SKS or AK?

[sarduy]

try to find a saiga.... it an AK without a pistol grip just like a SKS

 

[Ignition Override]

The AK's sharp edges of the safety and mag release are irritating, in my opinion, along with the ergonomics.

The SKS feels better, and with most types, the mag cannot be forgotten, as with an AK.
How about what is often reported to be the best SKS, an original Russian?

The Russian is milled versus stamped and has a chrome-lined bore, as with the common Norinco.
Unless you have a large supply of the correct grenades, both the Norinco and Russian are fairly handy and lighter, having no grenade launcher, and the Russian might have the best type of wood, if you are a classic type.

 

[DMK]

well, if history is any guide...

just consider which one replaced which in the Soviet arsenal.

The Russians were obsessed with Submachine guns and full auto fire. The AK had the ability to spray a large volume of ammo down before the charging troops.

For a civilian today, that point is moot because both are semi-auto. The SKS is just as reliable and durable as the AK.

 

[mbt2001]

I think that the SKS is a better made gun. AK's unless they are the higher end ones made by arsenal, are kind of junky. They work certainly, but fact is fact. I own both. Prefer the SKS unless I need something more handy.

 

[DMK]

for me the sks would be the choice, especially if i could find one that accepts the ak mags (we have one of these, a norinco paratrooper i think they are commonly called.)

The SKS that takes AK mags is known by a few names, including the SKS-D, SKS-M and SKS Sporter depending on the exact model.

The Norinco paratrooper is just a regular fixed mag SKS with a shorter 16" barrel. (BTW: it is also a purely commercial model and never served with any military).

I have both a Para and a Sporter. I love the para, but I find the AK mags kind of clunky in the SKS Sporter. Maybe it's just mine, but loading the mags into the rifle is not as smooth as it is in my Romanian SAR1 AK.

 

[DMK]

How about what is often reported to be the best SKS, an original Russian?

Russian's are generally good. Romanians are good (almost identical to Russians). Yugoslavians are very high quality, but the later 59/66 models are heavy and cumbersome with the big barrel thingy grenade launcher and the thicker/heavier stock. Early M59 Yugos are identical to Russians except that they don't have chrome lined barrels. Chinese SKS are the lucks draw (like much of what China makes). I have three and they are all reliable and accurate, but the workmanship is clearly inferior to the other military models. The Chinese also have the largest variations in models and revisions. The rare Albanian SKS (I had three and sold two) are the worst of the lot as far as quality.

 

[maskedman504]

My vote goes for the SKS, but I am not a fan of stamped parts. I like the solidity of the SKS rifle and its milled parts.

Umm, and it has an integral bayonet!

 

[MCgunner]

It is MHO that the AK is worthless as a field gun. The ergos are atrocious. The safety is a pain, I hate pistol grips on rifles, can't carry the thing like you can a 94 Winchester, one hand around the receiver. It's just a pain. OTOH, the SKS with a 5 round fixed mag is as easy to tote and use in the field as any sporting rifle. I bought a 16" paratrooper to mall ninja with a folding stock for a range toy and I bought a 20" to set up for field use. The 20" actually gets used and has taken game. the paratrooper is just a toy. Both guns are Norincos.

AKs kinda suck unless you're a Jihadist. SKSs are more my style as an outdoorsman, okay, a fudd.

 

[elmerfudd]

ive seen several people refer to the ak as lighter.

isnt it about a pound heavier?

our sks with an empty 30 mag is 8lb2oz.

i think an ak is right at 10 lbs

They're about equal when it comes to weight. Milled AK's were heavier and some of the variants out there like the MAK90 are heavyweights, but your typical stamped AK in 7.62x39 probably weighs a little less than your typical Chinese SKS with a bayonet. Take that bayonet off and the two probably weigh the same. Yugo SKS's would generally outweigh the AK.

Think about it this way. SKS's have milled receivers, one piece stocks, often 20" barrels and often attached bayonets. The typical AK has a 16" barrel, stamped receiver and a removable bayonet.

 

[BMF500]

To the OP-

IMO this is a Ford vs Chevy type debate. I own a SKS and have shot many other SKS's and many AK's. Again, IMO, 6 in one hand, half-a-dozen in the other. If you are looking for a value, go with the SKS. If price isn't really a concern get both!!!!

 

[gidaeon]

Save money and get an SKS (and a bunch of ammo with it), especially one that is milled not stamped! Your getting better quality than a cheap semiauto AK clone and its likely more accurate. Avoid the whole canted sight issue. If your choosing between a lower quality WASR and a milled SKS - go SKS! You asked for opinion you got it. I handled both, found the ak clone stock didn't fit me well and it was so rough and overpriced (before prices rose) and decided to save a bunch of money, and I got a great shooter.

By purchasing semiauto versions as we legally are, you're negating some of the design point of the ak in the first place.

All that said or if not a budget concern: eventually get both!

 

[spikehunter]

Thanks

thanks for all the reply, it sounds like a win either way. I guess we will just have to see what I get a better deal on (i see an impulse buy in the future)

 

[elmerfudd]

Generally, I prefer the AK to the SKS, but you have to use a little discretion. Not all AK's or SKS's are equal. If my choice were a Russian SKS vs. a Romanian WASR, I'd take the SKS in a heartbeat. That said, there are some AK's out there that blow away any SKS. Think Valmet or Sako. Russia makes nice AK's and made some nice SKS's too. I personally don't like Chinese rifles much, but some do and I like Yugo AK's much more than Yugo SKS's. With Romania, it's the opposite; good SKS's and sloppy AK's.

 

[aka108]

I have a slight preference for the AK. Just feels better when firing to me. The AK is a bit simpler to field strip and clean and there are less parts in the trigger group so probably less problems down the line. I have one of the earlier Arsenal AK's with the milled reciever and a Norinco short barreled SKS. Big price difference between the two but the net results on a target are similar. Right now, would not either.

 

[Hammerhead6814]

Since the SKS can be had much cheaper, and really for all non-military purposes they are the same rifle, I'd take the SKS. If we were 'Nam or Iraq, you should pick up an AK. But since we are not, the SKS works just as well.

 

[jojo200517]

I'm going to say go for the AK just cause I like mine. I never shot an sks. I always just considered them the knockoff or something and the AK to be the real deal. I did have to get rid of the wood tho, couldn't have a gun that wasn't black. Sometimes there hard to find but I have had luck finding 2 small single stack magazines I can use for hunting also.

I gotta kinda agree the safety on the AK while effective is loud when ya click it off and ya gotta kinda push it like ya mean it. I don't agree with the mag release being annoying tho. I found it quiet easy to grip the front of the mag with my fingers squeeze the release with my thumb and remove the mag. Inserting those before mentioned single stack mags are a pain tho because the offer no leverage to tip them in. Worked on them a bit with a file so they would fit a little better helped tho.

 

[MCgunner]

If you wanna hunt, do yourself a favor and get a hunting rifle. The AK and SKS are great range toys, lotsa fun. Used to be lotsa cheap milsurp ammo available.....back in the good old days.