[Agent006]

Okay, this might seem a rather obvious comparision but I have good reason to bring this up. The fact is, the SKS wasn't intended as a true assault rifle, as far as I'm aware. The Russian's liked the intermediate round and I'm sure saw potential for the full-auto rifle, but took Simonov's more "conservative" approach. So we have the SKS with the intermediate round and firing from stripper clips. 10 rounds? And then we have the AK47, Kalashnikov's daring assault rifle which proved itself to be the future of not only the Soviet Army, but for militaries across the globe.

I won't lie that I'm an AK man, and while I find the SKS to be a handsome rifle, I simply don't have a need for one when I have the ease of an assault rifle that fires the same round and can do so in a more formidable fashion. But that's my question. Is it really more formidable? How does the SKS stack up in terms of reliability and accuracy? I'll say for myself that I like both rifles in their original form and the AK was simply more formidable by design. There's somewhere I read that the SKS was a cheaply manufactured weapon. But weren't AK's with stamped recievers built cheaply, aswell?

In today's market with all the modified rifles you see out there, the SKS is almost living another life as a "wanna-be" assault rifle with pistol grip stocks and AK magazines. As I said, I personally like the SKS as it was and not because it put's it behind my AK but simply because that's it's place in history. But with the modifications, can the SKS mechanically reliable enough to compete with the AK47 as an assault rifle?

Here's what brought this to my mind. I was talking to a friend of mine who showed me his Maadi, seeing that he'd went the bargain route with his Kalashnikov. But another friend said that he liked the SKS better because it was "more accurate." So it makes me wonder. In general, is the SKS a more accurate rifle? Or is it simply the type of rifle that one would tend to shoot more accurately because of it's having fewer rounds in the magazine? Is it maybe the pride of saying "I don't need 30 rounds"? Naturally, I would imagine the AK could be fired just as accurately as the SKS and be more formidable with it's large magazine, even without the fully automatic ability. But is the SKS more accurate on it's own?

Anyways, to sum it all up... how does the SKS truthfully compare in accuracy and performance to the AK47 and how much if any does that change when the rifles are converted into "wanna-be" assault rifles?

 

[Gyrene]

Agent006 - You are correct in saying that the SKS was not an Assault rifle, and that the AK-47 (in select fire form) is an assault rifle. The AK-47 in a semi-auto form is not an assault rifle.

As to accuracy, the SKS has a longer barrel and a longer sight radius, which gives it the edge for potential accuracy, over the AK-47. The reality is that the AK-47 was never intended to have more than a rudimentary amount of accuracy (with spray and pray), which is all you can have in full auto mode.

As to which is the more accurate in the hands of most users, it is totally dependent upon who is shooting the rifle as to how accurate it is. We know this from hunting, and target ranges, that it takes a good shooter to hunt successfully, or to score high on a target range. The rifle can assist, but the shooter is the one that defines the actual accuracy.

`

 

[BattleRifleG3]

SKSes were designed in a day when stripper fed semi-auto fire was still better than most militaries had. Also at a time when labor was less expensive and machines more. The SKS was designed for a battlefield filled with Mausers and Mosins with the M1 Garand dominating.

Military SKSes are more accurate than military AKs. When throwing in commercial AKs, you must ask which AK?

A Bulgarian milled AK or a Russian VEPR should be better than most SKSs. Russian Saigas are probably on a par with the better SKSs. Other AKs may or may not be, such as the Chinese and Romanians.

The way the Russians designated snipers was to shoot every rifle and designate the best grouping ones as snipers. Same applies to AKs from China or Romania.

 

[Mooseman684]

Well said Gyrene! I have a Russian Military SKS that is very accurate and the barrel is screwed in ,not pinned like the AK, so it will hold tighter groups on the bench at 100 yards. If I use Hi-cap mags, I can change out the AK mags faster than I can the SKS using 30 rounders. :nod:

 

[Agent006]

Hm, so as I thought, there's a sort of mixed bag here. If we stick to military, the SKS is more accurate as a rifle. Commercially, it seems there are some AK's that can muster better accuracy. Naturally, not all AK's and SKS's are going to be the same which is why I sort of generalized the question. So military SKS's are indeed more accurate than their AK comrades.

And yes, the commercial models of either weapons are not true assault rifles because of them being semi-automatic. Because of the terminology, they're both automatic rifles. But let's face it. There's a difference between an SKS with 10 rounds from a stripper clip and an AK47 with a 75 round drum. But by moving our trigger finger a bit faster, the one with more rounds can be used in an assault rifle-style manner. Let's just not share that information with the anti-gun folks.

So the other part of what I was wondering, in terms of reliability... let's say with an SKS modified in every way to have the same number of rounds in the magazine as the AK, will it past the torture test? By this I mean the abuse of firing hundreds of rounds and getting dirty and neglected in harsh climates. Again, there may be more reliable versions of the SKS to be considered for all I know but what do you think?

 

[Mooseman684]

My opinion is that they are both equally reliable,and I never have had a jam or problem when I put a BMF activator on the SKS with a Hi-cap mag and cranked it till it was empty...Like Full auto fire from a semi...:right:
Oh what Fun !:full:

 

[BattleRifleG3]

A bunch of palestinians converted SKSes to full auto and to use AK mags. Around the 3rd to 5th mag the handguard would catch fire.

 

[Agent006]

So it sounds like the SKS is pretty reliable and it seems it could hold up to automatic fire other than that problem with the handguard. Seems odd, though. I'm sure they're built from similar wood and the SKS does have those vents there like the AK does to allow the head to vent from the wood. But, I do recall my own AK's wood stocks getting hot after awhile so that's pretty natural, really. I guess synthetic stocks might change that factor.

Needless to say, the SKS wasn't intended for such work so I feel it best to leave them be. Come to think of it, I do have a reason to own an SKS. For one, to make my collection more complete. And of course, since I'd use my SKS the way it was intended to be used, it would probably save me money by not going through ammo as fast. If it is indeed a more accurate rifle, perhaps I should give it a second look?

 

[Mooseman684]

What ??? you don't have an SKS....If you can find a Russian Military one dated in the '50s for a good price...Grab it and growl !

 

[Agent006]

Nope. Never owned an SKS. I've always just had the AK. I shot an SKS before, though. It seemed to be alright. I've just never seen one that I was too impressed with but I'd consider a Russian one. Do those have folding bayonets?

 

[Beer Forever]

The only problem I have with the SKS is that if you use high cap mags, it jams all the time. I use the factory fixed mag and never jams. I would say the SKS is more accurate. They are both reliable and very good guns. It comes to personal preferance and what feels right in your hands. You have to remeber the SKS was developed over 50 years ago and there are still new ones out there being bought up and used all the time. That says a lot in its self. :smash:

 

[BattleRifleG3]

I would use the SKS for aimed fire as it's far more affordable for that purpose than an AR-15. For high capacity rapid fire, just get an AK. Mag prices will even out the economics if you buy as many as you should. And the AK is far better balanced and maneuverable with its natural pistol grip than an SKS is with one of those wannabe assault rifle folding stocks.

 

[Beer Forever]

Very true. When it comes to combat, you want something that you can manuver easily and has a lot of bullets with magazines. That is the AK. The SKS is just too big for many combat situations, but it will still blow a cow into pieces:wave:

 

[Bookman]

You can throw every AK-style rifle into the ocean for all I care. I don't like 'em at all.

Give me the SKS every time.

 

[FutureMarine]

You can throw every AK-style rifle into the ocean for all I care. I don't like 'em at all.
Give me the SKS every time.

:jaw: :jaw: :jaw: :jaw: :jaw:


Dont get me wrong, i love my russian tula sks and i know sks is a great rifle, but why do you not like AK's?

 

[toolman]

I've never shot a commecial AK but the military versions I've shot were 4.5-6 moa guns at best with Wolf ammo. In comparison, my Chinese SKS (which I traded, like an idiot!), would put a full mag inside 1 1/2" with the same ammo. There are serious differences in the pinned and threaded barrel models, although even the pinned models are generally more accurate than an AK. I wouldn't mind having an AK for home defense with frangible ammo but a 12 ga. would prob. be a better choice.

 

[Agent006]

Hm, well either way there's enough said here to make a loyal fan of the AK like me to consider an SKS. I could probably work with my Maadi a bit and see what sort of accuracy I could get out of it at longer ranges but it's not a big concern for me right now. I just think the SKS seems like a fun gun to shoot and one that make me conserve ammo.

I didn't meantion it with this topic but another gun I've had my eyes on is the SVT-40. The Tokarev rifles look similar to a very large SKS but they were mechanically very different. They feed from a detachable box magazine of 10 rounds and fire the 7.62x54 Russian cartridge. This would put it more at wits against the likes of the M-1 Garand and Gewehr 43. I've seen an SVT-38 at a gunshow once but I've yet to see another. Is anyone familiar with the performance of these rifles?

 

[Mooseman684]

Don't have one to tell you about in my collection , but, I have the Russian Tiger rifle ( Dragunov) 7.62x54r with the Russian sniper scope and at 1000 meters I can dot your I !!! Like Big Brother of the AK . A joy to shoot!

 

[Agent006]

I've handled a couple Dragunovs before and it felt almost like I was holding a stretched out AK, which they are quite similar I suppose but there are a number of differences also. Most variants are pretty costly from what I've seen and I'm not sure where the prices are compared to the SVT. I believe most Dragunovs are dubbed the "SVD" Um.. Snaperskaya Vintovka Dragunova?

I get the impression that the older Tokarev rifle would be less refined than than the Dragunov but of course the Dragunov is mostly a sniper rifle. The SVT was mostly a service rifle, and such a good one that even the Germans put them to use for themselves, using the Russian's one weapon against them. In fact, the improved Gewehr 43 seems to have been improved after having confronted the SVT in combat, realizing the advantages of it's design. Both are very different weapons, but the fact that the Germans admired the SVT enough to capture it and put it to use for themselves say's alot. It was probably the best semi-automatic rifle on the Eastern front until the Gewehr 43 became more available.

I love my Tokarev pistol so it seemed suiting that I consider Tokarev's powerful service rifle. Firing the same rounds at the Mosin Nagant, it's not very expensive ammo and should be reliable although I haven't heard much testimony about it. If I got a good deal on such a rifle, the SKS would have to wait once again.

 

[Mooseman684]

Yup,me and a friend are still kicking ourselves for not picking up Tokarevs when they were 129.00 and now they have dried up...Ive seen one in 3 years of gun shows and the price was more than I wanted to pay!