SKS or M1A: SKS might be better

[theotherwaldo]

I bought four different models of SKS and a Winchester Garand for less than the going price of an M-1a.
I'm pretty happy with what I have... .

 

[I6turbo]

Only the M1 can produce a hit.
https://twitter.com/OntWtf/status/1426339327307567104

 

[Charlie Martinez]

Question for those that may know. It is obvious that the SKS is a good, reliable firearm that has many uses, is in high demand and is probably very cheap to manufacture (as all Soviet guns are). Why doesn't a US maker build and sell them like they do other former military guns like M! Carbines, M-14's and AK 47's?

 

[illinoisburt]

Question for those that may know. It is obvious that the SKS is a good, reliable firearm that has many uses, is in high demand and is probably very cheap to manufacture (as all Soviet guns are). Why doesn't a US maker build and sell them like they do other former military guns like M! Carbines, M-14's and AK 47's?

None of these were ever cheap to make. They were paid for by governments and subsequently sold off as surplus, likely way under cost, when no longer needed by them. Tooling up to build any of these older style guns obviously can be done but the volume of sales likely would not be sufficient to make it a profitable venture without fairly high prices.

 

[MosinT53Hunter]

Question for those that may know. It is obvious that the SKS is a good, reliable firearm that has many uses, is in high demand and is probably very cheap to manufacture (as all Soviet guns are). Why doesn't a US maker build and sell them like they do other former military guns like M! Carbines, M-14's and AK 47's?

Several reasons why that won't be in production anytime soon:

1. There is no demand for new SKS's with many other rifles available to fill that spot.
2. SKS's were milled out of solid steel, so it takes time and much skill that is lost to the sands of time to make them.
3. Cheap to make if you had all the tooling and skilled labor that works for slave labor wages. So, not cheap at all now a days.
4. Even if you used MIM technology, steel stampings, optics rails, etc, it would be far easier and profitable to make the "run of the mill" AR 15's or AK 47's then to make SKS's.
Perhaps if you could stretch the receiver to use calibers like .308, 7.62x54r, or other's, there may be some market for it.

Just my two cents.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

Question for those that may know. It is obvious that the SKS is a good, reliable firearm that has many uses, is in high demand and is probably very cheap to manufacture (as all Soviet guns are). Why doesn't a US maker build and sell them like they do other former military guns like M! Carbines, M-14's and AK 47's?

The SKS was likely relatively cheap to produce--especially the Chinese type56. Over three decades the streamlined the design and manufacturing process, producing an estimated 15-20million.

With a market already overrun with still relatively affordable SKS variants and still more arriving from the Albanian caches, there's no way to produce them now for anything but a huge loss.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

There really isn't anything inherently low cost about an SKS. It's all machined steel and has quite a number of individual parts. It also requires hand fitting of some parts such as the sear and gas tube. Though, if someone was really focused on improving the manufacturing process that could likely be improved. The SKS, while being a good design and does the job it was asked to do, my belief is that the AK can be produced cheaper and has a greater appeal which is why you don't see these being currently manufactured outside of Russia, who it sounds like is mostly doing a refurbishing of surplus units.

Question for those that may know. It is obvious that the SKS is a good, reliable firearm that has many uses, is in high demand and is probably very cheap to manufacture (as all Soviet guns are). Why doesn't a US maker build and sell them like they do other former military guns like M! Carbines, M-14's and AK 47's?

None of these were ever cheap to make. They were paid for by governments and subsequently sold off as surplus, likely way under cost, when no longer needed by them. Tooling up to build any of these older style guns obviously can be done but the volume of sales likely would not be sufficient to make it a profitable venture without fairly high prices.

The SKS was likely relatively cheap to produce--especially the Chinese type56. Over three decades the streamlined the design and manufacturing process, producing an estimated 15-20million.

With a market already overrun with still relatively affordable SKS variants and still more arriving from the Albanian caches, there's no way to produce them now for anything but a huge loss.

 

[d2wing]

Question for those that may know. It is obvious that the SKS is a good, reliable firearm that has many uses, is in high demand and is probably very cheap to manufacture (as all Soviet guns are). Why doesn't a US maker build and sell them like they do other former military guns like M! Carbines, M-14's and AK 47's?

It is only a "good" reliable firearm to it's fan base. Not that many of us are thinking about an attack by zombies. There are many cheaper firearms that are much better for most people. Such as a modern bolt action rifle or AK clone or AR. You may think it is wonderful but others may see it an obsolete overweight underpowered and inaccurate firearm. It is not much lighter or shorter than a M1A, and at today's prices not enough cheaper. To most of us, the AR or other is far better and cheaper. Yes there is a market but not enough for most gun makers to tool up to make it. As someone said it makes business sense to make other guns. They sold well when they were cheap. I had one.
As for being better than Garand or any version of M1 or M1A, the market reflects what most of us think. That only to a small fan base is that comparison realistic. I think it is very misguided.

 

[Speedo66]

An SKS is a military collectible, why does it have to justify itself?

People buy one because they want it, and can, no other reason is necessary.

Comparing it in value, accuracy, or any other criteria to new rifles just doesn’t make sense.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

The M1A (M14) was designed in the late 1950's.

I would hesitate to call it a "new rifle".

 

[Risky buisness]

The M1A (M14) was designed in the late 1950's.

I would hesitate to call it a "new rifle".

Ok. And the Mauser was designed in the 1890s.
No one doubts its validity even in its current iteration.
Sks, late 40s design
Ak 47 late 40s
So whats your point?

 

[Charlie Martinez]

You may think it is wonderful

Hey d2wing, take it easy.
I am not a zombie epidemic believer and I never said I thought it was a "wonderful" gun nor that it was better than the Garand, M1A or any other. I don't own one or shot one ever but I have read and heard from those that do that they like them & some say more than AK-47's and AR-15's so I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that they are good guns and that they are in high demand. I also assumed (again perhaps incorrectly) that since they were Soviet designed weapons that they were cheap to manufacture. Based on those assumptions I wondered and asked what reasons would there be for someone to not think of manufacturing & selling them like other military rifles. I believe my question was answered pretty well .

 

[d2wing]

Hey d2wing, take it easy.
I am not a zombie epidemic believer and I never said I thought it was a "wonderful" gun nor that it was better than the Garand, M1A or any other. I don't own one or shot one ever but I have read and heard from those that do that they like them & some say more than AK-47's and AR-15's so I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that they are good guns and that they are in high demand. I also assumed (again perhaps incorrectly) that since they were Soviet designed weapons that they were cheap to manufacture. Based on those assumptions I wondered and asked what reasons would there be for someone to not think of manufacturing & selling them like other military rifles. I believe my question was answered pretty well .

Ok. I wasn't making fun of you question so much as pointing out that the premise that the SKS is better than any version of the M1 is not rational to any but fanatical fans of the SKS.

 

[Mosin77]

I dunno, I think it has a lot to do with what you are buying/using it for. Neither is a frontline combat weapon today. Both have drawbacks that make it less than suited for such. Both are however, perfectly capable of being extremely useful in some kind of “emergency” scenario. Both could hunt if you’re into that sort of thing. I think both rifles are bought by military rifle enthusiasts and spend a lot more time punching holes in stuff recreationally than anything else. And the M1A will probably do it a lot better in paper, at range. The SKS will probably do it better informally, at closer range, against tin cans.

Neither is cheap but the SKS is a lot cheaper than the M1A, which does make it the go to for a lot of people since 7.62x39 is about 30 cents a round and 308 is more like a dollar a round. Both can make a case disappear in a hurry if you are so inclined. When the SKS was a bargain it got a lot of duty for which it wasn’t ideally suited but which it could do acceptably.

The SKS today is more about some neat Cold War history and just plain fun, while the M1A is the sort of weapon that inspires you to caress your fine rifle and appreciate its quality and craftsmanship. (But the SKS is no POS either compared to 21st century polymer and alloy stuff.)

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

I'd challenge that the price of an M1 or M1A is an indicator of it being better. I think that is a bit silly considering we're talking about firearms that are primarily sold on a collector basis. Is a
Beretta Imperiale Montecarlo 50x better than a Beretta better than a Beretta Silver Pigeon?

It is only a "good" reliable firearm to it's fan base. Not that many of us are thinking about an attack by zombies. There are many cheaper firearms that are much better for most people. Such as a modern bolt action rifle or AK clone or AR. You may think it is wonderful but others may see it an obsolete overweight underpowered and inaccurate firearm. It is not much lighter or shorter than a M1A, and at today's prices not enough cheaper. To most of us, the AR or other is far better and cheaper. Yes there is a market but not enough for most gun makers to tool up to make it. As someone said it makes business sense to make other guns. They sold well when they were cheap. I had one.
As for being better than Garand or any version of M1 or M1A, the market reflects what most of us think. That only to a small fan base is that comparison realistic. I think it is very misguided.

 

[tarosean]

The M1A (M14) was designed in the late 1950's.

I would hesitate to call it a "new rifle".

So was the AR.

 

[Derek Wildstar]

I'd challenge that the price of an M1 or M1A is an indicator of it being better. I think that is a bit silly considering we're talking about firearms that are primarily sold on a collector basis. Is a
Beretta Imperiale Montecarlo 50x better than a Beretta better than a Beretta Silver Pigeon?

The M1A is more expensive because it's made in smaller numbers, for a civilian market where limits on production controls supply to artificially drive up prices according to demand. The SKS can be sold cheaply because there were 20million of them made thru communist labor.

In all honesty, the price of the M1A tells us only one thing with regard to the SKS. Namely, that it is more expensive. Nothing else.

 

[d2wing]

Thankfully we are all entitled to have opinions and state them. I wish you all well. Enjoy whatever you like to shoot for whatever reason. Thank God we live in the US. I saw pictures today of Afghans falling off airplanes.

 

[Ignition Override]

. Apples and coconuts.

If Century Arms ever were to tell a contractor to produce a US-made SKS, I wonder which low grade of steel they would require, and a milled receiver (?), to comply with Century's X production cost limit?

I wouldn't buy one. Their low grades of commercial steel usually aren't as durable during prolonged evaluations as foreign steel used in imported AKMs.

 

[NuclearMeltdown]

. Apples and coconuts.

This is right. I don't think they're similar enough that you could draw a comparison and definitively say one is "better" than the other. The only things they really have in common is that they're both wood-stocked semi-autos that are capable of being loaded with stripper clips.

That being said, these are things that matter the most to me:
Fit to my body
Trigger
Sights
Reliability
Accuracy

I've fired hundreds of rounds through both models and for those factors, the M1A wins for me.

But I like SKSs too though! It's just that the stocks are too short (for me), sights are harder to adjust and harder to align for shooting, and the trigger is mushier. But it's equal on the cool factor. Who can go wrong with an attached bayonet or even a grenade launcher with flip-up night sights?

The SKS is easier to take apart and maintain. Doesn't require grease. Ammunition cheaper.

Must be another case of defining your needs and picking which best fits it. I just shoot them at the range, so I appreciate both for what they are.

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Yes, I agree, they are both just different firearms. M1A is a firearm that you get if you want the range and energy of a .308 Win in a rugged, semi-automatic, platform with detachable magazines and traditional rifle ergonomics. The SKS is the firearm you get if you want a rugged semi-automatic rifle, with low cost intermediate ammunition, that is minimalistic, reliable and easy to maintain.

In my opinion, the biggest failing of the SKS is the safety (lack there of). If there was ever going to be a successful commercial version, this issue would need to be resolved.

This is right. I don't think they're similar enough that you could draw a comparison and definitively say one is "better" than the other. The only things they really have in common is that they're both wood-stocked semi-autos that are capable of being loaded with stripper clips.

That being said, these are things that matter the most to me:
Fit to my body
Trigger
Sights
Reliability
Accuracy

I've fired hundreds of rounds through both models and for those factors, the M1A wins for me.

But I like SKSs too though! It's just that the stocks are too short (for me), sights are harder to adjust and harder to align for shooting, and the trigger is mushier. But it's equal on the cool factor. Who can go wrong with an attached bayonet or even a grenade launcher with flip-up night sights?

The SKS is easier to take apart and maintain. Doesn't require grease. Ammunition cheaper.

Must be another case of defining your needs and picking which best fits it. I just shoot them at the range, so I appreciate both for what they are.

 

[Rex in OTZ]

This is like comparing a early 1970's Honda XL 250 vs a Harley-Davidson ROAD KING.
Both are motorcycles, both do what they are designed to do, both classics in their respective fields.
But to compare them? Crazy!

 

[joneb]

I like SKSs too though! It's just that the stocks are too short (for me)

I put a Tapco Adjustable synthetic stock on a SKS which made it much easier shoot for me and the wife.

 

[Riomouse911]

I had an SKS, they’re ok. I bought a Chinese version with the fiberglass stock and several boxes of ammo for $100 bucks back in the early 1990’s.

Even with a folding stock from Choate changing the gun into a handier package, the gun didn’t do much for me. I sold it and never missed it.

I do have a Mini-30 Ranch Rifle which handles better than the old SKS did (for me, anyway). This is a much better comparison than the apples to bananas M1A VS. SKS comparison. The Mini-30 accepts not only a scope with factory rings, but also uses reliable detachable mags, making it much more versatile then the same-caliber SKS, IMHO.

YMMV.

Stay safe.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I had an SKS back in the day and didn't care for it at all. Now that the cheap steel Russian ammo is going away I can't imagine much point the SKS anymore.