while retaining rounds. Also more rounds on tap per reload...and it doesn't stop at 30.. Keeps rounds contained more securely as well.
-MUCH better "spare parts base" than the SKS. If you need spares, it's pretty easy to adapt nearly any of the AK (NOT VZ) parts to others with a dash of fitting, if we're going to go that far.
-Stupid-easy manual of arms.
SO: If you're going general use or hunting, I'd stay SKS. The better velocity ensures SP round expansion, and the longer sight radius allows for better use of irons.Seldom do you need over 10 rounds for hunting, and in most states, anything over 5 is grounds for an unhappy day.
If you're going into combat, or are looking into competitive combat training where rounds-sent-downrange is more important than the round's impact speed, AK is your ticket. Likewise, with how expensive AK's are, unless you really REALLY need one, I'd spend money on an AR. Better ergos, less recoil, better mounting for accessories, and MUCH more accurate system, IMHO.
The way I'd compare perks:
SKS:
-Longer barrel (less blast, better sight radius, better velocity).
-More familiar ergos - that bolt-rifle like stock is more familiar to shoot with than the pistol/foregrip/etc of the AK, and the safety is MUCH quieter.
-Trigger is arguably better. I personally prefer it. Also I found the SKS piston to be smoother.
-can load single, 2, 3, 5, rounds easier (top off's are easier - just push 'em in and go)
-Bolt hold open!
-Bayonet, or steel buttplate. Good for..well, things that such items are good for.
-Less expensive
AK:
-More compact shape, lighter, better for close-in work (building clearing, competition, etc.)
-Mags mean rapid unload and reload while retaining rounds. Also more rounds on tap per reload...and it doesn't stop at 30..
Keeps rounds contained more securely as well. -MUCH better "spare parts base" than the SKS. If you need spares, it's pretty easy to adapt nearly any of the AK (NOT VZ) parts to others with a dash of fitting, if we're going to go that far.
-Stupid-easy manual of arms.
SO: If you're going general use or hunting, I'd stay SKS. The better velocity ensures SP round expansion, and the longer sight radius allows for better use of irons.Seldom do you need over 10 rounds for hunting, and in most states, anything over 5 is grounds for an unhappy day.
If you're going into combat, or are looking into competitive combat training where rounds-sent-downrange is more important than the round's impact speed, AK is your ticket. Likewise, with how expensive AK's are, unless you really REALLY need one, I'd spend money on an AR. Better ergos, less recoil, better mounting for accessories, and MUCH more accurate system, IMHO.
Swampman
Old Fart
If you read through this thread carefully and note the claimed advantages of each design; the answer becomes crystal clear. If you're looking for a tough, military style rifle in 7.62x39 GET A VZ-58!
It has pretty much all the advantages of both the SKS and AK, with fewer negatives than either.
The only "disadvantage" is that there aren't 500 companies out there selling useless, heavy trash to hang all over your rifle.
It's a real tragedy when grown men don't get a chance to play "Barbie" accessorizing their new toy...
It has pretty much all the advantages of both the SKS and AK, with fewer negatives than either.
The only "disadvantage" is that there aren't 500 companies out there selling useless, heavy trash to hang all over your rifle.
It's a real tragedy when grown men don't get a chance to play "Barbie" accessorizing their new toy...
Devilfrog
Member
I own a Russian SKS and a mid-range AK, I find the SKS much more fun and comfortable to shoot. The SKS being an actual Mil-surp I'd never trade it for an AK, keep the SKS and save up for the AK. This way you have the best of both worlds!
- Status
