I've seen the going price for many at 400 dollars for the Chinese and Yugo SKS rifles. They are almost as high as AK's.
I'd rather have one than an AK. They're generally better rifles. The only good thing about an AK is the detachable mags. Everything else is better on the SKS. I've had both. I still have the SKS. More accurate. More reliable. Cheaper. Why would anyone buy an AK? It would certainly be different if we could buy full auto weapons but we can't. That was the big advantage the AK had over the SKS in the eastern bloc military. If not for that there would have been no reason at all to switch to the AK.
I'd rather have one than an AK. They're generally better rifles. The only good thing about an AK is the detachable mags. Everything else is better on the SKS. I've had both. I still have the SKS. More accurate. More reliable. Cheaper. Why would anyone buy an AK? It would certainly be different if we could buy full auto weapons but we can't. That was the big advantage the AK had over the SKS in the eastern bloc military. If not for that there would have been no reason at all to switch to the AK.
And lest we forget, I can buy a brand new AK today. I'm stuck to a surplus if I want an SKS.
Ergonomics certainly are 100% personal. Though I don't see the problem shooting over a short wall or a rock. What do you mean?Cee Zee said:I don't like the ergonomics of the AK at all. Forget trying to shoot over a short wall or a rock or whatever.
With a box stock SGL-21 and an empty 10 round mag, it's almost exactly a pound lighter than the Russian SKs. The bayonet and stock contribute to the weight difference in the SKS.There wasn't much difference in weight between my SKS and the AK I had
I've seen very few problems with AK's that are built the way they're supposed to be. Realize that SKS's come in from countries pretty much exactly as they were produced for that country. The majority of AK's on the market today came in as parts that were fitted together, often times rather poorly. I think reliability is a wash when speaking of two properly-built examples of each. Again though, that's been my experience. Experiences differ.and the AK was absolutely less reliable. That may not always be true but I've seen problems with AK's pretty regular actually. I've seen very few with un-bubba'ed SKS rifles.
I wouldn't dispute that, but I've never bench rested my SKS to see... I have no problems doing what I need to do with an AK out to 300 yards with a red dot, so if my SKS is more accurate, then that's nice, but I won't see much of a practical difference. All of my AK's certainly have triggers that lend themselves to better precision though, and especially with ALG Defense making one soon, the trigger game goes to the AK.I think most people that have owned both recognize that the SKS is more accurate. To me that's the real clincher.
No real right or wrong, just preferences... I would rather have both and bicker about them than not.There isn't a lot of difference between them though. I could see people going the other way but I've seen a lot of people like me who would pick the SKS.
I hate to go on the record as agreeing with anything Cee Zee says, but he's right on this one (even if he does think oil changes cost over $300).Originally posted by :Sunray
Not an issue. Slam fires are not caused by rifles. They're caused by improperly loaded ammo. Usually high primers.
Originally posted by: @ Cee Zee
I bought a lot of them that people thought were worn out because they had 100,000 miles on them. I bought them for $300 or so and drove them 75,000 miles rarely if ever doing any maintennce like oil changes.
Originally Posted by Cee Zee
the SKS can be worse because of the shape of the firing pin and the shape of the channel. It gets narrow toward the end and if something (like a piece of a popped primer) gets pushed back in that channel it can bend the pin and jam it against the side of the channel.
Start on this web page.
Then maybe watch this video.
Or this video.
And here's Murray's famous page on the subject.
And there's this web page which has a video.
Google lists 112,000 results on the subject. I think these people can't all be wrong. Besides I've seen this issue myself. I've seen bent firing pins and I've seen guns fired so many times the bolt got completely gunked up to the point I was surprised it would fire at all. But it did.
Friend you are giving out dangerous advice.
"...CCI #34 7.62 military primers..." They're a marketing gimmick. They are a magnum primer though. You don't need magnum primers for ANY battle rifle. Magnum primers burn a bit hotter for a bit longer than regular primers. They're made to light hard to ignite powders and for extreme cold weather shooting. Lots and lots and lots of ammo was loaded for every .308/7.62NATO and .30-06 milsurp rifle ever made with no fuss using regular large rifle primers long before there was such a thing as a CCI #34 or #41.
"...what is the advantage of using..." CCI gets a bit more of your money.
"...Volatile primers cause slam fires..." A what? Primers don't cause slam fires. Nor does ANY rifle. Improperly loaded ammo causes slam fires.
Originally posted by: bainter1212
I have also had good luck, accuracy-wise, with making sure that the action fits tight to the stock. The trigger group should take a lot of pressure to seat. I have used cardboard shims to good effect at the front of the stock where it mates with the action. The trigger group should be hard to seat and the recoil lug should be tight against it's seat as well.
Though I don't see the problem shooting over a short wall or a rock. What do you mean?
As far as the tapered shape of the SKS firing pin making it some how unique or worse, it really isn't.
but really has no useful purpose at today's prices other than backyard entertainment.