Joined
·
184 Posts
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?
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?