SKS just as good as an AK 47?

[AK103K]

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.

No, I was referring to the later part of the above. SKS's that use AK mags are few and far between, and not the "norm".

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.

The SKS actually has a shorter LOP than the "short" AK's, or at least mine did. I believe they were around 12". I always have to chuckle when people complain about the AK's LOP, when it has the exact same 13" LOP as most other combat stocked guns, like the M16/M16A1, M14, M1, HK's, etc.

From what Ive seen, many people try to shoulder the AK's with their cheek weld on the "comb", which is wrong, and why the stock seems so short. Your head should be down on the stock like you shoulder an AR(nose to the charging handle), and your cheek weld on the narrow portion of the stock at the rear of the receiver, with your nose along the side of the top cover. Shouldered like that, and you get retty much instant sight alignment as the gun comes up, and its very natural and comfortable to shoot with.

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.

Its slower, theres no way around that. Its also a 3:1 deal, so you have to stop and do it more.

Strippers arent a big deal if you practice and use them, regardless the gun, but I rarely ever saw anyone loading their SKS's (or anything else for that matter) at the range using them, and if they did, it wasnt from a pouch.

As I said earlier too, very often, you dont get a full stripper into the gun, simply because the stripper had dropped rounds somewhere between the pouch or pocket, to the gun. Most of the SKS type strippers Ive seen, and strippers in general, were not meant to be reused. Mauser, 03, M14, M16 strippers tend to be a lot more robust than the SKS strippers, and especially the Chinese strippers, and hold up better to reuse. Even with the others, if you use them a lot, they start to have the same issue as the SKS strippers, and lose rounds and have troubles feeding more and more as they wear.

The M1's "clip" isnt a stripper by the way, its an "en bloc" clip, and goes into the gun with the rounds, and is ejected where the gun is empty. The "strippers" have been around since the late 1800s, and were well known by the time the SKS came around.

As far as speed goes, heres an example of the difference. I used to shoot a lot of High Power/DCM military type matches. Most of the rifles at the time were M1's and M14's, with the occasional AR/M16's, but one boy I used to shoot with still used a Springfield bolt gun, that was stripper fed. He was quite good too, and usually beat many of the "geared up" auto shooters, and he shot in street clothes. These matches were designed around the '03 Springfields using strippers, and the rapid fire strings still force you to reload appropriate to that. You either load 5 rounds into a mag, or load 2 rounds into the first M1 clip. You cant load the mags with 9/1 rounds, or load an 8 round clip into an M1 first, you have to limit the mag fed guns to basically the bolt guns handicap.

The SKS stripper pouches Ive used (Chinese type chest bags) were not what Id call "quick" to use. The strippers are often hard to get out smoothly, and the rounds on the end of the strippers tend to catch on the pouch as you draw them. Ive practiced with them a good bit, and have a real good idea as how well they work. For my AK's, I also prefer the Chinese type chest bags, which are made of the same material as most of the SKS chest bags, but they are much easier to get the mags out of. Both those type pouches are for me, the most comfortable and usable. The AK's surplus type bags are usually are a 3-4 cell, but some of the aftermarket pouches will carry 6. I have a few of those as well, and they weigh just slightly more than my old SKS chest bags when loaded. The slight difference in weight due to the mags, is well offset by the mags ease of handling and use, and only having to load the gun 1:3.

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.

Stripper loading is pretty quick, but the key is practice. Its basically becoming a "lost art", and other than classic military rifle shooters who use them, and even that isnt a very big number these days, many people dont have a clue what that slot in the receiver is for.

I have a couple of the Chinese stripper loaders for AK mags, and while they can work "OK", once you get the knack of them down, they are really a pretty poor set up, and more often than not, annoying to use. You also have the same problem stripper problems you have with the SKS's, since they use the same strippers.

The only "disadvantage" is that there aren't 500 companies out there selling useless, heavy trash to hang all over your rifle.

That, and they use a proprietary mag, and share nothing in common part wise.

Im not a big fan of trying to make an SKS into an AK, or an AK into an AR, but it is nice to have some options, especially when it comes to optics.

 

[Fishbed77]

I know I didn't just read that the SKS is less ergonomic than the AK. Dat safety, man, it's heinous. no doubt.

You got me there! The AK safety - while it works very well from a mechanical standpoint - does suck as far as ergonomics is concerned.

I will grant takedown is generally easier, but it's also easier to knock off the AK tip cover with recoil or contact.

This is something I have NEVER encountered on any AK. For example, the top cover on my converted Saiga is so tight that it takes two hands to remove. It takes careful alignment and solid whack from my fist to re-install.

 

[AK103K]

The AK safety - while it works very well from a mechanical standpoint - does suck as far as ergonomics is concerned.

This isnt directed at you personally, but just a general comment here. Does it really suck because of ergonomics, or is more just a lack of experience and figuring it out, and learning how to use it?

You hear so many complaints about things like this, but in reality, if you spend some quality time with the gun, 99% of "problems", really do go away. A small jewelers file, takes care of another 0.5%.

As far as the selector and mag release, every AK Ive had, has needed a little touch up with a file, on both the selector and mag release. The parts are stampings, and have sharp edges that benefit from a file on the sharp edges. Once thats been addressed, things are usually a lot smoother, and easier to operate. The places you want to hit, are the little "tit" on the back of the selector, and possibly the ledge/point of contact on the receiver where that tit contacts, and the edges of the mag release where the tail of the mag contacts it. It doesnt take much, and you just want to break the edges.

I can manipulate the selector using the middle finger of the my hand on the grip, and I can drop the mag, using the same finger, and also without removing it from the grip.

The AK also has the advantage of using your thumb to work the selector, when cradling the gun, which is a very natural carry method for it, and the gun comes up quickly and into your shoulder naturally as you sweep the selector off.

One other comment about any of all of this. Some things dont mean squat, if all youre doing is shooting off a bench, or bumping a mag or two off in the back yard. The difference comes in if your using the gun in the manner it was meant to be used, or trying to learn that use, for what ever your needs are. I personally believe, while they are all toys, knowing how to work them "properly", and knowing their "realistic" good and bad points, is important, should at some point, they become something other than toys.

Theres really nothing wrong with the SKS, the AK, AR, FAL, HK, M1, etc, but some things are more right than others, especially if you consider the place of what you have in the scheme of things.

 

[Speedo66]

"The "strippers" have been around since the late 1800s, and were well known by the time the SKS came around. "

Probably been around a lot longer than that.

 

[HKGuns]

As a current owner of both, I would say it very much depends on your intended purpose. They are both good and there are uses where one would best the other and depending on that use it would flip flop.

The correct answer is to own both.

 

[mljdeckard]

I will put MY SKS up against any AK, but getting it here probably wouldn't be cost effective. I bought a like-new Yugo for $100, and modified it from there. You would be lucky to find one for that now. I put on TAPCO everything, and tech sights, and a Kivaari trigger. I probably have $650 in it.

 

[orionengnr]

^^^
Kind of like...

$350 for an SKS, $100 for a Tapco stock and you have something similar to an AK for $450 or so.

Yeah. And if you buy a Mini 14 and add a collapsible stock, you will have something "similar" to an AR.

 

[barnbwt]

"That, and they (VZ58's) use a proprietary mag, and share nothing in common part wise.

Im not a big fan of trying to make an SKS into an AK, or an AK into an AR"
...or a VZ into an AK . An AK47 has much more in common with an M16, even more with an M14, and is nearly identical to a SIG 55X series. The VZ, I'm not entirely sure what's similar to it. Many say it's like a FAL or SKS in function, but the lockup is done totally different (separate locking piece engages the receiver, not the tail of the bolt). The FCG is totally different, as is the receiver construction. The only similarities are the cartridge (which defines the shape of the mag) and the commie-styling (which defines sights and aesthetic features). How many AK mags are aluminum, btw?

"It's a real tragedy when grown men don't get a chance to play "Barbie" accessorizing their new toy..."
Not necessarily . There's a ton of VZ furniture, sight options (side, scout, grip rail, dust cover rail, ladder sight replacements), flash hiders, slings, drums. They've just come on the market the last couple years since AKs got so expensive, so the old perception still remains. Hell, I'm developing a bolt-on belt fed conversion for stock VZ's that uses RPD belts, and one of these days I'll try for an accurized version in 308 (A 510 Reedwhacker conversion is probably asking too much of the trunnion, though )

TCB

 

[Inebriated]

I will put MY SKS up against any AK, but getting it here probably wouldn't be cost effective. I bought a like-new Yugo for $100, and modified it from there. You would be lucky to find one for that now. I put on TAPCO everything, and tech sights, and a Kivaari trigger. I probably have $650 in it.

Against an AK in what way?

 

[Ignition Override]

To me the SKS' ergonomics are better, and the SKS has the bolt-hold-open (BHO) feature. The AK has none.

Tech Sights manufactures specific models for the SKS, AK, Ruger 10-22, Marlin 60 and a few other types.
The TS 200 version made my SKS much more accurate and consistent in my unskilled hands.

For those who don't do Google searches (they have actually asked me how to find the info), these are rear aperture sights which easily fit onto the rear of the SKS bolt cover. They are designed for it. It requires No permanent alteration.

Also, my excellent condition Yugo SKS M59s (No gren. launchers) were Not assembled by Century Arms. They were manufactured and assembled in former Yugoslavia. I can't imagine gambling my money on any semi-auto rifle assembled by Century.

Scoped: Are you a little familiar with the Czech VZ-58? It is Not an AK, even though similar. For the first time, I actually saw the 58 at a gun show-the latest show in the Memphis area.

 

[benEzra]

With a standard 10 round mag on an SKS you can shoot off all sorts of things as rests. With a 30 round AK it's hard to shoot off anything as a rest. Very hard in fact.

AK's are not limited to 30-round magazines.

I found that for 7.62x39mm, 20-round magazines were a nice compromise between length/weight and decent capacity:

And of course 5- round hunting magazines and 10-round SKS-capacity magazines are readily available if you prefer them:

 

[barnbwt]

Someone here also made 20rnd VZ mags, which also looked way more practical than 30rnders, let along 40's . I really do think at this point that 20x is probably the right number for any 30cal necked projectile, as is the case for 308win. If x39 weren't so tapered, you could probably experiment with shorter/fatter mags in the coffin style, but alas, we are relegated to banana's that all end up looking like the AK's

TCB

 

[Aaron1100us]

I had an SKS 20 some years ago. I thought it was cool at the time. It jad a bayonette, folding stock and one 30 round mag. It was a great gun, fairly accurate and reliable. The main thing I didn't like was not being able to change mags as easy as an AK. I loaded the mag while it was in the gun. It worked but reload times where long. Ended up selling it.

Now I have am Arsenl SLR-101S. Loks way better than that old SKS, I have 10 mags instead of one, its very reliable and just as accurate or more than that old SKS. Both are reliable and pretty accurate, the SKS just doesn't look as cool and reloading sucks.

 

[AK103K]

and the SKS has the bolt-hold-open (BHO) feature. The AK has none.

I dont know why so many people are so hung up about this. Its really no big deal. The gun is empty, you reload it, bolt open or closed. With the AK's (and a few others) the last step of the reload (empty or top off), is to work the charging handle.

Also, my excellent condition Yugo SKS M59s (No gren. launchers) were Not assembled by Century Arms. They were manufactured and assembled in former Yugoslavia. I can't imagine gambling my money on any semi-auto rifle assembled by Century.

I cant say for some of Centurys current offerings, but the SAR's and WASR's are assembled/made in Romainia, and then have the "good" parts replaced with the crappy US compliance parts, here, by Century. They also open the mag well on the WASR's.

I own an early Century import SAR and WASR, and both guns are accurate and work well. The SAR did need its trigger group replaced because of the compliance parts and "slap". The WASR was fine.

With a standard 10 round mag on an SKS you can shoot off all sorts of things as rests. With a 30 round AK it's hard to shoot off anything as a rest. Very hard in fact.

Im assuming here, youre talking of shooting off a rest on a bench. Shooting that way, can be an issue for anything with an extended mag, even 20 rounders. If you shoot from field positions, I have yet to find it to be an issue.

I rarely shoot off a bench, and do most of my accuracy type shooting from a prone position. I shoot both AK's and AR's with standard mags, and its never been a problem getting close to the ground. Ive also shot both using a rucksack, and a few other field expedient rests, and no problem there either.

If not shooting off a bench, what exactly is the problem?



One thing I didnt see brought up in the negative for the AK's, and it truly is a negative, is the dreaded "mag lock", that can occur, if you dont insert the mag properly. If youre not accustomed to rocking a mag in, I think it just exacerbates the problem.

It generally occurs if you hold the rifle in your left hand by the front handguard, and use your right hand to insert the mag. What happens is, the front of the mag doesnt get seated properly into the "notch", but still gets a bite, and when you rock it back, it can still lock under the catch.

Problem is, its not in the gun right, and is now sitting to low for the bolt to strip a round off the mag. When you try to release the mag, the release wont let go, because its bound up. The only way I know the get the mag out, is to put the butt on the ground while holding it by the barrel, and "boot" it out.

I never ran into the issue until someone told me about it, as I load the AK basically like I do my AR's and most other autos, with the mag in my left hand, while holding the rifle by the grip with my right. I actually had to set it up the first time to get it to happen.

Its not fun when it does happen, but if you have an AK, you need to know it can, and how to deal with it if it does.

 

[Tirod]

Ergonomics is the study of how a device or mechanism accommodates human design in it's operation.

"I don't see how it can be a problem" isn't justification that the Kalashnikov's controls are poorly laid out for combat use. Sure, they work. They don't work as well as controls laid out to improve the use of the firearm.

I'm going to describe the systems by their designers name, because it has more to do with them and the requirements laid out on them, not the exact make and model of firearm they came up with.

The lack of a bolt hold open means that the firearm has to either have the bolt retracted before loading the magazine, or after. That is an operation that other firearms delete - the hold open already has it open. The magazine doesn't have to be pushed up against the bottom of the bolt compressing the first round down into the mag, neither does the bolt have to be retracted against that pressure to chamber a round. And with the Kalashinikov, the bolt handle is also the trigger hand for most right handed people. That means reacquiring the trigger takes longer, and the first shot is delayed.

Same for the safety - the trigger hand has to put it on safe, not the untasked thumb which could do it.

Contrast the loading of a Stoner vs a Kalashnikov - the Stoner, bolt back, you drop the mag with the trigger finger, the off hand inserts the mag with no extra pressure on it, bumps the hold open, the bolt slams shut while the trigger finger returns, the sight picture is acquired, and the finger pulls the trigger.

The Kalashnikov? You reach forward with the off hand to dump the mag, a new one is inserted against the closed bolt, the bolt is retracted against magazine pressure with the shooting hand, it has to return to the trigger after the round is already chambered, then the sight picture acquired.

In the Kalashnikov's case the safety remains off during the entire reload, the AR can be on safe. If it is, the thumb takes it off, with the Kalashnikov, you accept the higher rate of negligent discharges.

The Kalashnikov requires a lot of work out of the trigger hand, which delays getting it back into battery to fire again.

Try it yourself, line up ten magazines with one round apiece, load and fire all ten, a Kalashnikov on one table, a Stoner on another.

The Kalashnikov has less efficient ergonomics, it takes the shooter out of targeting mode for a longer time, and it takes a very skilled and practiced user to compete against the Stoner at three gun matches where time is of the essence.

This isn't something that a jeweler's file can fix, and it is the reason we now see left side charging Kalashnikovs with revised safeties. The vendor's are trying to improve the ergonomics. The Russian Army is on record as trying to get rid of the design so they can buy "modern" firearms - which all use Stoner control layouts. The design of placing controls to speed use and be easier to operate has spread to ALL the new designs, none of which copy the Kalashnikov controls. They use the Stoner layout. It might be slavish or even a requirement according to the contract they were competing for, but nobody is complaining they are wrong.

The Kalashnikov was designed at a time and climate when soldiers were considered a disposable asset that was easily replaced. In America, we train our soldiers to a much higher degree, prize them very highly, and have grief relief political systems to force the Army to change it's profligate ways and not waste our manpower. The ethics and politics of a environment has a huge influence on how guns are designed.

The proof of the pudding is right there at any competition where both systems compete against each other. The Kalashnikov control layout works against the shooter and does not help them achieve their best response, the Stoner layout - even with the SCAR or ARX - does. Competition shooters use the "Stoner" control layout because it's superior.

It's not a matter of one being US vs Iron Curtain - we dumped the M14 because it had the same problems, an old world control layout that hindered the shooter, too. But, at least it had the bolt hold open.

Study the progressive design changes from bolt action to modern military rifle, and parallel them with civilian offerings. You see a lot of improvements over the years, and very few go back to deliberately making a gun more difficult to use. The AK was type accepted in 1947, it's obsolete in all the First World inventory, and it's being sold off for money to civilian users or given away as aid to third world countries. It's no longer top tier for a number of good reasons, the most important of which is the poor control layout. We know it's not that good because so many other guns are better, it can be tested and proven on the range, and because of that testing, it's not adopted for new military uses.

Shoot the better guns and you will see why. It takes longer than one range session, but simple use and observation of what is going on in the big picture will give someone the clue. Kalashnikov's aren't all that. Just foreign and at one time, cheap.

So were Yugos.

 

[Biohazard1993]

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.
TCB

No that is not the total consensus in sks vs ak anyway, it is in sks vs sks with ak mags. It may be one of the biggest refered too but not the single comparison. Weight and length are the other two most important. Let us forget the magazine capacity, yes we all know that a few sks have ak mag capitability. They however are not as readily available as the ak or the regular sks, nor the price of a regular sks usually. But to go with an sks with ak mags one could also easily buy an ak which uses the ak mags (redundance), have lighter weight, shorter rifle, and it was designed to use the magazine (not that the sksm has noted problems using them, im just saying). If accuracy is a big deal then spend $150 on a texas instrument dog leg and peep sight (not that much cash in the long run considering the cost of the rifles now) to increase the sight length, or just buy the dog leg and optic it. And as to the other point of easier cleaning; the dog leg adds even more ease to the already easier to clean ak-47.

 

[ForumSurfer]

You can speed up that ak reload process by overhand charging over the receiver or reaching under the mag. I preferred to reload with that method. You never break from firing position but I always broke cheek weld that way. Still not as fast as an ar but much faster than charging with the firing hand, or at least for me that was the case. Another problem is the AK is sort of heavy, not everyone can support it with the firing hand only long enough to drop mag, reinsert mag and rock the handle. I also sped things up by grabbing the mag and then dropping the spent mag with the new mag in hand. No matter how you do it, it's clumsy so I always had better success by being very deliberate and downright forceful. If I tried to be delicate (like with a norinco I had that had a downright nice blue finish) I ended up fumbling something up.

If you've got money to spare, there are left hand charging solutions for AK's now.

And if there is any sort of malfunction clearing involved, I work that out faster with the ar.

 

[Biohazard1993]

I think he means just that,the ten rounds are now in your pocket. Not in a magazine, or in the case of the sks a stripper clip. Let us say we both are using ten rounds in each gu to make it fair. Your ak is safe, with 1 round in the pocket and 9-10 in a mag. Your sks has 9-10 in the pocket if you caught al of them/ have loose strechy pockets. I think he is saying that the ak mag just needs inserted and the sks needs reloaded one at a time if those rounds need used now thats all. Really not that big of a deal... unless your being shot at.

 

[Biohazard1993]

An empty ak mag can also be stripped from the rifle by the new mag in the left hand with one swift motion, tapping the mag release and the back of the empty mag with the tip of the new mag, then forward rocking the new mag into the magwell leaving the old mag on the ground. Granted the mag is on the ground but if in a fighting situation a mag on the ground is better that a bullet in the body; and surplus ak mags are cheap.

 

[AK103K]

Tirod,

While Im not at all in disagreement about the AR's having a setup that makes things easier, they do, and as with most things that progress, you wind up with better tools.

I do have a couple of comments on some things your pointing out with the AK's though.

Most of the differences Im going to point out, are training and familiarity issues more than anything else. The guns are each their own critters, and need their own methods of operation to be efficient. Trying to apply or force one method use onto another tends to not work to well. Ive seen some AK shooters work their rifles faster than I can work my AR's, and of course the opposite it true.

Beyond the obvious physical differences, and set ups, I think a big part of all this is lack of familiarity with platforms that often drives a lot of this. By that I mean, and as an example, just the differences in our opinions that follow.

And with the Kalashinikov, the bolt handle is also the trigger hand for most right handed people. That means reacquiring the trigger takes longer, and the first shot is delayed.

It is only if you use the right hand to work the charging handle, which most who understand the AK dont. The right hand is not removed from the shooting grip to work the charging handle, the left hand does that.

Same for the safety - the trigger hand has to put it on safe, not the untasked thumb which could do it.

Not sure which "thumb" youre referring to here. With the AR's, I usually use my right thumb. With my AK's, I use my right middle finger. In both cases, I dont take my right hand off the grip.

he Kalashnikov? You reach forward with the off hand to dump the mag, a new one is inserted against the closed bolt, the bolt is retracted against magazine pressure with the shooting hand, it has to return to the trigger after the round is already chambered, then the sight picture acquired.

The AK has a couple of ways to drop the mag compared to the AR's. One is to use the hand holding the mag, the other is to drop it with the middle finger of the right hand while still on the grip. Both work, and it depends on the shooter which they prefer.

Since the AK's mag "levers" in, the issue about the pressure of the top round isnt as much of an issue as it is with the AR's, when loading against a closed bolt.

When you charge the AK after a mag replacement, its not the right hand that works the charging handle, its the left. Some prefer to rotate the gun to the left slightly to work it, I prefer to reach under and do it. Both work about the same, so its just personal choice.

In the Kalashnikov's case the safety remains off during the entire reload, the AR can be on safe. If it is, the thumb takes it off, with the Kalashnikov, you accept the higher rate of negligent discharges.

I would think this is more of an administrative issue than anything else. In a worrisome situation, are you going to set the selector to safe on your M4? I doubt it. As with anything else with any of them, "safety" is a training issue, and I dont see one being any more or less safe than the other, in the hands of someone familiar with it.

The Kalashnikov requires a lot of work out of the trigger hand, which delays getting it back into battery to fire again.

Again, I dont agree here. I use my right hand for the controls, and it doesnt normally leave the grip.

Try it yourself, line up ten magazines with one round apiece, load and fire all ten, a Kalashnikov on one table, a Stoner on another.

The Kalashnikov has less efficient ergonomics, it takes the shooter out of targeting mode for a longer time, and it takes a very skilled and practiced user to compete against the Stoner at three gun matches where time is of the essence.

Theres no doubt in a "speed test", the AR's will win. From a practical and realistic use stand point, I dont know if the difference is really worth bickering over, assuming each shooter is familiar with what they are using.

I have a number of both of the above, and over the years, have or have had a least a couple of most of the others you could name off the top of your head as well. Im all for the latest and greatest, but you still need to know how to "reasonably" work the old stuff as well.

If you dont have a decent and realistic base on as many of them as you possibly can, how can you really know which is really better.

As much as I like the AK's, and would have no issue what so ever grabbing one, right now, the AR would still be my choice, and for a number of reasons other than whats been pointed out above.

 

[msgtgross]

I keep seeing that the AK-47 replaced the SKS because it is better. The AK-47 replaced the SKS for the simple reason that is is manufactured for full auto operation. Yes, the SKS can be modified for FA but it was never designed for it. As far as reliability, accuracy, and usability, my 43 years experience with the SKS has proven very satisfactory. I couldn't bring one back from Nam and was ecstatic to be able to buy one when I got home.

 

[Biohazard1993]

Alright so so far we have...
sks has on its side:
accuracy (due to longer barrel and sight radious)
better safety/trigger
slightly higher velocity
ability to top off mag well
price (9/10 of the time)

Ak has on its side:
higher capacity
Readily uses magazines
Shorter length
Lighter weight
Aftermarket capabilities
More chamberings
easy full auto conversions and capability

See both have their place. The sks is a good long range sniper/target shooting rifle, and the ak is made for close quarters to mid range engagements. Wow the more I think about it the less sense it makes to even compare them, they have two completly different roles in the end lol. Its kind of like comparing people in a way; sniper to an infantryman. I guess im just more of an infantryman at heart.

 

[goon]

I think he means just that,the ten rounds are now in your pocket. Not in a magazine, or in the case of the sks a stripper clip. Let us say we both are using ten rounds in each gu to make it fair. Your ak is safe, with 1 round in the pocket and 9-10 in a mag. Your sks has 9-10 in the pocket if you caught al of them/ have loose strechy pockets. I think he is saying that the ak mag just needs inserted and the sks needs reloaded one at a time if those rounds need used now thats all. Really not that big of a deal... unless your being shot at.

Or you could just put those 10 rounds back on a stripper clip before you put them in your pocket. It's still probably easier to snap the magazine back in an AK though.

See both have their place. The sks is a good long range sniper/target shooting rifle, and the ak is made for close quarters to mid range engagements.

The SKS is more shootable for me, but I'm not sure that they're inherently more accurate. The extra range is negligible if any because both rifles are firing the same round. You may get a little flatter shooting out of the SKS because it's got 4" more barrel, but I doubt that it would amount to more than a few inches at 300 yards. I'd say with a good RPK or VEPR AK and a decent scope you'd have no trouble beating out an SKS. Either way, the trajectory of the 7.62x39 round and the nature of the ammo that we tend to shoot in bulk limit both rifles.

The SKS was designed in a different era than the AK. The AK incorporated the lessons learned from wartime designs and select fire weapons and resulted in an obviously excellent service rifle. In terms of a weapon for issue to an individual, it doesn't give anything up to the SKS. It retains everything an SKS can do but makes reloading faster and adds the ability for FA fire.

But in terms of which one you like the best... that's an individual call.

 

[Swampman]

Originally posted by: Tirod

Try it yourself, line up ten magazines with one round apiece, load and fire all ten, a Kalashnikov on one table, a Stoner on another.

Now try it again in a sandstorm, THAT'S why the OP is debating between the AK and SKS.

Sometimes a "BANG" every time is worth more than all the ergonomics in the world.

Originally posted by: Tirod

The Kalashnikov was designed at a time and climate when soldiers were considered a disposable asset that was easily replaced. In America, we train our soldiers to a much higher degree, prize them very highly, and have grief relief political systems to force the Army to change it's profligate ways and not waste our manpower.

SERIOUSLY!?
Do you have ANY knowledge of the M-16's history?

Hint: The NVA and VC didn't get a lot of bad press because of all the soldiers they had killed while trying to clear jammed rifles with twigs and pieces of wire!

The US, in the MIDDLE OF A SHOOTING WAR, issued a new rifle to its troops with no cleaning kits or supplies, and in fact told the troops that the new weapon didn't REQUIRE any cleaning. Then to top it all off, the military issued ammunition loaded with gunpowder that contained enough calcium carbonate to virtually guarantee stoppages after enough rounds had been fired, which wouldn't take long because the powder (intended for the M-14), also raised the cyclic rate well above the original design specifications. A problem that was solved in brilliant fashion by simply changing the specs to fit the firing rate that the cheaper, more easily available 7.62 mm powder provided.

When (surprise, surprise) American troops started getting killed in 1965 because their weapons had jammed spectacularly during combat, the military took quick, decisive action and by late 1967 they had issued cleaning kits, adopted a (generally useless) forward assist assembly, changed the gunpowder formulation and took the revolutionary step of CHROME PLATING the chamber and later the entire bore of the rifle. They also designed a brilliant stowage compartment in the (hollow) buttstock to hold the rifles cleaning gear. The Russians didn't adopt chrome lined bores and sophisticated buttstock stowage compartments on the primitive AK-47 until...1947.

The Russians issued a couple of rifles (the SKS and AK), that truly did almost never need cleaning, but due to their backward, non progressive, "Let's kill off our own troops" ways, they still weighed down their men with cleaning kits and insisted that their troops use them. They even continued the quaint and anachronistic practice of having a one piece cleaning rod mounted right under the barrel and a broken shell extractor in the cleaning kit. Clearly these things were done so that they could get more of their own soldiers killed!

And lest you think this is all ancient history, just a couple of years ago the Army unveiled their revolutionary new M-16/M4 magazine with an ANTI TILT FOLLOWER! This state of the art breakthrough was said by Army spokesmen to reduce magazine related malfunctions by a full 50%! The crude and unsophisticated Russian AK-47 didn't have that particular feature until ...1947.

If you still believe those Godless commies issued second rate equipment, you could compare the M4 Sherman to the T34/85 or IS-2/3 and if you decide that you'd rather have gone up against a German Tiger tank with the M4, you not only have no understanding of armored warfare, you're suicidal.

So please, let's drop the whole "Commies didn't care if their soldiers died" BS.

If nothing else, their rifles have always done a damn good job of going bang every time the trigger is pulled.

 

[mljdeckard]

Inebriated -in every way.