Was the AK-47 made before the SKS

AK-47 » AK Discussions

AK Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Was the AK-47 made before the SKS (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 10/9/2005 3:49:02 PM EDT

If so, why did the Russians make the SKS?

Posted: 10/9/2005 4:14:46 PM EDT

[#1]

The official Soviet designation is SKS-45....they adopted it in 1945. Early prototypes were in the hands of Soviet troops during the last stages of the Great Patriotic War.

Posted: 10/9/2005 4:16:10 PM EDT

[#2]

It was real close. I believe the SKS was produced first, but never caught on as a primary battle rifle after the AK47 was put into service for Russia. Alot of other countries adopted the SKS design though, and it did see service.

Posted: 10/9/2005 4:22:13 PM EDT

[#3]

I heard they made that mainly for peasants who have not received real military training so that they can at least join part of action if a war breaks out.

Posted: 10/9/2005 4:22:42 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

The official Soviet designation is SKS-45....they adopted it in 1945. Early prototypes were in the hands of Soviet troops during the last stages of the Great Patriotic War.

I did not realize that, when looking at Siminov site, I only saw 1950 as the first production date.

Posted: 10/9/2005 4:34:32 PM EDT

[#5]

Actually they started producing them in 1949 until 1956. From my research ALL Russian SKS's were military issued guns.

Posted: 10/9/2005 4:50:17 PM EDT

[#6]

It states in my Small Arms book by Chris Chant, the Simonov was being designed during WWII, but the war ended just short of its completion. It was the first arm to use the soviet 7.62x39 round. So in other words, it came before the Kalashnikov.

Posted: 10/9/2005 6:56:46 PM EDT

[#7]

Last I heard there were some pre-production rifles used during the last days of WWII. My Russian SKS was built in 1951 thouh and the earliest one I saw was a 1950 model. Damn, wish I had kept my other two though.

Posted: 10/9/2005 7:00:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I heard they made that mainly for peasants who have not received real military training so that they can at least join part of action if a war breaks out.

Wouldn't it be more expensive to produce SKS's than AK's?

Posted: 10/9/2005 7:29:17 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Last I heard there were some pre-production rifles used during the last days of WWII. My Russian SKS was built in 1951 thouh and the earliest one I saw was a 1950 model. Damn, wish I had kept my other two though.

Ive got a nice '52 Tula I wouldnt get rid of for the world. The earliest specimen ive heard of was a crude '49.

Posted: 10/9/2005 8:06:45 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
It states in my Small Arms book by Chris Chant, the Simonov was being designed during WWII, but the war ended just short of its completion. It was the first arm to use the soviet 7.62x39 round. So in other words, it came before the Kalashnikov.

The history channel claimed Kalashnikov designed a weapon that competed against it around 44, but the SKS was chosen partly because simonov was older, established, etc. The actual round was developed in 43 they claim. Kalashnikov refers to his weapon as a prototype of the AK-47, but the picture they show is very different (although it could be an odd prototype of an SKS possibly). They later refer to him changing the action to rotating bolt, so if true, it was pretty different.

They then claim that the actual AK-47 was not produced until 49, which would mean they entered service at almost the same time.

Assuming thats all correct...the SKS was 'approved' first by a few years, but didnt beat it into service by much.

If any of thats wrong, someone will correct me.

Posted: 10/9/2005 8:18:36 PM EDT

[#11]

That sounds right to me clange. And the only reason the AK47 became "the" gun was because of it's high capacity and removable magazine right?

Wouldn't it be more expensive to produce SKS's than AK's?

By todays standards yes. I guess that's another reason the AK beat out the SKS back then.

Posted: 10/9/2005 8:20:56 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
That sounds right to me clange. And the only reason the AK47 became "the" gun was because of it's high capacity and removable magazine right?

Pretty much, with FA, which again would raise the question of why was the SKS made along side the AK?

No idea on that one.

Edit: Although they refer to early production problems, so maybe they simply made the SKS to fill up demand for small arms in 7.62 until production became faster. Then they wouldnt need an SKS if they could produce an AK for every soldier.

Posted: 10/9/2005 8:34:50 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:......They then claim that the actual AK-47 was not produced until 49, which would mean they entered service at almost the same time.

Assuming thats all correct...the SKS was 'approved' first by a few years, but didnt beat it into service by much.

If any of thats wrong, someone will correct me.

You are correct. Funded designed actually started in 1946.

AK-46 Experimental

In 1947, the AK-47 was accepted as the new standard infantry rifle but still had more design work to be done.

AK-47 Experimental

Not untill 1949 was the design matured enough for series production as a type I milled rifle. After that, the term AK-47 was a general term for all the newer imporved rifles to included the AKM stamped series.

Posted: 10/9/2005 8:47:28 PM EDT

[#14]

The SKS did not fit the tactics the Russians developed during the "Great Patriotic War" i.e. massed automatic fire to kill or wound those who survived the massed artillery fire and tank gun fire. That's why the AK won out over the SKS.

ETA: I'm glad they produced both. I had a good time today shooting examples of each rifle.

Posted: 10/9/2005 8:58:20 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
That sounds right to me clange. And the only reason the AK47 became "the" gun was because of it's high capacity and removable magazine right?

Pretty much, which again would raise the question of why was the SKS made along side the AK?

No idea on that one.

Edit: Although they refer to early production problems, so maybe they simply made the SKS to fill up demand for small arms in 7.62 until production became faster. Then they wouldnt need an SKS if they could produce an AK for every soldier.

To a certain degree, you have to look at the small arms history of the Soviets in mid to late 1940's. While the design of the 7.62x39 cartridge was on the design board in 1943, the demand of Soviets arms production was to make as many Mosin-Nagants as possible. Not until the Germans fielded the STG-44 in late 1944/early 1945 did the Soviets see the pressing need of needing a short intermideate rifle cartridge. Like anything anywhere, egos and rivalries still played in Soviet arms design. The SKS was deemed the "chosen one" to field the 7.62x39 cartridege, more for being abled to be produce quicker and get to the troop quicker. While the Soviets were running across East Europe driving the Germans back into Germany, there was still a fear by the Allies that the war could have raged into 1946-1947.

With the fall of Germany in May of 1945, the Soviet arms industry was already getting spooled up to produce the SKS. Now in 1946, the attention was drawn to make a "assault rifle" along the lines that made the German STG-44 successful. Once the design was approved and accepted in 1947, it still need to mature in design for serial production. Where as the SKS design had already matured. By 1949, the SKS could be cranked out like sausage links but the AK-47 milled Type I was much more labor intensive to produce. So up until 1956 when SKS production ended and the Type III milled AK-47 rifle had matured, there was an overlap of production.

Hootbro

Posted: 10/9/2005 9:10:52 PM EDT

[#16]

A Soviet Battalion used the SKS in several battles at the end of the war. Later, the AK was kept secret for a number of years. Client states got the SKS before the AK. The SKS is a hunting weapon in Siberia--they gang up on moose and blast the shit out of them with 150gr bullets.

Posted: 10/9/2005 10:25:30 PM EDT

[#17]

The only reason the SKS went into production was Siminov's politocal ties. The SKS was outdated before it ever went into "service". Kalashnikov submitted the better rifle and they knew it, but bought the SKS as well.

Posted: 10/9/2005 10:42:43 PM EDT

[#18]

The SKS was NOT used at the end of WWII. Theweapons were issued but were not in the field at the time of the German surrender.

The SKS did show up at the victory parade right after the war which has caused considerable confusion in saying that it was used IN the war. The same arguement has gone on for years with the JS-3 tank. Same story, built and issued before the end, never got there in time. Shows up at the parade and everyone thinks it was used.

Posted: 10/10/2005 12:03:51 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The SKS was NOT used at the end of WWII. Theweapons were issued but were not in the field at the time of the German surrender.

The SKS did show up at the victory parade right after the war which has caused considerable confusion in saying that it was used IN the war. The same arguement has gone on for years with the JS-3 tank. Same story, built and issued before the end, never got there in time. Shows up at the parade and everyone thinks it was used.

What are your sources to this information that it was not used in combat in WWII?

1943 - After reviewing several designs, the new rimless 7.62x39 medium power cartridge is adopted and named the "M43". The Soviet weapon designer Sergi Gavrilovich Simonov converts one of his previously developed carbine designs, the SKS41 (which shot a 7.62x25mm pistol cartridge commonly used in Russian submachine guns), to utilize this new intermediate range cartridge.

Spring 1944 - Prototype models of the new SKS were shipped to the Byelorussian front for use against the Germans.

1945 - After rave reviews of the new Simonov design by soldiers, Simonov's newest carbine is approved and dubbed the "SKS45".

1947 - Kalashnikov's newest design is approved and designated the "AK47".

1949 - SKS Model 1945 is adopted by the Soviet Union. Full scale Soviet production begins.

1951 - The AK47 enters production. In time, the SKS will be phased out as this new design incorporates select fire, a detachable magazine, raised sights, and a pistol grip.

1953 - 1954 Production is stepped up as a second factory, Izhevsk, starts to produce Soviet SKS's.

1955 - Soviet production of the SKS ends.

www.simonov.net/chronology.htm

Also sourced from The SKS Type 45 Carbines by Duncan Long

experimental models were in the hands of troops in combat in 1944

Source Jane's Guns Recognition Guide

Posted: 10/10/2005 12:11:12 AM EDT

[#20]

no

Posted: 10/10/2005 12:53:19 AM EDT

[#21]

for sake of argument since most countries have switch from traditional rifels and into carbines what will be next? for example russias sks to ak47 USA M1grand to M16/M4 not to mention .30 to .22 so exactly when will we go to war with airsoft replicas????

Posted: 10/10/2005 1:34:33 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The SKS was NOT used at the end of WWII. Theweapons were issued but were not in the field at the time of the German surrender.

The SKS did show up at the victory parade right after the war which has caused considerable confusion in saying that it was used IN the war. The same arguement has gone on for years with the JS-3 tank. Same story, built and issued before the end, never got there in time. Shows up at the parade and everyone thinks it was used.

What are your sources to this information that it was not used in combat in WWII?

1943 - After reviewing several designs, the new rimless 7.62x39 medium power cartridge is adopted and named the "M43". The Soviet weapon designer Sergi Gavrilovich Simonov converts one of his previously developed carbine designs, the SKS41 (which shot a 7.62x25mm pistol cartridge commonly used in Russian submachine guns), to utilize this new intermediate range cartridge.

Spring 1944 - Prototype models of the new SKS were shipped to the Byelorussian front for use against the Germans.

1945 - After rave reviews of the new Simonov design by soldiers, Simonov's newest carbine is approved and dubbed the "SKS45".

1947 - Kalashnikov's newest design is approved and designated the "AK47".

1949 - SKS Model 1945 is adopted by the Soviet Union. Full scale Soviet production begins.

1951 - The AK47 enters production. In time, the SKS will be phased out as this new design incorporates select fire, a detachable magazine, raised sights, and a pistol grip.

1953 - 1954 Production is stepped up as a second factory, Izhevsk, starts to produce Soviet SKS's.

1955 - Soviet production of the SKS ends.

www.simonov.net/chronology.htm

Also sourced from The SKS Type 45 Carbines by Duncan Long

experimental models were in the hands of troops in combat in 1944
Source Jane's Guns Recognition Guide

My sources, an ancient rare form of research, reading lots of books.

I have serious doubts on the 1943 date if you are going to hold to the "They got the idea from the Germans" arguement.

I am yet to see a Janes book without errors, epecially in WWII, or Soviet equipment. They are not the great source that everyone thinks.

Duncan long, seriously, come on.....

Posted: 10/10/2005 1:49:36 AM EDT

[#23]

My sources, an ancient rare form of research, reading lots of books

8mm, if you have any sources then provide them. Just your say so doesn't give us any definative evidence that they were not used against the Germans during WWII at any time. With your great knowledge obtained from reading lots of books, you can probably give us some titles so we can all research this as you have done.

The sources I provided may not be up to your standards, but they were within arms reach and at least I provided something more than an unproven comment.

Quoted:
The SKS was NOT used at the end of WWII. Theweapons were issued but were not in the field at the time of the German surrender.

The SKS did show up at the victory parade right after the war which has caused considerable confusion in saying that it was used IN the war. The same arguement has gone on for years with the JS-3 tank. Same story, built and issued before the end, never got there in time. Shows up at the parade and everyone thinks it was used.

Posted: 10/10/2005 2:14:04 AM EDT

[#24]

So I guess internet sources only count? If I list the books are you going to go out and buy them and read them?

Ok, you win. I lied, every word.

Posted: 10/10/2005 4:01:28 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
So I guess internet sources only count? If I list the books are you going to go out and buy them and read them?

Ok, you win. I lied, every word.

He is asking for source material. His arguement seems to be based more on fact because he can site reference. You never know, someone may do the research if you put it out there! No need to get snappy about the request. When arguing FACT it is best to back up with documented FACT from reference. Otherwise I could contend something like the 1911 pistol never saw service until the Vietnam War.

Posted: 10/10/2005 4:48:14 AM EDT

[#26]

Simply citing a source does not mean that it is fact. Simply citing it does not mean that you are more correct because you can use Google.

I do not have my books with me here at work but the one I can state is Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons. By Chris Bishop and some other person. Don't know about the other person but Bishops work is fairly decent.

Now, I have cited proof, who is right?

I have over read over 50 books writen by German and Russian soldiers from lowly Privates to Field Marshals. Many of them were in the areas mentioned above. None ever mention the weapons use. Books written by the German high command (for the Americans after the war) on Russian weapons never mention the weapon. The Russian army has never reported using them in the war. There is not a single German document that reports the weapon.

Show me a picture of any Soviet soldier using one before the victory parade. One that can be verified as during the war. You can't.

But hell, it doesn't matter, it has already been conclusivly demonstrated without any doubt that it was used in 1944. Funny, my books on by the top authorites on WWII about Operation BagRation never mention anything about this, you should write books you'll make millions.

Show me a varfiable picture.

Posted: 10/10/2005 6:15:30 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Simply citing a source does not mean that it is fact. Simply citing it does not mean that you are more correct because you can use Google.

I do not have my books with me here at work but the one I can state is Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons. By Chris Bishop and some other person. Don't know about the other person but Bishops work is fairly decent.

Now, I have cited proof, who is right?

I have over read over 50 books writen by German and Russian soldiers from lowly Privates to Field Marshals. Many of them were in the areas mentioned above. None ever mention the weapons use. Books written by the German high command (for the Americans after the war) on Russian weapons never mention the weapon. The Russian army has never reported using them in the war. There is not a single German document that reports the weapon.

Show me a picture of any Soviet soldier using one before the victory parade. One that can be verified as during the war. You can't.

But hell, it doesn't matter, it has already been conclusivly demonstrated without any doubt that it was used in 1944. Funny, my books on by the top authorites on WWII about Operation BagRation never mention anything about this, you should write books you'll make millions.

Show me a varfiable picture.

You are absolutely right. Simply citing a source does not make it fact. If you look at my post what I said was that he was asking for cited proof, not that the citation makes you or him right or wrong, simply that it strengthens an arguement. YOU were the one who got upset when he asked.

As far as your lesson on what citation does and does not provide, I say thank you. I will take it under advisement and put it to good use in my DAILY use of resource, research, and citation in my continuing studies. I am sure that you have saved many educators the hardship of critiquing my work.

I enjoy the discussion, you don't have to be a jerk about the way you present information though, just my opinion.

And by the way, I already do write books (WTH is that supposed to mean?).

Posted: 10/10/2005 6:24:31 AM EDT

[#28]

The 7.62 x 39 round, which was labeled the M-43 round, was patterned after the 7.92 round the Germans used, and hit the scene in 1943. The engineers of the time began modifying existing weapons or building new designs around the M-43 round. It was a few years before any issue rifles were using the round.

Unforunatly I don't have any sources to back it up, but I'd always read the SKS came out in time to be used in WWII, but was never issued. I want to say it was a logistics issue with sending out a new rifle with new ammo that wasn't compatible with anything else out there.

On the other hand, a lot of what we used to know as "fact" has been changed since the wall came down. New data comes to the surface that had been hidden in archeives, or we find out we were just making wrong assumptions. There's also the fact they're sometimes just full of shit...

Posted: 10/10/2005 8:42:21 AM EDT

[#29]

Why does everything turn into a pissing match?

Timeline:

1. SKS

2. AK-47

Simple as that.

Posted: 10/10/2005 10:08:16 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Why does everything turn into a pissing match?

Timeline:

1. SKS

2. AK-47

Simple as that.

Good question, seems this has been going on around here a lot more.

Posted: 10/10/2005 1:37:37 PM EDT

[#31]

Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons

The only book I could find by that title was Ian Hogg.

Would it be:

Complete Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII by Chris Bishop?

I don't want to buy the wrong book. I always like to do research.

Posted: 10/10/2005 4:06:14 PM EDT

[#32]

First of all MAk, looking back at this thread, it does appear that I jumped the gun on beeing overly agressive. For some reason late last night I just took what you said the wrong way. It drives me insane to have people always say "got a link" as total proof that some bit of information exists.

Looking back you did not word it like that.

Lack of sleep. I appologise whole heartedly. I was the one completely in the wrong and offer no excuse.
hich
The Books by Ian Hogg while not perfect, are usually about the most reliable.. His small arms info tends to get a bit cloudy at times but he still is better than most. When it comes to anything bigger than rifles and pistols he is the King. I would still recomend any of his books.

The book by Bishop is a bit dated and out of print, if you IM me with your e-mail I will scan the pages of interest to you.

Here are some points to think about.

David Glanz, Max Hastings and a few others have re-writen the whole face of WWII in the last few years from a whole new view point with information gathered over years. none of them ever mention the weapon being used.

A Soviet unit of varying size is always given as the unit that was issued the weapons. No unit is ever listed as the unit issued the weapons. I can track almost any German or Soviet unit during almost any battle, their weapons would not be hard to figure out.

- There are no German records of any new Soviet weapon being used at SeeLowe or Berlin.
- There is no Soviet propaganda of the weapon being used. (The are huge propaganda
whores)
- There is no photo evidence of the weapon in use ( besides the picture out side the Parlament House in Vienna which is post war)
- The Soviets tend to hold of showing new weapons until celebrations and the
resulting parades.

I have never seen any Soviet record of them in combat in debating this topic many times. I do not claim to be an expert on Soviet documents so this is only my experience.

Could the weapon have been used? Yes. Is there any proof? At this time, I say no.

Posted: 10/10/2005 4:26:26 PM EDT

[#33]

Since the original AK's are more than 50 years old....are there any that are C&R legal to buy?

Didn't see any in my book.

Posted: 10/10/2005 4:36:21 PM EDT

[#34]

tag

Posted: 10/10/2005 4:51:46 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
First of all MAk, looking back at this thread, it does appear that I jumped the gun on beeing overly agressive. For some reason late last night I just took what you said the wrong way. It drives me insane to have people always say "got a link" as total proof that some bit of information exists.

Looking back you did not word it like that.

Lack of sleep. I appologise whole heartedly. I was the one completely in the wrong and offer no excuse.

Now, back on subject. I am at work so i can not remember which book title is by which person. There are several titles oin Infantry weapons of WWII by various authors as well.

The Books by Ian Hogg while not perfect, are usually about the most reliable.. His small arms info tends to get a bit cloudy at times but he still is better than most. When it comes to anything bigger than rifles and pistols he is the King. I would still recomend any of his books.

No problem, thanks for the clarification.

Ian Hogg is a good historian, well respected, I do think that he could be a bit cloudy on small arms as well, though he is good!

Posted: 10/10/2005 5:09:05 PM EDT

[#36]

I found a book at Barnes & Noble titled "The Worlds Great Rifles" by Roger Ford

SIMONOV AND THE SKS

During the Great Patroitic War (WWII), Simonov had produced a self-loading anti-tank rifle designed around the existing 14.5mmX114 round - a massive cartridge with a 65g (1003 grain) projectile and a 31g (478 grain) charge which gave it a muzzle velocity of around 3280ft per second.

It was a conventional design which performed adequately enough as a mechanism and it was this action which he employed in a new infantry rifle. Simonovs most important design, the SKS, the first Soviet rifle to use the "new" intermediate, reduced power 7.62X39 round which was copied from the original devised in Germany by Geco.

This cartridge was know in the Soviet Union as the M1943, though there is no real reason to think that it was developed in that year. In any event, World War II was over before the SKS appeared and it was to have a relatively short life as a front line weapon with the Red Army despite being simple, sturdy and reliable for reasons that a much better rifle, the Kalashnikov the most popular weapon ever seen, was to be produced hard on it's heels.

The Kalashnikov, successor to the SKS was destined to become the most widely distributed rifle ever.

Posted: 10/10/2005 6:13:02 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Actually they started producing them in 1949 until 1956. From my research ALL Russian SKS's were military issued guns.

+1, early examples/prototypes were a limited-issue in 1945, the AK was officially adopted in 1949, however, it didn't enter full production until 1951. The SKS was used by the Soviets up until the 1980's, believe it or not, for ceremonial/guard duty and for 2nd line troops.

Posted: 10/10/2005 7:40:25 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
The 7.62 x 39 round, which was labeled the M-43 round, was patterned after the 7.92 round the Germans used, and hit the scene in 1943. The engineers of the time began modifying existing weapons or building new designs around the M-43 round. It was a few years before any issue rifles were using the round.

Unforunatly I don't have any sources to back it up, but I'd always read the SKS came out in time to be used in WWII, but was never issued. I want to say it was a logistics issue with sending out a new rifle with new ammo that wasn't compatible with anything else out there.

On the other hand, a lot of what we used to know as "fact" has been changed since the wall came down. New data comes to the surface that had been hidden in archeives, or we find out we were just making wrong assumptions. There's also the fact they're sometimes just full of shit...

Actually, 7.62x39 comes more from Fedorov's pre-war assault rifle experiments more than it does from the German 7.92x33 Kurz. It was a case where the Russians and Germans had similar idieas around the same time period. Common misperception, and I'm sure the Russian experience in WW2 did play a role, however, it's not entirely accurate to say they were just trying to copy the Germans.

Posted: 10/10/2005 9:00:31 PM EDT

[#39]

Great info and great titles, keep 'em coming!

Posted: 10/11/2005 4:28:12 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons

The only book I could find by that title was Ian Hogg.

Would it be:

Complete Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII by Chris Bishop?

I don't want to buy the wrong book. I always like to do research.

To clarify,
The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II. By Ian Hogg. This book does not referance the SKS.

The Encyclopedia of World Military Weapons. By Chris Bishop & Ian Dury. This is the book I mentioned in by post above. This is most likely out of print so I will scan the page for referance is requested.

I can dig up more later if needed.

Posted: 10/11/2005 4:58:09 PM EDT

[#41]

I can't find my copy of 'Ten Million Bayonets' but the SKS is mentioned on page 102 of 'The AK-47 Story'. According to the author Edward Ezell, the SKS saw develpomental deployment as early as the summer of 1944 in Byelorussian front. The SKS was adopted knowing that a fully automatic rifle was on the horizon, and that the soviet war fighting doctrine was shifting tward massed automatic rifle fire.

Posted: 10/11/2005 5:42:43 PM EDT

[#42]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the reports of it in use in 1944 could be small numbers of prototypes used for trials. There were Mp-44 prototypes in the field as early as 1941. Very small numbers, but they did exist. This is a feasable arguement.

Posted: 10/12/2005 12:00:53 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the reports of it in use in 1944 could be small numbers of prototypes used for trials. There were Mp-44 prototypes in the field as early as 1941. Very small numbers, but they did exist. This is a feasable arguement.

That is what I originally said.

Spring 1944 - Prototype models of the new SKS were shipped to the Byelorussian front for use against the Germans

Simonov's SKS seems to be a modification of his earlier rifles the AVS36 and SVT38/40. The original SKS41 (1941) became the SKS45 (1945) with minor changes. With Stalin murdering 10's of millions of his own people before, during and after the war, it is no wonder that pictures and little information of the rifles existance was known until later. Certainly, during the war, there may have been more important things to do than take pictures of a firearm that was probably low on the list of weapons being produced.

No doubt there are weapons being tested in Iraq and Afganistan now. When in the USMC I was involved in tests of the CH-53E years before it was put into service. Many years often go by before the public finds out that weapon systems are already in use.

Early versions of the F-117A, called the Wobblin Goblin were flying in 1981 but did not supposedly first get use until the first Iraq war. I had heard they were used in Panama though. The stealth fighter was mentioned in Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising in 1986. In October of 1981, Aviation Week reported that an operational stealth fighter was in development. An early model actually was flying out of Groom Lake in 1978.

With security measures in place, pictures of the F-117A did not come out until years after it was in service, though mock ups of it came out in magazines and a model company prior to the public announcement.

Posted: 10/12/2005 1:36:24 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Last I heard there were some pre-production rifles used during the last days of WWII. My Russian SKS was built in 1951 thouh and the earliest one I saw was a 1950 model. Damn, wish I had kept my other two though.
Ive got a nice '52 Tula I wouldnt get rid of for the world. The earliest specimen ive heard of was a crude '49.

Mine is a 1954 Tula. Excellent condition, accurate & just plain fun to shoot.

Posted: 10/12/2005 6:33:13 AM EDT

[#45]

Great Thread, I have learned a bit!

Posted: 10/12/2005 1:16:54 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the reports of it in use in 1944 could be small numbers of prototypes used for trials. There were Mp-44 prototypes in the field as early as 1941. Very small numbers, but they did exist. This is a feasable arguement.

That is what I originally said.

Spring 1944 - Prototype models of the new SKS were shipped to the Byelorussian front for use against the Germans

Simonov's SKS seems to be a modification of his earlier rifles the AVS36 and SVT38/40. The original SKS41 (1941) became the SKS45 (1945) with minor changes. With Stalin murdering 10's of millions of his own people before, during and after the war, it is no wonder that pictures and little information of the rifles existance was known until later. Certainly, during the war, there may have been more important things to do than take pictures of a firearm that was probably low on the list of weapons being produced.

No doubt there are weapons being tested in Iraq and Afganistan now. When in the USMC I was involved in tests of the CH-53E years before it was put into service. Many years often go by before the public finds out that weapon systems are already in use.

Early versions of the F-117A, called the Wobblin Goblin were flying in 1981 but did not supposedly first get use until the first Iraq war. I had heard they were used in Panama though. The stealth fighter was mentioned in Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising in 1986. In October of 1981, Aviation Week reported that an operational stealth fighter was in development. An early model actually was flying out of Groom Lake in 1978.

With security measures in place, pictures of the F-117A did not come out until years after it was in service, though mock ups of it came out in magazines and a model company prior to the public announcement.

What a bunch of non-sequitor BS.

So by this logic the German MKb42(W) is the same as the STG45 and there for it was fielded in 1942? To say that the SKS as we know it - you claim that was fielded to some un-named unit is the same SKS that was fielded a year later is laughable at best.

So, the Russians didn't have time to take pictures and the CH-53 and the F-117 prove this. Ok this is so stupid I won't even waste my time. We all know they were total propaganda whores, take a look at the order of battle for a Russian divsion and see how (many) the propaganda units are listed. If they were there, there would be pictures. They were shoving the Germans balls up through their mouths in 1944, they had more than enough time.

You have shown no proof, I throw you a bone and you take off with it. how
I want a unit list and date and a picture or I say you are full of shit. Show me a Russian document on the issuing of the weapons, show me a German report of a new weapon being used against them.

Show me the proof that you claim, not just something off an internet site that praises the weapon and sites himself as the historical referance.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:21:07 PM EDT

[#47]

To me

Simonov's SKS seems to be a modification of his earlier rifles the AVS36 and SVT38/40. The original SKS41 (1941) became the SKS45 (1945) with minor changes

Just as most designers take from designs of others or earlier designs.

I was saying in my comments about the CH-53 testing I was involved in while in the service that military units are involved in testing sometimes long term before a system is adopted.

The same with the F-117A which was not photographed for years due to security.

Of course during a war such as WWII, a country such as Russia would probably try to get any weapon into battle as soon as possible.

Regardless of whether the SKS actually made it into service or not,

8mm, just from your uncontollable outburst you have proven yourself to be someone who has very little self control of your emotions, who has to resort to profanity

"you are full of shit"

and you have obviously got to grow up.

I am on my way to work so go ahead and come up with some more profanity laced outbursts so I can get a good laugh when I come home from my real job. I didn't post to pick a fight with you, but you probably went around picking fights your whole life, sitting on the outside looking in. One who when he gets slapped down for his attitude and actions from others, offers false apologies, but goes back to the same behavior at his first chance when no one is looking.

Most of the people who frequent this side are civil and courteous, words you most likely are unfamiliar with. I wouldn't be suprised to learn that yours is a troll account of someone that has been banned or spanked before.

Posted: 10/12/2005 4:47:05 PM EDT

[#48]

Looking back at this page all I see is an oppology for being overly agressive late at night in earlier posts a couple of days ago. I see nothing that constitutes an uncontrolable outburst. I have even offered to scan and e-mail you the information from my books.

If "Full of shit" hurts you so deeply it is, well, I don't know what it is. I have never seen someone so insulted by a statement of that sort, and your new found piety was certainly lacking in accepting my appologiy earlier. I also do not see this "Full of Shit " statement on this page anywhwere. how
You do not prove your point so you accuse me of profanity laced outburst. I think anyone can see through that.

I think I have proven my point. The SKS in the form we know it, (the same form that it was claimed here to be used in WWII does not exist) If it does, there is no evidence.

This has gone far enough unless you provide proof for your arguement. Otherwise we are so far off topic.................................

Edited to try to not be insulting in any way.