SKS just as good as an AK 47?
- Thread starter Scoped
- Start date
- Status
dprice3844444
member
i bought my 2 new unissued red phenolic stocked sks rifles when the red plastic ones first popped up for sale.
saltydog
Member
I have both the AK and the SKS and I love both of them and would be fine with either. Unless someone has me in their crosshairs, it ain't much gonna matter what you have on you......
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
That Yugo stuff was the only bulk "non US" brass 7.62x39 I can remember ever seeing, and as far as I know, it was all corrosive.
Corrosive ammo isnt really an issue, unless you dont clean your guns soon after use. Flush everything with hot soapy water, and clean as usual, and all is normally well.
Corrosive ammo isnt really an issue, unless you dont clean your guns soon after use. Flush everything with hot soapy water, and clean as usual, and all is normally well.
I still have a lot of that 1990's brass stuff if you want to see some. I don't know for sure if it's Yugo or Russian. I just know it came in wooden crates of 1440 rounds with cryptic writing on the wood. I also saw steel case ammo in the same type of crates though so that may not be much help. I actually thought it was Russian for a long time but someone said it was probably Yugo. So I don't really know personally but I'm guessing some here do know.
Also back when I bought that rifle no one I knew ever mentioned that it was maybe corrosive. No one much cared about destroying their rifles. They figured they could just buy another one if something happened to the one they had. So we didn't do any kind of maintenance at all. That includes rinsing it out. Still I have no pitting or rust in the bore or chamber. Go figure.
Also back when I bought that rifle no one I knew ever mentioned that it was maybe corrosive. No one much cared about destroying their rifles. They figured they could just buy another one if something happened to the one they had. So we didn't do any kind of maintenance at all. That includes rinsing it out. Still I have no pitting or rust in the bore or chamber. Go figure.
Ignition Override
Member
Scoped: If somehow "all else were equal", your ammo will last much longer in an original SKS than almost any AK Clone.
In these very delicate, unstable times, extra reserve could be worth something.
If your eyes are in good shape: even though a specific Tech Sight is available for the AK-47, the TS 200 improved accuracy on my SKS without a doubt, and consistently. With my rifle, I could easily outshoot guys who had their first M4, same distance. Never saw them again, so it's a totally invalid comparison. The modern, non-corrosive 7.62x39 ammo still costs a fair bit less.
Good luck with your decision, if still pending.
In these very delicate, unstable times, extra reserve could be worth something.
If your eyes are in good shape: even though a specific Tech Sight is available for the AK-47, the TS 200 improved accuracy on my SKS without a doubt, and consistently. With my rifle, I could easily outshoot guys who had their first M4, same distance. Never saw them again, so it's a totally invalid comparison. The modern, non-corrosive 7.62x39 ammo still costs a fair bit less.
Good luck with your decision, if still pending.
Last edited:
Swampman
Old Fart
Originally posted by Ignition Override
By that logic, a Contender would be the ultimate combat weapon, a combatants ammo supply would last 10 times as long!
However, I'm not so sure how long the shooter would last in an actual firefight...
It may just be me, but relying on limited magazine capacity to conserve ammunition rather than using good fire discipline seems tactically unsound.
Just having a larger magazine capacity doesn't mean you've GOT to shoot more/faster, it just gives you the capability of doing so on those rare occasions when it might be needed.
I believe the SKS has some real advantages over the AK, especially for what most Americans shooters are likely to use them for, but don't take a (potential) negative and try to present it as a positive attribute.
You can always choose NOT to shoot, but if your weapon is equipped with a 10 round magazine, you can't decide to shoot 15 rounds without reloading, no matter how desperately you might need those extra shots.
By that logic, a Contender would be the ultimate combat weapon, a combatants ammo supply would last 10 times as long!
However, I'm not so sure how long the shooter would last in an actual firefight...
It may just be me, but relying on limited magazine capacity to conserve ammunition rather than using good fire discipline seems tactically unsound.
Just having a larger magazine capacity doesn't mean you've GOT to shoot more/faster, it just gives you the capability of doing so on those rare occasions when it might be needed.
I believe the SKS has some real advantages over the AK, especially for what most Americans shooters are likely to use them for, but don't take a (potential) negative and try to present it as a positive attribute.
You can always choose NOT to shoot, but if your weapon is equipped with a 10 round magazine, you can't decide to shoot 15 rounds without reloading, no matter how desperately you might need those extra shots.
Ignition Override
Member
Good points Swampman. In our civilian settings, almost everybody with an AK clone tends to fill the large magazines.
Luckily we won't have much chance of any Hezbollah (etc) cells being organized in this part of west TN. But people along the southern US border could see interesting developments, if not already.
My brother in law has a friend who operates one of the most exclusive US schools on teaching very advanced horse "riding techniques", not far from the AZ border.
The guy has seen cars in remote areas of his land which are probably involved in the illegal drug business.
Luckily we won't have much chance of any Hezbollah (etc) cells being organized in this part of west TN. But people along the southern US border could see interesting developments, if not already.
My brother in law has a friend who operates one of the most exclusive US schools on teaching very advanced horse "riding techniques", not far from the AZ border.
The guy has seen cars in remote areas of his land which are probably involved in the illegal drug business.
Last edited:
tahunua001
Member
I am very late to this and I'm sure the OP has already made up his mind(I'm too lazy to read the entire thread) but I'm going to put in my .02 anyway.
I'm owned the bottom of the barrel AK and I now own a type 56 factory 26 SKS. the AK was complete and utter garbage. yes it'll hit a man at 50 yards no sweat but hitting at deer at 100 was almost outside it's abilities from sandbags no less free hand with outside variables coming into play. the thing was a rust bucket, the mag wobbled, the front sights were canted, it kicked like a mule, and it horribly unreliably unless you spent the extra money on crapco and Peemags.
I spent 3 years and well over 1000 rounds trying to make myself like it, and when that failed I tried to adapt it to me... that failed just as badly. so I sold it for a loss and never once regretted the decision. now I own the SKS, when I got it, the stock was horribly shrunken and I did not want to try and work with the sights which are the same as the ones on the AK47. I upgraded to tech sights, swapped out for a ramline sporter stock and just to keep it legal I went with a crapco 20 round mag. the thing will hit pill bottles full of tannerite at 75 yards almost without effort. I have never once found a speck of rust inside it, I have now tried the factory 10 round, crapco 20 rounder, and most recently a 20 round fixed chinese mag. all have been 100% reliable.
it is MY OPINION, based on limited personal experience with the AK and SKS that the SKS is far superior to the AK especially considering the price differences involved. for everyone claiming that you can't compare a single rifle of one to a single of another and expect it to be an accurate representation of the total market. I grab every SKS and AK I see on the racks for the sole purpose of comparison. with the exception of mag wobble and canted sights, there is no difference in the fit/finish of an arsenal AK47 and a century, no difference in the ergos, no difference in the triggers, they are, in MY OPINION, a waste of extra dollars. as for the sks, I will conceed that too many people try to make it something that it is not and put the crapco T6 stocks with M4 telescoping stock and pistolgrip on it and they essentially ruin the essence of the SKS and turn it into a clunky, bulky rifle that has little practical application but in proper configuration with proper sights, it is a wonderful rifle and one which I would take any day of the week over an Arsenal or other top tier AK...
... OK I lied, I would take the AK, sell it and then buy the SKS and a few thousand rounds instead.
I'm owned the bottom of the barrel AK and I now own a type 56 factory 26 SKS. the AK was complete and utter garbage. yes it'll hit a man at 50 yards no sweat but hitting at deer at 100 was almost outside it's abilities from sandbags no less free hand with outside variables coming into play. the thing was a rust bucket, the mag wobbled, the front sights were canted, it kicked like a mule, and it horribly unreliably unless you spent the extra money on crapco and Peemags.
I spent 3 years and well over 1000 rounds trying to make myself like it, and when that failed I tried to adapt it to me... that failed just as badly. so I sold it for a loss and never once regretted the decision. now I own the SKS, when I got it, the stock was horribly shrunken and I did not want to try and work with the sights which are the same as the ones on the AK47. I upgraded to tech sights, swapped out for a ramline sporter stock and just to keep it legal I went with a crapco 20 round mag. the thing will hit pill bottles full of tannerite at 75 yards almost without effort. I have never once found a speck of rust inside it, I have now tried the factory 10 round, crapco 20 rounder, and most recently a 20 round fixed chinese mag. all have been 100% reliable.
it is MY OPINION, based on limited personal experience with the AK and SKS that the SKS is far superior to the AK especially considering the price differences involved. for everyone claiming that you can't compare a single rifle of one to a single of another and expect it to be an accurate representation of the total market. I grab every SKS and AK I see on the racks for the sole purpose of comparison. with the exception of mag wobble and canted sights, there is no difference in the fit/finish of an arsenal AK47 and a century, no difference in the ergos, no difference in the triggers, they are, in MY OPINION, a waste of extra dollars. as for the sks, I will conceed that too many people try to make it something that it is not and put the crapco T6 stocks with M4 telescoping stock and pistolgrip on it and they essentially ruin the essence of the SKS and turn it into a clunky, bulky rifle that has little practical application but in proper configuration with proper sights, it is a wonderful rifle and one which I would take any day of the week over an Arsenal or other top tier AK...
... OK I lied, I would take the AK, sell it and then buy the SKS and a few thousand rounds instead.
Last edited:
That sounds a lot like me and my AK. Only I put about 1000 rounds through it trying to make it work right. Never did. Certainly not many are as bad as the one I owned. I've seen some very nice models but I still like a good SKS over a good AK. Now if the AK was a true AK and was full auto that view would certainly change.
mr.trooper
Member
If you are talking about an unconverted saiga with a 10 round mag, then yes, an SKS is just as good.
But then again, I'm not the sort of barrel burner who sheds lead at the astonishing rate of 100 rounds every 3 years.
But then again, I'm not the sort of barrel burner who sheds lead at the astonishing rate of 100 rounds every 3 years.
tahunua001
Member
apparently I forgot a zero...
1000 rounds...
proceed with the chlorophyll.
1000 rounds...
proceed with the chlorophyll.
Swampman
Old Fart
Originally posted by tahunua001
VERY interesting!
Do you mind telling us where you purchased these "Peemags", since the AK Pmags haven't been available to the rest of us until the last month or so.
Also, I've never paid more than 8 bucks a pop for Tapco 30 round AK mags and I haven't seen any surplus for less than that in years.
Here's a question for all the AK owners reading this thread. Do you consider "crapco" mags MORE RELIABLE than surplus mags?
Understand that I'm not dissing Tapco here, but how many people would choose to load their home defense AK with Tapco mags in preference to quality surplus mags?
I'm guessing it'll be pretty close to the number who purchased "Peemags" for their AK's before January 2014!
VERY interesting!
Do you mind telling us where you purchased these "Peemags", since the AK Pmags haven't been available to the rest of us until the last month or so.
Also, I've never paid more than 8 bucks a pop for Tapco 30 round AK mags and I haven't seen any surplus for less than that in years.
Here's a question for all the AK owners reading this thread. Do you consider "crapco" mags MORE RELIABLE than surplus mags?
Understand that I'm not dissing Tapco here, but how many people would choose to load their home defense AK with Tapco mags in preference to quality surplus mags?
I'm guessing it'll be pretty close to the number who purchased "Peemags" for their AK's before January 2014!
Last edited:
I'd try to stick to standard mil-spec AK mags. They work fine, they're made out of too much steel, and there just ain't much to go wrong with them.
I got a pack of "excellent" condition Romanian AK mags back when I bought my first AK and one of them looked like it had been buried in a Siberian outhouse for a decade. No finish, rust, a couple dents... etc. AIM Surplus sent me a replacement with no questions asked and let me keep the bad magazine. I cleaned it up a little and started using it - and it worked just fine.
I don't own an AK now but if I ever have another, I'll have steel magazines for it, even if I have to track them down one at a time for double the cost.
FWIW, I did break an FAL magazine once in normal use and I've seen some bad AR magazines too, but never a bad one for an AK.
I got a pack of "excellent" condition Romanian AK mags back when I bought my first AK and one of them looked like it had been buried in a Siberian outhouse for a decade. No finish, rust, a couple dents... etc. AIM Surplus sent me a replacement with no questions asked and let me keep the bad magazine. I cleaned it up a little and started using it - and it worked just fine.
I don't own an AK now but if I ever have another, I'll have steel magazines for it, even if I have to track them down one at a time for double the cost.
FWIW, I did break an FAL magazine once in normal use and I've seen some bad AR magazines too, but never a bad one for an AK.
Robbins290
Member
The tapco mags seem to work just as good as factory steel mags. And at a third of the price. I bought 15 of them when the local cabelas had them on sale. Had to file them down to fit in the mag well. Im not sure how the tapco's will hold up to the abuse, as the lips are plastic too
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
No. The only advantage of the Tapco mags is lighter weight.
I don't think any magazines are more reliable than surplus, at least in 7.62x39mm. If the Pmags are *as* reliable as surplus at a lighter weight, they'll be ideal.
Not if what you are after is a good, reliable 7.62x39mm carbine (e.g. the subject of this thread) and not a select-fire assault rifle. Since we're comparing the civilian AK to the SKS for civilian use, select-fire capability is pretty much irrelevant.
Swampman
Old Fart
Honestly, I have no problem with Tapco products, in fact I've had several of their AK mags fully loaded for almost three years now to see how the unreinforced feed lips hold up over time. So far everything looks great, no noticeable creep whatsoever, and no failures at all when I've used them.
If they're still doing this well in 8 or 10 years, I might even consider using them for "serious" duty, but probably not. I KNOW the surplus mags are GTG and if I need something lighter, I have a few Bulgarian "Circle 10's" with steel reinforced feed lips that I trust implicitly.
The main reason I brought it up was to question the whole concept of someone claiming that spending more money on "crapco" mags was the best way to increase reliability.
Anyone with any real experience with AK's knows that aftermarket mags aren't really going to help reliability since the issue mags are excellent, albeit heavy as a blacksmith's anvil.
If they're still doing this well in 8 or 10 years, I might even consider using them for "serious" duty, but probably not. I KNOW the surplus mags are GTG and if I need something lighter, I have a few Bulgarian "Circle 10's" with steel reinforced feed lips that I trust implicitly.
The main reason I brought it up was to question the whole concept of someone claiming that spending more money
on "crapco" mags was the best way to increase reliability.Anyone with any real experience with AK's knows that aftermarket mags aren't really going to help reliability since the issue mags are excellent, albeit heavy as a blacksmith's anvil.
tahunua001
Member
I did not say that any AK can be made more reliable with tapco mags, I said MY AK wouldn't feed from anything but tapcos. it had significant mag wobble and tapcos fit more snugly than steel surplus. this is common among century AKs where they take a grinder to them and open them up to allow for all mags to fit loosely but this pretty much ruins them for steel surplus which in my area cost half as much as a tapco. my older brothers century AK also will not feed from surplus and requires plastic mags.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Most AK's have mag wobble to some extent, and its actually correct and proper. WASR's arent the only ones that have it, nor is wobble usually an issue. My WASR has wobble and its never been an issue with any of the surplus mags I have. Nor have those mags been an issue in other AK's, including a few other WASR's, Ive used them in.
I would be leery of any mag that fit snug or tight, as that is not a proper fit, and would interfere with proper mag function.
If your guns dont feed from mags they were designed to feed from, then something is either wrong with your gun, or you have some seriously screwed up mags. I know a lot of people bitch about the WASR's, but they really arent that bad, and from all that Ive seen and handled, the "issue" mags have worked without issue, or seemed to fit correctly on those I didnt shoot.
Having had issues with a couple of things from Tapco and a few others early on, I learned my lesson, and personally, wont waste my money. The key to "improving" things, is to only do it where its truly needed, and then only with quality stuff. To many of these aftermarket companies pump out cool looking junk, with limited, if any real use or improvement.
Biohazard1993
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 124
yeah as far as rate of fire goes. the actual gun itself is almost the exact same thing. If you could get your hands on a full auto an individual could put almost every part on the semi auto.
Swampman
Old Fart
@ tahunua001
How did you get the "Peemags" prior to SHOT 2014?
Enquiring minds still want to know!
Were they the all plastic version, or the ones with steel reinforced feed lips and locking tabs?
How did you get the "Peemags" prior to SHOT 2014?
Enquiring minds still want to know!
Were they the all plastic version, or the ones with steel reinforced feed lips and locking tabs?
- Status
