AK or SKS?

[Ash]

"I havent seen anyone who made the switch abandon the newer technology and go back."

No offense, but your point is, well, pointless. We are civilians. Other than higher-capacity, there is no difference in capabilities between the AK and SKS (though I have never gotten a bottom-end AK to be as accurate as an SKS, so unless one wishes to spend twice, if not more, the price to get a more accurate AK is substantial).

Again, that extra magazine capacity may or may not be of any kind of value. We are not warriors defending our turf here but civilians. If this guy needs an assault rifle for real deal combat, then he's already past in trouble. So the higher magazine capacity is IRRELEVANT to civilians for the vast majority of situations. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with high-capacity firearms. But your points about the superiority of the AK is from military use, not civilian use. By your logic, then we are all fools here who own bolt-action rifles, especially the CZ chambered in 7.62x39, because by golly the AK is much newer technology and who would return to 1880's technology when you can go hunting with an AK?

I mean no flame here, mind you, but you seem very passionate with your defense of the AK. There are different advantages to both. An SKS is far easier to use on a tractor or behind the truck seat because it doesn't have that long magazine pointing out. It is also far easier to shoot from the prone position for the same reason.

The AK has the high-capacity magazines and is generally shorter in overall length. A true advantage, of course. But it also has a shorter sight-radius, a negative. I find them awkward to hold with their very short butt-stocks and find the SKS more comfortable. Others most certainly will disagree. But in any case, the whole "older" technology thing is a bit silly. By that argument, the AK itself is obsolete because the AR is much, much newer technology and in truth, is no more expensive than accurate AK's (cheaper in many cases and always more accurate).

In this case, the arguments for the SKS are just as valid as the arguments for the AK. Just because the AK came out 2 years after the SKS doesn't make it some quantum leap in technology. It has definite advantages, sure, but the SKS has them, too.

In any case, I do not own an SKS anymore, but I have owned both AK's and SKS's and know well the capabilities of both.

Ash

 

[ConfuseUs]

When I owned an SKS, a Norinco Para, I tried to turn it into an AK. Then thought, why not just buy an AK?

And that is why I too say AK. A huge chunk of the SKS aftermarket accessories are dedicated to retrofitting the SKS into a clunky copy of the AK. You can get the 30 rd magazines and a pistol grip stock and a rattly receiver mount that won't hold zero, or you can spend slightly more money and get an AK with the receiver rail for scope mounting and have everything you want. Neither rifle is particularly good for shots past 250-300 yds anyway.

The SKS is a fun gun to shoot but it is what it is.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Personally, I must say that I like the SKS the best of the two.

I just can't fall in love with the AK, for whatever reason... Owned a couple, shot several, and they just seem to be clumsy and awkward to me...

Neither are my favorites, but they are both reliable and rugged designs that would be formidable in the right hands.

 

[AK103K]

As I said, if you do all your shooting at the range, from a bench at a bullseye target, then this is all pointless.

If your shooting styles and goals are different, then there is a difference. We seem to have different styles and goals in our shooting.

From my standpoint, the SKS is a range toy, the AK a weapon. At the range, with ten rounds in either, there is little difference between them. Once you load the mag fully and leave the range, there is a difference.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

As I said, if you do all your shooting at the range, from a bench at a bullseye target, then this is all pointless.

If your shooting styles and goals are different, then there is a difference. We seem to have different styles and goals in our shooting.

From my standpoint, the SKS is a range toy, the AK a weapon. At the range, with ten rounds in either, there is little difference between them. Once you load the mag fully and leave the range, there is a difference.

Well, that's more of an opinion than a fact. In most cases, an SKS would be more than enough rifle for anything any of us might face in battle...

 

[Never No More]

Ive shot both, lots. I bought a SKS for the medium woman. Its fail safe operation, was foremost. Its real light, and steady to fire. she does most of her firing from the hip.

As far as the ammo storage, I went with a 20rd detachable mag, and load it with strippers thru the top.

A trick on getting the strippers out of the bandoleer is to soak the canvas in water, then put small cans in the pockets and let it dry. Your stippers will pull out easy without losing rounds. I used lead bullion it keeps the square shape

 

[dstorm1911]

LONESTAR45,

just a point, ya said the sights on the SKS are better than on the AK? Partner they have the EXACT same sights on both rifles, in fact they are interchangeable the only difference is they went to a larger front sight base or drum on the AK after it was determined that the smaller base/drum on the SKS tended to float occasionally the sight posts are the same for either. The rear sights use the same spring the AK actually uses a 2 mm longer sight tang however they can be swapped from one to the other at will with no difference in POI as the slider on the SKS is flat to sit the shorter sight tang a lil lower than the round slider on the AK the AKs longer sight tang allows it to be mounted a lil higher for better visability....

Other than these few technical variations ya are looking at the same Identical sight set on either rifle so I'd kinda watch making the claim that either is better than the other..............

It simply comes down to some people are more comfortable with a traditional style stock and they will shoot the gun the most accuratly that they are the most comfortable with, myself I shoot either equally but thats just me......

As far as ACTUAL accuracy of the two rifles, there really is no actual difference it doesn't matter if its a stamped AK or a milled one (oh a few are gonna love this) the sights which is what ya are lining up on the target are mounted on the barrel so the reciever type really has no bearing at all while using iron sights, thats the part that just kills me when folks compare milled AKs to Stamped AKs when ya put each in a shooting machine there is absolutally no difference in reciever types regarding accuracy HOWEVER the heavier milled reciever will shoot more accuratly by a human simply because the extra weight stabalizes the rifle more than the lighter stamped reciever, but for practicality purposes unless the barrel itself is flexing then there can be no variation from front sight to rear sight as they are both mounted on the same barrel.

The same goes for the SKS the heavier gun does tend to be more stable while being handled by a human however in a machine...... no difference thats why I tell folks there is no difference the choice has to be based on what YOU are the most comfortable shooting, if that happens to be a heavier traditionally stocked rifle then the SKS is going to be the most accurate for you the extra weight and extra 4" of sight radius will greatly help with shooting form errors etc..

if your more comfortable with a pistol grip stocked compact rifle thats lighter then the AK is going to be the most accurate for you, the much shorter sight radius and lighter weight are going to amplify shooting form errors so in order to shoot one as accurately as ya can shoot the heavier, longer SKS ya will have to develop much better shooting technique as the rifle will magnify any errors in your current form...

Someone who practices regularly and has developed a well balanced shooting technique will get excellent accuracy from either rifle....

 

[Ash]

AK103K, I mean no disrespect, but what are you doing with your AK that the extra 20 rounds are so important? You say you take the weapon out and away from the range that is very important, but how? You figure that in home defense the extra ammo is what you are worried about? That could be legitimate to be sure, but hardly something that makes the SKS not a weapon (how many US servicemen were killed in Vietnam by SKS's?)

Again this is not for flaming, but what on earth are you doing that requires the AK and makes the SKS such a detriment?

Ash

 

[Scott7891]

I am going to agree with dstorm1911 here. Accuracy for them is pretty much the same. Also the internal workings are very similar. The AK was a German MP-44/SKS-45 hybrid. It used the same gas system, sights, barrel, whatever as the SKS but then added the select-fire capability, compactness, and looks of the MP-44. I guess what I am trying to say here so all of you are not confused is that technology between the two really isn't all that different. An AK is pretty much a shortened SKS with the ability to load magazines from the bottom and has a pistol grip (and if it was an original AK it would have the select-fire capability). In fact had it not been for the MP-44, the Soviets would still be using the SKS or would be using German A. Korobov's rifles.

Korobov TKB-408 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as73-e.htm
Korobov TKB-517 http://world.guns.ru/assault/as74-e.htm

Again it has to do with being more comfortable with the style. I have fired both and have had more experience with the SKS than the AK.

 

[ConfuseUs]

Having handled and stripped both I can assure you that the AK is NOT an SKS that has a pistol grip and accepts 30 rd mags.

SKS: has gas piston that impinges on an operating rod which pushes the bolt carrier back. The bolt itself is a tipping bolt which is cammed straight down into a slot in the receiver by the bolt carrier when it goes into battery and is cammed back up out of battery by the bolt carrier moving back after a round is fired. This bolt system is very similar to the system that the German Stg-44 used.

AK: the gas piston extends forward from the bolt carrier and there is no operating rod. The bolt is a ROTATING bolt which is very much like the rotating bolts in the M1 Garand, AR-15, etc in that a cam slot in the bolt carrier causes the bolt to rotate into battery along an axis parallel to the barrel when the bolt carrier moves the last bit forward. Not at all like the locking system in the Stg-44.

The gas systems may look similar but in fact the only similarities they share is gas piston operation and the gas tube latch system and possibly the gas block as well.

The differences go on as well.

 

[tinygnat219]

SKS,

While the stock is short, I don't have to put on 5 winter coats like I do with the AK-47 to get the stock to fit.

Both are hellishly reliable, both fire the same round. I could care less for detachable magazines, although I like the AK's capacity.

I know how to use both, but I always seem to reach for the SKS when I head out into the woods during deer season.

 

[Clipper]

I bought a couple 5-round mags for my WASR for deer hunting, but will likely get the hairy eyeball from the oldtimers with their PC autoloaders who would likely not pay as much attention to an SKS as to my EBR. It sure makes a difference how you spread it around, don't it?

 

[yesit'sloaded]

I've never heard of a failure from a tapco mag in an sks. The sks action was based on an antiaircraft gun and is very strong. The majority of sks are milled, while most aks are stamped. Just a fact, with no opinion atached.

 

[Onmilo]

Well, I can shoot deer in Wisconsin with my M1A Bush rifle.
I cannot legally do this with any of my AR15 rifles, I don't have a 6.8mm AR,,,,,yet.

Since that little 'incident' up in the Eau Claire area, showing up in the deer fields with an SKS or AK type rifle is considered rude and in bad form and in some areas it may very well get you shot.
Strangely, I have seen deer hunters carting Mosin bolt rifles around and they don't get so much as a rude comment, so,,,,,,

I still like SKS rifles over AKM rifles even though I now own a Maadi and have no SKS.

 

[benEzra]

AK103K, I mean no disrespect, but what are you doing with your AK that the extra 20 rounds are so important? You say you take the weapon out and away from the range that is very important, but how? You figure that in home defense the extra ammo is what you are worried about? That could be legitimate to be sure, but hardly something that makes the SKS not a weapon (how many US servicemen were killed in Vietnam by SKS's?)

Again this is not for flaming, but what on earth are you doing that requires the AK and makes the SKS such a detriment?

Thoughts.

I compete in carbine matches with my "AK". Most stages that don't require reloads involve more than 10 shots. If a reload is required, I can reload my "AK" and cycle the action in about 2 seconds, with my left hand, without lowering the rifle or shifting my firing grip. Some people might can do that with an SKS, but I can't.

Second thought regarding the SKS's-in-Vietnam comparison--a key difference is that soldiers in combat carry belt pouches or bandoleers with lots of reloads, whereas the typical homeowner in an HD scenario will have only what's actually in the magazine (outside of some sort of Katrina/SHTF scenario), unless you habitually sleep in web gear.

In light of #2, having 20 or 30 rounds in the magazine is not unreasonable. If you subscribe to the Sun Tzu school of thought (1/3 for a confrontation, 1/3 for defense against a possible counterattack after the confrontation, 1/3 for reserve), then if you envision you might need to fire 6 rounds in a defensive scenario, it'd be nice to start with 18 rounds on hand.

FWIW, my favorite HD magazines for my SAR-1 are Hungarian 20-rounders (for weight and size reasons), but I can envision situations in which I'd want 30's.

 

[Obiwan]

My personal opinion

Depends on what you want to do with it...I have both, but I rarely shoot my SKS

The AK is far superior for fighting

Either will work for shooting

Neither is all that great ergonomically...you will not see either at accuracy competitions

The WASR's are just fine...they will do most anything that an AK costing twice as much (or more) will do...as in putting rounds on target and functioning reliably

The shooting prone comment is a non-starter.....you can get plenty prone with an AK...any lower and you would not be able to shoot anyway...unless you are on a nice flat football field and then why would you go prone??

 

[Ash]

You go prone because it is the most stable form of shooting.

Ash

 

[benEzra]

You can shoot an AK prone at the normal height with a 20-rounder, and you can use the magazine like a monopod to stabilize the rifle if you choose. A 30 sits the rifle up higher, but not so high that it's impractical.

 

[Obiwan]

"You go prone because it is the most stable form of shooting."

And if you are on a nice flat field where you have zero cover you make yourself an excellent target while giving up your mobility

On pavement you put yourself in a "can't miss me" position...they can skip rounds right into you

Unless the ground is pretty flat you cannot get much lower than the 30 rd monopod will let you

If it is, go to rollover prone...now that is LOW

 

[meef]

From my standpoint, the SKS is a range toy, the AK a weapon.

Aw c'mon now, don't you think that statement is at least a little bit silly?

Denying the SKS is a weapon? Poof.

Honest, Your Honor. I only shot the dude with my range toy. It's not like I used a weapon on him. What's all the fuss about?

 

[pinstripe]

What?

The sks is not a weapon? What possessed you to say that?
The sks is a fine weapon. Why didn't you say that you liked the ak-47 better? Just to negate the effectiveness of the sks as a wepoan shows what mentallity you have about it. NO AMMO FOR YOU! Shame, shame, shame
Next!

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

I don't think I'd ever use either gun for home defense or any other serious application so I tend to regard the SKS/AK as "fun guns," the kind you take to the range to shoot at a Nazi caricature you drew on a 2' by 2' piece of cardboard at the 100yd. I'm not saying that's all they're good for, I'm just saying thats the context of my experience with them. I like the AK more because its easier to reload, I like the pistol grip, and overall it just seems to fit by body better.

Also, a friend torture-tested his AK, and it was still functioning with 2 tablespoons of sand poured directly into the action. That really has no place in the argument as I don't know whether or not the SKS can do that, as well, but I just think its nifty.

Second thought regarding the SKS's-in-Vietnam comparison--a key difference is that soldiers in combat carry belt pouches or bandoleers with lots of reloads, whereas the typical homeowner in an HD scenario will have only what's actually in the magazine (outside of some sort of Katrina/SHTF scenario), unless you habitually sleep in web gear.

I think I know one of those people.

 

[Average Joe]

I like the feel of the SKS better.

 

[AK103K]

AK103K, I mean no disrespect, but what are you doing with your AK that the extra 20 rounds are so important? You say you take the weapon out and away from the range that is very important, but how? You figure that in home defense the extra ammo is what you are worried about? That could be legitimate to be sure, but hardly something that makes the SKS not a weapon (how many US servicemen were killed in Vietnam by SKS's?)

Ash,
As for most of what you were asking a few posts back, I'll bow to BenEzra's reply, as he summed a lot of it up very nicely and I'm getting a little bored and lazy.

The sks is not a weapon? What possessed you to say that?

Aw c'mon now, don't you think that statement is at least a little bit silly?

Denying the SKS is a weapon? Poof.

My comment about the SKS being a range toy is simply the way I feel about the rifle. I never said it couldnt be used as a weapon, just that to me, its used more as a toy.(or "fun gun", if it makes you feel better) I feel the same way about the M1 Garand, M1A, Mausers, even my SMG's.(which are readily available to people in "most" states without issue by the way) They are all weapons, and all can be used if you have to, but I have better choices available to me, which are more to my liking. If you feel the SKS is the best battle weapon in the world, hey, have at it.

You go prone because it is the most stable form of shooting.

As far as prone being the most stable, I'll agree, for the most part it is, but a lot depends on your normal type of shooting and where you tend to shoot. If you shoot HP on a nice mowed target range, it cant be beat. If you shoot in the field, you will quickly find that prone is often not a viable position, as it cant always be used. Simple things like high grass, dirt, and other obstructions dont always cooperate with shooting positions, so its best to have them all under your belt, and practice those your weakest at the most. Its also best to explore the unorthodox positions and support uses that high power doesnt usually use or allow.

As it applies to the AK, or AR, or any other weapon with a longer mag, unless your trying to shoot in the old British sucked down on the ground with a SMLE prone, its a non issue.

While the stock is short, I don't have to put on 5 winter coats like I do with the AK-47 to get the stock to fit.

I still dont get the comments about the AK being to short.(the AK actually has the exact LOP as most other combat rifles and has the same LOP as the M16/M16A1.) Unless your using a SKS with a modified stock, the LOP's are very close, and the SKS is usually about 1/2" shorter.

 

[XD-40 Shooter]

I like my SKS, its a Yugo 59/66, which has a milled reciever. It serves my purpose perfectly, which is primarily a fun range plinking rifle. The SKS is very rugged, durable, mine has been 100% reliable, its just a tank of a rifle. This is a rifle you can beat on and drag through the woods and be confident it will still fire. The AK will certainly do this as well. For me, the money difference was a big factor, its hard to beat an SKS in excellent condition for $150, bought 20 stripper clips for 10 bucks, and a sling. This is a lot of rifle for $150, that fires a round almost equivalent to a 30-30, has an effective range of 200 yards and the ammo is readily available and not overly expensive (wolf). For $150 bucks, I think the SKS is awefully hard to beat.