pros and cons on SKS

[lunger]

I have a Chinese Nork that I bought before the ban. I think something like $98.

Pros---reasonably accurate for what it is
reliable
rugged
ammo although a lot more than it used to be,still not too bad

Cons---I guess the price
I don,t shoot it that much anymore.

This thread has inspired me. Next trip to the range it is coming with me

[Ignition Override]

You guys all know that there is a specific type (two variations) of aperture sight available from Tech Sights for the SKS, along with the AK, Ruger 10/22 etc?

[44 AMP]

I missed this thread when it was new, just caught up reading all of it. There are a couple of things I think need to be mentioned, for perspective, if nothing else.

There was a time when quality Russian 7.62x39 ammo was $70 a thousand delivered from AIM surplus.

There was also a time, before that, when war trophy bring back SKSs from Vietnam were wall hangers, because there was virtually NO 7.62x39 ammo (Russian or otherwise) available through US commercial channels. Combloc countries didn't sell to the West, so what little ammo that existed was also war trophy bringback stuff. (what ever the proper name for it was, it was all captured ammo, brought back to the US)

And there wasn't enough interest or demand at the time for US ammo makers to tool up for it. All that changed with the Fall of Soviet Communism, but there was a time when 7.62x39 was virtually "unobtanium".

people seldom recognize it today, but we really are quite lucky about the ammo supply compared to the "bad old days"

The other thing is some bickering back and forth about what is, and isn't a battle rifle. One school of thought is "any rifle used in battle is a battle rifle". That same school of thought includes "any rifle used to assault someone is an assault rifle".

Grammatically correct, realistically incorrect.

Battle rifle is a term that came into use after WWII, in the gun community, without formal definition, but with a generally accepted definition of "a rifle designed/used in combat firing a full power (by WWII standards) cartridge. Usually most often applied to semi autos, but also covering bolt actions, and used to easily differentiate them from Assault Rifles.

Assault rifle is a term created in WWII (by Adolf Hitler) and refers to a specific rifle, the Sturmgewehr, and used after the war in the gun community for any rifles of that type, and the type was defined by two features. Those features were, intermediate power cartridge (again, by WWII standards) and SELECT FIRE.

Without both of those, it was not an Assault rifle. It could have a lot of other features, pistol grip, straight line stock, detatchable magazine, etc, but those were NOT the defining features of the class.

The SKS is a combat rifle, no question, but the 7.62x39 cartridge keeps it out of the usual definition of Battle rifle, and the lack of select fire keeps it out of the Assault rifle class.

SO, neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red meat, as the saying goes....


Another, small, point is "carbine". Some have said its too long for a carbine, but they are making a judgment based only on their opinion of how long a carbine should be, and there is no set length as such.

the only definition of carbine is "shorter than the standard rifle length". This comes from the era when the carbine and the infantry rifle were essentially the same gun with different barrel lengths. We tend to think of carbines as having barrels 20" or less, but that's not a universal rule. The standard Mauser 98K carbine had a 25" barrel!! (24.9"), but it WAS a carbine, because the standard infantry model 98 had a 29.1" barrel!!

We call the M16 a carbine, in conversation, because it has a short (20") barrel, but the Army calls it a rifle, and calls the M4 a carbine because of its shorter than standard rifle length barrel.


SKS's were good buys when they cost less than $100, today, at 4x-5x as much, I don't think they are worth it.


For me, the stock is too short (easily fixed), and I've got no trouble ringing the 300 meter gong using quality ammo.

They are an outdated technology, a piece of history that you can still (mostly) afford and shoot. They are what they are, and nothing will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But, if you like sow's ears, they're the bee's knees.

I never got too interested in them, as I had a lovely SVT 40, which outclasses the SKS in every respect except compactness.

[JJ45]

All great points from the FL....I currently have 4 battle type semi auto long guns...two CMP Garands in excellent shape although I replaced nearly all parts with like new USGI parts...a PTR91 GI-K .308 and a Russian Military SKS (sold a ChiCom a couple weeks ago to a buddy who wanted it) ...

I think if I had to bug out to the boonies or otherwise find myself in a survival situation of some sort I would choose the SKS for the simplicity, not that the others aren't capable....the main idea, in that situation anyway, would be to avoid confrontations at all costs.

[agtman]

I think if I had to bug out to the boonies or otherwise find myself in a survival situation of some sort I would choose the SKS for the simplicity, not that the others aren't capable.

If you're choosing between the 'old school' rifles in your collection to bug out with (and not a tricked-out, cool-guy AR, like Chris Travis use ), I'm not getting why you'd want to grab the SKS over one of your CMP M1s.

The capacity difference is essentially a wash - 10rds v. 8rds; one is quickly fed with a stripper clip; the other quickly loaded with an en bloc clip (practice makes your technique smooth, and smooth is fast ... And no 'M1 thumb').

But after that, the M1 has the advantages of waaay better battle sights and firing a cartridge with longer range lethality.

[JJ45]

agtman...you make good points...

The Garand, although comparatively long and heavy, balances well, and the sights, trigger, power and accuracy are light years better than the SKS. BUT, a long range fire fight would be the last thing I would anticipate in that situation and a fairly compact weapon would be an advantage when trying to avoid trouble, (like running like hell

I don't subscribe to the "AR" craze and I know their advantages. That's why I like the HK clone PTR. It might be retro but everyone seems to be on the "AR" wagon. I know more than one guy who went out and bought AR clones who have never owned a gun before!!! It might be the media hype but it seems to be sort of a fashion statement for some people to own one, despite they probably will never shoot it..

[Model12Win]

Originally Posted by JJ45

agtman...you make good points...

The Garand, although comparatively long and heavy, balances well, and the sights, trigger, power and accuracy are light years better than the SKS. BUT, a long range fire fight would be the last thing I would anticipate in that situation and a fairly compact weapon would be an advantage when trying to avoid trouble, (like running like hell

I don't subscribe to the "AR" craze and I know their advantages. That's why I like the HK clone PTR. It might be retro but everyone seems to be on the "AR" wagon. I know more than one guy who went out and bought AR clones who have never owned a gun before!!! It might be the media hype but it seems to be sort of a fashion statement for some people to own one, despite they probably will never shoot it..

The AR is retro, too. They were both developed around the same time (CETME).