My understanding is that the 7.62X39 round was the product of Russian experience during WWII with the Germans resulting in a revision of combat philosophy from aimed long-distance fire to short distance suppressive fire. Basic premise being that most combat is at less than 300 yards and that the average infrantryman can't shoot worth a **** in the heat of combat anyway. Same general philosophy led to our development of the M-16. This was continuation of revision of combat philosophy that began during WWI (note that Springfields have a cutoff so that you can fire them single-shot and keep the magazine in reserve).
As far as its worth in battle goes, seems to me that the Commies held us to stalemate in Korea and whipped us in Vietnam, and the SKS was a common weapon in both.
That said, myself I'd prefer a full-power .30 weapon like a FAL or M-14 for myself. But I'd arm the peasants with intermediate-power weapons.
As far as its worth in battle goes, seems to me that the Commies held us to stalemate in Korea and whipped us in Vietnam, and the SKS was a common weapon in both.
That said, myself I'd prefer a full-power .30 weapon like a FAL or M-14 for myself. But I'd arm the peasants with intermediate-power weapons.
