Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/31/2004 6:17:56 PM EST
Simple question?
My opinion is yes.It is still the simplest and hardiest rifle out there.It is not stopped by a little mud or snow and it will out shoot any ak out there.Sure its not the best or the prettiest but its still a fine weapon.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 6:19:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 6:23:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By wulf004:
Simple question?
My opinion is yes.It is still the simplest and hardiest rifle out there.It is not stopped by a little mud or snow and it will out shoot any ak out there.Sure its not the best or the prettiest but its still a fine weapon.



Sure as long as you don't have to shoot more than 10rds.

SKS rifles are fun. They are cheap, accurate, and they make great pass out rifles.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 6:24:02 PM EST
Umm, yeah, until you have to reload. Then you had better have a buddy to cover you.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:22:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/31/2004 8:22:57 PM EST by captainpooby]
The Afganis held their own against the Russkies with a collection of home made shit and stuff like SKS'. Once we gave them Stingers and Barrets.....

Anything that will put a bullet down range is good for your side.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:26:56 PM EST
Use one only if you must.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 7:52:46 PM EST
Wouldnt be my first choice. Id rather have it then a M44 and Id rather have that M44 then nothing.

If you have the old grey Spring steel strippers you can reload one fast.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:16:20 PM EST
What's the first rule of gunfights?

Bring a gun!

and at around $150 NIB and dead reliable NIB it's not a bad choice on a budget.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 8:50:17 PM EST
In a jungle or heavy cover or at short range they are very effective. People with sks 's are more likley aim their fire rather than spray and pray like with the ak.
Link Posted: 8/31/2004 10:23:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By captainpooby:
The Afganis held their own against the Russkies with a collection of home made shit and stuff like SKS'. Once we gave them Stingers and Barrets.....

Anything that will put a bullet down range is good for your side.



Actually the Afganies were not using SKSs but Enfeilds and Mausers. The advantage was they would defend mountains and hill tops, forcing the Russians to assault up them. The Russians AK-47 would then suffer greatly because its already meager effective range of 400yrds was then shorten to around 200yrds. The Afganies on the other hand with their bolt-action rifles hand a great effective range from their elevated defended possessions of 800-1000yrds. The end result was the Russians would get picked off before they ever got close.

To counter this the Russians would use Hind-D helicopters to support the infantry, flying up over the hills, and shooting anything that moved. This worked great and the Affies were massacred. Shit changed when we the US (bad move) gave them Stinger missals.

The SKS is an inferior rifle; it just has no place on a modern battle field, to many better options.
Jack
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 4:30:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Umm, yeah, until you have to reload. Then you had better have a buddy to cover you.



You better have that with any gun!!
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 4:36:29 AM EST
Actually, the Afgans may has started with enfieds and mausers but they quickly collected AKs and used them almost exclusively.

Remember the video of the nutcase who started shooting up the White House with an SKS? When he paused to reload, 5-10 seconds, a guy tackled him to the ground.

I have 5 SKSs of different varieties. It is a good reliable weapon, but is best used for plinking. Might be good in a riot to scatter the rioters.

The likelyhood of any kind of extended battle in the US is slim and none.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 4:45:58 AM EST
I would say it certainly could as long as you have a good supply of ammo on strippers nearby. I could reload my Yugo SKS with a stripper faster than my cousin could change the mags in his AK. All it takes is a little practice. Heck, as far as accuracy, I could out-shoot him with it (could be me or the rifle, but I think it's more the rifle) and it was more enjoyable to shoot for long periods of time because of the rubber butt pad and wooden stock to help absorb the recoil. I'd have to say in the right hands, it certainly could hold it's own.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 5:01:32 AM EST
Hello Wulf . .

I'll have to agree . . .

The old tried and true SKS is a very good weapon -- even today.

Sure - - not as fast to reload as an AK, but do you rate a weapon on only that ? ?

And the Yugos coming in to the country today were taken from the Croats or Serbs or ? ? And I've seen pictures from the "sandbox" and some of those bad dudes are using them over there today.

Let's see: reliable, powerful, accurate, easy to shoot, semi-auto with 10 rounds. I'd say you could do a lot worse ! !

Give me 10 "riflemen" with SKS's and I'll give you "a good run for your money ! ! "

Link Posted: 9/1/2004 5:04:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Umm, yeah, until you have to reload. Then you had better have a buddy to cover you.



I can reload my SKS faster (with stripper clips) than my AK.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 5:18:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 5:19:03 AM EST by Seth_Livzz]

Originally Posted By MadProfessor:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Umm, yeah, until you have to reload. Then you had better have a buddy to cover you.



I can reload my SKS faster (with stripper clips) than my AK.



I can unload 30 rounds out of my AK faster than you can with your SKS.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 5:31:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Seth_Livzz:

Originally Posted By MadProfessor:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Umm, yeah, until you have to reload. Then you had better have a buddy to cover you.



I can reload my SKS faster (with stripper clips) than my AK.



I can unload 30 rounds out of my AK faster than you can with your SKS.



That's great, but my 10 will all hit what I'm aiming at.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 5:43:15 AM EST
Yep!

I agree...I enjoy my Yugo. it's accurate, tough as nails, and cheap to shoot! I would definitely ensure I had good cover during my reloads. I still haven't got that speed loading thing down yet.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:18:44 AM EST
I'm gonna have to get me one and find out... Good thing I got a C&R, and the Yugos are C&R eligible.

Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:19:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
its better than a handful of rocks or a mean look...



Don't forget harsh language. Harsh language can be the difference between victory and defeat!!
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:39:00 AM EST
If it works and is reliable wether the 7.62 round comes out of an SKS or an AK what's the difference. If you don't have a lot of money and an SKS is what you can afford or you like the weapon and your good with it. The main thing is to get out and shoot it!!!! I have not had the opportunity to shoot an SKS. The dealer at my favorite fun store had a crate of them. Might make a good backup to my AK.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:40:33 AM EST
theyre a bit heavy compared to your run of the mill M16/AR or AK, but they are tough and fairly accurate.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 7:33:10 AM EST
SKS is a decent rifle for the price. But price is really its only advantage over other choices.

Let's see,

SKS
Reliable - YES
Magazine fed - NO
Reload speed - medium/slow (by modern standards)
Decent battle round - YES
Accurate - NO
Full Auto - NO

OK, lets compare to the other rifle of that era that meets the same criteria:

Other Semiauto Rifle
Reliable - YES
Magazine fed - NO
Reload Speed - FAST
Decent battle round - better than SKS
Accurate - out to 800 yards
Full Auto - NO

What am I talking about? Why the venerable M1 Garand. IMO, this is the only rifle from the past that is still qualified for modern warfare. You could equip an army today with these and not be outgunned. In fact, for some armies this would be superior to the current M4s. Why?

Our current mode of combat is sweep for the enemy, on contact engage and pin them down. Call in airstrike or use precision snipers and other technology to defeat/kill the enemy. Use ammo at will as resupply is available since we always control the skies.

If you do not have resupply or airstrikes, a Garand uses ammo slower and offers a lot more range and punch. Plus, them old guns were a bit more reliable with less maintanance.

In OUR army I prefer the M4. If I were equipping untrained troops in some remote area a Garand would be fine.

Just opinions. Nothing more.


Link Posted: 9/1/2004 7:37:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 7:39:00 AM EST by StykUrHedUp]

Originally Posted By jimmybcool:
SKS is a decent rifle for the price. But price is really its only advantage over other choices.

Let's see,

SKS
Reliable - YES
Magazine fed - NO
Reload speed - medium/slow (by modern standards)
Decent battle round - YES
Accurate - NO
Full Auto - NO

OK, lets compare to the other rifle of that era that meets the same criteria:

Other Semiauto Rifle
Reliable - YES
Magazine fed - NO
Reload Speed - FAST
Decent battle round - better than SKS
Accurate - out to 800 yards
Full Auto - NO

What am I talking about? Why the venerable M1 Garand. IMO, this is the only rifle from the past that is still qualified for modern warfare. You could equip an army today with these and not be outgunned. In fact, for some armies this would be superior to the current M4s. Why?

Our current mode of combat is sweep for the enemy, on contact engage and pin them down. Call in airstrike or use precision snipers and other technology to defeat/kill the enemy. Use ammo at will as resupply is available since we always control the skies.

If you do not have resupply or airstrikes, a Garand uses ammo slower and offers a lot more range and punch. Plus, them old guns were a bit more reliable with less maintanance.

In OUR army I prefer the M4. If I were equipping untrained troops in some remote area a Garand would be fine.

Just opinions. Nothing more.



i dont care what anyone says....ive carried M16s, M4s, etc. etc. and me personally...found the M16 shot WAY better than the M4. the 4 was light enough that the charging handle would come up the side of my nose and hit me in the eye or come close....throwing my sight picture momentarily outa wack.....i'll stick w/ the M16 in a combat situation.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 8:28:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Seth_Livzz:

Originally Posted By MadProfessor:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Umm, yeah, until you have to reload. Then you had better have a buddy to cover you.



I can reload my SKS faster (with stripper clips) than my AK.



I can unload 30 rounds out of my AK faster than you can with your SKS.





So can an Iraqi, doesn't mean they can hit anything.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 8:59:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By jimmybcool:
SKS is a decent rifle for the price. But price is really its only advantage over other choices.

Let's see,

SKS
Reliable - YES
Magazine fed - NO
Reload speed - medium/slow (by modern standards)
Decent battle round - YES
Accurate - NO
Full Auto - NO

OK, lets compare to the other rifle of that era that meets the same criteria:

Other Semiauto Rifle
Reliable - YES
Magazine fed - NO
Reload Speed - FAST
Decent battle round - better than SKS
Accurate - out to 800 yards
Full Auto - NO

What am I talking about? Why the venerable M1 Garand. IMO, this is the only rifle from the past that is still qualified for modern warfare. You could equip an army today with these and not be outgunned. In fact, for some armies this would be superior to the current M4s. Why?

Our current mode of combat is sweep for the enemy, on contact engage and pin them down. Call in airstrike or use precision snipers and other technology to defeat/kill the enemy. Use ammo at will as resupply is available since we always control the skies.

If you do not have resupply or airstrikes, a Garand uses ammo slower and offers a lot more range and punch. Plus, them old guns were a bit more reliable with less maintanance.

In OUR army I prefer the M4. If I were equipping untrained troops in some remote area a Garand would be fine.

Just opinions. Nothing more.





Glad you said opinions... From what I hear, at the ranges it was really intended to be used, the SKS is easily minute-of-enemy. Packs a decent punch, again, in the range it was originally intended to use.

The russkies were pretty smart, but a little late with the Simonov Carbine, or SKS. It was in 1943 that they developed the M1943 cartridge, what we know as the 7.62x39 cartridge. They realized that almost all combat engagements were within 300 meters or so, so everyone packing Mosins that could slaughter a man at 800+ meters was just overkill. Plus, that a semiautomatic weapon would give greater firepower to the individual soldier. I read that some prototype SKS rifles were field tested in 1944 and 1945, and were well liked by the soldiers carrying them. If they Russkies had a couple years jump start, I think they would have had the perfect weapon for the War of the Rats.

The war ended and weapons like the STG44 and Kalashnikov quickly rendered the SKS obsolete. They are still used, as they are a robust, reliable action with readily available ammunition. As I said, minute-of-enemy to it's effective range should be easy. They are also soldier-proof and will take a licking and keep on ticking.

Damn. I gotta get me one of those!
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 9:09:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By MadProfessor:

Originally Posted By Seth_Livzz:

Originally Posted By MadProfessor:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Umm, yeah, until you have to reload. Then you had better have a buddy to cover you.



I can reload my SKS faster (with stripper clips) than my AK.



I can unload 30 rounds out of my AK faster than you can with your SKS.





So can an Iraqi, doesn't mean they can hit anything.



Link Posted: 9/1/2004 9:09:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 9:12:45 AM EST by jimmybcool]
Originally Posted By StykUrHedUp:
i dont care what anyone says....ive carried M16s, M4s, etc. etc. and me personally...found the M16 shot WAY better than the M4. the 4 was light enough that the charging handle would come up the side of my nose and hit me in the eye or come close....throwing my sight picture momentarily outa wack.....i'll stick w/ the M16 in a combat situation.

Hmm. OK. I was actually lumping the M4/M16 together. Probably shouldn't though.

I have an M16 set up in a Commando configuration that shoots just fine so far as I'm concerned. Will hit what I want and throw a lot of lead ifn I want to. Very comfortable. Only thing I like as much is an MP5 but that is a subgun. Different animal altogether.

My only gripe with the entire platform is that it is more maintanance intensive than say an AK or SKS. The looser tolerances of those make them function under less clean conditions. Course, I don't have that as an issue since mine gets cleaned after every shooting session in the comfortable confines of my garage.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 9:11:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
The war ended and weapons like the STG44 and Kalashnikov quickly rendered the SKS obsolete. They are still used, as they are a robust, reliable action with readily available ammunition. As I said, minute-of-enemy to it's effective range should be easy. They are also soldier-proof and will take a licking and keep on ticking.

Damn. I gotta get me one of those!



Yup. They got their good points. Still, most of my message was in comparing it to its contemporary the Garand. And I think the Garand is a way better rifle.

But OK, I agree. Guys armed with these are not "unarmed" by any stretch.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 11:12:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 11:13:13 AM EST by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By jimmybcool:
SKS
Magazine fed - NO

Other Semiauto Rifle
Magazine fed - NO


Not to be super anal or anything, but they both have magazines, they just aren't detachable.
There are very few repeating firearms that don't have magazines.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 11:18:33 AM EST
Stryfe, youre very few statement (I agree) made me try to think of a single repeating weapon that doesn't have a magazine. Are you referrring to belt fed? what about the hopper on a classic gatling?
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 12:52:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 12:55:16 PM EST by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By Currahee:
Stryfe, youre very few statement (I agree) made me try to think of a single repeating weapon that doesn't have a magazine. Are you referrring to belt fed? what about the hopper on a classic gatling?


I guess it depends on how you define repeating.
I had in mind revolvers, and belt-fed semi auto MG replicas.
The thing is with firearms, there seem to always be lesser known designs that fit in somewhere. Like gas operated revolvers. Wasn't it the "cotton gin" MG that had a hopper? I thought all gatling guns had a gravity feed tower.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 10:15:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 10:29:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/2/2004 10:30:38 AM EST by Corbic]

Originally Posted By Troy:
Let's put it this way:

For the same money, you could easily equip 3-4 people with SKSs and plenty of ammo on stripper clips for the same cost as buying 1 AR15. IF you have the man-power to use them, you would be FAR better off with 4 SKSs than 1 AR15.

The same could be said of a lever-action rifle, and an SKS gives you roughly identical ballistics, slightly higher round count, easier reloading, and semi-auto action, usually for less cost.

Install a Williams rear sight and you'll be amazed at how accurate an SKS can be even with Wolf ammo. It's good enough to hit clays at 100m reliably, and that's plenty accurate for combat.

-Troy



You’re using AMERICAN MARKET PRICES though. All over the world firearms are significantly cheaper, you can easily pick up full-auto Aks and Uzi's for well under $50, I'm sure an SKS goes for $20. If I was out fitting an Army I'd bust open the wallet and give them some better weapons, like FAL's. Who cares if I can only afford to have 700 FAL armed infantry compared toward your 1200 SKS infantry? My guys would shred yours before you weapon had enough carry distant to reach mine. The SKS is obsolete; anyone carrying it is only doing so because they don't want to be using a knife. The SKS is heavy, chunky and fires an arguably "inferior" round which is made even worse because it lacks F/A and is stripper clip feed.

Also I'm not saying an AK would be a great pick, the AK-47 in my opinion (after firing one) is also obsolete. Short range, mediocre accuracy, I would concerned for my life if I relied on one. You can see many people feel this way having long since ditched the 47 in favor of the 74 and its 5.45 ammunition. Has all the great features of the AK, but now it has a more lethal, lighter ammunition.

Jack
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 12:21:56 PM EST
All I can add is that the SKS is the one of the only weapons that I own that has never ever malfunctioned, even after firing approximately 4000 rounds.
SugarD
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 12:27:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 1:17:23 PM EST
Speaking of the SKS, can anyone identify this scope? I want one on my Chicom SKS.

Link Posted: 9/2/2004 4:45:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By Corbic:
You’re using AMERICAN MARKET PRICES though.



That's because I'm living in America. I wasn't talking about equipping a national army; no nation uses SKSs or are considering doing so.

I'm talking about providing security for a group of people in the US, in situations where there is a break-down in civil services. An excellent example is what happened in Florida two weeks ago with the hurricane (and what may happen again there soon).

-Troy



If we are talking about self defense then you should be looking into 12gauge semi-auto shotguns. Nothing says "I love you" like rock-salt. SKS would be a horrible self-defense weapon IMHO.
Killing someone because they are stealing your water-logged couch is hardly appropriate.

Jack
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 5:50:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Corbic:

Originally Posted By Troy:

Originally Posted By Corbic:
You’re using AMERICAN MARKET PRICES though.



That's because I'm living in America. I wasn't talking about equipping a national army; no nation uses SKSs or are considering doing so.

I'm talking about providing security for a group of people in the US, in situations where there is a break-down in civil services. An excellent example is what happened in Florida two weeks ago with the hurricane (and what may happen again there soon).

-Troy



If we are talking about self defense then you should be looking into 12gauge semi-auto shotguns. Nothing says "I love you" like rock-salt. SKS would be a horrible self-defense weapon IMHO.
Killing someone because they are stealing your water-logged couch is hardly appropriate.

Jack



But killing the scumbag for breaking into my house is more than enough for me. ;)
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 5:58:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mach1:
Speaking of the SKS, can anyone identify this scope? I want one on my Chicom SKS.

img



No, but I wan't to know the story behind the pic!
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 6:19:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mach1:
Speaking of the SKS, can anyone identify this scope? I want one on my Chicom SKS.





I'll be damned, I was just searching for SKS stuff and BAM!

http://www.hk94.com/hk/index.php?showtopic=9705

Left cold because I don't know the forum relationship.



HK94 also has an US manual put out for the SKS, explains how to use the rear sight.
Link Posted: 9/2/2004 11:42:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 6:40:18 AM EST
Since the topic of this tread on whether a sks can hold it's own in combat, and since most modern battlefield weapons are mostly full auto with hi-capacity magazines and/or belt fed etc, and since modern battlefield doctrine is fire and manouver, that is lay down a steady stream of fire as the fire team approaches, I would say one would be at a disadvantage with an SKS.

For self defense an SKS is fine, since those circumstance are usualy quick affairs.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:30:33 AM EST
SKS in modern combat...no way. Modern weapons pose a significant advantage over the SKS. But in an urban SHTF scenario, I think a tranied individual from a static defense position can pose a serious threat. However, I would much rather have my AR.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 12:02:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 12:03:35 PM EST by A_Free_Man]
SKS is what an army on a budget give to troops it considers "cannon fodder".

Even poor African countries equip their guys with FAL's.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:55:05 PM EST
A man with a good sks has the advantage over a man with a full auto ak in alomost ever field of combat except urban. And woodland out numbers urban.Iftcould be said a man with a good sks has the advantage over the cheaper ar-15's also.And if you are out in real long term combat there is simply no time for the up keep of a ar/m16.the sks can still hold its own in most situations buts its better to own one of each just in case!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:35:51 PM EST
Man with an FAL has advantage over both a SKS and a full auto-ak in any environment.
More hit power, better accuracy, bi-pod, full-auto, magazine feed, durable.

Jack
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 8:37:07 AM EST
They were used very effectively by the VC in Vietnam.

For the cost of an AR-15 you can have two new Yugo SKSs and 5,000+ rounds of ammo.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 10:59:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2004 11:02:24 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By wulf004:
Simple question?
My opinion is yes.It is still the simplest and hardiest rifle out there.It is not stopped by a little mud or snow and it will out shoot any ak out there.Sure its not the best or the prettiest but its still a fine weapon.



The biggest problem with the SKS is the 7.62x39,. which is probably the worst possible combat round out there today.... Too much drop, inherrantly innacurate, etc... Basically 30-30 for semiautos...

Other issues:

Too big
No detachable mags

But the caliber is the biggest problem....

In 7.62x54 it would be a Garand class weapon, in 5.45 or 5.56 it would be as close as it would ever get ti 'workable' on the modern battlefield

The mag issue is the second worst...
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 5:50:52 PM EST

It's kinda funny to hear folks use the word "obsolete". With all the new technology on the battlefields of today, not just personal weapons related, a soldier still has to be aware of the possibility of some scumbag with a Mauser/sks/muzzle loader taking a shot at him and hitting the mark. It's the relaxed attitude of "Oh, those guys just have (insert obsolete weapon here), we'll mop 'em up with our high speed low drag arms easy" that gets folks killed. If the rifleman is effective with his weapon, be ready for a hard time. My .02
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 8:22:14 AM EST
Continuing in the "obsolete" vein...

How many years ago did gun writers proclaim the .45ACP and 1911 "obsolete"? Same with the 30/30, it's a classic and will be around for damn near forever.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top