Gun and Game Forum banner
141 - 153 of 153 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,139 Posts
and has been used in actual battles, and has been on the winning side of more wars than nearly any firearm in history since the Lee-Enfield. And the other system is one that would probably break or bend upon the first blunt force use, the spear costs extra, it makes tiny holes, has never been used in a battle, and it's military equivalent has only been on the winning side in two of the last 30 or so wars it has been involved with.
OK, now your just trolling.

or you just actually think the SKS is better than the AR pattern.

either way, get on with it, ok, its apparent you love the SKS, then just choose that and be happy with it, but your wasting your breath, or keystrokes rather, trying to convince the world your right.

a Russian interim, intermediate rifle, that was replaced almost as fast as it was introduced. it was a stop-gap between the mosin and the AK. The only reason it carried on in use after that was because there was a bunch of cheap ones around and it was cheap to produce under license ( or not).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
The Russians gave the SKS to all of its satellites and political allies, cheap appeasement and political favoritism. It is really cool that the weapon happens to work well, and since it is in the same caliber as the AK-47, ammo was plentiful too.
America gave away M1 carbines in a similar fashion, but we got NATO behind the 5.56 for ammo.
You know what is really great….that we can access variants of these venerable warhorses, argue about which is better, bicker over how the commercial variants get cheapened from the originals, etc…then go shoot them. Ain’t America great?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,163 Posts
The Russians gave the SKS to all of its satellites and political allies, cheap appeasement and political favoritism. It is really cool that the weapon happens to work well, and since it is in the same caliber as the AK-47, ammo was plentiful too.
America gave away M1 carbines in a similar fashion, but we got NATO behind the 5.56 for ammo.
You know what is really great….that we can access variants of these venerable warhorses, argue about which is better, bicker over how the commercial variants get cheapened from the originals, etc…then go shoot them. Ain’t America great?
Now a really good debate would be M1 carbine versus SKS. Pretty much every argument I made in favor of the SKS loosely applies to the carbine, and it has served even longer and in even more conflicts. It was even on the winning side of most of them, AND it has been through multiple SHTF situations, many in island and jungle conditions. .

Unlike the AR that was dumped by nearly everyone except us, the carbine soldiers on with nearly every country that ever received them. That is the gun the Israelis actually issue to students, teachers, bus drivers and tour guides. They are the only gun we left in Vietnam that the Vietnamese still use in any numbers, and it is probably the one we left the least of.

That said, it seems like there was even a photo floating around a couple of years ago of an unidentified American operator carrying a tricked out M2.

Just to be fair and even, a lot of people in Israel are carrying CAR-type rifles in Israel right now. They were de-mothballed after nearly 15 years in storage, and issued to police, security, and older IDF members who were called back up to deal with this latest HAMAS business. Interestingly, the M1 was never mothballed. It actually outlasted the Magal which was produced in the '90s to replace it (but which has also been re-issued in limited numbers in the last few weeks. At this point, I am half surprised the Israelis haven't dug up K98s.)

On top of everything else, everyone could be on the same page with the two designs. Basic versus basic, instead of basic versus multi-thousand-dollar-gun-complete-with-everything-but-a-nuke-launcher.

Even if the better AR rifles are better than the SKS, I left out a fourth definition of "basic" in my previous argument in the hopes that someone would pick it up. That fourth definition was the "average AR" as a definition of basic.

The average SKS is the average SKS. One is more-or-less like another for the purpose of argument.

The Average AR is the average between something Jimbob hammered together out of a plastic lower and the cheapest parts he could order online, and one of these multi-thousand dollar super guns. Then you factor in that the absolute best AR you could get for most of the period between the '60s and about 20 years ago was a Bushmaster that is considered mediocre by today's standards. Then you factor in how many builders have no clue what they are doing, how many people are 3d printing or using 80% lowers that they took a Dremel tool or power drill to, how many through the years were built from slapped-out military parts kits, and how many people have probably rendered their weapon useless in a survival situation by turning a good gun into Bubba's tacti-cool Star Wars blaster and portable flashlight and googaw museum. Then figure in how many of the expensive super guns had a few years of quality control issues through the years.

The "Average" AR, even with all the really nice and dependable ones thrown in, is probably more towards the mediocre side than the good side. Considering how many lowers we transfer for people doing their first ever build, many of whom had never even owned or handled a gun before, I imagine the average is skewing lower everyday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,122 Posts
This is a no brainer for me. I have been using/training with the AR since 1967 (military, LE, and civilian), but I am only 'familiar' with the AK as part of my SF training, so make mine the AR! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
I own, and have owned numerous examples of both. I have also modified and repaired both of them, too. Frankly I'd choose an AR-15. It's more accurate; ammunition is more readily available, and I already know how to keep even a finicky AR up and running well.

The both of them shoot reasonably well, but neither one is perfect. Whether it's an AR, or an SKS each one requires internal action adjustment and mechanical work. In a collapsed social environment the AR is going to have the edge. Why? Because there will be more of them around to scrounge parts from, and 'battlefield pickups' will provide additional ammunition.

So, one more time, while my personal preference is for a good Russian (or Com Bloc) AK platform rifle, my practical choice would be for an AR. (Which is Why I own both!) Neither do I particularly care for 5.56x45mm ammunition; but that is what most people use; so that is what I continue to use, as well. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
We have SKS carbines and M4s (7.62x39) an never had an issue. I have spring kits for all of them but since buying my first SKS in '91 I have never had a part in an SKS fail. We have put thousands of rounds through our Type56, Russian & Yugo 59/66 and have total confidence in them as with our M4 carbines in the same caliber.
I don't give a hoot in torment about what is "best", we have become proficient with what we have and to me that is most important!
 

·
Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
35,758 Posts
Seriously, I get the AK is better than the AR argument, but the SKS is an outdated relic. I love my Mosin Nagant, but also realize its an antiquated design.

You tell me, if the SKS is so great, why did Russia transition to the AK?
Because General Simonov's carbine/rifle (I've heard it referred to both ways) came along just a little too late; and because the AK-47 designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov better suited the Soviet Red Army's infantry philosophy.

The Russians/Soviets have never had a high regard for the lives of the peasants who have made up their armies. But until recently, they had enough manpower that they could employ the "Russian Steamroller" as their primary infantry tactic. Send a big wave of armed men to charge an enemy position. Yes, you will lose a lot of them, but enough will get through to crush the enemy. The AK ties into that. By Western standards, it's not terribly accurate; a cowboy from the Old West shooting .44-40 out of a Model 1873 Winchester could do better. But it sends a lot of lead downrange very fast, keeps the enemy's heads down, discourages accurate return fire by anyone except the machine gunners. and allows that human wave to get close enough to break over and wipe out the enemy position being attacked.

General Simonov realized that the Mosin Nagant was terminally obsolete even when compared to the Mauser 98K. Yes, it had the virtues of always firing when you pulled the trigger, even in lousy battlefield conditions, even when it hadn't been cleaned in awhile. Yes, if you had the time to tune it up (which consists mainly of free-floating the barrel and doing a little polishing on the bolt body, the boltway, the trigger sear and the sear spring, and required nothing more than 400 grit sandpaper and brass polish if you could get it), the Mighty Mosin will perform as well as a Springfield, even better sometimes. But it was still a long-barreled, bolt action rifle in what the United States had turned into a semi-auto world.

The Russian attempt to field a semi-auto rifle to replace the Mosin (the SVT-40) was not a success. The SVT was harder for Ivan Muzhik to maintain, was flimsier than the Mosin, had the distressing habit of cracking at the wrist due to recoil, and unless properly installed in a properly milled wood stock (it might have done better in a stock made of chestnut, maple, or walnut than the softer birch stock that was used), the action would shift in the stock, sending your zero straight to hell. Also, it required more machining, took longer to produce, and cost much more to make than the 91/30. The result was the SVT being pulled from issue and the 91/30 continuing as the Red Army's main battle rifle for World War II.

The SKS used the same bullet as the Mosin, but a shorter case, an intermediate power round. The 10 round magazine loaded from stripper clips, a concept Private Ivan Muzhik already understood. It was reasonably easy to strip down and maintain. And like the M44, it had an integral bayonet, one less thing for Private Muzhik to misplace. And above all, its rate of fire was significantly faster than the Mosin, which again played into the Russian Steamroller technique.

If the General had started work on the SKS in 1940 and it had had been rushed into series production in, say, 1943, the military academics would in my opinion still be arguing about which was the best battle rifle of the Second World War, the Garand or the SKS. In the event, it did not go into service until 1949, by which time it had already been supplanted by the AK-47. It came along just a little too late to become the legends that both the Mosin and the AK have become.

To answer your question about why the Soviets went to the AK from the Mosin with barely a pause for the SKS, it comes down to capabilities and manufacturing costs. Put an SKS and an AK-47 side by side and look at them. The AK has a lot of stamped parts, where the SKS has machined parts. The AK has a larger magazine capacity. The AK uses detachable magazines, while the SKS has an internal magazine. (One thing I have never understood is why General Simonov did not incorporate a 10 or 15 round detachable magazine into his design. The only reason I can come up with is he believed such a magazine would force Private Muzhik to have to expose himself too much when firing from the prone position, thus offering the enemy a larger target.) The SKS is semi-auto-only; the AK is select-fire. And when it came to the bottom line, the SKS cost more to manufacture than did the AK.

Put it all together, and the AK-47 was a better bargain for the Soviet military. Therefore, the SKS was replaced as the infantry rifle of the Red Army, with the SKS being relegated to duty with second-line and noncombat units like the engineers, the signal corps, and rear area/domestic posts like the Soviet Air Defense Forces who guarded the flak guns and surface-to-air missile sites.

The SKS is a tough, reliable carbine that will take the kind of abuse without blinking that would send any AR I have ever run across running home to Mama crying its eyes out. That's why I like it, and wish I could find a few more from other countries like Russia, China, Albania, and especially East Germany. (Collector mania, and those are not all of the countries that made them, either!) But for me, the bottom line is I trust the SKS to work when I need it to, while I do not trust the AR platform at all. I won't own a firearm I cannot trust. I suspect many of the SKS partisans on G&G feel the same way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,163 Posts
As a side note: Back in the '90s a friend gave me two* 3.5 floppies with sound files. One disk had the "Cat's in the kitchen" parody, as well as a mad cow disease joke with two pictures. If you clicked the "regular cow," you heard a "moo" and if you clicked the other "mad" it was just a guy shouting "moo" and giggling.

The second disk contained a parody version of "Boombastic" about the SKS, and how brilliant it was for 70 bucks.

I can't remember the whole thing, but the "Mr. Simonova" part has been stuck in my head in the style of "Mr. lovah lovah" since 1995.


I found a Youtube video with the audio of the cow one, but the SKS one might be lost media from the Geocities/Angelfire days.

* technically it was a stack of disks with shareware versions of Doom 2 along with several homebrew expansions, Warcraft 2 before that version was even available to buy, and a bunch of crappy DOS games.
 
141 - 153 of 153 Posts
Top