>
Board Index Wield Your Weapon Rifles

SKS Carbine (multiple variants) Reviews

Discuss and review rifles and caribines with others who have a passion for long range precision shooting.

Postby Emay » Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:21 pm

i dont really feel the need to own and ak. 9 times out of ten they arent as accurate as a sks and with the same odds they are 2 times the cost of an sks. unless you are one of the lucky ones, you can only own the semi auto version, so no rate of fire increase over the sks... but then again there is something kinda cool about an ak and i do want one eventually. ;)
Emay
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:47 pm

Postby whitehood » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:56 am

Beaner please. Enough is enough about what you're saying. First the SKS and the AK were designed for the same thing. No difference, except that the AK was just better and replaced the SKS. The SKS has always been considered a carbine or at least a short rifle.

Here is what is true about the SKS. It's a reasonable 150 to 200 dollar weapon keeping in mind its limitations. If ANYTHING of significance breaks you have JUNK. You can't get parts and even if you cannabilize another weapon you don't know if they will fit. Quality is so variable as to defy imagination. You may not even be able to do something as basic as replace barrels. My advice is to stay away from them.

Lets contrast that with an AR in which you can replace just about anything and a lot easily. Shoot something enough and its going to break, sometimes a lot sooner than you think. The SKS was never designed to be repaired except at the armory level. It is and was a disposable weapon for disposable soldiers.
whitehood
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:47 pm

Postby ulgydog56 » Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:59 pm

the sks is a fun poor mans gun and its ok to jazz it up abitt .it was dropped in 47 quickly because no stick mag...I have aftermarket parts on mine and a drop mag, but to change mags its way sloooower to change than a ak..gun evolution????
ulgydog56
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:01 am

Postby BeanerBuster1 » Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:01 pm

Well, okay! I guess I've been put in my place by the resident gunsmith and weapons historian. And, funny thing, but some of those "Chink" ones DO use AK mags. But, silly me. Here, I'll bow and scrape to your highness. WHATEVER! (Wonder why if they were dropped in '47 there were many made after that...).

And why does no one want to comment on that BOGUS ad by

Impact Guns?? Someone here from that rip joint?
BeanerBuster1
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 1:25 pm

Postby ulgydog56 » Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:26 pm

bean, I love the gun baby but it is what it is.have fun with it I,d use it if i had to go toe to toe.........
ulgydog56
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:01 am

Postby whitehood » Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:45 pm

Hey beaner, I know you're the boy genius but here are the facts about the SKS. The SKS was the first battle rifle the Soviets fielded and was used in small numbers in WW2. The Ruskies wanted and needed a semi-auto carbine and it worked and was easy to make. The AK 47 was adopted in 47 but it never reached Russian troops till 49 and then only in very limited quantities until 1956. It wasn't till 59 that the majority of Russkie infantry units got the weapon. Hence the SKS remained in production till 1955 in Russia. Of course that doesn't take into account the Chicom and other versions. That's why they were made after 47. Listen and learn. You might even get your GED.
whitehood
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:47 pm

Postby Emay » Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:19 pm

guys.... its just a gun... have fun with it, dont argue about it
Emay
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:47 pm

Postby Tinmancr » Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:53 pm

not to argue but the tokarev was first in 1938, the sks did not come around till circa 1944.

the tokarev had a removable magazine so no idea why many older sks did not probably just being cheap.

the tokarev used the much older 762x54r r is rimmed not russian, a much more powerful round probably too much.

anyway I shot a couple sks's the aesthetics vary but they seem to all work very well.

they are actually pretty accurate too, 2litre jug a 100+yds, I only used the removable magazine type.

this is a poor mans anything it is actually with expanding bullets better than a 30-30 which many people still use and 10rds beats 6.

will tend to have the same bore diameter of an ak so if wild check with micrometer or just buy russian ammo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT40
Tinmancr
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:31 pm

Postby BeanerBuster1 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:54 pm

I had a SVT-40 which was made in 1941, which was the second edition of this model. No record of how many were

manufactured, but it sure had enough to get some over here. Pre-dated the SKS, AK, Draganov, etc.. detachable mag, etc.

I don't claim to be the gun historian or "boy genius"'; but I try to keep my mouth shut if I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Russia had some of these around during WWII, using the same round as the 44's, 91/30's, etc. But not the capacity to put out enough of a new rifle while engaged in the war.
BeanerBuster1
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 1:25 pm

Postby Emay » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:59 pm

i do have a single complaint about the sks... it was not made for the stronger and larger american race but for the folks to the east. that being said the length of pull is a wee short for my taste. however, one of the synthetic monte carlo stocks will fix that problem. only mod needed for an sks.
Emay
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Rifles

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron