the age old question, which is better, the Sks or the Ar? I would like to state some facts about both and get some replies. SKS wins on price, sks wins on dependability, sks wins on durability [take punnishment], sks wins on shooting any dirty surplus round [dependably] that it is fed. Sks wins on less routine maintenance needed, sks wins on more knock down power and kill rate. [once hit] AR wins on lightness. Ar wins on ease of handling, Ar wins on accuracy, Ar wins on better standard optics, Ar wins on bigger mags. Ar wins on more rounds carried because of smaller size, lighter weight rounds. Ar wins faster loading. Most of these thoughts have been discussed many times. How about these? The sks round is designed to tumble to inflict more damage, not accuracy, the ar is designed to stay straight for greated distance, each pay a price for the design of their rounds. The sks is heavy [wood and steel] carry it aeound all day sometime. The Ar is light, aluminum and durable plastics. Aluminum is app. 1/4 as heavy as steel, it is also app 1/4 as strong or wear resistent. Thats why you never see an aluminum file or drill bit. In my humble opinion I think it is fair to say that each have some advantages over the other. Neither is perfect in all situations. In an open grass plain 1000 yards line of sight, Ar all the way. Muddy snowy conditions, Sks better suited. Ok, please no comments like, i can shoot the eye out of a chipmonk with my sks at 400 yards, or my Ar was run over by a tank and still worked perfectly. lying only makes you look foolish, so be fair minded, i have. certainly tried to be. Oh, the Ar is cooler looking.
Sks or Ar
- Thread starter acewolf
- Start date
- Status
I own both. Why pick one when their strengths and weaknesses vary so much? Why compromise? One doesn't use a sledgehammer when a framing hammer is more appropriate. Have both available, and pick whichever is best suited for the task at hand. Use the correct tool for the job is what I'm getting at.
I have to disagree on the SKS is more reliable. Since I am not clumsy enough to drop my AR's in mud puddles, run over them with my truck and seriously doubt I will ever be in a combat situation along with knowing my AR's are 100% reliable. I think the AR is definitely better.
With that said....
All that sand storm, muddy water, run over by a tank stuff only really matters to the mall ninjas anyway and the 99.9% of the rest of us are destined to put them through life as paper punching play toys for grownups.
With that said....
All that sand storm, muddy water, run over by a tank stuff only really matters to the mall ninjas anyway and the 99.9% of the rest of us are destined to put them through life as paper punching play toys for grownups.
Better for what? It's a complicated question, as they are significantly different rifles.
For me, the SKS is better because the low price and cheap ammo makes it the superior choice for tearing up junk out in the desert.
Or, the AR might be a better choice for someone who values punching holes in paper.
What's a better choice? A Ford F-150 or a Honda Civic?
For me, the SKS is better because the low price and cheap ammo makes it the superior choice for tearing up junk out in the desert.
Or, the AR might be a better choice for someone who values punching holes in paper.
What's a better choice? A Ford F-150 or a Honda Civic?
sansone
Member
agreed..
The sks is a fine weapon, not fair to compare it to an AR though.
Not in the same price-class
blackDdefense
Member
Have them both...love them both...
MtnCreek
Member
I guess I need to craw out from under my rock..... I've never heard that question asked.
sansone
Member
^^ LOL
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Err, what's the point of the question exactly? Are you looking at which to buy?
The AR is much more flexible and adaptable for shooters of different sizes, and to different "missions" (fast, close competition, DCM High Power competition, varmint hunting, medium game with larger caliber uppers, etc.)
The SKS is a neat piece of Soviet-Bloc hardware that can often be found at a lower price point.
Both will do the job asked of them, if the job is appropriate for the platform, and if the shooter is up to it.
Questions of durability or reliability are pretty much moot. Given appropriate care, both will keep running for a long, long time. Given poor care, both will quit working sooner than we'd like. None of us are going to war with an SKS, and if you are going to war with an AR/M16/M4, you don't get a say in the matter.
What are you planning to use this rifle for?
The AR is much more flexible and adaptable for shooters of different sizes, and to different "missions" (fast, close competition, DCM High Power competition, varmint hunting, medium game with larger caliber uppers, etc.)
The SKS is a neat piece of Soviet-Bloc hardware that can often be found at a lower price point.
Both will do the job asked of them, if the job is appropriate for the platform, and if the shooter is up to it.
Questions of durability or reliability are pretty much moot. Given appropriate care, both will keep running for a long, long time. Given poor care, both will quit working sooner than we'd like. None of us are going to war with an SKS, and if you are going to war with an AR/M16/M4, you don't get a say in the matter.
What are you planning to use this rifle for?
RIATAC45
Member
I agree with blackDdefence. I also have both, and can not choose one over the other. My AR is a Colt HBAR elite and is actually heavier than my yugo sks.
Last edited:
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The AR15 is better in every single way, except for price, than the SKS could ever hope to be.
An average AR will be demonstrably more accurate than an average SKS. Even a barebones frank AR is going to be capable of 2 inch groups, with most ARs hitting closer to 1 inch. The AR is one of the most modular guns ever built, and can be kitted out to fit specific needs, regardless of whether you want a gun for defense, competition (precision or practical), plinking, etc. The AR has a flexible magazine capacity that is limited only by the magazine you use in it, as little as a single round and as many as 100. The ergonomics of the AR15 are flat out better, with most of the controls placed in easily accessible and logical positions. The factory iron sights on the average SKS aren't much more than glorified handgun sights. The factory irons on most ARs are 1/2 MOA adjustable peep sights, with better options available (1/4 MOA adjustable, if you want). If you don't want to use iron sights, there's a mind-boggling array of optical devices available at nearly every price point that all attach via the simple picatinny rail system. No janky scope mounts needed.
I'll even argue that the 5.56mm cartridge is better, at least for most applications. It's lighter, flatter-shooting, and most of the factory ammunition is more accurate than the available 7.62x39 on the market. For those with concerns about terminal performance, there are heavier defensive loads available, like the Hornady TAP.
In the end, you get what you pay for. An SKS is less than half the price of an AR, but arguably has less than half the inherent ability. For a knockaround trunk gun capable of hitting a large-ish target at 200 yards or less, an SKS will generally work fine. But an AR will do that and so much more.
henschman
Member
Given only that choice, I would take the AR. For the ways in which the SKS is better, it is only slightly better; whereas in many of the categories in which the AR is better, it is head-and-shoulders above the Simonov.
Reliability and dependability? OK, I give that to the SKS, but the only thing keeping an AR from working just as reliably is that you have to lubricate it regularly; so the SKS doesn't win by much.
About the only other way the SK would be better is in penetration of barriers. The 5.56 doesn't have the mass to punch through some barriers that the soviet round would. But let's not kid ourselves -- the "7.62 short" isn't exactly a powerhouse in this category either. It's a little better, but still not great.
I don't buy the OP's assertions that the 7.62x39 has more "knockdown" and a higher kill rate, and that the bullet was designed to tumble whereas the 5.56 is not. The 5.56 actually is very deadly at close range where it is traveling at a high velocity. It is designed to fragment, rather than tumble. The SKS round isn't particularly well known for good terminal ballistics, or for being very "tumble-prone."
One of the most important things to look at on a rifle are the sights and the trigger. I'd say they are about even on the trigger -- factory triggers on both tend to be pretty bad. But when it comes to sights, the AR is much better -- click-adjustable aperture sights versus drift and screw adjustable notch sights. And if you're talking a flat-top AR, it is incredibly easy to mount any optic for any situation. The SKS is a lot harder to mount an optic on, and even harder to get a proper shooting position with afterward (they generally require you to build up the comb in order to get cheek weld).
There isn't a whole lot of difference between their max effective ranges, but if anything I'd say the AR has a little advantage there.
The AR is more accurate, quicker to reload, lighter weight, shoots lighter ammo, and has a capacity advantage.
Of course for some folks, price is the determining factor. That's OK -- it's not like the SKS is a bad rifle or anything. In the real world, the skill of the shooter would make more difference than any of the differences between the two rifles.
Reliability and dependability? OK, I give that to the SKS, but the only thing keeping an AR from working just as reliably is that you have to lubricate it regularly; so the SKS doesn't win by much.
About the only other way the SK would be better is in penetration of barriers. The 5.56 doesn't have the mass to punch through some barriers that the soviet round would. But let's not kid ourselves -- the "7.62 short" isn't exactly a powerhouse in this category either. It's a little better, but still not great.
I don't buy the OP's assertions that the 7.62x39 has more "knockdown" and a higher kill rate, and that the bullet was designed to tumble whereas the 5.56 is not. The 5.56 actually is very deadly at close range where it is traveling at a high velocity. It is designed to fragment, rather than tumble. The SKS round isn't particularly well known for good terminal ballistics, or for being very "tumble-prone."
One of the most important things to look at on a rifle are the sights and the trigger. I'd say they are about even on the trigger -- factory triggers on both tend to be pretty bad. But when it comes to sights, the AR is much better -- click-adjustable aperture sights versus drift and screw adjustable notch sights. And if you're talking a flat-top AR, it is incredibly easy to mount any optic for any situation. The SKS is a lot harder to mount an optic on, and even harder to get a proper shooting position with afterward (they generally require you to build up the comb in order to get cheek weld).
There isn't a whole lot of difference between their max effective ranges, but if anything I'd say the AR has a little advantage there.
The AR is more accurate, quicker to reload, lighter weight, shoots lighter ammo, and has a capacity advantage.
Of course for some folks, price is the determining factor. That's OK -- it's not like the SKS is a bad rifle or anything. In the real world, the skill of the shooter would make more difference than any of the differences between the two rifles.
VintovkaMosin
Member.
I personally think that it is a matter of Vanilla vs. Chocolate ice cream. The SKS, I can reload it as fast as a person with the AR. I personally see the AR as a good rifle, but it doesn't interest me. 5.56 and x39 can be had for fairly inexpensive compared to larger calibers, but both do the job just fine. The 5.56 can shoot a bit better but it largely depends on the shooter, not the gun. I know a few who have AKs that do pretty good against lower end ARs.
Ergonomics, I find that the SKS and AK are more suited to how I shoot, because i have smaller hands.
For ease of operation an SKS wins for me too, on an AR you push the bolt release instead of actuating the handle, but I prefer the handle because of the location of the bolt release I'm not used to.
Not all ARs are 1MOA or better out of the box, if you go with an AR I would suggest the highest quality parts you can afford, so ask around to find the best brands.
SKS have a long history of being difficult to mount optics, because most go on the dust cover which can contribute to wandering zero. Even non flattop ARs have a myriad of options for optics.
Don't let us make the choice for you, test drive the rifles if you can and see what you are more comfortable with.
Ergonomics, I find that the SKS and AK are more suited to how I shoot, because i have smaller hands.
For ease of operation an SKS wins for me too, on an AR you push the bolt release instead of actuating the handle, but I prefer the handle because of the location of the bolt release I'm not used to.
Not all ARs are 1MOA or better out of the box, if you go with an AR I would suggest the highest quality parts you can afford, so ask around to find the best brands.
SKS have a long history of being difficult to mount optics, because most go on the dust cover which can contribute to wandering zero. Even non flattop ARs have a myriad of options for optics.
Don't let us make the choice for you, test drive the rifles if you can and see what you are more comfortable with.
baylorattorney
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 489
AR without a question. I set an sks down in the corner of my kitchen one morning with a round "on top" safety on and BOOM. I've thrown many an AR around with confidence. Needles to say, no such confidence in sks b
PoserHoser
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 207
the answer is AK47 high capacity,durability, ease of use
"Age old question?" Do you own both? Have you fired both, in anger? From what data are you making your claims? Are your facts from the internetz?
The fact that you use words like "knock down power" and "kill rate" says all that needs to be said about your knowledge to those who are familiar with weapons.
Have you ever walked, talked or lived with soldiers (and insurgents) armed with SKS carbines (and AKs)? I have. You know what round they're afraid of, the 5.56 NATO because they do so much damage after entering a body. Every non-US combat veteran that I've had this conversation with says that they'd rather be hit with a 7.62x39 because it just drills a hole through you rather than tumble like the 5.56 NATO.
Dependability? Well, a soldier knows to always keep his/her weapon clean and ready. If not, weaps. malfunctions are your fault.
If you want to compare costs, perhaps I can understand...
Last edited:
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not convinced that an SKS is more tolerant of lack of maintenance, or more reliable under unlubed-and-dirty conditions, than a properly put together AR. My wife's Russian SKS turned into a jam-o-matic once after it got put away dirty and the residual oil dried out, causing it to short-stroke and fail to feed the next round. There was no corrosion, just dry powder fouling and dry metal. The SKS doesn't have the long-stroke piston and loose clearances that the AK does, so IMO it's a bit more prone to short-stroking under adverse conditions.
P-32
Member
When the 5.56 came out, it set the Russains on their backsides. They thought we were on to something. It's funny no one brings up the fact Russia also came out with a round almost ike our 5.56, the 5.45. I wonder why. This this small round is what Russia they uses today. The M-16 has een around a LONG time used by US forces. I would yhink if the plateform was so bad with breakage and jamming we would have gotten away from it long ago.
There is no doubt the AR is a more accurate rifle than the SKS. I would prefere to have the rifle hit where my sights were at than not.
There is no doubt the AR is a more accurate rifle than the SKS. I would prefere to have the rifle hit where my sights were at than not.
Last edited:
Zen Archery
Member
how about an A.R. in 7.62x39 :banghead:
mc223
Member
This Thread :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
fallout mike
Member
What's better a hipoint 9mm or a Wilson 1911?
Cosmoline
Member
They're not in the same class... period. It's not so much comparing a hipoint with a Wilson as comparing a vintage Chelyabinsk tractor with a D-10 Cat.
The SKS would best be considered a proto-assault rifle. It has elements of a true assault rifle, but has no select fire and a limit to ten rounds without modifications. It was outdated as a military arm within two years of its introduction, and is well known to us now simply because the USSR used its design and tooling in bargains with other Communist nations.
It's a useful firearm and has considerable interest for the collector because it's one of the last front line military rifles you can get in original unaltered form without having to deal with the nonsense of the NFA and the registry.
The AR-15 is a very different firearm. The internals are totally different, the gas system is different, the feeding system is different, the construction materials are very different, the ergonomics are different, the manufacturing is different and while uses overlap the AR has a much broader array of potential applications. The guy next to me at the range last weekend was shooting the .50 BMG out of an AR-15 platform, for example!
About the only thing the AR-15 has in common with the SKS is that it typically fires an intermediate round and is semiautomatic. Apart from that they have nothing in common, esp. price.
That doesn't mean the SKS is bad or junk. A nice Tula made SKS-45 has pride of place in any collection, while no AR-15 ever would. AR's are civilian weapons.
The SKS would best be considered a proto-assault rifle. It has elements of a true assault rifle, but has no select fire and a limit to ten rounds without modifications. It was outdated as a military arm within two years of its introduction, and is well known to us now simply because the USSR used its design and tooling in bargains with other Communist nations.
It's a useful firearm and has considerable interest for the collector because it's one of the last front line military rifles you can get in original unaltered form without having to deal with the nonsense of the NFA and the registry.
The AR-15 is a very different firearm. The internals are totally different, the gas system is different, the feeding system is different, the construction materials are very different, the ergonomics are different, the manufacturing is different and while uses overlap the AR has a much broader array of potential applications. The guy next to me at the range last weekend was shooting the .50 BMG out of an AR-15 platform, for example!
About the only thing the AR-15 has in common with the SKS is that it typically fires an intermediate round and is semiautomatic. Apart from that they have nothing in common, esp. price.
That doesn't mean the SKS is bad or junk. A nice Tula made SKS-45 has pride of place in any collection, while no AR-15 ever would. AR's are civilian weapons.
Last edited:
Cleaning! The AR has it hands down for cleaning in a timely manner IMO! I positively enjoy the SKS and the couple I own, unless things really got bad, I would not wish to sell. I like them for beater rifles and just plain old open sight shooting. They are great pig poppers but so is the AR! I have seen people shot with the 7.62x39 and also with the 7.62x45 neighter is a round you want to be hit with so it really becomes what a fellow wants to shoot on a given day and the mission profile. Like posted already open fields and shots at range grab an AR; brush, thickets, and brambles grab the SKS and and enjoy the day. I really do like the SKS; certainly better for hitting smallish target at 200+ than my AK. AK is easier to clean than the SKS IMO. So here we ago again everthing has it's pros and cons.
FrankieJames7
Member
i would like to say sks, unless your one of those people who use a bench and a sand bag for everything while you wouldnt be able to hit a berm with out your bench and sand bags, if so then go with ar 15
- Status
